---

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

            Thursday, August 11, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 158

                         Headlines

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: FL Court Approves Terazosin Suit Settlement
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: MA Court Approves Lupron Lawsuit Settlement
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Continues To Face OxyContin Fraud Lawsuits
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Sibutramine Consumer Fraud Litigation

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: IL Court Refuses To Dismiss ERISA Lawsuit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Working To Resolve Credit Card Antitrust Suits
AMERICAN EXPRESS: MN Court Dismisses Claim in Mutual Fund Suit
AMEX BANK: Named As Defendant in Canadian Credit Card Fees Suit
APPLE COMPUTER: Plaintiffs File Amended CA Consumer Fraud Suit

APPLE COMPUTER: Consumers Commence False Advertising Suit in CA
APPLE COMPUTER: Plaintiffs Get New Counsel For CA Consumer Suit
APPLE COMPUTER: CA Court Approves Yo-Yo Adapters Suit Settlement
APPLE COMPUTER: CA Court Preliminarily Approves iPod Settlement
APPLE COMPUTER: Appeals CA Ruling on Lawsuit Dismissal, Counsel

APPLE COMPUTER: Plaintiffs File Amended CA Hard Drive Size Suit
APPLE COMPUTER: CA Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Antitrust Suit
APPLE COMPUTER: To Enter Mediation For CA, IL Consumer Lawsuits
APPLE COMPUTER: French Consumer Group Files iTunes Fraud Lawsuit
APPLIED MICRO: CA Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Suit Settlement

BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Continues To Face AL Race Bias Lawsuit
BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: GA Court Dismisses Exchange Act Claims
CCC INFORMATION: Settlement Results in 5-Year Study of Program
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Employees File Amended Overtime Wage Suit in CA

ELECTRONIC ARTS: CA Court Orders Securities Suits Consolidated
ELI LILLY: To Settle Zyprexa Personal Injury Litigation in NY
FLORIDA: Withham Field Neighbors Lose Round in Compensation Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Dismiss 10 Counts in Lawsuits Over Engines
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Insurers Settles Claims Over Masonite Case

KENTUCKY: Inmates' Abuse Suits Cost County Association $317.5T
LOUISIANA: Suits Seek Refund of Late Fees From Property Taxes
MATTEL INC.: Appeal Court Affirms Approval of Suit Settlement
MATTEL INC.: Reaches Settlement For Limited Edition Barbie Suit
MEDTRONIC INC.: FL Residents Sue Firm Over Faulty Defibrillators

MERRILL LYNCH: Settles CA Brokers' Overtime Suit For About $37M
NL INDUSTRIES: Continues to Face Various Lead-Based Paint Suits
OHIO: Covington Diocese to Run TV Ads Regarding Abuse Settlement
OMNICOM GROUP: Discovery Proceeds in NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit
SEMCO ENERGY: WV Court Partially Dismisses Antitrust Fraud Suit

TENET HEALTHCARE: Judge OKs Settlement With Uninsured Patients
WAL-MART STORES: Family Launches Suit Over Sex Offender Cases
WELLPOINT INC.: Reaches Settlement For Physicians' Suit in FL

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Suit in DC
HOST AMERICA: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in CT
HOST AMERICA: Rosen Law Firm Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
INVESTORS FINANCIAL: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Stock Suit in MA
PRESTIGE BRANDS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in NY

PRESTIGE BRANDS: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in NY
PRESTIGE BRANDS: Paskowitz & Associates Lodges Stock Suit in NY
PRESTIGE HOLDINGS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in NY
TREX COMPANY: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in VA

                          *********


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: FL Court Approves Terazosin Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida granted final approval to the settlement of a class
action filed against Abbott Laboratories, styled "In re:
Terazosin Hydrochloride Litigation."

A number of antitrust cases were pending in federal court
(including a case filed by the Attorneys General of the States
of Colorado, Florida and Kansas) and various state courts in
connection with the settlement of patent litigation by the
Company involving terazosin hydrochloride, a drug sold by Abbott
under the trademark Hytrin.  These cases (which were brought
against the Company, Geneva Pharmaceuticals,Inc., and Zenith
Goldline Pharmaceuticals,Inc.) seek actual damages, treble
damages, and other relief and allege Abbott violated state or
federal antitrust laws and, in some cases, unfair competition
laws.  The federal court cases are pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida under the
Multidistrict Litigation Rules.  

On remand, the MDL court denied certification of a class of
direct purchasers of Hytrin, but granted certification of a
class of indirect purchasers.  The United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has accepted an appeal from the
Company of the Court's certification of a class of indirect
purchasers.  The MDL court has granted summary judgment in
plaintiffs' favor finding that the challenged agreement was
impermissible under federal antitrust law.  The MDL court also
granted summary judgment in the Company's favor on certain of
plaintiffs' claims finding both that the Company's patent
infringement lawsuits were not baseless and that it did not
defraud the patent office in obtaining the challenged patent.

Early this year, the Company reached a preliminary settlement
with a class of indirect purchasers (including the Attorneys
General of the States of Colorado, Florida and Kansas) in the
lawsuit.  On June 29, 2005, the court gave its final approval to
that settlement.  The Company has now settled with the majority
of the plaintiffs in the aggregate amount of $90 million, which
was previously reserved.  The claims of the remaining two
plaintiffs groups are not material and are reserved for by
The company.

Cases are also pending in six state courts.  Two of the state
court cases, "Asher and New Utrecht Pharmacy and Lisanti (both
filed in 1999 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York), were consolidated and are stayed pending
the resolution of MDL No.1317.  The other state cases are:  

     (1) State of West Virginia, filed in October 2001 in the
         Circuit Court in Wyoming County, West Virginia;  

     (2) Daniels, filed in May 2000 in Superior Court in Orange
         County, California (stayed pending resolution of
         MDL No. 1317);

     (3) Hopper, filed in October 2001 in the Superior Court in
         Pitt County, North Carolina; and  

     (4) Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Minnesota et al. v. Abbott
         Laboratories, et al., filed in August 2003 in the
         Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: MA Court Approves Lupron Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted final approval to the settlement of the
litigation filed against Abbott Laboratories, Inc., TAP
Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., and Takeda Chemical Industries,
Ltd.

Several suits were initially filed in various courts, alleging
that TAP reported false pricing information in connection with
Lupron, a product reimbursable under Medicare.  The previously
reported federal court cases have been consolidated in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
under the Multidistrict Litigation Rules as "In re: Lupron
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation," and include:

     (1) a Consolidated Class Action Complaint brought on behalf
         of all persons or entities who paid for Lupron at a
         price calculated by reference to the published Average
         Wholesale Price from January 1, 1991 through September
         2001;

     (2) Empire Healthchoice, Inc., et al., v. TAP
         Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., Abbott Laboratories and
         Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd., filed in June 2002 in
         the United States District Court for the District of
         Massachusetts;

     (3) Cobalt Corporation v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Takeda
         Chemical Industries, Ltd. and TAP Pharmaceutical
         Products Inc., filed in August 2002 in the United
         States District Court for the District of
         Massachusetts;

     (4) Health Care Service Corporation v. TAP Pharmaceutical
         Products, Inc., et al., removed to the United States
         District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in
         March 2003; and

     (5) Liberty National Life Ins. Co. et al., v. TAP
         Pharmaceutical Products,Inc., et al., filed in the
         United States District Court for the Northern District
         of Alabama in October 2003.

On November 24, 2004, the MDL court granted preliminary approval
for a proposed nationwide settlement and also stayed all state
class actions as to class claims.  

Under the settlement, TAP will pay $150 million.  Additionally,
the claims of most of the plaintiffs who sought to be excluded
from the nationwide settlement were also settled, with TAP
paying no more than an additional $12.24 million.  

Cases are also pending in various state courts, and have been
brought as purported class actions or representative actions on
behalf of individuals and/or insurance plans that paid any
portion of the twenty percent co-payment cost under Medicare for
Lupron based on the published Average Wholesale Price (or, in
some instances, any portion of the cost for Lupron) and seek
treble damages, and other relief.  The cases allege TAP reported
false pricing information in connection with Lupron.

The state cases are:

     (1) Campbell-Hubbard, filed in June 2001 in the Superior
         Court for San Francisco County, California;

     (2) Clark, filed in July 2001 in the Circuit Court of the
         First Judicial District, Williamson County, Illinois;

     (3) Walker, filed in October 2001 in the Superior Court of
         New Jersey, Cape May County;

     (4) Farris, filed in December 2001 in the Superior Court
         for San Francisco, California;

     (5) Stetser, filed in December 2001 in the Superior Court,
         New Hanover County, North Carolina;

     (6) Benoit, filed in February 2002 in the District Court of
         Jefferson County, Texas; and

     (7) Grass, filed in September 2002 in the District Court of
         Jefferson County, Texas.

A nationwide class has been certified in the Clark case.  The
previously reported nationwide class certification in the
Stetser case was reversed by the North Carolina Court of Appeals
and, on remand, the Stetser court certified a North Carolina
statewide class.  The court in Stetser has not ruled on
plaintiffs' motion to proceed with their individual claims
against TAP and Abbott. A New Jersey state class has been
certified in the Walker case.  The Walker state court found that
the individual plaintiff opted-out of the proposed nationwide
settlement and may proceed to trial with his individual claims.

The suit is styled "In re Lupron Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, case no. 1:01-cv-10861-RGS," filed in the United
States District Court in Massachusetts under Judge Richard G.
Stearns.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Donna F. Solen, Liza M. Mezzetti, Marlene F. Gibbons,
         Michael D. Hausfeld, Stephen Anand, of Cohen, Milstein,
         Hausfeld & Toll, 1100 New York Avenue, NW, West Tower,
         Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-408-4600,
         Fax: 202-408-4699, E-mail: dsolen@cmht.com;

     (2) Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector & Roseman, 1818 Market
         Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA 19103

     (3) Michael J. Flannery, The David Danis Law Firm, P.C.
         8235 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63105-
         7700, Phone: 314-725-7700

     (4) Thomas G. Shapiro, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, 53 State
         Street, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939, Fax:
         617-439-0134, E-mail: tshapiro@shulaw.com  

     (5) Thomas M. Sobol, Hagens Berman LLP, 26th Floor, 225
         Franklin St., Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-482-3700,
         Fax: 617-482-3003, Email: Tom@hbsslaw.com

Representing the Company are Daniel A. Curto, Donald R.
Frederico, McDermott, Will & Emery LLC, 28 State Street
Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-535-4036, Fax: 617-535-3800, Email:
dcurto@mwe.com or dfrederico@mwe.com; and Eric W. Snapp, George
Lombardi, and Laura D. Cullison of Winston & Strawn, 35 West
Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 02109, Phone: 312-558-5600.


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Continues To Face OxyContin Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories, Inc. continues to face numerous lawsuits
involving the drug oxycodone, a drug manufactured and sold by
Purdue Pharma under the trademark OxyContin.  The Company
promoted OxyContin to certain specialty physicians, including
surgeons and anesthesiologists, under a co-promotion agreement
with Purdue Pharma.

Most of the lawsuits allege generally that plaintiffs suffered
personal injuries as a result of taking OxyContin.  A few
lawsuits allege consumer protection violations and unfair trade
practices. One suit by a third party payor alleges antitrust
pricing violations and overpricing of the drug.

As of June 30, 2005, a total of 191 lawsuits are pending in
which the Company is a party.  27 cases are pending in federal
court.  164 cases are pending in state court.  180 cases are
brought by individual plaintiffs, and 11 cases are brought as
purported class action lawsuits.  Purdue Pharma is a defendant
in each lawsuit and, pursuant to the co-promotion agreement,
Purdue is required to indemnify the Company in each lawsuit.  


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Sibutramine Consumer Fraud Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories, Inc. is a defendant in a number of lawsuits
involving the drug sibutramine (sold under the trademarks
Meridia, Reductil, Reductyl, and Reductal) that have been
brought either as purported class actions or on behalf of
individual plaintiffs.  The lawsuits generally allege design
defects and failure to warn.  Certain lawsuits also allege
consumer protection violations and/or unfair trade practices.

As of December 31, 2004, 118 lawsuits were pending in which the
Company is a party.  113 cases are being or have been
transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio and are captioned, "In Re Meridia MDL No.
1481."  In July 2004, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment and dismissed the Company from the 113 cases
pending before it.   The cases are now on appeal.

Four cases are pending in state court:

     (1) Barley, filed in October 2002 in the Circuit Court of
         Jefferson County, Alabama;

     (2) Titus, filed in October 2002 in the District Court of
         Nueces County, Texas;

     (3) Killinger, filed in November 2002 in the Circuit Court
         in Lake County, Illinois; and

     (4) a consolidated case pending in the Circuit Court in
         Lake County, Illinois that includes Lemetti, filed in
         March 2004 in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
         Illinois; Mosbah, filed in July 2003 in the Circuit
         Court of Cook County, Illinois; and Olinger, filed in
         January 2003 in the Circuit Court of Madison County,
         Illinois.

Outside of the United States, one case is pending in Canada,
styled "Mandel, et al. v. Abbott, filed in June 2002 in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Toronto, Canada.  The Company
has been notified that an additional case, styled "Leathers v.
Abbott Laboratories," was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: IL Court Refuses To Dismiss ERISA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois denied Abbott Laboratories, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a
class action filed against it, styled "Myla Nauman, Jane Roller
and Michael Loughery v. Abbott Laboratories and Hospira, Inc."

The suit was filed on November 8, 2004.  The plaintiffs are
former Company employees who allege their transfer to Hospira,
Inc., as part of the spin-off of Hospira, adversely affected
their employee benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA).  Plaintiffs generally seek
reinstatement as Company employees, or reinstatement as
participants in the Company's employee benefit plans, or an
award for the employee benefits they have allegedly lost.  

The suit is styled ""Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael
Loughery v. Abbott Laboratories and Hospira, Inc., case no.
1:04-cv-07199," filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Robert W.
Gettleman.  Representing the Company is James F. Hurst, Winston
& Strawn LLP, 35 West Wacker Drive, 41st Floor, Chicago, IL
60601, Phone: (312) 558-5230 or E-mail: jhurst@winston.com.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Paul William Mollica of Meites,
Mulder, Burger & Mollica, 208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1410,
Chicago, IL 60604, Phone: (312) 263-0272.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Working To Resolve Credit Card Antitrust Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company is working to resolve several class
actions filed against it, alleging an unlawful antitrust tying
arrangement between the Company's charge cards, credit cards and
debit cards in violation of various state and federal laws.

The suits are styled:

     (1) COHEN RESE GALLERY ET AL. V. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY
         ET AL., U.S. District Court for the Northern District
         of California (filed July 2003);

     (2) ITALIAN COLORS RESTAURANT V. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY
         ET AL., U.S. District Court for the Northern District
         of California (filed August 2003);

     (3) DRF JEWELER CORP. V. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY ET AL.,
         U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
         York (filed December 2003);

     (4) HAYAMA INC. V. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY ET AL.,
         Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (filed
         December 2003);

     (5) CHEZ NOELLE RESTAURANT V. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY ET
         AL., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         New York (filed January 2004);

     (6) MASCARI ENTERPRISES D/B/A SOUND STATIONS V. AMERICAN
         EXPRESS COMPANY ET AL., U.S. District Court for the
         Southern District of New York (filed January 2004);

     (7) MIMS RESTAURANT V. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY ET AL.,
         U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
         York (filed February 2004); and

     (8) THE MARCUS CORPORATION V. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY ET
         AL., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         New York (filed July 2004)

The plaintiffs in these actions seek injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of damages. Upon motion to the Court by the
Company, the venue of the Cohen Rese and Italian Colors actions
was moved to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York in December 2003. Each of the above-listed actions
(except for Hayama) is now pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  On April 30, 2004, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss all the actions filed prior to
such date that were pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. A decision on that motion is
pending.

In addition, the Company has asked the Court in the Hayama
action to stay that action pending resolution of the motion in
the Southern District of New York. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the action filed by The Marcus Corporation, which was
denied in July 2005.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: MN Court Dismisses Claim in Mutual Fund Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
dismissed one claim, but retained the other claims in the class
action filed against American Express Financial Corporation,
styled "JOHN E. GALLUS ET AL. V. AMERICAN EXPRESS FINANCIAL
CORP. AND AMERICAN EXPRESS FINANCIAL ADVISORS, INC."

The suit was initially filed in the United States District court
for the District of Arizona. The plaintiffs allege that they are
investors in several "AXP" mutual funds and they purport to
bring the action derivatively on behalf of those funds under the
Investment Company Act of 1940. The plaintiffs allege that fees
allegedly paid to the defendants by the funds for investment
advisory and administrative services are excessive. The
plaintiffs seek remedies including restitution and rescission of
investment advisory and distribution agreements.

The plaintiffs voluntarily agreed to transfer this case to the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. In
March 2005, the Court dismissed one count of the complaint that
fund directors breached their fiduciary duties. The Court denied
the motion to dismiss the remaining counts, but granted
plaintiffs only limited discovery after which time the Company
will be permitted to renew its motion to dismiss.

The suit is styled "Gallus et al v American Express Financial
Corporation, et al., case no. 0:04-cv-04498-DWF-JSM," filed in
the United States District Court in Minnesota under Judge
Donovan W. Frank.  Representing the Company are Chanel R. Dalal,
John D. Donovan, Robert A. Skinner of Ropes & Gray LLP, One
International Place, Boston, MA 02110-2624, Phone: 617-951-7675,
E-mail: cdalal@ropesgray.com, jdonovan@ropesgray.com,
rskinner@ropesgray.com; and Robert L. Schnell, Jr., Faegre &
Benson LLP - Mpls, 90 S 7th St Ste 2200, Mpls, MN 55402-3901,
Phone: 612-766-7000, Fax: 6127661600, E-mail:
rschnell@faegre.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) James C. Bradley, Michael J. Brickman, Nina H. Fields
         of Richardson Patrick Westbrook & Brickman -
         Charleston, 174 E Bay St, Charleston, SC 29401, Phone:
         843-727-6603, E-mail: jbradley@rpwb.com,
         mbrickman@rpwb.com, nfields@rpwb.com  

     (2) Guy M. Burns, Jonathan S. Coleman, Becky Ferrell-Anton,
         Audrey B. Rauchway of Johnson Pope Bokor Ruppell &
         Burns, LLP, 403 E Madison St Ste 400, Tampa, FL 33602,
         Phone: 813-225-2500, Fax: 813-223-7118, E-mail:
         guyb@jpfirm.com, jonathanc@jpfirm.com,
         beckyf@jpfirm.com, audreyr@jpfirm.com

     (3) Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Tana Lin, Erin M. Riley, Lynn
         Lincoln Sarko, Michael D. Woerner, Keller Rohrback,
         1201 3rd Ave Ste 3200, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: (206)
         224-7566, E-mail: mwoerner@kellerrohrback.com,
         gcappio@kellerrohrback.com, tlin@kellerrohrback.com,
         eriley@kellerrohrback.com, lsarko@kellerrohrback.com  


AMEX BANK: Named As Defendant in Canadian Credit Card Fees Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amex Bank of Canada was added as a defendant to a motion to
authorize a class action captioned "OPTION CONSOMMATEURS AND
JOEL-CHRISTIAN ST-PIERRE V. BANK OF MONTREAL ET AL.," filed in
the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Quebec.

The motion, which also names as defendants Royal Bank of Canada,
Toronto-Dominion Bank, HSBC Bank of Canada, among others,
alleges that the defendants violated the Quebec Consumer
Protection Act by imposing finance charges on credit card
transactions prior to 21 days following the receipt of the
statement containing the charge.  It is alleged that the Quebec
Consumer Protection Act ("QCPA") provisions, which require a 21-
day grace period prior to imposing finance charges, applies to
credit cards issued by Amex Bank of Canada in Quebec and that
finance charges imposed prior to this grace period violate the
QCPA. The proposed class seeks reimbursement of all finance
charges imposed in violation of the QCPA, $100 in punitive
damages per class member, interest and fees and costs.


APPLE COMPUTER: Plaintiffs File Amended CA Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against Apple Computer,
Inc. in the Santa Clara Superior Court in California, alleing
violations of the state's trade laws.

The suit, styled "Branning et al. v Apple Computer, Inc.," was
initially filed in the San Francisco Superior Court in
California on February 17, 2005.  The complaint alleges
violations of California Business & Professions Code section
17200 (unfair competition) regarding a variety of purportedly
unfair and unlawful conduct including, but not limited to,
allegedly selling used computers as new, failing to honor
warranties, misappropriating trade secrets and breach of
contract.  Plaintiffs request unspecified damages and other
relief.

The Company received service of the complaint on March 12, 2005
and on March 13, 2005 the Company filed a motion to transfer the
case to Santa Clara County Superior Court.  On May 9, 2005, the
Court granted the motion and transferred the case to Santa Clara
County Superior Court. On May 2, 2005, Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint adding two new named Plaintiffs and three new
causes of action including a claim for treble damages under the
Cartwright Act (California Business and Professions Code 16700
et seq.)


APPLE COMPUTER: Consumers Commence False Advertising Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Orange
County Superior Court in California, styled "Burrow v. Apple
Computer, Inc."  The suit, filed on February 17, 2005, alleging
false advertising regarding the copy protection capabilities of
DVD Studio Pro.  The Complaint alleges violations of California
Business & Professions Code section 17200 (unfair competition)
and Code section 17500 (false advertising) and negligent
misrepresentation.  Plaintiff requests unspecified damages and
other relief.

The Company filed an answer on April 7, 2005 denying all
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses, the
Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


APPLE COMPUTER: Plaintiffs Get New Counsel For CA Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action filed against Apple Computer,
Inc. in the Los Angeles Superior Court in California, styled
"Cagney v. Apple Computer, Inc." introduced new counsel for the
suit, after the court disqualified their two earlier counsels.

The class action was originally filed on January 9, 2004,
alleging improper collection of sales tax in transactions
involving mail-in rebates. The complaint alleges violations of
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair
competition) and seeks restitution and other relief.

The Company filed an answer on February 20, 2004, denying all
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses The
Company filed a motion to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel, which
the Court denied. The Company filed a petition for a writ of
mandate with respect to this ruling and the Court of Appeal
issued an order to show cause as to why the writ should not
issue.  Plaintiff's lead counsel subsequently withdrew.

On February 17, 2005, the Court ruled that the trial court
abused its discretion in failing to grant the Company's motion
to disqualify and ordered the trial court to disqualify both of
Plaintiff's law firms upon remand.  The opinion was designated
for publication and Plaintiff has asked the Court to de-publish
it.  The Company has opposed that request. The trial court
issued the disqualification order on May 12, 2005. On May 9,
2005, Plaintiff substituted new counsel. The Company has
obtained an opinion on the tax issue from the State Board of
Equalization.  Discovery is stayed.


APPLE COMPUTER: CA Court Approves Yo-Yo Adapters Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Santa Clara Superior Court in California granted preliminary
approval to the settlement of the class action filed against
Apple Computer, Inc., styled "Clark v Apple Computer, Inc."  
Plaintiff filed this purported class action, alleging defects in
the Company's "yo-yo" power adapters.  Plaintiffs request
unspecified damages and other relief.

The parties have reached a tentative settlement in this matter.  
The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
April 19, 2005 and the final approval hearing is set for
September 27, 2005.  Settlement of this matter will not have a
material effect on the Company's financial position or results
of operation, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities
and Exchange Commission.


APPLE COMPUTER: CA Court Preliminarily Approves iPod Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The San Mateo Superior Court for the State of California granted
preliminary approval to the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Apple Computer, Inc., over
alleged misrepresentations by the Company over the battery life
of its popular iPod mp3 player.  

Eight suits were initially filed, entitled:

     (1) Craft v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed December 23,
         2003, Santa Clara County Superior Court);

     (2) Chin v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed December 23, 2003,
         San Mateo County Superior Court);

     (3) Hughes v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed December 23,
         2003, Santa Clara County Superior Court);

     (4) Westley v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed December 26,
         2003, San Francisco County Superior Court);

     (5) Keegan v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed December 30,
        2003, Alameda County Superior Court);

     (6) Wagya v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed February 19,
         2004, Alameda County Superior Court);

     (7) Yamin v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed February 24,
         2004, Los Angeles County Superior Court);

     (8) Kieta v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed July 8, 2004,
         Alameda County Superior Court)

Eight separate plaintiffs filed purported class action cases in
various California courts alleging misrepresentations by the
Company relative to iPod battery life.  The complaints include
causes of action for violation of California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), the
Consumer Legal Remedies Action (CLRA) and claims for false
advertising, fraudulent concealment and breach of warranty. The
complaints seek unspecified damages and other relief.

The cases were consolidated in San Mateo County and Plaintiffs
thereafter filed a consolidated complaint.  On August 25, 2004,
the Company filed an answer denying all allegations and
asserting numerous affirmative defenses.  The parties have
reached a tentative settlement and the Court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement on May 20, 2005. The final approval
hearing is set for August 25, 2005.

A similar complaint relative to iPod battery life, styled
"Mosley v. Apple Computer, Inc.," was filed in Westchester
County, New York on June 23, 2004 alleging violations of New
York General Business Law Sections 349 (unfair competition) and
350 (false advertising). The Company removed the case to Federal
Court and Plaintiff filed a motion for remand, which the Court
has not yet decided.  This case is stayed and is part of the
tentative settlement referred to above.

A similar complaint relative to iPod battery life, styled "Lenzi
v. Apple Canada, Inc." was filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada on
June 7, 2005, seeking authorization to institute a class action.
A class certification hearing has not been scheduled.


APPLE COMPUTER: Appeals CA Ruling on Lawsuit Dismissal, Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. appealed the San Francisco County Superior
Court in California's ruling refusing to dismiss the general
public claims in the class action filed against the Company,
styled "Davis v. Apple Computer, Inc."

Plaintiff filed this purported class action, alleging that the
Company engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices
relating to its AppleCare Extended Service and Warranty Plan.
Plaintiff asserts causes of action for violation of the
California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and
17500, breach of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, intentional
misrepresentation and concealment.  Plaintiff requests
unspecified damages and other relief.

The Company filed a demurrer and motion to strike which were
granted, in part, and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The
Company filed an answer on April 17, 2003 denying all
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
Plaintiff subsequently amended its complaint.  On October 29,
2003, the Company filed a motion to disqualify Plaintiff's
counsel in his role as counsel to the purported class and to the
general public. The Court granted the motion but allowed
Plaintiff to retain substitute counsel. Plaintiff did engage new
counsel for the general public, but not for the class. The
Company moved to disqualify Plaintiff's new counsel and to have
the Court dismiss the general public claims for equitable
relief.  The Court declined to disqualify Plaintiff's new
counsel or to dismiss the equitable claims, but did confirm that
the class action claims are dismissed.  The Company appealed the
ruling and the case is stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.
The Court heard oral argument on July 12, 2005 and has not yet
issued a ruling.


APPLE COMPUTER: Plaintiffs File Amended CA Hard Drive Size Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action in the Los Angeles
Superior Court in California against Apple Computer, Inc. and
other members of the computer industry, styled "Goldberg, et al.
v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al. (formerly known as "Dan v. Apple
Computer, Inc.")

Plaintiffs filed this purported class action on September 22,
2003 on behalf of an alleged nationwide class of purchasers of
certain computer hard drives.  The case alleges violations of
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair
competition), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and false
advertising related to the size of the drives. Plaintiffs allege
that calculation of hard drive size using the decimal method
misrepresents the actual size of the drive. The complaint seeks
restitution and other relief.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 30, 2004 and the
Company filed an answer on September 23, 2004, denying all
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.  
Defendants filed a motion to strike portions of the complaint
based on sales by resellers and filed a motion for judgment on
the pleadings based upon Proposition 64.  The Court granted both
motions at a hearing on April 6, 2005.  Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on May 6, 2005.  The Defendants filed a
demurrer on June 6, 2005, which will be heard on August 22,
2005.


APPLE COMPUTER: CA Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California heard Apple Computer, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
class action filed against it, styled "Slattery v. Apple
Computer, Inc."

Plaintiff filed this purported class action on January 3, 2005
alleging various claims including alleged unlawful tying of
music purchased on the iTunes Music Store with the purchase of
iPods and vice versa and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of
monopoly market power.  Plaintiff's complaint alleges violations
of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 1 and
2), California Business and Professions Code Section 16700 et
seq. (the Cartwright Act), California Business and Professions
Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), common law unjust
enrichment and common law monopolization. Plaintiff seeks
unspecified damages and other relief.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 10, 2005.  A
hearing on the motion took place on June 6, 2005 and the Court
has not yet issued a ruling.

The suit is styled "Slattery v. Apple Computer, Inc., case no.
5:05-cv-00037-JW," filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, under Judge James Ware.  
Lawyer for the Company is Adam Richard Sand, Esq. of Jones Day,
555 California Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104,
Phone: 415-875-5716, E-mail: arsand@JonesDay.com.  Lawyers for
the class are:

     (1) Eric J. Belfi, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, 275 Madison
         Avenue, Suite 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-682-
         1818, Fax: 212-682-1892, E-mail: ebelfi@murrayfrank.com

     (2) Michael David Braun and Marc L. Godino, BRAUN LAW
         GROUP, P.C., 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920, Los
         Angeles, CA 90025, Phone: 310-442-7755, Fax: (310) 442-
         7756, E-mail: mdb@braunlawgroup.com or
         service@braunlawgroup.com  

     (3) Roy A. Katriel, The Katriel Law Firm, P.L.L.C., 1101
         30th Street, NW Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20007,
         Phone: 202-625-4342, Fax: 202-625-6774

     (4) Jacqueline Sailer, Rabin & Peckel LLP, 275 Madison
         Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-682-1818, Fax:
         212-682-1892


APPLE COMPUTER: To Enter Mediation For CA, IL Consumer Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. is set to enter mediation for two consumer
class actions filed in Illinois and California State Courts,
alleging that a defect in Apple's 17" Studio Display monitors
results in dimming of half of the screen and constant blinking
of the power light.

The first suit is styled "Stamm v. Apple Computer, Inc."  This
suit was filed on November 12, 2004, in the Circuit Court, Cook
County, Illinois.  The Company removed the case to federal court
on December 22, 2004.  The Court remanded it to State Court on
March 22, 2005 on Plaintiff's motion.  The Company had filed a
motion to dismiss on January 27, 2005, which is now off calendar
due to the remand.  On January 28, 2005, a second Plaintiff
filed a purported class action in Los Angeles Superior Court
alleging identical claims.  The suit is styled "Allen v. Apple
Computer, Inc."  Mediation for both cases is scheduled for
August 2005.


APPLE COMPUTER: French Consumer Group Files iTunes Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. faces a complaint filed in France, styled
`Union Federale des Consummateurs - Que Choisir v Apple Computer
France S.A.R.L. and iTunes S.A.R.L."

Plaintiff, a consumer association in France, filed this
complaint on February 9, 2005, alleging that the entities above
are violating consumer law by omitting to mention that the iPod
is allegedly not compatible with music from online music
services other than the iTunes Music Store and that the music
from the iTunes Music Store is only with the iPod and tying the
sales of iPods to the iTunes Music Store and vice versa.  
Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive relief and other relief.

The first hearing on the case took place on May 24, 2005.  The
Company's response to the complaint is due at the next hearing,
which is scheduled for September 6, 2005.


APPLIED MICRO: CA Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California granted final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Applied Micro
Circuits Corporation and certain of its executive officers and
directors, styled "In re Applied Micro Circuits Corp. Securities
Litigation, lead case number 01 CV 0649 K(AB)."

In April 2001, a series of similar federal complaints were
filed, and later consolidated into a single proceeding.  The
consolidated federal complaint alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and was brought as a shareholder
class action under Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 20(a), 20A and
Rule 10b-5.

In January 2005, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay $60
million to settle the litigation. In April 2005, the Company and
its insurers funded the settlement fund following the court's
preliminary approval of the settlement.  Of the total amount,
the Company's insurers paid approximately $31 million.  In June
2005, the court granted final approval to the settlement.


BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Continues To Face AL Race Bias Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
BellSouth Corporation continues to face a class action filed by
five African-American employees in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama, styled "Gladys
Jenkins et al. v. BellSouth Corporation."

The complaint alleges that the Company discriminated against
current and former African-American employees with respect to
compensation and promotions in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 USC. Section 1981.  Plaintiffs
purport to bring the claims on behalf of two classes - a class
of all African-American hourly workers employed by BellSouth
Telecommunications at any time since April 29, 1998, and a class
of all African-American salaried workers employed by BellSouth
Telecommunications at any time since April 29, 1998 in
management positions at or below Job Grade 59/Level C. The
plaintiffs are seeking unspecified amounts of back pay,
benefits, punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs, as
well as injunctive relief.


BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: GA Court Dismisses Exchange Act Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia dismissed the Exchange Act claims in the consolidated
securities class action filed against BellSouth Corporation and
certain of its senior officers, styled "In re BellSouth
Securities Litigation."

From August through October 2002, several individual
shareholders filed substantially identical class action lawsuits
against the Company and three of its senior officers alleging
violations of the federal securities laws. Pursuant to the
provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995, the court has appointed a Lead Plaintiff. The Lead
Plaintiff filed a Consolidated and Amended Class Action
Complaint in July 2003 on behalf of two putative classes -
purchasers of BellSouth stock during the period November
7, 2000 through February 19, 2003 (the class period) for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and participants in BellSouth's Direct Investment
Plan during the class period for alleged violations of Sections
11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  Four outside
directors were named as additional defendants.

The Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint alleged that
during the class period the Company:

     (1) overstated the unbilled receivables balance of its
         Advertising and Publishing subsidiary;

     (2) failed to properly implement SAB 101 with regard to
         its recognition of Advertising and Publishing revenues;

     (3) improperly billed competitive local exchange carriers
         (CLEC) to inflate revenues;

     (4) failed to take a reserve for refunds that ultimately
         came due following litigation over late payment
         charges; and

     (5) failed to properly write down goodwill of its Latin
         American operations.

On February 8, 2005, the district court dismissed the Exchange
Act claims, except for those relating to the write down of Latin
American goodwill. On that date, the district court also
dismissed the Securities Act claims, except for those relating
to the write down of Latin American goodwill, the allegations
relating to unbilled receivables of the Company's Advertising
and Publishing subsidiary, the implementation of SAB 101
regarding recognition of Advertising and Publishing revenues and
alleged improper billing of CLECs. The plaintiffs are seeking an
unspecified amount of damages, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.


CCC INFORMATION: Settlement Results in 5-Year Study of Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of a lawsuit settlement reached by CCC Information
Services Group, Inc. and several insurance companies, a Court-
appointed monitor will review the methods of CCC's Valuescope
program, which is primarily sold to insurers to help them
determine the value of crashed vehicles declared total losses,
for the next five years, The Automotive Body Repair News
reports.

The agreement applies to several class action lawsuits filed in
Madison County Third Circuit Court against CCC and 15 of its
insurance company customers alleging that claimants were
underpaid for their totaled vehicles.  As previously reported in
the July 15, 2005 edition of the Class Action Reporter, the
Company recently signed a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs in various class action suits pending in Madison
County, Illinois.

These consolidated suits, In re Total Loss Class Action
Litigation, Case Nos. 01 L 157, et al., relate to the valuation
of vehicles that have been declared total losses by insurers.
The settlement includes no admission of liability or wrongdoing
by CCC or its customers. The proposed classes represent all
customers of the settling carriers who had a total loss claim
from January 28, 1989 to the present, for which CCC's product
and service (now called CCC Valuescope(R)) were used to perform
the valuation.

In addition to the aforementioned, Court-appointed monitor, the
terms of the settlement agreement will require CCC to pay notice
and administration fees and other costs associated with the
settlement. The Company estimates that these costs will total
approximately $8 million, and including available insurance
proceeds of $1.8 million, the Company is fully reserved for
these payments. The insurance companies that are participating
in the settlement will pay other settlement costs, including
claims by class members.

Commenting on the settlement in its relation to the Company, CCC
Sr. V.P. and General Counsel Robert S. Guttman told The
Automotive Body Repair News, "The Company has a strong belief in
the integrity and accuracy of our valuation product. We
concluded, however, that settlement of these suits is the best
course of action in order to avoid further protracted
litigation, expense and distraction."

Mr. Gutman also told The Automotive Body Repair, "Our
expectations are that there will not be changes in the product.
A lot will depend on what the monitor's findings are. His job is
to ensure that there is compliance" with the terms of the
agreement. For insurers, "They'll have the added assurance from
a third party that the integrity and accuracy of the product
will be validated."

Currently, Philip Rowley of LECG, a worldwide consulting firm
that specializes in court-related analyses, is handling the
monitoring process. Though Mr. Rowley did not respond to an
interview request, Mr. Guttman did point out to The Automotive
Body Repair News that university professors and an assortment of
industry experts will conduct several studies under Mr. Rowley's
and the judge's supervision. Examples of the planned research
include, "Vehicle Mileage Impact Valuation Study" and a "Vehicle
Local Market Determination Study," he added.

Mr. Guttman explains that Valuescope does not make the decision
as to whether a vehicle "totaled" nor does it determine the
payout. That call, according to him, is to be made by the
claimant's insurer and CCC has been unfairly drawn into a flurry
of unwarranted class actions spurred by what it calls an
overeager "plaintiff's bar."

He asserts, "We've been plagued by this litigation for about
five years. It's aimed at the insurance industry and those that
support it. Nobody's been immune to it." He told The Automotive
Body Repair News that since 2000 some two-dozen lawsuits have
been filed against the company. He points out though, "We've
been absolved or dismissed from most of them." He adds, "We just
happened to get caught in the crosshairs. The target is the
insurance industry. Our data supports the insurance industry;
our view is that this is an industry issue."

Though the judge in Madison County must still sign-off on the
agreement, Mr. Guttman is confident all is in order. "This would
resolve seven of the 11 cases in which we were the named party,"
he says.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts, Inc. faces an amended class action filed in the
Superior Court in San Mateo, California, styled "Kirschenbaum v.
Electronic Arts Inc."  The complaint alleges that the Company
improperly classified "Image Production Employees" in California
as exempt employees and seeks injunctive relief, unspecified
monetary damages, interest and attorneys' fees.

The complaint was first amended on November 30, 2004 to add two
former employees as named-plaintiffs, and amended again on
January 5, 2005 to add another former employee as a named-
plaintiff.  The allegations in the complaint were not materially
changed by the amendments.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Employees File Amended Overtime Wage Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against Electronic
Arts, Inc. in the Superior Court in San Mateo, California,
styled "Hasty v. Electronic Arts Inc."

The complaint alleges that the company improperly classified
"Engineers" in California as exempt employees and seeks
injunctive relief, unspecified monetary damages, interest and
attorneys' fees.  On March 16, 2005, the Company received a
first amended complaint, which contains the same material
allegations as the original complaint.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: CA Court Orders Securities Suits Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California ordered consolidated the securities class actions
filed against Electronic Arts, Inc. and certain of its officers
and directors.

On March 24, 2005, a class action lawsuit was filed, asserting
claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 based on allegedly false and misleading statements.  
Additional class action lawsuits have been filed in the same
court by other individuals asserting the same claims against the
Company.  On May 9, 2005, the court consolidated the complaints,
and on June 13, 2005, the court appointed lead plaintiff and
lead counsel pursuant to the requirements of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  An amended
consolidated complaint has not yet been filed.

Separately, on April 12, 2005, a shareholder derivative action
was filed in San Mateo Superior Court against certain of the
Company's officers and directors.  This suit asserts claims
based on substantially the same factual allegations set forth in
the federal class action lawsuits. Two other shareholder
derivative actions have been filed in San Mateo Superior Court
based on the same claims.  Two of the three derivative actions
have been consolidated; a request to consolidate the third is
currently pending. In addition, two other shareholder derivative
actions based on substantially the same allegations have been
filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California.


ELI LILLY: To Settle Zyprexa Personal Injury Litigation in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly & Co. is working to settle litigation filed against
it, alleging a variety of injuries from the use of Zyprexa.

The Company has been named as a defendant in approximately 230
product liability cases in the United States involving
approximately 375 claimants.  Most of the cases allege that the
product caused or contributed to diabetes or high blood-glucose
levels. The lawsuits seek substantial compensatory and punitive
damages and typically accuse us of inadequately testing for and
warning about side effects of Zyprexa.  Many of the lawsuits
also allege that the Company improperly promoted the drug.  
Almost all of the federal cases, involving approximately 345
claimants, are part of a Multi-District Litigation (MDL)
proceeding before The Honorable Jack Weinstein in the Federal
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

In addition, the company has entered into agreements with
various plaintiffs' counsel halting the running of the statutes
of limitation (tolling agreements) with respect to more than
5,875 individuals who do not have lawsuits on file and may or
may not eventually file suits.  

Two cases requesting certification of nationwide class actions
on behalf of those who allegedly suffered injuries from the
administration of Zyprexa were filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on April 16,
2004, and May 19, 2004, respectively.  Both cases sought damages
for alleged personal injuries and compensation for medical
monitoring of individuals who have taken Zyprexa.  The personal
injury claims in both of these lawsuits have been dismissed
pursuant to agreement of the parties.

A lawsuit was filed on May 4, 2004 that requests a personal
injury class action on behalf of Iowa residents who took
Zyprexa, and that case is pending before Judge Weinstein.  In
June 2005, another lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of
New York purporting to be a nationwide class action on behalf of
all consumers and third party payors, excluding governmental
entities, who have made or will make payments on account of
their members or insureds being prescribed Zyprexa.  The suit
seeks a refund of the cost of Zyprexa; medical expenses paid and
to be paid as a result of persons taking Zyprexa; treble damages
under certain state consumer protection statutes; punitive
damages; and attorney fees.

In June 2005, the Company announced that it entered into an
agreement in principle with plaintiffs' attorneys involved in
the U.S. Zyprexa product liability litigation to settle a
majority of the claims against the Company relating to the
medication. The parties are negotiating a final settlement
agreement.  When finalized, the settlement will resolve the
majority of Zyprexa claims pending in the United States.  This
includes a large number of the previously filed federal and
state lawsuits; the two nationwide medical monitoring class
action lawsuits pending in the Eastern District of New York
(neither of which has been certified by a judge); and the
majority of the claims subject to tolling agreements, as well as
a large number of other potential claims.  At this time, the
exact number of claimants that will be covered by this
settlement is unknown, but is estimated to be about 8,000, which
represents approximately 75& percent of claims identified to the
Company to date, the Company said in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.  The agreement in principle
provides us an option to renegotiate or terminate the settlement
if we do not receive full releases from a specified number of
the covered claimants.

According to the agreement, the Company will establish a fund of
$690 million for the claimants who agree to settle their claims.
Additionally, $10 million will be paid to cover administration
of the settlement.  The settlement fund will be overseen and
distributed by claims administrators appointed by the court.  
The settlement covers claimants who asserted that they developed
diabetes-related conditions from their use of Zyprexa. Claimants
who are not covered by the final settlement are those
represented by attorneys who are not participating in the
agreement in principle.

In December 2004, the Company was served with two lawsuits
brought in state court in Louisiana on behalf of the Louisiana
Department of Health and Hospitals, alleging that Zyprexa caused
or contributed to diabetes or high blood-glucose levels, and
that the Company improperly promoted the drug. These cases have
been removed to federal court and are now part of the MDL
proceedings in the Eastern District of New York.  In these
actions, the Department of Health and Hospitals seeks to recover
the costs it paid for Zyprexa through Medicaid and other drug-
benefit programs, as well as the costs the department alleges it
has incurred and will incur to treat Zyprexa-related illnesses.

In early 2005, we were served with five lawsuits seeking class
action status in Canada on behalf of patients who took Zyprexa.
The allegations in these suits are similar to those in the
litigation pending in the United States.


FLORIDA: Withham Field Neighbors Lose Round in Compensation Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Neighbors of Witham Field lost a critical legal battle in their
campaign to force Martin County to compensate them for lost
property values that they claim are caused by airport noise and
pollution, The Palm Beach Post reports.

At a recent hearing on the case, Martin County Circuit Judge
Robert Makemson, the presiding judge in the neighbors' suit
against the county, ruled that the neighbors would need to prove
that their property values actually declined before their court
case could continue, something the homeowners say will be next
to impossible in a booming real estate market. In ruling, Judge
Makemson also said, "It seems as though in this case, the
plaintiffs seem to have suffered damages because their property
is not rising in value as fast as others. You have to show a
decrease, period."

After the ruling was handed down, Lynne Pine, the lead
plaintiff, told The Palm Beach Post the ruling is unfair to
property owners who have been suffering increased traffic, noise
and pollution since 1998, when airport managers extended a
runway and put their homes in an aircraft exclusion zone -
sometimes referred to as a "crash zone."

Court papers revealed that Martin County is lobbying the FAA to
release money for a voluntary buyout and insulation program that
would pay some homeowners to move and offer renovations to
others to insulate them from the noise.  Ms. Pine contends,
"Nobody will buy my home other than the federal government," and
adds, "That means my home has no value."

At the hearing, Mark Demorest, an attorney representing the 20
plaintiffs and 10 homes, told Judge Makemson that if his
decision stands, it will substantially reduce the number of
property owners who can meet the standard and could derail his
chances of broadening the suit. He stated that the ruling "cuts
the legs off most of the plaintiffs in this case."  Mr.
Deomorest, who is scheduled in October to ask Judge Makemson to
certify the lawsuit as a class action case, where a handful of
plaintiffs can represent scores of other homeowners affected by
the airport traffic, asked the judge for more time to decide how
the homeowners will proceed.

Judge Makemson based his ruling on a 1987 decision from the 2nd
District Court of Appeal, Fields vs. Sarasota Manatee Airport
Authority. Like the Witham neighbors, the Sarasota residents
sued, claiming that the government essentially took their
property in an "inverse condemnation" because the airport
deprived them of their property without paying for it. In that
case, the three-judge panel wrote, "This court finds that
'substantial loss in market value' was not, and cannot be
equated with a 'decreased increase' in market value."

Senior Assistant County Attorney David Acton told Judge Makemson
at the recent hearing that the appellate court ruling set the
standard for inverse condemnation complaints. "If you make the
determination that there is no taking (of property), then that's
the case," Mr. Acton said.


GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Dismiss 10 Counts in Lawsuits Over Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Judge Joseph Heaton granted General Motors Corporation's
motions to dismiss 10 counts in federal suits filed on behalf of
hundreds of pickup and SUV owners who claim their vehicles have
defective engines, The Detroit News reports.

Filed a year ago, the suits are yet to be classified as a class
action. The judge though is expected to decide in the next 30
days whether to grant class action status to the suits.  Court
documents show that the plaintiffs are claiming that the engines
in about 800,000 1999-2002 pickup trucks and sport utility
vehicles are plagued by a loud knocking noise known as "piston
slap." According to the complaint in one of many cases filed
against GM since October 2003, the noise is caused when the
pistons knock against the side of the engine cylinder because
the clearance between the piston and cylinder is too wide.

Last spring, an Oklahoma state judge denied class action status
to separate suits filed in state court, but later reversed his
ruling and granted the suits national class action status. GM is
appealing the Oklahoma state judge's ruling granting class
action status to the state lawsuits.

Attorney J.D. Peters of the Detroit law firm Charfoos &
Christensen, who is handling the federal cases for the
plaintiffs, told The Detroit News that the dismissals are not a
setback. He adds, "We view it as very positive, because most of
our causes of action, which are primarily express or implied
warranties, are allowed to proceed in the case." According to
him, Judge Heaton dismissed the counts because he felt they were
redundant, unclear or weak.

The federal case involves seven V-8 engines installed in many
pickup trucks and SUVs between 1999 and 2002 with displacements
ranging from 3.1 liters to 8.1 liters. However, some owners of
later model vehicles with 8.0-liter V-8 engines have also
complained of the noise. "My 2004 8.1L is knocking with less
than 2K miles," one owner wrote on the Internet site
http://www.pistonslap.com,which is dedicated to the case and  
was started by one of the plaintiffs.  The state suit on the
other hand includes engines installed in 1999-2002 pickups and
SUVs, Mr. Peters pointed out.

GM has called the problem a "tick," saying it disappears after a
few seconds after the engine warms up. However, some owners are
claiming that while the sound does subside quickly, it never
disappears. The owners also complained that aside from the
noise, the vehicles use an excessive amount of fuel, and that
resale value is adversely affected.

According to the publishers of the Kelley Blue Book, a vehicle-
buying guide, piston slap could lower the trade-in value of a
vehicle by $4,000 to $6,000.   Some owners claim that when they
take their pickups or SUVs in for service at dealerships, they
have been offered free oil changes or an extended warranty, or
they've been told the engine is normal.

Mr. Peters told The Detroit News that he has filed class action
suits in various state courts in the event the federal suits are
not granted class action status. He explains, "If we are not
successful with a national class action we will be successful
with state class actions on a state by state basis, so we have
hedged our bets."

In addition to seeking damages, the plaintiffs are asking GM to
replace the engines or buy back the vehicles, claiming the
automaker knew about the problem before the vehicles were sold
and did not inform consumers.  The automaker though vows to
vigorously defend itself against the claims. The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not track piston slap
complaints since the problem is not a safety issue.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Insurers Settles Claims Over Masonite Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Co. (IP) stated in its recently filed
quarterly report that a group of insurers agreed to pay the
company $242 million to settle claims related to a class action
lawsuit filed in the 1990s against its former Masonite
subsidiary, The Dow Jones Newswires reports.

The paper and forest products company also stated in its report
that it will recognize an income of about $220 million in its
third quarter as a result of the settlement.

In addition, International Paper stated in the report that to
settle the their claims against the insurance carriers in the
hardboard lawsuit pending in a California state court, they
(insurance carriers) will pay $25 million within 90 days of the
agreement, which was reached last August 3, 2005. Insurers will
then pay the rest of the amount in 47 equal monthly payments,
the company said.  Previously, International Paper filed a
lawsuit against the insurers for refusing to indemnify the
company in connection with the settlement of a class action
lawsuit against its former Masonite subsidiary.

That class action lawsuit was filed in 1994 by homeowners
against Masonite alleging that hardboard siding manufactured by
Masonite failed prematurely and allowed moisture to cause damage
to the underlying structure. Eventually, the company settled the
lawsuit in 1998 and has compensated eligible claimants through
the years. To satisfy further claims related to the lawsuit, the
Company also made a reserve of $94 million as of June 30.  The
Stamford, Connecticut Company also stated in its report that a
jury determined in 2003 that $383 million of the company's
payments to settle the plaintiffs' claims were covered by its
insurance policies.


KENTUCKY: Inmates' Abuse Suits Cost County Association $317.5T
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Kentucky Association of Counties paid $317,500 to settle
five federal lawsuits against the Grant County Detention Center,
according to records, The Cincinnati Post reports.

The settlement amounts were obtained by the newspaper through
the filing of an Open Records Act request with the association.
Those records indicated that through its All Lines Fund, the
association insures the jail and Grant County, as well as 113
other Kentucky counties and about 650 taxing districts.

Though Larry Crigler the litigation manager for the association,
declined to comment on the settlement amounts or the other cases
pending against the jail, The Cincinnati Post learned that six
cases against the jail are still pending in federal court, and
some contain worse accusations against those contained in the
ones that were settled.

For example, two former prisoners are claiming sexual assaults.
One of the assault victims, whose names are being withheld, is
an 18-year-old arrested on a traffic violation in February 2003,
who claims that he was stripped, taken to a shower, burned with
hot water, covered in soap or lotion and raped by other
prisoners. He was also forced to perform oral sex on at least
one prisoner. He claims that jailers knew what was going on
through an informant in the cell but didn't stop it. Five months
after the assault, two inmates pleaded guilty to assault or
sodomy charges in connection with the case.

The other victim is a man with a mental disability arrested in
November 2002, who says jailers falsely told inmates he was
serving time for molesting a child. He claims that he was placed
with a federal prisoner serving a life sentence, was raped and
forced to perform oral sex on another prisoner. Afterward, he
claims that he was placed in solitary confinement to cover up
his wounds. He further claims that was never treated medically
or tested for sexually transmitted diseases before his release.

Those two cases are scheduled for a settlement conference on
September 1. Also scheduled for a settlement conference on that
same date is the case of Billy Jo Killion, who says he was
beaten by inmates and then placed in isolation so jailers could
teach him a lesson.

Late last month, former inmates James R. Turner and a female,
Larri R. Brown, sued the jail and asked the court to make theirs
a class action suit. If class action status was granted, the
class would include any prisoners confined at the jail from the
date of the jail expansion in 2000 to the present, who feel they
were deprived of their rights by jailers' indifference to their
safety.  Ms. Brown claims she was in jail during 2004, and for
one week was kept naked in a restraint jacket until she
developed severe chafing and blistering.

On the other hand Mr. Turner, who was jailed in December 2004,
claims that despite his pleas to be placed elsewhere, jailers
put him in a cell with inmates who had threatened him. In the
beating that ensued, he claims he suffered permanent eye damage
and had to have a surgical implant placed around his eye. He
further claims that upon his return from the hospital, he was
placed in isolation for a week and then put back in the same
cell where he was assaulted.

In another case, Jovanni Mangotti claims that prisoners learned
in June 2004 that he was a federal informant, but jailers did
nothing to protect him.

Federal records also show the jail settled five cases involving
prisoners last spring, some involving beatings of prisoners,
neglectful care or harassment.


LOUISIANA: Suits Seek Refund of Late Fees From Property Taxes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two class action lawsuits filed in a federal court in New
Orleans are seeking the return of $32 million in fees that
thousands of New Orleans residents and businesses were charged
during the past seven years for late payment of their property
taxes, The Times Picayune reports.

In the first case, the court is being asked to make a Texas law
firm, called Linebarger, Goggan, Blair & Sampson, refund $28
million in fees and interest it pocketed in the past seven years
under a contract, which was entered into during the
administration of Mayor Marc Morial, to collect overdue property
taxes for the city. Mayor Ray Nagin recently voided that
contract on March 31.

The suit claims that Linebarger, Goggan did little work in
exchange for fees that amounted to 30 percent of delinquent tax
bills plus penalties. It contends that what the firm was paid,
were unearned and therefore illegal attorney fees disguised as
collection penalties.  According to the suit, most of the
overdue property taxes collected during Linebarger, Goggan's
tenure came in through efforts by banks, title companies and
other institutions involved in financing property.

The second lawsuit, targeting New Orleans budget director
Reginald Zeno, asks that the city be required to give back $4
million in penalties it received, with no private collection
firm in place, since the firm's contract ended.  Court documents
revealed that for the first four years of its contract,
Linebarger, Goggan was paid a 30 percent fee added to late
property tax bills. Later, the fee was capped at 20 percent, the
rate paid by most jurisdictions that outsource collections.  The
contract called for Linebarger, Goggan to file suits against New
Orleans property tax delinquents, but it never did so because
the state Constitution dictates that in Louisiana, taxes adhere
to a property, not its owner.

As a result, the method for recovering back taxes in Louisiana
is to hold a tax sale in which investors can pay delinquent
taxes owed by a property's owner. The deadbeat then either
repays the investor or loses the property. The firm held a tax
sale in each of the past four years.

Filed on behalf of representative individual and corporate
taxpayers, the two lawsuits do not mention that an undisclosed
portion of the money Linebarger, Goggan was paid by the city
went to United Governmental Services of Louisiana, a local group
with political ties.  The lawsuits, which are seeking the return
of property tax collection penalties paid since 1998, was filed
by attorneys Henry Klein, Allain Hardin and Remy Fransen.
Additionally, the attorneys are also handling a pending Civil
Court lawsuit that attacks the constitutionality of the city
ordinance that allowed the contract with the Linebarger, Goggan
firm.


MATTEL INC.: Appeal Court Affirms Approval of Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a
lower court decision approving the settlement of the shareholder
fraud class action and derivative lawsuits filed against Mattel,
Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.

Following the Company's announcement in October 1999 of the
expected results of its Learning Company division for the third
quarter of 1999, various stockholders filed purported class
action complaints naming the Company and certain of its present
and former officers and directors as defendants.  These
shareholder complaints were consolidated into two lead cases,
one under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and the other under Section 14(a) of
the Exchange Act.  In November 2002, the United States District
Court for the Central District of California permitted the
actions to proceed as class actions.

Several stockholders filed related derivative complaints
purportedly on behalf of the Company. Some of the derivative
suits were consolidated into one lawsuit in Los Angeles County
Superior Court in California, which was dismissed for the
plaintiff's failure to make pre-suit demand on the board of
directors. An appeal from that decision was dismissed in July
2003 by stipulation of the parties. Another derivative suit was
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, and was dismissed
without prejudice in August 2002 in deference to the then-
ongoing California derivative case. A third derivative suit,
filed in federal court in the Central District of California,
was dismissed in July 2002, and re-filed in November 2002 as
part of the settlement.

In November 2002, the parties to the federal cases negotiated
and thereafter memorialized in a final settlement agreement a
settlement of all the federal lawsuits in exchange for payment
of $122.0 million and the Company's agreement to adopt certain
corporate governance procedures.  The court granted final
approval to the settlement in September 2003, and judgments were
entered accordingly. On October 9, 2003, a group of persons
purporting to be members of the Section 14(a) class filed a
notice of appeal, challenging the manner in which the $122.0
million was allocated between the Section 10(b) class and the
Section 14(a) class.  On April 4, 2005, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard the appeal.  On July 29,
2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the District Court's approval of the settlement.


MATTEL INC.: Reaches Settlement For Limited Edition Barbie Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mattel, Inc. reached a settlement for the class action filed
against it in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, on
behalf of purchasers of "limited edition" Barbie dolls.

The suit alleges that the Company's use of the term "limited
edition" on Barbie dolls was deceptive and fraudulent to
consumers (and that it constituted a breach of contract and
breach of express warranty) on the grounds that the dolls were
not "true" limited editions and thus are not as valuable as they
would be otherwise.  Originally, the plaintiffs claimed that use
of the terms "special edition," "collector's edition" and
"exclusive" on Barbie dolls was also deceptive and fraudulent to
consumers and constituted a breach of contract and breach of
express warranty, but these claims were dismissed during motion
practice.

In 2003, a nationwide class of "all persons who have purchased
limited edition Barbie dolls which were described, promoted or
packaged as available only in small, limited amounts" was
certified based on California Business and Professions Code
sections 17200 and 17500 et seq. Plaintiffs' claims under the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, as well as their breach of contract
and breach of express warranty claims, were not certified for
class action treatment. The plaintiffs claimed that the class
suffered compensatory damages of at least between $100 million
and $200 million, and sought punitive damages, attorneys' fees
and injunctive relief.

In January 2005, the Court issued an order decertifying the
nationwide class in its entirety, without prejudice to the two
named plaintiffs attempting to re-certify the class at a later
date. On July 14, 2005, as a result of a settlement between
Mattel and the two named plaintiffs, the Court dismissed the
action with prejudice.


MEDTRONIC INC.: FL Residents Sue Firm Over Faulty Defibrillators
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Inc. of Minneapolis, a manufacturer of implantable
defibrillators for heart patients is facing separate lawsuits
that were filed by two Florida residents after the Company
recalled the devices and the patients underwent a second round
of surgery to install replacements, The Daily Business Review
reports.

In their separate actions in Palm Beach Circuit Court, David
Downes of Martin County and Kathy Higginbotham of Nassau County
are charging Medtronic, with negligence, fraud, liability,
breach of express and implied warranty, fraud and infliction of
emotional distress. Theodore Leopold, a partner in Ricci-Leopold
of Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., and president of the Palm Beach
County Bar Association, represents both plaintiffs.

According to Mr. Leopold, his clients found themselves in
"Catch-22 situations" after they were notified in February by
their physicians that the manufacturer had recalled the devices.
He pointed out that medical implant makers do not notify
patients directly of recalls.   Additionally, Mr. Leopold told
The Daily Business Review, "Both of these individuals were faced
with either risking death with the real possibility that the
device implanted surgically would malfunction or, on the flip
side of the coin, they could risk a surgery to remove the device
and implant a second device."

Court papers revealed that after the recalls they both chose to
undergo a second operation. The recalled devices were Medtronic
IDC Marquis 7274 defibrillators, devices that passively monitor
heart rhythms. If the rhythm degrades significantly, the device
restores a normal heartbeat with a jolt of 700 volts of
electricity to the heart muscle.

Asked for comment on the suit, Medtronic spokesman Rob Clark
told The Daily Business Review that the company has not seen the
two suits filed by Mr. Leopold. However, Mr. Clark did say that
as of the moment the Company is facing suits from about 10
people nationally who replaced the recalled model. The company
is also the target of as many as 15 state class action suits
stemming from the same recall, he added.

Mr. Leopold told The Daily Business Review that it is a distinct
possibility that all the suits will be combined for purposes of
discovery or that a federal class action could consolidate them
at some point. His suits though seek no specific dollar amounts
in damages.


MERRILL LYNCH: Settles CA Brokers' Overtime Suit For About $37M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch & Co. agreed to pay as much as $37 million to
settle a lawsuit brought by California brokers who claimed that
the company should have paid them overtime, The Bloomberg News
reports.

According to the brokers' attorney Mark Thierman, the suit,
which was filed in a San Francisco federal court last July 2004,
claims that Merrill violated federal law by failing to pay
overtime to brokers and violated California law by forcing
brokers to pay overhead expenses, including salaries for
secretaries.

Depending on the number of brokers who make claims, the
settlement calls for Merrill Lynch to pay as much as $27.6
million to the brokers and as much as $9.25 million to the
brokers' attorneys. Additionally, the settlement stipulates that
about 25% of the money going to the brokers will cover unpaid
overtime.

Mr. Thierman, who has offices in Reno, told The Bloomberg News
that the suit is one of several overtime claims brought against
brokerages in California and the first settlement in any broker
overtime case. He added, "It corrects some of the abuses in the
industry."

For its part, Merrill Lynch under the settlement terms denied
all of the claims in the lawsuit. Merrill Lynch spokesman Mark
Herr even said in a statement, "We believe it was in the best
interests of our clients, our financial advisors and the firm to
avoid litigation and settle this matter."

The class action covers about 1,200 Merrill Lynch brokers in
California, Mr. Thierman said. He explains that the agreement is
a "claims-made" settlement where in, if brokers don't file
claims reaching $27.6 million, Merrill Lynch will keep any money
left over.

For more details, contact Thierman Law Firm, 7287 Lakeside Dr.,
Reno, NV, 89511-7652, Phone: (877) 99 LABOR or (775) 284-1500,
Fax: (415) 723-7078 or (775) 703-5027, E-mail:
laborlawyer@pacbell.net.


NL INDUSTRIES: Continues to Face Various Lead-Based Paint Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc. continues to face litigation over its
manufacture of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based
paint.

The Company, other former manufacturers of lead pigments for use
in paint and lead-based paint (together, the "former pigment
manufacturers"), and the Lead Industries Association ("LIA"),
which discontinued business operations in 2002, have been named
as defendants in various legal proceedings seeking damages for
personal injury, property damage and governmental expenditures
allegedly caused by the use of lead-based paints.  

Certain of these actions have been filed by or on behalf of
states, large U.S. cities or, their public housing authorities
and school districts, and certain others have been asserted as
class actions.  These lawsuits seek recovery under a variety of
theories, including public and private nuisance, negligent
product design, negligent failure to warn, strict liability,
breach of warranty, conspiracy/concert of action, aiding and
abetting, enterprise liability, market share or risk
contribution liability, intentional tort, fraud and   
misrepresentation, violations of state consumer protection
statutes, supplier negligence and similar claims.

The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the
defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health
concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including
damages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnification
for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for
educational programs.  A number of cases are inactive or have
been dismissed or withdrawn.  Most of the remaining cases are in
various pre-trial stages.  Some are on appeal following
dismissal or summary judgment rulings in favor of the
defendants.


OHIO: Covington Diocese to Run TV Ads Regarding Abuse Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Television ads are scheduled to run at the end of this week in
regards to the sex abuse settlement fund with the Diocese of
Covington, The 9News reports.

As previously reported in the July 22, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, the settlement requires that an advertisement
announcing the much-touted settlement plan be published in USA
Today on July 21. That advertisement will be followed with the
same announcement in newspapers across Kentucky, including the
Kentucky Enquirer.

In addition, there will be radio and television spots for the
settlement. The advertising blitz is to inform potential victims
of the settlement fund. Anyone choosing to submit a claim to the
fund will be required to submit a confidential form by November
10. Objections to the compensation fund must be submitted to the
court in writing by December 19. A hearing on whether the
proposed settlement is fair is set for January 9, 2006, in the
Boone County Justice Center.

The settlement fund will immediately include $40 million
provided by the diocese. The remaining $80 million was to be
provided by the diocese's insurance carriers. Recently, the
diocese filed suit in federal court in an attempt to force them
to contribute the amount to the $120 million compensation fund.

Additionally, the settlement calls for a special administrator
to evaluate the claims and pay the money. That administrator
will be asked to divide claims based on the severity and type of
abuse, thus settlements would range from $5,000 to $450,000.

There is a special clause in the agreement that says people with
the most severe abuse can ask for up to an additional $550,000 -
meaning the most any one person could receive is $1 million.
Both the diocese and plaintiff's attorneys must agree with the
administrator for any additional money to be awarded. Any money
not paid out in claims will be given back to the diocese.

The class action lawsuit, as previously reported in the February
18, 2003 edition of the Class Action Reporter, was filed in
Boone County Circuit Court by Cincinnati-based attorney Stan
Chesley, claims that 21 priests and some other workers abused
more than 150 victims in the Diocese of Covington for decades
while church officials did nothing to stop the misconduct.

According to the court filings, from about 1956, information on
the sexual abuse of minors by diocesan priests has been
concealed from the public, including parents of children in
schools and parishes where the alleged perpetrators were
assigned, as well as from family members of employees of the
diocese. Specifically, the suit accuses the diocese, which is
just across the Ohio River from Cincinnati, of a 50-year cover-
up of sexual abuse by priests and others.


OMNICOM GROUP: Discovery Proceeds in NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in the consolidated securities class
action filed against Omnicom Group, Inc. and certain of its
senior executives in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Beginning on June 13, 2002, several putative class actions were
filed and were later consolidated under the caption "In re
Omnicom Group Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02-CV4483 (RCC)."  
The suit was filed on behalf of a proposed class of purchasers
of the Company's common stock between February 20, 2001 and June
11, 2002.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company's public filings and other public statements during that
period contained false and misleading statements or omitted to
state material information relating to:

     (1) the Company's calculation of the organic growth
         component of period-to-period revenue growth,

     (2) its valuation of and accounting for certain internet
         investments made by its Communicade Group
         ("Communicade"), which the Company contributed to
         Seneca Investments LLC ("Seneca") in 2001, and

     (3) the existence and amount of certain contingent future
         obligations in respect of acquisitions.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages plus costs and attorneys' fees. Defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint and on March 28, 2005, the court dismissed
portions (1) and (3) of the complaint.  The court's decision
denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the remainder of the
complaint did not address the ultimate merits of the case, but
only the sufficiency of the pleading. Defendants have answered
the complaint, and discovery has commenced.

In addition, on June 28, 2002, a derivative action was filed
purportedly on behalf of the Company in New York State court. On
February 18, 2005, a second shareholder derivative action, again
purportedly brought on behalf of the Company, was filed in New
York State court. The derivative actions were consolidated
before a New York State Justice and the plaintiffs have filed an
amended consolidated complaint.

The consolidated derivative complaint questions the business
judgment of certain current and former directors of the Company,
by challenging, among other things, the valuation of and
accounting for the internet investments made by Communicade and
the contribution of those investments to Seneca. The
consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties of good faith. The lawsuit seeks from the
directors the amount of profits received from selling Omnicom
stock and other unspecified damages to be paid to the Company,
as well as costs and attorneys' fees. The defendants intend to
move to dismiss the complaint and, pursuant to an agreed
schedule, briefing on the motion to dismiss should be complete
in November 2005.

The suit is styled "Brody, et al v. Omnicom Group, Inc., et al,
case no. 1:02-cv-04696-RCC," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Richard
C. Casey.  Representing the plaintiffs are David Avi Rosenfeld,
Samuel Howard Rudman, Steven G. Schulman, Milberg Weiss Bershad
& Schulman LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY
10119, Phone: 212-946-9356, Fax: 212-273-4406, E-mail:
sschulman@milbergweiss.com, srudman@lerachlaw.com,
drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com.


SEMCO ENERGY: WV Court Partially Dismisses Antitrust Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of West
Virginia granted in part SEMCO Energy Services, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss the claims in a class action filed against it and SEMCO
Pipeline Company, alleging violations of the federal antitrust
law.

In late March 2003, the Company was named in a putative class-
action lawsuit alleging that approximately 30 defendants,
including SEMCO Energy, Inc. and SEMCO Energy Ventures, Inc.,
engaged in practices that violated the Sherman Antitrust Act and
tortiously interfered with the business of the plaintiffs. In
October 2003, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this action in
the jurisdiction in which the action was originally filed and
gave the Company notice that it would re-file the complaint in a
different jurisdiction.

In November 2003, the plaintiff filed a separate but similar
lawsuit against SEMCO Energy Services, Inc., a company
subsidiary no longer actively engaged in business and whose
operations were sold in 1999. This lawsuit was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff in July 2004.

A variation of the aforementioned putative class action lawsuit
was filed in July 2004. Neither the Company nor any of its
subsidiaries were named as defendants.  In October 2004,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming, among others,
SEMCO Energy Services, Inc. and SEMCO Pipeline Company, as
additional defendants. The amended lawsuit alleges violations of
the Sherman Antitrust Act, the West Virginia Antitrust Act and
various common law claims.

In July 2005, the court granted a motion to dismiss plaintiff's
claims, in part, dismissing certain price-fixing claims but
allowing proceedings to continue with respect to other claims.  
A motion to dismiss this case on other grounds is still pending.

The suit is styled "Stand Energy Corporation v. Columbia Gas
Transmission Corporation et al." case no. 2:04-cv-00867," filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
West Virginia, under Judge Robert C. Chambers.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Joshua I. Barrett, Rudolph L. DiTrapano, Molly
McGinley Han and Lonnie C. Simmons, DITRAPANO BARRETT & DIPIERO,
604 Virginia Street, E Charleston, WV 25301, Phone: 304/342-
0133, Fax: 304 342-4605; and Robert C. Sanders, LAW OFFICE OF
ROBERT C. SANDERS, 12051 Upper Marlboro Pike, Upper Marlboro, MD
20772-2922, Phone: 301/574-3400, Fax: 301 574-2153.  
Representing the Company are Michael S. Becker, James W.
Draughn, Jr., Avery Gardiner, Thomas M. McDermott of KIRKLAND &
ELLIS, Suite 1200, 655 Fifteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC
20005, Phone: 202/879-5000, Fax: 202 879-5200; and John H.
Tinney of THE TINNEY LAW FIRM, P. O. Box 3752, Charleston, WV
25337-3752, phone: 304/720-3310, Fax: 304 720-3315.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Judge OKs Settlement With Uninsured Patients
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Superior Court Judge Wendell Mortimer granted approval of a
proposed settlement between Tenet Healthcare Corporation (NYSE:
THC) and uninsured patients who received care at Tenet
facilities nationwide.

The suit was originally filed in 2002 and alleged that uninsured
patients were charged an excessive "gross charge" at 114
hospitals owned and operated by Tenet Healthcare in 16 states.
The suit claimed that Tenet took advantage of the uninsured and
working poor who do not have the economic leverage to negotiate
lower rates, while giving discounts to HMO's and large payers.

Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
and lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said that the settlement is
a victory for the uninsured.  "We are pleased with the outcome
of this case and feel that the settlement is an important step
toward fair pricing for all patients," Mr. Berman said. "This
settlement proves that the uninsured have a voice and will be
heard, and that hospitals must be held to a higher standard in
their treatment of the working poor."

According to the terms of the settlement, Tenet will refund
amounts paid in excess of certain pricing thresholds. The
specific percentage of reimbursement varies depending on the
year the patient was treated.  Tenet Healthcare also agreed to
offer uninsured patients the same rate that it offers its
managed care clients, for a period of four years.

Steve Berman noted that Tenet Healthcare's concessions are
significant for uninsured patients, stating, "This settlement
evokes change in Tenet's pricing policies and offers real value
to patients. Moving forward, the settlement also has a broader
reach by guaranteeing that uninsured patients will receive
discounts."

The settlement class includes all uninsured patients who
received medically necessary services at any of Tenet
Healthcare's hospitals between June 15, 1999 and December 31,
2004, and paid for services based on the "gross charge." Tenet
Healthcare has made no admission of wrongdoing under the
settlement.

For more details, contact Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro, Phone: +1-206-623-7292, E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com or
Mark Firmani of Firmani & Associates, Inc., Phone:
+1-206-443-9357, E-mail: mark@firmani.com.


WAL-MART STORES: Family Launches Suit Over Sex Offender Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
The family of a 12-year-old girl is filing a lawsuit to force
Wal-Mart Stores to review the backgrounds of its employees,
according to a press lease from the attorneys who filed the
suit, The WIS-TV.com reports.

Attorneys David E. Massey and David Patton are discussing
petitioning for a class action lawsuit on behalf of children
molested in Wal-Mart stores nationwide.  The lawyers claim that
in September 2000, a Wal-Mart employee who was a registered
child sex offender molested a 10-year-old girl in a Columbia
Supercenter.

They add that on July 3, 2004, a Wal-Mart employee who was also
a registered sex offender allegedly molested a 12-year-old girl
at the Orangeburg Wal-Mart Supercenter. It has been more than a
year and the Orangeburg case has not been tried.  The press
release also claims that an employee who had been charged with a
similar incident in Ohio molested at least three other children
in June 2005 at a Wal-Mart Supercenter in Scottsdale, Arizona.


WELLPOINT INC.: Reaches Settlement For Physicians' Suit in FL
-------------------------------------------------------------
As part of a recently reached settlement, the managed care
company WellPoint, Inc. (NYSE: WLP) agrees to apply a "patient-
friendly" definition of medical necessity to mental health care
claims, The Psychiatric News reports.

As previously reported in the July 15, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter physicians, WellPoint and representatives of
over 700,000 state and other medical societies received
preliminary approval of the landmark settlement agreement in a
national class action pending in the federal court for the
Southern District of Florida. The agreement includes industry-
leading improvements to physician-related business practices.

U.S. District Court Judge Federico Moreno granted preliminary
approval of the settlement agreement in Miami and set December
2, 2005 as the date for the fairness hearing.

The settlement agreement came in response to a class action
suit, which was filed five years ago, to combat widespread and
chronic abuses by some of the nation's largest for-profit health
maintenance organizations (HMOs). The suit identified Wellpoint,
as well as Aetna, United Healthcare, CIGNA, Coventry, Humana
Health Plan, Inc, and Pacificare Health Systems, Inc. as co-
conspirators who have violated contracts and defrauded doctors
in violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act (RICO).

The lawsuit against the four remaining defendants continues
before Judge Moreno with a January trial date. The case is being
heard in the United States District Court, Southern District of
Florida, Miami Division: MDL No. 1334; Master File No. 00-1334-
MD-Moreno.

Among other points in the settlement, Wellpoint agreed to use a
patient-friendly definition of medical necessity and agreed to
cease using software programs that systematically lowball or
deny payment for legitimate patient claims. The settlement also
provides $135 million in direct payments to physicians to
resolve allegations of unfair reimbursement for more than a
decade.

Court documents revealed that previous settlements have been
reached with Aetna, Cigna, Prudential, and Health Net. The
remaining defendants yet to settle include United, Pacificare,
Coventry, and Humana.

Under the settlement's provisions that deal with abusive
business practices, Wellpoint must do the following:

     (1) Redefine medical necessity so patients can receive
         medically necessary care as determined by a physician
         exercising clinically prudent judgment in accordance
         with generally accepted standards of medical practice;
         cheaper alternatives are permissible only when they are
         "at least as likely to produce equivalent therapeutic
         or diagnostic results."

     (2) Halt down-coding and other systematic rewriting and
         devaluing of (CPT) treatment codes by software
         programs, such as the practice of routinely denying
         payment for multiple procedures performed on the same
         day.

     (3) End unilateral changes to physician contracts made with
         less than 90 days' written notice and disclose claims
         adjudication logic.

     (4) Remove disparaging language about physician fees from
         explanation-of-benefit forms.

     (5) Improve its arbitration system to reduce the burden on
         physicians, including barring provisions that require
         arbitrations take place more than 50 miles from a
         physician's office and reimbursing the arbitration fees
         for physicians who prevail.

For more details, contact Tami Durle, Investor Relations and
James P. Kappel, Media Contact, both of WellPoint, Inc., Phone:
+1-317-488-6390 or +1-317-488-6400, E-mail:
http://www.wellpoint.comOR Audrey Mullen, Phone: 703-548-1160  
or 202-270-2772, E-mail: Audrey@advocacyink.com, Web site:
http://www.hmocrisis.com/index1.htmlOR HMO Crisis Newsroom,  
Phone: (800) 324-4425 OR visit
http://www.cmanet.org/upload/wellpoint_settlement_agreement.pdf
or
http://www.calphys.org/assets/applets/wellpoint_settlement_overv
iew.pdf.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Suit in DC
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Cogent
Communications Group, Inc. (AMEX: COI) between February 14, 2005
and June 7, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


HOST AMERICA: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in CT
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut, against Host America Corporation
(Nasdaq: CAFE).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from July 12, 2005 through July 22, 2005.

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


HOST AMERICA: Rosen Law Firm Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on
behalf of purchasers of Host America Corporation (Nasdaq: CAFE)
("Host America" or the "Company") common stock during the period
from July 12, 2005 and July 22, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The lawsuit names as defendants Host America, EnergyNSync,
Geoffrey Ramsey, David Murphy, Roger Lockhart, and Peter
Sarmanian.

The complaint charges that On July 12, 2005, Host America issued
a press release titled "Host America's Energy Division Announces
Wal-Mart Transaction Ten Store First-Phase for LightMasterPlus."
Market reaction to this announcement was fast and furious.
Trading volume increased from 41,000 trades on July 11, 2005, to
13,813,100 on July 12, 2005. The Company's stock, which opened
at $4.25 on July 12, 2005 prior to the announcement, closed at
$6.35, after reaching a high of $7.47. Over the next eight
trading days, volume reached a high of approximately 32,569,600
shares on July 18, 2005, and the Company's stock price reached a
high of $16.88 on July 19, 2005. This stock price rise and
increased volume were the result of false information issued to
the market, according to the complaint.

The true facts, as alleged in the complaint, are that Wal-Mart
had not actually purchased the LightMasterPlus, but that the
"Wal-Mart Transaction" was limited to a test installation
unrelated to any commitment by Wal-Mart to install the
LightMasterPlus in any of its facilities on a permanent basis.
In fact, Wal-Mart had made no commitment to purchase or install
the LightMasterPlus outside of the test installation. As a
result, defendants had no basis for stating that the test
installation was a "first-phase roll-out" or that "the next
phase will involve a significant number of stores." Moreover,
defendants lacked any basis for stating that the Wal-Mart test
installation was a "major event for our company." In fact, such
test installations in the past had resulted in no future
customer relationship and no actual purchases of the
LightMasterPlus by the party solicited for the test
demonstration.

On July 22, 2005, the SEC halted trading of Host America
securities, as a result of the Wal-Mart related press release.
At the time trading was halted, Host America stock was priced at
$13.92 per share, down from $16.88 on July 19, 2005.

For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. of The Rosen Law
Firm P.A., Phone: (212) 686-1060 or (866) 767-3653, Fax:
(212) 202-3827, E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com, Web site:
http://www.rosenlegal.com.


INVESTORS FINANCIAL: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Stock Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against Investors Financial Services
Corp. (Nasdaq: IFIN).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from October 15, 2003 through July 15, 2005.

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


PRESTIGE BRANDS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Prestige
Brands Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: PBH) pursuant and/or traceable to
the Company's initial public offering on or about February 9,
2005 through July 28, 2005 (the "Class Period").

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

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


PRESTIGE BRANDS: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Prestige Brand Holdings,
Inc. (NYSE: PBH).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from February 9, 2005 through July 28, 2005.

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


PRESTIGE BRANDS: Paskowitz & Associates Lodges Stock Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Paskowitz & Associates initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of Prestige
Brands Holdings, Inc. ("Prestige" or the "Company") (NYSE:PBH)
securities from April 1, 2005 through July 27, 2005 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit, alleging securities fraud, was filed
against Prestige, Peter C. Mann, its CEO, and Peter J. Anderson,
its CFO.

Please be advised that this action is different from an earlier
action filed by other counsel on or about August 3, 2005 against
Prestige, a number of its officers and directors and various
underwriters of the February 2005 Initial Public Offering (the
"IPO"). The earlier action claims that the IPO Prospectus was
materially false and misleading. The non-fraud claims asserted
in that action are for a class who purchased in the IPO or which
are traceable to the IPO. The Class Period in the earlier action
is February 9, 2005 through July 28, 2005.

In this action, plaintiff does not challenge the IPO Prospectus.
Rather, plaintiff claims that the Company and the named
defendants defrauded purchasers of Prestige securities from
April 1, 2005 through July 27, 2005. The Complaint alleges that
defendants misrepresented the success of the Company's flagship
product, the over-the-counter wart remover, Compound W, by
repeatedly stating that it was selling well and there was every
expectation that it would continue to do so. The defendants
reiterated positive projections prior to and throughout the
Class Period, and never retracted them. The positive statements
continued throughout the Class Period, and Prestige stock
reached prices as high as $21 per share.

Unbeknownst to the Class, Wal-Mart, the Company's primary mass
distributor, had purchased a significant inventory of Compound W
in or about late December 2004 for an early 2005 promotion. By
April 1, 2005, the beginning of the Class Period, defendants
knew that the Wal-Mart promotion had fallen seriously short of
its goals, leaving Wal-Mart with significant excess inventory of
Compound W. This, in turn, materially depressed Compound W sales
in the following quarter, causing Prestige to suffer sales
declines, and not the increases projected. Despite this
knowledge, defendants failed to retract, and even reiterated,
their earlier projections, and concealed the true results of the
Wal-Mart sales promotion.

On May 9, 2005, defendant Mann in a conference call described
sales of Compound W at Wal-Mart as "very good" and "strong" when
in fact Wal-Mart was struggling to move this inventory off the
shelves, and orders for new Compound W shipments were materially
depressed. By no later than June 2005, not only were Wal-Mart
sales depressed, but it was abundantly clear that the wart
removal category for all sellers was contracting, not expanding.
Nonetheless, the defendants failed to update or correct previous
statements.

On July 27, 2005, Prestige shocked the market by announcing
sales for the first quarter of fiscal 2006, which ended on June
30, 2005, that were 6% below sales for the comparable quarter of
the previous year. In it largest business segment, OTC products,
sales dropped 10% year-over-year. When trading in Prestige
shares opened for trading the next day, shares dropped from a
previous closing price of $20.04 to a close of $11.90, on
extraordinary trading volume of 14.7 million shares. On July 28,
2005, defendant Mann finally admitted during a conference call
that he knew that the Wal-Mart promotion had been unsuccessful,
that Wal-Mart was carrying substantial excess inventory and that
the wart removal consumer segment had suffered a material 13%
decline. He also stated that inventory "overhang" at Wal-Mart
was continuing and that this would affect the future quarter
sales as well.

For more details, contact Paskowitz & Associates, Phone:
800-705-9529, E-mail: classattorney@aol.com.


PRESTIGE HOLDINGS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: PBH) ("Prestige"
or the "Company") securities pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's Initial Public Offering ("IPO") on or about February
9, 2005 through July 28, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Prestige, GTCR Golder Rauner, LLC, Peter
C. Mann, Peter J. Anderson, David A. Donnini, Vincent J. Hemmer,
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Goldman,
Sachs & Co., and J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. with violations of
the Securities Act of 1933. More specifically, the Complaint
alleges that the prospectus (the "Prospectus") filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with
the initial public offering of Prestige common stock, which took
place on or about February 9, 2005 (the "IPO"), was false and
misleading because it failed to disclose:

     (1) that the Company's sales were deteriorating in each of
         its three business segments, even as Prestige's
         executives were touting the Company's bright prospects
         to investors in presentations related to the IPO and
         other brokerage conferences;

     (2) that the Company's focus on acquisitions had negatively
         impacted its core business competencies; and

     (3) that as a result of the above, defendants' positive
         statements regarding the Company's growth and outlook
         were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On July 27, 2005, Prestige announced that the Company's revenues
would come in well below expectations. On this news, shares of
Prestige fell $8.14 per share, or 40.62 percent, on July 28,
2005, to close at $11.90 per share.

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


TREX COMPANY: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in VA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Virginia on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Trex Company,
Inc. ("Trex" or the "Company") (NYSE:TWP) between October 25,
2004 and June 22, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Trex,
Robert G. Matheny, and Paul D. Fletcher are named as defendants.

Trex manufactures and distributes wood/plastic composite
products primarily for residential and commercial decking and
railing applications. It manufactures Trex Wood-Polymer lumber
through a process that combines waste wood fibers and reclaimed
polyethylene. The Company provides three decking lines,
including Trex Origins, which features a smooth surface; Trex
Accents featuring a smooth surface on one side and an embossed
wood grain on the other; and Trex Brasilia, which replicates the
look of tropical hardwoods with color variations.

The complaint alleges that defendants' Class Period
representations regarding Trex were materially false and
misleading when made for the following reasons:

     (1) that the expected re-orders of inventory were not
         materializing, as Trex distributors worked to dispose
         of excess inventory;

     (2) that the expansion of the Company's distribution
         program with The Home Depot materially slowed due to
         delays in rolling out the Company's products;

     (3) that the Company cost cutting initiatives failed to
         limit the impact of higher raw material costs;

     (4) that there were manufacturing issues with the Artisan
         and Brasilia rail lines; and

     (5) that as a consequence of the foregoing, defendants'
         positive statements about the Company's growth and
         progress lacked in any reasonable basis when made.

On June 22, 2005, Trex announced that the Company expected a
substantial loss for the quarter and guided its earnings lower
for the year. On this news, shares of Trex fell $10.59 per
share, or 29.66%, on June 23, 2005, to close at $25.11 per
share. In the month leading up to the June 22, 2005 press
release, and while Trex stock was still trading at artificially
inflated prices, three insiders, including Matheny and two
Company directors, sold 513,40 shares for gross proceeds of
$19622,325.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi Christopher S. Hinton or
Bradley P. Dyer of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, Phone:
(800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com, Web site:
http://www.murrayfrank.com/CM/NewCases/NewCases.asp.


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *