---

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

           Tuesday, August 16, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 161

                         Headlines

AMERICAN FAMILY: Madison Judge Reduces Class of Hernandez Case
ANDRX CORPORATION: Working To Finalize Cardizem CD Settlements
ANDRX CORPORATION: Final Settlement Hearing Set October 7,2005
ANDRX CORPORATION: Asks MI Court To Dismiss PPA Product Lawsuit
AT&T BROADBAND: Appeals Court Upholds Cable TV Customer Rights

CALIFORNIA: Court Eliminates Jury Waivers, More Trials Feared
CMS ENERGY: Plaintiffs File Amended MI Suit Certification Motion
DUN & BRADSTREET: Plaintiffs Appeal CT ERISA Lawsuit Dismissal
EQUIFAX CONSUMER: GA Court Won't Dismiss Credit Reporting Suit
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Appeals Denial of Motion To Dismiss GA Suit

EQUINIX INC.: Submits Revised Stock Suit Settlement To NY Court
ESH FOODS: Recalls Seafood Spreads Due to Undeclared Ingredients
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Firms File Suit Over Faulty Defibrillators
GYMBOREE CORPORATION: Recalls 5.6T Baby Sandals For Choking Risk
HIBERNIA FOODS: PWC Losses Motion For Removal From NY Lawsuit

HOOVER'S INC.: Submits Revised Securities Settlement To NY Court
IPALCO: Judge Allows Employees' Suit Over AES Merger To Proceed
LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: CA Court Consolidated Securities Lawsuits
MAINE: Woman Files Price Fixing Suit in ME V. DRAM Manufacturers
MEDICAL STAFFING: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit

MICHIGAN: Residents Talk About Suits After Chemical Plant Fire
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Settles Suit Over Automobile Insurance Policies
NISOURCE INC.: Columbia Natural Resources Trial Moved To 1Q 2006
PNC FINANCIAL: Lawyers Propose $193M Deal For Accounting Lawsuit
RJ REYNOLDS: Working To Resolve Flight Attendants' Injury Suits

RJ REYNOLDS: Continues To Face Personal Tobacco Injury Lawsuits
RJ REYNOLDS: NC Court Approves Settlement of Tobacco Grower Suit
RJ REYNOLDS: IL Court Dismisses Slave Labor Reparations Lawsuit
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Continues To Face Silzone Injury Litigation
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Faces Personal Injury Suits V. Symmetry Device

SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court OKs Suit Settlement Distribution
      
                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN ITALIAN: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in MO
CUSTOM DESIGNED: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NM
PATTERSON COMPANIES: Charles J. Piven Lodges MN Securities Suit
PATTERSON COMPANIES: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in MN
PRESTIGE HOLDINGS: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Suit in NY

WORKSTREAM INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in NY
WORKSTREAM INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY



                        *********


AMERICAN FAMILY: Madison Judge Reduces Class of Hernandez Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack reduced a once-heavy
national class action suit against American Family Mutual
Insurance even further from 17 states down to 12, The Madison
County Record reports.

Previously, Judge Stack scratched 33 states off the national
class, and lopped off the other five on July 21. Filed in 2000,
the plaintiff in the suit, Manual Hernandez claimed that
American Family improperly used computer software to reduce
payments on medical claims from auto accidents.  In 2002, Judge
Stack certified Mr. Hernandez as representative of a class of
plaintiffs, and subsequently denied American Family's motions to
reconsider and to decertify. However, the judge did take his
certification order under advisement and last year he ruled that
a nationwide class action would be unmanageable and asked the
parties to appear again so he could decide which states should
remain in the class.

After a hearing, he reduced the nationwide class to states where
American Family does business namely: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,
Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah and
Wyoming.  The Company again moved to decertify the class stating
in their motion that the insurer did not use the software in
Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah or Colorado.

In his latest order, Judge Stack denied the motion to decertify
but dropped Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oregon and Utah. He
allowed claims from Colorado since July 1, 2003. For the
remaining states he allowed claims since July 25, 1990.  The
recent order covers those injured while driving or riding in
autos that American Family insured, as well as medical providers
with rights of assignment.


ANDRX CORPORATION: Working To Finalize Cardizem CD Settlements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrx Corporation is working to resolve litigation filed against
it and Aventis (formerly Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.), arising
from a 1997 stipulation they entered into in connection with a
patent infringement suit brought by Aventis with regard to its
product, Cardizem CD.

Beginning in August 1998, several putative class action lawsuits
were filed against the two companies.  The actions pending in
federal court have been consolidated for multi-district
litigation purposes in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, with one of the cases filed by a group of
direct purchasers having since been remanded back to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The
complaint in each action alleges that Aventis and the Company,
by way of the 1997 stipulation, have engaged in alleged state
antitrust and other statutory and common law violations that
allegedly have given Aventis and the Company a near monopoly in
the U.S. market for Cardizem CD and a generic version of that
pharmaceutical product.  Each complaint seeks compensatory
damages on behalf of each class member in an unspecified amount
and, in some cases, treble damages, as well as costs and counsel
fees, disgorgement, injunctive relief and other remedies.

In June 2000, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan granted summary judgment to plaintiffs finding that
the 1997 stipulation was a per se violation of antitrust laws.
On June 13, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, and on October
12, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review this case.  
Essentially reiterating the claims asserted against the Company
in the aforementioned Cardizem CD antitrust class action
litigation and seeking the same relief sought in that litigation
are:

     (1) the May 14, 2001 complaint filed by the attorneys
         general for the states of New York and Michigan, joined
         by 13 additional states and the District of Columbia,
         on behalf of their government entities and consumers
         resident in their jurisdictions, which was subsequently
         amended to add 12 additional states and Puerto Rico to
         the action;

     (2) the July 26, 2001 complaint filed by Blue Cross Blue
         Shield of Michigan, joined by three other Blue Cross
         Blue Shield plans;

     (3) two actions pending in state courts in Florida, and

     (4) two actions pending in state courts in Kansas

On November 26, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan approved a settlement between the direct
purchasers and Aventis and the Company.  In October 2003, the
court approved a settlement between the indirect purchasers and
Aventis and the Company.  In November 2004, the U.S Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied an appeal of the approval
of that settlement.  On May 23, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court
refused to hear the appeal.  On May 31, 2005, a motion was
entered granting the plaintiffs motion to distribute the
settlement funds to consumers.  All of the cases regarding this
matter have been settled or dismissed or are in the process of
being dismissed, the Company said in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The federal suit is styled "In Re: Cardizem CD Antitrust
Litigation, case no. 2:99-md-01278-NGE," filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
under Judge Nancy G. Edmunds.  Representing the plaintiffs is
Joseph J. Tabacco of Berman, DeValerio, 425 California Street,
Suite 2025, San Francisco, CA 94104.  Representing the Company
is Louis M. Solomon of Proskauer Rose, 1585 Broadway, New York,
NY 10036, Phone: 212-969-3000, Fax: 212-969-3000.


ANDRX CORPORATION: Final Settlement Hearing Set October 7,2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida will hold a final fairness hearing for the settlement of
the consolidated amended class action filed against Andrx
Corporation and Richard J. Lane, its former chief executive
officer, related to its generic versions of Wellbutrin SR/Zyban.

Seven complaints were initially filed against the company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors for
alleged material misrepresentations regarding the expiration
dating for its generic versions of Wellbutrin SR/Zyban.  The
suit also alleged that the Company knew that its products would
not receive timely FDA approval.  All of these cases were
consolidated and on October 20, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint against the Company
and Mr. Lane.  The suit alleged a class period from March 1,
2002 through March 4, 2003.

After the District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
this complaint, on March 5, 2004, the plaintiffs further amended
their complaint.  This matter was settled in March 2005 for
$2,500, which has been preliminarily approved by the court
subject to a settlement hearing date of October 7, 2005. The
proposed settlement does not require a material payment by the
Company, as the settlement proceeds will mainly be paid by its
insurance carrier.

The suit is styled "In re Andrx Corporation Securities
Litigation, case no. 1:03cv20593," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge
Jose E. Martinez.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Sherrie R. Savett and Robert Kauffman, Berger &
         Montague, PC, 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA
         19103-6365 USA, Phone: 215-875-3000, Fax: 215-875-3071

     (2) Deborah R. Gross of Bernard M. Gross, 1515 Locust
         Street 2ND Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 USA, Phone:
         215-561-3600; and

     (3) Kenneth J. Vianale of Vianale & Vianale, 5355 Town
         Center Road Suite 801 Boca Raton, FL 33486 USA, Phone:
         561-391-4900

Representing the Company are Tracy Ann Nichols, Louise McAlpin,
and Tiffani Gay Lee of Holland & Knight, 701 Brickell Avenue,
Suite 3000, Miami, FL 33131 USA, Phone: 305-374-8500, or Fax:  
305-374-8500x7717.


ANDRX CORPORATION: Asks MI Court To Dismiss PPA Product Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrx Corporation asked the Michigan Circuit Court for the
County of Ingham to dismiss an amended personal injury lawsuit
filed against it, allegedly arising out of the use of its
products that contain phenylpropanolamine (PPA).

Beginning in October 2001, 12 product liability lawsuits were
filed against the Company, and others, for personal injuries
allegedly arising out of the use of PPA.  The actions have been
consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington.  The Company was named in the
suits because the Company acquired the Entex product from Elan
Corporation.  While PPA was at one time contained in Elan's
Entex product, the Company reformulated Entex upon acquiring it
from Elan and eliminated PPA as an active ingredient thereof,
the Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.  All of these cases were dismissed, either
voluntarily or pursuant to court order.

Notwithstanding a court order dated September 15, 2004, which
dismissed the case and enjoined the re-filing of that case in
state court, in December 2004, the plaintiff in one of those
actions, Laura M. Bonucchi, filed an amended complaint in the
Michigan Circuit Court for the County of Ingham, to again name
the Company as a defendant in connection with this matter. In
April 2005, a hearing was set on our motion to dismiss. However,
in May 2005, the court canceled the hearing and remanded the
matter to a different judge.  Elan has agreed to indemnify the
Company with respect to this claim.


AT&T BROADBAND: Appeals Court Upholds Cable TV Customer Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Florida First District Court of Appeal upheld a trial court
decision that denied the cable giant AT&T Broadband (now
Comcast) the attempt to unilaterally change subscriber
agreements by requiring customers to submit to binding
arbitration.

The ruling clears the way for the certification process in the
class action suit filed against AT&T Broadband, purchased by
Comcast in 2001. The class action suit was filed by attorney
Norwood "Woody" Wilner of the Jacksonville law firm Spohrer,
Wilner, Maxwell & Matthews on behalf of then AT&T cable TV
customers throughout Florida and Georgia for breach of contract,
unjust enrichment and fraud related to customer service and
billing problems.

Prior to the filing of this class action suit, AT&T had adopted
the practice of sending out a fine print notice as an insert in
customer bills that attempted to essentially eliminate
subscriber's rights against the cable company. In addition to
eliminating the right to bring a claim in court, the provision
shortened the statue of limitations, prohibited class actions,
imposed a confidentiality agreement, and prohibited punitive
damages. This was a take-it-or-leave-it policy that gave
consumers no option except to cancel service.

After the class action suit was filed, AT&T petitioned the
Fourth Circuit Court of Duval County, asking Judge L. Haldane
Taylor to stop the suit based on the position that all customers
were subject to binding arbitration and therefore had no right
to participate in a class action suit. On September 30, 2004,
Judge Taylor wrote in his ruling that this policy by AT&T was
"procedurally and substantively unconscionable ... it was
presented on a take- it-or-leave-it basis and provisions
unilaterally benefited AT&T."

"Protection of consumer rights has been upheld by the Florida
courts. These rulings are a bell weather for subscriber's rights
against cable TV monopolies, and we can now enter into the class
action certification process. The arrogance of these companies
reminds me of big tobacco," said attorney "Woody" Wilner, whose
landmark tobacco case Carter v. Brown & Williamson resulted in
the loss of $14 billion to tobacco stocks in one single day.


CALIFORNIA: Court Eliminates Jury Waivers, More Trials Feared
-------------------------------------------------------------
A recent ruling by the California Supreme Court is raising the
possibility of California businesses facing more jury trials
over disputes with suppliers, partners and consumers, The San
Jose Business Journal reports.

In an August 4 ruling, California's highest court stated that no
one could be forced to give up the right to a jury trial by
signing a contract. To avoid the often-expensive outcome of
trial by jury, businesses often include a waiver of jury trials
in their contracts. Now California joins Georgia as a state
where such waivers are void.

Jeffrey Leacox, of Livingston & Mattesich Law Corporation in
Sacramento told The San Jose Business Journal, "This is another
example of California being out of step with the nation in a
negative way." The jury waiver is "one tool in the tool box that
is no longer available," he adds.

The ruling comes one month after the same court ruled that
companies could not avoid class wide arbitration. With the two
rulings combined, it could only mean that companies would face
the expensive prospect of class action jury trials.

Will Stern, a partner in Financial Services at Morrison Foerster
in San Francisco told The San Jose Business Journal, "This is
the double whammy that trial lawyers were hoping for. The two
shoes have dropped."

Additionally, Mr. Leacox, who is a lobbyist for the AeA, the
American Electronics Association in California told The San Jose
Business Journal, "We often see juries making headline decisions
for inexplicable reasons. That kind of outcome makes insurance
cost more and it makes companies settle frivolous claims for
more because they worry what would happen if the case went to a
jury."

The potential impact on business is great enough that Mr. Stern
says he would expect an effort in the remaining days of the
current state legislature's session to enact a jury waiver
provision. According to him, much of the impact will come from
the uncertainty that the ruling creates when one party is in
California and another one is elsewhere. A plaintiff might find
a reason to file the case in federal court, but even there the
choice between California and federal rules isn't clear.

Among those hit the hardest will be banks lending money for real
estate deals, according to Bernie Vogel, a shareholder at
Silicon Valley Law Group. He told The San Jose Business Journal,
"Financing companies often have a waiver of juries in deeds of
trust and loan documents and ask the lawyers to say if it's
enforceable. We will be citing this case."


CMS ENERGY: Plaintiffs File Amended MI Suit Certification Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan for the securities lawsuit filed against CMS Energy
Corporation, Consumers Energy Corporation, certain of the
Company's officers and directors and its affiliates, including
but not limited to Consumers Energy which, while established,
operated and regulated as a separate legal entity and publicly
traded company, shares a parallel Board of Directors with CMS
Energy.

The complaints were filed as purported class actions
shareholders who allege that they purchased the Company's
securities during a purported class period running from May 2000
through March 2003. The cases were consolidated into a single
lawsuit. The consolidated lawsuit generally seeks unspecified
damages based on allegations that the defendants violated United
States securities laws and regulations by making allegedly false
and misleading statements about the Company's business and
financial condition, particularly with respect to revenues and
expenses recorded in connection with round-trip trading by CMS
Energy Resource Management Company.  

In January 2005, a motion was granted, dismissing Consumers and
three of the individual defendants, but the court denied the
motions to dismiss for the Company and the 13 remaining
individual defendants. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification on April 15, 2005 and an amended motion for class
certification on June 20, 2005.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Plaintiffs Appeal CT ERISA Lawsuit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut's ruling granting summary judgment and
dismissing the claims in the consolidated class action filed
against Dun & Bradstreet Corporation, alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

In March 2003, a lawsuit seeking class action status was filed
on behalf of 46 specified former employees relating to the
Company's retirement plans.  The complaint, as amended in July
2003 sets forth as the putative class:

     (1) current D&B employees who are participants in The Dun &
         Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account and were
         previously participants in its predecessor plan, The
         Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan;

     (2) current employees of Receivable Management Services
         Corporation (RMSC) who are participants in The Dun &
         Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account and were
         previously participants in its predecessor plan, The
         Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan;

     (3) former employees of D&B or D&B's Receivable Management
         Services (RMS) operations who received a deferred
         vested retirement benefit under either The Dun &
         Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account or The Dun &
         Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan; and

     (4) former employees of D&B's RMS operations whose
         employment with D&B terminated after the sale of the
         RMS operations but who are not employees of RMSC and
         who, during their employment with D&B, were "Eligible
         Employees" for purposes of The Dun & Bradstreet Career
         Transition Plan

The Amended Complaint estimates that the proposed class covers
over 5,000 individuals.  There are four counts in the Amended
Complaint. Count 1 claims that the Company violated ERISA by not
paying severance benefits to plaintiffs under its Career
Transition Plan. Count 2 claims a violation of ERISA in that the
Company's sale of the RMS business to RMSC and the resulting
termination of its employees constituted a prohibited discharge
of the plaintiffs and/or discrimination against the plaintiffs
for the "intentional purpose of interfering with  heir
employment and/or attainment of employee benefit rights which
they might otherwise have attained."  Count 3 claims that the
plaintiffs were materially harmed by the Company's alleged
violation of ERISA's requirements that a summary plan
description reasonably apprise participants and beneficiaries of
their rights and obligations under the plans and that,
therefore, undisclosed plan provisions (in this case, the
actuarial deduction beneficiaries incur when they leave the
Company before age 55 and elect to retire early) cannot be
enforced against them. Count 4 claims that the 6.60% interest
rate (the rate is actually 6.75%) used to actuarially reduce
early retirement benefits is unreasonable and, therefore,
results in a prohibited forfeiture of benefits under ERISA.

In the Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs sought payment of
severance benefits; equitable relief in the form of either
reinstatement of employment with the Company or restoration of
employee benefits (including stock options); invalidation of the
actuarial reductions applied to deferred vested early retirement
benefits, including invalidation of the plan rate of 6.60% (the
actual rate is 6.75%) used to actuarially reduce former
employees' early retirement benefits; attorneys' fees and such
other relief as the court may deem just.

In September 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Counts
1, 3 and 4 of the Amended Complaint on the ground that
plaintiffs cannot prevail on those claims under any set of
facts, and in February 2004, the Court heard oral argument on
the Company's motion.  With respect to Count 4, the court
requested that the parties conduct limited expert discovery and
submit further briefing. In November 2004, after completion of
expert discovery on Count 4, the Company moved for summary
judgment on Count 4 on the ground that an interest rate of 6.75%
is reasonable as a matter of law.  On November 30, 2004 the
Court issued a ruling granting the Company's motion to dismiss
Counts 1 and 3.  Shortly after that ruling, plaintiffs' counsel
stipulated to dismiss with prejudice Count 2 (which challenged
the sale of the RMS business as an intentional interference with
employee benefit rights, but which the motion to dismiss did not
address). Plaintiffs' counsel also stipulated to a dismissal
with prejudice of Count 1, the severance pay claim, agreeing to
forego any appeal of the Court's dismissal of that claim.
Plaintiffs' counsel did file a motion to join party plaintiffs
and to amend the amended complaint to add a new count
challenging the adequacy of the retirement plan's mortality
tables. The court granted the motion and the Company filed its
objections.

On June 6, 2005, the court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment as to Count 4 (the interest rate issue) and
also denied the plaintiffs' motion to further amend the
Complaint to add a new claim challenging the mortality tables.
On July 8, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal;
they are appealing both the ruling granting the motion to
dismiss as well as the ruling granting summary judgment.  


The suit is styled "McCarthy, et al v. Dun & Bradstreet, et al.,
case no. 3:03-cv-00431-SRU," filed in the United States District
Court in Connecticut, under Judge Stefan R. Underhill.  
Representing the plaintiffs are Thomas G. Moukawsher and Ian O.
Smith, Moukawsher & Walsh - Htfd, Capitol Place, 21 Oak St.,
Suite 209, Hartford, CT 06106, Phone: 860-278-7000, Fax:
860-548-1740, E-mail: tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com or
ismith@mwlawgroup.com.  Representing the Company is Sandra K.
Lalli of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker - CT, 1055 Washington
Blvd., 9Th Floor, Stamford, CT 06901, Phone: 203-961-7400, Fax:
203-359-3031, E-mail: sandralalli@paulhastings.com.


EQUIFAX CONSUMER: GA Court Won't Dismiss Credit Reporting Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia refused to dismiss the class action filed against
Equifax Consumer Services, Inc., styled "Robbie Hillis v.
Equifax Consumer Services, Inc. and Fair Isaac, Inc."

Plaintiff asserts that defendants have jointly sold the
Company's Score Power credit score product in violation of
certain procedural requirements under the Credit Repair
Organizations Act (CROA). Plaintiff contends that Equifax
Consumer and Fair Isaac are "credit repair organizations" under
CROA and that the transaction by which he purchased Score Power
was in violation of CROA and fraudulent. Plaintiff seeks
certification of a class on behalf of all individuals who
purchased such services from defendants within the five-year
period prior to the filing of the complaint.  Plaintiff seeks
unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 23, 2005, the District Court denied defendants' partial
motions to dismiss the case and the defendants have answered,
denying all liability or wrongdoing.  The Company denies any
liability or wrongdoing, denies that a class action is
appropriate and will vigorously defend against all claims.


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Appeals Denial of Motion To Dismiss GA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Equifax Information Services LLC appealed the United States
District court for the Northern District of Alabama's ruling
refusing to dismiss the class action filed against the Company,
styled "Nunnally et al. v. Equifax Information Services LLC."

The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act by failing to provide a full disclosure along with
its reinvestigation results sent to consumers that disputed the
accuracy of their consumer reports.  Plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of all consumers to which the Company
allegedly failed to send a complete disclosure after completion
of reinvestigation.  Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.

On February 4, 2005, the District Court denied the Company's
motion to dismiss the complaint, but certified the issue for
immediate appeal and stayed the case.  The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit granted the Company's motion to appeal
and the appeal is now pending.


EQUINIX INC.: Submits Revised Stock Suit Settlement To NY Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties submitted a revised settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against Equinix, Inc. and certain
of its officers and directors in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

On July 30, 2001 and August 8, 2001, putative shareholder class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors and several investment banks that were
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering.  The
suits were filed purportedly on behalf of investors who
purchased the Company's stock between August 10, 2000 and
December 6, 2000.

In addition, similar lawsuits were filed against approximately
300 other issuers and related parties. The purported class
action alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "1933 Act") and Sections 10(b), Rule
10b-5 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"1934 Act") against the Company and Individual Defendants. The
plaintiffs have since dismissed the Individual Defendants
without prejudice.

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

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

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

On February 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion.  The Court ruled that the issuer
defendants and the plaintiffs were required to submit a revised
settlement agreement which provides for a mutual bar of all
contribution claims by the settling and non-settling parties and
does not bar the parties from pursuing other claims. The issuers
and plaintiffs have submitted to the court a revised settlement
agreement consistent with the court's opinion. The revised
settlement agreement has been approved by all of the issuer
defendants that are not in bankruptcy. The underwriter
defendants will have an opportunity to object to the revised
settlement agreement. There is no assurance that the court will
grant final approval to the settlement.

The suit is styled "In Re Equinix, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, case no. 01 Civ 7002 (Sas)," related to
"In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com

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

     (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

     (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com


ESH FOODS: Recalls Seafood Spreads Due to Undeclared Ingredients
----------------------------------------------------------------
Esh Foods LLC of Gordonville, PA, is recalling its 5 lb.
packages of seafood spreads because they contain undeclared
crabmeat cocktail and shrimp. People who have allergies to
surimi, shrimp and milk run the risk of serious or life
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The recalled products were distributed to our customers in NJ,
MD, PA on a refrigerated truck.

The product comes in a 5 lb. white plastic package, which has
our label on the top with a Julian date of #202. The product is
sold at farmers markets in smaller unlabeled containers.

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

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the
containing product was distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of seafood and milk. Subsequent
investigation indicates the problem was caused by a temporary
breakdown in the company's production and packaging processes.

Production of the product has been suspended until FDA and the
company are certain that the problem has been corrected.

Consumers who have purchased packages of the product are urged
to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact Jason Stolzfus at
717-768-8542.


GUIDANT CORPORATION: Firms File Suit Over Faulty Defibrillators
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Parker & Waichman, LLP along with Douglas &
London, P.C., filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of victims
of defective defibrillators manufactured by Guidant Corporation
(NYSE:GDT).

The suit was filed in The United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York. Additionally, the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation has scheduled a hearing for
September 29, 2005 in Asheville, North Carolina regarding a
motion to consolidate federal cases against Guidant Corporation.

Guidant Corp. recently recalled 11 of its defibrillator models
due to malfunctions; the recall affected approximately 88,000
implanted devices. The malfunctions occurred when a magnetic
switch inside the device became stuck and prevented the device
from operating properly. The affected defibrillator models are:
Contak Renewal (model H135), Contak Renewal 2 (model H155),
Ventak Prizm 2 DR (model 1861, Vetak Prizm AVT, Vitality AVT,
Renewal AVT, Contak Renewal 3, Contak Renewal 4, Renewal 3,
Renewal 4 AVT and Renewal RF.

At the time of the recall, Guidant Corp. issued specific
reprogramming instructions and recommendations to physicians
that were intended to correct the defect. However, on July 22,
Guidant Corp. said that one of the recommendations made may
significantly increase the risk that the Ventak Prizm, Vitality
and Contak Renewal device models would malfunction.

The defects associated with these Guidant defibrillators first
surfaced in the company's August 2003 annual report. However,
the company did not notify patients nor doctors about the
defects until June 2005. The New York Times reported that
Guidant failed tell doctors and patients for three years that
the VENTAK PRIZM 2 DR model contained a flaw that caused some
defibrillators to short-circuit. However, Guidant stood by its
decision to continue selling the PRIZM 2 DR for months,
declaring that the original device was still reliable.

For more details, contact Jason Mark, Esq. of Parker & Waichman,
LLP, Phone: 800-529-4636, E-mail: jmark@yourlawyer.com, Web
sites: http://www.yourlawyer.comor  
http://www.guidantdefibrillatorsrecall.comor  
http://www.yourlawyer.com/practice/overview.htm?topic=Guidant%20
Defibrillators.


GYMBOREE CORPORATION: Recalls 5.6T Baby Sandals For Choking Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), The Gymboree Corporation, of San Francisco, California
is voluntarily recalling about 5,600 units of Caroline Flower
Baby Sandals

According to the recall, a plastic flower attached to the
sandals can pull or snap off, posing a choking hazard to young
children. Gymboree has received four reports of the plastic
flower coming off of the sandals. One child reportedly pulled
the flower off of the sandal, placed it in her mouth and started
to choke, and another child was reported to have bitten a flower
off of the sandal.

This recall includes the Caroline Flower Baby Sandal with SKU
number 140002069 sold in sizes 1 to 8. The SKU number is printed
on the price tag above the bar code. The sandal has a white
upper sole and a cork covered outer sole. A white decorative
plastic flower is attached to the top of the front strap. The
front and back straps have adjustable touch fasteners. The name
"Gymboree" is printed in aqua on the sole of the sandal.

Manufactured in China, the sandals were sold at all Gymboree
stores and Web site nationwide from May 2005 through July 2005
for between $22 and $28.

Consumers should immediately stop using the sandals and return
them to a Gymboree store for a refund. Consumers also can return
the sandals to Gymboree via mail. Contact Gymboree for return
instructions.

Consumer Contact: Contact Gymboree toll-free at (877) 449-6932
between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. PT Monday through Friday and between 7
a.m. and 3 p.m. PT Saturdays or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.gymboree.com.


HIBERNIA FOODS: PWC Losses Motion For Removal From NY Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) lost its legal
challenge to be removed from the multi-million-euro U.S. class
action taken by shareholders in Hibernia Foods, a failed Irish
food company, The Sunday Business Post, Ireland reports.

Court documents revealed that the British division of PwC filed
a motion in a New York court seeking to have the claims against
it dismissed.  The shareholders filed the class action against
two former executives of Hibernia Foods and PwC, who acted as
the firm's auditors.

PwC argued that the class action was "bereft of any factual
basis." The firm also stated that it could not be held
responsible for "Hibernia going into receivership 14 months
after PwC issued its last report on the company's financial
position."

Hibernia Foods, which made and distributed ready-prepared meals,
Entenmann's cakes and Sara Lee desserts, was placed into
receivership on October 24, 2003. It owed ?24 million to GMAC, a
subsidiary of General Motors.

Rejecting PwC's motion, District Judge Harold Baer ruled that
the plaintiffs had alleged "ample events with ample specificity
to find that there is strong circumstantial evidence of
recklessness." Additionally, the Judge stated: "While the
mountain constructed by Congress in order for courts to sanction
class actions is high, perhaps too high, the allegations here
suffice to allow plaintiffs to climb that mountain."

In their statement of claim, the lead claimants, the Central
Labourers' Pension Fund and the Whalen family accused the
defendants of false sales, misreported inventories and
unrecorded loans from directors. Their claim also alleges that
PwC was aware of this and did nothing.

Judge Baer concluded in his ruling that the "proof may or may
not establish recklessness by PwC in its role as Hibernia's
auditor and, in any event, the Amended Complaint satisfies
pleading standards of this motion."  The result means that the
class action suit, which was brought by purchasers of shares in
Hibernia Foods between August 1999 and October 2003, is now
scheduled to go ahead next year.

Court documents also revealed that the shareholders named the
firm's former chairman Oliver Murphy and chief financial officer
Colm Delves, who they allege sold personal shares worth $26
million and $4.44 million respectively during this period.
However, it emerged in U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission
documents that the men did not dispose of any shares during the
dates set out by the class action.


HOOVER'S INC.: Submits Revised Securities Settlement To NY Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties submitted a revised settlement agreement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against Hoover's,
Inc., certain of its then current and former officers and
directors and one of the investment banks that was an
underwriter of the Company's July 1999 initial public offering.

On November 15, 2001, a putative shareholder class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock during
the period from July 20, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  
A Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now the operative
complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002. The purported class
action alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Sections 10(b), Rule
10b-5 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, against the Company and Individual Defendants.

Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendant agreed to
allocate stock in the Company's IPO to certain investors in
exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and
agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of
stock in the aftermarket at predetermined prices above the
IPO price. Plaintiffs allege that the Prospectus for the
Company's IPO was false and misleading in violation of the
securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements.
The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount. The defense
of the action is being coordinated with more than 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies.

On July 15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all claims
against it and the Individual Defendants.  On October 9, 2002,
the Court dismissed the Individual Defendants from the case
based upon Stipulations of Dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and
the Individual Defendants.  On February 19, 2003, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss the complaint against the Company.  
On October 13, 2004, the Court certified a class in six of the
approximately 300 other nearly identical actions and noted that
the decision is intended to provide strong guidance to all
parties regarding class certification in the remaining cases.
Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in the case
involving the Company.

The Company has approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements that set forth the terms of a settlement between the
Company, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the other
approximately 300 issuer defendants. Among other provisions, the
settlement provides for a release of the Company and the
individual defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to
be wrongful.  The Company would agree to undertake certain
responsibilities, including agreeing to assign away, not assert,
or release certain potential claims the Company may have against
its underwriters.

The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of
$1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the
approximately 300 issuers. To the extent that the underwriter
defendants settle all of the cases for at least $1 billion, no
payment will be required under the issuers' settlement
agreement.  To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle
for less than $1 billion, the issuers are required to make up
the difference. It is anticipated that any potential financial
obligation of the Company to plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of
the settlement agreement and related agreements will be covered
by existing insurance.

On February 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion. The court ruled that the issuer
defendants and the plaintiffs were required to submit a revised
settlement agreement which provides for a mutual bar of all
contribution claims by the settling and non-settling parties and
does not bar the parties from pursuing other claims. The issuers
and plaintiffs have submitted to the court a revised settlement
agreement consistent with the court's opinion. The revised
settlement agreement has been approved by all of the issuer
defendants that are not in bankruptcy.  The underwriter
defendants will have an opportunity to object to the revised
settlement agreement. There is no assurance that the court will
grant final approval to the settlement.

The suit is styled "In re Hoovers, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "IN RE INITIAL
PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 21 MC 92
(SAS)," both pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com

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

     (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax:
         610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

     (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com


IPALCO: Judge Allows Employees' Suit Over AES Merger To Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge David F. Hamilton cleared the way for a
trial over claims by former IPALCO employees that company
executives dumped their stock in the utility before a merger,
The Associated Press reports.  In his ruling the judge denied
the power company's request to set aside the class action
lawsuit filed on behalf of some 2,000 former and current IPALCO
workers.

John R. Price, an attorney representing the workers told The
Associated Press after the ruling was handed down, "We know we
get our day in court." On the other hand, IPALCO attorney John
W. Purcell declined to comment on the ruling.

The March 2002 lawsuit seeks about $100 million in damages. It
alleges the value of employees' 401(k) and retirement plans
plummeted when Virginia-based AES Corporation acquired the
Indianapolis utility in 2001.  Additionally, the suit alleges
that company officers dumped IPALCO shares about the time that
employees were prohibited from selling shares owned through
their benefit plans.  Court papers show that a large debt and
worldwide drop in power prices caused AES shares to drop from
$49.60 in March 2001, when the merger closed, to 92 cents in
October 2002.

Governor Mitch Daniels was among several IPALCO board members or
executives who sold their stock during the months before the
sale was completed. Previously, Gov. Daniels said that he
supported the sale in the best interests of the company and
shareholders and sold his IPALCO stock to meet federal conflict-
of-interest guidelines when President Bush appointed him as
White House budget director in early 2001.  Last year, Secretary
of State Todd Rokita cleared Gov. Daniels and five other former
IPALCO board members of wrongdoing for selling their stock
during the months before the sale was completed.


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: CA Court Consolidated Securities Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California ordered consolidated the securities class actions
filed against Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. and certain of its
current and former officers and directors.

On December 2, 2003, a class action complaint entitled "Miller
v. LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc., et al., No. 03-5421 RMW" was
filed.  Subsequently, three similar actions were filed in the
same court - "Weil v. LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc., et al., No.
03-5481 MJJ;" "Abrams v. LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc., et al., No.
03-5486 MJJ;" and "Ornelas v. LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc., et
al., No. 03-5593 SBA."

Each of those complaints purported to be a class action lawsuit
brought on behalf of persons who acquired the Company's Class A
common stock during the period of July 24, 2003 through October
21, 2003.  The plaintiff in the "Weil" action subsequently
amended her complaint and sought to maintain a class action on
behalf of persons who acquired the Company's Class A common
stock during the longer period of July 24, 2003 through February
10, 2004.  The "Weil" complaint also alleged that the Company's
financial statements were false and misleading.  The complaints
did not specify the amount of damages sought.  On March 31,
2005, the Court entered an order consolidating these actions,
appointing lead plaintiffs, and appointing lead class counsel.  

On April 25, 2005, another class action complaint entitled "The
Parnassus Fund et al. v. LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc., et al., No.
05-01695 JSW," was filed in the same court, against the Company,
its current chief executive officer and former chief financial
officer, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. On June 3, 2005, a nearly identical class action complaint
entitled "Fredde Gentry et al. v. LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc., et
al., No. 05-02279 MJJ," was filed in the same court.  Both
complaints purport to be class actions brought on behalf of
persons who acquired the Company's securities during the period
of February 11, 2004 through October 18, 2004.  The complaints
allege that the defendants caused the Company to make false and
misleading statements about its business, operations, management
and value of its common stock, which allowed insiders to sell
the Company's common stock at artificially inflated prices and
which caused plaintiffs to purchase the Company's common stock
at artificially inflated prices.  The complaints do not specify
the amount of damages sought.

On June 17, 2005, lead plaintiffs in the class actions that were
consolidated under the March 31, 2005 Order filed a consolidated
complaint. The consolidated complaint alleges that the
defendants caused the Company to make false and misleading
statements about the Company's business and forecasts about the
Company's financial performance, that certain of its individual
officers and directors sold portions of their stock holdings
while in the possession of adverse, non-public information, and
that certain of the Company's financial statements were false
and misleading.  The consolidated complaint now alleges an
expanded class period of July 24, 2003 through October 18, 2004
(thereby including the purported class period of the "Parnassus"
and "Gentry" complaints), and seeks unspecified damages. On May
10, 2005 and June 28, 2005, lead plaintiffs also filed notices
to relate and consolidate the "Parnassus" and "Gentry" actions,
respectively, with the original class actions that had been
consolidated by the March 31, 2005 Order.  The "Parnassus"
plaintiffs have moved to consolidate the "Parnassus" and
"Gentry" lawsuits with one another, but opposed the
consolidation of the two actions with the other earlier-filed
class actions.

On July 5, 2005, the Court entered an order relating the
"Parnassus" action with the cases consolidated under the March
31, 2005 Order.  The Court's July 5, 2005 order also requires
that lead plaintiffs provide notice to members of the purported
class concerning the expanded class period of the consolidated
complaint and giving them an opportunity to move to be appointed
lead plaintiff.  On July 8, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed a motion
to reconsider that portion of the July 5, 2005 order concerning
the requirement to publish notice to the purported class. On
July 27, 2005, the Court entered an order that denied the motion
for reconsideration and related the "Gentry" action.

The consolidated suit is styled "In Re: LeapFrog Enterprises,
Inc. Securities Litigation, 5:03-cv-05421-RMW," filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, under Judge Ronald M. Whyte.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Christopher Paul Seefer of Lerach Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San
Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415/288-4545, Fax: 415-288-4534, E-
mail: chriss@mwbhl.com.  Representing the Company is Kassra
Powell Nassiri, Daniel W. Turbow of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone: 650-849-
3319, E-mail: knassiri@wsgr.com and dturbow@wsgr.com.


MAINE: Woman Files Price Fixing Suit in ME V. DRAM Manufacturers
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court is
seeking reimbursements for Maine residents who bought computers
and other electronic devices during a time when manufacturers of
memory chips were accused of fixing prices, The MaineToday.com
reports.

The federal government's three-year investigation of the largest
makers of memory chips, which is a $7.7 billion market in the
United States, resulted in more than $345 million in fines and
guilty pleas from two companies and five individuals.  The suit
names 14 defendants that include Infineon Technologies of
Germany and Hynix Semiconductor Inc. of South Korea, who agreed
to pay fines of $160 million and $185 million, respectively.  

Micron Technology Inc. of Boise, Idaho, was granted amnesty by
the Justice Department for bringing price-fixing activity to the
government's attention.  All 14 defendants manufacture dynamic
random access memory or DRAM (pronounced DEE-ram), which is used
in products from desktop computers to MP3 players to digital
cameras.

According to lawyer Sam Lanham, who filed the case on behalf of
a Glenburn woman, DRAM is sold indirectly to consumers either as
an installed component in personal computers and other
electronic devices or as a separately purchased component for
upgrades.   Mr. Lahman told The MaineToday.com that Maine is one
of 20 states that allow recovery for indirect purchases. He also
said that his case is expected to be combined with dozens of
others from around the country in U.S. District Court in San
Francisco.

If U.S. District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton certifies the case as
a class action lawsuit, Mr. Lanham and other lawyers across the
country will begin accepting other clients who may qualify as
part of the class.  Court papers indicate that any settlement is
expected to cover consumers who purchased products containing
DRAM between July 1, 1999, and a date to be determined by the
judge.


MEDICAL STAFFING: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Staffing Network Holdings, Inc. asked the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its directors and executive officers.

On February 20, 2004, Joseph and Patricia Marrari, and on April
16, 2004, Tommie Williams, filed class action lawsuits against
the Company on behalf of themselves and purchasers of the
Company's common stock pursuant to or traceable to the Company's
initial public offering in April 2002. The complaints allege
that certain disclosures in the Registration
Statement/Prospectus filed in connection with the Company's
initial public offering on April 17, 2002 were materially false
and misleading in violation of the Securities Act of 1933 (the
Securities Act).  The complaints seek compensatory damages as
well as costs and attorney fees.

On March 29, 2004, a third class action lawsuit brought on
behalf of the same class of the Company's stockholders, making
claims under the Securities Act similar to those in the lawsuits
filed by Plaintiffs Joseph and Patricia Marrari and Tommie
Williams, was commenced by Plaintiff Haddon Zia in the Florida
Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm
Beach County, Florida.  Defendants removed this case to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida and Plaintiff moved to remand the case back to the
Florida Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, which
motion Defendants opposed.  On September 16, 2004, the federal
district court entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion to
remand.  On January 6, 2005, the state court stayed the state
court proceedings until further order of the court. The Zia
complaint seeks rescission or damages as well as certain
equitable relief and costs and attorney fees.

On March 2, 2004, another class action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain of its directors and executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida by Jerome Gould, individually and on behalf
of a class of the Company's stockholders who purchased stock
during the period from April 18, 2002 through June 16, 2003. The
complaint alleges that certain of the Company's public
disclosures during the class period were materially false and
misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The complaint seeks compensatory
damages, costs and attorney fees.

On July 2, 2004, the Marrari, Gould, Williams and Zia actions
were consolidated, although, as noted above, the Zia action was
subsequently remanded to state court. Plaintiff Thomas Greene
was appointed Lead Plaintiff of the consolidated action and the
law firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman LLP was appointed Lead
Counsel for Plaintiffs. On September 1, 2004, Lead Plaintiff
filed his consolidated amended class action complaint (the
Complaint).

The Complaint makes allegations on behalf of a class consisting
of purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant to or
traceable to the Company's initial public offering in April
2002, for purposes of the Securities Act claims, and on behalf
of the Company's stockholders who purchased stock during the
period from April 18, 2002 through June 16, 2003, for purposes
of the Exchange Act claims.  The Complaint alleges that certain
of the Company's public disclosures during the class period were
materially false and misleading in violation of Section 11 of
the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. The
Complaint seeks compensatory damages as well as costs and
attorney fees.

The suit is styled "In re Medical Staffing Network Holdings,
Inc. Securities Litigation, case no. 04-CV-80158," filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, under Judge William P. Dimitrouleas.  Lead counsel for
the plaintiffs is Samuel H. Rudman of Cauley Geller Bowman &
Rudman, 200 Broadhollow Road, Melville, NY 11747.  Representing
the Company are Stanley Howard Wakshlag, Brian Paul Miller, Eric
Andrew Greenwald of Akerman Senterfitt, Suntrust International
Center, 1 SE 3rd Avenue, 28th Floor, Miami, FL 33131-1714,
Phone: 305-374-5600; and Tariq Mundiya, Sharon M. Blaskey,
Stephen W. Greiner of Willkie Farr & Gallagher, 787 Seventh
Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-728-8000.


MICHIGAN: Residents Talk About Suits After Chemical Plant Fire
--------------------------------------------------------------
Families affected by a massive chemical fire that engulfed EQ
Resource Recovery, a hazardous waste treatment and storage
facility in Detroit are weighing their legal options, The WLNS,
MI reports.

Though Michigan safety officials said that the Romulus plant
explosion poses no toxic threat to residents in the area, two
local law firms have filed class action lawsuits.  Attorneys
held an informational meeting for residents to inform families
of their options. According to reports, many homeowners are
worried about their safety and property values.

As reported by CNN.com, authorities with the Romulus police
department and the fire department said the explosion happened
at a chemical plant shortly after 9 p.m. and that a one-mile
radius around the facility has been evacuated, including a
nearby Ford plant.  Some workers were inside the waste plant at
the time of the blast, but all of them got out safely, said
Kathleen Trent, spokeswoman for the city of Romulus. No injuries
were reported.

Some witnesses described the explosion as big enough to send a
mushroom cloud 500 feet into the air. Video from the scene
showed bright orange flames lighting up the nighttime sky, with
occasional explosions sending the flames even higher. The fire
engulfed much of the facility and spread across nearby grassy
areas.

A report by the Garden City Observer indicated that the Liz
Thompson of the Southfield law firm Weiner & Cox filed a class
action in Wayne County Circuit Court on behalf of the residents
affected by the explosions. The report also stated that Jeffrey
Carter and Douglas Warden of Wayne are co-class representatives
in the suit. Both are seeking damages in excess of $25,000 each,
plus expenses and legal fees. In addition, their suit also seeks
a permanent injunction against EQ Resource Recovery.


NEW HAMPSHIRE: Settles Suit Over Automobile Insurance Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
An estimated 1.9 million people who purchased about 3.5 million
private automobile insurance policies from independent insurance
agents between 1991 and 2003 may be able to claim a refund,
according to the settlement agreement in a case titled, "Gray v.
New Hampshire Indemnity Co.," The Union Leader reports.

The settlement agreement indicates that policies covered by the
settlement were sold in four New England states namely:  
Connecticut, Maine, Rhode Island and Vermont, but not New
Hampshire, where the insurer was once based.

Filed in the Circuit Court for Jefferson County, Arkansas the
suit charged that Pennsylvania-based New Hampshire Indemnity and
other companies "engaged in a course of conduct to induce
purchasers of their private passenger automobile insurance
policies sold through independent agents to purchase higher
priced private passenger automobile insurance policies by
concealing from (purchasers) the availability of lower priced
policies that provided identical coverage and involved identical
service."

The insurance companies though denied the allegations, asserting
their actions were "lawful in all respects," and benefited both
consumers and the independent sales agents.  However, under the
proposed settlement, the insurers agree that future commissions
paid to independent agents would not "result in different
premium levels for products with substantially identical
coverages .," according to court papers.

Court papers also indicated that to end the litigation, New
Hampshire Indemnity Co. along with six other companies agreed to
pay "$7 to each class member for each completed six-month policy
period . in response to valid claims submitted in conformity
with the claims procedure."

The settlement agreement provides for payment by the insurance
companies of up to $2.25 million in fees and to reimburse the
expenses incurred by attorneys who filed suit on behalf of the
policyholders.

The suit is styled, Gray v. New Hampshire Indemnity Company,
Inc., Case No. 2002-952-2-3, which was filed in Circuit Court of
Jefferson County with Judge Robert Wyatt presiding. The
Defendants are: New Hampshire Indemnity Company, Inc.; Illinois
National Insurance Company; Granite State Insurance Company;
American International South Insurance Company; American
International Pacific Insurance Company; American Global
Insurance Company; American Fidelity Company; and Old American
County Mutual Fire Insurance Company, which all sold auto
insurance policies under several common brand names including:
The New Hampshire; New Hampshire Specialty Auto; NH Specialty
Auto; AIG Specialty Auto; and AIG Agency Auto. The Court
appointed Barrett Law Office, P.A.; Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP; Lovelace Law Firm; Gore Law Firm; Patchett Law
Office; Goldberg & Wiseman Co., L.P.A., and Thrash Law Firm are
representing the plaintiffs.

For more details, call (800) 261-6791 or visit
http://www.graysettlement.com.


NISOURCE INC.: Columbia Natural Resources Trial Moved To 1Q 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against NiSource, Inc. and its
former subsidiary Columbia Natural Resources was rescheduled to
the first quarter of 2006 in the West Virginia Circuit Court for
Roane County.

Royalty owners filed the suit, styled "Tawney, et al. v.
Columbia Natural Resources, Inc.," in early 2003, alleging that
Columbia Natural Resources underpaid royalties by improperly
deducting post-production costs and not paying a fair value for
the gas produced from their leases.  Plaintiffs seek the alleged
royalty underpayment and punitive damages claiming that Columbia
Natural Resources fraudulently concealed the deduction of post-
production charges.

The court has certified the case as a class action that includes
any person who, after July 31, 1990, received or is due
royalties from Columbia Natural Resources (and its predecessors
or successors) on lands lying within the boundary of the State
of West Virginia. All individuals, corporations, agencies,
departments or instrumentalities of the United States of America
are excluded from the class.  Columbia Natural Resources
appealed the decision certifying the class and the Supreme Court
of West Virginia denied the appeal.  

Although NiSource, Inc. sold Columbia Natural Resources in 2003,
it remains obligated to manage this litigation and also remains
at least partly liable for any damages awarded to the
plaintiffs. In December 2004, the court granted plaintiffs'
motion to add the Company and Columbia Energy Resources, Inc. as
defendants.


PNC FINANCIAL: Lawyers Propose $193M Deal For Accounting Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 70,000 PNC Financial Services Group shareholders
could split up to $193 million if a federal judge approves the
settlement of a class action lawsuit arising from the banking
company's 2001 accounting scandal, The Associated Press reports.

Attorneys for investors and the banking company recently filed
court papers asking U.S. District Judge David S. Cercone to
approve adding $36.6 million to a $156.4 million restitution
fund that has already been created.

According to Louis Fryman, a Philadelphia attorney acting as
trustee of the restitution fund, the $156.4 million fund won't
be distributed to about 73,000 shareholders who bought PNC stock
between July 19, 2001 and July 18, 2002, until and unless Judge
Cercone approves the other money in the settlement.

The class action suit stems from PNC's efforts to get rid of
$762 million in bad corporate loans four years ago. PNC sold
those loans to three partnerships it created with insurance
company AIG, in effect removing them from its balance sheet.
By doing that, according to the suit, PNC didn't have to count
the depreciation of those bad assets in its second, third and
fourth quarter earnings in 2001, which enabled the banking
company to inflate its earnings for much of that year. The suit
states that stockholders lost money when they bought the
overvalued shares and the Federal Reserve forced PNC to restate
its 2001 annual earnings and list the loan losses on its balance
sheet. The suit also states that the restated earnings were $155
million less than first reported.

Pittsburgh attorney Alfred Yates Jr. sued on behalf of the
investors in July 2002, claiming the bank had misled investors.
Eligible stockholders will get about 68 cents a share if all
$193 million is approved and distributed to them, court papers
revealed.

A bank spokesman told The Associated Press that PNC has been
ordered to contribute $90 million to the settlement fund
already, about $27 million of which is covered by insurance. The
payment though won't affect earnings, he added.


RJ REYNOLDS: Working To Resolve Flight Attendants' Injury Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company continues working to resolve 2,649
lawsuits pending in Florida brought by individual flight
attendants for personal injury as a result of illness allegedly
caused by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in
airplane cabins.  In these lawsuits, each individual flight
attendant will be required to prove that he or she has a disease
and that the individual's exposure to ETS in airplane cabins
caused the disease.  

The suits are labeled as "Broin II cases."  On October 5, 2000,
Judge Robert Kaye entered an order applicable to all "Broin II"
cases that the terms of the "Broin" settlement agreement do not
require the individual "Broin II" plaintiffs to prove the
elements of strict liability, breach of warranty or negligence.
Under this order, there is a rebuttable presumption in the
plaintiffs' favor on those elements, and the plaintiffs bear the
burden of proving that their alleged adverse health effects
actually were caused by exposure to ETS. Although the defendants
still may prevail on causation and other theories, the Company
does not believe that the order is correct under Florida law or
that it accurately reflects the intent of the Broin settlement
agreement, the Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities
and Exchange Commission.  The Company and Brown & Williamson
Holdings, Inc. (B&W), along with the other defendants, initially
appealed this order in "Jett v. Philip Morris, Inc.," but the
Florida Appellate courts refused to hear the appeal.  The
propriety of Judge Kaye's order was argued in the "French"
appeal (discussed below).

These are Broin II cases against the Company or B&W that went to
trial or were decided or remained on appeal, since January 1,
2005.

In "French v. Philip Morris, Inc.," a Florida state court jury
found in favor of the plaintiff on June 18, 2002, and awarded
$5.5 million in compensatory damages. On September 13, 2002, the
trial judge reduced the damages award to $500,000, but denied
the defendants' remaining post-trial motions. The defendants
appealed the trial court's final judgment to the Third District
Court of Appeal of Florida.  Judge Kaye's order in "Jett v.
Philip Morris, Inc.," referred to above, was applied, and the
defendants appealed that order, as well as other matters.  On
December 22, 2004, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal
affirmed the amended final judgment to the extent that it found
in favor of the plaintiff on liability, and awarded the remitted
amount of damages. The appellate court reversed the final
judgment's market share allocation of damages, and remanded with
instructions that the trial court enter a judgment finding the
defendants jointly and severally liable.  The defendants'
petition for rehearing was denied on April 13, 2005.  On May 11,
2005, the defendants filed a notice of intent to invoke the
discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court.
Jurisdictional briefing is complete.

In "Janoff v. Philip Morris, Inc.," a Florida state court jury
found in favor of the defendants, including the Company and B&W,
on September 5, 2002.  On September 12, 2002, the plaintiff
filed a motion for a new trial, which the judge granted on
January 8, 2003. The defendants appealed to the Florida Third
District Court of Appeal, which, on October 27, 2004, affirmed
the trial court's order granting a new trial. The defendants'
motion for rehearing was denied. The defendants filed a notice
of intent to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the
Florida Supreme Court on June 17, 2005.

In "Swaty v. Philip Morris, Inc.," a Florida state court jury
found in favor of the defendants, including the Company and B&W,
on May 3, 2005.  On May 12, 2005, the plaintiff filed a motion
for a new trial, which was denied on June 23, 2005.  On May 17,
2005, the court entered a final judgment in favor of the
defendants, including the Company and B&W. The plaintiff's
motion for a new trial was denied on June 23, 2005. The
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on July 21, 2005.


RJ REYNOLDS: Continues To Face Personal Tobacco Injury Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company and its affiliates or indemnities,
including Brown & Williamson Tobacco Holdings, Inc. (B&W)
continue to face 22 class-action cases filed in the United
States, related to alleged addiction to the Company's tobacco
products.

In May 1996, in "Castano v. American Tobacco Co.," the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the certification of a
nationwide class of persons whose claims related to alleged
addiction to tobacco products. Since this ruling by the Fifth
Circuit, most class-action suits have sought certification of
statewide, rather than nationwide, classes.  Class-action suits
based on claims similar to those asserted in "Castano" or claims
that class members are at a greater risk of injury or injured by
the use of tobacco or exposure to environmental tobacco smoke
(ETS) are pending against the Company and its affiliates and
indemnitees, including B&W, in state or federal courts in
California, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri,
New York, Oregon, Washington, and West Virginia. Cases in which
classes have been certified or class certification decisions are
pending are discussed below.

The pending class actions against the Company or its affiliates
or indemnitees, including B&W, include 11 cases alleging that
the use of the terms "lights" and "ultra lights" constitutes
unfair and deceptive trade practices. Such suits are pending in
state or federal courts in Florida, Illinois, Louisiana,
Minnesota, Missouri, New York and Washington.  Each of these
cases is discussed below.

Finally, a number of unions and other third-party payers have
filed health-care cost recovery actions in the form of class
actions. These cases are discussed separately below.

Few smoker class-action complaints have been certified or, if
certified, have survived on appeal. Seventeen federal courts
that have considered the issue, including two courts of appeals,
and most state courts have rejected class certification in
smoking and health cases. Only one federal district court has
certified a smoker class action, styled "In re Simon (II)
Litigation" which was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York before Judge Jack
Weinstein.  In Simon (II), on September 19, 2002, Judge
Weinstein certified a nationwide mandatory, non-opt-out punitive
damages class.  On February 14, 2003, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit granted the defendants' petition
to review the class certification decision. On May 6, 2005, the
Second Circuit, in a unanimous opinion, decertified the class.
On May 19, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing
en banc.

On February 10, 2003, in "Simms v. Philip Morris, Inc.," the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied
certification of a proposed nationwide class of smokers who
purchased cigarettes while underage. The plaintiffs have filed
several motions for reconsideration of the order that denied
class certification. A decision is pending.

Classes have been certified in several state court class-action
cases in which either the Company or B&W is a defendant.  On
November 5, 1998, in "Scott v. American Tobacco Co.," a  
Louisiana state appeals court affirmed the certification of a
medical monitoring or smoking cessation class of Louisiana
residents who were smokers on or before May 24, 1996.  On
February 26, 1999, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied the
defendants' petition for writ of certiorari or review. Jury
selection began on June 18, 2001. An initial jury was selected
by July 16, 2001. However, the defendants, including the Company
and B&W, raised multiple challenges to the jury selection
process.  At various times, the Louisiana Court of Appeals or
the Louisiana Supreme Court removed a number of jurors and
alternate jurors that the trial court had allowed to be seated.
The jury selection process was finally completed on September
23, 2002, and opening statements occurred on January 21, 2003.
On July 28, 2003, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the
defendants, including the Company and B&W, on the plaintiffs'
claim for medical monitoring and found that cigarettes were not
defectively designed. In addition, however, the jury made
certain findings against the defendants, including the Company
and B&W, on claims relating to fraud, conspiracy, marketing to
minors and smoking cessation. With respect to these findings,
this portion of the trial did not determine liability as to any
class member or class representative.  What primarily remained
in the case was a class-wide claim that the defendants,
including the Company and B&W, pay for a program to help people
stop smoking. On March 31, 2004, phase two of the trial began to
address the scope and cost of smoking cessation programs. On May
21, 2004, the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $591
million on the class' claim for a smoking cessation program.
On August 31, 2004, the defendants' motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new
trial was denied. On September 29, 2004, the defendants posted a
$50 million bond (pursuant to legislation that limits the amount
of the bond to $50 million collectively for MSA signatories) and
noticed their appeal.  The Company posted $25 million (i.e., the
portions for the Company and B&W) towards the bond. The
defendants' opening appellate brief was filed on May 23, 2005.
The plaintiffs filed their response brief on July 27, 2005. The
defendants' reply brief is due on August 8, 2005.

In addition to the "Scott" case, two other medical monitoring
class actions have been brought against the Company, B&W, and
other cigarette manufacturers.  In "Blankenship v. American
Tobacco Co.," the first tobacco-related medical monitoring class
action to be certified and to reach trial, a West Virginia state
court jury found in favor of the Company, B&W and other
cigarette manufacturers on November 14, 2001. The West Virginia
Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the defendants on May 6,
2004.

In "Lowe v. Philip Morris, Inc.," an Oregon state court judge
dismissed the medical monitoring complaint on November 4, 2003,
for failure to state a claim. On November 12, 2003, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, and oral argument before
the Oregon Court of Appeals is scheduled for September 26, 2005.

Trial began in July 1998 in Florida state court in "Engle v. R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.," in which a class consisting of Florida
residents, or their survivors, alleges diseases or medical
conditions caused by their alleged "addiction" to cigarettes. On
July 7, 1999, the jury found against the Company, B&W and the
other cigarette-manufacturer defendants in the initial phase,
which included common issues related to certain elements of
liability, general causation and a potential award of, or
entitlement to, punitive damages.  The second phase of the
trial, which consisted of the claims of three of the named class
representatives, began on November 1, 1999.  On April 7, 2000,
the jury returned a verdict against all the defendants.  It
awarded plaintiff Mary Farnan $2.85 million, the estate of
plaintiff Angie Della Vecchia $4.023 million and plaintiff Frank
Amodeo $5.831 million.  The jury also found, however, that Frank
Amodeo knew or should have known of his claim prior to May 5,
1990.  The Company believes that the legal effect of that
finding should be to bar his claim based on the applicable
statute of limitations, the Company said in a regulatory filing.

The trial court also ordered the jury in the second phase of the
trial to determine punitive damages, if any, on a class-wide
basis. On July 14, 2000, the jury returned a punitive damages
verdict in favor of the "Florida class" of approximately $145
billion against all the defendants, with approximately $36.3
billion and $17.6 billion being assigned to the Company and B&W,
respectively.

On July 24, 2000, the defendants, including the Company and B&W,
filed numerous post-verdict motions, including motions for a new
trial and to reduce the amount of the punitive damages verdict.
On November 6, 2000, the trial judge denied the post-trial
motions and entered judgment.  In November 2000, the Company and
B&W posted appeal bonds in the amount of $100 million each, the
maximum amount required pursuant to a Florida bond cap statute
enacted on May 9, 2000, and intended to apply to the "Engle"
case, and initiated the appeals process.  On May 21, 2003,
Florida's Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial
court's final judgment and remanded the case to the Miami-Dade
County Circuit Court with instructions to decertify the class.
On May 12, 2004, the Florida Supreme Court agreed to review the
case. Oral argument occurred on November 3, 2004.

On May 7, 2001, three of the non-RJR Tobacco and non-B&W
defendants entered into agreements with the "Engle" class to
deposit an additional $1.86 billion into separate escrow
accounts to ensure that the stay of execution in effect pursuant
to the Florida bond cap statute will remain in effect as to
these three defendants throughout the appellate process,
regardless of the results of a challenge, if any, to the Florida
bond statute. Approximately $700 million of the total amount
deposited by these three defendants is non-refundable and will
go to the trial court to be distributed, regardless of the
result of the appeal.  The Company and B&W did not enter into a
similar agreement with the "Engle" class. Although RJR Tobacco
cannot predict the outcome of any possible challenges to the
Florida bond statute, RJR Tobacco remains confident of the
applicability and validity of the statute in the "Engle" case,
the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company and/or B&W have been named as a defendant(s) in
several individual cases filed by members of the "Engle" class.
One such case, in which the Company was dismissed prior to
trial, styled "Lukacs v. Philip Morris, Inc.," was tried against
Philip Morris, Liggett and B&W, and resulted in a verdict for
the plaintiffs on June 11, 2002. The Florida state court jury
awarded the plaintiffs a total of $37.5 million in compensatory
damages. The jury assigned 22.5% fault to B&W, 72.5% fault to
the other defendants and 5% fault to plaintiff John Lukacs.  On
April 1, 2003, the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court granted in
part the defendants' motion for remittitur and reduced the
jury's award to plaintiff Yolanda Lukacs, on the loss of
consortium claim, from $12.5 million to $0.125 million
decreasing the total award to $25.125 million. No final judgment
will be entered until the "Engle" appeal is resolved, so the
time to appeal this case has not yet begun to run.

On November 30, 2000, in "Daniels v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc.,"
a San Diego Superior Court judge reversed a prior ruling and,
based on a California unfair business practices statute,
certified a class consisting of all persons who, as California
resident minors, smoked one or more cigarettes in California
between April 2, 1994 and December 1, 1999. The court granted
the defendants' motions for summary judgment on preemption and
First Amendment grounds and dismissed the action on
October 21, 2002.  On October 6, 2004, the California Court of
Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the
trial court's dismissal. On November 8, 2004, the plaintiffs
filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court.
On February 26, 2005, the California Supreme Court granted the
petition. Briefing is complete.

On April 11, 2001, in "Brown v. American Tobacco Co., Inc.," the
same judge in San Diego granted in part the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. The class is composed of residents of
California who smoked at least one of the defendants' cigarettes
from June 10, 1993 through April 23, 2001, and who were exposed
to the defendants' marketing and advertising activities in
California. Certification was granted as to the plaintiffs'
claims that the defendants violated Section 17200 of the
California Business and Professions Code pertaining to unfair
competition. The court, however, refused to certify the class
under the California Legal Remedies Act.  Class certification
on the plaintiffs' common law claims was denied on April 10,
2000. The defendants, including the Company and B&W, filed their
motion for summary judgment on January 31, 2003. On August 4,
2004, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted in
part and denied in part.  Following the November 2004 passage of
a proposition in California that changed the law regarding cases
of this nature, the defendants filed a motion to decertify the
class.  On March 7, 2005, the court issued a ruling granting the
defendants' motion to decertify the class. On March 17, 2005,
plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's
ruling decertifying the class. The trial judge denied the
plaintiffs' motion on April 20, 2005. The plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal on May 19, 2005.

On November 14, 2001, in "Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,"
an Illinois state court judge (Madison County) certified a class
defined as "all persons who purchased defendants' Doral
Lights, Winston Lights, Salem Lights and Camel Lights, in
Illinois, for personal consumption, between the first date that
defendants sold Doral Lights, Winston Lights, Salem Lights and
Camel Lights through the date the court certifies this suit as a
class action."  On June 6, 2003, the Company filed a motion to
stay the case pending Philip Morris' appeal of the "Price v.
Philip Morris" case, which is discussed below.  On July 11,
2003, the judge denied the motion, and the Company appealed to
the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals. The Court of
Appeals denied this motion on October 17, 2003.  However, on
October 24, 2003, a justice on the Illinois Supreme Court
ordered an emergency stay of all proceedings pending review by
the entire Illinois Supreme Court of the Company's emergency
stay/supremacy order request filed on October 15, 2003. On
November 5, 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court granted the
Company's motion for a stay pending the court's final appeal
decision in "Price."  This case includes the Company as
defendant.

On December 18, 2001, in "Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp.," another Madison County, Illinois state court judge
certified a class defined as "all persons who purchased
Defendant's Misty Lights, GPC Lights, Capri Lights and Kool
Lights cigarettes in Illinois for personal consumption, from the
first date that Defendant sold Misty Lights, GPC Lights, Capri
Lights and Kool Lights cigarettes in Illinois through this
date."  On June 6, 2003, the trial judge issued an order staying
all proceedings pending resolution of the "Price v. Philip
Morris" case.  The plaintiffs appealed this stay order to the
Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals, which heard oral
argument on October 7, 2003. The Court of Appeals has not issued
a decision in this appeal, and the case remains stayed.

A "lights" class-action case is pending in the same jurisdiction
in Illinois against Philip Morris, styled "Price v. Philip
Morris, Inc.," formerly known as "Miles v. Philip Morris, Inc."  
Trial began on January 21, 2003. On March 21, 2003, the trial
judge entered judgment against Philip Morris in the amount of
$7.1 billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive
damages to the State of Illinois.  Based on Illinois law, the
bond required to stay execution of the judgment was set
initially at $12 billion. Because of the difficulty of posting a
bond of that magnitude, Philip Morris pursued various avenues of
relief from the $12 billion bond requirement. On April 14, 2003,
the trial judge reduced the amount of bond. He ordered the bond
to be secured by $800 million, payable in four equal quarterly
installments beginning in September 2003, and a pre-existing $6
billion long-term note to be placed in escrow pending resolution
of the case. The plaintiffs appealed the judge's decision to
reduce the amount of the bond. On July 14, 2003, the appeals
court ruled that the trial judge exceeded his authority in
reducing the bond and ordered the trial judge to reinstate the
original bond. On September 16, 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court
ordered that the reduced bond be reinstated and agreed to hear
Philip Morris' appeal without need for intermediate appellate
court review.  The "Price" case remains in the Illinois Supreme
Court. In the event the Company and its affiliates or
indemnitees, including B&W, lose the "Turner" or "Howard" cases,
the Company could face similar bonding difficulties depending
upon the amount of damages ordered, if any, which could have a
material adverse effect on its, and consequently Reynold
American, Inc.'s results of operations, cash flows or financial
condition.

On December 31, 2003, in "Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co.," a Missouri state court judge in St. Louis certified a
class defined as "all persons who purchased Defendants' Camel
Lights, Camel Special Lights, Salem Lights and Winston Lights
cigarettes in Missouri for personal consumption between the
first date the Defendants placed their Camel Lights, Camel
Special Lights, Salem Lights and Winston Lights cigarettes into
the stream of commerce through the date of this Order."  On
January 14, 2004, the Company and RJ Reynolds Tobacco Holdings,
Inc., the only named defendants, removed this case to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.  On
September 30, 2004, the case was remanded to the Circuit Court
for the City of St. Louis.

In "Schwab & McLaughlin v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.," a
nationwide "lights" class action, which was filed on May 11,
2004, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York before Judge Jack Weinstein, the
defendants, including the Company and B&W, filed their
respective answers on September 24, 2004.  On February 28, 2005,
the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. On
April 4, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion to preclude defendants
from contending that "lights" cigarettes are safer than
conventional cigarettes.  On April 5, 2005, the plaintiffs filed
a motion for partial summary judgment, for declaratory judgment,
and for a permanent injunction to prohibit defendants from
marketing or selling any cigarette identified as a "lights" or
"ultra lights" brand.  The judge declined to address these
motions at this stage of the case.  The plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, as well as summary judgment motions by both
sides, will be heard on September 12, 2005.  Trial is scheduled
to commence on January 9, 2006.

Several "lights" class actions are in the class certification
motion and discovery process.  These cases include:

     (1) Thompson v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Minnesota),

     (2) Huntsberry v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Washington),

     (3) Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (Missouri),
         and

     (4) Rios v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Florida).

In two Louisiana cases, "Harper v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co."
and Brown v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.," the defendants
removed the cases to federal court. On January 27, 2005, the
federal judge denied the plaintiffs' motions to remand in both
cases.

Finally, in "Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.," a Minnesota
state court judge dismissed the case on May 11, 2005 because the
"lights" claims are preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling
and Advertising Act. On July 11, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal with the Minnesota Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Judicial District.

The Company, B&W and other cigarette manufacturer defendants
settled one class-action suit, "Broin v. Philip Morris, Inc.,"
in October 1997. This case had been brought in Florida state
court on behalf of all flight attendants of U.S. airlines
alleged to be suffering from diseases or ailments caused by
exposure to ETS in airplane cabins. The settlement agreement
required the participating tobacco companies to pay a total of
$300 million in three annual $100 million installments,
allocated among the companies by market share, to fund research
on the early detection and cure of diseases associated with
tobacco smoke.  It also required those companies to pay a total
of $49 million for the plaintiffs' counsel's fees and expenses.
The Company's portion of these payments was approximately $86
million; B&W's portion of these payments was approximately
$57 million.  The settlement agreement bars class members from
bringing aggregate claims or obtaining punitive or exemplary
damages and also bars individual claims to the extent that they
are based on fraud, misrepresentation, conspiracy to commit
fraud or misrepresentation, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), suppression, concealment or any other
alleged intentional or willful conduct.  The defendants agreed
that, in any individual case brought by a class member, the
defendant will bear the burden of proof with respect to whether
ETS can cause certain specifically enumerated diseases, referred
to as "general causation." With respect to all other issues
relating to liability, including whether an individual
plaintiff's disease was caused by his or her exposure to ETS in
aircraft cabins, referred to as "specific causation," the
individual plaintiff will have the burden of proof. Florida's
Third District Court of Appeal denied various challenges to this
settlement on March 24, 1999, and subsequently denied motions to
reconsider. On September 7, 1999, the Florida Supreme Court
dismissed all proceedings, and the settlement and judgment
became final. The "Broin II" cases, discussed above, arose out
of the settlement of this case.


RJ REYNOLDS: NC Court Approves Settlement of Tobacco Grower Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina approved RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company's settlement
of a class action filed against it, Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Holdings, Inc. (B&W) and other cigarette manufacturers, styled
"DeLoach v. Philip Morris Cos. Inc."

The suit was filed on February 16, 2000, in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of a class
of all tobacco growers and tobacco allotment holders. The
plaintiffs assert that the defendants, including Philip Morris,
the Company, B&W and Lorillard, engaged in bid-rigging of
American burley and flue-cured tobacco auctions beginning at
least by 1996 and continuing. The defendants' actions are
alleged to have held the auction prices of tobacco at
artificially low prices.  In addition, the plaintiffs alleged
that the defendants have engaged in a conspiracy to force the
elimination or destruction of the federal government's tobacco
quota and price support program through an alleged illegal group
boycott.

On October 9, 2000, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint and a motion to transfer venue to the
United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina. On November 30, 2000, the court granted the motion to
transfer. In May 2003, the plaintiffs reached a settlement with
all the defendants, including B&W, except the Company.  The
settlement was approved by the trial court on October 1, 2003.
The settling defendants agreed to pay $210 million to the
plaintiffs, of which B&W's share was $23 million, to pay the
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees as set by the court, where B&W's
share was 13%, and to purchase a minimum amount of U.S. leaf for
ten years, expressed as both a percentage of domestic
requirements, with 35% for B&W, and as a minimum number of
pounds per year, with 55 million pounds for B&W.  On December
19, 2003, the court set the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees at $75.3
million. B&W's 13% share of this amount is $9.8 million.

The case continued against the Company. On April 22, 2004, after
the trial began, the parties settled the case.  Under the
settlement, the Company has paid $33 million into a settlement
fund, which after deductions for attorney's fees and
administrative costs, will be distributed to the class pending
the court's final settlement approval. The Company also agreed
to purchase annually a minimum of 90 million pounds, including
the assumed obligation of B&W, of domestic green leaf flue-cured
and burley tobacco combined for the next 10 years, beginning
with the 2004 crop year. On March 21, 2005, the court approved
the RJR Tobacco settlement and dismissed the suit.

The suit is styled "DELOACH, et al v. PHILIP MORRIS CO., et al.,
case no. 1:00-cv-01235-WLO," filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, under Judge
William L. Osteen.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kenneth C. Anderson, C. Harris Dague, Robert L. Green,
         Jr., Stuart H. Harris, Thomas A. Isaacson, Kristin
         Mcahren, Joseph A. Ostoyich, Robert F. Ruyak, Christina
         G. Sarchio, Jason D. Smith, Alan Wiseman, Jennifer
         Zenker of HOWREY SIMON ARNOLD & WHITE, LLP, 1299
         PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2402,
         Phone: 202-783-0800, E-mail: ostoyichj@howrey.com,
         wisemana@howrey.com

     (2) J. L. Chestnut, CHESTNUT SANDERS SANDERS & PETTAWAY,
         P.C., 1 UNION ST., SELMA, AL 36701, Phone: 334-875-9264

     (3) James H. Hughes, Richard M. Hutson II, HUTSON HUGHES &
         POWELL, 300 W. MORGAN ST., STE. 1500, DURHAM, NC 27702,
         Phone: 919-683-1561, Fax: 919-683-1276, E-mail:
         Hughes@hhplaw.com or Wade@hhplaw.com  

     (4) Ingrid Hutto, Alexander J. Pires, Jr., CONLON FRANTZ
         PHELAN & PIRES, LLP, 1818 N ST. N.W., STE. 700,
          WASHINGTON, DC 20036, Phone: 202-331-7050

Representing the company are W. Andrew Copenhaver, Hada V.
Haulsee, Paul A. Kaplan, Gwenda Lee Lewis, Robert Harrison
Sasser III, Kurt Douglas Weaver of WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE &
RICE, POD 84, WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27102, Phone: 336-721-3633, Fax:
336-721-8347, E-mail: acopenhaver@wcsr.com and
hhaulsee@wcsr.com.


RJ REYNOLDS: IL Court Dismisses Slave Labor Reparations Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois dismissed the consolidated lawsuit filed against RJ
Reynolds Tobacco Company, alleging it profited from the use of
slave labor.

Two reparations actions were initially filed by descendants of
slaves.  These two actions have been transferred to Judge
Charles R. Norgle in the Northern District of Illinois by the
Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with other reparation actions.

Seven additional cases were originally filed in California,
Illinois and New York. The Company is a named defendant in only
one of these additional cases, but it has not been served. The
action in which the Company is named, but has not been served,
was conditionally transferred to the Northern District of
Illinois on January 7, 2003, but the plaintiffs contested that
transfer, and the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation
has not yet issued a final ruling on the transfer.

The plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on June 17, 2003.
On July 18, 2003, the defendants moved to dismiss the
plaintiff's complaint. That motion was granted on January 26,
2004, although the court allowed the plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint, which they did on April 5, 2004. In addition,
several plaintiffs attempted to appeal the trial court's January
26, 2004 dismissal. Because the dismissal was not a final order,
that appeal was dismissed by the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit.  On July 6, 2005, the trial court
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint
with prejudice.

The suit is styled "Hurdle, et al v. FleetBoston Fin Corp, et
al., case no. 1:03-cv-02644," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under
Judge Charles R. Norgle, Sr.  Representing the plaintiffs is
Barbara K. Ratliff, of Law Offices of Barbara K. Ratliff, 225
South Olive Street #101, Los Angeles, CA 90012-2446, Phone:
(213) 687-7171.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Continues To Face Silzone Injury Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. continues to face litigation, alleging
injury caused by its mechanical heart valves with Silzone
coating.

In July 1997, the Company began marketing mechanical heart
valves which incorporated a Silzone coating.  The Company later
began marketing heart valve repair products incorporating a
Silzone coating.  The Silzone coating was intended to reduce the
risk of endocarditis, a bacterial infection affecting heart
tissue, which is associated with replacement heart valve
surgery.  In January 2000, the Company voluntarily recalled all
field inventories of Silzone devices after receiving information
from a clinical study that patients with a Silzone valve had a
small, but statistically significant, increased incidence of
explant due to paravalvular leak compared to patients in that
clinical study with non-Silzone heart valves.

Subsequent to the Company's voluntary recall, the Company has
been sued in various jurisdictions by some patients who received
a Silzone device and, as of July 28, 2005, such cases are
pending in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom,
Ireland and France.  Some of these claimants allege bodily
injuries as a result of an explant or other complications, which
they attribute to the Silzone devices. Others, who have not had
their device explanted, seek compensation for past and future
costs of special monitoring they allege they need over and above
the medical monitoring all replacement heart valve patients
receive.  Some of the lawsuits seeking the cost of monitoring
have been initiated by patients who are asymptomatic and who
have no apparent clinical injury to date.

The Company has settled a number of these Silzone-related cases
and others have been dismissed.  Cases filed in the United
States in federal courts have been consolidated in the federal
district court for the district of Minnesota under Judge
Tunheim.  Judge Tunheim ruled against the Company on the issue
of preemption and found that the plaintiffs' causes of action
were not preempted by the U.S. Food and Drug Act.  The Company
sought to appeal this ruling, but the appellate court determined
that it would not review the ruling at this point in the
proceedings.

Certain plaintiffs have requested Judge Tunheim to allow some
cases to proceed as class actions. A number of class-action
complaints have been consolidated into one case. In response to
the requests of the claimants in these cases, Judge Tunheim has
issued several rulings concerning class action certification.
Although more detail is set forth in the orders issued by the
court, the result of these rulings is that Judge Tunheim
declined to grant class-action status to personal injury claims,
but granted class-action status for claimants from 17 states to
proceed with medical monitoring claims, so long as they do not
have a clinical injury. The court also indicated that a class
action could proceed under Minnesota's Consumer Protection
statutes.

The Company requested the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to
review Judge Tunheim's class certification orders. In a
September 2, 2004 order, the appellate court indicated it would
accept the appeal of Judge Tunheim's certification orders. The
issues have now been briefed and the oral argument concerning
the appeal was held on June 20, 2005. It is not expected that
the appellate court would complete its review and issue a
decision concerning the appeal of Judge Tunheim's rulings
regarding class certification until sometime in 2006.

In addition to the class-type claims, as of July 28, 2005, there
are 14 individual Silzone cases pending in various federal
courts where plaintiffs are each requesting damages ranging from
$10 thousand to $120.5 million and, in some cases, seeking an
unspecified amount. These cases are proceeding in accordance
with the orders issued by Judge Tunheim. Not counting certain
cases in Texas which have been dismissed but are now on appeal,
there are also 27 individual state court suits concerning
Silzone products pending as of July 28, 2005, involving 35
patients. The complaints in these cases each request damages
ranging from $50 thousand to $100 thousand and, in some cases,
seek an unspecified amount. These state court cases are
proceeding in accordance with the orders issued by the judges in
those matters.

In addition, a lawsuit seeking a class action for all persons
residing in the European Economic Union member jurisdictions who
have had a heart valve replacement and/or repair procedure using
a product with Silzone coating was filed in Minnesota state
court and served upon the Company on February 11, 2004, by two
European citizens who now live in Canada. The complaint seeks
damages in an unspecified amount for the class, and in excess of
$50 thousand for the representative plaintiff individually.  The
complaint also seeks injunctive relief in the form of medical
monitoring. The Company is opposing the plaintiffs' pursuit of
this case on jurisdictional, procedural and substantive grounds.

There are also four class-action cases and one individual case
pending against the Company in Canada. In one such case in
Ontario, the court certified that a class action may proceed
involving Silzone patients.  The Company's request for leave to
appeal the rulings on certification was rejected. A second case
seeking class action in Ontario has been stayed pending
resolution of the other Ontario action, and the matter seeking
class action in British Columbia is also proceeding but is in
its early stages. A court in the Province of Quebec has
certified a class action, and that matter is proceeding per the
orders in that court.

In the United Kingdom, one case involving one plaintiff is
pending as of July 28, 2005. The Particulars of Claim in that
case was served on December 21, 2004. The plaintiff in this case
requests damages equivalent to approximately $365 thousand U.S.
dollars. In Ireland, one case involving one plaintiff is pending
as of July 28, 2005.  The complaint in this case was served on
December 30, 2004, and seeks an unspecified amount in damages.  
In France, one case involving one plaintiff is pending as of
July 28, 2005. It was initiated by way of an Injunctive Summons
to Appear that was served on November 3, 2004, and requests
damages in excess of 3 million Euros.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Faces Personal Injury Suits V. Symmetry Device
----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical Inc. continues to face litigation alleging
bodily injury caused by its Symmetry Bypass System Aortic
Connector (Symmetry device.

As of July 28, 2005, there are 24 cases in the United States
pending against the Company which allege that the Symmetry
device caused bodily injury or might cause bodily injury. In
addition, a number of persons have made a claim against the
Company involving the Symmetry device without filing a lawsuit.

The first lawsuit involving the Symmetry device was filed
against the Company on August 5, 2003, and the most recently
initiated case was filed against the Company on July 28, 2005.
Each of the complaints in these cases request damages ranging
from $50 thousand to $1 million and, in some cases, seek an
unspecified amount. Four of the 24 cases are seeking class-
action status. It appears that the plaintiffs in those cases
seeking class-action status seek or will seek damages for
injuries and monitoring costs. One of the cases seeking class-
action status has been dismissed, but the dismissal is being
appealed by the plaintiff. In a second case seeking class action
status, a Magistrate Judge has recommended that the matter not
proceed as a class-action, and the parties are presently
awaiting the court to review the Magistrate's decision. A third
case seeking class action status has been indefinitely stayed by
the court, and is presently inactive.  In the fourth case, the
trial judge denied class certification on July 26, 2005.

The Company's Symmetry device was cleared through a 510(K)
submission to the FDA, and therefore, the Company is unable to
rely on a defense under the doctrine of federal preemption that
such suits are prohibited. Given the Company's self-insured
retention levels under its product liability insurance policies,
the Company expects that it will be solely responsible for these
lawsuits, including any costs of defense, settlements and
judgments. Company management believes that class-action status
is not appropriate for the claims asserted based on the facts
and case law, the Company stated in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

During the third quarter of 2004, the number of lawsuits
involving the Symmetry device increased, and the number of
persons asserting claims outside of litigation increased as
well. With this background, the Company determined that it was
probable that future legal fees to defend the cases will be
incurred and the amount of such fees was reasonably estimable.
As a result, the Company recorded a pretax charge of $21.0
million in the third quarter of 2004 to accrue these costs.
Three lawsuits involving the product were initiated against the
Company during the second quarter of 2005, and the number of
additional claims asserted against the Company outside of the
litigation rose during the second quarter of 2005. Potential
losses arising from settlements or judgments of the cases and
claims are possible, but not estimable, at this time. The range
of such losses could be material to the operations, financial
position and liquidity of the Company.


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court OKs Suit Settlement Distribution
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York authorized the distribution of the settlement of the
securities class actions filed against Symbol Technologies,
Inc., certain members of its former management and its former
board of directors.

On March 5, 2002, a class action lawsuit, styled "Pinkowitz v.
Symbol Technologies, et al." was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between October 19,
2000 and February 13, 2002, inclusive.  The complaint alleged
that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by
issuing materially false and misleading statements throughout
the class period that had the effect of artificially inflating
the market price of Company securities.  

On March 21, 2003, a class action lawsuit, styled "Hoyle v.
Symbol Technologies, Inc., et al.," was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against the Company, certain members of its former management
and its former board of directors.  On May 7, 2003, a virtually
identical class action lawsuit was filed against the same
defendants by Joseph Salerno, styled "Salerno v. Symbol
Technologies, Inc., et al."

The Hoyle and Salerno complaints were brought on behalf of a
class of former shareholders of Telxon Corporation ("Telxon")
who obtained the Company's common stock in exchange for their
Telxon stock in connection with the Company's acquisition of
Telxon in November 2000. The complaint alleges that the
defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing a
Registration Statement and Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus in
connection with the Telxon acquisition that contained materially
false and misleading statements that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of our securities.

On June 3, 2004, the Company announced its settlement of the
Pinkowitz, Hoyle and Salerno class action lawsuits.  Under the
settlement, the Company agreed to pay to the class members an
aggregate of $1,750 in cash and an aggregate number of shares of
common stock having a market value of $96,250, subject to a
minimum and maximum number of shares based upon the volume-
weighted moving average trading price of its common stock for
the five day period immediately prior to its payment of the
common stock to the class ("Determined Price"). If the
Determined Price was greater than $16.41 per share, then the
Company would issue 5,865.3 shares of its common stock to the
class. If the Determined Price was between $16.41 per share and
$11.49 per share, then the Company would issue to the class the
number of shares of common stock equal to a market value of
$96,250 divided by the Determined Price. If the Determined Price
was less than $11.49 per share, the Company will issue 8,376.8
shares of its common stock to the class.

The settlement also provided that the Company would have the
right to pay up to an additional $6,000 in cash to reduce the
number of shares of its common stock that it is required to
deliver in an amount equal to the amount of additional cash
divided by the Determined Price. If the Company does not deliver
its common stock as required by the settlement agreement within
the ten days of such requirement, the lead counsel for the
plaintiffs may terminate the settlement agreement.

The court held a fairness hearing regarding the settlement on
October 4, 2004 and approved the fairness of the settlement by
an order entered on October 20, 2004.  On November 17, 2004, the
Company delivered 586.5 shares, or 10% of the settlement amount
(at $16.41 per share), as satisfaction of the plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees incurred as of October 2004, pursuant to the
court's order. On July 21, 2005, the court entered a final
distribution order authorizing the distribution of the shares to
the class.

The final Determined Price was calculated to be $11.606. As a
result, the Company is required to deliver 8,293.1 shares of its
common stock pursuant to the settlement, which includes the
586.5 shares of common stock delivered in November 2004 as
satisfaction of the plaintiffs' attorneys fees.  On August 3,
2005, the Company tendered 7,706.6 shares for distribution,
which was the balance of the shares required to be issued under
the court-approved settlement, pursuant to the distribution
instructions from the claims administrator.

As of June 30, 2005, the Company reflected $79,539 as accrued
litigation costs in our current liabilities, a decrease of
$7,086 from December 31, 2004 due to the Company marking to
market the shares as a result of the Determined Price falling
below $11.49 per share, which resulted in a $7,086 benefit to
operating expenses in the three and six months ended June 30,
2005. As the final Determined Price was calculated to be $11.606
on July 21, 2005, the Company will record a pre-tax mark to
market charge of $7,086 in the three months ended September 30,
2005. Included in the Company's basic and diluted shares
outstanding at June 30, 2005 is 8,376.8 shares for shares that
would have been issued under this settlement agreement.

      
                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN ITALIAN: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in MO
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri on behalf of all securities
purchasers of American Italian Pasta Company (NYSE: PLB) ("AIPC"
or the "Company") from October 25, 2000 through August 9, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges AIPC, Timothy S. Webster, Horst W.
Schroeder, George D. Shadid, and Warren B. Schmidgall with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. AIPC engages
in the production and marketing of dry pasta in North America.
According to the Complaint, the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the defendants failed to properly expense $6.6
         million in promotional allowances and related customer
         deduction receivables during the Class Period;

     (2) that defendants failed to take timely write downs for
         spare parts inventory, which caused the Company to take
         a $5.4 million charge;

     (3) that defendants maintained inadequate reserves for slow
         moving, damaged and discontinued inventories;

     (4) that the Company failed to record $1.9 million in
         certain fixed asset retirements during the Class
         Period;

     (5) that as a result of this, the Company's financial
         results were in violation of generally accepted
         accounting principles ("GAAP");

     (6) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

     (7) that as a result of the above, the Company's financial
         results were materially inflated at all relevant times.

On August 9, 2005, after the market closed, AIPC announced a
$60.7 million charge and a Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") inquiry. More specifically, the Company stated the SEC
was investigating it for various unspecified financial
restatements and for transactions of the company's stock by
outsiders in late 2004 and early 2005, for which the Company had
received inquiries from the New York Stock Exchange and the
Philadelphia Stock Exchange. Additionally, the Company stated
that it was delaying the release of its full financial results
for the third fiscal quarter ended July 1, 2005, and was also
delaying the filing of its third quarter Form 10-Q with the SEC.
Moreover, AIPC stated that its Audit Committee is conducting an
internal investigation of certain accounting procedures and
practices and certain other matters.

On news of this, shares of AIPC fell $7.66 per share, or 36.58
percent, to close at $13.28 per share on unusually high trading
volume.

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, Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com.


CUSTOM DESIGNED: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NM
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Mexico on behalf of all persons who purchased the common
stock of Custom Designed Compressor Systems, Inc. (OTC: CPYJ.PK;
formerly OTC: CPYJ and CUPY) between September 14, 2004 and
October 22, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that the Company violated federal
securities laws by issuing materially false or misleading public
statements. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that press
releases describing the Company as a profitable and successful
business were false or misleading given that, in reality, the
Company owned few assets and its repeated claims of revenue
streams, lucrative contracts with major producers and unique
compressor technologies were gross exaggerations of its actual
operations. On February 28, 2005, the Company announced that the
SEC had filed a complaint charging the Company with securities
law violations.

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


PATTERSON COMPANIES: Charles J. Piven Lodges MN Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 Patterson
Companies, Inc. (NASDAQ: PDCO) between February 24, 2005 and May
25, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota against defendant Patterson 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 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.


PATTERSON COMPANIES: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota, on behalf of purchasers of Patterson Companies, Inc.
(NASDAQ: PDCO) publicly traded securities during the period
between February 24, 2005 and May 25, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The complaint charges Patterson and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Patterson distributes dental, companion-pet veterinary and
rehabilitation supplies.

The complaint alleges that the Company's Q4 was historically its
largest quarter in terms of both revenue and earnings, but that
defendants knew by February 2005 that the Company's Q4 and FY
2005 sales, operating profit, operating profit margin, net
income and gross margin would actually decline materially in Q4
2005 and that based on business conditions knowable and then
known to the defendants, the Company's Q4 and FY 2005 EPS
targets were impossible to meet. According to the complaint,
defendants knew missing the Company's Q4 estimates would not
only be detrimental to the Company's share price, sending the
Company's shares into a freefall, but also evidence the
Company's inability to successfully grow the Company through
acquisitions.

The complaint further alleges that as a result of the
defendants' false and misleading Class Period statements,
Patterson's stock traded at inflated levels during the Class
Period, increasing to its historical all-time high of $53.85 per
share, allowing the Company's top officers and directors to sell
more than $44 million worth of their own shares at inflated
prices. The Company's true financial status, including its Q4
2005 declining gross sales, declining Dental Supply segment
sales, declining Dental Supply operating profits, declining
Dental Supply operating profit margin, declining net income and
declining gross margin growth, was ultimately disclosed on May
26, 2005. On May 26, 2005, following defendants' revelations,
the Company's share price plummeted 14%, erasing $1.1 billion in
market capitalization as it fell below $46 per share on record
volume of over 10 million shares traded.

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


PRESTIGE HOLDINGS: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Prestige Brands
Holdings, Inc. ("Prestige" or the "Company") (NYSE:PBH) pursuant
and or tracable to the Company's Initial Public Offering ("IPO")
on or about February 9, 2005 through July 28, 2005, inclusive,
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Prestige and
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 ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated 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 IPO of
Prestige common stock, which took place on or about February 9,
2005, was false and misleading because it failed to disclose
that the Company's sales were deteriorating in three of its
major business segments, that the Company's strategy of making
acquisitions was hurting its core competencies, and that as a
result of the above, Defendants' positive statements regarding
the Company's growth and outlook were lacking any reasonable
basis when made.

On July 27, 2005. Prestige announced that the Company's revenues
would fall below expectations. In reaction to this news, shares
of Prestige fell $8.14 per share, or 40.6% on July 28, 2005 to
close at $11.90 per share.

For more details, contact Mark S. Goldman, Esq. of Goldman
Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-753-2796, E-mail:
info@gsk-law.com.


WORKSTREAM INC.: 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 Workstream,
Inc. (NASDAQ: WSTM) between January 14, 2005 and April 14, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. 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 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.


WORKSTREAM INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel 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 the
common stock of Workstream, Inc. (Nasdaq: WSTM) between January
14, 2005, and April 14, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that, throughout the relevant period, the
defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented material
adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them and which caused the defendants to issue
materially false and misleading financial statements and
projections which, among other things, caused the price of
Workstream stock to trade at artificially inflated prices. The
complaint alleges, for example, that defendants purposefully
overstated and exaggerated Workstream's projected revenues and
earnings, and other related measures of the company's financial
condition, by improperly recognizing revenue for sales of
software using inapplicable "percentage of completion"
accounting methodologies.

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



                            *********


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  * * *