CAR_Public/051031.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, October 31, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 214


                          Headlines

ARMOR HOLDINGS: Zylon Vest Suit Settlement Hearing Begins in FL
ASPEON INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of CA Securities Suit
BOEING CO.: Faces 9 Employment Bias Lawsuits in Various Courts
DETROIT DIESEL: Retirees Launch Suit in MI Over Medical Expenses
DOMINION INVESTMENTS: FTC Files Charges Over Fake Foreign Bonds

DOREL JUVENILE: Recalls 141T Ride-On Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard
EQUINIX INC.: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Suit Settlement
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: NJ Court Nixes Certification For Consumer Suit
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Renews Summary Judgment Motion For NJ Lawsuit
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Amended ERISA Lawsuit

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: CA Court Asked To Certify Antitrust Lawsuit
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Securities Fraud Suits Transferred to E.D. MO
FORD MOTOR: Suit Over F-150 Pickups Moved to IL Federal Court
GEOPHARMA INC.: Amended Complaint Launched in NY Over Mucotrol
LIPMAN ELECTRONIC: Lawsuit in Israel Withdrawn Without Prejudice

MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Judge Sacks Case Over $24.5M Legal Fees
MURPHY OIL: Tries to Head Off Suit Over Hurricane Katrina Spill
PENNSYLVANIA: Hearing Aid Firms, Operators Face Consumer Lawsuit
PRAXAIR INC.: Faces Consolidated Manganese Injury Suit In Ohio
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP: Settles Telxon Litigation For $27.9M

RESOURCE REAL: MD Couple Sues Firm, Broker Over Sham Settlement
SEMPRA ENERGY: Chairman Takes Witness Stand in CA Antitrust Suit
SIERRA HEALTH: Trial in FL RICO Lawsuit Set For January 2006
SKYLINE CORPORATION: Recalls 90 2006 Trailers For Crash Hazard   
T. ROWE PRICE: Plaintiffs Appeal IL Securities Lawsuit Dismissal

UNICARE HEALTH: IL Court Favors Plaintiffs in Unfair Trade Suit
U.S. POSTAL: Employees to Revive Suit Over 2001 Anthrax Attack
VACATION CENTRAL: PA Attorney General Lodges Consumer Fraud Suit
WELLPOINT INC.: Reaches Settlement For Physicians' Federal Suit
WELLPOINT HEALTH: Arbitration Continues in CA Unfair Trade Suit

WEST VIRGINIA: Attorney General Sues Unlicensed Pool Installer
WISCONSIN: Attorney General Sues MMSD Over 2004 Sewage Overflow
WINN DIXIE: FL Court Stays Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
WINN-DIXIE STORES: FL Court Stays Lawsuit For ERISA Violations
WORLDCOM INC.: Lerach Coughlin Refutes NY Funds' Investor Claims

ZENITH NATIONAL: EEOC Files Employment, Race Discrimination Suit

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Alfred G. Yates Lodges Securities Suit in MA
DHB INDUSTRIES: Scott + Scott Schedules Lead Plaintiff Deadline
LIPMAN ELECTRONIC: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Suit in NY
REFCO INC.: Scott + Scott Lodges Amended Securities Suit in NY
REFCO INC.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Glancy Binkow Files Fraud Suit in KY

                          *********

ARMOR HOLDINGS: Zylon Vest Suit Settlement Hearing Begins in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fairness hearing for the settlement of the class actions filed
against Armor Holdings Inc. in Florida State Court by police
organizations and individual police officers, over the Company's
Zylon bulletproof vests started last week.

In April 2004, two suits were filed, alleging that ballistic-
resistant soft body armor (vests) containing Zylon (reg),
manufactured and sold by American Body Armor, Safariland, and
PROTECH (reg), failed to meet the warranties provided with the
vests. On August 12, 2004, the Jacksonville, Florida (Duval
County) Circuit Court gave preliminary approval to a settlement
reached with the Southern States Police Benevolent Association
(SSPBA).

After a fairness hearing on November 5, 2004, the Court gave
final approval to that agreement which provided, in essence,
that:

     (1) purchasers of certain Zylon-containing vest models
         could exchange their vests for other vests manufactured
         by the Company,

     (2) the Company would continue its internal used-vest
         testing program (VestCheck), and

     (3) if testing revealed that other Zylon containing vests
         would not meet the warranties provided with the vests,
         class members who had purchased those other vests would
         be provided with relief on a reasonably comparable
         basis as those in the Exchange Program.

The other class action suit filed by the National Association of
Police Organizations, Inc. (NAPO), in Ft. Myers, Florida (Lee
County), was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on November
16, 2004.

On August 24, 2005, the United States Department of Justice
through the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), released its
Third Status Report to the Attorney General on Body Armor Safety
Initiative Testing and Activities (the Third NIJ Report).  The
Third NIJ Report contained, among other items, information and
testing data on Zylon and Zylon-containing vests, and
substantially modified compliance standards for all ballistic-
resistant vests with the implementation of the NIJ 2005 Interim
Requirements for Ballistic-Resistant Body Armor. As a result of
the actions of the NIJ, the Company halted all sales or shipment
of any Zylon-containing vest models effective August 25, 2005,
and immediately established a Supplemental Relief Program (the
SRP) that provides either a cash or voucher option to those who
purchased Zylon-containing vests through August 12, 2004. The
Jacksonville, Florida Court gave preliminary approval to the SRP
on August 31, 2005, and has scheduled a fairness hearing for
October 27, 2005, to hear objections and to make a final
determination whether to approve the SRP as fair, adequate and
reasonable.

Following the NIJ's announcement, the SSPBA filed another class
action suit on behalf of purchasers of Zylon - containing vests
from August 13, 2004 (the date of certification of the prior
class) through August 29, 2005 (a date after which the Company
had ceased all sales of Zylon-containing vests). The
Jacksonville, Florida Circuit Court has given preliminary
approval to a settlement reached with the plaintiffs in this
second suit that provides purchasers with either a 100% cash
refund or a voucher for 100% of the purchase price redeemable
for any of our merchandise. A fairness hearing on the second
settlement is also scheduled for October 27, 2005 in
Jacksonville, Florida.


ASPEON INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of CA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the consolidated securities
class action filed Aspeon, Inc., its Chief Executive Officer,
and its former Chief Financial Officer in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

In October and November 2000, eight purported class action
lawsuits were filed, alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  After the defendants moved to dismiss
each of the actions, the lawsuits were consolidated under a
single action, entitled "In re Aspeon Securities Litigation,
Case No. SACV 00-995 AHS (ANx)," and the appointed lead
plaintiff voluntarily filed an amended and consolidated
complaint.  The defendants moved to dismiss that complaint, and
on April 23, 2001, the Court entered an order dismissing the
complaint without prejudice.  On May 21, 2001 the appointed lead
plaintiff filed a third complaint, styled as a "First Amended
Consolidated Complaint."  On June 4, 2001, the defendants moved
to dismiss this complaint and on September 17, 2001, the court
dismissed the suit with prejudice and entered judgment in favor
of the Company and its officers.  

On September 20, 2001, the lead plaintiff in the class action
suit appealed against the dismissal of the case.  On January 21,
2003 the decision to dismiss the case was upheld but the lead
plaintiff was given the opportunity to remedy the deficiencies
in the complaint that had been filed.  Accordingly on May 30,
2003 the plaintiff filed its "Second Amended Consolidated
Complaint" which again was subsequently dismissed by the Court.  
On November 26, 2003 the lead plaintiff filed its "Third Amended
Consolidated Complaint," which was again dismissed with
prejudice in March 2004.  The lead plaintiff has once again
appealed against the dismissal and the appeal is anticipated
before the end of 2005.

The suit is styled "Jay Spechler, et al v. Aspeon Inc, et al.,
case no. 8:00-cv-00995-AHS-AN," filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, under
Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler.  Representing the Company are
Donald A. Daucher, Jay C. Gandhi, Colleen Elizabeth Hushke,
Peter M. Stone, Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker, 3579 Valley
Centre Dr, San Diego, CA 92130, Phone: 858-720-2500, E-mail:
dondaucher@paulhastings.com; and Eric J. Belfi, Murray Frank and
Sailer, 275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801, New York, NY 10016,
Phone: 212-682-1818.  Representing the plaintiffs are Thomas C.
Bright, Solomon B. Cera, Steven Orrin Sidener, Gold Bennett Cera
& Sidener, 595 Market St, Ste 2300, San Francisco, CA 94105-
2835, Phone: 415-777-2230, Fax: 415-777-5189.


BOEING CO.: Faces 9 Employment Bias Lawsuits in Various Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing Co. is a defendant in nine employment discrimination
matters filed during the period of June 1998 through January
2005, in which class certification is sought or has been
granted.  The lawsuits seek various forms of relief including
front and back pay, overtime, injunctive relief and punitive
damages.

Three matters were filed in the federal court for the Western
District of Washington in Seattle; one case was filed in the
federal court for the Central District of California in Los
Angeles; one case was filed in state court in California; one
case was filed in the federal court in St. Louis, Missouri; one
case was filed in the federal court in Tulsa, Oklahoma; one case
was filed in the federal court in Wichita, Kansas; and the final
case was filed in the federal court in Chicago.

The lawsuits are in varying stages of litigation. One case in
Seattle alleging discrimination based on national origin
resulted in a verdict for the company following trial and is now
on appeal. One case in Seattle alleging discrimination based on
gender has been settled. Three cases - one in Los Angeles, one
in Missouri, and one in Kansas, all alleging gender
discrimination - have resulted in denials of class
certification; the decision in the Los Angeles case was affirmed
on appeal, the decision in the Kansas case is on appeal, and the
Missouri case has been dismissed with prejudice.  The case in
Oklahoma, also alleging gender discrimination, resulted in the
granting of class action status, and is scheduled for trial in
November 2005 (although the trial date is likely to be continued
into 2006).  The second case alleging discrimination based on
gender in California, this one in state court, has been stayed
pending the outcome of the appeal of the denial of class
certification in the companion federal court case in Los
Angeles. The court certified a limited class in the race
discrimination case filed in federal court in Seattle
(consisting of heritage Boeing salaried employees only) and set
a December 2005 trial date. The final case, also alleging race
discrimination and filed in Chicago, seeks a class of all
individuals excluded from the limited class in the Seattle case.


DETROIT DIESEL: Retirees Launch Suit in MI Over Medical Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 1,000 Detroit Diesel retirees initiated a federal
class action lawsuit against their former employer, claiming
that it broke a promise to pay medical expenses for life and
thus forcing some to pay thousands of dollars each year in
additional expenses, The Detroit News reports.

Phil Shannon, 64, who lives in Dearborn Heights with his wife,
told The Detroit News, "This is like a kick in the teeth."
According to Mr. Shannon, he along with other retirees, first
learned about the changes to his fully covered medical insurance
in an August letter outlining different plans.

That letter stated that retired workers 64 and younger, who are
ineligible for Medicare, would have to pay between $179 and $834
monthly, depending on their marital status and health plan. The
letter stated that if eligible for Medicare, the fee is between
$260 and $714. In addition, there is a cost-free plan, but it
doesn't include prescription drug benefits and is also subject
to change. The new plan would begin on January 1.
Mr. Shannon, who worked 30-plus years for the Redford-based
company as a skilled trade employee told The Detroit News,
"Nobody told us about it when we ratified the contract. We're
hoping to find out if what they did is legal."

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Detroit, Michigan,
claims that the DaimlerChrysler AG unit and former General
Motors Corporation subsidiary reneged on a section of the
union's 1993 agreement, according to attorney Andrew Nickelhoff
with Sachs, Waldman P.C. in Detroit.

That agreement was only supposed to give company accountants the
freedom to move retirees' contributions into different financial
records. Mr. Nickelhoff, who represents the retirees, told The
Detroit News that the United Auto Workers consented to the
change with "clear understanding that there was not going to be
any effect on anyone's benefits." He also pointed out, "Detroit
Diesel promised that it was going to cover retirees with
lifetime (medical benefits) in a collective bargaining
agreement, and these retirees retired with that promise, and now
Detroit Diesel is trying to back out of that."

Detroit Diesel spokeswoman Liane Bilicki told The Detroit News
that she could not comment about the suit because she had not
yet seen the court papers. However, Ms. Bilicki previously said
that the union agreed to limit the company's liability for
future retirees' health benefits in the 1993 agreement.

Joe Street, chairman of the Detroit Diesel Shop Committee at UAW
Local 163 in Detroit, told The Detroit News that based on the
terms between retirees and the unit's previous owner, Roger
Penske, the promise of lifetime health care coverage should
stand.

The suit is styled, "Wood et al v. Detroit Diesel Corporation,
Case No. 2:05-cv-74106-DPH-RSW," filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, under Judge
Denise Page Hood, with referral to Judge R. Steven Whalen.
Representing the Plaintiff/s is Andrew A. Nickelhoff of Sachs
Waldman (Detroit), 1000 Farmer St., Detroit, MI 48226, Phone:
313-496-9429, E-mail: anickelhoff@sachswaldman.com.


DOMINION INVESTMENTS: FTC Files Charges Over Fake Foreign Bonds
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Trade Commission charged the operator of a
Vancouver, Canada-based telemarketing operation with targeting
elderly U.S. consumers in connection with offering nonexistent
foreign bonds and supposed cash prizes.

According to the FTC, the defendant, John Raymond Salvator
Bezeredi, falsely promised consumers that after buying the
bonds, they would be entered into monthly drawings and that they
were very likely to receive substantial cash winnings or receive
regular cash payments. Few, if any, consumers ever received such
payments after buying the "bonds," leading the Commission to
charge Mr. Bezeredi with violating the FTC Act and the
Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). He also has been charged with
illegally calling consumers on the National Do Not Call Registry
maintained by the FTC and the Federal Communications Commission.

The complaint was filed against Mr. Bezeredi, individually and
doing business as Dominion Investments, Eurobond Fidelity Ltd.,
and Imperial Investments - the names under which the bonds were
marketed. On October 17, a federal district court in Seattle
issued a temporary restraining order barring the defendant's
allegedly illegal conduct, pending the resolution of the
Commission's complaint.  Along with the FTC's complaint, a
simultaneous civil action against the defendant was filed in
British Columbia, Canada. In addition, Mr. Bezeredi was arrested
on October 21, 2005, in Vancouver, B.C., pursuant to criminal
charges filed by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central
District of California. Bail was set at $1 million (CDN).

The FTC contends that Mr. Bezeredi, through his Canadian
telemarketing operation, contacted mostly elderly U.S.
consumers, offering them the chance to invest in European bonds
involving monthly cash prize drawings. Telemarketers allegedly
told consumers they were highly likely to receive regular cash
winnings of at least 50 dollars if they bought the bonds over
the phone. At times, telemarketers called consumers more than
once in an attempt to persuade them to send multiple payments
for additional bonds.

Consumers who bought the defendant's "bonds" received a variety
of documents on letterhead bearing a Hungarian address. The
documents included a cover letter congratulating them for
participating in the bond program and explaining the "value" of
their membership program. Consumers also received an information
sheet stating that their bond purchase is registered with the
"European Central Union Bank. Unfortunately, for the consumers
who bought the "bonds," there is no "European Central Union
Bank," and the European Central Bank, which sets monetary policy
in the 12 European countries that use the Euro as legal tender,
does not operate a prize bond program.

According to the FTC, consumers paid Mr. Bezeredi between $400
and $5,950 each to buy the foreign "bonds" his telemarketers
were pitching. Most consumers who sent money received nothing of
value in return.

According to the Commission's complaint, Mr. Bezeredi violated
both Section 5 of the FTC Act and the TSR by telemarketing
foreign bonds to U.S. consumers. Specifically, Mr. Bezeredi
allegedly misrepresented that consumers who buy from, or pay
fees to, Dominion, Eurobond, or Imperial would receive regular
cash payments, would be entered into monthly drawings to win
cash or prizes, or likely would receive cash winnings. Further,
the FTC charged that Mr. Bezeredi failed to disclose to
consumers that importing and trafficking in foreign lotteries is
a crime in the United States, and that the bond scheme he was
pitching constitutes such a lottery. Finally, the complaint
charged the defendant with violating the Do Not Call provisions
of the TSR by calling, or causing other people to call, numbers
on the National Do Not Call Registry, as well as by failing to
pay the required fees for access to telephone numbers in the
area codes he and his telemarketers called.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint
was 4-0. The complaint was filed under seal in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle on
October 17, 2005, and the judge issued a temporary restraining
order against the defendant the same day. The seal was lifted on
October 21, 2005. In filing the complaint, the FTC is seeking
injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and a
permanent injunction prohibiting the defendant from violating
the FTC Act and the TSR in the future.

The investigation leading to the complaint in this matter was
coordinated with the British Columbia Telemarketing Task Force,
known as "Project Emptor." In addition to the FTC, other
agencies participating in Project Emptor include the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police, the British Columbia Business Practices
and Consumer Protection Authority, the Canadian Competition
Bureau, the FBI, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central
District of California, and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.

Copies of the Commission's 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, 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 Mitchell J. Katz, Office of
Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2161 or contact Mary T.
Benfield or Laureen France, FTC Northwest Region by Phone:
206-220-6350, or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/10/bezeredi.htm.


DOREL JUVENILE: Recalls 141T Ride-On Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Dorel Juvenile Group USA, of Columbus, Indiana is
voluntarily recalling about 141,000 units of Battery-Powered
Ride-On Vehicles.

An electronic malfunction can occur in the ride-on vehicle's
circuit board and/or battery connector, resulting in smoking and
melting of components. This poses a vehicle fire hazard and a
burn hazard to consumers if components are touched while
malfunctioning. The firm has received 49 reports of overheating
or melting components on the ride-on vehicles. No injuries have
been reported.

The recalled battery-powered ride-on vehicles include the Pink
Corvetter, Torch Red Corvetter, Yellow Race Car Corvetter, Red
Electroplate Corvetter, Fire Engine, and Batmobiler with the
model numbers listed in the chart below. They were sold under
the brands Safety 1st and Kid Trax by Safety 1st. The ride-on
vehicles were manufactured between January 2004 and August 2005.
The manufacture date is located on the underside of the unit and
is molded into the plastic body as shown below. The circle on
left displays the month of manufacture, the circle on the right
displays the year of manufacture. The model numbers are located
on the underside of the vehicles near the date code. The
vehicles involved in the recall are: (Ride-On Vehicle Name =
Model)

     (1) Safety 1st Pink Corvetter = 50503/50503A

     (2) Safety 1st Torch Red Corvetter = 50504/50504A

     (3) Safety 1st Yellow Race Car Corvetter = 50505/50505A

     (4) Safety 1st Red Electroplate Corvetter = 50521/50521A

     (5) Kid Trax Fire Engine = 50506/50506A

     (6) Safety 1st Batmobiler = 50527

Pictures of recalled products:

     (i) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06018e.jpg
         (Month & Year)

    (ii) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06018g.jpg
         (Pink Corvette)

   (iii) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06018c.jpg
         (Torch Red Corvette)

    (iv) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06018d.jpg
         (Yellow Race Car Corvette)

     (v) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06018a.jpg
         (Red Electroplate Corvette)

    (vi) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06018b.jpg
         (Fire Engine)

   (vii) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06018f.jpg
         (Batmobile)

Manufactured in China, the vehicles were sold at all major toy
stores and mass merchandise outlets nationwide under the brands
Safety 1st and Kid Trax by Safety 1st from January 2004 through
August 2005 for about $300.

Remedy: Consumers should take the recalled ride-on vehicles away
from children immediately and contact the company for a free
repair.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Dorel
Juvenile Group's Ride-On hotline toll-free at (866) 611-3022
between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.djgusa.com.


EQUINIX INC.: 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 the Company,
certain of its officers and directors and several investment
banks that were underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering (IPO).

Several cases were initially filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, purportedly on
behalf of investors who purchased the Company's stock between
August 10, 2000 and December 6, 2000. In addition, similar
lawsuits were filed against approximately 300 other issuers and
related parties. The purported class action alleges violations
of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b), Rule 10b-5 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against the Company and Individual Defendants. The
plaintiffs have since dismissed the Individual Defendants
without prejudice.

The suits allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to
allocate stock in the Company's IPO to certain investors in
exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and
agreements by those investors to make additional purchases in
the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. The plaintiffs allege
that the prospectus for the Company's IPO was false and
misleading and in violation of the securities laws because it
did not disclose these arrangements. The action seeks damages in
an unspecified amount.

On February 19, 2003, the Court dismissed the Section 10(b)
claim against the Company, but denied the motion to dismiss the
Section 11 claim. In July 2003, a Special Litigation Committee
of the Equinix Board of Directors approved a settlement
agreement and related agreements which set forth the terms of a
settlement between the Company, the Individual Defendants, the
plaintiff class and the vast majority of the other approximately
300 issuer defendants and the individual defendants currently or
formerly associated with those companies.

Among other provisions, the settlement provides for a release of
the Company and the Individual Defendants and the Company's
agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain
potential claims the Company may have against its underwriters.
The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of
$1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the
approximately 300 issuers. To the extent that the underwriter
defendants settle all of the cases for at least $1 billion, no
payment will be required under the issuers' settlement
agreement. To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle
for less than $1 billion, the issuers are required to make up
the difference. It is anticipated that any potential financial
obligation of Equinix to plaintiffs pursuant to the settlement,
of which such claims are currently expected to be less than $3.4
million, will be covered by existing insurance and we do not
expect that the settlement will involve any payment by the
Company. The Company has no information as to whether there are
any material limitations on the expected recovery by other
issuer defendants of any potential financial obligation to
plaintiffs from their own insurance carriers. The settlement
agreement has been submitted to the Court for approval. The
underwriter defendants have filed objections to the settlement
agreement.

On October 13, 2004, the Court certified a Section 11 class in
four of the six cases that were the subject of class
certification motions and determined that the class period for
Section 11 claims is the period between the IPO and the date
that unregistered shares entered the market. The Court noted
that its decision on those cases is intended to provide strong
guidance to all parties regarding class certification in the
remaining cases.  Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a
class in the Equinix case. Until the settlement is finalized and
approved by the Court, or in the event such settlement is not
approved, the Company and its officers and directors intend to
continue to defend the actions vigorously.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: NJ Court Nixes Certification For Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs dropped class claims in the lawsuit filed against
Express Scripts, Inc., styled "International Association of
Firefighters, Local No. 22, et al. v. National Prescription
Administrators and Express Scripts, Inc. Cause No. L03216-02,"
after the Superior Court of New Jersey for the County of Camden,
Law Division refused to grant class certification for the suit.

The suit alleges that the Company's subsidiary, National
Prescription Administrators (NPA), had breached agreements with
two benefit plans to whom NPA had provided services under an
umbrella agreement with a labor coalition client.  The Company
was also named as a defendant under a theory of de facto merger.  
The plaintiffs purport to bring the action on behalf of a class
of similarly situated plans. The lawsuit alleges that NPA had
not paid the plans the rebates to which they were entitled under
the agreement. Claims for unspecified money damages are asserted
under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (the CFA), and for
breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

The Company filed answers denying liability. On July 23, 2004,
summary judgment was granted in favor of NPA and ESI on the
customer fraud counts.  Plaintiff filed a motion to certify a
class of all members of the labor coalition, approximately 80
plans, which the court denied.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Renews Summary Judgment Motion For NJ Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts, Inc. renewed its motion for summary judgment in
the class action filed against it, its subsidiary National
Prescription Administrators (NPA) and Benecard Prescription
Services in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division,
Camden County, styled "City of Paterson, et al. v. Benecard
Prescription Services, et. al, Cause No. L-005908-02."

On September 13, 2002, plaintiffs filed this action against
Benecard Prescription Services (Benecard) and the Company's
subsidiary, NPA, alleging violations of the New Jersey Consumer
Protection Act. The allegations by the plaintiffs assert that
various business practices of the defendants violated the
statute. Neither the Company nor NPA owns any interest in
Benecard, which is an independent entity.  Subsequently,
Plaintiff added the Company as a defendant and added claims for
common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of
contract. Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of similarly
situated plaintiffs and seek unspecified monetary damages.

Both NPA and ESI have filed answers denying liability. On March
7, 2004, the Company's motion for summary judgment on the
consumer protection counts was granted.  Benecard's motion for
partial summary judgment dismissing the class action allegations
was granted. Benecard later entered settlement proceedings for
the suit with The Township of Hamilton, but the settlement was
not finalized.  The dismissal was withdrawn and the Company has
renewed its motion for summary judgment.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Amended ERISA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts, Inc. asked the Superior Court of the State of
California for Alameda County to dismiss the amended class
action filed against it, styled "Irwin v. AdvancePCS, et al.,
Cause No. RG030886393."

This case purports to be a class action against the Company and
other pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) defendants on behalf of
self-funded, non-Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
health plans; and individuals with no prescription drug benefits
that have purchased drugs at retail rates.  The complaint
alleges that certain business practices engaged in by the
Company and by other PBM defendants violated California's Unfair
Competition Law.

The Court granted the Company's motion for judgment on the
pleadings in its favor but allowed plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint.  Plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: CA Court Asked To Certify Antitrust Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama to grant class certification to the
lawsuit filed against Express Scripts, Inc., styled "North
Jackson Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Express Scripts, Civil Action
No. CV-03-B-2696-NE."

This case purports to be a class action against the Company on
behalf of independent pharmacies within the United States. The
complaint alleges that certain of its business practices violate
the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C 1, et. seq. The suit seeks
unspecified monetary damages (including treble damages) and
injunctive relief.

The suit is styled "North Jackson Pharm, et al v. Express
Scripts Inc, et al, case no. 5:03-cv-02696-VEH," filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, under Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins.

Representing the Company are A Kelly Brennan, Gregory C. Cook,
BALCH & BINGHAM LLP, PO Box 306 Birmingham, AL 35201-0306,
Phone: 251-8100, Fax: 488-5828, E-mail: kbrennan@balch.com,
gcook@balch.com; and Peter E. Kazanoff, Kenneth R. Logan, Jama
M. Meyer, SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP, 425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017-3954, Phone: 212-455-3525, Fax: 212-455-2502,
E-mail: pkazanoff@stblaw.com, klogan@stblaw.com,
jmeyer@stblaw.com.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Andrew C Allen, Othni J. Lathram, Joe R. Watley,
         WHATLEY DRAKE LLC, 2323 Second Avenue North Post Office
         Box 10647, Birmingham, AL 35202-0647, Phone: 328-9576,
         E-mail: ecf@whatleydrake.com, jwhatley@whatleydrake.com  

     (2) Chris W. Cantrell, A. David Fawal, Archie Lamb, Jr.,
         LAW OFFICES OF ARCHIE LAMB LLC, PO Box 2088,
         Birmingham, AL 35201, Phone: 324-4644, Fax: 324-4649,
         E-mail: ccantrell@archielamb.com,
         dfawal@archielamb.com, alamb@archielamb.com  

     (3) Gail A McQuilkin, Harley Tropin, KOZYAK TROPIN &
         THROCKMORTON PA, 2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th Floor Coral
         Gables, FL 33134, Phone: 305-372-1800, fax: 305-372-
         3508, E-mail: gam@kttlaw.com or hst@kttlaw.com   


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Securities Fraud Suits Transferred to E.D. MO
--------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts, Inc. faces a consolidated securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.  

Several suits were initially filed.  The suits are styled:

     (1) Minshew v. Express Scripts, (Cause No. Civ.4:02-CV-
         1503, United States District Court for the Eastern
         District of Missouri);

     (2) Lynch v. National Prescription Administrators, et al.
         (Cause No. 03 CV 1303, United States District Court for
         the Southern District of New York);

     (3) Mixon v. Express Scripts, Inc., (Civil Action No.
         4:03CV1519, United States District Court for the
         Eastern District of Missouri);

     (4) Wagner et al. v. Express Scripts (Cause No. 04cv01018
         (WHP) United States District Court for the Southern
         District of New York);

     (5) Scheuerman, et al v. Express Scripts, (Cause No. 04-CV-
         0626 (FIS) (RFT)) United States District Court for the
         Southern District of New York);

     (6) Correction Officers' Benevolent Association of the City
         of New York, et al v. Express Scripts, Inc. (Cause No.
         04-Civ-7098 (WHP)), United States District Court for
         the Southern District of New York);

     (7) United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers
         Midwest Health Benefits Fund, et al v. National
         Prescription Administrators, Inc., et al. (Cause No.
         04-CV-7472, United States District Court for the
         Southern District of New York);

     (8) Central Laborers' Welfare Fund, et al v. Express
         Scripts, Inc., et al (Cause No. B04-1002240, United
         States District Court for the Southern District of
         Illinois)

All of these suits allege violations of federal securities law.
The complaints allege that the Company failed to disclose
certain alleged improper business practices and issued false and
misleading financial statements. The complaints allege that they
are brought on behalf of purchasers of Company stock during the
period October 29, 2003 to August 3, 2004. The complaints
request unspecified compensatory damages, equitable relief and
attorney's fees.  

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred these
suits to the Eastern District of Missouri and ordered them
consolidated.  Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint.


FORD MOTOR: Suit Over F-150 Pickups Moved to IL Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company removed a class action suit to an Illinois
federal court, accusing the plaintiff of fraud in naming a Wood
River auto dealer as co-defendant, The Madison County Record
reports.  The Company alleges that Rick Williams of East Alton
sued Albrecht-Hamlin Chevrolet but did not accuse the dealer of
doing anything wrong.

Attorney Robert H. Shultz, Jr. of Heyl, Royster of Edwardsville
wrote for Ford, "Plaintiff has fraudulently joined Albrecht-
Hamlin Chevrolet in a transparent attempt to prevent removal of
this suit to federal court."

Court records show that Mr. Williams sued on February 17,
claiming that buyers of Ford F-150 extended cab pickup trucks
were victims of misrepresentations. His attorney, William E.
Miller III of Alton, wrote that Mr. Williams bought a 2000 truck
at the dealer in 2002. Mr. Miller also wrote that the exterior
door skin cracked "...said defect continues to this date," he
wrote.  Mr. Miller had proposed a class of all U.S. owners of
the truck, for model years back to 1997. Additionally, He also
claimed that Ford also hid from buyers the tendency of the under
hood speed control deactivation switch to overheat, smoke or
burn and thus proposed a subclass of those victims.

Six months after he filed the complaint, Mr. Miller served it on
the defendants. Then on September 8, Ford removed it, stating
that the plaintiff failed to allege any facts on Albrecht-
Hamlin. Even if Ford knew of defects, the dealer would not have
known, according to Mr. Schultz.

In affidavit, Albrecht-Hamlin president Mark Hamlin stated that
his business did not sell new Fords and had no affiliation or
connection with Ford and thus he consented to removal.


GEOPHARMA INC.: Amended Complaint Launched in NY Over Mucotrol
--------------------------------------------------------------
GeoPharma, Inc. (Nasdaq: GORX) faces a Second Amended Class
Action Complaint filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, relating to its Mucotrol (TM)
medical device Mucotrol(TM).

The Court dismissed the plaintiff's earlier complaint, but
allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by October
2004.  The previous complaint alleged that the Company violated
federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading public
statements relating to the Company's December 1, 2004
announcement of Mucotrol's(TM) clearance by the FDA. It was
dismissed on September 30, 2005 without prejudice by a judge in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

In the previous dismissal, Mihir Taneja, GeoPharma's CEO
commented: "We are extremely pleased by the Court's ruling,
which granted our motion to dismiss the Complaint. We are
aggressively moving forward with the launch of Mucotrol(TM)," an
earlier Class Action Reporter story October 6, 2005) reports.

On November 24, 2004, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
granted 510-K approval for the marketing of Mucotrol(TM) as a
medical device. Mucotrol(TM) concentrated oral gel wafer has a
mechanical action indicated for the management and relief of
pain by adhering to the mucosal surface of the mouth and
soothing oral lesions of various origins including oral
mucositis/stomatitis, which may be caused by chemotherapy or
radiotherapy, irritation due to oral surgery and traumatic
ulcers caused by braces or ill fitting dentures or diseases, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story October 6, 2005) reports.

The suit is styled, In Re: Geopharma, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-09463-SAS," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. Representing the Plaintiff/s
are:

     (1) Daniel E. Clement of Law Offices of Daniel E. Clement,
         20 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10001, Phone: 212-683-9551,
         Fax: 212-683-9661;

     (2) Patrick V. Dahlstrom of Pomerantz, Haudek, Block,
         Grossman & Gross, L.L.P., 10 North La Salle St.,
         Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312) 377-1181;

     (3) Marc Ian Gross of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman &
         Gross, LLP, 100 Park Ave., 26th Floor, New York, NY
         10017, Phone: (212) 661-1100, Fax: (212) 661-8665, E-
         mail: migross@pomlaw.com;

     (4) Roy Laurence Jacobs of Roy Jacobs & Associates, 60 East
         42nd Street 46th Floor, New York, NY 10165, Phone: 212-
         867-1156, Fax: 212-504-8343, E-mail:
         rljacobs@pipeline.com;

     (5) Laurence Paskowitz of Paskowitz & Associates, 60 East
         42nd Street, 46th Floor, New York, NY 10165, Phone:
         (212)-685-0969, Fax: (212)-685-2306, E-mail:
         classattorney@aol.com; and

     (6) David Avi Rosenfeld and Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach,
         Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200
         Broadhollow Road, Ste. 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone:
         631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail:
         drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com and srudman@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the Defendant is Robert Allen Scher of Foley &
Lardner, LLP, 90 Park Ave., New York, NY 10016, Phone:
(212) 682-7474, Fax: (212) 687-2329, E-mail: rscher@foley.com;

For more details, contact Carol Dore-Falcone, VP/CFO of    
GeoPharma, Inc. Phone: 727-544-8866 x244, E-mail:
cdf@onlineihp.com or Rachel Levine, Investor and Media Relations
of The Global Consulting Group, Phone: 646-284-9439, E-mail:
rlevine@hfgcg.com.


LIPMAN ELECTRONIC: Lawsuit in Israel Withdrawn Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw the securities class
action filed against Lipman Electronic Engineering Ltd. (Nasdaq,
TASE: LPMA) in Tel Aviv, Israel district court.

Previously, the plaintiff in the action sought the approval of a
securities class action lawsuit against the Company and Isaac
Angel, the Company's President and CEO. The suit alleges
violations of Israeli securities laws due to the Company
allegedly withholding material information, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (October 13, 2005) reports.

Lipman is a worldwide provider of electronic payment systems,
developing handheld, wireless and landline point of sale (POS)
terminals, electronic cash registers, retail ATM units, PIN
pads, and smart card readers, as well as integrated PIN and
smart card (Chip & PIN) solutions.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Judge Sacks Case Over $24.5M Legal Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland federal Judge Frederick Motz dismissed a lawsuit filed
against Microsoft Corporation by 27 law firms that came together
as the National Plaintiffs' Council, saying that he had "better
things to do" than to decide whether a group of lawyers should
receive more than $24 million in legal fees for their work
against Microsoft Corporation in antitrust cases, The Herald
News Daily reports.

In his ruling to dismiss, Judge Frederick Motz also cited that
he did not have "anything close to jurisdiction" in the case,
which was an attempt by the Council to force the lawyers in the
state cases to pay them $24.5 million in compensation. For more
than five years, attorneys have represented end-user plaintiffs
in antitrust overcharge class action lawsuits against Microsoft.

Price Gielen, an attorney representing the national group of
lawyers, argued that Judge Motz should decide the case because
he is the judge who is most familiar with the large, multi-
jurisdictional case against the software giant. Mr. Gielen
pointed out that separate state court cases could lead to
conflicting results, and that Judge Motz could handle the case
more efficiently as a whole.

However, Andrew Dansicker, who represented the States`
Plaintiffs` Counsel, argued that the lawyers in the federal
court cases failed to negotiate legal fees with their
counterparts in state courts. He cited that the lawyers in the
federal cases stood to reap hundreds of millions of dollars that
never materialized.

Mr. Gielen counters that there was no law requiring an agreement
for payment.  Despite his arguments, Judge Motz ultimately
dismissed the case.  With the dismissal Mr. Gielen told The
Herald News Daily that the law firms in the federal case will
have to review whether to pursue the fees in state courts.


MURPHY OIL: Tries to Head Off Suit Over Hurricane Katrina Spill
---------------------------------------------------------------
Murphy Oil Corporation is trying to persuade residents to settle
with the company, in an attempt to preclude a class action
lawsuit over a large oil spill from its Louisiana refinery
during Hurricane Katrina, MSNBC reports.

Recently, the El Dorado, Arkansas-based oil company opened five
adjustment offices to meet with those who say oil from the
refinery near Chalmette, a suburb southeast of New Orleans,
contaminated their homes.  In addition, the Company, which
announced the policy on its Web site and in newspaper ads, also
released a map of the territory affected by the spill.

The Company's settlement effort follows a 1.1 million-gallon
crude spill discovered after Hurricane Katrina tore through the
area and sent floodwaters into the refinery and hundreds of
neighboring homes. The Coast Guard has said that the Company is
responsible for the spill, among the worst environmental
problems to surface in hurricane's wake.  Addressing investors
on a quarterly conference call, Murphy Chief Executive Claiborne
Deming said his goal is to "quickly and fairly deal with this
issue."

Company attorney, George Frilot, told MSNBC that the company
should have the right to approach residents. He pointed out,
"Until the class is certified, the plaintiffs' lawyers don't
have a relationship with them, and we have a First Amendment
right to speak with them."

Plaintiffs' attorney Scott Bickford told MSNBC though that the
Company is "preying on people that are in such dire
circumstances" by offering a lump sum now as long as they don't
sue later.

The company currently faces two class action lawsuits, which
seeks unspecified damages for an oil leak at the company's
Louisiana refinery. Filed in Lafayette, Louisiana, the federal
suits accuse the company and its Murphy Oil USA Inc. unit of
negligence when Hurricane Katrina hit August 29 and knocked out
the company's plant at Meraux, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (September 20, 2005) reports.

A lawsuit filed by property owner Patrick Joseph Turner on
behalf of at least 500 property owners in St. Bernard Parish
states, "As a direct and proximate cause of the negligence of
the defendant, plaintiffs sustained damages that include
contamination of property, mental anguish, emotional distress,
inconvenience, loss of use, loss of property value, loss of
income, loss of profits, loss of business opportunity and fear
of cancer," an earlier Class Action Reporter story (September
20, 2005) reports.

The second lawsuit filed by residents John and Theonise Maus,
Judith Maus, Charles August Maus, Marcel Wieners, Carla Valaske
and at least 5,000 other parish residents states that among the
issues to be considered is whether "Murphy's negligence is
ultimately found to prolong the time in which members cannot
return to their property and whether the class members' property
is permanently damaged so that their property's fair-market
value is diminished," an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(September 20, 2005) reports.

A New Orleans federal court will hear a motion soon that seeks
to limit Murphy's ability to contact residents. Though Judge
Eldon Fallon rejected a previous effort by plaintiffs to
restrict Murphy he said that the court would "police" Murphy's
communications.


PENNSYLVANIA: Hearing Aid Firms, Operators Face Consumer Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett filed a civil lawsuit
against two hearing aid businesses and their operators, accusing
them of refusing to return thousands of dollars to mostly older
Pennsylvanians who were sold hearing aids that were defective,
did not fit properly and failed to provide the hearing benefits
that were promised during the in-home sales presentations.

The lawsuit seeks nearly $125,000 in refunds and fines, plus an
order barring the defendants from operating in the state until
that amount is paid. The suit follows an investigation into
complaints from consumers located in Clinton, Columbia,
Lycoming, McKean, Mifflin, Northumberland and Tioga counties.

Corbett identified the defendants as:

     (1) Joseph G. Pannette, 470 Treasure Lake, Dubois,
         Clearfield County, individually, and doing business as
         Bennett Hearing Aid Company and Advanced Hearing
         Associates Inc.

     (2) Ricky A. Pape, 1628 Treasure Lake, Dubois, Clearfield
         County, individually, and doing business as Bennett
         Hearing Aid Company and Advanced Hearing Associates
         Inc.,

     (3) Bennett Hearing Aid Company Inc., located at 1400
         Northway Road, Williamsport, Lycoming County, and 1024
         Washington Blvd., Williamsport, Lycoming County.

     (4) Advanced Hearing Associates Inc., 459 River Ave.,
         Williamsport, Lycoming County, and a registered address
         of 101 North Main Street, DuBois, Clearfield County.

Mr. Pannette and Mr. Pape operated the two businesses and are
both licensed hearing aid fitters.

The suit accuses the defendants of violating Pennsylvania's
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and Hearing
Aid Sales Registration Law.

"Our lawsuit will show that the defendants were in the business
of defrauding older Pennsylvanians out of thousands of dollars
for hearing aid devices that did not improve their hearing or
their quality of life as promised," Mr. Corbett said during a
news conference in Williamsport. "Even more egregious, is the
defendants' conscious decision to completely dismiss consumers'
repeated requests for refunds that the hearing aid law states
they are entitled to receive."        

Bureau of Consumer Protection agents investigated complaints
from 18 consumers who claimed that they entered into contracts
with the defendants through 2005, for the purchase of one or
more hearing aids. Consumers paid the defendants between $750
and $5,600 in deposits or full payments for their hearing aids.

During the sales presentation, prospective buyers were told that
the hearing aids came with a 30-day return policy if they were
not satisfied with the products. The defendants also offered a
two-year no-fee guarantee against product defects. If a consumer
expressed dissatisfaction and requested a refund within the 30-
day time period, the defendants typically offered to adjust,
repair or replace the devices.  

According to the lawsuit, many consumers were unhappy with the
hearing aids despite numerous adjustments or repairs. Others who
were promised repaired or replacement hearing aids have yet to
receive the products, months, even years later. Those who filed
complaints claimed that they failed to receive any or all of the
restitution that they were promised or entitled to receive under
state law, despite repeated calls to the defendants.  

Investigators said the defendants used a number of stalling
tactics and made numerous excuses to avoid or delay paying
refunds to consumers. In some cases, the defendants extended the
time period to return the products even though consumers
complained that the devices didn't work properly or generated
excessive noise, including a squealing sound.

In other cases, the defendants claimed that the devices needed
adjustments or repairs to work properly. One Lycoming County
consumer was told that his hearing aids may have to be adjusted
seven times before they would work properly. After months of
adjustments, the consumer said his ability to hear grew worse
with each adjustment.

The suit states that in some cases the defendants returned only
a portion of consumers' refunds despite promises that they would
get their money back within 30 days. In addition, the suit
includes consumers who the Commonwealth claims were falsely told
that they were ineligible for refunds.  

In a separate count of the complaint, the defendants are also
accused of charging excessive "cancellation fees" in violation
of the Hearing Aid Sales Registration Law.

According to the Hearing Aid Sales Registration Law, if a
consumer returns the hearing aid, the seller is prohibited from
charging fees that are more than 10 percent of the purchase
price or $150, whichever is less. Several consumers claimed that
they were required to sign a "disclosure agreement" that listed
these alleged illegal fees for each hearing aid purchased. The
fees were then deducted from their refund checks.  

"Our investigation found that some consumers who returned the
hearing aids were illegally charged fees ranging from $250 to
$500 above what the law allows," Mr. Corbett said. "In reality,
the majority of consumers would have no way of knowing what the
legal fees should be. Most rely on a seller's honesty to charge
the legal amount. In this case, the defendants violated that
trust and deceived consumers in their 'disclosure agreement'
about the fees that they were obligated to pay."

"Hearing aids are expensive for any consumer, but especially for
retired or older adults living on tight budgets," Mr. Corbett
said. "To aggressively overcharge and then deny these consumers
refunds that they're guaranteed to receive under law is unfair
and unconscionable."

The complaint asks the court to require the defendants to:

     (i) Pay more than $50,000 in restitution to 18 consumers
         who filed complaints with the Bureau of Consumer
         Protection, plus pay full restitution to consumers who
         come forward with proof of similar harm.

    (ii) Pay civil penalties of $74,000, plus additional
         penalties of $1,000 per violation or $3,000 for each
         violation involving a consumer age 60 or older who
         files a complaint with the Office of Attorney General.

   (iii) Forfeit their right to conduct business in the
         Commonwealth until restitution and civil penalties are
         paid.

    (vi) Pay the Commonwealth's investigation costs.

The suit also asks the court to appoint a receiver if necessary
to determine and collect the defendants' assets to satisfy the
order.

The lawsuit was filed in Lycoming County Court. Senior Deputy
Attorney General J.P. McGowan will be prosecuting the case.

For more details, contact The Bureau of Consumer Protection,
Phone: 1-800-441-2555, Web site: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.


PRAXAIR INC.: Faces Consolidated Manganese Injury Suit In Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
Praxair, Inc. faces a consolidated class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,
alleging that exposure to manganese contained in welding fumes
in company facilities caused neurological injury.

As of June 30, 2005, the Company was a co-defendant with many
other companies in 1,538 lawsuits alleging personal injury
caused by manganese contained in welding fumes. The cases were
pending in state and federal courts in Alabama, Arkansas,
California, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,
Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia. There were a
total of 11,314 individual claimants in these cases.

Six of the cases are proposed statewide class actions seeking
medical monitoring on behalf of welders. None of the class
actions have been certified.  All of the cases filed in or
removed to federal courts have been (or are in the process of
being) transferred by the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict
Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The plaintiffs
seek unspecified compensatory and, in most instances, punitive
damages.

In the past, the Company has either been dismissed from the
cases with no payment or has settled a few cases for nominal
amounts.  In a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the Company said that it has never manufactured
welding consumables. Such products were manufactured prior to
1985 by its predecessor company.

The coordinated federal proceeding is styled "Valdays v. A.O.
Smith Corporation et al, case no. 1:05-cv-18034-KMO," filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, under Judge Kathleen M. O'Malley.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Scott R. Bickford, Spencer R. Doody of Martzell &
Bickford, 338 Lafayette Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, Phone:
504-581-9065, Fax: 504-581-7635, E-mail: usdcndoh@mbfirm.com;
and Sarah Ranier Kearney, Brett M. Powers, Drew Ranier, of
Ranier, Gayle & Elliot, 1419 Ryan Street, P.O. Box 1890, Lake
Charles, LA 70602-1890, Phone: 337-494-7171, Fax: 337-494-7218,
E-mail: bp@brettpowers.com and dranier@rgelaw.com.  Representing
the Company are Celeste R. Coco-Ewing, Mark J. Fernandez, Neely
Sharp Griffith, Stephen H. Kupperman and Richard E. Sarver of
Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver, 1800 LL&E Tower, 909
Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70112, Phone: 504-589-9725, Fax:
504-589-9925, E-mail: ccoco-ewing@barrassousdin.com or
rsarver@barrassousdin.com.


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP: Settles Telxon Litigation For $27.9M
----------------------------------------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, ("PwC") agreed to pay $27.9 million
to settle all claims asserted against it by class members who
purchased Telxon Corporation ("Telxon") securities during the
period from June 29, 1998 through February 23, 1999, The law
firm of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, and Kohrman Jackson
& Krantz, P.L.L., announced in a statement.

The settlement with PwC is in addition to the prior settlement
of $40 million reached with Telxon and certain individuals and
previously approved by the Court on February 11, 2004. That
earlier settlement, which covered purchasers of Telxon
securities from May 21, 1996 through February 23, 1999, has now
reached $40 million as a result of an additional $3 million
which became payable to the class members on September 30, 2005
after Telxon settled its claims against PwC.

The Settlement with PwC now brings the total of these two class
action settlements to $67.9 million, one of the top seventy-five
securities class action settlements of all time.

For more details, contact Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP,
Phone: 1-800-721-3900, E-mail: wgonzalez@zsz.com, Web site:
http://www.zsz.com;and Kohrman Jackson of Kohrman Jackson &  
Krantz, P.L.L., Phone: +1-216-699-8700, E-mail: bk@kjk.com, Web
site: http://www.kjk.com.   


RESOURCE REAL: MD Couple Sues Firm, Broker Over Sham Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A title company and a mortgage broker formed a sham settlement
firm to bilk borrowers, a recent class action lawsuit filed in
Baltimore County Circuit Court alleges, The Daily Record
reports.

Filed by Patricia M. and Timothy J. Benway of Baltimore,
Maryland, the suit alleges that they took out a $36,000 second
mortgage last year using Access One Mortgage Group as the broker
and Resource Real Estate Services as the title company, for
which they paid "exorbitant" title fees of $1,165.  According to
the suit, Access One and Resource Real Estate set up a company
called Clipper City Settlement Services Inc. so they could
charge higher fees to borrowers.

One of the Benways' attorneys, Kieron F. Quinn, told The Daily
Record that he does not know the size of the class of borrowers
affected by the alleged scam.  The Benways accuse the defendants
of violating the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the
Maryland Consumer Protection Act, negligent misrepresentation,
fraud and civil conspiracy. In addition, they also claim that
Access One violated Maryland's Finders Fee Act and Resource Real
Estate aided and abetted those violations, and that both
companies conspired to violate that law.

The suit asserts that Resource Real Estate and Access One
fraudulently listed Clipper City's name on settlement documents
as having provided title or closing services, allowing it to
charge fees between $400 and $1,000 for each settlement. It also
asserts, "The fees or other consideration was received or paid
to Access One without disclosing to the borrower that the
consideration was a kickback to reward the mortgage broker for
the referral of the closing settlement work to Resource Real
Estate."

The suit goes on to state, "In so doing, Access One and Resource
Real Estate were able to systematically and deceptively hide and
conceal the fact that Clipper City was a sham `Affiliated
Business Arrangement' and served no purpose other than to: (1)
permit the mortgage broker to pocket additional monies, paid by
the borrower, while providing no additional goods or services;
and (2) facilitate the payment of a referral fee and kickback at
the increased expense of the borrower and in violation of the
borrower's rights under state and federal law."

The resident agent for both Resource Real Estate and Clipper
City is listed in the suit as attorney Millard S. Rubenstein,
who the complaint says is president of both companies. A call
made by The Daily Record to Mr. Rubenstein's office afternoon
was routed to another employee's voice-mail and not immediately
returned. Lawyer John A. Austin, listed as resident agent for
Access One, told The Daily Record that he had not yet seen the
complaint.


SEMPRA ENERGY: Chairman Takes Witness Stand in CA Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The chairman and chief executive officer of Sempra Energy
testified recently that he didn't know his colleagues met with a
competitor in a Phoenix hotel room in 1996 until a lawsuit filed
four years later alleged that the meeting laid the groundwork
for a scheme to manipulate California's energy markets, The
Associated Press reports.

Stephen Baum was the first witness in a class action lawsuit
against Sempra and its two utilities, Southern California Gas
Co. and San Diego Gas & Electric Co.

The suit, which was originally filed in December 2000 against
Sempra and its utilities and later consolidated in San Diego
Superior Court, alleged that they conspired with El Paso Natural
Gas Corporation to prevent competition for cheaper and more
plentiful Canadian natural gas. Additionally, the suit alleges
that Sempra and its companies conspired to protect their
respective market dominance over the supply and transportation
of natural gas into and within California, reaping enormous
profits at the expense of California consumers and businesses,
an earlier Class Action Reporter story (January 24, 2005)
reports.

The plaintiffs stated that the alleged agreement happened in a
clandestine meeting at a Phoenix hotel involving 11 senior
SoCalGas, SDG&E and El Paso executives in September 1996, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (January 24, 2005) reports.

The plaintiff's lead attorney, Pierce O'Donnell, questioned Mr.
Baum for more than three hours about his public statements
during the power crisis and the relationship with El Paso. The
focus remained on what happened when 11 executives of SoCal Gas,
SDG&E and El Paso met at the Embassy Suites Hotel near Sky
Harbor Airport on September 25, 1996.

Responding to the attorney's questions, Mr. Baum stated that
could not recall an internal company meeting held two days after
his colleagues gathered in Phoenix, though minutes shown to
jurors said that he was there. During that meeting, Mr. Baum
allegedly discussed bidding jointly with El Paso on a pipeline
project to serve a power plant in Samalayuca, Mexico, about 45
miles south of the Texas border. Mr. Baum reiterated, "I've
thought an awful lot about this, I don't have an independent
recollection of this meeting."

Still, Mr. Baum recalled considering a joint bid with El Paso,
though nothing came of it. Sempra lead attorney Robert Cooper
told reporters outside the courtroom that the possibility of a
joint bid was discussed at the Phoenix hotel but El Paso quickly
lost interest.

According to the lawsuit, SoCal Gas agreed not to compete
against El Paso on the Samalayuca pipeline. El Paso, in turn,
abandoned plans to bring cheap Canadian gas to California. At
the time of the alleged conspiracy creation, Mr. Baum was chief
executive of Enova Corporation, then SDG&E's parent company.

Mr. Cooper, the Sempra attorney, said during his opening
statement that the Phoenix meeting was an effort by SoCal Gas to
rid itself of unused capacity that it was leasing on El Paso's
pipeline system - an obligation that was costing between $40
million and $50 million a year. Nothing came of the overture, he
said.

The stakes in the lawsuit are potentially huge for Sempra, which
was formed in 1998 from the merger of SoCal Gas and SDG&E. Under
California law, the nearly $8 billion in damages alleged by
plaintiffs, including the city and county of Los Angeles, would
triple to about $23 billion if Sempra loses. The initial phase
of the trial looks at only two subclasses of plaintiffs that
allege combined damages of about $1.3 billion.

Mr. O'Donnell was expected to resume his questioning of Mr. Baum
next week. The trial is expected to last several months.


SIERRA HEALTH: Trial in FL RICO Lawsuit Set For January 2006
------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated class action filed against health
management organizations (HMOs) in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida is set for January
2006.  The suit is styled "In Re: Managed Care Litigation: MDL
No. 1334."  Sierra Health Services, Inc. has been named as a co-
conspirator in the class action lawsuit, but was not named as a
defendant.

Beginning in 1999, a series of class action lawsuits were filed
against most other major entities in the health benefits
business. A multi-district litigation panel has consolidated
most of these cases in the Southern District Court of Florida,
Miami division.

The plaintiffs assert that the defendants improperly paid
providers' claims and "downcoded" their claims by paying lesser
amounts than they submitted.  The complaint alleges, among other
things, multiple violations under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, as well as various breaches
of contract and violations of regulations governing the
timeliness of claim payments.  The consolidated suits seek
injunctive, compensatory and equitable relief as well as
restitution, costs, fees and interest payments.

Discovery commenced on September 30, 2002.  In November 2002,
the Eleventh Circuit Court granted the industry defendants'
petition to review the class certification order.  That appeal
is pending.

On April 7, 2003, the United States Supreme Court determined
that the RICO claims against certain defendants should be
arbitrated.  On September 15, 2003, the district court granted
in part and denied in part the industry defendants' further
motion to compel arbitration.  Significantly, the court
denied the industry defendants' motion with respect to
plaintiffs' derivative RICO claims.

On September 19, 2003, the industry defendants appealed the
district court's arbitration order to the Eleventh Circuit Court
of Appeals.  The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit also
upheld a district court ruling certifying a plaintiff class in
the "Shane" case.  The district court has recently determined to
bifurcate the case, holding a trial phase limited to liability
issues, and a second, if necessary, regarding damages.  A trial
date has been set for January 2006.

Plaintiffs in the "Shane" proceeding have stated their intention
to introduce evidence at trial concerning the Company and other
parties not named as defendants in the litigation. Two of the
defendants, Aetna Inc. and Cigna Corporation, have entered into
settlement agreements, which have been approved by the district
court. Two of the other defendants, Wellpoint Inc. and Health
Net Inc., have recently entered into settlement agreements whose
approval is currently pending before the district court.  
Discovery is ongoing and a trial date has been set for March 14,
2005.  In the meantime, two of the defendants, Aetna Inc. and
Cigna Corporation, have entered into settlement agreements,
which have been approved by the Court.  Three of the other
defendants, Wellpoint Inc., Health Net Inc. and Humana Inc.,
have recently entered into settlement agreements whose approval
is currently pending before the district court.

The suit is styled "In Re Humana Inc. Managed Care Litigation,
MDL 1334," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, under Judge
Federico Moreno.  The suit names as defendants Humana, Inc.,
Aetna, Inc., Aetna-USHC, Inc., Cigna, Health Net, Inc., Human
Health Plan, Inc., Pacificare Health Systems, Inc., Prudential
Insurance Company of America, United Health Group, United Health
Care and Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc.  Cigna and Aetna have
entered settlements with the plaintiffs.  Lead Plaintiffs'
Attorneys are Barry Meadow of Podhurst, Orseck, et al., Harley
Tropin of Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton and Archie Lamb.


SKYLINE CORPORATION: Recalls 90 2006 Trailers For Crash Hazard   
--------------------------------------------------------------
Skyline Corporation in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 90 units of 2006 SKYLINE /
ALJO LIMITED, 2006 SKYLINE / LAYTON LIMITED, 2006 SKYLINE /
NOMAD LIMITED and 2006 SKYLINE / WEEKENDER trailers due to crash
hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V491000.

According to the ODI, on certain travel trailers and fifth wheel
trailers fail to conform to the requirements of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, "tire Selection and Rims." The
tire and loading information placard contains incorrect
information regarding the maximum cargo carrying capacity. If
the cargo weight is exceeded and the trailer overloaded, the
excess weight can cause handling problems, irregular tire wear,
tire failure or other damage. An overloaded trailer is hard to
stop, which could result in a loss of control of the vehicle,
increasing the risk of a crash that could occur without prior
warning.    

As a remedy, owners will be provided with new tire information
placards and installation instructions. The recall is expected
to begin on October 27, 2005.

For more details, contact Skyline Corporation, Phone: 1-800-962-
7773 and NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY)
1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov.


T. ROWE PRICE: Plaintiffs Appeal IL Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois' refusal to alter or amend its
ruling dismissing the class action filed against T. Rowe Price
International Funds, Inc., styled "T.K. Parthasarathy,et al.,
including Woodbury, v. T. Rowe Price International Funds, Inc.,
et al.  The suit also names as defendants T. Rowe Price
International and the T. Rowe Price International Funds with
respect to the T. Rowe Price International Stock Fund.

The suit was initially filed in the Circuit Court for the Third
Judicial Circuit in Madison County, Illinois.  The basic
allegations in the case were that the T. Rowe Price defendants
did not make appropriate value adjustments to the foreign
securities of the T. Rowe Price International Stock Fund prior
to calculating the Fund's daily share prices, thereby allegedly
enabling market timing traders to trade the Fund's shares in
such a way as to disadvantage long-term investors.  The
plaintiffs sought monetary damages.

The case was moved on April 22, 2005 to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois, which dismissed the case
on May 27, 2005.  The plaintiff's motion to alter and/or amend
the order of dismissal was denied on July 7, 2005. The Plaintiff
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
The appeal is stayed pending a determination by the U.S. Supreme
Court to grant or deny a writ of certiorari filed in another
case involving unrelated third parties.


The suit is styled "Parthasarathy et al v. T Rowe Price
International Funds Inc et al, case no. 3:05-cv-00302-DRH,"
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois, under Judge David R. Herndon.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Klint L. Bruno, Ellison, Nielsen et al., Generally
         Admitted, 100 West Monroe Street, 18th Floor, Chicago,
         IL 60603, Phone: 312-855-8391

     (2) Robert L. King, Swedlow & King - Chicago, 70 West
         Madison Street, Suite 660, Three First National Plaza,
         Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: 314-621-4002, Fax: 314-621-
         2586, E-mail: robertlking@charter.net

     (3) Stephen M. Tillery, Korein Tillery - Swansea, 10
         Executive Woods Court, Swansea, IL 62226-2030, Phone:
         618-277-1180, E-mail: stillery@koreintillery.com

     (4) George A. Zelcs, Korein Tillery - Chicago, 70 West
         Madison Street, Suite 660, 3 First National Plaza,
         Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: 312-641-9750, Fax: 312-641-
         9751, E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com  

Representing the Company are Glenn E. Davis, Frank N. Gundlach
and Lisa M. Wood of Armstrong Teasdale - St. Louis, One
Metropolitan Square, 211 North Broadway, Suite 2600, St. Louis,
MO 63102-2740, by Phone: 314-621-5070 or by E-mail:
gdavis@armstrongteasdale.com, fgundlach@armstrongteasdale.com,
lwood@armstrongteasdale.com; and Martin I. Kaminsky, Edward T.
Mcdermott, Daniel A. Pollack and Anthony Zaccaria of Pollack &
Kaminsky, 114 West 47th Street, Suite 1900, New York, NY 10036-
8295, Phone: 212-575-4700, E-mail:
mikaminsky@pollacklawfirm.com, etmcdermott@pollacklawfirm.com,
dapollack@pollacklawfirm.com, azaccaria@pollacklawfirm.com.   


UNICARE HEALTH: IL Court Favors Plaintiffs in Unfair Trade Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois granted summary
judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in the class action filed
against UniCare Life & Health Insurance Co., styled "Thomas E.
McFarland, et al, v. UniCare Life & Health Insurance Co."  The
suit alleges that the Company had breached its contracts with
members by increasing co-payments and deductibles and reducing
certain benefits.

The court certified a class on April 27, 2004. The parties
subsequently filed cross-motions for summary judgment.  On
October 4, 2005, the court granted summary judgment in
plaintiffs' favor, holding that the Company had breached its
contracts and that class members were entitled to damages from
September 1, 2000 to the present.

The suit is styled "Thomas E. McFarland, et al, v. UniCare Life
& Health Insurance Co., case no. 2001-CH-10549," filed in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, under Judge Dorothy
Kirie Kinnaird.  Representing the plaintiffs is BEELER SCHAD &
DIAMOND, 332 S. Mich # 1000, Chicago IL, 60604, Phone:
(312) 939-6280.  Representing the Company is CHITTENDEN MURDAY
NOVOTNY, 303 W. Madison #1400, Chicago IL, 60606, Phone:
(312) 281-3600.


U.S. POSTAL: Employees to Revive Suit Over 2001 Anthrax Attack
--------------------------------------------------------------
Employees at a mail center in Washington, D.C., who were exposed
to anthrax more than four years ago, asked a three-judge panel
from the Circuit Court of Appeals to reinstate a pair of cases
against the US Postal Office, the postmaster general and local
Postal Service managers, the Washington Times reports.

The suits contend that workers at the Brentwood postal center
deliberately were kept on the job for four days after officials
knew they had been exposed to weapons-grade anthrax in letters
sent to Capitol Hill. Additionally, the suits say that postal
employees repeatedly were told their workplace was safe, even
though congressional office buildings where the letters were
received had closed.

Attorneys for plaintiffs in both cases noted that 10 percent of
the congressional staffers were minorities compared with 93
percent of the mail center's staff.

According to Gregory L. Lattimer, an attorney for Leroy
Richmond, one of 17 persons who contracted inhalation anthrax
and recovered, "They only told the lies to the black people."
Mr. Richmond, 61, of Stafford, Virginia is seeking $50 million
in damages. Mr. Lattimer told The Washington Times that if the
case were reinstated, he would be able to prove that Brentwood
employees were misled deliberately.  Mr. Lattimer also told The
Washington Times, "They were told there was no contamination and
closing Brentwood would cost the Postal Service $600,000 a day."
Two employees, Joseph Curseen Jr., 47, of Clinton, and Thomas
Morris Jr., 55, of Suitland, died of the disease.

Brentwood was closed October 21, 2001, and 2,100 employees were
encouraged to report for health screenings and given
antibiotics. Eventually, the building was shut for 26 months and
underwent an elaborate decontamination process at a cost
exceeding $130 million.

Dale Wilcox, a lawyer with Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan
advocacy group is representing postal workers and a support
group called Brentwood Exposed, told The Washington Times, "The
defendants told them they had nothing to fear."

Plaintiffs in both cases appealed after lower courts blocked the
lawsuits. Rulings could be released in months, but attorneys for
the plaintiffs pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court
ultimately might decide the cases.

Though Postal Service attorneys concede congressional staffers
were treated differently than postal workers, they deny any
discriminatory intent. They pointed out that employees have been
free to pursue their claims through regular human resources
channels.

"All of our lives were put in jeopardy," Dena Briscoe of
Clinton, a former Brentwood clerk who is the lead plaintiff in
the class action case told The Washington Times.  Although few
employees still complain of physical effects attributed to the
incident, many say the emotional damage remains.


VACATION CENTRAL: PA Attorney General Lodges Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett initiated a lawsuit
against a Michigan-based vacation company and its president
accusing them of illegally calling consumers' homes to sell
travel club memberships, then failing to provide the promised
discounts on the vacations, cruises, hotel rooms, car rentals
and airline tickets that were promoted in the plans.

The lawsuit follows an investigation into more than 50
complaints from residents located in Philadelphia, Allegheny,
Cumberland, Lehigh, Monroe, Westmoreland and York counties.  The
suit asks the court to ban the defendants from doing business in
Pennsylvania, plus provide full refunds to consumers and pay
fines for violating Pennsylvania's Consumer Protection Law and
Telemarketer Registration Act.  

Mr. Corbett identified the defendants as Shalom D. Bouskila,
individually, and as president of Vacation Central Inc., based
in Troy, Michigan. The company conducted business under the name
Vacation Depot and formerly operated a Pennsylvania office at
2403 Sidney St., Suite 255, Pittsburgh through 2004.

According to Consumer Protection investigators, the company
through 2004 failed to obtain the Pennsylvania "no call" list
before initiating telemarketing calls to consumers' homes to
promote and sell vacation memberships in the vacation club. Many
Pennsylvania consumers complained that they received calls from
the company even though they were properly listed on the "do not
call" statewide registry.

During the solicitations, consumers were told that they had won
a vacation or a motor vehicle and in order to claim the prize,
they would be required to attend a seminar at the defendants'
offices.

Those who attended the seminars were told that if they joined
the club they would save as much as 40 percent on vacations,
including cruises, hotel rooms, car rentals and airline tickets.  
Prospective members were also told that they would receive
specially discounted prices on certain destinations as part of
the club's "hot weeks" offer. The club memberships ranged in
price from $2,453 to $6,453.  

"In reality, many club members complained that the promised
discounts just weren't there," Mr. Corbett said. "In one case,
the vacation package offered by the defendants was $500 more
than a similar package a consumer found on Expedia.com, an
online travel service provider. In other cases, the company was
unable to arrange the requested trips and services at all.
Dissatisfied customers were then told that they could not cancel
their memberships and get their money back."  

Mr. Corbett said Vacation Depot is also accused of failing to
honor its own three-day right to cancel policy. In several
cases, consumers claimed that they failed to receive information
about their memberships or were not given their passwords to the
club website until after the three day time period expired. In
other cases, consumers were unable to cancel their memberships
three days after purchase because the defendants closed their
Pennsylvania office. Many of those consumers paid the defendants
deposits that ranged from $600 to $1,800.

The complaint asks the court to require the defendants to:

     (1) Permanently forfeit their right to conduct business in
         Pennsylvania.

     (2) Issue full refunds to consumers who paid for a club
         membership and failed to receive any of the promised
         discounts and services.

     (3) Pay civil penalties of $1,000 per violation and $3,000
         per violation for any consumer age 60 or older.

     (4) Pay the Commonwealth's investigation costs.

The lawsuit was filed in Commonwealth Court.  Senior Deputy
Attorney General Marcia L. Telek DePaula of the Bureau of
Consumer Protection Office in Pittsburgh is prosecuting the
case.

For more details, contact The Bureau of Consumer Protection,
Phone: 1-800-441-2555, Web site: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.


WELLPOINT INC.: Reaches Settlement For Physicians' Federal Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
class action filed against Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. and
other health management organizations is set for December 2,2005
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.

In May 2000, a case titled "California Medical Association vs.
Blue Cross of California, et. al.," was filed in U.S. district
court in San Francisco against Blue Cross of California (BCC),
one of the Company's subsidiaries at the time and now a
Wellpoint, Inc. subsidiary. The lawsuit alleges that BCC
violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO) (the "CMA Litigation").  

In August 2000, the Company was added as a party to "Shane v.
Humana, et al.," a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of
health care providers nationwide alleging RICO violations (the
"Shane Litigation").  Effective upon the November 30, 2004
merger with Wellpoint, Inc., the Company became a wholly owned
subsidiary of Wellpoint.  On September 26, 2002, Anthem was
added as a defendant to the Shane Litigation.

In May 2003, in a case titled "Kenneth Thomas, M.D., et al., v.
Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, et al." (the "Thomas
Litigation") several medical providers filed suit in federal
district court in Miami, Florida against the BCBSA and Blue
Cross and Blue Shield plans across the country, including the
Company. The suit alleges that the BCBSA and the Blue Cross and
Blue Shield plans violated RICO and challenges many of the same
practices as the CMA Litigation and the Shane Litigation.

In October 2000, the federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation issued an order consolidating the CMA Litigation, the
Shane Litigation, the Thomas Litigation and various other
pending managed care class-action lawsuits against other
companies before District Court Judge Federico Moreno in the
Southern District of Florida for purposes of pretrial
proceedings.  A mediator was appointed by Judge Moreno and the
parties have been conducting court-ordered mediation. On
December 9, 2004, Judge Moreno issued a new scheduling order
extending the expert discovery deadline to February 7, 2005 and
setting trial for September 6, 2005.

On July 11, 2005, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement (the "Agreement") with representatives of more than
700,000 physicians nationwide to resolve the CMA Litigation, the
Shane Litigation and the Thomas Litigation. Under the Agreement,
the Company has agreed to make cash payments totaling up to $198
million, of which $135 million will be paid to physicians and $5
million will be contributed to a not-for-profit foundation whose
mission is to promote higher quality health care and to enhance
the delivery of care to the disadvantaged members of the public.
In addition, up to $58 million will be paid in legal fees to be
determined by the court.  The Company also has agreed to
implement and maintain a number of operational changes such as
standardizing the definition of medical necessity in physician
contracts, creating a formalized Physician Advisory Committee
and modifying some of the Company's claims payment and physician
contracting provisions. The Agreement is subject to, and
conditioned upon, review and approval by the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.

The court preliminarily approved the settlement in an order
filed July 15, 2005. A hearing for final approval is scheduled
for December 2, 2005 in Miami, Florida. As a result of the
Agreement, the Company incurred a pre-tax expense of $103.0, or
$0.10 per diluted share after tax, for the three and six months
ended June 30, 2005, which represents the final settlement
amount of the Agreement that was not previously accrued.

The suit is styled "In Re Humana Inc. Managed Care Litigation,
MDL 1334," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, under Judge
Federico Moreno.  The suit names as defendants Humana, Inc.,
Aetna, Inc., Aetna-USHC, Inc., Cigna, Health Net, Inc., Human
Health Plan, Inc., Pacificare Health Systems, Inc., Prudential
Insurance Company of America, United Health Group, United Health
Care and Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc.  Cigna and Aetna have
entered settlements with the plaintiffs.  Lead Plaintiffs'
Attorneys are Barry Meadow of Podhurst, Orseck, et al., Harley
Tropin of Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton and Archie Lamb.  For
more details, contact Tami Durle, Investor Relations and James
P. Kappel, Media Contact, both of WellPoint, Inc., Phone:
+1-317-488-6390 or +1-317-488-6400, E-mail:
http://www.wellpoint.comOR Audrey Mullen, Phone: 703-548-1160  
or 202-270-2772, E-mail: Audrey@advocacyink.com, Web site:
http://www.hmocrisis.com/index1.htmlOR HMO Crisis Newsroom,  
Phone: (800) 324-4425.


WELLPOINT HEALTH: Arbitration Continues in CA Unfair Trade Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arbitration continues in the class action filed against
Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. in the California Superior Court
in Alameda County, styled "Irwin v. Advance PCS, et al."

The suit was filed on March 26, 2003 against the Company,
certain of its wholly owned subsidiaries and Advance PCS.  The
plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200 by engaging in
unfair, fraudulent and unlawful business practices including,
among other things, that pharmacy benefit management companies
(such as the Company's subsidiary that does business under the
trade name WellPoint Pharmacy Management) engage in unfair
practices such as negotiating discounts in prices of drugs from
pharmacies and negotiating rebates from drug manufacturers and
retaining such discounts and rebates for their own benefit.

On May 5, 2004, some of the defendants, including the Company
filed a petition to compel arbitration.  On July 9, 2004, the
Superior Court granted the petition, holding that Irwin's
request for monetary relief can only be resolved in arbitration
and staying Irwin's request for injunctive relief against
Prescription Solutions until an appropriate arbitration is
completed.  Discovery is proceeding against most other
defendants but is stayed as to the Company pending arbitration.


WEST VIRGINIA: Attorney General Sues Unlicensed Pool Installer
--------------------------------------------------------------
West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw filed a lawsuit in
Putnam County Circuit Court against Charles Roth, an unlicensed
contractor from Dunbar who has been installing swimming pools
and other home improvements, then walking away with consumers'
money without completing the jobs he was paid to perform.

Mr. Roth advertised in newspapers and telephone directories as
"Valley Pools," "Valley Pools & Spas," and other trade names.
Once contacted by interested consumers, he visited their homes
and submitted low bids to install pools and other home
improvements. Upon hearing Mr. Roth's low prices and promises of
"fifteen year" warranties, consumers eagerly signed contracts
with Mr. Roth and made large down payments. However, once the
work began and Mr. Roth had received significant payments on his
contracts, he became increasingly difficult to reach. The
contractor ignored consumers' telephone messages asking that he
return to finish the jobs. Some jobs were relatively completed,
but consumers soon encountered dozens of defects in the
equipment and materials installed by Mr. Roth and his crew.
Consumers found heater and pump equipment installed backwards,
leaks in the pool beds, crumbling concrete, and other defects.
Consumers complained to Attorney General McGraw's office that
when they contacted Roth and insisted on proper repairs, Mr.
Roth blamed consumers and became threatening.

Nearly all of Mr. Roth's bids and contract proposals represented
that he had "Contractor's License Number WV30970" or "WV31182."
However, inquiries to the Contractor's Licensing Board revealed
that those license numbers were invalid.

Attorney General McGraw's office seeks an order enjoining Mr.
Roth from all further business activity in West Virginia until
such time as restitution is paid to all consumers, and until he
demonstrates that his operations are in compliance with West
Virginia law.

Consumers who would like to file a complaint are encouraged to
call

For more details, contact Attorney General McGraw's Consumer
Protection Division, Post Office Box 1789, Charleston, WV 25326-
1789, Phone: 1-800-368-8808 or 304-558-8986, E-mail:
consumer@wvago.gov.


WISCONSIN: Attorney General Sues MMSD Over 2004 Sewage Overflow
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager stated that her
office will file a civil environmental lawsuit in Milwaukee
County Circuit Court against the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage
District (MMSD) for the more than two billion gallons of sewage
overflows which occurred during a period of wet weather in the
spring of 2004.

"The lawsuit charges MMSD with violating its state water
pollution control permit by causing approximately 473,000,000
gallons of sewage to flow into Milwaukee County streams, rivers
and Lake Michigan," Ms. Lautenschlager said.  "The lawsuit also
alleges that the adverse effects of raw sewage dumping along
with 1.7 billion gallons of combined sewer overflows (CSOs)
which occurred during the same period constitute a public
nuisance."

The lawsuit will seek a court order requiring MMSD to take steps
to eliminate all Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) as required by
law and to take reasonably practical measures to minimize CSOs.  
The lawsuit will also seek penalties for MMSD's past violations
of its water pollution control permit.

"These immense sewage overflows must be prevented in order to
ensure the quality of Lake Michigan and the health and safety of
the citizenry itself," Ms. Lautenschlager said.  "While we
realize that other factors are involved in the water quality of
Milwaukee area lakes and streams, we cannot look the other way
when state law is violated and the public enjoyment of Lake
Michigan is threatened."

Ms. Lautenschlager initially announced her intentions to file a
lawsuit against MMSD and 28 tributary municipalities a year ago
after the DNR formally referred the matter to the Department of
Justice for prosecution.  At that time, however, Ms.
Lautenschlager expressed her hope that the referral would
provide a means for bringing together the parties to identify
solutions and to commit to undertaking measures necessary to
eliminate SSOs and minimize CSOs.  She then invited all of the
prospective defendants to contact her if they wished to discuss
the possibility of an agreed-upon settlement before the lawsuit
was filed.

Ms. Lautenschlager reports that extensive negotiations commenced
shortly thereafter and, with the exception of MMSD, those
settlement discussions continue.

"We have had very productive discussions with representatives of
the 28 MMSD communities," Ms. Lautenschlager said.  "Because
these discussions have been constructive, we are not filing
against the communities today. We hope to reach an agreement
with them soon."    

"Unfortunately, MMSD, on the other hand, once again has decided
to spend taxpayers' money paying private lawyers to defend its
actions rather than live up to its responsibility under state
law to stop dumping sewage into Lake Michigan.  MMSD thinks the
Department of Justice should look the other way while it
violates state law and dumps over two billion gallons of sewage
into Lake Michigan.  The choice whether to spend public funds to
pay lawyers or keep Lake Michigan swimmable and fishable will be
up to MMSD.  No amount of public relations from MMSD will ever
make dumping raw sewage acceptable."  

Ms. Lautenschlager said any future agreement with the
municipalities would require court approval, at which time there
may be an opportunity for public comment on its terms.

The Department of Justice will file the lawsuit at the request
of the DNR.  Assistant Attorney General Tom Dosch will represent
the State.

For more details, contact Kelly Kennedy, Phone: 608/266-6686.


WINN DIXIE: FL Court Stays Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Jacksonville Division stayed consolidated the
securities class actions filed against Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
and certain of its present and former executive officers, as a
result of the Company's Chapter 11 filing.

On February 3, 2004, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida against the Company and three of its present and former
executive officers.  This action purports to be brought on
behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period from October 9, 2002, through and including
January 29, 2004.

The complaint alleges claims under the federal securities laws,
specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The
complaint generally alleges that, during the Class Period, the
defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's marketing and competitive situation, self-insurance
reserves, impairment of assets and other matters.  The complaint
seeks certification as a class action, unspecified compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.

Subsequently, several similar putative class actions were filed
asserting substantially the same claims, and some of these
claims name a fourth executive officer as a defendant.  These
various actions were consolidated as a single action styled "In
re: Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action
No. 3:04-CV-71-J-HES-MCR, United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division."   The
consolidated complaint has not yet been filed in either action.
As a result of the Company's Chapter 11 filing, the automatic
stay prevents the plaintiffs in these class action lawsuits from
proceeding against the Company. In the event that any claims
alleged in these lawsuits were sustained against the Company,
the claims would be treated in the Company's Chapter 11 case,
and to the extent any such claims were subject to the provisions
of 11 U.S.C. 510(b), such claims would be subordinated to other
claims against the Company. As to the individual co-defendants,
on May 10, 2005, the court entered an order staying both
lawsuits as to all parties and all issues in light of our
Chapter 11 filing.

The suit is styled "In re: Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 3:04-cv-00071-HES-MCR," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger.  Law firms for the defendants
are King & Spalding LLP, 191 Peachtree St., Suite 4900, Atlanta,
GA 30303-1763, Phone: 404/572-4600; and Liles, Gavin, Costantino
& Murphy, 225 Water St., Suite 1500, Jacksonville, FL 32202,
Phone: 904/634-1100, Fax: 904/634-1234.  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) Cauley Geller, Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton,
         FL), One Boca Place. 2255 Glades Road, Suite 421A, Boca
         Raton, FL, 33431, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax:
         561.750.3364,

     (3) Chitwood & Harley, 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2900
         Promenade II, Atlanta, GA, 30309, Phone: 888.873.3999,

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

     (5) Fruchter & Twersky, 60 East 42 Street, New York, NY,
         10021, Phone: 212.687.6655,

     (6) Glancy and Binkow, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, suite 311,
         Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, E-mail:
         info@glancylaw.com

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

     (8) Vianale & Vianale LLP, The Plaza - Suite 801, 5355 Town
         Center Road., Boca Raton, FL, 33486, Phone:
         561.391.4900, Fax: 561.368.9274, E-mail:
         info@vianalelaw.com

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

    (10) Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY), The French Building,
         551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, New York, NY, 10126, Phone:
         212.682.3025, Fax: 212.682.3010, E-mail: info@wyca.com

    (11) 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


WINN-DIXIE STORES: FL Court Stays Lawsuit For ERISA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida stayed the consolidated the class actions filed against
the Company, three of the Company's present and former executive
officers and certain employees who serve on the administrative
committee that administers its Profit Sharing/401(k) Plan, as a
result of the Company's chapter 11 filing.

The actions purport to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of the Plan and participants and beneficiaries under
the Plan whose individual accounts held shares in the Winn-Dixie
Stock Fund during the period from May 6, 2002, through and
including January 29, 2004.  The complaints allege claims under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended
(ERISA).

More specifically, the complaints generally allege that, during
the Class Period, the defendants breached their fiduciary duties
to the Plan, its participants and its beneficiaries under ERISA
by failing to exercise prudent discretion in deciding whether to
sell Company stock to the Plan trustee for investment by the
Plan, failing to provide timely, accurate and complete
information to Plan participants, failing to adequately monitor
and review Company stock performance as a prudent investment
option, failing to manage Plan assets with reasonable care,
skill, prudence and diligence and other matters.  The complaints
seek certification as a class action, a declaration that
defendants violated fiduciary duties under ERISA, unspecified
equitable and remedial damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
other relief.

These three actions were consolidated as a single action styled
In re: Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Civil Action
No. 3:04-CV-194-J-20HTS, United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville, Division.  The
consolidated complaint has not yet been filed in the suit.  As a
result of the Company's Chapter 11 filing, the automatic stay
prevents the plaintiffs in these class action lawsuits from
proceeding against the Company. In the event that any claims
alleged in these lawsuits were sustained against the Company,
the claims would be treated in the Company's Chapter 11 case,
and to the extent any such claims were subject to the provisions
of 11 U.S.C. 510(b), such claims would be subordinated to other
claims against the Company. As to the individual co-defendants,
on May 10, 2005, the court entered an order staying both
lawsuits as to all parties and all issues in light of the
Company's Chapter 11 filing. The court also denied the ERISA
plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the Company as a defendant so that
the case could continue against the individual defendants.

The suit is styled "In re: Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. ERISA
Litigation, case no. 3:04-cv-00194-HES-MCR," filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida under
Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger.

Law firms for the defendants are King & Spalding LLP, 191
Peachtree St., Suite 4900, Atlanta, GA 30303-1763, Phone:
404/572-4600; and Liles, Gavin, Costantino & Murphy, 225 Water
St., Suite 1500, Jacksonville, FL 32202, Phone: 904/634-1100,
Fax: 904/634-1234.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave., Suite
         801, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212/682-1818

     (2) Emerson Poynter LLP, 2228 Cottondale Ln., Suite 100
         Little Rock, AR 72202-2037, Phone: 501/907-2555

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

     (4) David B. Ferebee, P.A., 503 E. Monroe St.,
         Jacksonville, FL 32202, Phone: 904/358-7001, fax:
         904/353-2756, E-mail: ferebeeatlaw@bellsouth.net


WORLDCOM INC.: Lerach Coughlin Refutes NY Funds' Investor Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP, the nation's leading law firm representing institutional
investors in securities litigation, recovered more than $651
million for institutional investors in individual non-class
action lawsuits arising out of the financial collapse of
WorldCom Inc.

Following the announcement and subsequent conference call
regarding said recovery, the lead plaintiff in the class action
lawsuit issued a press release attacking the firm's analysis of
its clients' recovery.

"We were saddened to read the attacks on our analysis of the
unprecedented recovery for our clients in the WorldCom matter by
the class action lead plaintiff," said William S. Lerach. "We
went out of our way in the press conference this morning to
compliment the class on their excellent recovery. However, when
the numbers are properly understood, our clients' recovery is
substantially better than what they would have recovered in the
class action. We have attempted to be as transparent and
accurate in our analysis as possible."

In a response to each of the issues raised in the New York State
Retirement Fund's press release, Lerach Coughlin notes the
following:

     (1) The statement that we inflated the damage numbers for
         the class action in order to make the class recovery
         look lower.

         Our response: The damage numbers for the class action
         set forth in Exhibit A to our press release (the
         comparison chart) were taken directly from the expert
         report of the lead plaintiff's damage expert -- Blaine
         Nye.

     (2) The statement that the damage number of $12.3 billion
         for the May 2000 and May 2001 offerings in our chart
         for the class action was inaccurate because it includes
         damages for our clients that opted out of the class.

         Our response: The purpose of the comparison chart in
         Exhibit A was to simply show what our clients would
         have received if they had remained in the class action
         versus their actual recovery. Our clients are receiving
         a premium to their imputed class recovery by getting a
         45-67% recovery net of fees and expenses on these two
         bonds.

     (3) The release attacks our assumption of a 90% claim rate
         in the class action with the implication being that a
         lower claim rate will yield the class a greater
         recovery.

         Our response: That is true except for the fact that we
         have been told by one of the defendants' counsel that
         they expect the claim rate to be 95%, which means we
         were being conservative in our calculations. Since the
         claim date has passed and all claims have been filed,
         if we were so far off in our assumption of a 90% claim
         rate you would expect class counsel to provide that
         information to the State of New York to include in its
         press release. The WorldCom bonds were held by
         sophisticated institutions, it was a highly publicized
         fraud and settlement, and it is not surprising that
         almost 95% of institutions that bought the bonds would
         be claiming on the settlement fund.

     (4) The release attacks our prior statements about our
         clients' bond losses.

         Our response: The May 2003 letter referred to in the
         release which discusses our clients having $1.4 billion
         in bond losses was accurate at the time. Some of our
         clients had claims that were dismissed by Judge Cote
         and they decided to dismiss their private actions and
         go back into the class after May 2003. These clients
         had bond losses of at least $150 million which were
         included in the $1.4 billion number. Our bond losses
         for the August 1998, December 2000, May 2000, and May
         2001 offerings now total $1.25 billion. Of that amount,
         approximately $1 billion is for the May 2000, May 2001
         and December 2000 bonds and the remainder is for the
         August 1998 offering, which was treated like the common
         stock by the class action. Our current overall total of
         $2 billion for bond and stock claims is accurate.

     (5) The release claims that our recovery of $620 million
         (it is actually $644 million excluding interest per the
         comparison chart) is a recovery of 43% based on bond
         claims of $1.4 billion which is the same as the class
         recovery.

         Our response: Our bond claims are $1 billion for the
         May 2000, May 2001 and December 2000 bonds. For these
         bonds we recovered a total of $610 million ($482
         million for the May 2001 bonds, $103 million for the
         May 2000 bonds, and $24.5 million for the December 2000
         bonds). A recovery of $610 million based on total bond
         claims of $1 billion is approximately 60%. As set forth
         on the comparison chart attached to our press release,
         our clients' recovery on the May 2000 and May 2001
         bonds is 62-67% for most clients, and 45% for some
         clients on the May 2000 bonds. The August 1998 bonds
         were treated the same as common stock by the class and
         we also treated them the same and included them in the
         comparison chart as part of the common stock recovery.
         There is no reason to lump those bonds in with the
         other bonds for the purposes of this comparison.

     (6) The release claims we have manipulated the stock
         damages.

         Our response: The market capitalization losses for the
         class were $160 billion based on 2.97 billion shares
         outstanding and a stock decline from the $50-$60 per
         share range to as low as $0.06 per share. We used $100
         billion in the comparison chart to give the class the
         benefit that only approximately 62% of class members
         would file a claim. Footnote 5 to the chart reflects
         this assumption and reduces the market cap losses to
         $100 billion. Unlike the bond claimants who are highly
         sophisticated and we expect will file a very high rate
         of claims, the common stock holders are a more diverse
         lot and it is possible the claim rate will be around
         60%, which is the average for stock claims in class
         actions. The class claims it has common stock damages
         of $30 billion. We calculated our clients' losses based
         on market losses and for comparison purposes calculated
         the class losses in the same manner. Had we reduced our
         clients' losses in a fashion similar to the class, our
         clients' losses would be substantially lower than the
         $720.9 million presented and the recovery percentage
         would have been substantially higher than 2.97%.

     (7) The class action lead plaintiff claims our clients'
         overall recovery if they had stayed in the class is
         understated.

         Our response: The points above addressed these issues.
         We have not inflated the class loss numbers and have
         used a realistic claim rate for the bonds for the
         class. The comparison chart lays out what our clients
         would have obtained in the class assuming they remained
         in the class versus what they are receiving in their
         private action.

     (8) The release attacks our presentation of our fees.

         Our response: We presented the recovery net of fees
         because we thought that was a fairer presentation than
         the gross number other firms present. The net figure
         presented is the amount the clients will receive,
         rather than a gross-up number as used by other
         individual action settlements and even the class
         action.

     (9) The release claims we understated the class settlement
         and did not include interest.

         Our response: Exhibit A to the press release shows the
         class recovery of $5.841 billion. We did not add
         interest to the class recovery because its not added to
         the private recovery in Exhibit A, which shows a $645
         million recovery. For consistency purposes, interest
         was not included in either amount.

    (10) The release claims we misstated the source of the
         recovery from Mr. Ebbers and Mr. Sullivan.

         Our response: Our understanding is that the government
         Negotiated as part of the Ebbers and Sullivan
         sentencing an agreement for those individuals to
         forfeit most of their personal assets. The class had a
         role in working with the government to set up the
         trust. Our clients will get a portion of that fund.

For more details, contact William Lerach of Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, Phone: 800-449-4900, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com.


ZENITH NATIONAL: EEOC Files Employment, Race Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zenith National Insurance Corporation faces a class action filed
by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC), on behalf of a job applicant and other similarly
situated individuals, for allegations of employment and racial
discrimination.

The case was filed September 30, 2005. The EEOC alleges that the
Company discriminated against certain job applicants by failing
to hire them because of their race.  The Company has retained
legal counsel and service has been effected with counsel.
Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages,
according to proof at trial. The burden of proof rests with
plaintiff to establish the validity of the claim, as well as the
appropriateness and certification of the alleged class.


                New Securities Fraud Cases

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Alfred G. Yates Lodges Securities Suit in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC, in a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of all securities purchasers of Boston
Scientific Corporation (NYSE:BSX)(Boston Scientific" or the
"Company") between March 31, 2003 and August 23, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The complaint filed today alleges that during the Class Period,
Boston Scientific and certain individual defendants violated
provisions of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, causing
its stock to trade at artificially inflated levels. The
complaint alleges that Boston Scientific provided highly
explicit false and misleading assurances of the Company's
ability to satisfy FDA regulations governing its medical device
product quality, as well as affirmative representations as to
the Company's knowledge and expertise regarding design,
development, marketing approval and sales of its medical
devices. The complaint further alleges over $400 million sold in
insider trading.

According to the complaint, on August 23, 2005, based on the
cumulative impact of three separate FDA Warning Letters,
investors learned of defendants' broad-based concealment of its
broken quality program and the risks the Company faced. As a
result, Boston Scientific's stock price dropped $1.23, or 4.5%
to $25.92, on volume of 15.8 million shares -- nearly $19.89 or
43.4% from its Class Period high of $45.81 on April 5, 2004.

For more details, contact Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. of The Law
Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC, Pittsburgh, Phone:
800-391-5164 or 412-391-5164, Fax: 412-471-1033, E-mail:
yateslaw@aol.com.


DHB INDUSTRIES: Scott + Scott Schedules Lead Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, which represents investors
in a new securities class action filed on October 26, 2005, in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York against DHB Industries, Inc. (Amex: DHB) and individual
defendants (Case No. 2:05-cv-05009-JS-ETB), reminds interested
parties that they have until November 8, 2005 to be appointed as
lead plaintiff in the case. Purchasers of DHB securities between
April 21, 2004, and August 29, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period") are members of the purported class.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, DHB and
certain individual defendants, including CEO David Brooks,
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and
misleading statements causing artificial inflation in the
Company's stock price. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
DHB marketed its Zylon-based body armor while concealing defect
and safety issues from investors. The complaint also alleges
that the Company concealed defective accounting practices
relating to inventory items. Over $200 million in insider
trading is also alleged. The price of DHB's stock closed
yesterday at $2.80, almost 88% less than DHB's Class Period high
of $22.70.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein of Scott + Scott, LLC,
Phone: 1-800-332-2259, ext. 22 or (cell) +1-619-251-0887, E-
mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com.


LIPMAN ELECTRONIC: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP,
initiated a class action complaint in the United States District
Court, Eastern District of New York, against Lipman Electronic
Engineering, Ltd. ("Lipman" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LPMA)
and certain of its officers and directors. The class action was
filed on behalf of public investors who purchased the common
stock of Lipman on the Nasdaq National Market and/or the Tel
Aviv Stock Exchange during the period of October 4, 2004 through
September 27, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Lipman Electronic Engineering, a corporation organized under the
laws of the State of Israel and headquartered in Rosh Haayin,
Israel, develops, manufactures, markets and sells electronic
payment systems and software worldwide. The Complaint alleges
that throughout the Class Period, Lipman issued public
statements in press releases and to analysts which fraudulently
created a false impression concerning the Company's business
operations and prospects following the acquisition of Dione, Plc
("Dione"), a United Kingdom based supplier of so-called "smart
card" payment systems. Defendants claimed that the Dione
acquisition would add to Lipman's earnings within one year and
"provide important new customer relationships that would add
critical mass to our U.K. presences" when, in fact, at the time
of these statements, defendants knew or recklessly disregarded
the substantial difficulty the Company was facing in integrating
and exploiting the Dione acquisition.

Less than one year after completing the Dione acquisition, the
misleading nature of defendants' Class Period statements was
revealed on September 28,2005, in a stunning admission by the
Company that the "weaker than expected performance of Dione"
caused the Company to slash its 2005 earnings estimates, from a
previous forecast of $1.39 to $1.42 per share down to $0.88 to
$0.98 per share. The Company also announced that it had
terminated the employment of Dione CEO Shaun Gray and that the
Company anticipated it would take a non-cash impairment charge
relating to goodwill and other intangible assets in 2005.
Investor reaction was sharply negative to the news of the Dione
unit's shockingly poor performance causing Lipman's share price
to plunge nearly 22 percent following the disclosure of the
Company's inability to leverage the Dione acquisition to expand
Lipman's European market presence. Additionally during the Class
Period, defendants materially misleading statements and
omissions enabled the Company to complete a secondary offering
of 1,973,044 shares at $29.75 per share in May 2005.

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


REFCO INC.: Scott + Scott Lodges Amended Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, represents investors in a
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Refco, Inc.
("Refco") (NYSE: RFX) (Case No. 1:05-cv-08886-UA). Refco
securities purchasers between August 11, 2005, and October 10,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period") are putative class members.

The original complaint in the action named Phillip R. Bennett,
Gerald M. Sherer, Leo R. Breitman, David V. Harkins, Scott L.
Jaeckel, Thomas H. Lee, Ronald L. O'Kelley, Scott A. Schoen,
Credit Suisse First Boston LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., and Grant
Thornton LLP, as defendants. The October 21, 2005 amended
complaint now also names as defendants: Nathan Gantcher, Banc of
America Securities LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities
Inc., Sandler O'Neill & Partners, LP, HSBC Securities (USA)
Inc., William Blair & Company LLC, Harris Nesbitt Corp., CMG
Institutional Trading LLC, Samuel A. Ramirez & Company Inc.,
Muriel Siebert & Co. Inc. LP, and Utendahl Capital Partners LP.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Refco and
the defendants violated federal securities laws, causing
investors to purchase stock in reliance on a false prospectus.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, defendants knew and concealed deficient and defective
internal operational controls in existence at the Company for a
period of several years before the commencement of the Company's
IPO and that the Company's deficient internal operational
controls concealed the true picture of the Company's financial
progress and business prospects, among other allegations.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein of Scott + Scott, LLC,
Phone: 1-800-332-2259, ext. 22 or (cell) +1-619-251-0887, E-
mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com, or Institutional Investors:
InstitutionalInvestors@scott-scott.com.


REFCO INC.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of Refco, Inc. ("Refco" or the
"Company") (NYSE:RFX) common stock during the period between
August 11, 2005 and October 18, 2005 (the "Class Period"),
including those who purchased the common stock of Refco pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering
("IPO") on or about August 11, 2005, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The complaint charges certain of Refco's officers and directors
with violations of the federal securities laws. Refco provides
execution and clearing services for exchange-traded derivatives;
and brokerage services in the fixed income and foreign exchange
markets in the United States, Bermuda, and the United Kingdom.

The complaint alleges that Refco went public via an IPO in
August 2005. A mere three months later, on October 10, 2005,
Refco announced that Phillip R. Bennett, its Chief Executive
Officer ("CEO"), Chairman and controlling shareholder, was being
placed on a leave of absence and that the Company had
discovered, purportedly 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
transaction, its prior financial statements should not be relied
upon.

According to the complaint, on or about August 10, 2005, Refco
filed with the SEC a Form S-1/A Registration Statement (the
"Registration Statement"), for the IPO. On or about August 11,
2005, the Prospectus with respect to the IPO, which forms part
of the Registration Statement, became effective and 26.5 million
shares of Refco common stock were sold to the public, thereby
raising approximately $583 million. According to the complaint,
the Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO was materially
false and misleading for several reasons, including the fact
that in a section entitled "Certain Relationships and Related
Transactions," the Prospectus purported to detail all of the
related-party transactions concerning its business, but failed
to disclose the related-party loan of $430 million to an entity
controlled by Bennett. As detailed in the complaint, Refco has
now admitted that its financial statements as of and for the
periods ended February 28, 2002, February 28, 2003, February 28,
2004, February 28, 2005 and May 31, 2005 should no longer be
relied upon and will be restated. This amounts to an admission
that those financial statements were materially false and
misleading when issued. In response to these announcements, the
price of Refco common stock declined precipitously falling from
$28.56 per share to $15.60 per share on extremely heavy trading
volume.

On October 13, 2005, the Company issued a press release
announcing that it had hired advisors and imposed a 15-day
moratorium on all activities, including customer withdrawals, of
Refco Capital Markets, Ltd. In response to this announcement the
price of Refco common stock declined an additional $2.95 per
share to $7.90 per share on extremely heavy trading volume. On
October 17, 2005, Refco announced that the Company and certain
of its subsidiaries had filed for protection under Chapter 11 of
the United States Bankruptcy Code.

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


TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Glancy Binkow Files Fraud Suit in KY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Tempur-Pedic International, Inc.
("Tempur-Pedic" or the "Company") (NYSE:TPX) between April 22,
2005 and September 19, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Tempur-Pedic 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 concerning Tempur-Pedic's financial performance and
prospects caused the Company's stock price to become
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. Tempur-
Pedic designs and sells "visco-elastic" mattresses which are
made of foam-like material that contours to the shape of an
object, and are marketed as more comfortable and orthopedically
superior to traditional innerspring mattresses. Although Tempur-
Pedic had been unchallenged in its niche and grew its business
rapidly, Defendants allayed growing investor concerns by
reiterating aggressive sales and earnings guidance for 2005,
even after the Company had begun to experience a slowdown, and
by misrepresenting that Tempur-Pedic's business was not
suffering from the effects of competition.

The Complaint alleges 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 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.

On 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 -- or at least not a large enough impact to
lower its 2005 guidance 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,
from $16.38 per share on July 19, 2005, to $11.70 per share on
July 20, 2005, on unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy or Michael Goldberg
of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars,
Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or
(888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site:
http://www.glancylaw.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  * * *