---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, June 24, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 124


                            Headlines

4049705 CANADA: IL Court Sends Directory Scam Operator To Jail
ABE'S CAJUN: Recalls Frozen Gumbo Due To Undeclared Allergen
AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL: Recalls 9T Fireworks Due to Injury Hazard
ARIZONA: Parents Sue State to Cover Incontinence Brief Costs
AUSTRALIA: Gambling Support Group To Sue Tasmanian Gov't, Others

BATTERY-BIZ INC.: Recalls 10,000 Batteries Due to Fire Hazard
CANADA: Saskatchewan Game Farmers To Sue Provincial Government
CIM INSURANCE: IL Court to Hear Dismissal Motion For Peach Case
COCA-COLA CO.: Colombia, India Allegations Affect MI Contracts
CYBERONICS INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Suit in S.D. TX

FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Recalls 496 Trailers Due To Crash Hazard
FLORIDA: Tampa Resident Files Unfair Trade Suit V. Hospitals
FORD MOTOR: NHTSA To Probe Expedition Windshield Wiper Defect
FORD MOTOR: CA Court Approves Intake Manifold Lawsuit Settlement
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 14T Vehicles Due to Noncompliant Brakes

GUIDANT CORPORATION: Seeger Weiss Files Suit Over Defibrillators
INDIAN TRUST FUND: Native American Leaders Present Cobell Pact
INTERPLASTICS CORPORATION: OH Residents Receive $2M Settlement
JK HARRIS: Settles MO Attorney General's Deceptive Ads Lawsuit
KENTUCKY HOUSEHOLDS: FTC Upholds Ruling on Antitrust Complaint

LAZARD LTD.: Shareholders Initiate Securities Suits in S.D. NY
MICHELIN NORTH: Canadian Pension Plan Members File Fraud Lawsuit
MID BUS: Recalls 2,706 2002-2005 Buses Due to Defective Switches
MONACO COACH: Recalls Motor Homes For Failing Safety Standard
OLD SOUTH: Customers Lodge $5M Lawsuit Over Salmonella Outbreak

ORIENTAL HOUSE: Recalls Dried Vegetables For Undeclared Sulfites
PATHMARK STORES: Shareholders Commence Lawsuit V. Buyout in DE
PEMSTAR INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in MN
TAIPEI: Restaurant Owners File Suit V. Councilor Over Fake Video
VEHICLE SAFETY: Recalls 360 VSM 4464RC Lamps For Noncompliance

WISCONSIN: Firms to File Racial Bias Suit V. Financing Companies

                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cape Sets Up GBP40MM Asbestos Claims Fund
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CT City Attempts to Halt Illegal Removal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie Enters New US$355Mil Debt Deal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UIC Study Reveals No Risk at IL Beach Park
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Experts Warn of Silica as "Next Asbestos"

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Navy Veteran Demands Benefits from MOD
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Park-Ohio, Subsidiaries Face 1,000 Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie Asbestos Fund Signing Delayed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Critics See Signs of Hope in Madison County
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Clash on Firms' Contributions Imperils Bill

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal Plan Could Replace MD Claims System
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Raytech Corp's 1st Qtr. Profit Edges Higher
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Pub Worker Penalized for Dumping Waste
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace to Benefit from Trust Fund Bill
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Corp. Files Reorganization Plan

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Witness Admits False Testimony in NY Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maine Court Grants Widow's Remand V. Viacom
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alarm Hits IA School Over Dumping Incident
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Precision Castparts Defends Against Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Canadian Asbestos Mine Site Poses No Risk

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ADFA Leads Plan for Asbestos Certification
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodyear's Liability in 2004 Costs $226.3M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NZ Island to Reopen After Asbestos Scare
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Railroad Worker Files FELA Suit Against CSX
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Expert Warns of Worsening Asbestos Epidemic

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB to File Final Asbestos Plan on June 24
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Soil Cleanup Begins at Gluek Park in Minn.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HI School Project Raises Health Concerns
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CT Court Holds GE Releases Legally Binding
ASBESTOS ALERT: GA Agency Files Charges for Asbestos-laden Dam

ASBESTOS ALERT: KY Court Remands Case V. 2 Distributor Companies
ASBESTOS ALERT: HSE Imposes GBP2,000 Penalty on Enviraz Scotland

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

AUTHENTIDATE HODINGS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in NY
AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in NY
CARRIER ACCESS: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO
CONAGRA FOODS: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NE
CONAGRA FOODS: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NE

CORN PRODUCTS: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
CYBERONICS INC.: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in TX
DRDGOLD LTD.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
HARLEY-DAVISON INC.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Suit in WI
INPUT/OUTPUT INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in NY

MAGMA DESIGN: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in CA
OCA INC.: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA
OCA INC.: Lockridge Grindal Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in LA
PEMSTAR INC.: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in TX
WILLBORS GROUP: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in TX


                           *********


4049705 CANADA: IL Court Sends Directory Scam Operator To Jail
--------------------------------------------------------------
The operator of a Canadian business directory scam who
previously was ordered jailed by a U.S. district judge for
violating a court-imposed asset freeze has been ordered to pay
$2.9 million to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in consumer
redress. He also faces criminal mail and wire fraud charges in
the Southern District of Illinois.

In July 2004, the Federal Trade Commission charged a group of
Canadian defendants, including Terrence Croteau, with scamming
small businesses and charities in the United States out of
millions of dollars by billing them for business directory
services they did not order or authorize, in violation of
federal law. The FTC charged that the defendants refused
consumers' requests to cancel the services, and used an in-house
collections department to harass consumers whose accounts
allegedly were past-due.

U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly granted the FTC's
request for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
Injunction in the case, barring the illegal practices and
freezing the defendants' assets. In November 2004, Judge
Kennelly found the defendants in contempt of court and ordered
Mr. Croteau jailed for violating the court-imposed asset freeze
when he transferred five real estate properties in Welland,
Ontario, Canada, to another corporation, which then listed them
for sale.  Mr. Croteau remained at large until June 10, 2005,
however, when he was arrested by federal marshals at the Newark,
New Jersey airport.

Prior to that, on May 19, 2005, Judge Kennelly entered a final
judgment in the Commission's case that permanently bans Mr.
Croteau and his companies from the business directory business,
bars deceptive or misleading claims, bars the defendants from
attempting to collect payment for listings in any business
directory, bars them from selling or sharing their "customer"
lists and orders them to give up $2,931,568 in ill-gotten gains,
including $55,083.76 that had previously been deposited into the
Court's Registry.

The United States Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois
indicted Mr. Croteau on charges related to the business
directory scam on June 21,2005.  Mr. Croteau was charged with
conspiracy, twenty counts of wire fraud, four counts of mail
fraud, one count of use of a false and fictitious name in
furtherance of mail fraud, two counts of mailing or transmitting
threatening communications, and one count of making harassing
telephone calls. He is being detained on the criminal charges in
the Southern District of Illinois.

The corporate defendants in this case are 4049705 Canada Inc.,
d/b/a Pinacle, 3782484 Canada Inc, d/b/a M.D.S.C. Publishing.

The FTC received significant assistance in this case from the
Niagara Regional Police Service, Ontario, Canada, and from the
Toronto Strategic Partnership, a cross-border fraud law
enforcement partnership which, in addition to the FTC, includes
the Ontario Provincial Police, Anti-Rackets Section; the Toronto
Police Service Fraud Squad; the Ontario Ministry of Consumer and
Business Services; the Competition Bureau of Canada; the York
Regional Police Service Fraud Squad; the United States Postal
Inspection Service; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and the
U.K. Office of Fair Trading.

Copies of the complaint and final judgment and order for
permanent injunction are available from the FTC's Web site at
http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's Consumer Response
Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent
fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the
marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot,
stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish
(bilingual counselors are available to take complaints), or to
get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-
free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form
at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing,
identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer
Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of
civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and
abroad.  For more details, contact Claudia Bourne Farrell,
Office of Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2181 or Todd M.
Kossow, FTC Midwest Region by Phone: 312-960-5616, or by E-mail:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/06/pinacle.htm.


ABE'S CAJUN: Recalls Frozen Gumbo Due To Undeclared Allergen
------------------------------------------------------------
Abe's Cajun Boudin, a Lake Charles, Louisiana, firm, is
voluntarily recalling approximately 13,455 pounds of frozen
chicken and sausage gumbo because the products are mislabeled
and may contain an undeclared allergen (shrimp), the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced in a statement.

The products subject to recall, chicken and sausage gumbo, may
instead be shrimp gumbo, but the product labels do not list
shrimp as an ingredient. Persons who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to seafood run the risk of possible allergic
reactions if they consume this product.  The products are 9-
pound cases and 12-ounce packages of "Tony Chachere's Creole
Style, Chicken and Sausage Gumbo, Single Serving." Each package
bears the code, "P-13251" inside the USDA mark of inspection.

The gumbo was produced over a period of nine days between June
22, 2004, and March 31, 2005, and the packages have a tuck in
flap closure. Packages with a glued flap closure are not subject
to recall. The products subject to recall were distributed to
retail stores in Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Oklahoma and Texas.

The problem was discovered by a consumer. FSIS has received no
reports of illness or allergic reactions associated with
consumption of these products.

Media with questions about the recall should contact company
President Mark Abraham at (337) 477-9296, ext. 11. Consumers
with questions about the recall should contact Ms. Mitzi Midkiff
in the company's customer relations office at (337) 477-9296
ext. 30.  Consumers with other food safety questions can phone
the toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854). The hotline is available in English and
Spanish and can be reached from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern
Time), Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are
available 24 hours a day.


AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL: Recalls 9T Fireworks Due to Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), American Promotional Events Inc., of Florence, Alabama
is voluntarily recalling about 9,000 units of Bat Out of Hell
and Powder House fireworks.

These fireworks devices could unexpectedly tip over during use,
posing a serious injury hazard to consumers.

The recall involves Bat Out of Hell fireworks with model number
CP1129 and Powder House fireworks with model number CP1130. The
model number is printed on all four sides of the device above
the warning label. These are 1.4g consumer fireworks devices
that consist of 16 multiple shots in the shape of a square cube.
The name of the product is printed on the packaging, along with
the word "TNT."

Manufactured in China, the fireworks were sold at all fireworks
retailers, including display stands and tents in states
permitting the sale of consumer fireworks, from May 2005 through
June 2005 for about $20.

Return the recalled fireworks to the store where purchased for a
full refund or contact American Promotional Events for
instructions.

Consumer Contact: American Promotional Events at (800) 243-1189
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.TNTFireworks.com,Firm's Media
Contact: Dennis Revell, (916) 443-3816.


ARIZONA: Parents Sue State to Cover Incontinence Brief Costs
------------------------------------------------------------
The Arizona Center for Disability Law initiated a class action
lawsuit against the state over what parents of children with
developmental disabilities believe is a critical need that
should be covered by the state's Medicaid system, The KVOA.com
reports.

The suit demands that the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment
System pay for incontinence briefs for disabled children.
Currently in almost 40 other states the cost is covered by the
state themselves.

AHCCCS programs receive federal dollars to provide disabled
children with all medically necessary care and supplies, but
AHCCCS doesn't consider incontinence briefs medically necessary.
However, parents of children who need them called the statement
ridiculous because diapers protect children from skin rashes and
sores.  Court documents revealed that the class action lawsuit
demands AHCCCS not only cover incontinence briefs, but reimburse
all the parents who've been paying for these briefs themselves.

Jerri Schulz, a Tucson parent, told KVOA.com, "It's a moral
issue as well that these are federal dollars that the Medicaid
program receives, and they should be spent on children who need
them."


AUSTRALIA: Gambling Support Group To Sue Tasmanian Gov't, Others
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sydney-based gambling support group Duty of Care intends to file
a planned class action against the Tasmanian government and 21
other respondents, over the alleged harm caused to people
addicted to poker machines, Australian Broadcasting Corporation
News reports.

The suit seeks compensation from state governments, gaming
machine manufacturers and industry associations for harm caused
to people addicted to poker machines.

Duty of Care's spokeswoman, Lana O'Shanassy, says 90 per cent of
people who seek counseling blame their problems on poker
machines.  Ms O'Shanassy says the group is seeking a ban on the
machines, and possibly compensation for gambling addicts.

"As an individual they have no recourse legally or otherwise
because they're not provided with receipts for purchase, they
don't understand how gaming machines work, and their families
are affected also," she told Australian Broadcasting Corporation
News.


BATTERY-BIZ INC.: Recalls 10,000 Batteries Due to Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Battery-Bizr Inc., of Newbury Park, California is
voluntarily recalling about 10,000 Hi-Capacityr rechargeable
notebook computer batteries.

An internal short can cause the battery cells to overheat,
posing a fire hazard to consumers. Battery-Bizr has received six
reports of batteries overheating and melting.

The recalled lithium ion, Hi-Capacityr brand rechargeable
batteries are used with various well-known, brand name notebook
computers. The recalled batteries include those with part
numbers B-5301, B-5333, B-5340, B-5341, B-5342, B-5344, B-5345,
B-5346, B5461, B-5615, B-5896 or B-5942/LI; the lot numbers
10098, 10198 or 10230; and the date codes listed below. The part
number, lot number and date code can be found on the main label,
in one of the following combinations:

Reorder Part Number = 5 Digit Lot Code = 3 Digit Date Code
B-5301 = 10198 = 04O
B-5333 = 10098 = 07N, 08N, 09N, 10N, 11N, 12N, 01O, 02O, 03O,
                 04O
       = 10198 = 07N, 08N, 09N, 10N, 11N
B-5340 = 10198 = 07N, 08N, 09N, 10N, 11N, 12N, 01O
B-5341 = 10198 = 04O
B-5342 = 10098 = 01O, 02O, 03O, 04O
B-5344 = 10198 = 11N, 12N, 01O, 02O
B-5345 = 10198 = 08N, 09N, 03O
B-5346 = 10098 = 01O, 02O, 03O, 04O
B-5346 = 10098 = 01O, 02O, 03O, 04O
       = 10198 = 08N, 09N, 10N
B-5461 = 10230 = 01N, 02N, 03N, 04N, 05N, 06N, 07N, 08N, 09N,
                 10N, 11N, 12N
B-5615 = 10198 = 10N, 11N, 12N, 01O, 02O
B-5896 = 10198 = 02O
B-5933 = 10230 = 01N, 02N, 03N, 04N, 05N, 06N, 07N, 08N, 09N
B-5942/LI = 10198 = 03O, 040, 05O

Manufactured and Assembled in China, Korea and Taiwan, the
batteries were sold at various national and regional resellers,
retail stores and online stores from January 2004 through May
2005 for between $70 and $199.

Consumers should stop using the recalled batteries immediately
and contact Battery-Bizr to arrange for a replacement battery,
free of charge. After removing the recalled battery for their
notebook computer, consumers can continue to use it with the AC
power adapter until a replacement battery arrives.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Battery-
Bizr at (800) 780-6552 between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. PT Monday
through Friday or log on to the Hi-Capacity Web site:
http://www.hi-capacity.com/exchangeto check the battery's
serial number and apply for a replacement unit.


CANADA: Saskatchewan Game Farmers To Sue Provincial Government
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saskatchewan game farmers are preparing to file a multimillion-
dollar class action against the provincial government, relating
to substantial losses they sustained as a result of an invalid
indemnification and release clauses attached to a mandatory
registration form for the Saskatchewan Cervid Chronic Wasting
Disease Surveillance and Registration program, the Meridian
Booster reports.

In December, the Court of Queen's Bench ordered the provincial
government to revive and restore the game farming industry's
balance.  The government allegedly has not acted on the ruling.

Maidstone-area elk rancher Roger Holland announced Wednesday
last week that the eligible producers intend to pursue a class
action against the government. "We are pursuing a hefty lawsuit
. we are not standing still and we hope to have the class action
certified this fall and then after that we prepare for trial,"
Mr. Holland, the group's representative plaintiff, said,
according to the Meridian Booster. "We are very confident going
into this lawsuit because we are right, we have been proven
right and now we are pressing for the compensation we are
entitled to."

Mr. Holland told the Meridian Booster that signatures were
already adding up with more than 100 game farmers being eligible
at an average of $500,000 per farm - potentially totaling in
excess of $50 million.  His own operation, the Blue Spruce Elk
Farm, is seeking for slightly more than $1 million in
compensation for feed, animals and induced stress.  The group is
also working with an economist who designed a formula for
determining appropriate compensation based on herd numbers and
status as of July 31, 2003, when the program shifted from
voluntary to mandatory.

At that time, Mr. Holland was raising 215 head of elk on the top
level of a seven-tier system and would have been considered
Certified in 2006.  He refused to sign the controversial
agreement and as a result, his farm was blacklisted and placed
under surveillance status despite having no signs of CWD.  The
surveillance label restricted his ability to sell animals and
caused his herd to dwindle to its current state of 111 head, the
Meridian Booster reports.

"If you signed that form you were basically insuring the
Saskatchewan government and their employees," Mr. Holland told
the Meridian Booster.  "One example a lawyer gave me was saying
an inspector comes to my farm and we are out looking at the elk
when his vehicle suddenly catches on fire and burns my yard
down. I'm responsible for the fire, all the damages and I have
to replace his vehicle."

Opposition Saskatchewan Party MLA Mike Chisholm said the
government was out of line in putting that much pressure and
responsibility on producers.  "It was an unreasonable waiver
they were forcing on all producers and now somebody has to be
responsible for the losses to the farmers who were right in not
signing it," he said, adding Alberta and Manitoba governments
wisely left the program voluntary, the Meridian Booster reports.
"This should have been the kind of agreement producers wanted to
sign knowing the government was going to work with them on
maintaining and building the game farm industry. Instead, the
level system and the unnecessary clauses were nothing more than
a bunch of road blocks in the industry's way."

Mr. Chisholm said the headaches caused by the fine print within
the mandatory legislation may not have been as accidental as the
government has made them out to be.  "Even though the
government's position is that they are in favour of game
farming, I think there are a lot of people within the government
who are opposed to game farming and these clauses were one more
way to limit that potential business," he said.  "A lot of these
producers were told by their lawyers that they would be silly to
sign the form because it basically said if there was ever CWD
found on their property it would be their complete
responsibility."

The Saskatchewan government and agriculture minister Mark
Wartman declined comment on the class action, citing their case
would be presented in the court of law, the Meridian Booster
reports.


CIM INSURANCE: IL Court to Hear Dismissal Motion For Peach Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Court Judge Nicholas Byron will hear CIM
Insurance's motion to dismiss a class action on June 29, The
Madison County Record reports.

CIM, represented by Stephen Mudge of Reed, Armstrong, Gorman,
Mudge and Morrissey of Edwardsville, is accused of violating the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act in a suit that was filed by Armettia
Peach in September 2002. The six-count suit, which seeks up to
$75,000 per count, per class member, stems from CIM's sale of
extended protection plans.  Armettia Peach is the mother of
Ashley Peach, who has filed three class action lawsuits in
Madison County against retailers.

As reported in the April 11, 2005 edition of the Class Action
Reporter, the hearing was originally scheduled for April 15,
however it was reset for May 27. Mrs. Peach's attorney though,
Daniel Cohen of the Lakin Law Firm, had asked it be rescheduled
on both occasions.

In her suit Mrs. Peach alleges the company misrepresented that
it would receive the full amount paid for an "Extended
Protection Plan," (EPP) when in fact Enterprise Car Sales in
Glen Carbon--where she purchased a vehicle--kept some of the
money. Enterprise acted as an agent for CIM.

In addition, she claims that the protection plan contract was
"inherently deceptive" because it falsely leads consumers to
believe EPPs are "pass through" charges paid to CIM. She further
claims in her complaint, "Listing the cost of the EPP in
conjunction with other non-negotiable items (such as licenses
and taxes) suggests that charges for EPPs are similar in nature
and thus non-negotiable pass through charges."


COCA-COLA CO.: Colombia, India Allegations Affect MI Contracts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beverage giant The Coca Cola Co. is willing to examine its labor
and business practices in India and Colombia in order to retain
its $1.3 million worth of contracts with the University of
Michigan, Newsday reports.

For years, the Company has faced questions about its labor
practices abroad.  Last year, Students Organizing for Labor and
Economic Equality filed a complaint, charging the Company:

     (1) drains the water table in India, causing farmers'
         crops to go dry;

     (2) distributes bottling plant sludge containing
         contaminants to Indian farmers as fertilizer;

     (3) sells products that contain pesticides in India; and

     (4) conspires with paramilitary groups in Colombia to
         harass and harm union members.

The complaint was the basis for the university's decision late
last week that it would renew contracts with the Company only on
a conditional basis until it performs an independent audit and
puts a corrective plan in place, Frank Stafford, chairman of the
school's Vendor Code of Conduct Dispute Review Board told
Newsday.

The Company has repeatedly denied allegations of environmental
and human rights abuses, but officials said they would look into
the matter.  "Although we believe the allegations that led to
their decision will ultimately be proven to be untrue, we
appreciate the manner in which the dispute review board has
engaged with our company in researching the allegation," Coca-
Cola spokeswoman Kari Bjorhus said, according to Newsday.

At Coke's annual meeting in April, Chief Executive Neville
Isdell promised to continue to listen to the critics, though he
insisted there is no proof of their claims. Even so, Mr. Isdell
conceded that the Company's best efforts to put the questions to
rest have not been successful.

"The main issue . is that the university is pandering to
corporate interests and not necessarily to its constituents, the
students," said Saamir Rahman, a 19-year-old junior and member
of the group, Newsday reports.


CYBERONICS INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Suit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cyberonics, Inc. faces a securities class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock from June
15,2004 to October 1,2004.

According to a press release dated June 17, 2005, the complaint
alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
during the Class Period by failing to disclose and
misrepresenting material adverse facts known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them, including that defendants were
engaged in serious violative manufacturing and quality practices
that would have a serious negative impact on prospects for the
Company's VNC product approval and that, while well aware of
true nature of the serious issues facing FDA approval of the VNC
system for the depression indication, Company insiders sold over
$1.98 million worth of Company stock during the Class Period. As
a result, the Complaint alleges, the value of the Company's
stock was materially and artificially inflated during the Class
Period.

The Company engages in the design, development, and
commercialization of medical devices, which claim to provide
therapy, Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS), for the treatment of
epilepsy and other debilitating neurological and psychiatric
disorders.

The suit is styled `Richard Darquea, et al. v. Cyberonics, Inc.,
et al., case no. 05-CV-02121," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, under Judge
Sim Lake.  Representing the plaintiffs are Finkelstein & Krinsk
LLP, 501 West Broadway, Suit 1250, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone:
877.493.5366, Fax: 619.238.5425; and Scott & Scott LLC, P.O. Box
192, 108 Norwich Avenue, Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone:
860.537.5537, Fax: 860.537.4432, E-mail:
scottlaw@scott-scott.com.


FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Recalls 496 Trailers Due To Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fleetwood Enterprises is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily recalling
496 travel trailers, namely:

     (1) FLEETWOOD / PROWLER, model 2004-2005

     (2) FLEETWOOD / TERRY, model 2004-2005

     (3) FLEETWOOD / WILDERNESS, model 2004-2005

These Fifth Wheel Travel Trailers have missing welds on the
chassis cross-members.  This condition can cause the cross-
member to become dislodged, creating a road hazard if the
trailer is in transit, which could result in a crash.

Lippert Components, in conjunction with the Company, will
inspect the cross-members for missing welds, repair the welds if
necessary and add additional support to the affected area.  The
recall is expected to begin on July 8,2005.  For more details,
contact NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


FLORIDA: Tampa Resident Files Unfair Trade Suit V. Hospitals
------------------------------------------------------------
A Tampa, Florida resident filed a lawsuit against two Florida
hospitals, alleging they unfairly charged him far more than
other patients because he had no health insurance, the St.
Petersburg Times (Tampa Bay) reports.

Jamie O. Sosa filed the suit against Bayfront Medical Center in
St. Petersburg and St. Joseph's Hospital in Tampa, after he was
taken to both hospitals after two motorcycle accidents.  Mr.
Sosa's bill allegedly totaled nearly $80,000.

Mr. Sosa's suit is the latest in several suits filed nationwide
against hospitals that charge uninsured patients more than those
with insurance.  Because insurance companies negotiate discounts
with hospitals, consumer advocates say, it's the uninsured - who
usually lack insurance because they are too poor - who are hit
with the biggest bills.

"With a debt like this, most of these uninsured patients are
being forced into bankruptcy," Mr. Sosa's attorney, Dan Clark of
Tampa, told St. Petersburg Times. "He has collection (agency)
efforts being brought against him."

The suit purports to be a class action filed on behalf of other
uninsured patients.  The suit charges the hospitals with
violations of state laws against deceptive and unfair trade.

St. Joseph's billed Mr. Sosa, a 22-year-old delivery driver,
$13,881.73 for an overnight stay, while Bayfront billed him
$64,701.27 after he spent 12 days there, according to the
lawsuit.

Patients like Mr. Sosa wind up facing bills that are typically
300 to 400 percent higher than those of patients with insurance,
Mr. Clark told the St. Petersburg Times.  "These are not-for-
profit institutions placing people into a situation where if
they don't pay, they have to take steps (such as bankruptcy).
It's unreasonable and it's unfair," he said.

Officials at Bayfront and St. Joseph's would not comment
specifically Monday on the lawsuit, which also names Bayfront
Health System and BayCare Health System, the network to which
St. Joseph's belongs, St. Petersburg Times reports. Both
hospitals say they have policies to help low-income patients.

Bayfront has a discount program for uninsured patients,
spokeswoman Kanika Tomalin told St. Petersburg Times.  The
hospital looks for government assistance programs patients are
eligible for and charges them on a sliding scale based on the
patient's ability to pay, she said.

Ms. Tomalin said because the discounts are done on a case-by-
case basis, it's hard to say whether an uninsured patient is
charged more than an insured one once the discount is applied.
"Collection agencies are used as a last resort," she told the
Times, only when patients have not made any effort to pay.

St. Joseph's has a medical assistance program to help low-income
patients, and patients are told about it when they get their
bills, spokeswoman Lisa Patterson told the Times.


FORD MOTOR: NHTSA To Probe Expedition Windshield Wiper Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
initiated an investigation into a potential defect affecting
windshield wipers of the popular Ford Expedition sports utility
vehicle, Newsday reports.

The NHTSA has received 20 complaints about the water leaking
into the vehicle near the windshield during rain or snow
showers.  This defect has caused the wipers and other electrical
components to malfunction.

The Company said the problems could affect about 650,000
vehicles from the 1999 to 2001 model years, Newsday reports.
Ford spokeswoman Kristen Kinley said the Company was cooperating
with the investigation in an attempt to learn what is causing
the problems. She said there had been no injuries or accidents
associated with the issue.

NHTSA also said it was investigating potential problems
involving the malfunction indicator lamp in the 2004 Land Rover
Discovery II -- part of Ford's Premier Automotive Group.  Larry
Rosinski, a Land Rover spokesman, told Newsday there have been
reports of the malfunction indicator lamp in the onboard display
near the dashboard failing to illuminate. He said it involves
nearly 51,000 vehicles and the problem is likely a software
issue.  He said there have been no accidents or injuries
reported.


FORD MOTOR: CA Court Approves Intake Manifold Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California preliminarily approved several related class action
lawsuits concerning the composite intake manifold installed on
certain Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury vehicles. It is alleged that
their composite intake manifolds were prone to premature
cracking and failure. The intake manifold routes air to the
engine's cylinders where an air-fuel mixture then ignites to
produce the combustion necessary to power the engine. The lead
case is Chamberlan v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. C 03-2628 CW.

If the Proposed Settlement is finally approved at the Fairness
Hearing, Class Members who currently own or lease a Class
Vehicle will receive a retroactive extension of the new vehicle
warranty coverage on the air intake manifolds. The warranty
extension will be for seven years from the date of the initial
sale, unlimited mileage and will allow vehicle owners to obtain
a cost-free replacement for any intake manifold that has fatigue
cracks and is leaking coolant. Also, Ford will reimburse Class
Members who have previously paid to replace a composite intake
manifold on a Class Vehicle under certain circumstances.

All persons living in the United States who own or lease (or
owned or lease) a Ford, Lincoln, or Mercury between 1996 and
2002 could potentially be a Class Member. The cars must be
equipped with a 4.6-liter, 2-valve V-8 engine having a composite
air intake manifold as original equipment. The affected Ford
models include:

CAR AND MODEL YEAR

     (1) Mercury Grand Marquis 1996-2001

     (2) Lincoln Town Car 1996-2001

     (3) Ford Crown Victoria 1996-2001

     (4) Mercury Cougar; Ford Thunderbird and Mustang 1997
         (build date after 6/24/97)

     (5) Ford Mustang 1998-2001 (some vehicles)

     (6) Ford Explorer 2002 (some vehicles)

Co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel Richard Dorman of Cunningham,
Bounds, Yance, Crowder & Brown of Mobile, Ala., explained, "This
is a comprehensive settlement resolving multiple cases over a
number of years and providing very significant benefits not only
to Class Members who currently own or lease a Class Vehicle, but
also to those who previously owned or leased a Class Vehicle and
were required to make repairs. It is important to understand
that you don't necessarily need to have a Class Vehicle in your
driveway right now to be considered a Class Member eligible for
benefits"

Co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel Michael Ram of Levy, Ram, Olson of
San Francisco, Calif., continued, "Current owners should receive
information regarding the case through the mail in the near
future. This information will explain the Settlement and its
benefits in more detail and the legal rights of Class Members.

Individuals with questions may send a written letter to
Plaintiffs' Counsel at: Manifold Class Action, 639 Front Street,
4th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94111 or 1601 Dauphin Street,
Mobile, AL, 36604.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 14T Vehicles Due to Noncompliant Brakes
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 14,000 units
of 2005 Buick Terraza, Chevrolet Uplander, Pontiac Montana and
Saturn Relay vehicles due to noncompliant parking brakes.

According to the ODI, certain sports utility vehicles fail to
conform to the requirements of federal motor vehicle safety
standard no. 135, passenger car brake systems. To meet the
standard, the vehicle must not move for five minutes when
stopped on a steep hill with the parking brake applied and the
vehicle in neutral. Some of the vehicle failed this test. When
the parking brake is released, the driver may notice unintended
braking when accelerating, decelerating, or coasting, and a
noise coming from the rear of the vehicle. Unintended vehicle
could occur increasing the risk of a crash.

As a remedy, dealers will inspect for parking brake lever
spillages at each rear brake caliper and replace the caliper if
lever spillage is identified. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number:
05V287000, Recall Date: JUN 16, 2005.

For more details, contact Buick by Phone: 1-866-608-8080,
Chevrolet by Phone: 1-800-630-2438, Pontiac by Phone:
1-800-620-7668, Saturn by Phone: 1-800-972-8876 or the NHTSA
Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


GUIDANT CORPORATION: Seeger Weiss Files Suit Over Defibrillators
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Seeger Weiss LLP, initiated a class action lawsuit
against Guidant Corporation (NYSE:GDT) and Guidant Sales
Corporation ("Guidant") relating to its manufacturing and sales
of defective defibrillators and is investigating claims against
Medtronic, Inc (NYSE:MDT) of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and
Medtronic USA, Inc. (collectively "Medtronic") and is
considering filing a class action lawsuit against Medtronic
relating to its manufacturing and sales of potentially life-
threatening defects in approximately 87,000 implantable
cardioverter defibrillators ("ICDs") and cardiac
resynchronization therapy defibrillator ("CRT-Ds"), which are
surgically-implanted devices that essentially monitor heart
rhythm and shock or pace the heart into normal rhythm when
patients suffer rapid, life-threatening heart rhythm
disturbances that can lead to cardiac arrest.

Seeger Weiss LLP is investigating the claims and considering
filing a class action lawsuit against Medtronic as a broader
effort to force medical device companies to fully and promptly
disclose the risks of their devices to consumers and to provide
injured consumers compensation for their injuries, education
about the defective devices and medical alternatives, funds to
monitor implanted defective devices that are too risky to be
removed and, where medically appropriate, compensation for
removal and replacement of the devices. Seeger Weiss's actions
are prompted by recent events in the industry, including
announcements in February and May 2005 by two of the World's
leading heart-related medical device manufacturers, Medtronic
and Guidant Corporation, Inc., that they manufactured and
distributed defective ICD and CRT-Ds.
In each instance, the devices were implanted in patients for
months, if not years, before the companies notified patients of
the defects and, in the case of Guidant, the Company has
allegedly admitted that it knew about defects in some devices as
early as 2002, yet failed to disclose those defects to consumers
until May 2005.

The Guidant defects came to light only after a 21-year-old
college student died when his Guidant device failed. Perhaps
just as alarming, since the student's death, it has come to
light that Guidant allegedly continued to distribute one model
of its allegedly defective ICD after it knew of the defect and
had repaired it in newer models. Chris Seeger said, "If this
allegation proves true, Guidant's decision to continue to sell
the devices can be described as nothing short of a coldly
calculated decision to put company profits ahead of public
safety; that decision and the failures of Guidant and Medtronic
generally have rattled the public's confidence in ICD and CRT-D
devices and raises serious doubt as to whether these companies
are willing to meet their legal and ethical obligations to fully
inform their patients about problems with their devices." In
light of this particularly egregious conduct and in an effort to
give voices to consumers who have been injured as a result of
these defective products, Seeger Weiss is investigating and
intends to file both individual and class action lawsuits
against the companies.

The problems in the industry began to unfold in February 2005
when Medtronic notified doctors for the first time of a defect
in approximately 87,000 ICDs and CRT-Ds that were manufactured
between April 2001 and December 2003(a) that may cause the
defibrillators to short out, deplete the battery, and result in
the defibrillators not working without prior warning. If the
devices fail when needed, the risk to the patient is potentially
life threatening. The batteries that operate ICDs and CRT-Ds are
contained in the implanted device and, therefore, to eliminate
the potential defect, the device would have to be surgically
removed from the patient and replaced. According to Medtronic,
over 87,000 of the devices have been distributed worldwide and
approximately 65,000 of the defibrillators were implanted in
patients in the United States. To date, Medtronic has not
recalled the devices and has offered only limited and inadequate
compensation to patients who have had the devices replaced.

On April 16, 2004, Medtronic further announced that it was
recalling two heart defibrillators, the Micro Jewell II Model
7223 Cx and the GEM DR Model 7271 ICDS, because they were linked
to at least four deaths and one injury. Similar to the ICDs and
CRT-Ds at issue in the February announcement, Medtronic said
that some of these defibrillators have failed to charge
properly, which can result in the late delivery or non-delivery
of cardiac shock therapy. The FDA has classified this recall as
a Class I recall, which means that the FDA believes there is a
reasonable probability that the use of the product will cause
serious adverse health consequences or death. Medtronic said
that most of these devices were implanted in 1997 and 1998.
About 1,800 are believed to still be in use.

Seeger Weiss, along with co-counsel, has already taken action on
behalf of Guidant ICD and CRT-D patients by filing a medical
monitoring program and fund class action in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
thousands of patients who were implanted with defective Guidant
defibrillators.
(http://www.seegerweiss.com/cases/Cases.aspx?ID=62).

Seeger Weiss and co-counsel originally filed the class action on
June 10, 2005 and today they intend to file an Amended Complaint
adding additional ICDs and CRT-Ds manufactured by Guidant that
were the subject of disclosures and/or recalls by Guidant on
June 17, 2005. The devices at issue in the Guidant class action
include the Guidant Ventak Prizm 2 DR, Model 1861 ICD
manufactured prior to November 2002; the Guidant Contak Renewal,
Model H135 CRT-D and Contak Renewal 2 Model H155 CRT-D
manufactured on or before August 26, 2004; and Guidant Ventak
Prizm AVT, Guidant Vitality AVT and Guidant Renewal AVT (all
series numbers). See "FDA Issues Nationwide Notification of
Recall of Certain Guidant Implantable Defibrillators and Cardiac
Resynchronization Therapy Defibrillators"
(http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2005/NEW01185.html)for
additional information about the FDA's warnings regarding these
devices.

For more details, contact Christopher A. Seeger, Esq., Eric T.
Chaffin, Esq. or Donald A. Ecklund, Esq. of Seeger Weiss LLP,
One William Street, New York, NY, 10004, Phone: (212) 584-0700
or (877) 541-3273, E-Mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com,
echaffin@seegerweiss.com or decklund@seegerweiss.com, Web site:
http://www.seegerweiss.com.


INDIAN TRUST FUND: Native American Leaders Present Cobell Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prominent Native American leaders joined with the lead
plaintiff, Elouise Cobell, in the landmark "Cobell v. Norton
case," to present the Trust Reform and Cobell Settlement
Workgroup Principles as the basis of legislation that would
resolve the nine-year court battle over the federal government's
admitted failure to account for trust funds held for Native
Americans and reform the national trust management system that
continues to plague Indian tribes and individuals who own
cattle, timber, crops, oil & gas, and other resources on June
20,2005.

Filed in 1996, the Cobell v. Norton lawsuit has secured landmark
victories for individual Indian trust account holders. In a 1999
ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth held that the
government had breached its trust responsibility to the Indians
and owed them a full accounting for funds the government was
supposed to have held for them. That decision, upheld by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, is still
pending before Lamberth who is overseeing the government's
efforts to reform the trust and make the promised accounting. He
is currently holding a hearing into the security of Interior
Department computers that hold trust data. The judge has said
that the government's handling of the trust accounts set "the
gold standard for mismanagement of a government agency." He has
held three Cabinet officers and two Assistant Interior
Secretaries in contempt of court over the issue.

The trust funds belong to an estimated 500,000 individual
Indians -- monies that the government received for the proceeds
from sales and leases of resources from the Indians' lands. The
Principles also set out a number of standards and principles for
tribal and individual trust management.

Tex G. Hall ("Red Tipped Arrow"), president of The National
Congress of American Indians and chairman of the Mandan,
Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation and Jim Gray, chairman of the Inter-
Tribal Monitoring Association, and principal chief of the Osage
Nation along with Elouise Cobell, formed and led a national
working group comprised of national native leaders,
organizations, and individuals who collectively drafted the
Principles.  In addition to Mr. Hall, Mr. Gray, and Ms. Cobell,
other Native American advocates such as Sharon
Clahchischilliage, executive director of the Washington, D.C.
office of the Navajo Nation and John Echohawk, executive
director of the Native American Rights Fund, joined with them to
announce that Indian Country stands in unity behind the
Principles.

All are in strong support of an effort by Congress to write
legislation following the Principles roadmap that would put in
place reforms to the deeply troubled management of Indian land,
resources, and monies and also settle the Cobell v. Norton class
action litigation. The Principles demand needed accountability,
enforceable legal standards, and fairness from the government in
exchange for ending the historic court battle.

The Principles were drafted in response to a request by Sen.
John McCain (R-AZ), chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs
Committee, Sen. Byron Dorgan (D- ND), vice chairman of the
Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA),
chairman of the House Resources Committee, and Rep. Nick Rahall
(D- WV), ranking member of the House Resources Committee who
approached the tribal leaders seeking a permanent solution to
the trust scandal. The lawmakers asked Indian Country to speak
with a unified voice and provide a set of principles that would
guide the lawmakers' drafting of legislation to provide for a
prompt and fair resolution of the trust issue. In the process,
Native American leaders were careful to seek out the advice of
Congressional staff of both Committees. They will transmit the
Principles to Senators McCain and Dorgan, and Representatives
Pombo and Rahall today.

"The courts, Congress, even the Dept. of Interior's own
inspector general have found that the government has mismanaged
the individual Indian trusts for over a century, breached its
duty, permitted rampant fraud, and never accounted for the
monies in the trust," said Ms. Cobell. "For decades, Indians
have suffered at the hands of federal bureaucrats and policies
of delay, obfuscation, and outright misrepresentation, as
repeated judicial decisions have found. Those policies have
placed substantial additional costs on the American taxpayer.
These Principles reflect our long, difficult struggle for
justice, justice that Congress would not tolerate being denied
to any other Americans. The fact that the Courts have repeatedly
said what the government did with our money -- our money -- is
wrong and must be corrected is reflected in these Principles. We
welcome the efforts of Congress to see justice done at long
last. Make no mistake, I intend to continue to aggressively
pursue justice until this matter can be resolved in a manner
that is fair to the many Indian people whose land and money were
misused by the federal government."

"The federal government's mismanagement of the Indian trust
system for the past 125 years has brought tremendous damage and
loss to Native American tribes and individuals across the United
States," said President Hall. "This national injustice has today
resulted in an historic union of Indian nations across the
country and individual Indian allottee organizations, who are
rallying together behind these Principles which stand for
fairness, accountability, restitution, and honesty. Our friends
in Congress challenged all of Indian Country to help draft a
roadmap to justice, and we are proud to say, we have answered
that call."

"Never before have we seen this level of cooperation among
tribes, Indian groups, and individual Indian trust
beneficiaries," said Chief Gray. "The Principles represent a
clear breakthrough, and reflect the importance of our working
with Congress to bring a long overdue, fair, and just resolution
to trust reform and accounting."

"For thousands of individual Indians, including many members of
the Navajo Nation, that are owed monies from the sales and
leases of resources on their lands, a fair accounting and
settlement of the trust funds, and reform of the trust system
with tribal consultation, will make a meaningful difference in
their lives," said Clahchischilliage.

"The longer trust reform and accounting remain unresolved, the
more it will cost and the more difficult it becomes to fix,"
said Echohawk. "The Principles outline a practical and equitable
solution to account for the missing disbursements, and to create
accurate records and accountings going forward."

The text of the Principles is available at:
http://www.indiantrust.com/pdfs/20050620SettlementPrinciples.pdf
Additional information on the Cobell litigation is available at:

     (1) http://www.indiantrust.com,

     (2) the National Congress of American Indians at
         http://www.ncai.org;

     (3) the Inter-Tribal Monitoring Association at
         http://www.itmatrustfunds.org;

     (4) the Navajo Nation at http://www.navajo.org;and

     (5) the Native American Rights Fund at http://www.narf.org

For more details, contact Bill McAllister, by Phone:
1-703-385-6996, for Ms. Cobell, or Chris Stearns for NCAI
President Tex G. Hall, by Phone: 1-202-257-6428 or visit the
Website: http://www.indiantrust.com.

The suit is styled "Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al., on her own
behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. GALE
NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al., case no. 96-1285
(RCL)," filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, under Judge Royce C. Lamberth.
Representing the defendants are Robert E. Kirschman, Jr. and
Sandra Peavler Spooner of the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 1100 L
Street, NW Suite 10008, Washington, DC 20005, Phone:
(202) 616-0328, E-mail: robert.kirschman@usdoj.gov or
sandra.spooner@usdoj.gov.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (i) Mark Kester Brown, 607 14th Street, NW Washington, DC
         20005-2000, Phone: (775) 542-4938, Fax: 202-318-2372,
         E-mail: mkesterbrown@attglobal.net

    (ii) Dennis M. Gingold, 607 14th Street, NW 9th Floor,
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 824-1448, Fax:
         202-318-2372, E-mail: dennismgingold@aol.com

   (iii) Richard A. Guest and Keith M. Harper, NATIVE AMERICAN
         RIGHTS FUND, 1712 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-
         2976, Phone: (202) 785-4166, Fax: 202-822-0068, E-mail:
         richardg@narf.org or harper@narf.org

    (iv) Elliott H. Levitas, KILPATRICK STOCKTON, LLP, 607 14th
         Street, NW Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005 Phone:
         (202)508-5800, Fax: 202-508-5858, E-mail:
         elevitas@kilpatrickstockton.com


INTERPLASTICS CORPORATION: OH Residents Receive $2M Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hundreds of Latonia, Ohio residents have received more than $2
million as a result of the settlement of a class action filed
against Interplastics Corporation related its factory in Fort
Wright, the Cincinnati Post reports.

Covington attorneys Rob and Bob Sanders filed the suit along
with fellow Covington attorney Paul Dickman on behalf of Latonia
residents, alleging that emissions from the company's resin
factory in Fort Wright - formerly Filon-Silmar - was slowly
poisoning residents in their community.  The suit was filed on
behalf of people who either lived or owned property within a
2,000-foot radius of the plant between July 30, 1993, and July
29, 1998.

In August 2004, the suit went to trial and ended a week later
with a $4.75 million settlement between the residents and the
current and former owners of the factory.  Before the trial
started, BP Chemicals, which had owned the plant until October
1993, agreed to pay a $1 million settlement.  The Company, which
bought it from BP, agreed to pay $3.75 million.  The Company
also promised to add controls to significantly reduce future
pollution from the plant.

Rob and Bob Sanders handed out 823 checks at the American Legion
Hall in Latonia last week.  Checks ranged from $327 to over
$13,000. Each eligible person received an individual check. The
remainder went to attorneys' fees and expenses.

"This is the most rewarding part of the job. It's been a long,
hard case that we put thousands of hours into. It's nice to see
the smiles on peoples' faces when they get their checks," Rob
Sanders told the Cincinnati Post.

"Most of them are very happy and surprised that they are getting
a significant sum of money. Usually, in class action suits
people will get a check for a few cents, and they're getting
hundreds and thousands of dollars," he added.  "The best part is
that protective measures have been put into place so these
residents won't have to worry about their health again in the
future."


JK HARRIS: Settles MO Attorney General's Deceptive Ads Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
North Charleston-based JK Harris & Co. will pay about $43,000
and change its advertising practices to settle a lawsuit with
the Missouri attorney general's office, The Associated Press
reports.

In addition, the national tax resolution firm also will pay
$18,118 in restitution to nine Missouri residents who signed up
for debt-relief services and $25,000 to the state of Missouri to
cover attorney fees and other costs.

Under the settlement, JK Harris admitted no wrongdoing but
agreed to abide by that state's law against unfair and
misleading trade practices. In a press statement President John
K. Harris said, "We felt that it was in the best interest of the
company not to litigate this matter further."

According to individuals familiar with the matter, it is the
first settlement in a number of legal actions filed against the
company, which settles tax disputes between clients and the
Internal Revenue Service. JK Harris, which opened in 1997, also
helps clients resolve disputes with creditors.

For quite some time both lines of business drew numerous
complaints that have been filed with the Federal Trade
Commission, Better Business Bureau and South Carolina Department
of Consumer Affairs. Many are claiming that the Company failed
to resolve debt and would not respond to complaints or refund
money.

In Missouri, the Company agreed to change or stop 18 specific
advertising or business practices. For example, it agreed to
stop billing itself as able to "settle consumers' tax debt for
'pennies on the dollar,' or similar representations, unless such
representations are accurate and are neither deceptive nor
misleading."

At least six lawsuits seeking class action status are pending
against JK Harris. In addition, a group of 12 state attorneys
general, including South Carolina Attorney General Henry
McMaster, is investigating the Company. Missouri's attorney
general was not part of that group.


KENTUCKY HOUSEHOLDS: FTC Upholds Ruling on Antitrust Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Trade Commission upheld a July 2004 initial decision
by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) D. Michael Chappell in a
unanimous opinion issued June 22, 2005, ruling that Kentucky
Households Goods Carriers Association, Inc. (Kentucky
Association) engaged in illegal horizontal price-fixing in
violation of the FTC Act, and that the state action doctrine
does not immunize its collective rate-making from prosecution
under federal antitrust laws.

Writing on behalf of the Commission, Chairman Deborah Platt
Majoras wrote, "The principal issue here is whether the state
agency responsible for supervising Respondent's ratemaking
engaged in the necessary `active supervision.' . . . [W]e find
that the state has fallen far short of the conduct needed to
satisfy the active supervision requirement, and therefore the
state action doctrine does not apply." Accordingly, the
Commission ruled that the Kentucky Association must cease and
desist from collective rate-making, and that it be required to
cancel and withdraw all existing tariffs and tariff supplements
on file with the state.

The Supreme Court first articulated the "state action" doctrine
in Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943), which held that, in
light of the States' status as sovereign entities, Congress did
not intend the Sherman Act - a primary U.S. antitrust law - to
apply to the activities of the states themselves. In subsequent
cases, the Court ruled that the activities of private entities
conducted under state authority may be shielded from federal
antitrust scrutiny by the state action doctrine.

States, however, may not simply authorize private parties to
violate the antitrust laws. The Supreme Court has held that the
state action doctrine shields private conduct from the antitrust
laws only when a two-pronged test is satisfied. First, "the
challenged restraint must be `one clearly articulated and
affirmatively expressed as state policy,'" and second, "the
policy must be `actively supervised' by the state itself." In
FTC v. Ticor Title Insurance Co, 504 U.S. 621 (1992), the
Supreme Court clarified that the purpose of the "active
supervision" inquiry "is to determine whether the State has
exercised sufficient independent judgment and control so that
the details of the rates or prices have been established as a
product of deliberate state intervention, not simply by
agreement among private parties."

The Commission's opinion states that the ALJ concluded that "the
Respondent's ratemaking activities constitute unlawful
horizontal price-fixing, and that Respondent is not entitled to
the state action defense. We agree, and affirm the decision of
the ALJ." The opinion continues by stressing the importance of
the state action doctrine, but states that, "By enabling the
displacement of the antitrust laws, however, the doctrine can
also allow the implementation of programs that produce powerful
anticompetitive effects, including higher prices and fewer
choices for consumers."

The opinion describes the case proceedings before the ALJ, the
Respondent's state action claim, and how the state action
doctrine developed through case law over the last 65 years. It
provides background on prior state action cases brought by the
Commission, most notably Indiana Household Movers and
Warehousemen, Inc., Dkt. No. C-4077 (April 25, 2003), before
describing the state supervision process in Kentucky.

"In this case," the Commission writes, "the statute that
authorizes the (Kentucky Transportation Cabinet) to establish
collective ratemaking expressly provides that these procedures
must `assure that respective revenues and costs of carriers . .
. are ascertained.'" Under Kentucky law, the KTC is responsible
for ensuring that every rate charged by carriers is "just and
reasonable. . . The KTC, however, has no formula or methodology
for determining whether the Kentucky Association's collective
rates comply with the statutory standards." The KTC "does not
even obtain data - including the cost and revenue data specified
in the statute - that would enable it to assess the
reasonableness of the Kentucky Association's rates . . . (and)
lacks the procedural elements - such as public input, hearings,
and written decisions - that courts have found to be important
indicators of active state supervision." Accordingly, the FTC
wrote that it agreed with the ALJ that KTC had fallen "far short
of the active supervision required by Ticor, Patrick, Midcal,
and other relevant cases" to support a state action defense.

Finally, the opinion addresses whether the Kentucky
Association's rate-making conduct, if not shielded by the state
action doctrine, violates antitrust laws. The FTC concluded
that, "The fact remains that the majority of Respondent's
members voluntarily engaged in collective tariff filings. This
activity is collective rate-making - concerted activity to fix
or stabilize prices that historically has been condemned as per
se illegal price-fixing . . . the need for formal KTC approval
of proposed tariff filings does not change the fact that the
participating carriers agree on rates they will charge."

The FTC's July 2003 administrative complaint against the
Kentucky Association was one of three complaints filed
concurrently against intrastate household goods movers that
addressed the state action doctrine. According to the
complaints, the associations violated the FTC Act by engaging in
price-fixing in the form of filing tariffs containing collective
rates on behalf of their members. The other complaints were
filed against the Movers Conference of Mississippi and the
Alabama Trucking Association, both of which subsequently entered
into consent orders with the Commission, barring their allegedly
illegal anticompetitive conduct, in October 2003. The Kentucky
Association appealed a July 21, 2004, ruling by ALJ Chappell
that it had engaged in horizontal price-fixing, in violation of
the FTC Act that was not immunized by the state action doctrine.

The Commission vote to approve and issue the opinion was 5-0.
The opinion and final order can be appealed to a U.S. Court of
Appeals.

Copies of the Commission's opinion 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.  For more details, contact Mitchell J.
Katz, Office of Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2161 or visit
the Website: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/06/kentuckymovers.htm


LAZARD LTD.: Shareholders Initiate Securities Suits in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lazard, Ltd., Goldman Sachs & Co. and certain of the Company's
officers and directors face several securities class actions
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities from May 4,2005 to May 12,2005.

Several purported shareholder class action lawsuits have been
filed against the Company, Goldman (the lead underwriter of the
IPO), and certain of the Company's officers and directors,
alleging the defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933 and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a materially
false and misleading Registration and Prospectus in connection
with the Company's IPO, which was priced at $25 per share, and
continuing to conceal material facts about the true value of the
Company's stock price after the stock began to trade on the open
market.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Registration
Statement/Prospectus failed to disclose, among other things,
that:

     (1) the basis for the $25 price for shares sold in the IPO
         was to enable defendant, the Company's Chief Executive
         Officer, to raise sufficient funds to gain control of
         the Company from Michel David Weill ("David Weill"), a
         cousin of the Company's founders;

     (2) that prior to the IPO, market demand had indicated that
         the proper price for the IPO was only $22 per share;

     (3) that to "create a market" and thereby manufacture an
         appearance that Lazard's IPO was fairly and properly
         priced, Goldman arranged to sell millions of shares to
         hedge funds with side agreements that they could
         immediately "flip the shares" and that Goldman would
         immediately buy them back;

     (4) that the Prospectus had failed to adequately and fully
         comply with S-K Item 505 which requires a prospectus to
         describe "the various factors considered in determining
         the offering price" when common shares without an
         established public trading market are being registered;
         and

     (5) that, in violation of Securities and Exchange
         Commission regulations, the Registration
         Statement/Prospectus failed to disclose that the
         Company's deputy Chairman in Europe and a major
         rainmaker of new business for the Company, who had only
         supported the IPO because of a promise (which was later
         reneged on) that he would be appointed as head of
         Lazard's European operations, was likely to leave
         Lazard and/or cause turmoil within the organization as
         he opposed the IPO and opposed the Company's CEO's
         purchase of David Weill's shares.

The complaints further allege that on or around May 12, 2005,
only days after the IPO, and right after Goldman stopped buying
back the Company's shares, the price of the Company's shares
plunged from $25 per share to less than $21 per share.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Arlette Miller, et al. v. Lazard Ltd., et al., case no. 05-CV-
05630," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Victor Marrero.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

    (ii) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         (Melville), 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY,
         11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com

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


MICHELIN NORTH: Canadian Pension Plan Members File Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit against Michelin North America (Canada) Inc. was filed
Monday June 20, 2005 in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia by the
Concerned Pension Group at Michelin (CPGM), a voluntary
association of approximately 570 Michelin Pension Plan members,
Canada Newswire reports.

The court application requests a ruling regarding Michelin's
management and administration of its employee pension plan and
determination of whether the trust plan has been compromised by
surplus funds being diverted to meet required employer
contributions rather than for the exclusive benefit of
employees, former employees and beneficiaries.

CPGM has learned that company mergers, pension plan mergers and
Michelin's failure to maintain separate plan accounting have
further compromised the benefits to both active and retired
members.

In 2003, as a result of various concerns over Michelin's
management and administration of the Michelin Pension Plan, CPGM
sought legal counsel to review plan documents. Lawyers from
Cohen Highley LLP will argue that, contrary to the provisions of
the original plan documents and current plan restatement,
Michelin failed to make required annual employer contributions
but instead funded such contributions through accruing plan
surplus. The London, Ontario based law firm also acted for Royal
Trust pensioners in a class action resulting in a $52 million
settlement payout in 2004. Payment of the company contributions
to the Michelin Pension Plan would result in a substantial
surplus totaling over $350 million available for benefit
enhancements and/or distribution to plan members.

The pensioners are seeking a declaration of their interest in
accruing plan surplus and requiring Michelin to pay to the
pension fund the amount of contribution holidays taken by
Michelin together with accrued interest and to maintain separate
accounting with respect to the Michelin Pension Plan.

Michelin North America (Canada) Inc. is a manufacturer of tires
at its plant in New Glasgow (Granton), Waterville and
Bridgewater, Nova Scotia with distribution and sales of tires
throughout Canada and internationally. The vast majority of
Michelin Pension Plan members and beneficiaries reside in Nova
Scotia.

The Michelin Pension Plan, established in 1972, currently has
approximately 4,000 members with assets valued in excess of $500
million.

A meeting with Cohen Highley legal counsel and CPGM members was
held on June 21, 2005 at 4:30 at the Sharon St. John United
Church Hall, Stellarton, N.S.  For more details about the suit,
contact Iain Sneddon, Partner, Cohen Highley LLP, by Phone:
(519) 672-9330 (office) or (519) 636-4666 (mobile phone).


MID BUS: Recalls 2,706 2002-2005 Buses Due to Defective Switches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mid Bus Corporation in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 2706 units of 2002-05 Mid
Bus Guide DW, Guide SW, Guide XL and SC buses due to
malfunctioning switches.

According to the ODI, on certain buses manufactured between
January 7, 2002 and April 30, 2005, the microswitches used to
internally to position the sign in the open and closed position
may malfunction in extremely cold weather. This can cause the
sign to open or close in an improper position, or to not open at
all. Should it fail to perform properly, a child or pedestrian
maybe endangered by passing motorists if that it fails to notice
the sign.

As a remedy, the company will notify its customers and replace
the original switch with a switch pack that is not sensitive to
extreme cold weather and will inspect to ensure the microswitch
heater wiring is properly connected free of charge. NHTSA
CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V292000, Recall Date: JUN 16, 2005.

For more details, contact Mid Bus by Phone: 419-358-2500 or the
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


MONACO COACH: Recalls Motor Homes For Failing Safety Standard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monaco Coach Corporation is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily
recalling 647 motor homes, namely:

     (1) HOLIDAY RAMBLER / NEPTUNE, model 2006

     (2) MONACO / CAYMAN, model 2006

     (3) SAFARI / CHEETAH, model 2005-2006

     (4) SAFARI / SAHARA, model 2005

These motor homes failed to conform to the requirements of
federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 121, "air brake
systems."  Two delivery lines on the brake system were installed
incorrectly.  This does not meet the standard requirements.

Dealers will switch the port hook-ups of the two delivery lines
on the air brake system.  The manufacturer has not yet provided
an owner notification schedule for this campaign.  For more
details, contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-685-6545 or contact
the NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


OLD SOUTH: Customers Lodge $5M Lawsuit Over Salmonella Outbreak
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Camden restaurant blamed for one of the largest outbreaks of
food-borne illness in South Carolina was slapped with a $5
million lawsuit that seeks class action status, The Associated
Press reports.

According to Robert Phillips, he and the attorneys filing the
suit against the Old South restaurant want to get class
certification so individual cases don't "clog up the courts."

State health officials said undercooked turkey likely caused the
salmonella outbreak where one person died and more than 300
became ill.

The lawsuit, were eight customers were named as plaintiffs
alleges that the restaurant was negligent in failing to store
and inspect its food, maintain proper procedures and safeguards,
and train and supervise its employees.

So far, only one other customer has sued the restaurant. Harry
Gastrich of New Richmond, Ohio, is seeking at least $50,000 in
damages after claiming he got sick after eating at Old South on
May 22 to celebrate his grandson's graduation.

Old South attorney Drew Williams told AP that his clients are
still deciding how to respond to the lawsuits. He adds, "They do
have an insurance policy in place, but we are still looking into
the amount of coverage."

The restaurant closed voluntarily for three weeks in May and
June as the Department of Health and Environmental Control
investigated the salmonella outbreak.  Since reopening two weeks
ago, business has been about average for breakfast and lunch.
The restaurant has stopped serving dinner because they can't
afford to right now, said Jeff Hatfield, one of Old South's
owners. He told AP, "We are hopeful, but we're just not sure of
everything right now. We're just doing what we can do."

The restaurant has gotten help with safety training and public
relations from the Hospitality Association of South Carolina,
according to the group's president Tom Sponseller. He also told
AP, "Can they survive the publicity? Probably, in Camden. The
financial aspects of it, that's totally different."


ORIENTAL HOUSE: Recalls Dried Vegetables For Undeclared Sulfites
----------------------------------------------------------------
New York State Agriculture Commissioner Nathan L. Rudgers
alerted consumers that Oriental House, 1706 Erie Boulevard East,
Syracuse, New York is recalling "Dried Vegetable" due to the
presence of undeclared sulfites. People who have severe
sensitivity to sulfites may run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled "Dried Vegetable," a product of China, is packaged
in a 4-ounce plastic bag. It was sold in the Syracuse area.

Routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and
Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the product
by Food Laboratory personnel revealed the product contained high
levels of sulfites, which were not declared on the label.

The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has
been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.

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


PATHMARK STORES: Shareholders Commence Lawsuit V. Buyout in DE
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pathmark Stores, Inc. (PTMK) faces a shareholder class action
filed in the United States District Court in Delaware, alleging
the supermarket chain failed to disclose a more lucrative buyout
offer than the one holders approved earlier this month, Dow
Jones Newswires reports.

On June 9, Company shareholders approved the sale of a 40%
company stake to Los Angeles investment firm Yucaipa Companies
for $150 million, with the deal closing later that day.  The
stake could increase to 60% if options are exercised.  However,
because Yucaipa is only buying a stake in Pathmark, shareholders
won't see any money from the deal, The New York Times reported.

In a press release Thursday, law firm Berger & Montague PC said
the Company withheld an offer to buy the entire company at $8.75
a share, which the law firm says is worth more than the Yucaipa
offer, valued at about $7 a share.  The law firm further charges
the Company breached fiduciary duties by maintaining its
recommendation of the Yucaipa offer even after the new offer was
placed on the table.

The Company received the offer on June 1 and made the offer
public on June 9 through a regulatory filing. The date fell two
days before shareholders were scheduled to vote on the Yucaipa
bid, The New York Times said.

A Pathmark spokesman told Dow Jones Newswires the Company
believes the lawsuit is without merit and plans to defend
against it.  "We are comfortable with all disclosures we made
and with the process we followed surrounding the review of
strategic alternatives," said Spokesman Harvey Gutman in a
written statement.

Mr. Gutman added that the alternative cashout transaction was
disclosed by the Company in an SEC filing on May 26, which
counters reports from the law firm and the New York Times. Both
parties say the offer was presented to the board on June 1.  The
Company's SEC filing on May 26 said the company received a bid
on May 19 to buy the company at $8.75, but didn't disclose the
potential buyer.

The suit is styled "Rick Hartman, et al. v. Pathmark Stores,
Inc., et al., case no. 05-CV-0403," filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street,
Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone: 800.424.6690, Fax: 215.875.4604,
E-mail: investorprotect@bm.net


PEMSTAR INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in MN
--------------------------------------------------------------
PEMSTAR Inc. and certain of its executive officers face several
securities class actions filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock from January 29,2003 to January
24,2005.

The complaints charge the Company and certain of the Company's
executive officers with issuing materially false and misleading
financial statements to the investing public regarding the
Company's financial condition and outlook in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b 5 promulgated thereunder.

PEMSTAR is a provider of electronics manufacturing services to
OEMs in the communications, computing, data storage, industrial
and medical equipment markets.  Specifically, the complaints
allege that during the Class Period defendants issued numerous
positive statements that misrepresented the true financial
status of the Company and its business prospects. In fact,
throughout the Class Period, PEMSTAR suffered from extensive
liquidity constraints that inhibited the Company's ability to
achieve the necessary gross margin expansion that was required
for the Company to create and sustain accounting profits.  The
Complaints allege that the defendants failed to disclose that
the Company needed gross margins of at least 9% in order to
achieve profitability, a level which defendants knew it was
years away from attaining, if ever. Moreover, defendants further
misrepresented the Company's financial condition by understating
its liabilities associated with its Mexican facilities and
overstating the Company's accounts receivables which had become
materially impaired.

The complaints also allege that, in part, defendants carried out
the fraudulent scheme in order to revive and strengthen the
Company's image, as perceived by its customer base, and enable
the Company to raise much needed capital through the issuance of
its common stock to the public at levels advantageous to the
Company.   The complaints further allege that on or around
January 24, 2005, the Company issued a press release announcing
that it was revising its outlook for the fiscal 2005 third
quarter, implementing additional cost-reduction initiatives and
restating its financial results for its fiscal year ended March
31, 2004, due to accounting discrepancies at its Mexico
facility. By the time the Company made this disclosure, the
Company's common stock had declined nearly 70% from its Class
Period high.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled "The
Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust, et al. v. PEMSTAR, Inc., et al.,
case no. 05-CV-1182," filed in the United States District Court
in Minnesota.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (LA), 1801 Ave. of the
         Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone:
         (310) 201-9150, Fax: (310) 201-9160, E-mail:
         info@glancylaw.com

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

     (3) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr,
         New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com



TAIPEI: Restaurant Owners File Suit V. Councilor Over Fake Video
----------------------------------------------------------------
People First Party (PFP) Taipei City Councilor Mike Wang faces a
class action filed by 46 restaurant operators over a video,
which Mr. Wang allegedly doctored, showing restaurant staff
buying food from a funeral parlor, Taipei Times Taiwan News
reports.

On June 4,2005, a news story, backed up with video footage, was
broadcast, alleging that funeral directors sold food used to
make offerings to the dead at the Taipei First and Second
Municipal Mortuaries to local restaurants.  The video footage,
which showed several men in black T-shirts and jeans collecting
food offerings from the mortuaries and taking them to
restaurants, was later discovered to be fake.

The restaurant owners charged Mr. Wang and his aides with
doctoring the video, causing business in the area to decline.
The restaurant owners said the video damaged their reputations
and hurt their businesses.  The suit was filed in Taipei
District Court, demanding NT$6.64 million in compensation,
including NT$4.6 million for non-material losses.

Chen Yong-hu, the head of the Songjiang Borough where many of
the affected shops were located, launched a campaign June 10 to
collect signatures and demand that Wang pay compensation.

Mr. Wang has yet to respond to the lawsuit, and it has emerged
that many of the signatures collected by Chen were not from food
vendors at all, Taipei Times Taiwan Nws reports. Store owners
from the affected areas have said that business in all sectors
has suffered because of the ugly rumors.

A press release issued by the group of affected store owners at
Taipei District Court said that Mr. Wang should not continue to
shirk responsibility for his actions and settle the issue with
compensation. The group said they continue to be open to
settling the matter out of court.


VEHICLE SAFETY: Recalls 360 VSM 4464RC Lamps For Noncompliance
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Safety Manufacturing, LLC in cooperation with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 360
Model 9999 VSM 4464RC Lamps due to noncompliance with federal
standards.

According to the ODI, certain VSM 4 inch round stop/tail/turn
lamps, P/N 4464RC, which were sold for use as aftermarket
replacement lamps designed for use on the grommet size opening
of trucks 2032mm or more in overall width fail to comply with
the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.
108, lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment. NHTSA
CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05E041000, Recall Date: JUN 15, 2005.

As a remedy, VSM will notify its customers and replace the
noncompliant lamps with lamps that comply with standard 108 free
of charge.

For more details, contact VSM by Phone: 973-643-3000 or the
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


WISCONSIN: Firms to File Racial Bias Suit V. Financing Companies
----------------------------------------------------------------
A series of lawsuits seeking class action status are to be filed
in federal court in Milwaukee, which charges five major
automobile financing companies with discriminating against
African American customers in the Milwaukee area, The American
City Business Journals Inc. reports.

The lawsuits, which are to be filed in U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, accuses the
finance companies and dealers of "engaging in unlawful credit
discrimination and unfair trade practices," according to Habush,
Habush & Rottier S.C. and Emile Banks & Associates L.L.C., the
firms who plan to file the suit.

The firms told the Journals that thousands of minority consumers
in Wisconsin could be affected. They also told the newspaper
that the five lawsuits will name as defendants five auto
financing companies: Ford Motor Credit Co., General Motors
Acceptance Corp., Toyota Motor Credit Co., American Honda
Finance Corp. and Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp.

In addition, they also stated that the lawsuits will also name,
but do not list as defendants, some of area's largest auto
dealers, including Russ Darrow Honda Nissan Suzuki, 9301 W.
Brown Deer Road, Milwaukee; Wilde Toyota Inc., 3225 S. 108th
St., West Allis; Heiser Lincoln-Mercury, 7550 N 76th St.,
Milwaukee; and Heiser Chevrolet, 10200 W. Arthur Ave.,
Milwaukee. They also stated that the lawsuits may be expanded to
include other finance companies and dealers in the future.

The lawsuits, according to the law firms, allege that the
finance companies "established and maintained a specific,
identifiable and uniform finance charge markup system." It also
stated that under the system, car dealers allegedly "add
standardless, subjectively-determined finance charge markups" to
minority customers' financing agreements, charging African
American customers higher markups than "similarly-situated white
customers, irrespective of credit-worthiness or other legitimate
business reasons." This finance charge markup system allegedly
violates the federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

The lawsuits also allege that the finance companies violated
Wisconsin laws and the Wisconsin Consumer Credit Act and thus it
seeks an injunction against the credit companies to prevent them
from using the discriminatory practices. Additionally, the suits
also seeks restitution for the plaintiffs, payment of both
compensatory and punitive damages from the finance companies, as
well as payment of all costs and attorneys' fees for the
plaintiffs and anyone else who may become part of the class
action lawsuit.

The legal action was started at the request of the leaders of
Cross Lutheran Church, the Milwaukee Inner City Congregations
Allied for Hope (MICAH) and Wisconsin Citizen Action.


                        Asbestos Alert



ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cape Sets Up GBP40MM Asbestos Claims Fund
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cape PLC, the building materials group that specializes in
thermal insulation and scaffolding, plans to create a GBP40
million fund to pay out for UK asbestos-related claims in the
next 12 years. With this move, the Company hopes to "put the
issue firmly behind the company."

However, news of Cape's fundraising resulted to the company's
shares dropping to an eight-month low.

Chairman Martin May said, "We have former employees we have
damaged. Asbestos has killed a lot of people and impaired their
lives. If you prove you have a form of asbestos disease and have
a need for compensation, Cape will pay."

The company stated that the money will come largely from a
placing of new shares at 110p by housebroker Evolution Group,
raising GBP32 million, and from existing resources and from
increasing borrowing from Barclays Bank.

Cape, which believes the creation of the fund will remove a
significant obstacle to the company's growth, expects claims
will continue for at least the next 46 years. The company has a
market capitalization of about GBP70 million.

Cape will review the fund every three years to assess the
funding needs for claims over the coming 13 years and Cape will
top up the fund if necessary out of its cash flow. The Company
said it estimates total compensation could range from 49.5
million pounds to 160 million pounds.

Since Cape was founded in the 1890s, it has employed 78,000
people. To date about 2,000 individuals have sought
compensation, with the company paying around GBP3 million to
GBP4 million to settle 130 claims a year.

Cape manufactures and installs fireproof insulation, which was
once based on asbestos, now known to induce breathing
difficulties and other illnesses. Cape was not insured for
asbestos health problems until 1972.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CT City Attempts to Halt Illegal Removal
-------------------------------------------------------------
While the city and state health and building safety agencies
work together to stem illegal asbestos removal, officials say
unpermitted work persists, reports The Advocate.

Anthony Strazza III, Stamford's chief building official,
believes the amount of paperwork and high cost of asbestos
removal sometimes leads people to try to circumvent regulations.
He added that building permits and asbestos removal regulations
are meant to protect residents.

Mr. Strazza, who gets about 50 asbestos removal complaints a
year, believes that there are at least twice as many unreported
illegal removal occurrences out there. He said he tries to get
people what they need as quickly as possible, but that a permit
requires many signatures from several departments and begins
with a stack of paperwork.

Ronald Skomro, supervising sanitarian for the state Department
of Public Health Asbestos Program, could not estimate how many
unregulated asbestos-removal cases occur, but for small jobs,
the cost for containment, labor and consultants can be about
US$2,000. Some people try to circumvent the system while others
are not familiar with asbestos or how to remove it safely, he
said.

Most people exposed to small amounts of asbestos do not develop
health problems, according to the health department. Asbestos
fibers that are inhaled into the lungs can cause lung cancer,
cancer of the lining of the chest or scarred lungs.

The health department requires notification of construction and
may send an investigator to the site based on the nature of the
material, the size of the project or other factors.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie Enters New US$355Mil Debt Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Building products manufacturer James Hardie Industries NV has
entered into a new debt arrangement that should help fund its
payouts to asbestos victims. The move comes as the company is
close to finalizing an agreement to provide compensation in the
next 40 years to victims of asbestos-related illnesses from
exposure to its own products.

James Hardie, which once used the cancer-causing asbestos in its
wallboard and other building products, said it had arranged to
get revolving cash advances from six banks for US$355 million or
AUD460 million a year. The funding will be used for "general
corporate purposes," which is expected to include helping to
fund asbestos compensation.

The company has already agreed, in principle, to pay AUD1.5
billion to asbestos disease victims, with its annual payments
capped at 35 percent of its free cash flow until 2012. In the
first year, James Hardie expects to provide AUD136 million as it
sets up the new compensation arrangements, with claims currently
estimated at about AUD80 million a year.

However, a final, binding agreement between James Hardie, the
NSW Government and unions is yet to occur during the next few
weeks. The agreement will then go to James Hardie shareholders
for final approval. The debt funding is on an initial term of
364 days but if the shareholder approval for the asbestos
compensation agreement is received, two-thirds of James Hardies
new debt funding will convert to a term of five years.

Chief Executive Louis Gries said the debt facilities
demonstrated the confidence of banks in the company's future
growth strategy.

"The new debt facilities provide the company with increased
financial flexibility and position the company well for its
future initiatives, Mr. Gries said.

The new debt facilities replace the company's previous revolving
and stand-by credit facilities of about US$286 million, which
were entered into in 1998.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UIC Study Reveals No Risk at IL Beach Park
---------------------------------------------------------------
The public faces little risk from handling or playing with
asbestos-contaminated sand at the Illinois Beach State Park,
says a new study conducted by researchers at the University of
Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health.

Contracted by Attorney General Lisa Madigan to investigate the
contamination at the state park, the researchers found that the
cancer risk from breathing asbestos fibers from the sand is well
below what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers
unacceptable. But the study cautioned against disturbing any of
the contaminated debris, believed to have come from demolished
homes in the area or from an abandoned Johns-Manville factory
nearby where asbestos products were made.

As previously reported in the August 27, 2004 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, state officials shut down a section of
the beach for four days after they found traces of microscopic
asbestos fibers in the air, but they later reopened the beach
after it was determined that the contamination was low-level and
harmless.

Still, the potential health risk from breathing airborne
asbestos on the beach would be no greater than what people face
in everyday life, the UIC researchers concluded. The UIC report
follows three state and federal studies that determined no risk
to the public.

The researchers urged the Illinois Department of Natural
Resources, which manages the park, to do a better job of
informing hikers and beach-goers about the longstanding asbestos
problem and to spend more time cleaning up the material.

"There's no way they can say the beaches are safe," said Paul
Kakuris, president of the Illinois Dunesland Preservation
Society, noting that state officials have echoed public health
experts who think there is no safe level of asbestos exposure.

A related study surprisingly revealed "elevated" concentrations
of asbestos particles in sand tested at Oak Street Beach, a
popular swimming locale along the city's Gold Coast. It was
among seven between South Milwaukee, Wis., and Chicago tested by
UIC to provide a benchmark with which to compare Illinois Beach
State Park, where asbestos debris regularly washes ashore.

Of 12 sand samples examined at Oak Street Beach, 11 tested
positive for asbestos. That number of tainted sand samples was
even higher than UIC researchers found in two areas tested at
Illinois Beach.

After learning of the results, the Chicago Park District did air
testing for asbestos at Oak Street Beach and came up with a
"zero reading," spokeswoman Jessica Maxey-Faulkner said. The
district agreed to work further with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency on tests over the next couple of months to
confirm those results.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Experts Warn of Silica as "Next Asbestos"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Citing well-established evidence, medical experts have warned
that thousands of Australians who have inhaled worksite sand
dust may die in what they have dubbed "the next asbestos"
scandal. Those affected could number in the thousands, with
evidence to suggest inadequate measures continued, even after
the risks were known.

The experts confirmed an association between sandblasting and
fatal lung disease silicosis, which can have an incubation
period of 15 years or more. It is believed that the illness will
appear in many older-generation workers not told in past decades
to wear proper safety equipment.

Since the 1980s, sandblasting has been progressively banned or
controlled by requiring facemasks and breathing apparatus, but
thousands of workers from the 1960s and 1970s were exposed to
silica particles without adequate protection. The industries
most greatly affected include mining, construction, shipping,
tunneling, spray painting, glass manufacturing, ceramics and
cement production.

Royal Hobart Hospital director of medicine Haydn Walters said
many former sandblasters suffering silica-induced conditions had
not been properly diagnosed. He described silicosis as a "very
nasty disease," which literally breaks down the lungs resulting
to death from respiratory failure.

Liberal senator Gary Humphries and Democrats leader Lyn Alison
are planning to press for a Senate inquiry to investigate the
extent of the disease. Thomas Faunce, senior lecturer in
medicine and law at Australian National University, said
sufficient documentation was available.

Senator Humphries said a possible outcome of such an inquiry is
an industry compensation fund for workers suffering from
silicosis.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Navy Veteran Demands Benefits from MOD
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Navy veteran suffering from an asbestos-related illness is
facing an ongoing battle to claim industrial injuries benefits
from the Ministry of Defense. He has also applied for a war
disablement pension for his condition since February this year
but has so far received nothing.

William Blackburn, aged 71, was diagnosed with asbestosis, a
scarring of the lungs that leads to breathing problems, a few
years ago after developing a bad cough. Of Palmer Close,
Norwich, he was an electrician in the Navy from 1949 until 1961,
serving in places including Korea and Malaya. He said that he
spent a lot of time working among asbestos-insulated pipes while
servicing and repairing electrical equipment in the Navy's
engine rooms and boiler rooms.

The Ministry of Defense asked Mr. Blackburn to be medically
examined at the Veteran Agency welfare office for his claim for
war disablement pension to be considered. However, he said that
he was not checked for asbestosis. The office told him he had an
enlarged heart and diabetes, which he says he already knows.

"I am frustrated that it has taken this long and that ridiculous
medical [exam] was the final straw. I think that the [MOD] are
waiting for me to die so that they do not have to pay out."

A spokesman for the Veterans Agency, an executive agency of the
MOD, said, "The agency cannot comment on individual cases. If an
individual is dissatisfied with any part of our service they
should lodge a formal complaint with the agency. If ultimately
any individual is dissatisfied with a decision then they are
able to appeal against that decision."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Park-Ohio, Subsidiaries Face 1,000 Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
As of March 31, 2005, Park-Ohio Industries and its subsidiaries
were co-defendants in about 1,000 cases asserting claims on
behalf of about 9,000 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos. These asbestos cases generally
relate to the production and sale of asbestos-containing
products and allege various theories of liability, including
negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seek
compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages.

In every asbestos case in which the company or its subsidiaries
were named as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple
named defendants. In substantially all of the asbestos cases,
the plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a specified
amount, typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish
jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed
(jurisdictional minimums generally range from US$25,000 to
US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought. To
the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the
amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

There are only five asbestos cases, involving 22 plaintiffs,
that plead specified damages. In each of the five cases, the
plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on
a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In three
cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the
amount of US$3.0 million for four separate causes of action and
US$1.0 million for another cause of action and punitive damages
in the amount of US$10.0 million.

In another case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages
in the amount of US$20.0 million for three separate causes of
action and US$5.0 million for another cause of action and
punitive damages in the amount of US$20.0 million. In the final
case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the
amount of US$0.41 million and punitive damages in the amount of
US$2.5 million.

Historically, the Company has been dismissed from asbestos cases
on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of its
subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify any
asbestos-containing product manufactured or sold by the Company
or its subsidiaries. The Company intends to vigorously defend
these asbestos cases, and believes it will continue to be
successful in being dismissed from such cases.

Cleveland, OH-based Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., through its
subsidiaries, operates as an industrial supply chain logistics
and diversified manufacturing company. The company operates in
three segments: Integrated Logistics Solutions (ILS), Aluminum
Products, and Manufactured Products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie Asbestos Fund Signing Delayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citing legal complexities, James Hardie Industries NV said the
New South Wales state government has for a second time postponed
the signing of the group's long-term asbestos compensation
funding proposal. The building products company said it
continues to negotiate the deal with the NSW government, which
has extended the timetable to late July or early August.

It was expected that the agreement would be finalized this
month, with the funding to start flowing by September. In a
statement, James Hardie said it anticipates the shareholder
meeting to consider approving the funding proposal will now be
held in late September or early October 2005.

The company agreed last December to pay at least AUD1.5 billion
over the next 4 decades to Australians affected by its asbestos-
based building products. However that agreement was only in
principle, with a final, binding deal yet to be reached. That
final deal was originally expected in March but was delayed till
June and has now been delayed once again.

The company said the delay, which it announced at its fourth
quarter results in May, was due to the significant structural,
legal and accounting complexities surrounding the establishment
of a fund and the voluntary funding proposal.

While a principal agreement is being finalized, claimants will
continue to be entitled to receive compensation for proven
claims for asbestos-related injuries through the group's Medical
Research and Compensation Foundation, James Hardie said.

Meanwhile, NSW Premier Bob Carr introduced legislation designed
to protect future payouts. The bill will preserve the structure
of the former James Hardie subsidiaries that manufactured
asbestos products.

These companies, known as Amaca, Amaba and ABN 60, are the
entities that technically hold the liability for asbestos
victims, even though they no longer carry out any business.

Under the legislation, these companies cannot be wound up or
deregistered, ensuring that victims will still be able to make
claims against them for decades into the future.

Mr. Carr said the James Hardie Former Subsidiaries (Special
Provisions) Bill 2005 was the first legislative step to a final
funding agreement with James Hardie. He asserted that the
legislation will "protect the rights of future claimants."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Critics See Signs of Hope in Madison County
----------------------------------------------------------------
Recent events in Madison County's asbestos docket have raised
hopes of critics who saw the court earn its reputation as the
foremost judicial hellhole in the nation.

For years Madison County's asbestos docket was known to bring
quick and favorable resolution for plaintiffs, attracting trial
attorneys from other states "to file grievances for the
recruited ill."

Victor Schwartz, one of three authors of an article on Madison
County asbestos litigation, published last year by Washington
University's Journal of Law and Policy, said that judges are now
assuring proper discovery and applying rules of evidence.

Co-author Mark Behrens said that two recent defense verdicts in
three weeks returned by Madison County juries is a turnaround.
Before this year, he said, juries returned two of the largest
damage awards ever in favor of plaintiffs.

Since taking over the docket from Judge Nicholas Byron nearly a
year ago, Circuit Judge Daniel Stack has dismissed some suits of
outsiders. However, he has allowed most cases of outsiders to
proceed. Even so, the authors considered this a significant
improvement.

Mr. Behrens said judges thought they were doing the right thing
by moving cases quickly. But he believes the real test is not
whether it's fast but if the ruling is fair.

Mr. Behrens said the authors of the article received little
information from defense attorneys in Madison County asbestos
cases. He said that reforms began in Mississippi's Jefferson
County, another "judicial hellhole," because defense attorneys
were willing to speak out.

The authors wrote that Madison County judges never grant summary
judgments despite the plaintiff's failure to identify the maker
of the product that allegedly caused harm. Refusal to grant
summary judgment meant that every claim could proceed to trial,
they wrote, forcing defendants to settle claims regardless of
merits.

The court routinely denied defense requests to limit the scope
of discovery to the products at issue, they wrote, requiring
defendants to respond as to all of its products and facilities
regardless of their connection to the case. They said that
defendants received notice of trial a short time before it
started.

Defendants actually faced more obstacles at trial, they wrote,
citing that in some instances, the court stopped defendants from
introducing evidence to demonstrate that the injury was caused
by something other than asbestos.

Meanwhile, asbestos lawsuits filed in Madison County appear to
be on the decline. So far this year, 122 asbestos suits have
been filed in the county. About 480 lawsuits were filed last
year, which followed three years of more than 800 lawsuits.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Clash on Firms' Contributions Imperils Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------
A dispute on the amounts to be paid to the proposed asbestos
trust fund may endanger U.S. Congressional approval of the bill.
The smaller companies said they are being asked to contribute
too much to fund, which is supposed to resolve lawsuits that
have already bankrupted more than 70 companies.

Under the Judiciary Committee legislation, big manufacturers
such as General Electric Co. and Honeywell International Inc.
would each make annual contributions to the trust fund of
US$27.5 million; in GE's case, that is less than 0.01 percent of
its US$387 billion market capitalization.

Foster Wheeler would pay less at US$16.5 million a year but
since the company is so much smaller, its contribution would be
a much greater burden, about 2 percent of its US$793 million
market value.

The dispute is testing the alliance that Senate Judiciary
Committee Chairman Arlen Specter brought together to win the
panel's support. Republicans are counting on some support from
Democrats, who have blocked action on the legislation in the
last two years. President George W. Bush has urged Congress to
end asbestos litigation, which he says saps economic growth.

"It makes no sense why a company that is under US$5 billion in
revenues, maybe averaging profits of US$10 million to US$25
million" should pay almost as much as companies like GE, said
Tom O'Brien, Foster Wheeler's former general counsel, who now
represents a group that includes it and several other of the
smaller companies.

Mr. O'Brien predicted that six to eight of the members of his
group might be forced into bankruptcy if required to make the
contributions currently envisioned by the legislation. He cited
as an example Hopeman Brothers Marine Interiors, which would be
forced out of business "the day this bill passes."

Texas Senator John Cornyn, a Republican who voted for the fund
legislation when it was cleared by the Judiciary Committee,
warned he might withdraw his support unless smaller companies
are protected. He plans to propose changing the bill to ease the
burden on smaller companies, shifting more of the costs to
larger contributors. His revisions would peg contributions more
to how much a company has paid "out of pocket" to victims.

The current formula is based in part on how much insurers pay to
victims of asbestos exposure; that has tended to penalize the
smaller companies, since the larger ones often make the payments
themselves.

The National Association of Manufacturers, a Washington-based
trade group that represents USG, Armstrong and other companies
forced into bankruptcy reorganization, opposes any change in the
contribution formula.

One way to avoid a fight between the opposing factions in the
business community would be reduce the total size of the trust,
suggested Senator Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican. Mr.
Brownback said the fund doesn't need US$140 billion to pay all
anticipated claims, citing a Goldman Sachs Group Inc. estimate
that US$113 billion would be sufficient.

Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican who supports the bill,
doesn't see that happening. He said that any break for smaller
companies means that others are going to have to pay more.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal Plan Could Replace MD Claims System
----------------------------------------------------------------
A national proposal to solve mounting asbestos claims currently
brewing in Congress threatens to end a program in Maryland that
has been recognized for streamlining the legal process for
victims of asbestos-related diseases.

Since 1992, all asbestos cases in the state have been
consolidated in Baltimore Circuit Court, where about 90 percent
are settled without a trial. To ensure that the sickest people
get help first, Maryland created a two-tier system, with an
"inactive" docket for plaintiffs who claim to have been exposed
to asbestos but are not yet ill.

Mark A. Behrens, a Washington lawyer, said the Maryland system
is beneficial for the sick claimants and the court system since
it allows court resources to focus on people who need them the
most.

But the proposal would substitute local efforts with a US$140
billion fund to compensate victims of asbestos exposure. The
legislation would restrict asbestos victims from going to the
courts for relief. Instead, they would pursue claims through a
new federal department that would oversee payments ranging from
US$25,000 to US$1.1 million.

Like Maryland's system, the bill aims to help the sickest people
first but the US$1.1 million award limit would be far less than
many previous settlements.

Baltimore Circuit Judge Richard T. Rombro, who has overseen
Maryland asbestos cases for more than a decade, expressed his
concerns that thousands of cases in the state would be
transferred from a system that has worked well to one that is
uncertain.

The steel mills, shipyards and other industrial plants that once
employed thousands of workers have made Maryland home to a large
number of asbestos victims. Judge Rombro said that in May alone,
he was working with more than 40 new cases. He added that
thousands more individual claims are on the inactive docket.

Meanwhile, Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter insists the
bill is far better than the current system.

Spokesman Darren McKinney of the National Association of
Manufacturers agrees. He believes efforts such as the one in
Maryland have been useful but that "it's a national problem, and
it calls for a national solution."

The Baltimore system originated about the same time as similar
programs in Chicago and Boston, said Mr. Behrens. These systems
became a model for other state courts and legislatures. In
recent years, New York City and Seattle have converted to a
similar tiered system. Last year, the Ohio legislature adopted a
law allowing only those plaintiffs with proven medical problems
to move into the court system; Georgia and Florida passed
similar legislation this spring.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Raytech Corp's 1st Qtr. Profit Edges Higher
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raytech Corporation (NYSE: RAY), a manufacturer of automotive
systems, posted a slight rise in first-quarter income on
stronger sales and lower payments to the Shelton, CT-based
Company's asbestos settlement fund.

Net income edged higher to US$1.6 million for the thirteen-week
period ended April 3, 2005, amounting to US$.04 per basic and
diluted share compared to a net income of US$1.4 million or
US$.03 for the same period last year.

Sales rose 11.9 percent to US$63.4 million from US$56.6 million,
led by higher demand for the company's wet-friction and
commercial dry-friction products and aftermarket offerings.

On May 19, 2005, the Company reported an estimated net loss of
US$675,000, subject to the completion of purchase accounting for
the acquisition of a minority interest in Allomatic Products
Company. The Company also indicated that the estimated net loss
was partially due to the recognition of a US$1.3 million product
liability claim in the International segment.

Completion of purchase accounting for the APC acquisition
resulted in the reduction of certain deferred tax assets and
consequently, a US$995,000 reduction in amounts payable to the
Raytech Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust, recorded as
non-operating income. In addition, upon further review of the
product liability claim, it was determined that, while a loss is
reasonably possible, no liability should be recognized at this
time.

Gains were partially offset by a 32 percent decline in gross
profit in Raytech's domestic segment due to increased steel
prices.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Pub Worker Penalized for Dumping Waste
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Crown Court judge slapped a fine of GBP1,500 on a part time
pub worker from Oldham for dumping deadly asbestos by the
roadside.

Officials caught David Salt, aged 37, after a passing motorist
spotted him dumping waste on a quiet country lane and reported
him to Oldham Council. They subsequently discovered a large
quantity of asbestos sheeting, timber, tiles and floor covering
close to the junction of Cutler Hill Road and Coal Pit Lane,
Failsworth.

Aside from the GBP1,500 fine for breach of duty of care in the
handling of controlled waste, Judge Paul O'Brien also ordered
Mr. Salt to pay GBP750 in costs. He cited Mr. Salt for two
previous convictions for similar offenses.

Judge O'Brien ordered Mr. Salt to pay the fine and costs at the
rate of GBP50 a week and warned that he faced 45 days in jail if
he failed to keep up his payments.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace to Benefit from Trust Fund Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia, MD-based W.R. Grace & Co. stands to gain from
congressional efforts to set up a trust fund to compensate those
affected by exposure to the deadly fibers, reports The Baltimore
Sun.

Public Citizen puts the chemical maker's asbestos liability at
nearly US$3.2 billion. By contrast, the group says, its
contribution to the proposed federal asbestos fund would be
US$418 million, an 87 percent savings if the bill becomes law.

The company was named a defendant in 129,000 personal injury
lawsuits related to asbestos products manufactured decades ago.

However, even if the legislation becomes law, Grace's problems
would continue over criminal charges that the company and
several of its executives face related to Grace's closed
vermiculite mining operations in Libby, Montana. They are
accused of knowingly exposing thousands of workers and residents
near the mine to asbestos fibers for decades.

Grace estimates that it could face US$204.2 million in
environmental cleanup costs in Libby and at several other sites
that received ore mined in Libby. The company also might face
millions of dollars in additional cleanup costs related to other
sites.

According to some industry experts and economists, Grace remains
a fundamentally sound company if the uncertainty associated with
the personal injury suits is removed. The company reported a 14
percent increase in 2004 sales and pretax income from core
operations of US$179.3 million, up nearly 21 percent from 2003.
Asbestos liability charges resulted in a loss of US$402.3
million for the year.

Using a formula based on company sales, Grace would pay about
US$500 million into the fund under the proposed legislation,
said Crystal Skinner, who tracks asbestos legislation for
Susquehanna Financial Group. If no bill is passed, the company
has said in regulatory filings that it would seek to create its
own compensation fund totaling no more than US$1.6 billion, or
roughly enough to pay US$2 billion in claims when interest is
considered.

Other asbestos litigation experts say the real number probably
lies somewhere between the estimates provided by Grace and
Public Citizen. Grace has asked the bankruptcy court to begin a
process to determine its liability.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Corp. Files Reorganization Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
On June 10, 2005, Congoleum Corporation filed a modified plan of
reorganization with the Bankruptcy Court, according to the
filing it submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The modifications were negotiated with representatives of the
Asbestos Claimants' Committee, the Future Claimants
Representative, and other asbestos claimant representatives.

Under the agreed-upon modifications, asbestos claimants with
claims settled under Congoleum's pre-petition settlement
agreement would agree to forego the security interest they were
granted and share on a pari passu basis with all other present
and future asbestos claimants in insurance proceeds and other
assets of the trust to be formed to pay asbestos claims against
Congoleum.

Congoleum is one of many defendants in a large number of actions
filed by individuals alleging injuries resulting from exposure
to asbestos and asbestos-containing products, including
resilient sheet vinyl and tile manufactured by Congoleum and
tile manufactured by the Tile Division or, in the worker's
compensation cases, from exposure to asbestos in the course of
employment with Congoleum. The Company discontinued the
manufacture of asbestos-containing sheet products in 1983 and
asbestos-containing tile products in 1974.

Congoleum purchased liability insurance policies that it
believes obligates the insurers to provide coverage for Asbestos
Claims.

In the context of asbestos personal injury, the policies
purchased by Congoleum generally provide coverage for two
fundamental types of claims. The first type consists of claims
in which the alleged exposure to asbestos is within the
"products hazard." These include claims alleging exposure to
asbestos-containing products manufactured or sold by Congoleum.

The second type is referred to as "non-products" claims. These
include claims involving alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
materials, whether or not manufactured by the Company while such
materials were present at its premises or at locations where
asbestos material may have been disposed of by Congoleum.
Although non-products claims have been asserted against the
Company, the vast majority of asbestos-related claims that have
been brought to date are products claims.

During the period in which Congoleum produced asbestos-
containing products, the Company purchased primary and excess
insurance policies providing in excess of US$1 billion of limits
of liability for general and product liability claims. Through
August 2002, substantially all asbestos-related claims and
defense costs were paid through primary insurance coverage. In
February 2002 and then in August 2002, it received notice from
its two lead primary insurance carriers that its primary
insurance coverage was exhausted.

On March 18, 2005, the Debtors filed a motion in the Bankruptcy
Court asking the Bankruptcy Court to vacate its prior order
lifting the automatic stay in bankruptcy to permit the Coverage
Action to proceed. The Debtors requested that the Coverage
Action proceedings be stayed until the Debtors had completed
their plan confirmation process in the Bankruptcy Court. A
hearing on the Debtors' motion was held on April 12, 2005 and
the motion was denied.

The Phase 1 trial in the insurance coverage litigation is
scheduled to begin on July 19, 2005.

The Confirmation Hearing is currently scheduled to commence on
November 1, 2005.

Congoleum's products serve both the residential and commercial
hard-surface flooring markets, and are used in remodeling,
manufactured housing, new construction and commercial
applications. It owns four manufacturing facilities located in
Maryland, Pennsylvania and New Jersey and leases corporate and
marketing offices in Mercerville, New Jersey.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Witness Admits False Testimony in NY Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A witness in the country's largest asbestos cleanup scam case
confessed that he lied under oath. Kevin Pilgrim, aged 38, of
Midvale, Utah, pleaded guilty to perjury in a Syracuse federal
court during the criminal trial of Alexander and Raul Salvagno,
owners of AAR Contractor, Inc.

Mr. Pilgrim worked for four years for AAR and Analytical
Laboratories of Albany, the laboratory that Alexander Salvagno
secretly owned. Called as a defense witness, he testified that
the never saw or participated in any illegal asbestos removal
procedures or had any knowledge about falsified lab results. He
also admitted he lied when he stated that he never saw Alexander
Salvagno use cocaine.

In March 2004, the father-and-son tandem was convicted of
asbestos-removal fraud that lasted ten years. They were also
ordered to reimburse US$23 million to their victims and were
sentenced to 19« and 25 years, the longest sentences for an
environmental crime ever.

As previously revealed in the April 29, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, former employees testified that the
company did "rip and run" cleanups and falsified as many as
75,000 tests. They were convicted of racketeering and conspiracy
to violate environmental laws for doing rushed cleanup jobs at
1,555 buildings, most of them in the Capital Region, including
14 cleanups at 12 churches, 63 cleanups in 54 area schools and
at least 130 cleanups at eight area colleges.

Meanwhile, Mr. Pilgrim faces up to five years in prison and a
fine of up to US$250,000 dollars when he returns to court in
October for sentencing.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maine Court Grants Widow's Remand V. Viacom
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Maine on February 22, 2005, presided by
Magistrate Judge Margaret J. Kravchuck, ruled to remand the case
filed by the widow of a former pipe fitter against Viacom Inc.,
including other defendants.

Mrs. Susan Green, widow of deceased pipe fitter Mr. John T.
Green claimed that her husband's death resulted from workplace
exposure to asbestos, and that Viacom manufactured and provided
asbestos to the Bath Iron Works Corp., where her husband worked
for four decades. She moved for remand of state law, wrongful
death, and products liability claims. Mrs. Green's motion was
filed on April 2004.

Viacom filed an answer in due course, and identified as a
positive defense the government contractor defense, sometimes
referred to as the military contractor defense.

Viacom received, on September 14, 2004, supplemental
interrogatory responses submitted on behalf of Mrs. Green, in
which she specified the particular Navy ships that her husband
had worked on. Based on this response, Viacom was able to
ascertain from its records particular asbestos-insulated
turbines and related components that the decedent may have been
exposed to that were manufactured and supplied by its
predecessor-in-interest, Westinghouse Electric Corporation.
Viacom subsequently filed a notice of removal on October 12,
2004, within 30 days of its receipt of Green's supplemental
interrogatory responses.

Mrs. Green pointed out that Viacom's notice of removal was not
timely filed because Viacom failed to file it within 30 days of
the filing of Mrs. Green's complaint, even though Viacom
asserted the federal contractor defense in its answer.

Viacom endeavors to meet its burden with an affidavit recently
subscribed to under penalty of perjury by James M. Gate, former
Manager of Design Verification of the Marine Division of
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, and a 1996 affidavit by Roger
B. Horne, Jr., a retired Rear Admiral of the United States Navy.

The portions of the Horne affidavit that Viacom, Inc. highlights
in its memorandum reflect that turbine design, construction,
repair and inspection were subject to Navy "control,"
"oversight," and "monitoring." Viacom, however, failed to cite
anything in either the Horne affidavit or the exhibits attached
to the affidavit that demonstrates that any Navy contract
required the utilization of asbestos insulation in conjunction
with turbine construction.

Judge Kravchuk contended that the defendant Viacom, Inc., failed
to provide proof that its product incorporated asbestos pursuant
to a design uniquely specified for government use where "the
government specifications at issue relate to performance
requirements and not design or manufacturing requirements."

The affidavits also did not sufficiently demonstrate that Navy
specified the incorporation of asbestos into product to which
pipe fitter was exposed to establish causal nexus between
federal officer's directions and plaintiff's claim and meet
burden of proving that manufacturer's predecessor was "acting
under" a federal officer or agency as required to sustain
removal from state court.

Consequently, the District Court of Maine granted Mrs. Green
remand.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alarm Hits IA School Over Dumping Incident
---------------------------------------------------------------
University of Iowa officials continue to investigate an asbestos
dumping incident at a bus stop outside of the Iowa Hygienic
Laboratory of the Oakdale campus.

As soon as police got a call regarding the suspicious package
unattended at the bus stop, they evacuated the west wing of the
laboratory and cordoned off part of the building. Upon
examination, they found 20 boxes of asbestos abatement materials
inside the package.

Authorities said the package contained mostly sealed air-
sampling canisters and a lesser number of construction material
bulk samples. The materials were given to the state hygienic
laboratory for further investigation.

The building was reopened to workers later that morning.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Precision Castparts Defends Against Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Precision Castparts Corp. (NYSE: PCP) is currently a defendant
in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
chemicals and particulates, including asbestos, integrated into
the Company's premises and processes and certain historical
products. The particulates at issue are no longer incorporated
in any currently manufactured product and the Company has
implemented safety protocols to reduce exposure to chemicals and
remaining particulates in the workplace.

To date, the Portland, OR-based Company is dismissed from a
number of these suits and settled a number of others. Based on
the information available to the Company as of the date of
filing of this report, it is believed that the potential
exposure from the resolution of any or all of these matters will
not have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of
operations, financial condition or liquidity.

Precision Castparts Corp. manufactures complex metal components
and products, including high-quality investment castings and
forgings for aerospace and power generation customers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Canadian Asbestos Mine Site Poses No Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
As the Yukon government and UMA Engineering showed reclamation
workshop participants their newly completed creek stabilization
measures, they also had to answer queries regarding the clean-up
effort that left asbestos waste rock and tailings, The Mining
News reports.

The officials gave assurances that the asbestos fibers now pose
no significant risk to human health after the Canadian
government has spent about $3 million on reclamation at Clinton
Creek.

The first field trip arranged as part of this year's Northern
Latitudes Reclamation Workshop was to the former asbestos mine
at Clinton Creek. Sixty million tons of waste rock and 10
million tons of asbestos tailings had reshaped the local
landscape.

Clinton Creek mine operated in 1968 to 1978, under the
management of Cassiar Mining, which also ran its namesake
asbestos mine in British Columbia. Cassiar extracted 1 million
tons of asbestos fiber from three open pits during the life of
the mine. The company went bankrupt in 1992. In the years when
the mine was operating there was no law requiring a reclamation
bond.

The chrysotile asbestos at Clinton Creek occurs in the
serpentine ore body and its fibers can be seen forming a furry
carpet on top or at the middle of the rocks at the site. This
type of asbestos is less likely to be inhaled than the other,
more dangerous types of asbestos, but nevertheless signs
prominently posted around the mine site warn of the dangers of
inhaling the fibers, and also of flash floods.

Frank Patch, a project manager with the Yukon government's
Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, said, "Mining
companies are now starting to understand that clean-up is part
of the cost of doing business."

Still, the reclamation work that has been done on the creek
appears technologically efficient as well as aesthetically
pleasing. UMA designed a stable channel over the landslide dam,
featuring four gabion drop structures constructed between 2002
and 2004. This should protect the creek from a full breach of
the waste rock blockage, which would result in a peak discharge
of about 500 cubic meters of water per second.

The channel stabilization measures at Clinton Creek had to be
able to accommodate some movements of the waste rock pile and
remain functional, as the waste rock is creeping northward at a
rate of 5 to 7 cm per year.

First Nation contractor Han Construction from Dawson City
carried out much of the work.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ADFA Leads Plan for Asbestos Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
After the New South Wales government reversed a policy on the
implementation of asbestos safety certificates, the Asbestos
Diseases Foundation of Australia seeks to establish a voluntary
certification scheme to identify homes containing asbestos.

The Foundation's president, Barry Robson, said there is concern
about a potential wave of asbestos-related disease among
homeowners who renovate their properties. After a voluntary
inspection, in which samples would be taken from a home, he said
a certificate would be produced declaring a home's level of
safety.

As previously reported in the May 27, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, the Government had decided against the plan
because a visual inspection of a house might not reveal hidden
asbestos, and might provide a "false sense of security."
Instead, it opted to instill new measures to improve community
awareness about asbestos in people's homes.

Local Government Minister Tony Kelly said that they decided not
to go through with the plan because the scheme would result in
extra costs and delay, while not necessarily reducing the risks.

"We don't think the cost is all that expensive when it comes to
buying a house, you know you'll have peace of mind knowing that
there's no asbestos or there is asbestos and you'll be wary of
it," said Mr. Robson.

The certificates are similar to pest or building certificates,
where inspectors identify materials containing asbestos so
homebuyers can make informed decisions about their properties.

Mr. Robson said he hoped the certificates would become available
beginning next year.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodyear's Liability in 2004 Costs $226.3M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (NYSE: GT) disclosed that to
date, it has disposed about 26,600 cases by defending and
obtaining the dismissal thereof or by entering into a
settlement. The sum of its accrued asbestos-related liability
and gross payments to date, including legal costs, totaled
US$226.3 million through December 31, 2004, compared to US$211.7
million at December 31, 2003.

According further to the filing it submitted to the Securities
and Exchange Commission, the Company has been a defendant in
numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal
injuries purported to result from alleged exposure to asbestos
in certain rubber encapsulated products or aircraft braking
systems manufactured by it in the past, or to asbestos in
certain of its facilities. Typically, these lawsuits have been
brought against multiple defendants in state and federal courts.

At December 31, 2004, it had at least US$260 million in
aggregate limits of excess level policies potentially applicable
to indemnity payments for asbestos products claims in addition
to limits of available primary insurance policies. Some of these
excess policies provide for payment of defense costs in addition
to indemnity limits. A portion of the availability of the excess
level policies is included in the US$107.8 million insurance
receivable recorded at December 31, 2004. The Company also had
about US$23 million in aggregate limits for products claims as
well as coverage for premise claims on a per occurrence basis
and defense costs available with its primary insurance carriers
through coverage-in-place agreements at December 31, 2004.

Based upon the model employed by the Company's valuation firm,
as of December 31, 2004, it had recorded a receivable related to
asbestos claims of US$107.8 million, compared to US$121.3
million at December 31, 2003. It expects that about 90% of
asbestos claim related losses would be recoverable up to its
accessible policy limits through the period covered by the
estimated liability.

The Company recorded liabilities for both asserted and
unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$119.3
million at December 31, 2004 and US$134.7 million at December
31, 2003. The recorded liability represents its estimated
liability through 2008, which represents the period over which
the liability can be reasonably estimated.

The portion of the liability associated with unasserted asbestos
claims was US$37.9 million at December 31, 2004 and US$54.4
million at December 31, 2003. At December 31, 2004, its
liability with respect to asserted claims and related defense
costs was US$81.4 million, compared to US$80.3 million at
December 31, 2003.

As previously reported in the May 13, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, the Akron, OH-based Company had about 129,100
asbestos-related claims pending against the company as of March
31, 2005. During the first quarter, Goodyear said about 2,600
new claims were filed against the company and roughly 800 were
settled or dismissed. The amount spent on asbestos defense and
claim resolution by the Company and its insurance carriers
during the first quarter totaled US$8 million.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NZ Island to Reopen After Asbestos Scare
-------------------------------------------------------------
After having been shut down since April 29 due to an asbestos
discovery, Matiu/Somes Island in Wellington Harbor is slated to
reopen to the public this June 27 after testing revealed the
absence of airborne asbestos fibers, according to a press
release by New Zealand's Department of Conservation.

Poneke Area Manager Peter Simpson said that the DOC, after
seeking advice from the Department of Labor, decided to reopen
parts of the island to allow the public to visit the scientific
and historic reserve. However, some areas will remain off limits
until asbestos roofing has been removed and replaced.

Areas where asbestos fibers were found will be fenced and taped
off for no entry by the public, but people can safely access to
the track around the island, summit area, wharf, plant nursery,
information center and toilets. A further temporary closure is
expected during some phases of the clean-up and roof replacement
project.

The island is a scientific reserve administered by the
Conservation Department. The buildings, which are part of the
former Ministry of Agriculture quarantine station that closed in
1995, date back to the 1970s when asbestos was a commonly used
building product.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Railroad Worker Files FELA Suit Against CSX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Claiming to be suffering from an asbestos-related illness from
exposure at the workplace, a Danville man filed a Federal
Employers' Liability Act lawsuit in St. Clair County Circuit
Court on June 18, 2005.

Represented by Daniel Francis of St. Louis, Brett William Hayes
is seeking damages in excess of US$50,000. According to the
suit, CSX Transportation failed to provide a safe place to work,
failed to comply with government regulations, failed to take
effective action to reduce the amount of asbestos he was exposed
to, and failed to warn him of the dangers of working with
asbestos.

Mr. Hayes also claims that CSX Transportation failed to provide
him with protective equipment, failed to employ safe working
practices and failed to make reasonable efforts to ascertain the
risks and hazards of asbestos exposure.

Mr. Hayes, who was diagnosed with asbestosis on August 15, 2005,
claims pain, suffering, inconvenience, irritation, annoyance,
medical expenses, lost wages, and losing the ability to enjoy
the pleasures of life.

Asbestosis is a fibrosis or scarring of the lung tissue that
develops after years of exposure to asbestos fibers. The
"necessary criteria" for the diagnosis of asbestosis includes a
"reliable history of exposure and an appropriate time interval"
from the time of exposure.

According to a peer review published by Jeffrey Galvin, M.D.,
director of Chest and Mediastinal Imaging at the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology in Washington, D.C., an asbestosis
diagnosis is usually inferred, since biopsy material is seldom
available.

Jacksonville, FL-based CSX Transportation Inc., the primary
subsidiary of CSX, provides rail freight transportation over
more than 22,000 miles of track in 23 states in the eastern half
of the US and two Canadian provinces.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Expert Warns of Worsening Asbestos Epidemic
----------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking out after the inquest of a pensioner's death, a leading
health expert warned that the "asbestos epidemic" would only get
worse.

Dr. Peter Mustchin, a consultant physician at the Cumberland
Infirmary and a specialist in chest diseases, said there is
currently no cure to these diseases. He mentioned that newer
treatments have only dealt so far with pain relief.

Dr. Mustchin gave evidence at the inquest of Alfred Nichols,
from Longtown, who died from pneumonia, after being exposed to
asbestos during his career working as a painter and decorator.
Mr. Nichols died at the age of 69 in December last year. The
inquest revealed that he had never realized the potential risk
he faced when coming into contact with asbestos.

Mr. Nichols contracted a form of cancer known as mesothelioma,
which is almost always caused by asbestos exposure. However, he
died from pneumonia, caused by the industrial disease, coroner
Ian Morton recorded.

Consultant pathologist Dr. Mary Jenkins, who carried out the
post mortem, said minor exposure to asbestos dust could be
enough to "do the damage." Dr. Mustchin told the inquest it was
quite typical for those who came into contact with asbestos to
fall ill up to 40 years later. In its advanced stages it could
be extremely painful, he added.

His partner of 34 years, Elizabeth Thompson, said he had been
ill for around nine months before his death but had never told
her the extent of his problems until a few weeks before his
death.

Mr. Morton said that although much was being done to find a
cure, mortality rates remain to be extremely high.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB to File Final Asbestos Plan on June 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
Switzerland-based electrical engineering company ABB Ltd. (NYSE:
ABB) delayed the filing of its restructured US$1.43 billion
asbestos settlement proposal to a US Court by one day to June
24. An ABB spokesman said there were no particular reasons for
the short delay.

"In accordance with the bankruptcy court in Pittsburgh, ABB will
file its asbestos settlement plans now on Friday, June 24, 2005,
ABB spokesman Wolfram Eberhardt said in a statement.

In March, the Company moved to resolve its asbestos problems in
March by offering to pay an additional US$232 million to
claimants. That money was on top of the US$1.2 billion that ABB
had already agreed to contribute to a settlement under an
earlier plan, which was thrown out by a U.S. court last year.

ABB has around 100,000 asbestos lawsuits pending in the U.S.,
stemming from people who claim to have been exposed to the fiber
products manufactured at ABB's U.S. Combustion Engineering unit.

ABB remains confident that it will be able to solve the issue of
asbestos litigation. The Company hopes the plan will be accepted
by the end of the year.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Soil Cleanup Begins at Gluek Park in Minn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laboring on a cleanup that could be the largest of its kind in
the nation, Minneapolis workers are removing tons of asbestos-
contaminated soil in Gluek Park.

Workers wore protective gear as they moved tons of contaminated
soil out of the park. They will have to remove two feet of
contaminated soil throughout the park. Barges will then haul the
soil away from the park's riverbank. Once it is removed, it will
be wrapped in a special plastic and buried in a landfill.

A site coordinator from the Environmental Protection Agency,
Sonia Vego, said the agency closed the park as soon as they
found out about the contamination last year. She said that
asbestos was found as deep as 20 feet, indicating a huge amount
on the site.

In the 1960s, a Minneapolis manufacturing company, Western
Minerals Products, freely offered its waste product to anyone
who wanted backfill. Not knowing that the material was
contaminated with asbestos, Gluek Park took advantage of the
offer and used it as backfill for landscaping.

Following suit, dozens of neighbors in Northeast Minneapolis
also took the backfill for gardens and driveways.

In the past four years, the EPA has tested homes in Northeast
Minneapolis for asbestos. Soil then had to be removed from more
than 260 homes that tested positive for asbestos.

Health officials do not know how many people may have gotten
sick form the asbestos in the park and across northeast
Minneapolis. Over the years, some people have blamed the
asbestos in the neighborhood for their illnesses, but no
comprehensive studies have been performed to confirm a link.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HI School Project Raises Health Concerns
-------------------------------------------------------------
After parents and staff expressed health concerns regarding an
asbestos removal project at the Waipahu school, education
officials planned to extend the safety barriers to keep students
and others farther away from where the work is being done.

Warning signs tell people to stay away while workers in
protective suits and breathing masks remove asbestos containing
roofing material from some parts of the building. However, kids
and parents pass within a few feet of the work on the route to
and from summer school.

State officials insisted that workers at August Ahrens
Elementary are following all required safety rules. Workers from
the Unitek Company spray water to keep the roofing material from
blowing around the campus. They said that the toxic material is
carefully bagged in heavy plastic before being brought away and
dumped at a landfill.

The work is estimated to take two weeks. That coincides with the
middle of summer school for hundreds of students.

Richard Soo, Department of Education safety officer, said the
air around the project is constantly tested for contamination.
He also assured the parties concerned that an environmental
expert monitors the work round the clock.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CT Court Holds GE Releases Legally Binding
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Connecticut on May 26, 2005 ruled in favor
of General Electric, which moved for summary judgment in two
cases after asserting that the asbestos exposure claims are
barred by releases signed by the plaintiffs.

Judge Arthur A. Hiller presided over the case captioned, Garry
Sheppard et al. v. Acands, Inc. et al., with Case No.
CV950323560S.

Garry Sheppard claimed that he contracted lung cancer,
asbestosis and other related diseases as a result of his
exposure to asbestos dust, fibers and particles from products
manufactured or distributed by General Electric. His wife,
Joanne Sheppard, claimed loss of consortium based upon her
husband's injuries.

Annabelle Ryan also alleged that she contracted pleural plaques,
mesothelioma and other related diseases from exposure to
asbestos dust, fibers and particles from products manufactured
or distributed by General Electric. Her husband, Patrick Ryan,
also filed a claim for loss of consortium.

On June 30, 1998, Mr. and Mrs. Sheppard executed a release to
General Electric Company. At some point after execution of the
release, Garry Sheppard was diagnosed with lung cancer and
amended his pleadings to include General Electric Company as a
defendant on August 14, 2004.

The Ryans had executed releases to General Electric, in return
for consideration, in the same form as the release executed by
the Sheppards.

Considered broad in scope, the releases covered "any and all
claims, actions, causes of actions, demands, rights, damages,
costs, loss of services or consortium, expenses and compensation
whatsoever, which the undersigned now has or which may hereafter
accrue on account of or in any way grow out of all known and
unknown, foreseen and unforeseen, bodily and personal injuries
and property damage, and the consequences thereof (including the
possible sequel thereof; including but not limited to
asbestosis, corpulmonale, lung cancer, and other forms of cancer
or mesothelioma), resulting or to result from exposure on the
part of [the plaintiffs] to an asbestos-containing material."

The releases included any claims for loss of consortium by their
spouses. It also provided for future possible illnesses and
conditions.

The Court emphasized that with regards to a question of
contractual interpretation, its "initial guide must be the
actual words used in the contract." The releases were intended
to extinguish all claims arising from the exposure to asbestos.
The releases specifically referred to the possibility that the
plaintiffs might develop other diseases in the future, including
the specific disease of which the plaintiffs now complain.

However, the plaintiffs contended that since the release
predated the date that the lung cancer was discovered that the
release is inapplicable to the present action. They base this
argument on the so-called "two-disease" rule, which provides
that even if a nonmalignant condition commences a statute of
limitation period, the subsequent development of a malignant
condition will commence a new statute period.

The Court held that this rule does not affect the question of
the validity of the release at issue. It stated that the two-
disease rule is primarily related to the statute of limitations.
In the context of asbestos litigation, it recognizes that the
diagnosis of a non-malignant asbestos related disease begins the
running of the statute only for that disease. The later
diagnosis of a malignant related condition creates a new cause
of action with the commencement of the statute period being when
the later diagnosis is made.

The Court maintained that the parties reached an agreement,
which included a release of General Electric of all claims and
of all potential liabilities as a result from exposure to an
asbestos-containing material. With regards to the plaintiffs'
claim that the releases are contrary to public policy, the Court
ruled that there is no policy against enforcement of such an
agreement. It concluded that the parties agreed to release a
liability that might arise in the future, and did so in clear
and unambiguous language.


ASBESTOS ALERT: GA Agency Files Charges for Asbestos-laden Dam
--------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of being fined, the four parties involved in violating
asbestos handling regulations in Dodge County will be required
to remove the waste and attend an asbestos education seminar,
The Telegraph reports.

The state Environmental Protection Division charged Dodge
County, a church, a contractor and a local landowner for using
asbestos-laden construction waste in a dam at a county pond.
None of them realized asbestos was in the waste, nor followed
state rules about demolition notification and asbestos
inspections.

William Spain, who manages the EPD's asbestos programs, said the
agency is currently working on consent orders that will require
the parties involved to sponsor and attend a free asbestos
education seminar.

Mr. Spain said that the asbestos, which was attached to chunks
of concrete, was not a significant health threat, but they have
the potential to slightly increase public risk to asbestos
exposure.

EPD officials and those involved said the problem started when
New Vision Ministries hired contractor Homer Vaughn to demolish
an old Dairy Queen, where the congregation had been worshipping.
Rev. William Evans said that Mr. Vaughn agreed to do the job and
put the waste in a landfill for US$4,000. He said a church
official first directed him to take the waste to a transfer
station, but the waste was refused.

Wayne Mullis approached church elders and requested the
construction waste be dumped into his pond on West Chicken Road.
The materials were to be used as a dam because the pond had been
drained after the county installed a large pipe to prevent road
washouts.

After the dam was built, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers then
sent a letter to Mr. Mullis stating that he had violated federal
laws about dumping in wetlands.

Dodge County must help pay for cleanup because about half the
material landed on the county right of way. County Manager Kelly
Bowen said she has no idea how much this will cost, but the
County Commission approved hiring a contractor to do the work.
In the meantime, Rev. Evans said the area has been roped off to
prevent the public from driving or walking across the material.
He confirmed that a licensed asbestos-abatement contractor has
agreed to remove the asbestos for free.

The four-hour seminar on advanced asbestos awareness will
probably be held in the fall, Mr. Spain said. Anyone in Middle
Georgia who wants to attend can call Kim Feagler (404) 362-2684
for more information.


ASBESTOS ALERT: KY Court Remands Case V. 2 Distributor Companies
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Kentucky on April 1, 2005 decided to
vacate a summary judgment ruling by Marshall Circuit Court in
the products liability case in favor of Henry A. Petter Supply
Co. and Hannan Supply Co. and ordered a remand for further
proceedings. In the same case, the Appeals Court dismissed Mine
Equipment Mill Supply Co. for being an improperly joined
defendant.

Case No. 2004-CA-000259-MR, which was modified on June 3, 2005,
relates an appeal filed by Leon B. Parker against the three
asbestos products suppliers to his employer, SKW Metals & Alloys
(formerly known as Pittsburgh Metallurgical). He alleged they
were strictly liable for his injuries after he developed lung
cancer, which he claims was a result of exposure to asbestos.

Mr. Parker worked at SKW beginning in 1955 and his exposure to
asbestos products occurred in the early years of his employment
there. He admitted that he could not recall all of the
manufacturers of asbestos products to which he may have been
exposed. He claimed there may have been other manufacturers of
the products as yet unnamed.

Hannan Supply and Petter Supply asserted that they were
wholesale distributors, not manufacturers, of asbestos products.
They consequently argued for application of the "middleman
statute" of the Kentucky Products Liability Act. In addition,
Hannan Supply asserted that the time period in which Parker
handled asbestos materials was before it was founded. Petter
Supply asserted that Mr. Parker is unable to establish that he
was exposed to asbestos through products it sold nor was he able
to establish that these products were a substantial contributing
factor in causing his injuries.

On appeal, Mr. Parker argued that the prerequisites of the
middleman statute were not met, and that the two companies
violated the Kentucky Products Liability Act for selling a
defective product. In addition, he contended that the statute is
inapplicable since not all of the manufacturers of the products
were identified and he provided evidence that Petter Supply and
Hannan Supply knew or should have known that the product was
unreasonably dangerous at the time of his exposure.

Mr. Parker's expert, Dr. Pohl, testified that the medical
community knew about asbestosis as of 1930, about lung cancer
and asbestos exposure as of 1943, and the link between asbestos
and mesothelioma sometime between 1953 and 1960. As to when
manufacturers and distributors knew of the dangers, Dr. Pohl
testified that scientific knowledge was available to anyone
through medical libraries or publications in the 1940s and
1950s.

With regards to Mine Equipment & Mill Supply, Mr. Parker argued
that it should not have been dismissed as a defendant because it
is the legal successor to Mine and Mill Supply which supplied
asbestos products to his employer. However, the trial court
found that Mine Equipment & Mill Supply was incorporated four
years after Mr. Parker retired from his job at SKW. It found
that the Company had no liability in that it had only purchased
assets from IRECO, which had purchased same or similar from Mine
and Mill Supply, and the business differed substantially from
that of IRECO.

The Appeals Court, presided by Judge William E. McAnulty,
recognized the middleman statute as applicable and it also ruled
that the burden of identification of the manufacturers has not
shifted to the defendant companies. However, the court concluded
that the summary judgment ruling of the trial court was
premature and that Mr. Parker should have been allowed to
develop in continued discovery, thus leading to the decision to
vacate the grant of summary judgment.

Joseph D. Satterley Paul J. Kelley Sales, Tillman, Wallbaum,
Catlett & Satterley Louisville, Kentucky, and Kenneth Sales of
Louisville, Kentucky, represented Mr. Parker.

Stephen E. Smith, Jr. McMurry & Livingston, PLLC, of Paducah,
Kentucky, represented Henry A. Petter Supply Co.

Richard C. Roberts Whitlow, Roberts, Houston & Straub, PLLC, of
Paducah, Kentucky, represented Hannan Supply Co.

Ridley M. Sandidge, Jr. Reed, Weitkamp, Schell, & Vice, PLLC, of
Louisville, Kentucky, represented Mine Equipment & Mill Supply
Co.

Company Profile:
Henry A. Petter Supply Co.
5110 Charter Oak Drive
Paducah, KY
Phone: 1.800.626.3940
Fax: 1.270.575.6900

Description:
Henry A. Petter Supply Company is now a full line industrial
distributor. It focuses on Marine supplies, MRO supplies, and
supplies for various industrial and manufacturing industries.

Company Profile:
Hannan Supply Co.
1565 N 8th St.,
Paducah KY 42001
Phone: (270) 442-5456
Fax: (270) 442-9050

Description:
Hannan Supply Co. is a wholesale distributor of electrical
apparatus and equipment, wiring supplies, and related equipment.

Company Profile:
Mine Equipment & Mill Supply, Co.
370 Mine Equipment Rd.
Dawson Springs, Hopkins, KY 42408-9706


ASBESTOS ALERT: HSE Imposes GBP2,000 Penalty on Enviraz Scotland
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Health and Safety Executive imposed a GBP2,000 fine on
Enviraz (Scotland) Ltd. for "uncontrolled stripping of
asbestos."

At the hearing in March 2005, the Scottish construction firm was
found guilty of breaching section 2, sub section 1 of the Health
and Safety At Work etc. Act 1974, which states UK employers'
most basic health and safety obligation:

"It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is
reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work
of all his employees."


Company Profile:
Enviraz (Scotland) Ltd.
23 Kelvin Avenue
Hillington Industrial Estate

Glasgow, Lanarkshire G52 4LT
Phone: 0141 882 8440
Fax: 0141 882 4607

Description:
Enviraz Ltd. is a licensed asbestos removal contractor.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


AUTHENTIDATE HODINGS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of AuthentiDate Holdings Corp.
("AuthentiDate" or the "Company") (NasdaqNM: ADAT), between
September 29, 2003 and May 27, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action, case no. 05-CV-5758, is pending before the Honorable
Laura T. Swain in United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against defendants AuthentiDate, Surendra
Pai (CEO and President), John T. Botti (former CEO and
President), Dennis H. Bunt (CFO), Peter R. Smith (former COO)
and John J. Waters (Chief Administrative Officer). According to
the complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market during the Class
Period.

The complaint alleges that AuthentiDate entered into a
purportedly lucrative agreement with the United States Postal
Service ("USPS") to serve as the preferred provider of the USPS
Electronic Postmark(R) ("EPM") service, a web-based security
service that allowed users to verify authenticity, detect
tampering, and date and timestamp electronic documents and
files. Under the agreement (the "USPS Agreement"), the Company's
subsidiary, AuthentiDate, Inc., provided the sales, marketing,
management, support, and its proprietary authentication
technology for the USPS EPM service. Defendants did not fully
disclose, however, that the USPS Agreement required AuthentiDate
to attain certain performance metrics ("Performance Metrics"),
including the generation of minimum revenues over a specified
period of time ("Revenue Metric"). To facilitate the launch of
the USPS EPM system, the Company entered into developmental and
promotional agreements with Microsoft to create interfaces
between the USPS EPM and Microsoft software products that would
allow users to digitally sign Word documents and seal them with
a USPS EPM. On September 8, 2004, defendants revealed for the
first time details concerning the Performance Metrics, and that
the Company had failed to generate sufficient revenues to attain
the Revenue Metric. Defendants, however, assured investors that
the Company and USPS had reached an agreement in principle to
amend the Performance Metrics, and that the amendment would be
finalized shortly. On February 8, 2005, in an earnings
conference call, defendant John J. Waters stated that, "We did a
few things recently which we think put us back in compliance. .
." On April 29, 2005, defendants issued a press release
announcing that they had engaged a special counsel to assist the
Company's audit committee in "resolving certain internal
controls and corporate governance issues raised by the Chief
Financial Officer."

On May 27, 2005, the last day of the Class Period, defendants
issued a press release after the market had closed revealing
that the Company had received a second notice from USPS stating
that the Company had failed to attain the Revenue Metrics during
the period February 2005 through April 2005. Defendants also
disclosed that the USPS might exercise its right to terminate
the USPS Agreement if AuthentiDate was unable to cure the
default. In reaction to this news, the price of AuthentiDate
stock fell $0.54, or 15.5%, from its closing price of $3.48 on
May 27, 2005 to close at $2.94 on the following trading day, May
31, 2005, on unusually high trading volume of 1.28 million
shares. Defendants were motivated to engage in the alleged
misconduct in order for Company insiders, including defendants
Dennis H. Bunt and John T. Botti, to sell 156,000 shares of
their personally-held AuthentiDate stock at artificially
inflated prices, reaping proceeds of $1.7 million. In addition,
defendants were able to complete a private placement of
AuthentiDate stock at artificially inflated prices for net
proceeds of $69 million.

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


AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Smith & Smith LLP initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased
securities of Authentidate Holding Corporation ("Authentidate"
or the "Company") (Nasdaq:ADAT), between September 29, 2003 and
May 27, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period
concerning the Company's financial performance, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Authentidate securities. No
class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Howard Smith of Smith & Smith LLP,
Phone: (866) 759-2275, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com.


CARRIER ACCESS: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Smith & Smith LLP initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased
securities of Carrier Access Corporation ("Carrier Access" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ:CACSE) (NASDAQ:CACS), between October 21,
2003 and May 20, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period
concerning the Company's financial performance, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Carrier Access securities.
No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq., 261 Old York
Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone: (215) 886-1900,
E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net.


CONAGRA FOODS: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NE
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired ConAgra
Foods, Inc. (NYSE: CAG) securities between September 18, 2003,
and June 7, 2005, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Nebraska, against the company and certain key
officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq., 261 Old York
Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone: (215) 886-1900,
E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net.


CONAGRA FOODS: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NE
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Nebraska on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of ConAgra Foods, Inc.
("ConAgra" or the "Company") (NYSE:CAG) between September 18,
2003 and June 7, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges certain of the Company's executive
officers with violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b 5 promulgated
thereunder by issuing materially false and misleading financial
statements to the investing public regarding the Company's
financial performance and prospects.

ConAgra is a packaged food company serving a wide variety of
food customers. The complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and prospects and
issued false and misleading financial statements. According to
the complaint, as a result of defendants' false statements,
ConAgra's stock traded at inflated levels as high as $30 per
share during the Class Period, which allowed its top officers to
reap tens of millions of dollars in ill-gotten bonuses. Among
the facts concealed from the investing public during the Class
Period, included the following:

     (1) the Company lacked requisite internal controls, and, as
         a result, the Company's projections and reported
         results were based upon defective assumptions and/or
         manipulated facts;

     (2) contrary to defendants' claims of fourth quarter 2005
         and/or fiscal year 2005 profitability, the Company was
         actually on track to report losses;

     (3) the Company's income was overstated due to improper tax
         accounting; and

     (4) as a result of the above, the Company's projections for
         fiscal year 2005 were grossly inflated.

On March 24, 2005, the Company announced it would be restating
its financial statements for fiscal 2002 through the first half
of fiscal 2005 due to improper accounting for income taxes.
ConAgra stock fell to around $26 per share on this news. Then,
on June 7, 2005, the Company announced that its fiscal 2005
fourth quarter would be lower than expected primarily due to
continued weak profitability in the packaged meats operations.
On this news the stock fell further to $24.32 per share.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Christopher Hinton of
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com.


CORN PRODUCTS: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
initiated a lawsuit on behalf of its client and on behalf of
other similarly situated persons who purchased Corn Products
International, Inc., (Nasdaq:CPO) ("Corn Products" or the
"Company") securities at artificially inflated prices from
January 25, 2005 to April 4, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

The Complaint charges Corn Products and certain of its executive
officers (collectively "defendants") with violating the federal
securities laws. Plaintiff claims defendants' omissions and
material misrepresentations artificially inflated the Company's
stock price, inflicting damages on investors. The Complaint
charges the Company and the Company's CEO and CFO with violating
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.

Corn Products makes and sells starches, liquid sweeteners, and
other ingredients to customers the world over.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants knew but failed to
tell investors about a host of problems plaguing the Company
during the Class Period. For example, the Complaint alleges that
the Company and its CEO and CFO knew that the Company's hedging
strategy during the Fall of 2004 was a failure and would erode
earnings for a year to come, but they said nothing to investors.
The Complaint further alleges that defendants also knew but
failed to disclose manufacturing problems at certain facilities
that were driving expenses materially higher -- far above
internally forecasted levels. Finally, according to the
Complaint, in the face of these problems, the defendants
possessed no reasonable basis for the positive statements they
made about the Company during the Class Period, and in fact, the
defendants knew their forward-looking statements were false when
made.

Then, on April 5, 2005, Corn Products issued a press release
before the market opened. That press release rocked the market
and sent the Company's stock price from $25.86 per share to
$20.98 per share on very heavy trading volume. The press release
disclosed, for the first time, that Corn Products expected its
first-quarter earnings to drop by up to forty percent due to the
following factors:

     (1) timing of corn purchases;

     (2) increased expenses; and

     (3) manufacturing expense problems.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. or Robert C.
Smits of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New
York Avenue, N.W., West Tower, Suite 500, Washington, D.C.
20005, Phone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600, E-mail:
stoll@cmht.com or rsmits@cmht.com.


CYBERONICS INC.: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas against Cyberonics, Inc. (Nasdaq: CYBX).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from June 15, 2004 through October 1, 2004.

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


DRDGOLD LTD.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all securities
purchasers of DRDGOLD Ltd. (Nasdaq: DROOY)(f/k/a Durban
Roodepoort Deep, Limited)("DRD" or the "Company") between
October 23, 2003 and February 25, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges DRD, Mark Wellesley-Wood and Ian Louis
Murray with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the Company's South African operations,
         specifically the North West Operations, were
         underperforming due to production problems;

     (2) that the South African Rand was negatively impacting
         the Company's operations;

     (3) that due to (1) and (2), DRD materially overstated its
         net worth by failing to take timely writedowns;

     (4) that the Company lacked the cash to adequately cover
         future commitments and continue as a going concern;

     (5) that defendants' statements about the Company's growth
         and progress were lacking in any reasonable basis when
         made.

On February 18, 2005, DRD announced that Company headline loss
per share would be more than 200 percent higher than the
previous reporting period. Then, on February 24, 2005, DRD
released its interim financial results, which revealed that the
Company incurred and continued to incur significant losses and
that operations were in process of being restructured. On this
news, the shares of DRD fell by $0.38 per share, or 25 percent,
on February 24, 2005, to close at $1.11 per share.

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


HARLEY-DAVISON INC.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Suit in WI
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Harley-
Davidson, Inc. ("Harley" or the "Company") (NYSE:HDI) between
January 21, 2004 through April 12, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period Harley and
certain of the Company's executive officers issued materially
false and misleading financial statements to the investing
public regarding its financial performance and prospects in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b 5 promulgated thereunder.

Harley produces motorcycles, motorcycle parts, accessories and
general merchandise. During the Class Period, defendants made
numerous positive statements regarding the Company's financial
performance and prospects. The complaint alleges that these
statements were materially false and misleading because
defendants failed to disclose or indicate the following:

     (1) that the much touted gap between the consumer demand
         for Harley's products and the available supply had
         disappeared;

     (2) that the Company shipped excess inventory to dealers
         that the Company knew, or was made aware, was at an
         unsustainable rate given the demand for Harley's
         products to create the appearance of continued strong
         demand and mask the decline in demand;

     (3) that the financial performance of the Company's
         Financial Services Division was materially negatively
         impacted by interest rate fluctuations;

     (4) as a result, the Company's financial results were
         materially inflated at all relevant times; and

     (5) that the Company's lacked any reasonable basis for the
         financial projections it provided concerning its future
         growth.

On April 13, 2005, the Company disclosed that it would cut its
production of new 2005 motorcycles as a result of declining
demand and excess dealer inventories. This news caused the
Company's share price to plummet more than 16% in one day. By
April 15, 2005, as the market continued digesting the news,
Harley-Davidson shares had declined 22% percent below the
closing price on April 12, 2005 -- the day before the disclosure
of declining demand and the planned production cut.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Christopher Hinton of
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com.


INPUT/OUTPUT INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Input/Output, Inc. (NYSE: IO) ("I/O" or the
"Company") between May 10, 2004 and January 4, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff,
you must move the Court no later than 30 days from today or no
later than July 22, 2005.

The complaint charges I/O, Robert P. Reebler, J. Michael
Kirksey, and Michael K. Lambert with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the
Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the integration of GXT and I/O was a significant
         failure;

     (2) that in contrast to I/O representations, GXT project
         pipeline lacked in volume;

     (3) that, in addition to the Company as a whole, I/O's
         business development group, within the ISG group, was
         suffering from poor management execution;

     (4) that the Company's internal growth, due to poor
         management execution, remained stagnant irregardless of
         management's assertions otherwise; and

     (5) that as a result of the above, the defendants'
         statements about the Company were lacking in any
         reasonable basis when made.

On January 4, 2005, I/O issued a press release wherein it
announced that fourth quarter results would be significantly
below the low end of the Company's guidance of $0.08 per share
primarily because two high margin GXT data library sales were
not completed as expected. News of this shocked the market.
Shares of I/O fell $1.41 per share, or about 17 percent, to
close at $6.90 per share on usually high trading volume.

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


MAGMA DESIGN: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Magma Design Automation, Inc.
(Nasdaq: LAVA).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from October 23, 2002 through April 12, 2005.

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


OCA INC.: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a Class
Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of OCA, Inc. ("OCA" or the "Company")
(NYSE:OCA), between May 18, 2004 and June 7, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges OCA and certain of the Company's executive
officers with violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiff
claims defendants' omissions and material misrepresentations
during the Class Period artificially inflated OCA's stock price,
inflicting damages on investors. OCA provides business services
to orthodontic and pediatric dental practices in the United
States. The Complaint alleges defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded and failed to disclose material adverse facts
concerning the Company's financial results, including that:

     (1) defendants had engaged in improper accounting
         practices. The Complaint further alleges OCA has
         admitted that its prior financial reports are
         materially false and misleading, as it announced that
         it is going to restate its results for the first three
         quarters of 2004 and potentially prior periods;

     (2) certain journal entries in the Company's general ledger
         were improperly recorded;

     (3) certain data provided to the Company's independent
         accounting firm had been improperly changed;

     (4) the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was
         therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition; and

     (5) as a result of the foregoing, the values of the
         Company's patient receivables and patient revenue were
         materially overstated at all relevant times.

On June 7, 2005, the Company shocked the market when it issued a
press release announcing that it was further delaying the filing
of its annual report, that it intended to restate its quarterly
financial statements for 2004, and that it had placed the
Company's Chief Operating Officer, Bartholomew E. Palmisano Jr.,
on administrative leave. As a result of this news, shares of the
Company's stock fell $1.55 per share -- a 38% drop in one day --
to close on June 7, 2005, at $2.48 per share, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy or Mark Labaton of
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or
(888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site:
http://www.glancylaw.com.


OCA INC.: Lockridge Grindal Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in LA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P. initiated a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of OCA, Inc. (NYSE:OCA) ("OCA" or the "Company")
between May 18, 2004 and June 7, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of OCA securities. No
class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq. or Robert J.
Linsmier of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., 100 Washington
Avenue South, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN, 55401, Phone:
(612) 339-6900, E-mail: gmfishbein@locklaw.com or
rjlinsmier@locklaw.com.


PEMSTAR INC.: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court of Minnesota against
Pemstar, Inc. (Nasdaq: PMTR).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from January 29, 2003 through January 24, 2005.

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


WILLBORS GROUP: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
initiated a lawsuit on behalf of its client and on behalf of
other similarly situated purchasers of the securities of
Willbros Group Inc. ("Willbros" or the Company") common stock
between May 6, 2002, and May 16, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas.

The Complaint charges Willbros and certain of its officers and
directors with violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The
Complaint alleges that defendants omitted or misrepresented
material facts about the Company's financial condition, business
prospects, revenue expectations and internal controls during the
Class Period.

The Complaint alleges that the Company's International
operations were engaging in bribery and tax evasion, among other
things, and that the Company would have to restate its financial
statements for fiscal years 2002 to the present, as the Company
had materially overstated its financial condition by failing to
account for the bribes it was paying or the taxes it was
evading. In addition, it is alleged, that Willbros admitted that
it likely violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act "(FCPA"),
which prohibits bribery of foreign officials to obtain business.

It is contended that on May 16, 2005, Willbros revealed the true
extent of the problems at Willbros International. On that date,
the Company issued a press release announcing the completion of
its Audit Committee investigation into the activities of
defendant James K. Tillery and other employees and consultants
of Willbros International and its subsidiaries. The
investigation revealed, among other things, that:

     (1) Willbros International was bribing foreign officials in
         order to obtain business in at least Bolivia, Nigeria
         and Ecuador, which were not being properly accounted
         for on the Company's financial statements and exposed
         the Company to the risk of substantial fines;

     (2) Willbros International was evading the payment of taxes
         in various locales, thereby materially overstating the
         Company's financial results and exposing the Company to
         potential fines and penalties;

     (3) the Company was engaging in substantial undisclosed
         related party transactions; and

     (4) the Company's financial statements were not prepared in
         conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles ("GAAP") and were materially false and
         misleading when issued.

By restating several years of the Company's financial
statements, it is alleged, Willbros admitted that its financial
statements were materially false and misleading when made.

Following this news, the price of Willbros stock fell $4.92 per
share or more than 30% to close at $11.00 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

During the Class Period and prior to the announcement of the
serious problems plaguing Willbros, it is alleged that the
Company:

     (i) completed an offering of $70 million of its 2.75%
         Convertible Senior Notes;

    (ii) entered into an expanded credit agreement for a new
         $150 million three-year senior secured credit facility;
         and

   (iii) enabled insiders to sell 462,354 shares of their
         personally held Willbros common stock at inflated
         prices reaping in more than $7 million in illicit
         proceeds.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. or Robert C.
Smits of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New
York Avenue, N.W., West Tower, Suite 500, Washington, D.C.
20005, Phone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600, E-mail:
stoll@cmht.com or rsmits@cmht.com.


                            *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2004.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *