/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/050721.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, July 21, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 143


ACE MORTGAGE: Loan Officers File Suit in MN Over Unpaid Overtime
ARIZONA: $24M Distributed To Cardizem CD Settlement Participants
BRIGGS & BAKER: Settles FTC Deceptive Trade, Consumer Fraud Suit
BRITAX CHILD: Recalls E9031 Child Safety Seats For Injury Hazard
CANADA: Toronto Attorney Commences Lawsuit to Stop RRC Closure

CHOICEPOINT INC.: Idaho AG Informs Residents of Security Breach
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: To Pay MO $75T For No-Call Violations
COMBI USA: Recalls Avatar Child Safety Seats Due To LATCH Defect
CORPORATE COMPLIANCE: FL AG Bares Consumer Fraud Suit Settlement
CYBERONICS INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in S.D. TX

DAIRY INDUSTRY: Link Between Weight Loss and Dairy Still Unclear
DON MASSEY: CO Board Investigates Deceptive Trade Allegations
E.I. DUPONT: Law Firms Launch Suit Over Teflon's Health Risks
GAMBRO HEALTHCARE: FL Court To Receive $2.4M From Medicaid Pact
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Nine Pacemaker Models May Need Replacements

GUIDANT CORPORATION: Issues Advisory on Pacemakers' Safety  
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Amends ICD Complaint
I2 TECHNOLOGIES: SEC Lodges Securities Suit in TX V. Ex-Officers
INTERNET TRAVEL FIRMS: Faces Hotel Occupancy Tax Lawsuit in PA
LAMPLIGHT FARMS: Recalls 350T Metal Torches Due to Injury Hazard

MASTERLOCK CO.: Recalls 2,109 Bike Racks Due To Injury Hazard
MEDTRONIC INC.: Forizs & Dogali Lodges Suit Over Defective ICDs
MIFEPREX LITIGATION: FDA Probes Link To Sepsis, Blood Infection
MISSOURI: AG Nixon Files Consumer Fraud Suit V. Michael Pickens
MMC INC.: Yuma County to Receive Windfall From $850M Settlement

MOTOR COACH: Recalls 156 Motor Coaches Because of Crash Hazard  
NEVADA: Groups File Suit Over Plans to Line Canal With Concrete
NEW YORK: Law Firm Initiates First Podcast on Bankruptcy, Credit
PENNSYLVANIA: Oral Arguments in Venango County Suit Commenced
PIZZA HUT: Plaintiff List Slashed For Coldiron Labor Suit in CA

RAILTRACK PLC: Mr. Byers Apologizes For Misleading Parliament
SOUTH DAKOTA: Sioux Falls Responds to Lawsuit Over 2004 Flooding
SYSTEMS & COMPUTERS: Insider Trading Charges V. Traders Settled
TARGET CORPORATION: Recalls 17.4T Trucks Due to Injury Hazard
TASER INTERNATIONAL: Firm Launches Suit Over False Safety Claims

TASER INTERNATIONAL: Groups Call For Suspension of Stun Gun Use
UNITED STATES: IL Immigrants Ink Settlement for Green Card Suit
UNITED STATES: SEC Lodges Fraud Complaint Over Fax Blasts Scam
VISA USA: National Retail Group Supports Interchange Rate Suit

                 New Securities Fraud Cases  

AUTHENTIDATE HOLDINGS: Alfred G. Yates Lodges Stock Suit in NY
MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Stock Suit in NJ
MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Chitwood Harley Lodges Stock Suit in NJ
MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Stock Suit in NJ
MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in NJ


ACE MORTGAGE: Loan Officers File Suit in MN Over Unpaid Overtime
Five loan officers filed a collective action against Ace
Mortgage Funding, Inc., its principals and related corporations
("Ace") for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime

Ace offers home loans in over 35 states and has branch offices
in: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nevada, Ohio and Tennessee, with its headquarters
located in Indianapolis, Indiana. The plaintiffs who filed the
lawsuit worked in Eden Prairie, Minnesota; St. Louis, Missouri;
and Evansville, Indiana offices.

Plaintiffs allege that they worked for weeks at a time without
receiving any compensation whatsoever for their efforts and were
not paid overtime compensation for hours worked over forty. In
May 2005, one of the plaintiffs, Eric Orman, asked Ace's
President Richard Hall if he could be paid at least minimum wage
for his hours working at Ace. His local branch manager fired Mr.
Orman that same day.

Plaintiffs seek to have their case certified as a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA,") (a type of
class action in which individuals employed in similar job
positions are provided with an opportunity to pursue overtime
pay claims by opting into a lawsuit filed by representative
plaintiffs.) In order to participate in the lawsuit, employees
who worked for Ace during the past three years must file a
consent to join form, which may be obtained from plaintiffs'

The law firms of Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP, and Burr &
Smith, LLP represent the plaintiffs. Nichols Kaster & Anderson
has represented over 10,000 plaintiffs in various cases seeking
overtime and minimum wage compensation. Burr & Smith recently
sued Global Executive Mortgage, Inc., representing loan officers
who were denied minimum wage and overtime, but were paid solely
by commission.

Sam J. Smith stated, "These cases are merely the tip of the
iceberg because the financial services industry continues to
ignore the requirements of the FLSA."

Donald H. Nichols added, "Ace has virtually no defense to this
case because it failed to pay its loan officers any salary at
all. The law is well-established that paying only occasional
commissions to inside sales employees violates the requirements
of the FLSA."

For more details, contact Donald H. Nichols of Nichols Kaster &
Anderson, PLLP, 4600 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street,
Minneapolis, MN, 55402-2242, Phone: 1-(877) 448-0492, Web sites:
http://www.nka.comor http://www.overtimecases.comOR Sam J.  
Smith of Burr & Smith, LLP, 442 W. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 300,
Tampa, FL, 33606, Phone: (813) 253-2010, Web site:

ARIZONA: $24M Distributed To Cardizem CD Settlement Participants
More than $24 million in antitrust settlement funds has been
distributed to consumers nationwide who purchased Cardizem CD, a
prescription heart medication, Arizona Attorney General Terry
Goddard announced in a statement dated July 18,2005.

Approximately 1,275 consumers in Arizona will receive
approximately $364,200 as compensation for overpayment for
Cardizem CD and its generic equivalents between 1998 and 2004.
Nationwide, the distribution will compensate more than 76,000
consumers.  The states' plan to distribute money to consumers
was approved by United States District Court Judge Nancy Edmunds
on May 31, 2005.  A distribution to third-party purchasers of
the drug will begin later this year.  In addition, approximately
$4.5 million will be distributed among the States to reimburse
certain government purchasers, including Arizona's AHCCCS, for
their damages.

The distribution is the result of a 2003 multi-state settlement
involving all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico against two pharmaceutical companies, Aventis and Andrx.
The States charged that beginning in July 1998, Hoechst, a
pharmaceutical company acquired by Aventis in 2000, paid Andrx
not to market a generic version of Cardizem CD. The delay in the
availability of the generic form of Cardizem CD meant consumers,
medical insurance companies and the government paid higher
prices for the name brand version for at least an extra year.

Settlement details are available at the Website:

BRIGGS & BAKER: Settles FTC Deceptive Trade, Consumer Fraud Suit
A group of defendants promising negotiation services that would
"drastically" reduce consumers' debts have settled Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) charges that their deceptive claims violated
federal law and harmed consumers who engaged the defendants'
services and stopped contacting creditors.  The defendants are
barred from advertising or participating in any debt negotiation
business in the future.

In February 2004, the FTC filed charges against Todd A. Baker;
another individual, who settled with the Commission in February
2004; and two companies they owned or controlled, Innovative
Systems Technology, Inc., which did business as Briggs & Baker;
and Debt Resolution Specialists, Inc. (DRS). The FTC alleged
that, since 1999, the defendants falsely claimed that they could
substantially reduce consumers' debts.

According to the FTC, consumers who responded to the defendants'
radio and Internet ads were told that Briggs & Baker and DRS
would negotiate with consumers' creditors and settle their debts
for a fraction of the amount owed. The FTC alleged that, once
consumers signed up for these programs, Briggs & Baker and DRS
told consumers to end all contact with their creditors and stop
making payments on those accounts.

The FTC's complaint charged that the defendants did not
negotiate with consumers' creditors to reduce or eliminate
consumers' debts as advertised, and that consumers who stopped
communicating with their creditors found themselves deeper in
debt, sometimes forced to pay additional charges and incur
further damage to their credit ratings.

The two stipulated final orders announced today resolve the
FTC's charges against all remaining defendants in this matter.
The first order, against Baker and DRS, permanently bars them
from advertising or selling any debt negotiation services in the
future. Baker is currently a debtor in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy
case. The Baker-DRS order stipulates that the FTC will hold a
general unsecured claim in Baker's bankruptcy case of
$8,959,860, the total estimated amount of consumer injury in
this case, and can participate in any distribution on that
claim. It also contains standard recordkeeping and reporting
requirements to assist the FTC in monitoring compliance. The
second stipulated final order prohibits Innovative Systems
Technology - already shuttered in another Chapter 7 bankruptcy
case - from conducting any further business whatsoever. Both
orders bar the defendants from selling any lists of customer

The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the stipulated
final order was 4-0. The stipulated final order for permanent
injunction was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on July 13, 2005.

Copies of the stipulated final orders are available from the
FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's  
Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to
prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in
the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers
spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or
Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints),
or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call
toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint
form at http://www.ftc.gov. The FTC enters Internet,  
telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related
complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database
available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement
agencies in the U.S. and abroad.  For more details, contact Jen
Schwartzman, Office of Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2674 or
contact Kenneth H. Abbe or Barbara Chun of FTC Western Region -
Los Angeles by Phone: 310-824-4343 or visit the Website:

BRITAX CHILD: Recalls E9031 Child Safety Seats For Injury Hazard
Britax Child Safety, Inc. is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily
recalling certain "Super Elite" child safety seats (Model
E9031).  The recall includes seats of this model produced from
April 2001 to August 2002.

In some cases, the harness adjuster tab for this child safety
seat may begin to stick.  If the adjuster tab sticks in the open
position, the adjuster strap webbing may slip within the
adjuster that controls the tightness of the harness, allowing
the harness to loosen.  A loose harness increases the risk of
serious injury in a crash.

The Company expects to have repair kits available by July 20,
2005.  Registered owners will automatically be sent a repair kit
and instructions for its use.  Until that time, owners should
continue to use the seat but must check to be sure the harness
is secure before each use.  Owners who do not receive a remedy
kit, or who need further information can contact the Company by
Phone: 800-683-2045 or visit the Company's Website:
http://www.britaxusa.com/,or contact the NHTSA's auto safety  
hotline: 800-327-4236 or visit the Website:

CANADA: Toronto Attorney Commences Lawsuit to Stop RRC Closure
Toronto attorney James Gray issued a claim as a guardian for his
sister Ann Gray and filed a class action lawsuit against the
Province of Ontario, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, Community
and Social Services Minister Sandra Pupatello and "any other
minister or Crown officer" involved in the impending closure of
the Rideau Regional Center (RRC) located just outside of Smiths
Falls, the Brockville Recorder & Times reports.

Mr. Gray provided Premier McGuinty's office with a courtesy copy
of his statement of claim recently. According to Mr. Gray, the
lawsuit was for "his personal breach of duty to my sister and
the rest of the residents of the RRC." He also said, "I'm going
to serve this to the Crown office on Monday." The case will be
in Superior Court in Perth on August 26.

Mr. Gray, who is looking for an order by the end of August to
keep the center open, is also seeking an order to ensure the
center remains open until the end of the lawsuit. He told the
Brockville Recorder & Times, "If it goes to the Superior Court
(the lawsuit), that could be 10 years from now. We're going to
win this one."

Mr. Gray, who announced his lawsuit at Premier McGuinty's
constituency office in Ottawa late last week, was accompanied by
several family members, and his legal counsel, Brenda
Hollingsworth. Although he visits his sister at Rideau Regional
"periodically" and saw her just recently, Ann Gray was not
present when the lawsuit was filed on her behalf, because
according to Mr. Gray, "I wouldn't drag her along for all the
tea in China. She is mentally disabled and wouldn't understand
what was going on. This is one of the many reasons she would not
survive in a group home situation. Her mental age is between two
and three."

Ann Gray is 54 years old and has been living at Rideau Regional
since 1957. Rideau Regional Center allowed the woman to be close
to her family, which lived in Ottawa at the time.

The Rideau Regional Center is home to approximately 430
residents with the average resident being 52 years old and has
been living there for 40 years. Seventy per cent of the Rideau
Regional Center's population is non-verbal and the average IQ is

Mr. Gray told Brockville Recorder & Times, "The center is the
center of her universe. It's the only universe she knows. She
could not cope with life in an urban environment. That is where
her friends and her extended family (are), where she can go to
choir, where she is safe enough to have a boyfriend and where
was able to, at one time, work." He adds, "She would never be
able to do that downtown. She would be at very grave risk."

The announcement that the center will close in March 2009 came
on January 26 and Mr. Gray served notice of the lawsuit two days
later as he rallied along with 200 Rideau Regional Centre staff
and family members outside Premier McGuinty's office.

Preparing to file the lawsuit was a long process for Mr. Gray,
who has been working at it since September 2004. He told
Brockville Recorder & Times, "We started researching the facts.
There was the legal research, a lot of people to interview -
parents, siblings, former employees and so on - and a lot of
books to read. There was a lot of case law to go through. This
is a unique action. There's a lot of charter litigation and
there are complex issues surrounding getting an injunction
against the Crown. We're arguing the breach of Section 7 - the
right to liberty and security of a person."

If discharged from the RRC, the residents are likely to suffer
from ill psychological and physical effects, Mr. Gray told
Brockville Recorder & Times. He even adds, "This is cruel and
unusual treatment under Section 12 of the charter by virtue of
removing them from a social group, extended family and by taking
them out of a unique environment that cannot be replicated
anywhere else. The Rideau Regional Center is so unique and so
tailored to their needs. There is nothing else in the community
that will meet their needs because of the setting, equipment and
people. There is synergy there and the whole is worth more than
the sum of (its) parts."

Dave Lundy, president of Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(OPSEU) Local 436 told Brockville Recorder & Times, this is a
fantastic development. He also said, "I believe this will
finally make the government do what they said they were going to
do - take the concerns of the family into consideration. Sandra
Pupatello that she would consult with the families, town council
in Smiths Falls, the staff and the residents. And none of that
has been done," said Mr. Lundy. "This lawsuit will force her to
do that."

Additionally, Mr. Lundy told Brockville Recorder & Times, "It's
an excellent document. There are 193 different points that Mr.
Gray has listed that the government will be forced to address
before the residents are moved from the facility."

CHOICEPOINT INC.: Idaho AG Informs Residents of Security Breach
Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden sent follow-up
information to more than 4,000 Idahoans whose personal
information was disclosed due to security breaches at
ChoicePoint, Inc. and LexisNexis, two prominent data-brokering

Mr. Wasden sent letters warning consumers that the breach could
expose them to possible identity theft and provided each victim
with a copy of the Attorney General's Identity Theft Manual.  
ChoicePoint and LexisNexis have previously informed the Idahoans
affected that they can obtain a free credit report and free
credit monitoring for a year.

"My office has attempted to provide this information to all the
Idahoans whose personal information may have been breached," Mr.
Wasden said. "However, some correspondence has been returned by
the United States Postal Service. Consumers who are concerned
that their private information may have been compromised by this
security breach should contact ChoicePoint and LexisNexis. I
would also urge consumers with questions to contact my Consumer
Protection Unit."

ChoicePoint's security breach occurred last October when
computer hackers accessed the company's databanks and consumers'
personal information. Consumers' personal information from data
files belonging to Seisent, a subsidiary of LexisNexis, was also
accessed illegally.

"Security breaches, such as those involving ChoicePoint and
LexisNexis, expose consumers to possible identity theft," Mr.
Wasden said. "Therefore, it is important for consumers affected
by this breach to monitor their credit reports and financial
accounts for suspicious activity. If you think you are a victim
of identity theft, you should report it to local law enforcement
and the Federal Trade Commission."

"My office provides information about protecting against
identity theft and the steps a person will need to take if he or
she have become a victim of identity theft," Mr. Wasden said. "I
encourage Idahoans to visit my website to obtain a copy of the
Identity Theft Manual."

For more details, contact the Consumer Protection Unit by Phone:
(208) 334-2424 or (800) 432-3545 (toll-free) or visit the
Website: http://www.ag.idaho.gov.

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: To Pay MO $75T For No-Call Violations
Charter Communications, the nation's third-largest cable
television provider, will pay $75,000 to the state of Missouri
for alleged violations of the state's No Call law, state
Attorney General Jay Nixon announced in a statement.

Mr. Nixon contended the St. Louis-based Fortune 500 company
placed telemarketing calls to Missourians on the No Call list.
The telemarketers were attempting to sell Charter's cable
television services.

"In the future, I hope Charter remembers that Missourians want
to relax in the privacy of their homes without interruption from
unwanted telemarketing calls," Mr. Nixon said. "Every company
that calls Missourians must understand that we make
telemarketers pay when they shatter our peace and quiet with
illegal calls."

In addition to paying $75,000 to the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Revolving Fund, Charter also must comply fully with
Missouri's No Call law. Future knowing violations of the
assurance of voluntary compliance, which was signed today by St.
Louis City Circuit Judge David Dowd, will cost Charter $1,000
per call.

Missouri residents who wish to register their telephone numbers
on the No Call list or file a complaint regarding a No Call
violation can do so by visiting Nixon's Web site or by calling
1-866-NOCALL1.  For more details, contact Press Secretary Jim
Gardner by Phone: 573-751-8844 by Fax: 573-751-5818, by E-mail:
communicatons@ago.mo.gov, or visit the Website:

COMBI USA: Recalls Avatar Child Safety Seats Due To LATCH Defect
Combi USA, Inc. is cooperating with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily recalling its
"Avatar Model 8100" child safety seats.  The recall involves the
entire production of this model from November 2003 through May

As part of a new system for child seat installation, newly
manufactured child safety seats must include attachments that
fasten to permanent anchors in a vehicle's back seat, located
where the cushions meet.  This system is known as "LATCH" (Lower
Anchors and Tethers for Children).  In the case of the Avatar
seats being recalled, the lower attachment straps fail to meet
the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.
213 for child restraint systems.  If the child seat is attached
using the LATCH system and a crash occurs, the attachment straps
could detach from the vehicle's lower anchors; possibly
resulting in a serious or even fatal injury to the child.

Registered owners of these child safety seats will automatically
receive a repair kit along with repair instructions in the mail.  
Those not registered need to request the kit from the
manufacturer.  Until the latch belt assembly is replaced, the
Company advises owners to use the seat only with the vehicle's
safety belts and not with the LATCH system.  Owners who do not
receive the free kit within a reasonable time should contact the
Company by Phone: 800-992-6624, visit its Website:
http://www.combi-intl.com/,contact the NHTSA's auto safety  
hotline: 888-327-4236 or visit the Website:

CORPORATE COMPLIANCE: FL AG Bares Consumer Fraud Suit Settlement
Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist announced a settlement
with a California company and its owner over allegations they
used scare tactics to lure Florida corporations into buying
their product.  Hundreds of Florida victims will receive refunds
of money they paid to the company, which called itself Corporate
Compliance Center (CCC).

The company was accused of misleading corporate executives into
believing they could be personally liable for corporate debts
simply by failing to keep proper corporate minutes. CCC offered
to provide the minutes for a $100 fee.

"This settlement provides a happy ending to this sorry chapter,"
said Mr. Crist. "Good corporate citizens do not deserve to be
penalized for wanting to do the right thing."

The investigation into CCC was launched by the Attorney
General's Office in March and revealed that CCC mailed out an
"Annual Minutes Compliance Notice" to businesses throughout the
United States, including Florida.  The solicitation looks
similar to the Florida Department of State's "For Profit
Corporation Uniform Business Report" form, but requested a $100
fee not required by the state agency. According to complaints
received, several recipients of CCC's solicitation believed it
was a legitimate requirement.

Mr. Crist sued the company in May, alleging violations of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. CCC has agreed
to pay $15,000 to settle the allegations and will pay
restitution in the amount of $100 to each of its 400 victims who
paid the fee. CCC will also return uncashed checks. The company
agreed not to further use the practices that led to the charges
filed by the Attorney General.

A copy of the settlement agreement can be found at the Website:
6EESUJ/$file/CCC_Agreement.pdf.  For more details, contact the
Attorney General by Mail: The Capitol PL-01, Tallahassee, FL
32399-1050, by Phone: 850-414-3300 or 1-866-966-7226 (fraud
hotline) or visit the Website: http://myfloridalegal.com/.

CYBERONICS INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in S.D. TX
Cyberonics, Inc. and certain of its current officers face two
securities class actions filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleging violations of
the federal securities laws.

On June 17, 2005, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of its current officers, styled
"Richard Darquea v. Cyberonics Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
H:05-cv-02121."  A second lawsuit with similar allegations,
styled "Stanley Sved v. Cyberonics, Inc., et al., Civil Action
No. H:05-cv-2414" was filed on July 12, 2005.

The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements
relating to the Company's Vagus Nerve Stimulation Therapy System
device (the "VNS Device").  Specifically, the plaintiffs allege
that the defendants failed to disclose that the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (the FDA) had "safety and efficacy concerns"
about the use of the VNS Device for the treatment of depression
and that the defendants failed to disclose the existence of
certain "manufacturing and quality practices," as detailed in
the FDA's December 22, 2004 Warning Letter, that negatively
impacted the Company's prospects for obtaining FDA approval to
use the VNS Device to treat depression.  Plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of all persons and entities, except those
named as defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired Company
securities during the period June 15, 2004 through October 1,
2004.  The complainants seek unspecified monetary damages and
equitable or injunctive relief, if available.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Richard Darquea, et al. v. Cyberonics, Inc., et al., case no.
05-CV-02121," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, under Judge Sim Lake.  The plaintiff
firms in this litigation are:

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

     (2) Emerson Poynter LLP, 2228 Cottondale Avenue, Suite 100,
         Little Rock, AR, 72202, Phone: 800.663.9817, Fax:
         501.907.2556, E-mail: epllp@emersonpoynter.com

     (3) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:

     (4) Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP, 501 West Broadway, Suit 1250,
         San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 877.493.5366, Fax:

     (5) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:

     (6) Scott & Scott LLC, P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue,
         Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone: 860.537.5537, Fax:
         860.537.4432, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com

DAIRY INDUSTRY: Link Between Weight Loss and Dairy Still Unclear
Researchers say there is no definitive link found yet between
drinking milk and weight loss, the Associated Press reports.

The National Dairy Council and its researchers have claimed that
consuming dairy products will help people lose weight.  The
council and milk companies like Kraft Corporation, General Mills
and Dannon have even launched a $200 million ad campaign that
confidently touts studies suggesting a connection between
consuming dairy products and losing weight.

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) filed a
lawsuit against food companies Kraft Corporation, General Mills,
and Dannon; and three main dairy industry trade groups - the
International Dairy Foods Association, National Dairy Council,
and Dairy Management.  The suit, filed in the United States
District Court in Virginia, challenges the assertion that
consuming 24 ounces of fat-free or low-fat dairy per day can
help the body burn fat.  The suit alleged that the defendants
are misleading consumers with deceptive advertising that makes
scientifically unsubstantiated claims about the effect of dairy
products on weight-loss.  The group, which advocates a vegan
diet, is seeking an injunction banning the ads, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (July 5,2005) reports.

Some scientists say that the dairy-diet link is still unclear
and conclusions are premature.  

"The bulk of the studies suggest a possible role, but there are
inconsistencies in the data," Dr. David Ludwig, an obesity
expert at Children's Hospital Boston, told the Associated Press.  
In a 2002 study, he found that dairy aided weight loss.  "My
concern is the advertising claims by the Dairy Council have well
outstripped the available data," he added.

The dairy campaign also based its claims on research by
University of Tennessee nutrition professor Michael A. Zemel.  
Mr. Zemel began studying the link between dairy and weight in
the late 1980s.  Since 2000, he has published several studies
that found people who eat a lower-calorie diet and consume the
recommended low- or non-fat dairy servings lose nearly twice the
weight as those who only cut calories.

However, Mr. Zemel says his research often is misunderstood, AP
reports.  It is not a case of drink milk, lose weight.  It works
only for people who eat a low-calorie diet and who are not
already consuming three servings of dairy.  However, Mr. Zemel
said that in 1988 when he made the first surprising connection
between dairy and weight loss, "I couldn't get behind it without
more data.  By 2005, I feel we have that data."

Greg Miller of the National Dairy Council told AP that the
industry waited years before launching its campaign, he said,
wanting first to amass enough studies to ensure solid scientific
footing.  Among those studies are a handful of randomized
clinical trials, often considered the "gold standard" of
science.  All were funded by the Dairy Council, and most
involved Mr. Zemel, who has received nearly $2.1 million from
the group since 1998.  Mr. Zemel also has patented the claim
that dairy boosts weight loss, meaning every company that uses a
"Slim Down with Yogurt" or similar logo has to pay him and his
university.  Since 2000, the patent has generated about
$500,000, half of which goes to Mr. Zemel and two other patent
holders, AP reports.

However, it's not Mr. Zemel's science that has been criticized -
it's the dairy industry's conclusions from it.  Barry Popkin, an
obesity expert at the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, praised Mr. Zemel as a good scientist, but said the dairy
industry has overreached. "We have too many contradictions and
nobody's decided what the truth is," he told AP.

The committee of scientists who drew up the 2005 federal dietary
guidelines found the data inconclusive.  The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention and the American Heart Association came
to a similar decision, told AP.

Dr. Walter Willett, a Harvard University nutrition expert whose
recent research suggests dairy doesn't help weight loss, said
Zemel's studies are too small to sustain the industry's claims.  
"You need to look across all the evidence," he told AP.  "The
larger randomized trials that have been done, they don't show
weight loss. If anything, they show weight gain."

DON MASSEY: CO Board Investigates Deceptive Trade Allegations
Don Massey Pontiac GMC faces several subpoenas as part of an
investigation into 14 complaints filed with the Auto Industry
Division of the Colorado Department of Revenue, according to a
Colorado Motor Vehicle Dealer Board meeting on Thursday, the
Denver Post reports.  

A 9News report earlier detailed the dealership's alleged
deceptive practices.  The board, however, agreed to drop a
similar investigation into Phil Long Ford, but directed
investigators to continue investigating two consumer complaints
against that company.

In May, board members authorized investigators to issue
subpoenas.  Robert Sexton, auto industry division director, said
Thursday he could not go into detail about the subpoenas, the
Post reports.  According to a Denver Post story in May, the
state planned "to issue subpoenas to banks and credit unions
that process loans for Massey, looking for evidence that the
dealership falsified car-buyers' incomes to make the buyers
eligible for bigger loans."  The state was also reportedly
investigating allegations that "both dealers deceived customers
by selling them items such as extended warranties and security
products without properly informing them."

"We are gratified the state has voted to drop the overall
investigation," Marvin Boyd, Phil Long Ford chief operating
officer, following the meeting, told the Post. The dealership
contended all along that the allegations against them were
unfounded. Boyd promised his dealership will resolve any
outstanding complaints.

Don Massey Pontiac GMC declined to comment, according to the

Seven consumers attended Thursday's meeting in hopes of sharing
their car-buying experiences at the dealerships. But the board
voted not to hear those stories.  However, Gretchen Olson, board
president, said it would not be in the consumers' best interest
to share their stories at this time, the Post reports.  Ms.
Olson pleaded with the consumers to file complaints first, and
promised they would get their chance to be heard during a
hearing at a later date.

Dave Angle, an attorney representing consumers in a class-
action lawsuit against Phil Long Ford, said he questions the
integrity of the process.  "It's concerning that consumers can
take time off of work to come down and comment on the practices
they have had at Phil Long Ford and not be allowed to speak," he
told 9News.  "Yet, the executives of Phil Long Ford (are)
allowed to speak."

E.I. DUPONT: Law Firms Launch Suit Over Teflon's Health Risks
Class action litigation against the E.I. DuPont De Numours
Company (NYSE: DD) is being filed in federal courts in states
representing more than one-third of the nation's population.

The suits allege that the chemical and manufacturing giant knew
for more than 20 years that Teflon and its component chemicals
had the potential to make people sick -- and hid that fact from

The lawsuits are spearheaded by Miami-based Kluger, Peretz,
Kaplan & Berlin, P.L. and Ft. Lauderdale-based Oppenheim
Pilelsky P.A. "The class of potential plaintiffs could well
contain almost every American that has purchased a pot or pan
coated with DuPont's non-stick coating, popularly known as
Teflon," Alan Kluger said.

The lawsuits call on DuPont to:

     (1) Pay damages to every member of the class to compensate
         them for purchasing replacement cookware. As the
         lawsuit makes clear, DuPont had a duty to warn
         consumers regarding any potential health hazards of
         Teflon before they purchased cookware made with Teflon.

     (2) Create a fund for ongoing medical monitoring of
         consumers who purchased cooking products containing

     (3) Create a fund for independent scientific researchers to
         further investigate the potential for adverse health
         effects to consumers who used cooking products
         containing Teflon.

     (4) Require that DuPont provide a warning label on cooking
         products regarding the potential adverse and harmful
         effects of Teflon.

"DuPont's own research has shown that when Teflon is heated, it
can emit a variety of toxic gases," Steve I. Silverman, Kluger
Peretz's litigation chair said. Silverman added "that a
scientific advisory board to the EPA has indicated that at least
one chemical used to make Teflon is 'likely to be carcinogenic'
to humans -- meaning that the need for public notification is
even greater."

DuPont has consistently represented to consumers in public
statements and documents that there is no danger to human health
posed from using cooking products that are coated with Teflon.
The suit contends that information known to DuPont for decades
may prove otherwise. Invented by Dupont in 1938, Teflon is
trademarked in 19 countries and has the chemical name

The Department of Justice is also investigating DuPont in
connection with its concealment of the company's 1981 study on
its own employees of the effect of a key component of Teflon
(Perflouroctanoic acid or PFOA). Earlier this year in May 2005,
the Justice Department issued a criminal subpoena to DuPont.

Also in May 2005, DuPont set aside $15 million to respond to
civil charges that it hid from the public and regulators the
potential health hazards of PFOA stemming from the Environmental
Protection Agency's charges that the company violated the
Federal Toxic Substances Control Act from June 1981 to March

"DuPont has called Teflon a 'housewife's best friend,' but given
what we now know, that slogan should be changed," Ellen
Pilelsky, of Oppenheim Pilelsky, said.

"Millions of Americans are due a refund and an explanation --
and we intend on seeing that they get both," Roy Oppenheim
added. "It is critical that large, multinational companies
remain accountable to the American family."

For more details, contact Jason Kemp, of Kluger, Peretz, Kaplan
& Berlin, P.L., The Miami Center, Seventeenth Floor, 201 S.
Biscayne Blvd., Miami, FL, 33131, Phone: +1-202-973-1353, E-
mail: jkemp@levick.com, Web site: http://www.kpkb.comOR Ellen  
Pilelsky, of Oppenheim Pilelsky, P.A., 2500 Weston Road Suite
404, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 33331, Phone: (954) 384-6114, Web site:

GAMBRO HEALTHCARE: FL Court To Receive $2.4M From Medicaid Pact
Florida's taxpayer-supported Medicaid program will receive more
than $2.4 million for the state, as part of a nationwide
settlement with a healthcare corporation and a supply company it
owns, state Attorney General Charlie Crist announced in a
statement dated July 18,2005.

A federal investigation revealed that Gambro Healthcare and its
supply company, Gambro Supply Corporation, improperly billed
both the federal Medicare program and the individual Medicaid
programs in each state. Gambro operated a chain of clinics that
provided care for end stage kidney disease, a terminal condition
that requires regular dialysis treatment. Gambro Supply was
operated as a shell company, which allowed the parent company to
bill Medicaid for dialysis supplies at a much higher rate than
otherwise would have been allowed.

"Defrauding Medicaid not only steals from the needy, but places
an undue burden of responsibility on the shoulders of Florida
taxpayers," said Mr. Crist. "This settlement will ease some of
that burden and will help ensure that medical attention is
available to those who need it most."

The settlement resolves allegations surrounding Gambro's bogus
Medicaid billings for renal dialysis, unnecessary diagnostic
tests and associated medications, as well as allegations of
kickback payments to physicians who refer patients. The full
amount of the nationwide settlement is $308.4 million, most of
which will go to the federal Medicare program to provide
healthcare for elderly patients. A total of $36 million of the
nationwide settlement has been set aside for federal and state
Medicaid programs, with Florida's federal and state share set at
$2.4 million.

The lawsuit against Gambro Healthcare and Gambro Supply Corp.
was initiated by a whistleblower in 2001. The settlement was
negotiated by the Justice Department and the National
Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units.

For more details, contact the Attorney General by Mail: The
Capitol PL-01, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050, by Phone:
850-414-3300 or 1-866-966-7226 (fraud hotline) or visit the

GUIDANT CORPORATION: Nine Pacemaker Models May Need Replacements
Guidant Corporation announced early this week that replacements
might be needed for nine pacemaker models made between 1997 and
2000, of which some 28,000 remain implanted in patients
worldwide, the Associated Press reports.

Last month, the Indianapolis-based device maker recalled almost
109,000 implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs)
nationwide, after reports of two deaths and several reports of
device failure.  The U.S. Food and Drug Administration gave the
recall on some of the device models its highest priority status,
an earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 11,2005) states.

The Company released a warning saying that replacements might be
needed for pacemaker models, namely:

     (1) Pulsar(R) Max,

     (2) Pulsar,

     (3) Discovery(R),

     (4) Meridian(R),

     (5) Pulsar Max II,

     (6) Discovery II,

     (7) Virtus Plus(R) II,

     (8) Intelis II, and

     (9) Contak(R) TR

The Company said about 78,000 of the devices were distributed
with 18,000 still remaining in U.S. patients.  The Company also
released a warning that says a sealing component in the
pacemakers has degraded in some cases, resulting in higher-than-
normal moisture in the devices and possible malfunction, AP
reports.  The Company has identified 69 failures among the
pacemakers - all after they had been used for at least 44
months.  The Company also told physicians they should consider
replacing the pacemakers for patients who are dependent on the
devices, which send electrical pulses to the heart to regulate
its rhythm.

Several patients have lost consciousness or developed possible
heart failure, the company said, according to AP.  The statement
reported the death of one person whose pacemaker may have
failed, but the Company said that the device was not returned
for testing and that its role could not be confirmed.

Food and Drug Administration spokeswoman Julie Zawisza told AP
the agency was evaluating Guidant's warning.  The Company said
the FDA may classify the warning as a recall. The Company issued
two safety warnings last month for 11 models of defibrillators
that were later classified by the FDA as recalls.  The company
said it would replace the pacemakers at no charge through the
end of the year, even though the warranty on many has expired.
The Company will also reimburse patients up to $2,500 for
medical expenses.

GUIDANT CORPORATION: Issues Advisory on Pacemakers' Safety  
Guidant Corporation (NYSE:GDT) is voluntarily advising
physicians about important safety information regarding certain
devices. Guidant apprised FDA of this action, and FDA may
classify this action as a recall. This communication advises
physicians and their patients of safety information and is
intended to limit adverse events. Physicians should use this
information to decide how best to treat their patients.

A subset of the following devices manufactured between November
25, 1997 and October 26, 2000 are impacted:

     (1) PULSAR(R) MAX

     (2) PULSAR

     (3) DISCOVERY(R)

     (4) MERIDIAN(R)

     (5) PULSAR MAX II


     (7) VIRTUS PLUS(R) II

     (8) INTELIS II

     (9) CONTAK(R) TR

These products, which are of an earlier generation design, have
not been sold or implanted for the last four years.

Guidant has determined that a hermetic sealing component used in
the subset of devices listed above may experience a gradual
degradation, resulting in a higher than normal moisture content
within the pacemaker case late in the device's service life.

As of July 11, 2005, Guidant has identified sixty-nine (69)
devices that may have exhibited this failure mode from
approximately 78,000 devices distributed with this component.
While no failures have been reported prior to 44 months of
service, the likelihood of occurrence increases with implant
time. Guidant's modeling based on field experience and
statistical life-table analysis predicts the rate of failure in
the remaining active implanted devices to be between 0.17% and
0.51% over the remaining device lifetime. Of the 78,000 devices
originally distributed, approximately 28,000 devices remain
implanted worldwide; 18,000 of these devices remain in service
in the United States with an average implant age of 69 months.

It is Guidant's recommendation to physicians that they consider
the unique needs of individual patients and the specific
technical recommendations set forth in Guidant's physician
communication, dated July 18, 2005. In addition, Guidant
recommends that physicians consider replacing devices for
pacemaker-dependent patients. In addition, Guidant advises
patients to seek medical attention immediately if they notice
shortness of breath, dizziness, lightheadedness or a prolonged
fast heart rate.

The clinical behaviors associated with this failure mode can
result in serious health complications. Guidant has confirmed
twenty reports of loss of pacing output associated with this
failure mode, including five patients experiencing syncope. Loss
of pacing output has also been associated with reports of
presyncope requiring hospitalization. Additionally, Guidant has
received two reports of sustained Maximum Sensor Rate ("MSR")
pacing in which heart failure may have developed in association
with sustained high rate pacing. In one report, a patient whose
device exhibited sustained MSR pacing was admitted to the
hospital with multiple health issues and later died. It is
unknown if this device experienced the failure described above
as the device was not returned and this failure mode could not
be confirmed.

Many of these devices are nearing or have exceeded their
estimated longevity and have thus outlived their warranty.
Guidant will provide a replacement device at no charge for
pacemaker-dependent patients and other patients deemed by their
physicians to be best served by replacement, provided the
replacement occurs prior to the normal appearance of elective
replacement indicators. This supplemental warranty program is
available through December 31, 2005. Additionally, Guidant will
reimburse patients up to $2,500 for medical expenses remaining
after Medicare and/or health insurance coverage, including
device replacement or additional follow-up procedures.

"The health and safety of patients is paramount," stated Ronald
W. Dollens, president and CEO, Guidant Corporation. "Our
innovative technologies have saved and improved millions of
lives. Guidant works diligently to create the most reliable
products and services, enhance patient outcomes, and limit
adverse events to patients."

The actions taken by the company over the last several weeks
reflect our commitment to provide more timely information to
physicians and patients about our devices. Guidant has worked
closely with FDA since the announcement of the physician
communications, and has made FDA aware of all Guidant statements
set forth in prior press releases, physician communications, and
patient letters on this matter. Guidant will continue to work to
meet and exceed the expectations of physicians, patients and

Guidant recently announced its intention to establish an
independent panel of experts to recommend guidelines for when to
disseminate information to physicians and patients about life-
sustaining implantable devices. Guidant plans to cooperate with
and enlist the support of other interested parties.

Additional information about this potential issue is available
for physicians and patients at 1-866-GUIDANT (1-866-484-3268)
(24/7) and

GUIDANT CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Amends ICD Complaint
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, which recently filed
a national class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons
implanted with recalled Guidant (NYSE: GDT - News) heart
defibrillators or implantable cardioverter defibrillators
(ICDs), amended its Class Action Complaint to include claims on
behalf of individuals implanted with nine different pacemakers
made by Guidant. On July 18, 2005 Guidant voluntarily warned
physicians that replacements might be needed for nine pacemaker
models made between 1997 and 2000. The models include: PULSAR
VIRTUS PLUS II, INTELIS II and CONTAK TR. The warning issued by
Guidant says that a sealing component in the pacemakers has
degraded in some cases, resulting in higher-than-normal moisture
in the devices and possible malfunction. Guidant said that it
has identified 69 failures among pacemakers.

Pacemakers are devices used to help the heart beat in regular
rhythm. A pacemaker is used primarily to correct slow heart
rates, while an implantable defibrillator detects and corrects
both fast and slow heart rates. A pacemaker uses batteries to
send electrical impulses to the heart to help it pump properly.
An electrode is placed next to the heart wall and small
electrical charges travel through the wire to the heart. Most
pacemakers are designed to correct abnormally slow arrhythmias,
(bradycardias). Abnormally slow heart rhythms can cause
weakness, fatigue, lightheadedness, dizziness, loss of
consciousness, or even death.

On June 16, 2005, Guidant announced that it was recalling 50,000
faulty defibrillators due to potentially life-threatening
malfunctions in 6 different devices. On June 24, 2005, Guidant
advised that it was recalling an additional 5 devices. The
following devices are affected under FDA recall classification:

     (1) VENTAK PRIZM 2 DR, Model 1861, manufactured on or
         before April 16, 2002

     (2) CONTAK RENEWAL, Model H135, manufactured on or before
         August 26, 2004

     (3) CONTAK RENEWAL 2, Model H155, manufactured on or before
         August 26, 2004



     (6) RENEWAL AVT



     (9) RENEWAL 3 AVT

    (10) RENEWAL 4 AVT

    (11) RENEWAL RF

The class action lawsuit filed by Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
against Guidant seeks to:

     (i) inform the public that users and consumers of Guidant
         heart devices are at an increased risk of harm and/or

    (ii) establish a medical monitoring fund so that every
         consumer may be tested and treated for the adverse
         effects of Guidant heart devices,

   (iii) reimburse monies paid for the product, and

    (iv) provide compensation to all victims for personal
         injuries and death.

For more details, contact Tobias L. Millrood, Esq. or Steven D.
Resnick, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia
Road, Radnor, PA, 19087, Phone: 1-888-348-6787 or
1-610-822-0273, E-mail: tmillrood@sbclasslaw.com or
sresnick@sbclasslaw.com, Web site: http://www.sbclasslaw.com.

I2 TECHNOLOGIES: SEC Lodges Securities Suit in TX V. Ex-Officers
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed suit in Dallas
federal court against three former senior officers of Dallas-
based technology company i2 Technologies, Inc., charging them
with securities fraud, insider trading and other federal
securities law violations relating to alleged accounting
improprieties involving i2's materially misstated software
license revenues. The individuals named in the Commission's suit
are Gregory Brady, i2's former president and chief executive
officer; William M. Beecher, i2's former chief financial
officer; and Reagan L. Lancaster, i2's former executive vice
president of worldwide sales, and later president of field

According to the complaint, for the four years ended Dec. 31,
2001, and the first three quarters of 2002, defendants
intentionally or recklessly participated in a scheme to misstate
approximately $1 billion of software license revenues, including
over $125 million of revenues that should never have been
recognized; to conceal from investors the true nature of certain
reciprocal, or "barter," transactions i2 entered into; and to
hide grave customer problems i2 was experiencing. These matters
were the subject of a settled enforcement action the Commission
brought against i2 on June 9, 2004, in which i2 paid a $10
million civil penalty. The Commission further alleges that the
defendants concealed these matters from the public, as well as
from i2's external auditors and the audit committee of i2's
board of directors, for fear that disclosing them would cause
i2's stock price to decline, thereby damaging defendants'
ability to exercise lucrative stock options.  As alleged in the
complaint, the defendants, on the basis of the material non-
public information described above, violated insider trading
rules by reaping tens of millions of dollars profit exercising
options on, and selling, i2's grossly inflated stock.
In its action, the Commission is seeking against each defendant
a permanent injunction, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus
prejudgment interest, an officer and director bar and a civil
money penalty. The suit is styled, SEC v. Gregory Brady, William
M. Beecher, and Reagan L. Lancaster, Civil Action No.
3:05CV1416-M, USDC, NDTX (Dallas Division).

INTERNET TRAVEL FIRMS: Faces Hotel Occupancy Tax Lawsuit in PA
Several Internet travel agencies face a class action filed in
the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, alleging they
shortchanged the city on hotel occupancy tax, Hotel Online

Prominent class action lawyer Sherrie Savett of the Berger &
Montague law firm filed the suit against Priceline.com, Expedia
Inc., Orbitz Inc., and 14 other companies.  The suit alleges the
defendants negotiated discount rates with the hotels, then sold
those rooms at a marked-up rate to consumers.  

However, the suit alleges the daily hotel tax the retailers paid
to the city was based on the lower rate.  Guests pay a 7 percent
occupancy tax, a 1 percent city sales tax and a 6 percent state
sales tax - a total of 14 percent - on their hotel bills.

The potential payoff for the city, which has 10,000 hotel rooms,
could be significant, City Solicitor Romulo Diaz told Hotel
Online.  "At a minimum we're talking about the hotel-occupancy
tax, but if they're computing the tax wrongly on the room rate,
then they're skimping on the sales tax as well," Diaz said.

Art Sackler, a spokesman for the Internet Travel Services
Association, told Hotel Online he was "utterly bewildered" by
the Philadelphia lawsuit.  The city's action makes no sense
given a June 2004, ruling by the state Department of Revenue
that the "fees" charged by the Internet travel agents are not
subject to the occupancy tax, Mr. Sackler said.

Mr. Sackler added the online travel companies are not
"resellers" of hotel rooms and don't set the room rates. "We
provide the Web site and bring together willing buyers and
willing sellers," Sackler said.

The city of Los Angeles also filed a similar suit in January on
behalf of other California cities.

LAMPLIGHT FARMS: Recalls 350T Metal Torches Due to Injury Hazard
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Lamplight Farms Inc., a Division of W.C. Bradley
Company, of Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin is voluntarily recalling
about 350,000 units of Tikir Cone Metal Torches.

The recall was initiated due to the possibility that the head
and cover of these torches can come loose or be dislodged during
use, allowing torch fuel to spill. This poses a risk of burn
injuries and property damage. Lamplight Farms has received one
report that a torch head fell off the torch pole when bumped and
spilled torch fuel. The spilled fuel was ignited by the burning
wick, resulting in second and third degree burns to a consumer.

The recalled Tikir Cone Metal Torch is a 6-foot long, outdoor,
open-flame lamp consisting of a black metal pole topped by a
copper-colored, cone-shaped metal head. A black decorative rod
spirals around the head of the torch. The torch head includes
the fuel reservoir, cover and wick. It was sold under Lamplight
Farms model numbers 1263 and 126301 and Wal-Mart item numbers
1656121 and 1691366. Both items were sold with the same UPC
number 086861012635, which is located on the bottom of the
printed hangtag.

Manufactured in China, the torches were sold by Wal-Mart stores
nationwide from December 2003 through early June 2005 for about

Consumers should immediately stop using these torches and return
them to any Wal-Mart store for a refund.

Consumer Contact: Call Lamplight Farms toll-free at
(800) 645-5267 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday, or visit their Web site: http://www.lamplightfarms.com.

MASTERLOCK CO.: Recalls 2,109 Bike Racks Due To Injury Hazard
Masterlock Co. is cooperating with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling 2,109 Masterlock
bike racks, model 2868AT.

These bike racks were sold from January 6 and July 8,2005.  
These racks have a vertical tube connected to a horizontal tube
with a pin.  The vertical tube may break in the area where the
pin goes through the tube.  If the vertical tube breaks, the car
rack may disengage from the vehicle, and the bicycles can fall
onto the roadway.  This condition could result in a vehicle
crash or possible injury to pedestrians nearby.

Mastercraft will replace the bike rack with an improved rack.  
However, the replacement product has not yet been put into
production.  In the meantime, the Company will recall the
product and reimburse customers.   The recall is expected to
begin during July 2005.  For more details, contact the Company
by Phone: 414-766-6224, or contact the NHTSA auto safety
hotline: 1-888-327-4236.

MEDTRONIC INC.: Forizs & Dogali Lodges Suit Over Defective ICDs
The law firm of Forizs & Dogali, P.L. initiated a class action
lawsuit against Medtronic, Inc. (NYSE: MDT), a manufacturer of
implantable heart devices. According to the complaint, on
February 11, 2005, Medtronic began advising physicians about a
potential battery shorting mechanism that may occur in some of
its implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac
resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) models. In a
letter to physicians, Medtronic reported that some of the ICD
and CRT-D batteries had experienced rapid battery depletion due
to this shorting action. The company warned doctors that if
shorting occurs, battery depletion can take place within a few
hours to a few days, after which there is loss of device

Medtronic issued a recall of the affected devices in March 2005,
and estimates that currently 87,000 people may be affected.
Devices with batteries manufactured between April 2001 and
December 2003 are subject to the recall and include the
following models:

     (1) Model 7230 Marquis VR

     (2) Model 7274 Marquis DR

     (3) Model 7232 Maximo VR

     (4) Model 7278 Maximo DR

     (5) Model 7277 InSync Marquis

     (6) Model 7289 InSync II Marquis

     (7) Model 7279 InSync III Marquis

     (8) Model 7285 InSync III Protect

The class action complaint was filed on July 15, 2005, in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ocala
Division. Forizs & Dogali filed the complaint on behalf of all
citizens or residents of the United States who were implanted
with a Medtronic Device that is subject to the Recall.

Andy Dogali, attorney for the class plaintiff, said that his
firm is seeking compensation for injuries received by those
implanted with the defective devices. Dogali said he will also
ask the court to implement a medical monitoring program to
minimize the increased health risks associated with the
defective devices. Medtronic offered patients a new device, but
failed to compensate them for the pain and risk of any surgery
required to remove and replace the device. Speaking about the
patients affected by the recall, Mr. Dogali said, "imagine
walking around with a defective product in your chest, not
knowing if it was going to fail, and not knowing whether you
would die because of it. That's what these people have had to

For more details, contact Andy Dogali of Forizs & Dogali, P.L.,
Phone: (813) 289-0700, E-mail: adogali@forizs-dogali.com, Web
site: http://www.forizs-dogali.com.  

MIFEPREX LITIGATION: FDA Probes Link To Sepsis, Blood Infection
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is investigating recently
reported serious adverse events associated with mifepristone
(trade name Mifeprex, also known as RU-486). As a result, the
FDA issued a public health advisory highlighting the risk of
sepsis or blood infection when undergoing medical abortion using
Mifeprex and misoprostol in a manner that is not consistent with
the approved labeling. There are now four cases of deaths from
infection from September 2003 to June 2005 following medical
abortion with these drugs.

"The FDA is committed to sharing emerging drug information with
the public and we believe it is important to share with
healthcare providers and patients the latest serious reports of
infection associated with this drug that we have received," said
Dr. Steven Galson, Acting Director of FDA's Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research.

The bacteria thought to cause the fatal infection have been
identified in two of the cases and the other two cases are under
investigation by FDA along with the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, State and local health departments, and the
manufacturer of Mifeprex. Doctors are urged to have a higher
level of suspicion for sepsis in their patients taking Mifeprex.

Previously, the FDA has received reports of serious bacterial
infection, bleeding, ectopic pregnancies that have ruptured, and
death. Those reports led to the revision of the black box
labeling. Mifeprex was approved by the FDA in 2000.

For more information, please visit the Website:
or contact the Agency by Phone: 301-827-6242 (media inquiries)
or 888-INFO-FDA (consumer inquiries).

MISSOURI: AG Nixon Files Consumer Fraud Suit V. Michael Pickens
Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon sued a Bethany man who
advertised bulk sales of top-of-the-line clothing on an Internet
auction Web site but delivered little more than trash to
consumers around the country who paid for his products.

According to the petition filed in Harrison County Circuit
Court, consumers who ordered bulk quantities of top-quality, new
or "gently used" clothing from Michael D. Pickens received a
surprise when their shipments arrived. Instead of the Victoria's
Secret, Banana Republic or other name-brand clothing they had
seen advertised in photographs on the Internet auction Web site
eBay, they found burned, smelly, stained or torn clothing;
irreparable shoes; shards of glass; broken appliances; and - on
at least one occasion - feces.

"Michael Pickens duped consumers who thought they were buying
resalable clothing but got stuck with bales of trash instead,"
Mr. Nixon said. "Mr. Pickens needs to clean up his act and
provide refunds right away. Through this lawsuit, I want to
compel him to do just that."

When a consumer placed an order on eBay, Mr. Pickens would
arrange a shipment from a supplier of "industrial wiping rags,"
or old, unwanted clothing and household items typically sold or
donated to impoverished nations.  The supplier attempted to
clarify and confirm with Mr. Pickens that the consumers
understood the product they were receiving because the supplier
never before had sold bales of used clothes and rags for retail
resale to American consumers, according to the petition.  
Consumers who attempted to obtain refunds from Pickens were
ignored or refused, Mr. Nixon said.

The lawsuit asks the court to issue a permanent injunction
against Mr. Pickens and award civil penalties of $1,000 per
violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. The
lawsuit also requests that the court order Mr. Pickens to pay
court costs, restitution and 10 percent of the amount of
restitution to the Missouri Merchandising Practices Revolving

For more details, contact Press Secretary Jim Gardner by Phone:
573-751-8844, by Fax: 573-751-5818 or by E-mail:

MMC INC.: Yuma County to Receive Windfall From $850M Settlement
Yuma County is set to receive nearly $20,000 as its share of an
$850 million class action settlement with MMC Inc., a global
insurance brokerage firm that was at the heart of an insurance
scandal last year, The Associated Press reports.

Deputy County Attorney Robert Pickels told The Associated Press
that the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously this week to
accept the $19,991.66. He also added that money from the
settlement would go into the county's general fund.

In 2003, the county awarded the company a three-year contract
for $42,000 to handle the county's insurance policy purchases.

MOTOR COACH: Recalls 156 Motor Coaches Because of Crash Hazard  
Motor Coach Industries, Inc. in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 156 units of
2004-06 MCI / J4500 motor coaches due to crash hazard. NHTSA
CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V322000.

According to the ODI, on certain coaches equipped with I-shafts
supplied by ZF Heavy Duty Steering, there is a potential for a
failure of the fork/shaft connection. If this occurs, the
vehicle could suffer a loss of steering ability, which could
result in a crash.

As a remedy, MCI, which the assistance of ZF, intends to
establish a program for remedying the defective I-shafts.

For more details, contact MCI by Phone: 1-204-284-5360 OR the
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web
site: http://www.safecar.gov.

NEVADA: Groups File Suit Over Plans to Line Canal With Concrete
A Mexican organization and two nonprofit groups launched a
lawsuit against the U.S. government to stop plans to line a
canal near the border that supplies water to farms in
California's Imperial Valley, The Associated Press reports.

Filed in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas, Nevada, the suit
seeks class action status for people in the Mexicali Valley of
Mexico, and a declaration that water seeping into the ground
north of the border but serving people in Mexico cannot be
seized by the United States.

Malissa Hathaway McKeith, lawyer for Azusa, California-based
Citizens United for Resources and the Environment, told The
Associated Press that the suit was filed in Las Vegas because
the Bureau of Reclamation office controlling lower Colorado
River water deliveries is in nearby Boulder City.  The other
plaintiffs in the suit are Desert Citizens Against Pollution, of
Rosamond, California, and Consejo de Desarrollo Economico de
Mexicali, a nonprofit organization of business and civic leaders
claiming to represent 1.3 million residents in Baja California's
Mexicali Valley.

At issue is a decades-old federal plan to line the porous All-
American Canal with concrete. The canal delivers water from the
Colorado River just north of the border to the agriculture-rich
Imperial Valley in California.  The U.S. government estimates
that almost 68,000 acre-feet of seepage could be saved if the
canal is lined. An acre-foot equals 325,851 gallons, enough to
serve one or two households for one year.

The lawsuit puts the seepage at about 100,000 acre-feet per
year, and claims the water re-supplies an underground aquifer
serving the arid southeastern corner of California and the
Mexicali Valley south of the border.  In addition, the suit
claims that the U.S. government failed to prepare required
environmental studies, and has not ensured that threatened and
endangered species and migratory birds won't be hurt.

Ms. McKeith told The Associated Press that the suit was prompted
by government plans to request proposals next month and pick a
contractor in February for the work.

The case is Consejo de Desarrollo Economico de Mexicali v.
United States, 05-0870.

NEW YORK: Law Firm Initiates First Podcast on Bankruptcy, Credit
The Debt Relief Law Center of New York, a service of
FleischmanLaw, P.C., has just launched a podcast designed to
provide information to consumers on matters concerning debt,
credit and consumer law issues.

"Bankruptcy and Credit News: The Debt Podcast," lets New Yorkers
learn more about personal finance and credit issues in a
convenient, mobile medium. This is the first podcast of its
kind, reflecting the next step in the lower Manhattan law firm's
efforts to provide the most comprehensive personal finance
information to New Yorkers. With issues concerning credit
reporting, spiraling debt levels and identity theft becoming
more important, it is important to get reliable information to
the public.

Managing Attorney Jay S. Fleischman stated, "We're always trying
to find new ways to deliver reliable consumer information,
especially because of upcoming changes to the bankruptcy and
credit reporting laws. This effort will benefit New Yorkers
dealing with debt and credit issues, and represents an expansion
of our online presence at www.drlcny.com. People have been very
responsive about the information we're providing. New Yorkers
appreciate the convenience of being able to learn more about
personal finance on the go."

Upcoming episodes will tackle issues such as identity theft,
bankruptcy, dealing with abusive debt collectors, dealing with
foreclosure, and how to spot and correct credit reporting
errors. Listener-submitted questions will be answered during
special "Listener's Choice" shows.

For more information about FleischmanLaw, P.C. and the Debt
Relief Law Center of New York, contact the firm by Phone:
212-785-1136 or visit the Website: http://www.drlcny.comor  

PENNSYLVANIA: Oral Arguments in Venango County Suit Commenced
Attorneys presented preliminary arguments in the class action
filed against Venango County, Pennsylvania, over the proper use
of Two Mile Run County Park, thederrick.com reports.  The suit
also names as defendants the Venango Park and Natural Resources
Authority, and Parks Unlimited, the firm owned by Marty and Ann
Rudegeair that has managed the park since 1998.

Donald M. Plumer, Jr. and Joyce S. Plumer of Oil City and
Richard and Annette Burgert of Myerstown filed the suit before
Venango County President Judge H. William White, on behalf of
people from whom land was acquired in the late 1960s for the
2,700-acre park in Oakland Township and Sugarcreek Borough.

The land for the park was acquired under the state Project 70
Land Acquisition and Borrowing Act of 1964, which provided for
the acquisition of land for recreation, conservation and
historic purposes, thederrick.com reports.  The park was a
county entity until October 2003, when then county commissioners
Bob Murray, Deb Lutz and Larry Horn transferred ownership and
responsibility for all park property to the newly created
Venango Park and Natural Resources Authority.

According to the plaintiffs, the county allegedly failed to get
the required approval of the General Assembly, which was
required when Project 70 lands are "disposed of or used for
other purposes."   The suit further alleged that several aspects
of park operations - including the management agreement with
Parks Unlimited, mineral and timber activities at the park and
the gate and access fees - are inconsistent with Project 70
requirements that the land be used for "recreation, conservation
and historical purposes."  

These operations also allegedly violated Article I, Section 27,
of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which "limits and binds the
power of government in its use of public lands," and/or the
terms of the deeds granting the land for the park, the
derrick.com reports.  The suit further alleges that the
management agreement with Parks Unlimited that includes an
annual fee and 30 percent of the positive net income from park
operations allows "private profit from the use of public lands."

The suit seeks:

     (1) A permanent injunction voiding the transfer of the park
         property to the authority or a ruling invoking the
         penalties for improper transfer of Project 70 lands

     (2) That all "commercial activities" associated with oil,
         gas, and timbering operations be prohibited at the park

     (3) That the use of the gate and gate fees be prohibited

     (4) Attorney's fees and costs.

Attorneys presented their arguments before Judge White last
Thursday, July 14,2005. Attorney Hank Gent, arguing on behalf of
Parks Unlimited, said that the management firm has "never
collected" the 30 percent profit share and intends to modify the
agreement to eliminate that clause.  "We do intend to modify the
agreement and in the meantime will not collect 30 percent. The
revised agreement will probably be in before the end of the
year," he said, according to thederrick.com.

Attorney Michael Hadley, who is representing the plaintiffs,
agreed to drop that portion of the lawsuit, thederrick.com

Both attorney James Greenfield, representing the authority, and
attorney William Cisek, representing the county, argued that the
plaintiffs have no standing to sue on the basis of the alleged
violations of Project 70. Both said only the commonwealth can
enforce Project 70, thederrick.com reports.

Mr. Hadley countered that while third parties have been
eliminated from Project 70 cases, this case is unique because
the action has been brought by the original landowners whose
property was acquired under the act.  "This is the only time the
original land grantors have sought to enforce Project 70," he
said, according to thederrick.com.  "Citizens at large can't do
it. But because these are the original land grantors, that makes
them unique."

Mr. Greenfield, however, questioned the unique status of the
land grantors.  He disputed the notion that "simply because they
granted land, that gives them some special standing over how it
was used."   "They just happen to be the people that did it
(granted the land)," he said, according to thederrick.com.  He
questioned whether as members of the general public and
taxpayers they have standing to sue the park operators.

Judge White declined to say when the attorneys could expect his
ruling.  "It's an interesting issue," he said in closing,
thederrick.com reports.

PIZZA HUT: Plaintiff List Slashed For Coldiron Labor Suit in CA
In a 10-Q filing by Pizza Hut parent Yum! Brands, the pizza
chain stated that the number of plaintiffs in a class action
labor suit against them would be much smaller than plaintiffs'
attorneys once anticipated, The Pizza Marketplace.com reports.

According to the filing, on June 30, a California district court
judge granted Pizza Hut's motion to strike from the class all
members who joined the litigation after July 15, 2004. The
filing pointed out, "The effect of this order is to reduce the
number of (Fair Standards and Labor Act) class members to only
approximately 87 (or approximately 2.5 percent of the eligible
class members)."

The suit, which was filed in 2003 and is better known as
Coldiron v. Pizza Hut, centers on former "restaurant general
manager (RGM)" Ann Coldiron's complaint that Pizza Hut avoided
paying her and her peers deserved overtime by classifying them
as managers but giving them hourly duties.

As previously reported in the August 17, 2004 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, the law firm of Castle, Petersen & Krause
LLP brought the case to court on behalf of Ms. Coldiron of La
Verne to recover unpaid overtime wages. Attorneys argued that
despite the executive sounding title of RGM, Ms. Coldiron, and
others similarly situated, were misclassified as exempt as their
primary or principal duties were non-managerial. Approximately
90% of their time was spent performing production-related, non-
exempt tasks alongside the "subordinates" they supervised. The
tasks included making pizzas, taking telephone orders and
cleaning the facilities. Ms. Coldiron and her management
counterparts worked in excess of 50 hours per week without
overtime pay.

Previously, Ms. Coldiron's attorneys predicted as many as 3,100
plaintiffs could join the class and that damages potentially
could reach $300 million.

During a July 14 Yum investors conference call, a company
official stated that the multi-brand king has spent $3 million
this year on legal fees for Pizza Hut. The official though did
not say what portion of that amount was dedicated to the
Coldiron case.

The suit is styled, Coldiron v. Pizza Hut, Inc., (Case No. CV
03-5865 TJH (MCx)), which is pending in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. The
plaintiff is represented by Castle, Petersen & Krause LLP, 4675
MacArthur Court, Suite 1250, Newport Beach, CA, 92660, Phone:
(949) 417-5600 or (866) 855-4CPK, Fax: (949) 417-5610, E-mail:
pizzahut@cpk-law.com. The defendant is represented by the G.
Allen McNamee of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, 725 South
Figueroa Street, Suite 2800, Los Angeles, CA, 90017, Phone:
+1-213-488-7565, Fax: +1-213-629-1033.

RAILTRACK PLC: Mr. Byers Apologizes For Misleading Parliament
Former British Transport Secretary Stephen Byers apologized for
misleading U.K. Parliament about when his department began talks
on changing the ownership of Railtrack Plc, Bloomberg reports.

The Company, who operated UK national rail infrastructure
system, got into trouble when two commuter trains collided in
1999, in which 31 passengers were killed.  Last year, a train
was derailed, killing four people.  Because of these accidents,
the Company incurred huge losses.   The Company finally closed
after Mr. Byers refused to give the company further state
funding and placed it under administration, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (November 26,2004) reports.

About 49,000 former Company shareholders then filed a class
action against the British government, alleging that Mr. Byers
and the department abused their powers by forcing the company
into insolvency.  The lawsuit, which opened June 27, is
Britain's largest-ever class action.  Shareholders could receive
as much as 157 million pounds ($276 million) in damages if they
succeed with their claim, according to a government estimate.  

The suit also alleges that Mr. Byers conspired to force the
Company into insolvency to "renationalize" Britain's railways
without having to compensate the Company's shareholders.  Mr.
Byers resigned from the Department of Transport in May 2002 and
is currently a Labour party member of parliament.  

A parliamentary committee has started reviewing Mr. Byers
October 2001 decision.  On July 14,2005, Mr. Byers told the
court that he had given "untrue" evidence to the committee.  "It
is not a truthful statement, and I apologize for that," Mr.
Byers said, according to a Bloomberg report.  "I cannot remember
the motives behind it."

Mr. Byers gave testimony to the parliamentary committee on
November 14, 2001, about 5 weeks after he petitioned the High
Court to put the company into administration.  However, Mr.
Byers denied he deliberately misled the committee to deflect
further investigations into his conduct.  "That was not the
case," he told the court, Bloomberg reports.

The case, which was scheduled to last four weeks, is styled
"Geoffrey Rutherford Weir and ors. v. The Secretary of State for
Transport HC03CO4185."

SOUTH DAKOTA: Sioux Falls Responds to Lawsuit Over 2004 Flooding
Attorneys for Sioux Falls are challenging a lawsuit seeking
class action status that was brought by seven flooded-out
homeowners, which argues that the city was negligent during last
year's flooding, The Associated Press reports.

Specifically, the 12-page lawsuit argues that Sioux Falls was
negligent in its design and maintenance of the storm and sewer
lines and should be held responsible for damage due to sewer
backups and flooding.

As previously reported in the June 20, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, the homeowners filed the suit on behalf of
themselves and anyone in the city whose property was damaged in
the May 29th and June 16th storms. The plaintiffs' attorney,
John Hughes told KELOLAND TV that as many as 40 people have been
significantly involved in the process and he expects hundreds
more to be included in the suit.

Court documents claim that the rains flooded streets and
basements and sent up to several feet of raw sewage into homes
across Sioux Falls. It also claims that homeowners suffered
personal injury and property damage because the City of Sioux
Falls negligently designed, constructed, maintained and
inspected it's sanitary and storm sewer lines and systems.

According to Mr. Hughes, who is representing the homeowners, the
City did not respond when asked for help, and gave people no
alternative. He also adds that anyone whose property was damaged
or destroyed or paid for clean up expenses can be included in
the class action suit.  The suit claims that members of the
class are so numerous, single action by each one would be
impractical, that the class has well over 100 members, and that
the member's identities can be ascertained from the city's

In its three-page response, the city denied all claims of
negligence or failure to use reasonable care and diligence
arguing that homeowners are not entitled to recover losses
because of sovereign immunity. Additionally, the city argued
that the case is not appropriate for class action certification
and asked the court to dismiss the case.

SYSTEMS & COMPUTERS: Insider Trading Charges V. Traders Settled
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint against
Jeffrey L. Matthews (Matthews) and Curtiss P. Barnes (Barnes) in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York alleging unlawful insider trading in the common stock
of Systems & Computers Technology, Inc. (SCT).  Without
admitting or denying the Commission's allegations, Mr. Matthews
and Mr. Barnes each consented to the entry of a Final Judgment,
subject to the Court's approval, permanently enjoining them from
future violations of antifraud provisions of the securities
laws, and ordering them to disgorge their trading profits of
$7,280 and $6,929 respectively, plus prejudgment interest, and
to pay civil penalties equal to their respective trading
The Commission's complaint alleges that Mr. Matthews, the spouse
of a SCT employee, and Mr. Barnes, a former SCT employee, each
purchased SCT stock while in possession of material, nonpublic
information about SCTs impending acquisition by SunGard Data
Systems, Inc. (SunGard). On December 10, 2003, SCT announced
that it had signed an agreement to be acquired by SunGard and
SCT's share price increased approximately 13%.
The Commission's complaint alleges that Mr. Matthews and Mr.
Barnes each violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the NASD in this
matter. The action is styled, SEC v. Jeffrey L. Matthews and
Curtiss P. Barnes, Civil Action No. 05 CV 6479 (Denny Chin)
(S.D. N.Y.).

TARGET CORPORATION: Recalls 17.4T Trucks Due to Injury Hazard
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Target Corporation, of Minneapolis, Minnesota is
voluntarily recalling about 17,400 units of "So Hot Way Cool
Free Wheel Trucks" due to the possibility that mall parts could
break off the truck, thus posing a choking hazard to young

The recall includes four-piece "So Hot Way Cool Free Wheel"
Truck sets. Various trucks sold in the sets include a
combination of fire trucks, oil trucks, vegetable trucks,
sanitation trucks, tow trucks and box trucks. Writing on the
trucks includes, "EMERGENCY" or "CITY SERVICE." The words "So
Hot Way Cool Free Wheel Truck" and the item number 204 02 0838
are written on the packaging.

Manufactured in China, the trucks are sold at Target Stores
nationwide from April 2005 through May 2005 for about $5.

Consumers should take the toy trucks away from children and
return them to the nearest Target store for a gift card in the
amount of a full refund ($5.00, plus applicable state taxes).

Consumer Contact: For more information, consumers can contact
Target at (800) 440-0680 between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday, or log on to the firm's Web site at

TASER INTERNATIONAL: Firm Launches Suit Over False Safety Claims
A Boca Raton law firm launched a class action lawsuit against
Taser International, claiming that the company used bogus safety
claims to market its stun guns to police departments across the
country, leaving officers with weapons that they can't use as
intended without risking harm and liability, The Palm Beach Post

The lawsuit was filed one day after Michael Crutchfield died
following an encounter with West Palm Beach police in which one
officer shocked him three times with the 50,000-volt weapon. But
according to Paul Geller, the attorney who brought the suit, the
timing was coincidental.

The suit though points to more than 100 others who died after
they were shocked with Tasers and saying that those deaths
betray the "dangerous insufficiency" of the research Taser touts
as having proved the weapons are safe.

At least one in four of those deaths occurred in Florida, which
leads the nation in Taser-associated fatalities. Mr. Crutchfield
was the 27th person in the state known to have died after being
shocked with a Taser.

Medical examiners cited Taser shocks as having contributed to at
least three of those deaths, and one has refused to reach a
determination, saying not enough is known about the weapon's

Still, the lawsuit charges that Taser marketing materials claim
the weapon "debilitates the toughest targets, without causing
injury or lasting after-effects."

Tasers are used to incapacitate people with a paralyzing shock
carried by two barbed prongs that embed in skin or clothing.

Mr. Geller, whose firm represents police departments across the
country, filed the lawsuit on behalf of the police department of
Dolton, Illinois. The small agency spent $8,572 on Tasers and
accessories but stopped using the weapons after the village's
mayor asked for a moratorium on Taser use. He also told The Palm
Beach Post that the department is suing because it could ill
afford to buy weapons it cannot use.

According to Mr. Geller, if a judge grants the lawsuit class-
action status, police departments that have bought Tasers will
be notified. Departments could opt out of the though he expects
most would participate. He added, "Police departments are in a
quandary of what to do with these things."

Boca Raton Police Chief Andrew Scott, whose department was the
first in Palm Beach County to use Tasers and who heads a
committee creating a model policy to guide Taser use for law
enforcement, told The Palm Beach Post he had not seen the
lawsuit. "I'm troubled by the class-action concept," he said,
adding that the move to include all departments was premature.
"It would make sense for a Boca Raton law firm to have contacted
the Boca Raton police chief, or the sheriff of Palm Beach

Recently, Taser International officials issued a statement
saying they were unaware of the lawsuit, which was filed in
federal court in Illinois. "What we do know," the statement
continued, "is that TASER technology saves lives every day and
that medical experts studying TASER devices have concluded that
they are among the safest means to subdue violent individuals
who could harm law enforcement officers, innocent citizens or

Taser officials followed with a second e-mailed statement
listing "TASER stats" - "280 law enforcement agencies in FL
deploy TASER technology. Over 7,500 law enforcement agencies
deploy TASER technology in North America."

Mr. Geller agrees that the weapons are widely used, adding that
about 135,000 of the nation's 1 million law enforcement and
corrections officers carry the devices. His lawsuit, however,
contends that the law enforcement agencies that bought the
weapons were misled by Taser's safety claims "and, as a
consequence, routinely use the Company's Tasers to subdue
citizens in situations that do not warrant or permit the use of
deadly force."

The lawsuit cites a May 29 Palm Beach Post article, showing that
at least a quarter of the weapon's uses locally have been on
people who were passively resisting officers' commands. The suit
also cites The Post's finding that police in Palm Beach County
and the Treasure Coast have fired Tasers at children, the
elderly and women who claimed to be pregnant.

The lawsuit also cites reports on the company's Web site saying
that Tasers are being used in favor of other methods, including
getting help from mental health professionals to defuse highly
charged confrontations. "Indeed, the Company's safety claims are
so exaggerated that many agencies even feel free to issue Tasers
to school police officers," the lawsuit says.

It further claims that the police have used the Tasers more
indiscriminately than they would have, because of the company's
safety claims, bolstered by misrepresented research, that Mr.
Geller called "dangerously insufficient."

Although the company has touted research by its own medical
director, who owns stock in the company, the lawsuit argued that
outside studies have concluded that more testing should be done.

The lawsuit also refers to Taser's treatment of a study by the
Department of Defense, in which Taser staff members
participated, calling the company's claim that the research was
independent "a double dose of deception." It noted that the
study did not confirm the safety of the weapon, as Taser
marketing claimed.

TASER INTERNATIONAL: Groups Call For Suspension of Stun Gun Use
Several advocacy groups are calling for the suspension of the
use of Taser guns, until studies are done on how the device
affects people on drugs or with heart conditions, the Associted
Press reports.

Law enforcement officials use the Taser to temporarily
immobilize a suspect.  A Taser shoots two streams of electricity
that deliver a 50,000-volt jolt for 5 seconds, temporarily
immobilizing a person by over-stimulating the nervous system and
causing muscles to lock up.  Officers can use the device from
15-35 feet (4.5-10.5 meters) away from a suspect, AP reports.  

A Taser also can be used like cattle prods, affecting only the
muscles in the area where it touches someone's skin. However,
because a Taser is not a firearm, it is not regulated by the
government.  About 100,000 people own a Taser, and about 7,300
law enforcement agencies and military installations worldwide
use the stun guns, according to the company.

Statistics on Taser-related deaths vary.  The American Civil
Liberties Union reports more than 130 deaths in the U.S., while
Amnesty International reports more than 120 deaths in the U.S.
and Canada - both figures since June 2001.

North Texas resident and architect Eric Hammock was on his way
home when he trespassed onto a company's private property.  Mr.
Hammock got into a scuffle with a security guard who shocked him
with a Taser gun between three and six times and placed him in
handcuffs, police say. Hammock struggled to breathe and died an
hour later, AP reports.

A county medical examiner told AP Mr. Hammock's April death was
from cocaine intoxication but that the stun gun may have played
a role because he "collapsed within a very, very short time
after being tased."

Mr. Hammock's wife Kathi filed a suit against the Arizona-based
Taser International, saying "They overdid it . I don't care what
he did. He didn't deserve the death penalty."

Taser International, the primary manufacturer of electric stun
guns, did not return several calls seeking comment.  The Company
said in a May interview with The Associated Press that its
product is safe, based on independent studies, and in only about
10 percent of deaths cited by Amnesty International did medical
examiners list Tasers as a contributing factor.  The company
also contends Tasers have saved more than 6,000 lives - suspects
who otherwise might have been fatally shot by police.

The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Arizona attorney
general have said they are examining Taser's safety claims.
Amnesty International and the ACLU say studies cited by the
company were done on healthy people and only found no
significant heart effects immediately after a shock, AP reports.  
In one study, Taser's top medical officer was a consultant.

Concerns have led some law enforcement agencies to suspend Taser
use.  Last week the mayor of Birmingham, Alabama, ordered local
authorities to stop using the devices after a jail inmate was
found dead in his cell more than 12 hours after corrections
officers used the gun to subdue him, AP reports.

Tarrant County Medical Examiner Nizam Peerwani told AP he plans
to meet with Fort Worth police soon to discuss his findings in
Hammock's death. He said people who take stimulant drugs or are
highly agitated because of psychological problems are already
more likely to die from heart problems - so a Taser's effect on
these people should be carefully considered.

UNITED STATES: IL Immigrants Ink Settlement for Green Card Suit
Chicago, Illinois-area immigrants reached a settlement for a
class action filed against the United States Department of
Homeland Security, the Associated Press reports.

About 5,000 immigrants filed the suit in April 2001, which
alleges that the Department mishandled their applications.  To
receive a green card, which grants U.S. citizenship, a family
member has to file a petition on the immigrant's behalf.  The
application remains pending until a visa is available, which can
take years.

Before April 30, 2001, a provision of the Immigration and
Nationality Act allowed illegal immigrants to pay a $1,000 fee
and be eligible for permanent residence.  Before the 2001
deadline, thousands of Chicago-area immigrants followed the bad
advice of some notary publics, who told them if they paid the
$1,000, they would become permanent residents, the Associated
Press reports.

The suit alleges that the Chicago office of the Department of
Homeland Security accepted applications and fees without making
sure the applicants were eligible to be considered for
residency.  The government allegedly violated laws by accepting
the applications, keeping the $1,000 fee, and using the
information to begin deportation proceedings.

Illegal immigrant Fermin Gutierrez, 33, paid a notary public
$1,500 so that he could get a U.S. residency within months,
instead of the years the green-card process normally takes.  
Several months later, Mr. Gutierrez started getting letters from
the federal government saying that he illegally filed for
residency and could be deported.

When government officials eventually started reviewing the
applications, they found many to be ineligible and used that
information to begin deportation proceedings against the illegal
immigrants.  The Chicago office's blind acceptance of the
immigrants' applications opened the door for many unscrupulous
notaries.  One investigation found a notary had defrauded about
250 immigrants, Norma Reyes, commissioner of Chicago's
Department of Consumer Services, told AP.  

"We had lines and lines of people dropping off applications,"
Marilu Cabrera, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services in Chicago, told AP.  "We were giving the
applicant the benefit of the doubt."  

The settlement was reached on June 20, 2005.  Under the
settlement, the plaintiffs, who are people who filed
applications with the Chicago office between January 29,1997 and
April 30,2001, will be eligible for a $1,000 reimbursement.  The
settlement also gives them the chance to ask the government by
December 10 to not actively seek to deport them.

UNITED STATES: SEC Lodges Fraud Complaint Over Fax Blasts Scam
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed charges against two
stock promoters in a scam designed to mislead investors into
believing they had inadvertently received a confidential stock
tip faxed from a stockbroker to his client. The handwritten fax
had the appearance of an urgent message from a financial planner
intended only for his client, "Dr. Mitchel," urging the purchase
of a stock that was about to triple in price. In fact, neither
the financial planner nor "Dr. Mitchel" exists. The fax was sent
to more than one million recipients across the country by stock
promoters who made over half a million dollars unloading their
shares on duped investors.
The Commission's complaint alleges that Joshua Yafa, 31, of
Coral Gables, Florida, drafted a fax in which a fictitious
financial planner urged "Dr. Mitchel" to buy shares of AVL
Global, Inc. (ticker: AVLL), a company which had hired Mr. Yafa
as a public relations consultant and paid him in stock. Mr. Yafa
sent the supposedly misdirected "Dr. Mitchel" fax to more than
150,000 fax machines across the United States the evening of
December 15, 2004.  The complaint alleges that AVLL's stock
price soared as soon as the market opened, after which Mr. Yafa
sold his shares of AVLL, reaping more than $300,000 in proceeds.
The Commission also charged Nocona, Texas resident Michael
O'Brien Pickens, 51, with hatching a copycat scheme. According
to the Commission's complaint, Mr. Pickens obtained a copy of
Mr. Yafa's "Dr. Mitchel" fax and had the AVLL ticker symbol
replaced with the symbols of three different microcap companies
Pickens had been promoting - Data Evolution Holdings, Inc.
(ticker: DTEV), Infinium Labs, Inc. (ticker: IFLB), and
Soleil Film, Inc. (ticker: SFLM).  The Commission alleges that
Pickens sent out nearly a million of the modified "Dr. Mitchel"
faxes in December 2004.  The share price of the three stocks
climbed by as much as 100% on massive volume, and Pickens made
over $300,000 selling stock in the companies.
The Commission also brought fraud charges against Serafin
Sierra, 45, a salesman at Miami-based Vision Lab
Telecommunications, Inc., the "fax blasting" company that
transmitted both sets of "Dr. Mitchel" faxes. According to the
Commission's complaint, Sierra learned of Yafa's scam, and
forwarded a copy of the original AVLL "Dr. Mitchel" fax to his
customer Pickens, facilitating Pickens' copycat scheme.
The Commission's complaint charges Yafa, Pickens, and their
affiliated companies, Global Media Marking, Inc., M3, Inc., and
M3 Research LLC, with violating Section 17(a) and 17(b) of 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 complaint also charges Sierra with aiding and
abetting Pickens's violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Commission's investigation is
continuing. The action is styled, SEC v. Joshua Yafa, Michael O.
Pickens, et al., United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Civil Action No. 05 CV 6480 (LAK)]

VISA USA: National Retail Group Supports Interchange Rate Suit
The National Retail Federation today welcomed a lawsuit filed
against Visa USA Inc. by grocers and drug stores over credit
card interchange rates charged to merchants.

"This is the second lawsuit filed against credit card
interchange rates in less than a month and will help focus
attention on this hidden tax that is driving up costs for
consumers," NRF President and CEO Tracy Mullin said. "Everybody
knows that credit card companies charge monthly interest to
cardholders. But what most people don't know is that they also
charge a fee to merchants and effectively require that we
include it in the price of merchandise regardless of whether
it's paid for by cash or credit. That drives up prices for
everyone and is especially unfair for customers who pay cash."

"These fees range from pennies to a few dollars on an individual
transaction, but they add up to billions of dollars nationwide
every year and the amount collected has nearly doubled in the
last half dozen years alone," Mullin said. "The credit card
companies already earn huge profits from interest. There's no
justification for them to double-dip into consumers' pockets."

Interchange is a percentage of each transaction that merchants
are forced to pay every time a customer uses a credit or debit
card. Visa and MasterCard together collected $17.4 billion in
interchange fees nationwide in 2004, up from $9.4 billion in
1998 due to a combination of rising rates and broader use of
credit cards, according to a recent Morgan Stanley report. The
amount is forecast to grow to $32.4 billion by 2010. The average
interchange rate was 1.75 percent last year, but Visa and
MasterCard both imposed a series of increases this April and
some new premium cards carry rates as high as 2.9 percent.

"This is not the first lawsuit filed against Visa over
interchange rates and there is no reason to believe it will be
the last," Mullin said. "These suits underscore the extreme
dissatisfaction and frustration merchants feel over practices
Visa has engaged in over many years. Business as usual at the
credit card companies cannot be allowed to continue. This suit
names only Visa, but if the court holds that the practices in
question are illegal, then no credit card company should be
allowed to do the same."

The lawsuit was filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York by grocers Kroger Co.,
Albertson's Inc., Safeway Inc., Ahold USA Inc., and drugstores
Walgreen Co., Maxi Drug Inc. and Eckerd Corp. The lawsuit
alleges monopolistic practices on the part of Visa, price fixing
and illegally tying products and separate network services. The
complaint further contends that Visa's association rules have
restrained merchants' ability to negotiate lower interchange
fees. The suit seeks a declaration that Visa has violated
federal antitrust laws, permanent injunctive relief barring Visa
from continuing practices that violate antitrust law, legal
costs and unspecified damages.

Unlike another interchange lawsuit filed last month in
Connecticut, the new suit does not name MasterCard, does not
name Visa and MasterCard's member banks, and is not a class

For more details, visit the Website: http://www.nrf.com.

                New Securities Fraud Cases  

AUTHENTIDATE HOLDINGS: Alfred G. Yates Lodges Stock Suit in NY
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of AuthentiDate Holdings Corp.
("AuthentiDate" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:ADAT), between
September 29, 2003 and May 27, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action, case no. 05-CV-6520, is pending in United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
defendants AuthentiDate, Surendra Pai (CEO and President), John
T. Botti (former CEO and President), Dennis H. Bunt (CFO), Peter
R. Smith (former COO) and John J. Waters (Chief Administrative
Officer). According to the complaint, defendants violated
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by
issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that AuthentiDate entered into a
purportedly lucrative agreement with the United States Postal
Service ("USPS") to serve as the preferred provider of the USPS
Electronic Postmark(R) ("EPM"). Defendants did not fully
disclose, however, that the USPS Agreement required AuthentiDate
to attain certain performance and minimum revenues over a
specified period of time. On September 8, 2004, defendants
revealed that the Company had failed to generate sufficient
revenues under the agreement. Defendants, however, assured
investors that the Company and USPS had reached an agreement in
principle to amend its performance under the agreement, and that
the amendment would be finalized shortly. On February 8, 2005,
in an earnings conference call, defendant John J. Waters stated
that, "We did a few things recently which we think put us back
in compliance..." On April 29, 2005, defendants issued a press
release announcing that they had engaged a special counsel to
assist the Company's audit committee in "resolving certain
internal controls and corporate governance issues raised by the
Chief Financial Officer."

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

For more details, contact Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Phone:
1-800-391-5164, E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com.

MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Stock Suit in NJ
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Majesco
Entertainment Company (NASDAQ: COOL) securities between December
8, 2004 and July 12, 2005, inclusive (the Class Period).

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

The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.
For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq., 261 Old York
Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone: (215) 886-1900,
E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net.

MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Chitwood Harley Lodges Stock Suit in NJ
The law firm of Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons (the
"Class") who purchased the securities of Majesco Entertainment
Co. (NASDAQ: COOL) ("Majesco" or the "Company") during the
period December 8, 2004 and July 12, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Majesco, a producer of video games, and
its former CEO, Carl Yankowski, and its former CFO, Jan E.
Chasen ("Defendants"), with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated there under, by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class
Period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities. The Complaint alleges that
throughout the Class Period, Defendants touted the
diversification of Majesco's product line and stated that the
Company's revenue and income would significantly increase in
fiscal year 2005. Unbeknownst to investors, Majesco's claimed
increase in revenue and income was unreasonable because it would
disproportionally depend on the success of just one of its video
games, and on the Company's continued improper accounting for
development costs.

The truth emerged on July 12, 2005, when Majesco issued a press
release after the market closed announcing a dramatic reduction
in its anticipated 2005 results. Rather than the expected net
revenues of $175-$185 million and income of $16-$18 million, the
Company stated an expected loss of $16-$19 million on revenues
that would be at least $50 million less than previously
announced. Majesco also announced that after less than a year,
Yankowski had resigned as CEO and that Chasen had been removed
as CFO. On this news, Majesco shares fell 48%, from $6.89 per
share on July 12, 2005 to $3.56 per share on July 13, 2005.

For more details, contact Nichole Browning Adams, Esq. of
Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, Phone: 1-888-873-3999 extension
4873, E-mail: nadams@chitwoodlaw.com, Web site:

MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Stock Suit in NJ
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of Majesco
Entertainment Company (Nasdaq: COOL) ("Majesco") between
December 8, 2004 to July 12, 2005, inclusive (the "Class

The Complaint alleges that Majesco violated federal securities
laws by issuing misleading public statements. Specifically,
defendants represented that the Company's revenue and income
would continue to grow over its 2004 and first half of 2005
results in its fiscal year 2005, even as Majesco increased its
investment in product development and marketing. Unbeknownst to
investors, Majesco's strong reported growth resulted from the
Company having inundated its retailers with product in excess of
demand. As defendants knew, Majesco's strong growth was
unsustainable because retailers would either return the unsold
products or would sell off excess inventory instead of ordering
new products. In addition, two of Majesco's new video game
titles flopped. Defendants engaged in the alleged wrongdoing to
inflate the stock price in Majesco's planned secondary offering.

On July 12, 2005, Majesco issued a press release announcing a
dramatic reduction in its expected 2005 results. Rather than
earning $16-$18 million in 2005, Majesco would show a loss of
$16-$19 million on revenues of $120 to $125 million. Majesco
attributed this reversal to: substantially weaker demand for its
products; a glut of Majesco products sitting on retailers'
shelves; and weak reorders. Majesco also announced the
resignation of its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. On this
news, Majesco shares plummeted, falling 48%, from $6.89 per
share on July 12, 2005 to $3.56 per share on July 13, 2005.

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy Kulesa of
Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.

MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly
traded securities of Majesco Entertainment Company ("Majesco")
(NASDAQ: COOL) between December 8, 2004 and July 12, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that Majesco violated federal securities
laws by issuing misleading public statements. Specifically,
defendants represented that the Company's revenue and income
would continue to grow over its 2004 and first half of 2005
results in its fiscal year 2005, even as Majesco increased its
investment in product development and marketing. Unbeknownst to
investors, Majesco's strong reported growth resulted from the
Company having inundated its retailers with product in excess of
demand. As defendants knew, Majesco's strong growth was
unsustainable because retailers would either return the unsold
products or would sell off excess inventory instead of ordering
new products. In addition, two of Majesco's new video game
titles flopped. Defendants engaged in the alleged wrongdoing to
inflate the stock price in Majesco's planned secondary offering.

On July 12, 2005, Majesco issued a press release announcing a
dramatic reduction in its expected 2005 results. Rather than
earning $16-$18 million in 2005, Majesco would show a loss of
$16-$19 million on revenues of $120 to $125 million. Majesco
attributed this reversal to: substantially weaker demand for its
products; a glut of Majesco products sitting on retailers'
shelves; and weak reorders. Majesco also announced the
resignation of its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. On this
news, Majesco shares plummeted, falling 48%, from $6.89 per
share on July 12, 2005 to $3.56 per share on July 13, 2005.

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


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

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

Copyright 2005.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *