---

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

            Thursday, June 30, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 128

                         Headlines

AIRDOC SERVICES: WV Attorney General Files Consumer Fraud Suit
AMERICA ONLINE: OH AG Forges Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Settlement
AUTOCAR LLC: Recalls 649 Vehicles Due to Defective Backup Alarms
BANK OF AMERICA: Employees' 401(k) Suit Transferred to NC Court
BARTOLO FUNERAL: WV AG Forges Settlement For Consumer Fraud Suit

BC MILLIONS: WV AG Warns Consumers Against Canadian Lottery Scam
BERKELEY PREMIUM: Ohio AG Sues Over Deceptive Weight-Loss Claims
BEVERLY ENTERPRISES: Judge Grants Certification For Bradley Suit
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Recalls VANTAGET Vascular Grafts For Defects
BUSYBOX.COM: SEC Files Securities Fraud Complaint V. Executives

CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: CO Investor Launches Suit Over $7.9B Plan
CARDSYSTEMS SOLUTIONS: NAAG Demands More Info on Security Breach
CINCINNATI BELL: Reaches Tentative Settlement in OH Roaming Suit
CONNECTICUT: SEC Launches Civil Fraud Suit V. Five Individuals
D.W. HEATH: Final Judgments Issued on SEC Suit Over $145M Scheme

DELOITTE TOUCHE: Judge Issues Opinion Regarding Parmalat Fraud
GEORGETOWNE PLACE: To Pay $650T To Settle EEOC Race Bias Suit
HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Asks AL Court To Dismiss Fraud Lawsuit
HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Working To Settle AL Securities Lawsuit
HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: FL Court Yet To Approve ADA Settlement

HYTRIN LITIGATION: South Dakotans to Participate in Settlement
ILLINOIS: Protracted Lawsuit Over Medicaid For Children Settled
INTERNATIONAL TRUCK: Recalls 51589 Trucks For Electrical Defect
INTERNATIONAL TRUCK: Recalls 60 Trucks For Service Brake Defect
ITALY: Taxpayers Association To Lodge Suit V. Internal Revenue

LONG JOHN: Faces Managers' Overtime Suit For Violation of FLSA
NAPSTER INC.: CA Court Grants Certification to Copyright Lawsuit
NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Reaches Deal With Netexit Creditors
OAKBROOK HILTON: IL Court Grants Certification To Terrill Case
OHIO: Wins High Court Favor in Lawsuit Against Supermax Prison

STAR TRIBUNE: Advertiser Lodges MN Suit Over Circulation Numbers
TENET CAPITAL: SEC Commences Complaint To Halt Hedge Fund Fraud
TYSON FOODS: Former Employees Lodge Suit Over Alleged Pay Scheme
UNITED STATES: ACLU Files Suit V. Agency Over Degrading Process
VARI-L CORPORATION: Ex-Execs Indicted Due To Securities Fraud

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

NAVARRE COPRORATION: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Stock Lawsuit in MN
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in MI

                            *********


AIRDOC SERVICES: WV Attorney General Files Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw filed a lawsuit
against Richard "Rick" Gibson and Glenda Marlene Gibson, doing
business as Air Doc Services, for refusing to complete
contracted work and then refusing to refund consumer's deposits,
among other deceptive business activities.  Attorney General
McGraw's Consumer Protection Office seeks a preliminary order
from the Mercer County Circuit Court to shut down Air Doc
because of numerous violations.

The Company is a heating and air conditioning company that
contracted with consumers to supply and install heating and air
conditioning systems in Mercer and surrounding counties. The
Attorney General's Office received several complaints that the
Company would cash consumers deposits but not supply the heating
and cooling equipment or provide the work required by the
contract.  Customers that contacted the Company discovered that
Rick and Marlene Gibson would provide numerous excuses on why
their systems were not installed. Other consumers complained
that the Company simply quit answering the phone and did not
return messages inquiring about their systems. Consumers didn't
get their cash deposits back even though the Company never did
the work.

"Our office will continue to take action against contractors
preying on West Virginia consumers," said Attorney General
McGraw. "Because Air Doc and the Gibsons made numerous
misrepresentations, consumers willingly gave them hard-earned
money even though Air Doc had no intention of installing the
heating and cooling systems."

The lawsuit, filed in Mercer County, seeks injunctive relief,
restitution for those affected, civil penalties, costs, and
attorneys' fees. Anyone who may have been victimized by Air Doc
is encouraged to call Attorney General McGraw's consumer
protection hotline: 800-368-8808 or 304-558-8986.


AMERICA ONLINE: OH AG Forges Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro settled a lawsuit with internet
service providers AOL and CompuServe on behalf of Ohio
consumers, obtaining full refunds for inappropriate charges to
their accounts, on June 8,2005.

The Attorney General filed suit against America Online, Inc. and
its subsidiary CompuServe Interactive Services, Inc., in October
of 2003 for improper billing and violating a previous agreement
with the state.  AOL/CompuServe has not admitted to any
violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act by signing
this settlement, but is agreeing to provide full restitution to
all Ohio consumers who chose to opt-out of a class action
settlement also involving AOL/CompuServe, Clough v. AOL, filed
in the District Court of Creek County, Twenty-Fourth Judicial
District-Drumright Division, Oklahoma.

"This settlement provides Ohio consumers who opted-out of the
class action with the best resolution. It also provides
resolution for more than 100 other Ohio complaints not included
in our suit," he said. "AOL's agreement to comply with Ohio laws
should reduce the number of complaints filed. If we don't see a
reduction then we will file another action against them."

Twelve Ohio consumers opted-out of the class action settlement
and chose to remain a part of Attorney General Petro's suit.
They will be receiving full restitution from AOL/CompuServe as a
result of the settlement filed today in Franklin County Common
Pleas Court. AOL/CompuServe also agrees to resolve any future
valid consumer complaints they receive from the Attorney
General's Consumer Protection Section. This will include at
least 100 more complaints initially and continue to provide for
any consumers that file such complaints in the future. The
settlement agreement also states that AOL will pay $75,000 to
the Attorney General's Office for its costs associated with this
lawsuit and the mediation of consumer complaints.

America Online is based in Virginia and CompuServe, a subsidiary
of AOL, is based in Columbus, Ohio.

Consumers can file a complaint with Attorney General Jim Petro's
Consumer Protection Section by visiting the Website:
http://www.ag.state.oh.usor by Phone: 1-800-282-0515 toll free
to have a complaint form sent to them.  For more details,
contact Michelle Gatchell, Attorney General's Office, by Phone:
(614) 466-3840


AUTOCAR LLC: Recalls 649 Vehicles Due to Defective Backup Alarms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Autocar, LLC in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is
voluntarily recalling about 649 2003-05 Autocar WX, WXLL, WXR
vehicles due to defective backup alarms.

According to the ODI, on certain heavy-duty class 8 trucks, the
backup alarm motion sensor may not have been installed correctly
and may not sense when the vehicle moves backwards under any
circumstances. The vehicle may roll backwards without the backup
alarm sounding with the risk of running over or crushing a
person standing or working behind vehicle.

As a remedy, dealers will reposition the motion sensor in
relation to the magnets that rotate when the vehicle moves.
NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V295000, Recall Date: June 21, 2005.

For more details, contact Autocar by Phone: 1-877-973-3486 or
the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


BANK OF AMERICA: Employees' 401(k) Suit Transferred to NC Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal lawsuit in which Bank of America Corporation employees
accuse the bank of mishandling their retirement plans has been
moved to a North Carolina court, The Charlotte Business Journal
reports.

Eli Gottesdiener, the plaintiffs' attorney who filed the case a
year ago in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois, told the Journal that though he opposed the move he is
not concerned with trying the case in BofA's backyard. He also
said, "This is an important case for the thousands of bank
retirees and employees who live in North Carolina."

The lawsuit contends the company improperly handled almost $2.7
billion in employee 401(k) and pension plans to make arbitrage-
like profits in the late 1990s and early 2000s, an accusation
that BofA has vehemently denied. Additionally, the bank has
filed a motion to dismiss the case.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission earlier
this year, the bank acknowledged the Internal Revenue Service
has tentatively ruled that BofA's practice violated tax law.
But, the bank has challenged that finding, which the IRS made
after an audit of the retirement plans.

Mr. Gottesdiener, who is seeking to have the case certified a
class action on behalf of all BofA employees affected by the
plans told the Journal, "At a time when Social Security and
retirement benefits are front-page news, it is crucial that
large employers like the bank be held to their promises and not
be allowed to pull the retirement safety net from under their
employees and retirees." He adds, "That's what the bank tries to
do here, and we're confident the courts will protect the
interests of North Carolina workers."

In February, BofA filed a motion to move the case to the Western
District of North Carolina, which is were the bank is based. The
bank argued that it would be more convenient for witnesses, many
of who could include executives and vendors at BofA.

Mr. Gottesdiener though objected to the move arguing that
convenience was not an important issue because the case could
involve witnesses from all over the country.

However, Judge G. Patrick Murphy, chief district judge in the
Southern District of Illinois, ordered the case moved to North
Carolina's Western District with the filings being transferred
to the clerk's office in Charlotte early this month.


BARTOLO FUNERAL: WV AG Forges Settlement For Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw visited the
Harrison County Courthouse on June 28,2005, to announce the
settlement of his lawsuit against Bartolo Funeral Home, Inc. and
to distribute refund checks to area consumers.

Last year, Mr. McGraw's Consumer Protection Division received
complaints against the funeral home, alleging that it was
closing for business without returning money paid in advance by
consumers for preneed funeral expenses.  The Consumer Protection
Division investigated and found that the funds given to the
funeral home for pre-need contracts had been used for other
purposes, in violation of the law.

During the course of the investigation it was also revealed that
Bartolo had supplied fictitious accounting records of the pre-
need funds.  The pre-need funds had been misappropriated and
were therefore not available either for refunds to consumers or
for payment to other funeral homes for burials when the time
came.

On behalf of consumers who had lost money to Bartolo Funeral
Home, Attorney General McGraw filed suit in the matter of State
ex rel. McGraw, Attorney General v. James F. Bartolo and Bartolo
Funeral Home, Inc. in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, to
freeze the available assets of Bartolo Funeral Home for the
reimbursement of defrauded consumers. Pursuant to the terms of a
Confession of Judgment, Bartolo will reimburse $234,000 to
consumers. Bartolo will surrender certain property and funds for
an initial payment and repay the remainder owed in installments.
Bartolo further agreed to permanently refrain from accepting any
advance payments for funeral expenses.

Because of the financial terms of the agreement and the limited
remaining resources of Bartolo Funeral Home, most of the refunds
being paid to Harrison County consumers today will come from the
"Preneed Guarantee Fund," a special victims' fund set up by
Attorney General McGraw's office to take care of victims of
preneed funeral fraud.

Any customer of Bartolo Funeral Home suspecting that their
prepayments may have been mishandled should contact the Attorney
General's Consumer Hotline: 800-368-8808, or 304-558-8986.


BC MILLIONS: WV AG Warns Consumers Against Canadian Lottery Scam
----------------------------------------------------------------
West Virginia Attorney General Darrel V. McGraw, Jr. warned
residents about con artists operating out of British Columbia,
Canada, who are targeting West Virginia consumers on another
Canadian lottery scam.

Mr. McGraw's consumer protection office has received information
regarding the scam, known as BC Millions. Consumers receive a
letter from BC Millions claiming to be an official announcement
of winning lottery ticket numbers. The letter explains that the
consumer's name was entered in the lottery and that an advance
check is enclosed to cover legal fees and insurance. However,
the checks issued on commercial businesses in the United States,
or Canadian banks are bogus. Consumers may be required to repay
the bank cashing the bogus check.

If a bank cashes the bogus check, consumers are asked to share
the proceeds with the scam operators. Victims are then asked to
pay phony processing and finders fees to the scam operators.

If you have been a victim of such scam, contact the Attorney
General's consumer hotline: 1-800-368-8808.


BERKELEY PREMIUM: Ohio AG Sues Over Deceptive Weight-Loss Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro filed a lawsuit against Steve
Warshak of Cincinnati, Ohio and his firms Berkeley Premium
Nutraceuticals, Lifekey Inc., Boland Naturals Inc., Warner
Health Care, and Wagner Nutraceuticals, alleging the companies
failed to inform consumers who received a "free" trial offer
that they would also be enrolled in a plan that automatically
billed them for future shipments of products.

The attorney general also said consumers were deceived about the
effectiveness of the nutritional supplements they marketed. The
companies' best known product, Enzyte, is a pill advertised in
national "Smiling Bob" TV commercials claiming it will enhance
sexual performance in men.

"My office has received more than 1,000 complaints depicting
deceptive business practices regarding Berkeley Premium
Nutraceuticals, related companies and their products," said the
Attorney General. "These companies' claims about their products
made them attractive to consumers at first, but in the end they
didn't fulfill those claims. Companies must be truthful about
their products and clearly disclose all of the costs to the
consumers."

The suit alleges that Mr. Warshak's companies, which expected to
gross $250 million in sales in 2004 through the sale of 15
different products, hooked customers with advertisements that
resembled those for genuine pharmaceutical drugs, promising
"free" 30-day trials of their products.  The companies' products
include Altovis, Avlimil, Avlimil Complete, Dromias, Enzyte,
Mioplex, Ogoplex, Numovil, Pinadol, Prulato, Rogisen, Rovicid,
Suvaril, Nuproxi, and Rudofil. When consumers made an initial
order of pills, the companies failed to tell them they would be
automatically billed for additional shipments and often made it
difficult to cancel the shipment or get their money back.

The suit also alleges Mr. Warshak and his companies made
unsubstantiated claims about their products' effectiveness. The
companies did not have competent and reliable scientific
evidence to back up their advertised health claims, the suit
says.

The suit asks that the court prevent Mr. Warshak and his
companies from further violating Ohio's consumer protection and
telemarketing solicitation sales laws, declare that their
business practices violated the law, order them to reimburse
consumers who were illegally billed, assess a fine of $25,000
per violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act and impose a
penalty of $1,000 to $25,000 for each Telephone Sales
Solicitation Act violation found by the court.

The Attorney General filed the suit in the Franklin County
Common Pleas Court. The attorneys general of Arkansas, Illinois,
North Carolina, Oregon and Texas filed similar suits in their
respective courts.

For more details, contact the Attorney General's Office by
Phone: 1-800-282-0515 or by visiting the Website:
http://www.ag.state.oh.us. Also contact Michelle Gatchell,
Attorney General's Office, by Phone: (614) 466-3840.


BEVERLY ENTERPRISES: Judge Grants Certification For Bradley Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas Circuit Judge Robert Bynum Gibson granted the class
action status to a lawsuit Beverly Enterprises Inc., which
alleges that Beverly executives maximized profits by failing to
provide enough staff for proper care in the homes and of
withholding patient records and other information during the
discovery period, according to an order filed in Bradley County
Circuit Court, The Arkansas Democrat Gazette reports.

In that order, the judge stated, "This court finds that the
defendants have practiced an undisguised shell game throughout
this discovery process, which has amounted to deliberate
brinkmanship with the court - never mind the plaintiffs," Gibson
said in the order.

The court had ordered on January 28 that Beverly provide
plaintiffs' attorneys with a list of residents in the Warren
nursing home from August 1999 to September 2003, when the
facility closed. Beverly provided 171 names. At a March 7
hearing, plaintiffs' attorneys reported they found six more
names just by researching local obituary announcements and then
since that time, the number has grown to more than 240.

Additionally, the judge, noting that a discovery sanction is a
drastic step, also stated in his order that the court grants
leeway to all litigants "to play hardball without fear of
sanctions." He added, "However, the defendants have pushed the
envelope too far."

According to plaintiffs' attorneys Jack Wagoner and Gene Ludwig,
both with Little Rock firms, the plaintiffs, the residents of
the Warren home during the above mentioned time period, sought
the return of all Medicare / Medicaid payments over a four-year
period, roughly about $8 million.

Beverly however, vowed in a press statement to appeal the order
saying, "We disagree with the ruling and with the judge's
characterization that Beverly Enterprises did not fully comply
with the discovery process. We intend to appeal both the
decision of the judge to certify the class in this matter, as
well as the default judgment on liability."

In a related matter, the Fort Smith-based nursing home operator
of more than 346 facilities was also found in contempt of court
in a June 15 order in Saline County Circuit Court over failing
to produce e-mails and other electronic data. The case is
similar to the one filed in Bradley County Circuit Court.

In his order, Saline County Circuit Judge Grisham Phillips
stated that the court will consider additional sanctions against
Beverly, "including whether BEI Chief Executive Officer William
Floyd, [executive] David Devereaux or others should be
incarcerated as a result of the defendant's contempt of court,
pending further research into the court's powers in this
regard." The court is also allowing plaintiffs' attorneys access
to Beverly's computers to ensure compliance with releasing
records.

Beverly though stated in a press statement that it's already
turned over more than 1 million pages of documents, "and that
represents only a fraction of what has been requested." It also
said, "Beverly Enterprises is doing everything possible to
gather and provide the extraordinarily massive amount of
information the court has ordered us to produce - which includes
virtually every e-mail, electronic record and physical document
generated by the company for five years. We've hired national
legal and information technology experts at substantial expense
and assigned a large team of employees in an effort to comply
with the judge's order."

The suit like the Bradley case is also seeking class action
certification for all residents who stayed in the Regional
Nursing Center of Bryant in Saline County from December 16,
1998, to June 30, 2004.

In both cases, the company must pay a total of $58,525 in
attorney fees for failing to release information during the
discovery period, in which the defendant and plaintiff exchange
information relevant to the case.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Recalls VANTAGET Vascular Grafts For Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation (NYSE: BSX) is voluntarily
recalling worldwide all Hemashield r VANTAGET Vascular Grafts,
which are used in peripheral procedures. No other Hemashield r
products are affected by this recall. The Company is recalling
all Hemashield VANTAGE Vascular Grafts manufactured in the last
two years due to the potential of the device to fray or tear
during suturing and the possibility that it could lead to post-
operative complications. The Company is aware of three reported
post-operative failures which occurred between three and seven
days post-procedure. In all of these cases, the patients were
successfully treated by re-suturing the graft or replacing it.
The Company is working with the U. S. Food and Drug
Administration and is notifying officials in other countries.

The recalled devices include all Hemashield VANTAGE Vascular
Grafts. The Company initiated the recall after a review of
complaint records and analysis of product revealed the potential
problem. The total number of devices shipped but not yet
implanted is estimated to be 500. The Company ships
approximately 2,180 Hemashield VANTAGE Vascular Grafts per year.

The products were distributed to hospitals worldwide. Boston
Scientific is notifying hospitals through detailed Recall
Packages, including instructions on how to return recalled
product, as well as physician letters. All unimplanted product
is to be returned to Boston Scientific.

Physicians with questions may contact the Company at
1-888-272-1001.

Absent symptoms of graft failure, Boston Scientific is
recommending that physicians continue routine post-operative
clinical evaluation. The signs and symptoms that a Hemashield
VANTAGE Vascular Graft might be starting to fail include: pain,
swelling, bruising, bleeding through incision, rapid pulse or
low blood pressure. If a patient experiences any of these
symptoms, he or she should contact their physician immediately.

Hemashield VANTAGE Vascular Grafts generated revenues of $1.2
million in 2004.

Boston Scientific is a worldwide developer, manufacturer and
marketer of medical devices whose products are used in a broad
range of interventional medical specialties. For more
information, please visit: http://www.bostonscientific.com.


BUSYBOX.COM: SEC Files Securities Fraud Complaint V. Executives
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
charging Patrick A. Grotto, Mark B. Leffers and Jon M.
Bloodworth with fraud in connection with the June 2000 initial
public offering of Busybox.com, Inc.

At the time of the fraudulent IPO, Mr. Grotto was chief
executive officer and chairman of the Company's board of
directors, Mr. Leffers was chief financial officer, Mr.
Bloodworth was general counsel and a director.  Mr. Grotto, 53,
is a resident of New York City and Easton, Maryland; Mr.
Leffers, 40, is a resident of Queenstown, Maryland; Mr.
Bloodworth, 44, is a resident of Santa Fe, New Mexico.

The Commission's complaint alleges that the defendants learned
that Barron Chase Securities Inc., which had agreed to
underwrite a $12.8 million firm commitment IPO for the Company,
could not sell all of the IPO securities to bona fide investors.
The defendants then knowingly or recklessly participated in a
scheme to close the IPO.

The defendants purchased unsold IPO securities using undisclosed
and unearned bonuses, which they caused the Company to pay to
themselves.  In addition, the defendants paid the Company's
lawyer an inflated and undisclosed legal fee using unsold IPO
securities.  Barron Chase financed these transactions and,
during the IPO closing, the defendants caused the Company to
repay Barron Chase out of the proceeds of the offering.  As a
result, the defendants and others received almost 20% of the
securities offered in the IPO, which reduced the proceeds
available to the Company by over $2.1 million.

The defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that the
IPO registration statement did not disclose the insider
transactions, the inflated legal fee, Barron Chase's financing
or the repayment to Barron Chase using IPO proceeds.  In the
week following the close of the IPO, the defendants spent a
further 30% of the IPO proceeds ($2.9 million) on items that
were not disclosed in the registration statement.

The Commission alleges that the defendants thereby violated the
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, Section
17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The
Commission seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-
gotten gains, prejudgment interest, civil monetary penalties and
orders barring all three defendants from acting as an officer or
director of a public company.

This is the second enforcement action taken by the commission
based on its investigation of the Busybox IPO.  Previously, the
Commission had sued Thomas Prousalis, Busybox's lawyer, and
Robert Kirk, the president of Barron Chase, for their roles in
the IPO.  On March 21, 2005, the Honorable Gerard E. Lynch, U.S.
District Judge for the Southern District of New York entered
final judgments, enjoining Mr. Prousalis and Mr. Kirk from
violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities
laws and ordering payment of disgorgement and interest, and
imposing a penalty on Mr. Prousalis.

The Commission thanks the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Southern District of New York and NASD Regulation for their
cooperation in this matter.  The suit is styled "SEC v. Patrick
A. Grotto, Mark B. Leffers and Jon M. Bloodworth., Civil Action
No. 05-CV-5880 (GEL) SDNY] (LR-19284)."


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: CO Investor Launches Suit Over $7.9B Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matilda Schulman of Colorado, who is a Cablevision Systems
Corporation investor, launched a lawsuit challenging the Dolan
family's $7.9-billion plan to take the cable TV company private,
calling the offer "grossly unfair" to shareholders, Newsday.com
reports.

The suit, which was filed the U.S. District Court in Central
Islip, claims that the Dolans, who control a majority of
Cablevision's voting shares, unfairly took advantage of the
"gross disparity" between their knowledge of the company and the
shareholders' "incomplete or inadequate information" to offer an
"unfair price." It further claims that the offer price is
"unconscionable and unfair and grossly inadequate," given the
company's prospects for future growth and earnings. Ms. Schulamn
is asking the court to certify the suit as a class action
representing all shareholders.

Court documents revealed that under the $7.9-billion offer, the
Dolans would pay public stockholders $21 per share in cash after
giving them stock valued at $12.50 per share in a new spinoff,
which would include the sports and entertainment assets, such as
Madision Square Garden, the Knicks and Rangers, and cable
channels such as AMC.

Additionally, court documents also indicated that chairman
Charles Dolan would be chairman of the private company, which
would be completely owned by the family, and his chief executive
son James would be chairman and CEO of the publicly held
spinoff, in which the Dolans would hold a 20-percent stake.

The Cablevision board has named a committee with three
independent directors to review the offer, but the company has
declined to identify them, court documents stated.  The suit,
which in addition to the Dolans, names the company's directors
as defendants saying that they are "obligated to explore all
alternatives to maximize shareholder value."


CARDSYSTEMS SOLUTIONS: NAAG Demands More Info on Security Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) sent a
letter to the Senior Vice President and Legal Counsel for
CardSystems Solutions, Inc., demanding the company inform all
consumers affected by its recent security breach on June
28,2005.

The letter, proposed and authored by Washington State Attorney
General Rob McKenna, was signed by the attorneys general of 44
states, the District of Columbia, and American Samoa, the
Northern Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico.

"In this era of increasing reliance on technology, it is vitally
important that those companies entrusted with nonpublic personal
information employ the highest levels of security," the letter
says. "We call upon your company to do the responsible thing and
notify all affected consumers immediately."

The letter also asks that CardSystems Solutions, Inc. provide:

     (1) The total number of consumers impacted by the breach in
         each state;

     (2) An explanation of how the breach occurred and the steps
         the company is taking to mitigate consumer injury
         caused by the breach, including efforts to notify
         affected consumers; and

     (3) An outline of the plan the company has developed to
         prevent the reoccurrence of such a security breach and
         the timeline for implementing the plan.

Attorney General McKenna, who led a session on cybercrime and
identity theft on June 23 at NAAG's 2005 Summer Meeting in
Montana, worked with staff to circulate the letter and encourage
fellow attorney generals to participate.

"When the CardSystems Solutions security breach broke just prior
to the NAAG summer meeting, I saw this as a perfect opportunity
for attorneys general across the nation to come together and use
their collective powers to protect consumers affected by the
breach," he said. "Consumers have a right to know if their
information has been compromised so they can take the
appropriate steps to protect themselves."

The letter asks the company to respond to the attorneys general
by Monday, July 25.  A copy of the letter sent by the National
Association of Attorneys General to Linda P. Ford of
CardSystems, Inc. can be viewed here.

Tips on protecting your personal information and what to do if
For more information contact Media Relations Director, Janelle
Guthrie, by Phone: (360) 586-0725 or by E-mail:
janelleg@atg.wa.gov or contact Consumer Protection PIO Kristin
Alexander by Phone: (206) 464-6432 or by E-mail:
KristinA1@atg.wa.gov.


CINCINNATI BELL: Reaches Tentative Settlement in OH Roaming Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati Bell Wireless reached a tentative agreement to settle
a class action lawsuit over the telecommunication company's
billing practices for cellular roaming charges, The Cincinnati
Enquirer reports.

Under the tentative settlement, the Company will be required to
create a fund to be capped at $6 million for affected customers
to receive up to $50 apiece in vouchers for certain Bell
services.

In additional, the settlement, which still needs approval from
the court, allows customers who can demonstrate that they had
roaming charges in excess of $100 to receive up to half of the
money they paid in cash instead of the $50 voucher.

As previously reported in the October 6, 2004 edition of the
Class Action reporter, the lawsuit was filed in the Court of
Common Pleas in Hamilton County, Ohio. It had claimed that
Cincinnati Bell Wireless illegally charging customers for
roaming, or using other cellular networks, even though it
advertised its plans as including free roaming nationwide. Also,
the suit claims that Cincinnati Bell has known about these
roaming mistakes for more than a year. The law firm of Ulmer &
Berne LLP is one of two law firms who filed the class action
lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages.

In a related matter, another suit filed in Kentucky in Kenton
County Circuit Court in February over the same issue is also
pending. That suit, which was reported in the February 3, 2005
edition of the Class Action Reporter, is still awaiting a
judge's decision over whether to award it class action status.

Ask for comment on the suit, Bell president and chief executive
officer Jack Cassidy told the Enquirer, "Recognizing that local
wireless roaming charges created confusion for our customers, we
took steps, prior to this lawsuit being filed, to simplify our
rate plans and to provide more predictability regarding roaming
charges."

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


CONNECTICUT: SEC Launches Civil Fraud Suit V. Five Individuals
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed civil fraud charges
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
against Robert Ross, Chance Vought, George Kundrat, John
Lucarelli, and Frederick Raila.

The Commission's complaint alleges that the defendants
participated in a scheme orchestrated by Mr. Ross to purchase
stock illegally in the NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc. IPO in
violation of the federal securities laws. The SEC is seeking
permanent injunctions, disgorgement plus prejudgment interest,
and civil penalties.  The U.S. Attorney's Office for the
District of Connecticut also brought related criminal charges.

Without admitting or denying the allegations in the SEC's
complaint, Mr. Kundrat agreed to a permanent injunction and the
payment of disgorgement plus prejudgment interest of $474,279
and a civil penalty of $120,000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that the defendants used
nominee depositors to illegally obtain shares of NewAlliance
stock at the initial offering price of $10 per share.  The
complaint further alleges that Ross caused the nominee
depositors to submit stock order forms falsely representing that
they were the true purchasers of the stock and had not entered
into any agreements relating to the sale or transfer of the
stock. The complaint alleges that the scheme generated
approximately $1.75 million in total profits.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Mr. Ross, Mr. Vought,
Mr. Kundrat, and Mr. Lucarelli violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, that Mr. Raila and Mr. Lucarelli aided and abetted
Mr. Ross' violations, and that Mr. Lucarelli violated Section
15(a) of the Exchange Act. The suit is styled, SEC v. Robert R.
Ross, et al., (D. Conn.).


D.W. HEATH: Final Judgments Issued on SEC Suit Over $145M Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that the U.S.
District Court in Los Angeles has entered final judgments
against the defendants in a $145 million scheme that targeted
the elderly.

In a complaint filed on April 28, 2004, the Commission alleged
that D.W. Heath & Associates, Inc., Private Capital Management,
Inc. (PCM), Private Collateral Management, Inc., and PCM Fixed
Income Fund I, LLC (PCM Fund), and two individuals, Daniel
William Heath, 48, formerly of Chino Hills, California, and
Denis Timothy O'Brien, 50, formerly of Yorba Linda, California,
fraudulently induced elderly investors to invest in "secured"
notes that paid a "guaranteed" return.  The court appointed Robb
Evans as permanent receiver over Heath & Associates, PCM,
Private Collateral Management, and the PCM Fund.

On March 8, 2005 and May 25, 2005, the District Court entered
final judgments of permanent injunction and other relief against
Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Heath, respectively.   The judgments enjoin
Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Heath from violating the antifraud
provisions of Section 17(a) the Securities Act of 1933
(Securities Act) and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, the
securities registration provisions of Section 5(a) and 5(c) of
the Securities Act, and the broker-dealer registration
provisions of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. The judgments
order O'Brien to disgorge to the receiver $2,526,157 plus pre-
judgment interest of $34,582, and Mr. Heath to disgorge to the
receiver $106,031,605 plus pre-judgment interest of $3,302,553.
Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Heath consented to the entry of the
judgments without admitting or denying the Commission's
allegations. On April 4, 2005 and June 24, 2005, the Commission
instituted administrative proceedings against Mr. O'Brien and
Mr. Heath, respectively, barring them from association with a
broker or dealer based on the entry of final judgments of
permanent injunction against them.  O'Brien and Heath consented
to the entry of the orders without admitting or denying the
Commission's findings.

Previously, the District Court entered judgments of permanent
injunction and other relief against Heath & Associates, PCM,
Private Collateral Management, and the PCM Fund, pursuant to the
consent of the receiver. The judgments enjoin the receivership
entities from violating the antifraud and securities
registration provisions, and specify that pursuant to one or
more plans of distribution to be submitted by the receiver to
the court, the funds and assets of the receivership estate will
be distributed to investors less court-approved fees and
expenses.

The final judgment against Heath concludes the Commission's
action. Administration of the receivership estate will continue.

In a report to the court, the receiver stated that approximately
$144.8 million was raised from investors through PCM and the PCM
Fund, and of that amount, approximately $39.6 million in
principal and interest was returned to investors. According to
the receiver's report, over the life of the company, PCM
suffered a net loss of about $41.8 million and earned only $1
million in total income.

On July 1, 2004, the Riverside County District Attorney's Office
arrested Mr. Heath, Mr. O'Brien, John William Heath, formerly of
Covina, California, and Larre Jaye Schlarmann, formerly of
Carlsbad, California. They have been charged with multiple
felony counts, including selling unqualified securities, selling
securities by misrepresentation, violating a court order to
desist and refrain from selling securities, elder abuse, grand
theft, burglary, and money laundering. All four men are in
custody awaiting a preliminary hearing. Bail was set at $144
million for each individual. The Riverside DA's Office also
obtained asset freezes against Mr. Heath, Mr. O'Brien, John
William Heath, and Mr. Schlarmann. Robb Evans was appointed
receiver in the criminal action.

The case is styled, SEC v. D.W. Heath & Associates, Inc.,
Private Capital Management, Inc., Private Collateral Management,
Inc., PCM Fixed Income Fund I, LLC, Daniel William Heath, and
Denis Timothy O'Brien, CV 04 - 02949JFW(Ex)(C.D. Cal.).


DELOITTE TOUCHE: Judge Issues Opinion Regarding Parmalat Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion
upholding various claims asserted by the plaintiffs against
certain auditor defendants in the class action relating to the
Parmalat securities fraud.

Judge Kaplan found that the plaintiffs had adequately stated
fraud claims against Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu ("DTT") and Grant
Thornton International ("GTI") by virtue of their respective
agency relationships with Parmalat's Italian auditors,
concluding that, "plaintiffs have alleged sufficiently that an
agency relationship existed between GTI and GT-Italy and DTT and
its members firms that conducted the Parmalat audit ..." and
that "(a)s principals they would be responsible for the actions
of their agents." The Court also found that plaintiffs had
adequately stated claims against GTI as a controlling person of
GT-Italy, and against DTT and James Copeland, Deloitte's Chief
Executive Officer, as controlling persons of Deloitte & Touche
LLP and DTT's member firms in Italy.

The law firms of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. and
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. represent the court-appointed
bondholder lead plaintiffs in the action. According to Mark S.
Willis, a partner at Cohen Milstein, one of the co-lead counsel
in the litigation, "The Court's decision today is a significant
step in moving the case forward for the benefit of Parmalat
securities purchasers." Robert M. Roseman, a partner at Spector
Roseman, echoed that, "The Court's decision to hold the
international accounting organizations accountable has afforded
investors the right to proceed and to seek the recovery of funds
lost due to the Parmalat fraud."

For more details, contact Mark S. Willis of Cohen Milstein
Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., Phone: 202 408-4600, E-mail:
mwillis@cmht.com OR Robert M. Roseman, Phone: 215 496-0300, E-
mail: rroseman@srk-law.com.


GEORGETOWNE PLACE: To Pay $650T To Settle EEOC Race Bias Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The owner of senior communities in 14 states will pay $650,000
to settle a race discrimination suit filed by the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced
in a statement.

The EEOC charged that a Fort Wayne senior community refused to
hire African Americans and members of other racial groups for
many years. The agency also said the facility failed to keep
employment records, specifically application papers, as required
by law.

According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Civil Action No. 1:05-CV-004,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Georgetowne Place, owned and
operated by Seattle-based Merrill Gardens LLC, perpetrated a
pattern and practice of shunning minorities because of their
race and/or color. During the EEOC's investigation, Carol
Felger, the former general manager for Georgetowne Place, stated
that residents at the facility preferred white employees, and
did not want minorities to come into their rooms.

The EEOC said that Ms. Felger, who made hiring decisions at
Georgetowne Place, instructed her subordinates to mark job
applications with post-it notes to inform her that a particular
applicant was a minority.  Ms. Felger herself reportedly placed
a mark, which looked like a "Z," in the bottom left-hand corner
on one page of applications she received from minorities so as
to mark them for rejection. These hiring practices continued for
at least nine years at Georgetowne Place, the EEOC charged.

The EEOC filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race,
color, religion, sex (including sexual harassment or pregnancy),
or national origin and protects employees who complain about
such offenses from retaliation.

"Employers should know," said Danny Harter, Director of the
EEOC's Indianapolis District Office, "that supposed customer
preference is no excuse to violate federal anti-discrimination
statutes. Even if customers might prefer to be served by
individuals who are a particular race or color or sex-or someone
who is younger or does not have a disability-the employer is not
entitled to commit discrimination."

Laurie A. Young, Regional Attorney of the EEOC's Indianapolis
District Office, commented, "This is an egregious case of
discrimination made even worse by the failure to keep records as
required by law. We are pleased that our lawsuit put a stop to
the defendant's practice of race coding its applications."

In addition to the payments to minority applicants, Merrill
Gardens will pay for the costs of advertising in newspapers and
on radio, up to $70,000, to locate and identify African
Americans and other nonwhites who applied at Georgetowne Place
between February 17, 1998, and April 18, 2005. Applicants are
encouraged to contact the EEOC at (317) 226-7226. The court will
conduct a fairness hearing on September 9, 2005, in Fort Wayne
to make final decisions regarding the settlement.

The company will also pay $10,000 to the U.S. Treasury for
failure to retain employment records and $100,000 to private
counsel who filed a separate suit. Merrill Gardens will train
all employees at Georgetowne Place on the requirements of Title
VII, and, specifically, on non-discrimination in hiring,
procedures to report known or observed discrimination in the
workplace, and non-retaliation. The company will provide
additional training to managers and supervisors. The agreement
also requires that Merrill Gardens notify employees, applicants,
and recruiting sources that the company will make all hiring
decisions without regard to race and/or color. Additionally, the
company will maintain employment records and make reports to the
EEOC.

According to the company's web site (www.merrillgardens.com),
Merrill Gardens owns and operates senior, assisted-living, and
Alzheimer's communities in 14 states, including Georgetowne
Place in Fort Wayne. Carol Felger and her husband built the
facility in Fort Wayne.  Ms. Felger became the general manager
in 1993, a position she retained after Merrill Gardens acquired
the property in 1998. As general manager, she was in charge of
the Georgetowne Place facility.

In addition to enforcing Title VII, the EEOC enforces the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects
workers age 40 and older from discrimination based on age; Title
I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which
prohibits employment discrimination against people with
disabilities in the private sector and state and local
governments; and other anti-discrimination statutes. For more
details, contact the EEOC's Indianapolis Office by Mail: 101 W.
Ohio Street, Suite 1900 by Phone: (800) 669-4000 or visit the
Website: http://www.eeoc.gov. Also contact Laurie A. Young,
Regional Attorney by Phone: (317) 226-7202 or Kenneth L. Bird,
Senior Trial Attorney by Phone: (317) 226-7204 or TTY:
(317) 226-5162.


HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Asks AL Court To Dismiss Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
HealthSouth Corporation asked the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
officers and directors.

On June 24, 2003, the court consolidated a number of separate
securities lawsuits filed against the Company under the caption
"In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities Litigation, Master
Consolidation File No. CV-03-BE-1500-S."  The consolidated suit
included two prior consolidated cases, styled "In re HealthSouth
Corp. Securities Litigation, CV-98-J-2634-S" and "In re
HealthSouth Corp. 2002 Securities Litigation, Consolidated File
No. CV-02-BE-2105-S," as well as six lawsuits filed in 2003.
Including the cases previously consolidated, the Consolidated
Securities Action comprised over 40 separate lawsuits.

The court divided the Consolidated Securities Action into two
subclasses.  Complaints based on purchases of the Company's
common stock were grouped under the caption "In re HealthSouth
Corp. Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated Case No. CV-03-BE-
1501-S," which was further divided into complaints based on
purchases of the Company's common stock in the open market
(grouped under the caption "In re HealthSouth Corp. Stockholder
Litigation, Consolidated Case No. CV-03-BE-1501-S") and claims
based on the receipt of our common stock in mergers (grouped
under the caption "HealthSouth Merger Cases, Consolidated Case
No. CV-98-2777-S").   Although the plaintiffs in the
"HealthSouth Merger Cases" have separate counsel and have filed
separate claims, the "HealthSouth Merger Cases" are otherwise
consolidated with the Stockholder Securities Action for all
purposes.   Complaints based on purchases of our debt securities
were grouped under the caption "In re HealthSouth Corp.
Bondholder Litigation, Consolidated Case No. CV-03-BE-1502-S."

On January 8, 2004, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Securities Action filed a consolidated class action complaint.
The complaint names the Company as a defendant, as well as more
than 30 of its current and former employees, officers and
directors, the underwriters of its debt securities, and its
former auditor. The complaint alleges, among other things:

     (1) that the Company misrepresented or failed to disclose
         certain material facts concerning its business and
         financial condition and the impact of the Balanced
         Budget Act of 1997 on its operations in order to
         artificially inflate the price of its common stock,

     (2) that from January 14, 2002 through August 27, 2002, we
         misrepresented or failed to disclose certain material
         facts concerning the Company's business and financial
         condition and the impact of the changes in Medicare
         reimbursement for outpatient therapy services on its
         operations in order to artificially inflate the price
         of its common stock, and that some of the individual
         defendants sold shares of such stock during the
         purported class period, and

     (3) that Richard M. Scrushy instructed certain former
         senior officers and accounting personnel to materially
         inflate the Company's earnings to match Wall Street
         analysts' expectations, and that senior officers of
         HealthSouth and other members of a self-described
         "family" held meetings to discuss the means by which
         the Company's earnings could be inflated and that some
         of the individual defendants sold shares of the
         Company's common stock during the purported class
         period.

The consolidated class action complaint asserts claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act, and claims
under Sections 10(b), 14(a), 20(a) and 20A of the Exchange Act.
The Company has moved to dismiss in part the claims against it,
continues discussions with the parties to this litigation and
awaits a ruling on the identity of the lead plaintiff and lead
counsel in the Stockholder Securities Action.

The suit is styled "In re HealthSouth Corporation Litigation v.
Master Case Docket, et al, case no. 03-cv-01500-KOB," filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, under Judge Karon O. Bowdre.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (i) Richard Bemporad, Vincent Briganti, Neil L. Selinger,
         LOWEY DANNENBERG BEMPORAD & SELINGER, One North
         Lexington Avenue, Floor 11, White Plains, NY 10601-
         1714, Phone: 1-914-997-0500, E-mail:
         rbemporad@ldbs.com, vbriganti@ldbs.com,
         nselinger@ldbs.com;

    (ii) Max W. Berger, John P. Coffey, BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ
         BERGER & GROSSMAN LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New
         York, NY 10019, Phone: 1-212-554-1400, Fax: 1-212-554-
         1444, E-mail: mwb@blbglaw.com, sean@blbglaw.com;


   (iii) Patrick J Coughlin, LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA & ROBBINS
         LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA
         94111, Phone: 1-415-288-4545, Fax: 1-415-288-4534, E-
         mail: PatC@Lerachlaw.com;

    (iv) John T. Crowder, Jr, Richard T. Dorman, CUNNINGHAM
         BOUNDS YANCE CROWDER & BROWN, PO Box 66705, Mobile, AL
         36660, Phone: 1-251-471-6191, Fax: 1-251-479-1031, E-
         mail: jtc@cbycb.com, rtd@cbycb.com;


     (v) Edward P Dietrich, Kathleen A. Herkenhoff, William S.
         Lerach, Valerie McLaughlin, Debra J. Wyman, LERACH
         COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP, 401 B
         Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 1-619-
         231-1058, Fax: 1-619-231-7423, E-mail:
         EdD@Lerachlaw.com, KathyH@Lerachlaw.com,
         BillL@Lerachlaw.com, ValerieM@Lerachlaw.com,
         debraw@lerachlaw.com;

    (vi) David R Donaldson, David J. Guin, Tammy McClendon
         Stokes, DONALDSON & GUIN LLC, Two North Twentieth
         Building, 2 North 20th Street, Suite 1100, Birmingham,
         AL 35203, Phone: (205) 226-2282, Fax: (205) 226-2357,
         E-mail: DavidD@dglawfirm.com, davidg@dglawfirm.com,
         tstokes@dglawfirm.com;

   (vii) Russell Jackson Drake, G. Douglas Jones, Othni J.
         Latham, Joe R. Whatley, WHATLEY DRAKE LLC, 2323 Second
         Avenue North, Post Office Box 10647, Birmingham, AL
         35202-0647, Phone: 205-328-9576, E-mail:
         ecf@whatleydrake.com, jwhatley@whatleydrake.com,

  (viii) M. Clay Ragsdale, IV, RAGDSDALE LLC, Concord Center,
         Suite 820, 2100 Third Avenue North, Birmingham, AL
         35203, Phone: 205-251-4775, Fax: 205-251-4777, E-mail:
         clay@ragsdalellc.com;

    (ix) Andrew M. Schatz, SCHATZ & NOBEL PC, One Corporate
         Center, 20 Church Street, Suite 1700, Hartford, CT
         06106-1851, Phone: 1-860-493-6292, Fax: 1-860-493-6290,
         E-mail: aschatz@snlaw.net;

Representing the Company are:

     (a) W. Michael Atchison, Anthony C. Harlow, STARNES &
         ATCHISON LLP, PO Box 598512, Birmingham, AL 35259-8512
         205-868-6000, E-mail: wma@starneslaw.com,
         ach@starneslaw.com;

     (b) Patrick J Ballard, BALLARD LAW OFFICE, 2214 2nd Avenue
         North, Suite 100, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: 205-321-
         9600, Fax: 205-323-9805, E-mail:
         pjballard@ballardlawoffice.com;

     (c) H. L. Ferguson, Jr., FERGUSON FROST & DODSON LLP, 2500
         Acton Road, Suite 200, PO Box 430189, Birmingham, AL
         35243-0189, Phone: 205-879-8722, E-mail:
         hlf@ffdlaw.com;

     (d) James L Goyer, III, MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC, AmSouth
         Harbert Plaza, Suite 2400, 1901 6th Avenue North,
         Birmingham, AL 35203-2618, Phone: 205-254-1000, E-mail:
         jgoyer@maynardcooper.com;

     (e) M Kay Kelley, MESTRE & KELLEY LLC, The Massey Building,
         2025 Third Avenue, North, Suite 500, Birmingham, AL
         35203, Phone: 205-251-1248, fax: 205-251-1211, E-mail:
         kaykelley@mindspring.com;


HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Working To Settle AL Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
HealthSouth Corporation is working to settle the consolidated
class action filed against it and certain of its current and
former officers and directors in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

In 2003, six lawsuits were filed, alleging breaches of fiduciary
duties in connection with the administration of the Company's
Employee Stock Benefit Plan (the "ESOP").  These lawsuits have
been consolidated under the caption "In re HealthSouth Corp.
ERISA Litigation, Consolidated Case No. CV-03-BE-1700-S."

The plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on December 19,
2003 that alleges, generally, the fiduciaries to the ESOP
breached their duties to loyally and prudently manage and
administer the ESOP and its assets in violation of sections 404
and 405 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq. (ERISA), by:

     (1) failing to monitor the administration of the ESOP,

     (2) failing to diversify the portfolio held by the ESOP,
         and

     (3) failing to provide other fiduciaries with material
         information about the ESOP.

The plaintiffs seek actual damages including losses suffered by
the plan, imposition of a constructive trust, equitable and
injunctive relief against further alleged violations of ERISA,
costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132(g), and attorneys' fees.
The plaintiffs also seek damages related to losses under the
plan as a result of alleged imprudent investment of plan assets,
restoration of any profits made by the defendants through use of
plan assets, and restoration of profits that the plan would have
made if the defendants had fulfilled their fiduciary
obligations.  The parties to this litigation are actively
involved in settlement negotiations.

The suit is styled "In Re: HealthSouth ERISA, et al v. Master
Docket, et al, case no. 2:03-cv-01700-KOB," filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Alabaman,
under Judge Karon O. Bowdre.  Representing the Company are
Robert S. Saunders, SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM, One
Rodney Square, 7th Floor, PO Box 636, Wilmington, DE 19899,
Phone: 1-302-651-3170, E-mail: rsaunder@skadden.com; and Kile T.
Turner, NORMAN WOOD KENDRICK & TURNER, Financial Center, Suite
1600, 1600 Financial Center, 505 North 20th Street, Birmingham,
AL 35203, Phone: 205-328-6643, E-mail: kturner@nwkt.com.
Representing the plaintiffs are Derek W. Loeser, Lynn Lincoln
Sarko, KELLER ROHRBACK LLP, 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200,
Seattle, WA 98101-3052, Phone: 1-206-623-1900, Fax: 1-206-623-
3384, E-mail: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com or
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com; and Richard R. Rosenthal, LAW OFFICES
OF RICHARD R ROSENTHAL PC, 200 Title Building, 300 Richard
Arrington Jr Blvd, North Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: 205-252-
1146, Fax: 205-252-4907, E-mail: rosenthallaw@bellsouth.net.


HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: FL Court Yet To Approve ADA Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
HealthSouth Corporation awaits the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida's approval of the settlement
of a nationwide class action filed against it, styled "Michael
Yelapi, et al. v. St. Petersburg Surgery Center, et al., Case
No:8:01-CV-787-T-17EAJ."

On April 19, 2001 a nationwide class action was filed, alleging
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.
Section 12181, et seq. (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
92 U.S.C. Section 792 et seq. (the "Rehabilitation Act") at the
Company's facilities. The complaint alleges violations of the
ADA and Rehabilitation Act for the purported failure to remove
barriers and provide accessibility to the Company's facilities,
including reception and admitting areas, signage, restrooms,
phones, paths of access, elevators, treatment and changing
rooms, parking, and door hardware.  As a result of these alleged
violations, the plaintiffs are seeking an injunction ordering
that we make necessary modifications to achieve compliance with
the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, as well as attorneys' fees.

The Company entered into a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs that would require it to correct any deficiencies
under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act at all of its
facilities.

The suit is styled "Access Now, Inc., et al v. St. Pete Surgery,
et al., case no. 8:01-cv-00787-EAK-EAJ," filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, under
Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich.  Representing the plaintiffs
Access Now, Inc. are Bruce D. Fischman, Fischman, Harvey &
Dutton, PA, 3050 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 600, Miami, FL 33137,
Phone: 305/576-5522, Fax: 305/576-7079, E-mail:
bruce@fhdlaw.com; and Kip P. Roth, Law Office of Kip Roth, P.A.,
601 N. Ashley Dr., Suite 210, Tampa, FL 33602, phone: 813/221-
8383 or Fax: 813/2241-8363, E-mail: roth@frlawgroup.com.
Representing the Company is Miguel Manuel de la O, de la O &
Marko, 3001 S.W. 3rd Ave., Miami, FL 33129, Phone: 305/285-2000,
Fax: 305/285-5555, E-mail: delao@delao-marko.com.


HYTRIN LITIGATION: South Dakotans to Participate in Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
South Dakota Consumers who purchased the brand-name prescription
medication Hytrin are eligible for refunds from a $30.7-million
nationwide settlement agreement, state Attorney General Larry
Long announced in a statement.

The refunds to consumers and third-party payers in 18 states
will be paid by two companies who, the complaint alleged, had
conspired to engage in anticompetitive conduct that delayed the
availability of a more affordable generic version of the
medication.

Hytrin, which is used in the treatment of hypertension and
enlarged prostate, is manufactured by Abbott Laboratories, and
the generic version (called "terazosin") is produced by Geneva
Pharmaceuticals. According to a federal lawsuit, Abbott
wrongfully paid Geneva to delay introduction of its generic
version of Hytrin and took other steps to delay competition from
lower-priced generic versions of its product. This illegal
activity harmed consumers.

Under the settlement agreement, which is still subject to final
court approval, Abbott and Geneva would provide $28.7 million
for consumers and third-party payers in South Dakota and 17
other states. The most direct way for consumers to obtain claims
forms is through the settlement website,
http://www.terazosinlitigation.com.Claims forms must be mailed
to the settlement administrator no later than July 15, 2005.

The settlement will benefit consumers who purchased terazosin
products between October 15, 1995, and March 7, 2005, and
amounts of refunds will depend on how many consumers file claims
against the settlement fund. The settlement applies to consumers
and third-party payers in Alabama, California, Florida,
Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Between 1999 and 2001, a number of consumers filed lawsuits
against Abbott and Geneva. The cases were consolidated into a
single lawsuit in federal court in the Southern District of
Florida. After conducting their own investigations, the states
of Florida, Kansas and Colorado filed their own lawsuit in the
same court. The settlement establishes a separate $2 million
fund to reimburse state agency claims and litigation costs
incurred by Florida, Kansas and Colorado.

Consumers may obtain a claims form from the settlement website,
http://www.terazosinlitigation.com;by calling the settlement
administrator toll-free at 1-877-886-0283; or by writing to the
settlement administrator by Mail: In re Terazosin Hydrochloride
Antitrust Litigation, c/o Complete Claim Solutions, Inc., P.O.
Box 24607, West Palm Beach, FL 33416.


ILLINOIS: Protracted Lawsuit Over Medicaid For Children Settled
---------------------------------------------------------------
A 13-year-old class action lawsuit that sought better access to
medical care for Cook County's poorest children was recently
settled, The Associated Press reports.

In a settlement that was reached recently, Illinois officials
agreed to increase Medicaid funding by approximately $45 million
dollars a year. Under the settlement's terms, the state will
increase outreach programs and give doctors and dentists better
payments for accepting Medicaid-eligible children.

Additionally, the settlement, which still needs court approval,
will also require the state to pay doctors a $30 bonus for each
child who receives all required exams and immunizations in a
given year. The agreement states reimbursements would increase
beginning on January 1.

Health and Disability Advocates, the Sargent Shriver National
Center on Poverty Law and the Chicago law firm of Goldberg Kohn
had brought the suit.

Last year, a federal court ruled that Medicaid payments in
Illinois were not enough to entice doctors to treat Medicaid
patients. The groups who had sued the state alleged that the gap
between Medicaid payments and what private insurance paid
doctors created problems for poor families looking for medical
care for their children.


INTERNATIONAL TRUCK: Recalls 51589 Trucks For Electrical Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Truck & Engine Corporation in cooperation with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 51589
2003-06 International 9100I, 9200I, 9400I and 9900I trucks due
to electrical system defect.

According to the ODI, on certain 4X2 and 6X4 heavy-duty trucks,
the positive battery cable between the batteries and the starter
may rub against an electrical cable between the starter and
frame rail. The chafing could cause an electrical short and/or
fire.

As a remedy, dealers will inspect the vehicles to determine if
any chafing has occurred between positive and negative cables.
If there is evidence of chafing, then a saddle clamp will be
installed to ensure cables will not rub. If there is evidence of
chafing the damaged cables will be replaced and the swivel
saddle clamp installed. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V296000,
Recall Date: June 24, 2005.

For more details, contact International by Phone: 1-800-448-7825
or the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


INTERNATIONAL TRUCK: Recalls 60 Trucks For Service Brake Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Truck & Engine Corporation in cooperation with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 60
20006 International 4200 and 4300 trucks due to service brake
defect.

According to the ODI, on certain 4X2 medium duty trucks, a
longer front hydraulic brake hose was substituted for the
shorter, correct length hose. The extra length may cause the
wheel to rub through the brake hose. A hole in a brake hose can
cause a loss of braking ability that could result in a crash.

As a remedy, dealers will inspect the front brake hoses and if a
brake hose is the incorrect length, a new proper length hose
will be installed. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V297000, Recall
Date: June 23, 2005.

For more details, contact International by Phone: 1-800-448-7825
or the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


ITALY: Taxpayers Association To Lodge Suit V. Internal Revenue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Contributi.it, the association of Italian taxpayers, is set to
start the first class action law suit against the Internal
Revenue on tax rebates, which reached 23.6 million euros and
involved more than four million Italian taxpayers, The Agenzia
Giornalistica Italia reports.

According to Carlomagno Mario, "We are counting on having at
least 200,000 taxpayers, or 5 percent of the total rebates for a
value of one billion euro, take part of this suit, give back an
average of 5900 euros per capita."


LONG JOHN: Faces Managers' Overtime Suit For Violation of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stewart, Estes and Donnell, in association with
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com,is publicizing a class
action lawsuit against Long John Silver's, Inc. Several reports
have alleged that current or former exempt Restaurant General
Managers and Assistant Restaurant Managers for Long John
Silver's, Inc. seafood restaurants have been wrongfully denied
overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") states that salaried
managers are "exempt" from overtime pay only if they are paid on
a "salary basis" as defined by the FLSA regulations. A salaried,
exempt employee receives regular pay of a predetermined amount;
this amount cannot be "subject to" reduction due to variations
in the quality or quantity of the work performed. The employer
must pay the full salary whether the salaried employee works
more or less than a 40-hour workweek. Any salary deductions due
to unavoidable employee absences or cash register, inventory, or
safe shortages could destroy the "exempt" employee status.

Stewart, Estes and Donnell believes that Long John Silver's
policy and practice of requiring its salaried restaurant
managers to pay cash register or other shortages is clearly
illegal under federal wage and hour laws. By being "subject to"
this policy it is believed that all Long John Silver's
Restaurant General Managers and Assistant Restaurant Managers
are legally non-exempt employees and are entitled to be paid
overtime.

Any salaried Restaurant General Manager and Assistant Restaurant
Manager who work(ed) for Long John Silver's, Inc. in any of its
more than 700 company-owned fast seafood restaurants throughout
the United States from December 17, 1998, forward is potentially
eligible to recover back wages for overtime pay, liquidated
damages, and other damages under the FLSA, based upon their
dates of employment with Long John Silver's, Inc.

Current or former Long John Silver's restaurant managers are
urged to complete a complaint form that will be privately
evaluated by an employment lawyer at no charge.

For more details, visit
https://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/case/longjohnsilver_classa
ction.


NAPSTER INC.: CA Court Grants Certification to Copyright Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted class action status for the action titled, In
re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litigation, Case No. C MDL-00-1369-
MHP.

The action arises from the litigation involving the alleged
copyright infringement of Napster, Inc. and its customers. On
April 25, 2003, plaintiffs Jerry Leiber, Mike Stoller, Frank
Music Corporation, and Peer International Music Corporation
(collectively "plaintiffs") filed an action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In their complaint, plaintiffs alleged that defendants
Bertelsmann AG, Bertelsmann, Inc., and BeMusic, Inc.
(collectively "Bertelsmann") engaged in contributory and
vicarious copyright infringement by virtue of their investment
in and control of Napster. That action was subsequently
transferred to this court for coordinated pretrial proceedings
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  1407. Plaintiffs now seek certification
of a class of music publisher-principals of The Harry Fox
Agency, Inc. ("the Fox Agency") that own or control at least one
copyrighted musical work that has without their permission been
made available through the Napster service on or after October
30, 2000.

For more details, visit
http://www.svmedialaw.com/Napster%20summary%20judgment%20order.p
df or
http://scrawford.net/courses/Order%20denying%20supp%20memo%20fro
m%20plaintiffs.pdf.


NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Reaches Deal With Netexit Creditors
-------------------------------------------------------------
NorthWestern Corporation d/b/a NorthWestern Energy (Nasdaq: NWEC
- News) reached an agreement in principle with the creditors
committee of Netexit, Inc., f/k/a Expanets, Inc., on a
bankruptcy liquidation plan. Netexit, a subsidiary of
NorthWestern, filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection with
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on May 4,
2004.

Under to terms of the agreement in principle:

     (1) NorthWestern will receive an initial distribution of
         $20 million in cash for its allowed claims upon the
         effective date of confirming an amended and restated
         plan of reorganization and disclosure statement to be
         filed with the bankruptcy court.

     (2) A reserve of an additional $5 million will be set aside
         through the amended plan for an additional distribution
         to NorthWestern after distributions are made on other
         allowed unsecured claims.

     (3) A reserve of up to $22.9 million will be set aside
         through the amended plan for payment of allowed non-
         NorthWestern unsecured claims with distribution to
         occur only after all such unsecured claims are
         resolved.  Any remaining cash from this reserve, which
         is not paid out to other allowed unsecured claims, will
         be paid to NorthWestern.

     (4) $8 million will be paid on the effective date of the
         plan to securities class action claimants to satisfy a
         $20 million allowed liquidated claim provided to former
         NorthWestern shareholders in a previously announced
         court-approved settlement.  Based on the terms of the
         securities settlement, NorthWestern expects to
         recognize an additional pre-tax loss on discontinued
         operations of approximately $8 million during the
         second quarter of 2005.

     (5) After distributions are made to allowed unsecured,
         administrative and priority claims, any remaining
         Netexit estate funds will be paid to NorthWestern at
         the filing of a motion to close the bankruptcy
         proceeding.

According to Michael J. Hanson, NorthWestern President and Chief
Executive Officer, the agreement in principle to settle the
estate of Netexit was reached in bankruptcy court authorized
mediation. "We are pleased to have been able to reach an
agreement which will lead to a final liquidation of Netexit's
estate funds. We expect the final resolution of Netexit's claims
will lead to significant cash distribution to NorthWestern
within the next six to nine months."

An amended and restated plan of reorganization and disclosure
statement will be finalized and filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware in the next several weeks
incorporating the terms of the settlement reached during the
mediation. According to the agreement in principle, Netexit's
creditors committee will support the amended and restated plan
of reorganization and disclosure statement in a solicitation
letter urging approval of the plan by Netexit's creditors. If
approved by creditors and confirmed by the bankruptcy court,
cash distributions could be made to all unsecured creditors as
addressed in the settlement agreement and consistent with the
bankruptcy code soon after the effective date of such plan which
date is expected to be sometime in the fourth quarter of 2005.


OAKBROOK HILTON: IL Court Grants Certification To Terrill Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for the Eighteenth Judicial Court, Dupage
County, Wheaton, Illinois granted class action status for a
lawsuit against Oakbrook Hilton Suites and Garden Inn, LLC,
which was filed on behalf of all persons who paid a room charge
at either Hilton's Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois Hotels (Hilton
Suites and Hilton Garden Inn) from August 1998 to January 8,
2002.

The suit, which was initiated by Cathy Terrill, involves a claim
that customers of the Oakbrook Hilton Suites and Garden Inn, LLC
("Hilton") were charged, and paid, 2% of their room charge for
an item Hilton identified as a tax when, in fact, there was no
such tax. That charge was added on the bill of all customers who
stayed at Hilton's two Oakbrook Terrace hotels from August 1998
to January 8, 2002.

The suit was being brought as a breach of contract action as
well as an action alleging fraud under the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act.

The suit is styled, Cathy Terrill v. Oakbrook Hilton Suites and
Garden Inn, LLC, No. 01 L 529, filed in the Circuit Court for
the Eighteenth Judicial Court, Dupage County, Wheaton, Illinois,
before the Honorable Stephen J. Culliton. Vincent L. DiTommaso,
Peter S. Rubin and Jason G. Shanfield of DiTommaso & Lubin, 17W
220 22nd St., Suite 200, Oakbrook Terrace, IL, 60181, Phone:
(630) 333-0000 is representing the Plaintiff. Howard Foster,
Esq. of Johnson & Bell, 55, East Monroe St., Suite 4100,
Chicago, IL, 60603, represent the Defendant.

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


OHIO: Wins High Court Favor in Lawsuit Against Supermax Prison
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled on June
13,2005 in favor of Ohio in affirming the state's policy for
assigning prisoners to the so-called "Supermax" prison - the
Ohio State Penitentiary in Youngstown - as constitutional. State
Attorney General Jim Petro personally argued the case, styled
"Wilkinson v. Austin," in March 2005.  The State Penitentiary is
Ohio's highest security prison.

"The Court recognized that the issues here involve the safety of
other inmates, as well as the safety of prison guards and other
employees," Attorney General Petro said. "The Court agreed with
us that the threat of violence is very real.  We don't put
inmates in the highest security level to punish them. We put
them there to protect other inmates from these potentially
dangerous inmates."

The Attorney General said that the Court recognized that Ohio
has a strong interest in maintaining prison security. The
inmates involved in this case are some of the most dangerous
prisoners in the system. The Court recognized the dangers posed
by prison gangs, as gangs can flourish and threaten security if
prison officials don't stop them, he said.

Two federal courts had previously ruled against Ohio, ordering
it to adopt more burdensome procedures, he added.  "We thought
that those court orders were wrong, and we're glad that the
Supreme Court agreed," he said.

Attorney General Petro is the first Ohio Attorney General since
William Saxbe to personally argue in the U.S. Supreme Court.
For more details, contact Mark Anthony, Attorney General's
Office, by Phone: (614) 466-3840.  To access the case's syllabus
and the opinion of the court, visit the Website:
http://www.ag.state.oh.us/press_releases/attachments/050613_syll
abus.pdf, and
http://www.ag.state.oh.us/press_releases/attachments/050613_opin
ion.pdf.


STAR TRIBUNE: Advertiser Lodges MN Suit Over Circulation Numbers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Four advertisers initiated a federal lawsuit against the Star
Tribune and its parent company, claiming that Minnesota's
largest newspaper inflated its circulation numbers so it could
charge more for ads, The Associated Press reports.

The lawsuit, which seeks class action status, alleges the Star
Tribune required distributors to dump unsold papers and failed
to report returned papers accurately. It includes allegations by
an unnamed Star Tribune distributor who also works for one of
the plaintiffs, Masterson Personnel, Inc. That allegation stated
that in December 2003, a Star Tribune circulation worker told
the distributor to order extra 2,500 papers per week, saying the
distributor would be reimbursed later for the papers. The
distributor bought extra papers for three weeks, for a total of
7,500 papers, the lawsuit alleges.

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

Other plaintiffs aside from Masterson are Alternative Staffing,
Inc., Vision Staffing Solutions, Inc., and Purchasing
Professionals, Inc., who are all are employment agencies.


TENET CAPITAL: SEC Commences Complaint To Halt Hedge Fund Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed an emergency
enforcement action to halt fraudulent conduct concerning a hedge
fund, Tenet Capital Partners Convertible Opportunities Fund, LP
(Convertible Opportunities Fund), its investment adviser, Tenet
Asset Management, LLC (Tenet) and Tenet's principal, Jon E.
Hankins.  Also on June 22, 2005, the court granted the SEC's
application for a temporary restraining order which included,
among other things, the appointment of a temporary receiver over
the Convertible Opportunities Fund and Tenet.

The complaint alleges that the Convertible Opportunities Fund,
Tenet, and Mr. Hankins concealed, and are continuing to conceal,
from investors large investment losses and are seeking to
unfairly honor a redemption request at inflated values to cover
up the fraud.   In particular, Mr. Hankins and Tenet have
recently made numerous false statements to investors of the
Convertible Opportunities Fund, as well as to investors in
another hedge fund managed by Tenet and Mr. Hankins, Tenet
Offshore Capital Partners Ltd. (Offshore Capital Partners)
(collectively, the Funds).

The complaint also alleges that within the last four months, in
an effort to raise new capital for the Funds, Mr. Hankins met
with investors and made false representations concerning Tenet's
investment strategy and the Funds' performance.  Mr. Hankins
also provided investors with deceptive and false marketing
materials that, among other things, grossly misrepresented the
performance of the Convertible Opportunities Fund during the
period April through December 2004.  While the marketing
materials for the Convertible Opportunities Fund reflected a
gain of more than 32% during that period, the Convertible
Opportunities Fund's audited financial statements for that
period reflect that the fund returned a 24% loss during the
period.

In addition, as recently as May 25, 2005, Mr. Hankins
distributed to at least one investor altered audited financial
statements for 2004 for the Convertible Opportunities Fund.  The
altered 2004 audited financial statements:

     (1) concealed the fund's reported $1.4 million net loss in
         2004;

     (2) falsely stated that the fund had net assets of $31.2
         million when, in fact, it reported only $4.2 million;
         and

     (3) falsely stated that the fund earned 32.4% in investment
         returns when, in fact, it reported a 24.5% loss.

The complaint further alleges that Defendants are also seeking
to improperly distribute assets to cover up the fraud.
Recently, to assuage the concerns of one investor, Mr. Hankins
requested that the Funds' prime broker redeem this investor's
funds from the Convertible Opportunities Fund's account (a total
of $3 million) at a level of redemption inconsistent with the
losses incurred in the fund's accounts.  Although the prime
broker has not acted on Mr. Hankins' request, there is no
guarantee that it will refrain from honoring future requests,
nor is it obligated to do so.  Moreover, Mr. Hankins' recent
request suggests that he may likely attempt to make additional,
improper distribution requests, and by doing so, will leave
empty-handed the last investors to seek a withdrawal.

The complaint charges all the Defendants with violating Section
17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The
complaint further charges Mr. Hankins and Tenet with violating
Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act.

The Court granted, among other emergency relief, a temporary
restraining order which included the appointment of a temporary
receiver over the Convertible Opportunities Fund and Tenet.  In
its enforcement action, the Commission is seeking additional
emergency relief, including orders enjoining the Defendants,
preliminarily and permanently, from committing future violations
of the foregoing federal securities laws, and a final judgment
ordering the Defendants to disgorge ill-gotten gains, and
assessing civil penalties.

The suit is styled "SEC v. Jon E. Hankins, et al., Civil Action
No. 05CV5808 (KMW) SDNY."


TYSON FOODS: Former Employees Lodge Suit Over Alleged Pay Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately eight former Tyson Foods employees initiated a
lawsuit against the company, which accuses it of hiring illegal
employees to reduce the hourly pay, The Sedalia Democrat
reports.

According to the plaintiffs' suit, legal hourly workers "have
been victimized by a scheme perpetrated both by Tyson and
through a conspiracy among its top management" to reduce their
pay "by knowingly hiring a workforce substantially comprised of
undocumented illegal immigrants." The suit is arguing that the
"scheme" to hire illegal immigrants is a violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

However, in an e-mail, Gary Mickelson, a spokesman for Tyson,
told The Democrat: "The plaintiff's claims are simply without
merit and are largely based on federal charges Tyson has already
successfully defended." Mr. Mickelson pointed out in his e-mail
that in 2003, a jury found Tyson not guilty of federal charges
of violating immigration laws, which according to him, confirmed
that "the company has made a concerted effort to hire properly
and abide by the law."

The plaintiffs are former employees of plants in Sedalia;
Ashland, Alabama; Gadsden, Alabama; Heflin, Alabama, Corydon;
Indiana, Shelbyville, Tennessee; Center, Texas; and Glen Allen,
Virginia.

As previously reported in the April 8, 2002 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, four former employees of Tyson Foods had filed
the original suit in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Tennessee against the meat processing company, charging it of
hiring illegal immigrants to depress workers' wages. The suit
alleges the Company of relying on temporary employment services
and recruiters who were paid for every illegal immigrant they
hired. However, the suit was later dismissed and appealed. That
appeal reversed the dismissal.

Howard Foster, who represents the eight plaintiffs, recently
filed an amended complaint, adding plaintiffs and naming
individuals who work for Tyson as defendants. The suit asks the
court for a judgment equal to three times the damage caused to
employees from the company's actions.

Mr. Foster plans to file a request to certify the suit as a
class action suit in August, since according to him, as a class
action suit, all legal hourly employees of Tyson would split any
award. A jury trial is scheduled for late 2006, Mr. Foster adds.
He also told The Democrat though that he isn't sure what would
be fair wages for hourly employees.

Additionally, Mr. Foster told The Democrat that he is unsure
what percentage of Tyson's workforce is illegal immigrants, but
he did allege that the percentage of the Sedalia plant's
workforce that is illegal immigrants is "the highest of all
eight of (the plants involved) so far." He even estimated that
more than half of Sedalia's workforce were illegal immigrants,
based on his investigation and employee statements.

The suit alleges that Tyson officials failed to follow federal
laws in verifying that employees can work legally in the United
States, for example, "hiring workers who appear decades younger
than the pictures that appear on their stolen identity
documents." Another practice was having temporary employment
services hire illegal immigrants then get them employment at
Tyson, according to the suit. The suit states that the practice
of hiring illegal immigrants means they use stolen identities.

The suit also alleges that Springdale, Arkansas-headquartered
Tyson rents housing for its workers, "typically through front
companies. It uses fronts since many landlords refuse to rent
housing to Tyson, knowing it will be used to harbor illegal
immigrants."

The defendants named in the suit are: Tyson Foods Inc.; Ahrazue
Wilt, Tyson's human resources complex manager in Sedalia; John
Tyson, the chief executive officer; Archibald Schaffer III,
senior vice president; Richard Bond, chief operating officer;
Kenneth Kimbro, senior vice president for human resources; Karen
Percival, vice president; Greg Lee, president; and Tim McCoy, a
senior executive in the company's human resources department.

The Sedalia plant, which processes chickens, has about 1,500
employees, said Linda Christle, executive director of the
Sedalia-Pettis County Development Corporation.


UNITED STATES: ACLU Files Suit V. Agency Over Degrading Process
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys of the American Civil Liberties Union that are
representing a U.S.-born Muslim, who says he was unjustly
detained and questioned at customs checkpoints, launched a
lawsuit, which seeks class action status, against the Department
of Homeland Security over the "degrading process," The
Associated Press reports.

Filed in Chicago federal court, Akifur Rahman stated in his
complaint that customs agents held him for several hours on four
occasions since March 2004 while he was re-entering the country
from abroad, even though he had proper identification.

Mr. Rahman, reading from a prepared statement, siad that he's
"afraid of what may happen every time I return from a trip
outside the United States." He adds, "This lawsuit seems to be
the only way to ... insure that this degrading process is not
repeated."

According to his lawsuit, Mr. Rahman, of suburban Wheaton,
received a letter from the Department of Homeland Security in
April saying his problems stemmed from an "unfortunate
misidentification" in which his name could be a near match of
someone on a government watch list.

The suit seeks unspecified monetary damages and "the adoption of
adequate policies to ensure the reasonably expeditious re-entry"
of U.S. citizens whose names are similar or identical to those
on watch lists. Among the defendants it named are several
Homeland Security officials and employees, including Secretary
Michael Chertoff and former Secretary Tom Ridge.

Cherise Miles, a spokeswoman for U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, part of the Department of Homeland Security, told AP
the agency does not comment on pending litigation.


VARI-L CORPORATION: Ex-Execs Indicted Due To Securities Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
On June 9, 2005, Joseph Harold Kiser of Aurora, Colorado, was
indicted by a federal grand jury in Denver on six criminal
counts, including charges of conspiracy, securities fraud,
making false statements in reports filed with the Commission,
and perjury.  Mr. Kiser received a summons to make an initial
appearance in U.S. District Court in Denver on June 23.

The indictment charges that from January, 1996 through May,
2000, Mr. Kiser, along with co-conspirator David Sherman
(Sherman), conspired to inflate revenue artificially in order to
meet or exceed market expectations for the Company's financial
results, and thereby maintain and inflate the Company's stock
price.

The Company, a now defunct company formerly based in Denver,
designed, manufactured, and marketed a range of signal
processing components used in communications equipment and
systems, such as cellular telephones and base stations.  Vari-
L's common stock traded on Nasdaq.

Mr. Kiser held various executive positions at Vari-L, including
President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Scientific
Officer.  From about 1985 until 2000, Mr. Kiser was Vari-L's
Chairman of the Board of Directors.  Mr. Sherman also held
various positions as Vari-L's President, Chief Financial
Officer, and Chief Executive Officer.  Both Mr. Kiser's and Mr.
Sherman's compensation included performance-based cash bonuses
and stock options.

According to the indictment, Mr. Kiser and Mr. Sherman met
regularly to discuss the status of Vari-L's revenue for a given
quarter and compare financial performance against forecasted
goals.  If it appeared that Vari-L would fall short of financial
forecasts, which occurred every quarter beginning in early 1996
through at least the third quarter of 1998, Mr. Kiser and Mr.
Sherman would discuss how much fraudulent revenue Vari-L would
recognize for a given quarter to meet or exceed the projected
results.

After Mr. Kiser determined how much false revenue to recognize
for a given quarter, Mr. Sherman instructed Vari-L's accounting
personnel to book the entry.  Vari-L claimed the fraudulent
revenue by: recording revenue on products that had not been
shipped or fully manufactured; falsifying sales orders and
booking revenue from fictitious orders; holding open Vari-L's
books in order to claim revenue in the current quarter based
upon revenue that was earned in the subsequent weeks or months
of the next quarter; and making fraudulent entries to company
books and records at the end of a quarter, thereby reducing
operating expenses through improper capitalization.

The indictment further alleges that Mr. Kiser and Mr. Sherman
knowingly made materially false and misleading statements about
Vari-L's financial performance to the public in press releases,
quarterly and annual reports to shareholders, and 10-QSB and 10-
KSB filings with the Commission.  Mr. Kiser would then recommend
to Vari-L's Compensation Committee that he and Mr. Sherman
should receive stock options and cash bonuses, based upon the
fact that Vari-L consistently met or exceeded projected
financial results.  Mr. Kiser and Mr. Sherman enriched
themselves by selling Vari-L stock during the height of the
fraud.

On September 27, 2001, the Commission instituted and settled
administrative proceedings against Mr. Kiser for causing
violations of the reporting provisions and proxy rules by Vari-
L.  Mr. Kiser was ordered to cease and desist from causing any
violation and any future violation of Section 13(b)(2)(B) and
14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 14a-3 and
14a-9 thereunder.  Further, Mr. Kiser was ordered to pay
disgorgement of $58,000 and prejudgment interest of $4,969.  Mr.
Sherman was indicted by a federal grand jury in Denver on March
11, 2004, on charges of securities fraud, wire fraud, making
false statements in reports filed with the Commission, making
false statements to auditors, and keeping false books and
records.  A Change of Plea Hearing in Mr. Sherman's case is
scheduled for July 28.

On September 27, 2001, the Commission filed a civil complaint
against Mr. Sherman alleging that he, other Vari-L employees,
and Vari-L engaged in a massive financial reporting fraud
designed to show consistently increasing revenue and earnings,
instead of losses, from 1996 through the quarter ended March 31,
2000.  On September 26, 2003, the U.S. District Court of
Colorado entered a final judgment of permanent injunction
against Mr. Sherman pursuant to his consent.

The suit is styled "U.S. v. Joseph H. Kiser, Criminal No. 05-CR-
278D."

                    New Securities Fraud Cases


NAVARRE COPRORATION: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Stock Lawsuit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP ("Wechsler Harwood") filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Navarre Corporation ("Navarre" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:NAVR) between July 23, 2003 and May 31, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") against
defendants Navarre, Eric H. Paulson (Navarre's chief executive
officer, president and chairman) and James Gilbertson (Navarre's
chief financial officer).

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants continually reported record results for the Company
every quarter that were supposedly achieved by successful
execution of Navarre's business strategy. However, these
representations concerning the Company's financial results and
its business were materially false and misleading for these
reasons:

     (1) defendants had materially inflated Navarre's reported
         income by failing to properly recognize expenses
         relating to executive deferred compensation;

     (2) defendants' apparent success was principally
         attributable to improper accounting;

     (3) The Company's financial results, reported in press
         releases and SEC filings were not, contrary to
         defendants' express representations, prepared in
         accordance with generally accepted accounting
         principles;

     (4) the certifications signed by defendants Paulson and
         Gilbertson in Navarre's SEC filings, which attested to
         the purported accuracy of the financial results
         included therein, were false because the financial
         results were artificially inflated through improper
         accounting;

     (5) during the third fiscal quarter of 2005, Navarre
         improperly recognized millions of dollars in deferred
         tax benefits as income; and

     (6) Navarre was actually -- contrary to its representations
         -- experiencing a significant slowdown in demand for
         its anti-virus software products that was materially
         and negatively impacting its overall business.

On May 31, 2005, Navarre issued a press release announcing that
it would postpone release of the Company's fourth quarter and
fiscal year 2005 results pending an accounting review focused on
the recognition of deferred compensation expense for payments
made to defendant Paulson and the classification of fiscal 2005
tax items. In response to this announcement, the price of
Navarre common stock dropped from $9.00 per share on May 31,
2005 to $8.02 per share on June 1, 2005, a one-day drop of 10.8%
on unusually heavy trading volume.

The Complaint further alleges that defendants were motivated to
commit the alleged wrongdoing in order that Navarre insiders,
including defendants Paulson and Gilbertson, could sell their
personally held Navarre shares at artificially inflated prices.
The Complaint alleged that during the Class Period, insiders
sold a total of 1,269,000 shares, for total proceeds of
$16,183,254.58.

For more details, contact Virgilio Soler, Jr., Shareholder
Relations Department of Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison
Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Phone: (877) 935-7400,
E-mail: vsoler@whesq.com.


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in MI
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan on behalf of all persons who purchased the
common stock of United American Healthcare Corporation (Nasdaq:
UAHC) between May 26, 2000, and April 22, 2004, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that United American and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the Company's
improper business and financial relationship with a legislator
having oversight of United American's Healthplan. The Complaint
further alleges that this relationship was in violation of the
Company's contract with Tennessee and has caused the State of
Tennessee to place United American's Healthplan under
administrative supervision. As a result, investors could not
accurately assess the extent to which United American's ongoing
operations, reported revenue, and income were dependent upon the
improper political payments scheme.

For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273
Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone:
610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735, Fax: 610-660-8080, E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.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  * * *