---

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

             Tuesday, August 23, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 166

                         Headlines

ATLANTIC INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Products For Undeclared Sulfites
BELL CANADA: Inks Settlement For Canada Debenture Holders' Suit
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: CA Employee Wage Suit Settlement Paid in Full
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Enters Arbitration For CA Overtime Wage Suit
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Former Employee Launches Overtime Suit in CA

BLUE RIDGE: Jury Awards $2M in Suit Over Pigeon River Pollution
CALIFORNIA: Suit Filed V. State Governor Over Education Funding
CARRIER ACCESS: CO Court Orders Securities Suits Consolidated
COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Law Firm Voluntarily Dismisses Fraud Suit
COSINE COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Drop Suit V. Tut Systems Deal

COCA-COLA CO.: Receives $99 Mil Share in Corn Syrup Settlement
GAMBRO DASCO: Issues Worldwide Safety Alert For Prisma Systems
HSBC FINANCE: Asks NY Court To Dismiss NY Antitrust Fraud Suit
INTERPOOL INC.: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE: Hails IL Court's Ruling In State Farm Case

MASSACHUSETTS: Firm Says Medicare Suit Certification Very Likely
MCKESSON CORPORATION: Customers File MA AWP Price Antitrust Suit
MCKESSON CORPORATION: Submits Revised Settlement To CA Court
MEDTRONIC INC.: Suit V. Faulty Defibrillators Being Heard in TX
MERCK & CO.: TX Jury Awards Wife $253.5 Mil in Critical Verdict

MERCK & CO.: Australian Attorneys To Launch Lawsuit v. Vioxx
MICHIGAN: Judge Delays Hearing For Suit V. Saginaw County Jail
PPG INDUSTRIES: Glass Antitrust Litigation Proceeds in W.D. PA
SKY FINANCIAL: Released By 10 Plaintiffs in Ohio Consumer Suit
WEST BEND: Recalls 14T Carafes, Replacements For Injury Hazard

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN ITALIAN: Abbey Gardy Examines Securities Fraud Claims
ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in PA
BRANTLEY CAPITAL: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
HOST AMERICA: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
ISOLAGEN INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX

MERCURY INTERACTIVE: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit
PATTERSON COMPANIES: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in MN
RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: Murray Frank Files Securities Suit in NY
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Abraham Fruchter Lodges Stock Suit in NY
TREX COMPANY: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in VA

UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY

                       *********


ATLANTIC INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Products For Undeclared Sulfites
----------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic International is recalling Casale Sun-Dried Tomatoes
2003 crop; are packed in five-pound bags, and labeled "Product
of Turkey." The product was sold to customers in the following
states: New Jersey, New York, California, Maryland, Rhode
Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Louisiana and Florida.

The New York State Department of Agriculture and Market Food
Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the product by Food
Laboratory personnel revealed the presence of undeclared
sulfites in Casale Sun-Dried Tomatoes in packages, which did not
declare sulfites on the label, initiated the recall after
routine sampling. The consumption of ten milligrams of sulfites
per serving have been reported to elicit severe reactions in
some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain
sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or
more of sulfites.

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

Consumers who have purchased Casale Sun-Dried Tomatoes should
return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may
contact the company at 1-800-724-4837.


BELL CANADA: Inks Settlement For Canada Debenture Holders' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bell Canada International Inc. ("BCI") and BCE Inc. ("BCE")
reached an agreement for the dismissal of a class action seeking
damages of $250 million commenced by former holders of BCI's
$250 million 6.75% convertible unsecured subordinated debentures
against BCI, BCE and certain current and former Directors of
BCI. The agreement, which is subject to approval of the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice (the "Court"), provides for the
dismissal of the action as against all Defendants and will
completely dispose of the litigation without any payment by any
such Defendants in respect of damages.

A similar action commenced by the Caisse de depot et placement
du Quebec ("Caisse") with respect to the Caisse's holdings of
BCI's $150 million 6.5% convertible unsecured subordinated
debentures will be disposed of on the same basis, pursuant to an
agreement previously reached with the Caisse.

The agreement also provides that BCI, which is operating under a
court supervised Plan of Arrangement, will consent to a motion
by the class for Court approval of payment by BCI, under section
192(4) of the Canada Business Corporations Act, of an amount of
$3 million, representing a portion of class counsel's fees and
disbursements for the representation of the class. A substantial
portion of that sum will be funded by BCI's insurer.

For more details, contact Howard Hendrick, Bell Canada
International, Phone: (514) 392-2260, E-mail:
howard.hendrick@bci.ca.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: CA Employee Wage Suit Settlement Paid in Full
---------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Restaurants, Inc. paid in full the settlement of the class
action filed against it in the Superior Court of California for
the County of Orange by a former employee, on behalf of himself
and other former and current Company employees similarly
situated and working in California.

The complaint alleges that the Company violated provisions of
the California Labor Code covering meal and rest beaks for
employees, along with associated acts of unfair competition and
seeks payment of wages for all meal and rest breaks allegedly
denied to the Company's California employees for the period from
October 1, 2000 to the present.

The Company reached an agreement with the class counsel to
settle the meal and rest break class action case pending in
California, and the settlement has been approved by the court.
The amount of the settlement was developed from mediation, which
was concluded in December 2003.  The amount of the settlement
was reduced to $900,000 based upon subsequent court
determination.  


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Enters Arbitration For CA Overtime Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Restaurants, Inc. entered arbitration in relation to the
class action filed against it in the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles, by a former Company
employee on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated.

The suit alleging causes of action for:

     (1) failure to pay reporting time minimum pay;

     (2) failure to allow meal breaks;

     (3) failure to allow rest breaks;

     (4) waiting time penalties;

     (5) civil penalties;

     (6) reimbursement for fraud and deceit;

     (7) punitive damages for fraud and deceit; and

     (8) disgorgement of illicit profits.

On June 28, 2004, the Plaintiff stipulated to dismiss her
second, third, fourth, and fifth causes of action. During
September 2004, the Plaintiff stipulated to arbitration of the
action.  No further court action has been taken since that date.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Former Employee Launches Overtime Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Restaurants, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Los
Angeles Superior Court in California by a former employee,
alleging various wage claims, including failure to pay overtime
wages and failure to provide meal and rest breaks.

The plaintiff also alleges causes of action for contract
rescission and negligence based upon the Company's alleged
failure to properly classify certain employees as "non-exempt"
under California's overtime laws.  Finally, the plaintiff
alleges a cause of action for unfair business practices under
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.
The plaintiff purported to bring the causes of action in the
complaint on behalf of a class of current and former employees
comprised of all individuals who worked as salaried kitchen
managers in the Company's California restaurants at any time
from June 2001 to the present.


BLUE RIDGE: Jury Awards $2M in Suit Over Pigeon River Pollution
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Cocke County Circuit Court jury awarded $2 million in damages
to Tennessee landowners along the Pigeon River for continuing
pollution from a paper mill upstream in Western North Carolina,
The Asheville Citizen-Times reports.

The verdict was reached after nearly a week of testimony in the
third class action lawsuit since the 1990s against Blue Ridge
Paper Co. and its predecessor, Champion International, over the
Canton mill.  The first case ended with a hung jury and a $6
million settlement for the landowners, while the second suit,
which was filed in 1998 ended with a $2.7 million pretrial
settlement.

Gordon Ball, the landowners' attorney told The Asheville
Citizen-Times, "We are very pleased with the verdict. The jury
found that Blue Ridge still creates a nuisance on the river, and
the river is not as clean as it could or should be."

Defense attorney Kyle Carpenter though told The Asheville
Citizen-Times that he was disappointed with the verdict. He also
said that "we will consider all our options," which could
include an appeal.

Under the verdict, 303 landowners would likely split the damage
award equally, which is about $4,300 apiece after legal fees.
Mr. Ball sought $74,000 each, or about $22.4 million.  The mill,
about 30 miles from the Tennessee-North Carolina border, has
been using the Pigeon River in its manufacturing processes since
it opened in 1908, sending toxins and foamy, tea-colored
effluent downstream.

Champion made significant improvements in reducing these
discharges in the early 1990s before selling the mill to Blue
Ridge, an employee- and investor-owned enterprise.  However, the
mill is still unable to meet federal and North Carolina color
standards and is currently operating under a variance from the
federal Clean Water Act with operating permit expiring in
November 2006.

Although Tennessee lifted its restrictions on eating fish caught
in the Pigeon in 2003, North Carolina's restrictions remain in
place, according to Mr. Ball. While whitewater rafting has
picked up with some 120,000 people rafting this summer, Mr. Ball
told The Asheville Citizen-Times that local rafters still refer
to the Pigeon River as the "Dirty Bird."

Mr. Ball also told The Asheville Citizen-Times that the latest
lawsuit covered damages since 2000, and he is already planning
his next lawsuit against Blue Ridge. He added, "I'm going to sue
them every three years until I die."

In May, Blue Ridge CEO Richard Lozyniak told The Asheville
Citizen-Times that the company is spending $8.2 million over 11
months to reduce volatile organic compound emissions at the mill
and improve regional air quality. He pointed out, "Since the
formation of Blue Ridge Paper Products in 1999, we have invested
more than $25 million in environmental improvements, because we
know our future depends on our ability to meet environmental
expectations as well as the competitive demands of the
international marketplace."


CALIFORNIA: Suit Filed V. State Governor Over Education Funding
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lysa Sassman, a teacher for first-graders at Rock Creek School
is one of two California teachers named as plaintiffs in a class
action lawsuit filed against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, The
Auburn Journal reports.

The plaintiffs, which includes: Jack O'Connell, California
superintendent of public instruction, and Barbara Kerr,
president of the California Teachers Association, are suing the
governor to restore $3.1 billion in education funding.

Ms. Sassman, who represents teachers as president of the Auburn
Union Teachers Association, told The Auburn Journal that she was
approached by state union leaders and asked to be a part of the
suit. She points out, "This is the first legal action I've ever
been involved in my life. I've never even been in small claims
court before."

Additionally, Ms. Sassman told The Auburn Journal that she's
fired up enough to get politically active, because it isn't
right to see schools being forced to cut programs. Her 7-year-
old daughter Katie, who attends school near her Grass Valley
home, is also named as one of the plaintiffs in the suit. She
told The Associated Press that it isn't fair that her daughter's
school and those within the Auburn Union Elementary School
District have been short-changed by the governor.

She recounted an event for The Auburn Journal that happened last
year, wherein she escorted her class past a library that had
been closed due to budget cuts. She pointed out, "A library
shouldn't be considered a luxury or an extravagance. It's a
basic necessity for a school."

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs claim that they struck a deal
during a meeting with Gov. Schwarzenegger in December 2003. In
that meeting, according educators, they agreed to accept $2
billion in cuts to help the newly elected governor balance the
2004-05 state budget. To do that, lawmakers had to suspend
Proposition 98, the voter-approved funding guarantee for
schools.  In return, the governor promised that schools would
get more money if state revenues increased more than expected,
according to Mr. O'Connell.

However, Gov. Schwarzenegger has denied there was a promise to
share the excess revenue with schools. Since the funding
guarantee was suspended, the schools were not entitled to a
share of the billions of unanticipated income tax revenue
California took in, administration officials said.

Ken Campbell, Placer County Republican Party chairman, agreed
and described the lawsuit as "silly." He explained that the
governor has increased the education budget by 7 percent and
given education a $3 billion increase this year. He adds that
education spending has gone from $35 billion to $50 billion in
seven years. He thus pointed out to The Auburn Journal, "By
anyone's measure that's an increase in spending. This (the
lawsuit) really makes me mad. ... You cannot claim there's a
cut. If you give someone $3 billion more, that's an increase."

Ms. Sassman though told The Auburn Journal that schools are
guaranteed their share of tax revenue under Proposition 98 and
she will continue to fight the governor for the rights of
students around the state. She also told The Auburn Journal, "I
think an equitable education is the basis for our whole society
in this country. It's what allows anybody to become anything
they want."


CARRIER ACCESS: CO Court Orders Securities Suits Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court of Colorado ordered
consolidated three purported shareholder class action lawsuits
filed against Carrier Access Corporation and certain of its
officers and directors.

The cases, captioned "Croker v. Carrier Access Corporation, et
al., Case No. 05-cv-1011-LTB;" "Chisman v. Carrier Access
Corporation, et al., Case No. 05-cv-1078-REB," and "Sved v.
Carrier Access Corporation, et al, Case No. 05-cv-1280-EWN," are
purportedly brought on behalf of those who purchased the
Company's publicly traded securities between October 21, 2003
and May 20, 2005.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants made false and misleading
statements, purport to assert claims for violations of the
federal securities laws, and seek unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief. The complaints are based upon
allegations of wrongdoing in connection with the Company's
announcement of its intention to restate previously issued
financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2004 and
certain interim periods in each of the years ended December 31,
2004 and 2003.


COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Law Firm Voluntarily Dismisses Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Vianale & Vianale, LLP, voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice its securities fraud class action complaint
against Cogent Communications, Inc. (AMEX: COI), filed August 3,
2005 in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Case
No. 05-cv-01562).

As previously reported in the August 5, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, the law firms of Vianale & Vianale LLP
and King Pagano Harrison initiated the securities fraud class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Cogent Communications Group, Inc. between February 14, 2005 and
June 7, 2005, inclusive.

The action is pending before Judge Richard J. Leon in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia against
Cogent and company executives David Schaeffer and Thaddeus G.
Weed.

According to the complaint, defendants failed to publicly
disclose that Cogent intended to sell shares of Cogent common
stock in a secondary public offering at a materially reduced
price from the stock's then-current market price. Defendants
knew or recklessly disregarded that the sale of Cogent common
stock at a material discount to its trading price would cause a
steep decline in the market price of its shares held by
plaintiff and other class members. After Cogent announced that
it would sell 10,000,000 shares of its stock at $6.00 a share,
the stock price fell 29.4%.

For more details, contact Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq. or Julie Prag
Vianale, Esq. of Vianale & Vianale, LLP, 2499 Glades Road, Suite
112, Boca Raton, FL, 33431, Phone: (561) 392-4750 or
888-657-9960, Web site: http://www.vianalelaw.comOR Keith J.  
Harrison, Esq. of of King Pagano Harrison, 1730 Pennsylvania
Ave., N.W.
Suite 900, Washington, D.C., 20006, Phone: (202) 371-6800, Web
site: http://www.kph.com.


COSINE COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Drop Suit V. Tut Systems Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their class action filed against
CoSine Communications, Inc. in San Mateo County Superior Court
in California, related to its planned merger with Tut Systems,
Inc.

On January 7, 2005, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Tut Systems, Inc. in a stock-for-stock
transaction pursuant to which it will merge into a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Tut Systems, Inc. Tut Systems, Inc. will issue
approximately 6.0 million shares of its common stock to the
shareholders of the Company.  The merger is subject to
shareholder approval and normal closing conditions.

On January 18, 2005, the Company and each of its directors and
officers were named as defendants in a class action lawsuit
filed on behalf of Company shareholders. The complaint alleges
that the Company's directors and officers breached their
fiduciary duty to the corporation in connection with the
proposed merger with Tut Systems, Inc. and requests that the
merger be enjoined.  This suit was dismissed in May 2005 at the
request of the plaintiffs.


COCA-COLA CO.: Receives $99 Mil Share in Corn Syrup Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Coca-Cola Company received approximately $99 million related
to the settlement of a class action lawsuit concerning price-
fixing in the sale of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) purchased
by the Company during the years 1991 to 1995.

The suit, styled "In re: High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust
Litigation Master File No. 95-1477," filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of Illinois," relates to
purchases of high fructose corn syrup made by the Company and
others.  About 20 corn syrup buyers initially filed the suit in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
Illinois against several corn processors, alleging that they
violated antitrust laws from 1988 to 1995 by conspiring to
artificially inflate the price of high fructose corn syrup.  
About 2,000 plaintiffs joined the suit, including Coca-Cola Co.,
PepsiCo Inc., Kraft Foods Inc. and Quaker Oats, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (July 30,2004) states.

In July 2004, the parties in the suit forged a $531 million
settlement for the suit.  The settlement amount was allocated to
each class action recipient based on the proportion of its
purchases of high fructose corn syrup from these suppliers
during the period 1991 through 1995 to the total of such
purchases by all class action recipients.  

Subsequent to the receipt of this settlement, the Company
distributed approximately $57 million to certain bottlers in
North America.  From 1991 to 1995, the Company purchased HFCS on
behalf of these bottlers.  Therefore, these bottlers were
ultimately entitled to a portion of the proceeds of the
settlement.  Of the $57 million the Company distributed
to certain bottlers in North America, approximately $44 million
was distributed to Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. (CCE).  The
Company's remaining share of the settlement was $42 million,
which was recorded as a reduction of cost of goods sold and
impacted the Corporate operating segment.

The suit is styled "In Re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust
Litigation, Master File No. 95-1477," filed in the United States
District court for the Central District of Illinois, Peoria
Division.  Representing the plaintiffs were:

     (1) Mr. Michael J. Freed of Much Shelist Freed Denenberg
         Ament Bell & Rubenstein, P.C., 200 N. LaSalle Street,
         Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60601-1095

     (2) Mr. Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox, LLP
         805 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022

     (3) Mr. H. Laddie Montague, Jr., Berger & Montague, P.C.
         1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365


GAMBRO DASCO: Issues Worldwide Safety Alert For Prisma Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gambro Dasco S.p.A, a production unit within Gambro Renal
Products, is issuing a worldwide Safety Alert for the Prismar
continuous renal replacement system (all catalog numbers).

Gambro Dasco has become aware of several serious injuries and
deaths relating to the use of its Prisma System. As a result,
caregivers must pay particular attention to the "Incorrect
Weight Change Detected" alarm. This alarm should never be
overridden without first identifying and removing the cause of
the alarm. The injuries and deaths are the result of excessive
ultrafiltration (fluid being removed from the patient's body).
This problem can occur when the user does not address the cause
of the "Incorrect Weight Change Detected" alarm. The device
remains appropriate for use when these directions are followed.

"Gambro's top priority is the health and safety of the patients
we serve," emphasizes Nick Mendez, President Gambro Renal
Products Americas. "We take very seriously any situation that
may be linked to our products in any way. We are cooperating
fully with the FDA to issue a Safety Alert to our customers, and
we are committed to thoroughly investigating and promptly
responding to this issue."

As a follow-up to this Safety Alert, Gambro will initiate an
Advisory Notice and Field Corrective Action in the immediate
future. This Action will include updated Prisma System
Operator's Manuals with an additional warning; a label for
customers to place on machines; and enhanced training
specifically addressing the "Incorrect Weight Change Detected"
alarm. It is imperative that users follow the manufacturer's
Instructions For Use, Operator's Manual, and the User Interface
of the Prisma System.

Customers in the U.S. with questions or concerns about the
Prisma System or this Safety Alert, should contact Gambro Renal
Products, Inc., Intensive Care Therapy Specialists at
1-800-525-2623. For customers outside the U.S., contact your
local country manager or sales representative.


HSBC FINANCE: Asks NY Court To Dismiss NY Antitrust Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Finance Corporation asked the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York to dismiss the class
action filed against it, Household Bank (SB), N.A. and others,
styled "American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.
v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., et al."

The suit alleges the defendants violated Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act by conspiring to monopolize and unreasonably
restrain trade by allegedly implementing and enforcing an
agreement requiring any United States bank that issues Visa or
MasterCard general cards to refuse to issue such cards from
competitors, such as American Express and Discover. Plaintiff
seeks a declaration that defendants in this action (including
Visa, MasterCard and other banks belonging to those
associations), have violated the antitrust laws, and requests an
injunction restraining the defendants, their directors,
officers, employees, agents, successors, owners and members from
"continuing or maintaining in any manner, directly or
indirectly, the rules, policies, and agreements at issue," and
seeks "full compensation for damages it has sustained, from each
Defendant, jointly, severally," for each of plaintiff's claims,
in an amount "to be trebled according to law, plus interest,
attorneys' fees and costs of suit."

On February 18, 2005, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.  The court
has yet to rule on the motion.

The suit is styled "In re: Currency Conversion Litigation, case
no. 1:01-md-01409-WHP," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge William
H. Pauley III.  Representing the plaintiffs are Goldberg, Kohn,
Bell, Black, Rosenbloom & Moritz, Ltd., 55 East Monroe Street,
Suite 3700, Chicago, Illinois 60603 and Lerach Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 288-4545, Fax:
(415) 288-4534.


INTERPOOL INC.: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
granted the motion to dismiss the consolidated class action
complaint that was filed in September 2004 against Interpool,
Inc. and others related to the restatement of the Company's
financial results for the years 2000 through 2002. The Court
dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims in their entirety and
with prejudice.

In February and March 2004, purchasers of the Company's common
stock filed several lawsuits against the Company and certain of
its present and former executive officers and directors.  The
complaints alleged violations of the federal securities laws
relating to the Company's reported Consolidated Financial
Statements for the years ended December 31, 2000 and 2001 and
the nine months ended September 30, 2002, which the Company
announced in March 2003 would require restatement.  Each of the
complaints purported to be a class action brought on behalf of
persons who purchased the Company's securities during a
specified period, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(November 14,2004) reports.

For more details, contact James F. Walsh of Interpool, Inc.,
609-452-8900, Web site: http://www.interpool.com.


KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE: Hails IL Court's Ruling In State Farm Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Illinois Supreme Court decision overturning a lower court
ruling in a national class action case involving aftermarket
crash parts entitled, Avery vs. State Farm Insurance Company,
represents a significant victory for consumers as aftermarket
collision replacement parts are a high quality cost-savings
alternative to original equipment, Keystone Automotive
Industries, Inc. (Nasdaq: KEYS) commented in a press release.

"The collision repair market is a $16 billion industry that is
76 percent controlled by automobile manufacturers. With an
estimated 20 to 40 percent savings over those parts supplied by
the automobile manufacturers, the utilization of aftermarket
generic collision replacement parts by the collision repair
industry represents an important alternative for consumers --
analogous to benefits to the healthcare industry from generic
brands," said Richard L. Keister, president and chief executive
officer of Keystone Automotive Industries.

Keystone believes that substantially all of the aftermarket
crash parts that it distributes are of like kind and quality to
OEM crash parts as defined by the Illinois Supreme Court
because, when installed in a competent manner by collision
repair shops, vehicles are restored to their pre-loss condition.


MASSACHUSETTS: Firm Says Medicare Suit Certification Very Likely
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a national class action lawsuit filed by Spector, Roseman &
Kodroff, P.C. on behalf of consumers and third party payors
claiming prescription drug overpayments, U.S. District Judge
Patti B. Saris indicated that she would certify a nationwide
class of Medicare Part B beneficiaries, if enough consumers
appeared and filed complaints by October 17, 2005.

According to Jeffrey L. Kodroff, one of the lead counsel for the
plaintiffs in In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale
Price Litigation, "Judge Saris offered a clear roadmap for class
certification to consumers covered by Medicare Part B who have
overpaid for physician administered drugs manufactured by
GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Schering-
Plough and Johnson & Johnson because the companies fraudulently
created, manipulated and inflated the cost of prescription
medication to consumers by overstating the average wholesale
price." In case filings, Kodroff, from the Philadelphia-based
law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., alleged that the
defendants knowingly inflated the average wholesale price or AWP
to cause beneficiaries of the Medicare Part B program, other
consumer patients and third party payors to overpay for drugs
used in treating cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and other chronic
illnesses.

Kodroff said Judge Saris stated earlier this week that she would
certify a nationwide class of Medicare Part B beneficiaries once
the complaint is amended to add individual class representatives
who pay all or a portion of their Medicare Part B co-payment for
their drugs. At that time she also certified a Massachusetts
statewide class for third party payors, offering supplemental
insurance to cover Medicare Part B co-pays and a Massachusetts
statewide class for any payments for brand name and generic
drugs, outside of the Medicare Part B arena, if the
reimbursement was explicitly based on average wholesale price.

The prescription drugs mentioned in this complaint include:
Alkeran, Blenoxane, Cytoxan, Etopophos, Kytril, Navelbine,
Paraplatin, Procrit, Remicade, Rubex, Taxol, Vepesid, Zofran,
Zoladex and Zovirax.

For more details, contact Jeffrey L. Kodroff or John A.
Macoretta of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., Phone:
1-888-844-5862, Web site: http://www.srk-law.com.


MCKESSON CORPORATION: Customers File MA AWP Price Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corporation faces a purported civil class action
complaint filed in the United States District Court, District of
Massachusetts, styled "New England Carpenters Health Benefits
Fund et al. v. First DataBank, Inc. and McKesson Corporation,
Civil Action No.05-11148."

The suit alleges that commencing in late 2001 and early 2002 and
continuing to the present day, the Company and co-defendant
First DataBank have effectuated increases in the "Average
Wholesale Price" of certain branded drugs, which alleged conduct
resulted in higher drug reimbursement payments by plaintiffs and
others similarly situated. The complaint purports to state
claims based on the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, violations of the California Business and
Professions Code and California Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
and for negligent misrepresentation.  The plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.

The suit is styled "1:05-cv-11148-PBS New England Carpenters
Health Benefits Fund et al v. First Databank, Inc., et al."
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, under Judge Patti B. Saris.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Thomas M. Sobol of Hagens Berman LLP, 26th Floor,
225 Franklin St., Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-482-3700, Fax:
617-482-3003, E-mail: Tom@hbsslaw.com.


MCKESSON CORPORATION: Submits Revised Settlement To CA Court
------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corporation and the lead plaintiff jointly submitted
revised settlement documents for the consolidated securities
class action filed against the Company, after the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California refused
to grant preliminary approval to the settlement.

The Company is seeking preliminary approval for the settlement.  
In a regulatory filing, the Company said that it believes that
the documents address and resolve the Court's objections;
however the Court has not yet ruled on this renewed request for
preliminary approval.

The suit arises out of a merger between McKesson Corporation
("McKesson") and HBO & Company ("HBOC") resulting in an entity
called McKesson HBOC, Inc. ("McKesson HBOC").  Beginning on June
29, 1999, 53 purported class actions were commenced in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. These actions were subsequently consolidated, and
the plaintiffs proceeded to file a series of amended complaints.
On February 15, 2002, plaintiffs filed their third amended
consolidated complaint, which alleges that Bear Stearns violated
Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with
allegedly false and misleading disclosures contained in a joint
proxy statement/prospectus that was issued with respect to the
McKesson/HBOC merger.

Plaintiffs purport to represent a class consisting of all
persons who either acquired publicly traded securities of HBOC
between January 20, 1997 and January 12, 1999, or acquired
publicly traded securities of McKesson or McKesson HBOC between
October 18, 1998 and April 27, 1999, and who held McKesson
securities on November 27, 1998 and January 22, 1999.  Named
defendants include McKesson HBOC, certain present and former
directors and/or officers of McKesson HBOC, McKesson and/or
HBOC, Bear Stearns and Arthur Andersen LLP. Compensatory damages
in an unspecified amount are sought.

On January 12, 2005, McKesson HBOC announced that it had reached
a settlement with the plaintiff class, which settlement must be
approved by the Court.  Bear Stearns's engagement letter with
McKesson in connection with the merger of McKesson and HBOC
provides that McKesson cannot settle any litigation without Bear
Stearns's written consent unless McKesson obtains an
unconditional written release for Bear Stearns and, under
certain circumstances, is required to provide indemnification to
Bear Stearns.

In his order, Judge Ronald M. Whyte denied "without prejudice"
the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.  The
order expressed the court's objection to two non-monetary
provisions of the settlement.  

The previously-reported actions pending in California Superior
Court captioned "Utah and Colorado State Retirement Boards v.
McKesson HBOC, Inc. et al. (Case No. 311269)" and "Minnesota
State Board of Investment v. McKesson HBOC, Inc. et al., (Case
No. 311747)" were settled in July 2005.  The remaining actions
consolidated in California Superior Court, "Yurick v. McKesson
HBOC, Inc. et al. (Case No. 303857)," "The State of Oregon by
and through the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Board v.
McKesson HBOC, Inc. et al. (Case No. 307619)" and "Merrill Lynch
Fundamental Growth Fund et al. v. McKesson HBOC, Inc. et al.
(Case No. CGC-02-405792)," have been assigned a revised trial
date of October 31, 2005. The "Merrill Lynch" plaintiffs have
moved for summary adjudication on their common law fraud claim,
and the hearing on that motion was continued from July 1, 2005,
to September 22, 2005.

Two previously-reported actions that were pending in Georgia
state courts, "Suffolk Partners Limited Partnership et al. v.
McKesson HBOC, Inc. et al. (Georgia State Court, Fulton County,
Case No. 00VS010469A)" and "Curran Partners, L.P. v. McKesson
HBOC, Inc. et al. (Georgia State Court, Fulton County, Case No.
00 VS 010801)," were settled in June 2005.

The suit is styled "In Re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 99-CV-20743," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, under
Judge Ronald M. Whyte.  Representing the Company are James E.
Lyons, Jonathan J. Lerner of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom,
Four Embarcadero Ctr, Ste 3800, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone:
(415) 984-6400.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (New York), 170 E. 61st Street,
         Second Floor, New York, NY, 10021, Phone: 212.688.0782,
         Fax: 212.688.0783, E-mail: info@barrack.com

     (2) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (San Diego), 402 West Broadway,
         San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 619.230.0800, Fax:
         619.230.1874, E-mail: info@barrack.com

     (3) Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New York,
         NY), 1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor, New York,
         NY, 10019, Phone: 212.554.1400, Fax: 212.554.1444, E-
         mail: blbg@blbglaw.com

     (4) Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (San Diego,
         CA), 12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150, San Diego, CA,
         92130, Phone: 858.793.0070, Fax: 858.793.0323, E-mail:
         blbg@blbglaw.com


MEDTRONIC INC.: Suit V. Faulty Defibrillators Being Heard in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Texarkana, Texas federal court is the battleground for a
national class action lawsuit concerning implanted heart
defibrillators manufactured by Medtronic Inc., The Texarkana
Gazette reports.

Filed by Nicholas H. Patton, a Texarkana attorney, the suit
alleges that certain defibrillators contain a defective battery
that causes shorting and an unpredictable loss of power without
warning. The suit lists 10 claims aimed at the defibrillators
that it contends are defective, which include: product
liability, breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty, fraud, constructive fraud, negligence, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of
emotional distress, violation of consumer protection statute and
declaratory relief and medical monitoring.

However, Medtronic's lawyers, James N. Haltom and Darby Doan,
contend that the allegations should "be dismissed because an
independent and individual analysis of each purported class
member's claims and Medtronic's discrete and individual
affirmative, legal and factual defenses thereto is required."
The attorneys also argued that a lot of the claims are barred
because of existing federal laws.  The company admits it
published a news release in February 2005 alerting the public
about the defibrillators. However, it maintains that the
defibrillators are not defective.

Mr. Patton's client, John Daniel, had his defibrillator
implanted in October 2002. The defibrillator is designed to
shock or pace the heart into normal rhythm after a patient
suffers rapid, life-threatening, heart rhythm disturbances
originating in the lower chambers of the heart that can lead to
sudden cardiac arrest.

According to the suit, "In consultation with his physicians, Mr.
Daniel is presently planning to undergo surgery to remove and
replace the defective implantable cardioverter-defibrillator."  
Medtronic's lawyers though maintain that the patients were
informed of the risks associated with the procedure to implant
the heart devices. Thus, they vehemently contend that the
Medtronic did not cause patients' injuries, if any existed.


MERCK & CO.: TX Jury Awards Wife $253.5 Mil in Critical Verdict
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Texas jury found Merck & Co., the maker of Vioxx, liable for
the death of Robert C. Ernst, awarding Mr. Ernst's wife $253.5
million, The Bayoubuzz.com reports.  

The court verdict could lay the precedent for 4,200 pending
suits over the drug Vioxx.  The next few days might be the most
critical for Merck. The question that the stock market will face
is whether the Texas case will resonate in the class action
cases that Merck is facing.

Texas resident Carol Ernst is seeking compensation for the death
of her husband Robert, allegedly of arrhythmia, in 2001.  Mr.
Ernst, a produce manager at a Wal-Mart near Fort Worth who ran
marathons and worked as a personal trainer, took Vioxx for eight
months to alleviate pain in his hands until he died in his
sleep, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 27,2005)
reports.

Ms. Ernst's lawsuit alleges that Merck & Co. knew of the dangers
of using Vioxx years before it recalled the drug.  However, the
Company allegedly ignored those concerns in favor of aggressive
marketing for a multibillion-dollar seller, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (July 27,2005) reports.

The Company's lawyers denied the charges, saying that the
company studied whether Vioxx caused arrhythmias in nine
clinical trials before the drug went on the market in May 1999
and found "no clinically meaningful differences" in patients who
took the painkiller compared to those who took sugar pills or
other anti-inflammatory pain relievers, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (July 28,2005) reports.  The lawyers further
asserted that the Company acted responsibly, disclosed studies
on Vioxx and believed it to be safe until results from the long-
term study last year prompted pulling the drug.

Mr. Lanier contends that a heart attack most likely killed Mr.
Ernst, not arrhythmia, but he died too quickly for his heart to
show damage.  Company lawyers have singled out Mr. Ernst's
autopsy, which attributed his death to arrhythmia, or an
irregular heartbeat, secondary to clogged arteries.  

The next damage case related to Vioxx usage will be in a federal
court in New Orleans, which is being presided by a judge who
handled primarily plaintiff personal injury cases when he was
practicing law. Compounding Merck's problems is the fact that
recently New Orleans' state court has returned some major
verdict in damage cases. The class action suit though is in
federal court rather than state court, which could have been a
disaster to Merck. Experts explained that the jury pool for the
federal court is broader and is more conservative then the New
Orleans state court.  

In the past, Merck has stated that it will litigate rather than
offer a settlement. However, it would appear that the recent
Houston case would need to be deciphered.  In a press statement,
Merck's general counsel, Kenneth C. Frazier said, "Friday's
verdict in Texas was a disappointment to all of us at Merck
because we know we acted responsibly. We believe we have
meritorious defenses, and we intend to vigorously defend
individual Vioxx cases one by one."

Unfortunately for Merck, the New Orleans jury will probably hear
many of the same facts such as "The possibility of increased
C.V. events is of great concern," Dr. Alise Reicin, a Merck
scientist, who wrote in a 1997 e-mail message.  C.V. means
cardiovascular issues such as strokes or heart attacks.

The Merck Stock fell almost 8 percent after the ruling was
handed down. The true test though, according to individuals
familiar with the matter is what will be the reaction once the
facts of the case become clearer and those facts possible impact
upon future litigation. Potentially, some claim that Merck might
have a potential liability between ten and twenty billion with
almost 20 million users of Vioxx over the year.  Obviously, the
use of Vioxx does not mean that the user was or has been damaged
by the medicine.


MERCK & CO.: Australian Attorneys To Launch Lawsuit v. Vioxx
-------------------------------------------------------------
Australian lawyers are set to launch a class action against the
manufacturers of dangerous anti-arthritis drug Vioxx after a
$253.5 million damages verdict was awarded to the widow of
Robert C. Ernst, who died in May 2001 after taking Vioxx, The
Melbourne Herald Sun reports.  In the first of thousands of
lawsuits pending across the world, the Texas jury found
pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co liable for the death of the
former Vioxx user.

Merck's senior vice president, Kenneth Frazier, said the company
would appeal.  Vioxx was withdrawn from sale in Australia in
October, after being linked to an increased risk of heart attack
and stroke.

According to Slater and Gordon special counsel Richard Meeran,
who welcomed the U.S. verdict, he felt confident of success in
Australia. Currently, the law firm is preparing to launch a
class action on behalf of about 100 Australians later this year.
Mr. Meeran told The Melbourne Herald Sun, "The result is what we
expected based on our own independent assessment. It is a strong
case."

Mr. Meeran also told The Melbourne Herald Sun that the
Australian litigants -- all of whom have had heart attacks and
used the pain reliever for at least 18 months -- had even
stronger cases than that of the late Mr. Ernst, whose widow
Carol was behind the legal action in Texas.  He claimed Merck
had known of the risks prior to the drug being released on the
market and that one of its own studies conducted in 2000 showed
it was dangerous.

At least 300,000 Australian arthritis sufferers had been using
the drug including Vioxx "super user" Ian Lewington of South
Melbourne, who is part of the class action. According to him, he
had used it for more than five years to control his debilitating
rheumatoid arthritis pain. "I was a Vioxx super user. I was
taking twice the amount of other people," he adds.

However, the 68-year-old is now convinced it was the trigger
behind the blood clot he developed only months after he started
taking the drug and the heart attack he had in August last year.
Mr. Lewington pointed out, "They knew it had detrimental effects
a long time before they raised the alarm, which is wrong. They
should be held accountable."


MICHIGAN: Judge Delays Hearing For Suit V. Saginaw County Jail
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge David M. Lawson delayed a key hearing in a
federal lawsuit filed by former Saginaw County Jail inmates who
claim jail guards abused them and held them naked for hours,
according to the plaintiffs' lawyer, The Saginaw News reports.

Flint attorney Christopher Pianto told The Saginaw News that the
judge is set to hear arguments on September 21, over whether to
certify as a class action the suit first filed by 22 inmates in
2003.  Originally set for August 3, Judge Lawson moved it to
allow more time to consider county lawyers' motions to tweak
their defenses against the inmates' claims, Mr. Pianto said.

Plaintiffs are suing for damages after Judge Lawson ruled last
winter that the Saginaw County's conduct was unconstitutional.  
The ruling also prompted an ongoing FBI probe that began in
April.

Plaintiffs represented by Mr. Pianto and his colleagues also
have leveled more claims, including physical and sexual abuse
all of which Sheriff Charles L. Brown repeatedly has denied.  
Judge Lawson has written in an opinion that the jail's policy of
naked detention qualified as "humiliating" and "demeaning."

Sheriff Brown though emphatically defended his deputies, who
stripped and held naked in solitary confinement pre-arraignment
detainees who were not jailed on violent charges or considered
threats to themselves.

Mr. Pianto told The Saginaw News that Judge Lawson may not
immediately rule on a class action, which could put the county
in greater financial peril over damage amounts. He adds though
that Judge Lawson's ruling will likely come in a written
decision days later.  

As previously reported in the March 31, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, the American Civil Liberties Union joined
two lawsuits against the Saginaw County Jail in Michigan over a
policy of stripping rowdy detainees and keeping them naked in
solitary confinement.


PPG INDUSTRIES: Glass Antitrust Litigation Proceeds in W.D. PA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court refused to review an appeals
court ruling reversing in part the dismissal of the consolidated
glass antitrust suit against PPG Industries, Inc. and various
other co-defendants in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania.

The Company has been named as a defendant, along with various
other co-defendants, in a number of antitrust lawsuits filed in
federal and state courts. These suits allege that the Company
acted with competitors to fix prices and allocate markets in the
flat glass and automotive refinish industries.

Twenty-nine glass antitrust cases were filed in federal courts,
all of which have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania.  The Court has ruled
that the case may proceed as a class action.  Similar state
court actions are inactive pending resolution of the federal
proceedings.  All of the initial defendants in the glass class
action antitrust case, other than the Company, have entered into
settlement agreements with the plaintiffs.

On May 29, 2003, the Court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment dismissing the claims against the Company in
the glass class action antitrust case. The plaintiffs in that
case appealed that order to the U.S. Third Circuit Court of
Appeals.  On September 30, 2004, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the dismissal of
the Company and remanded the case for further proceedings.  The
Company petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for permission to
appeal the decision of the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals,
however, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Company's petition
for review, and the case will likely proceed to trial in 2006.


SKY FINANCIAL: Released By 10 Plaintiffs in Ohio Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sky Financial Group has been partially released by 10 of 14
plaintiffs in the class action filed against it and other
lenders in the Court of Common Pleas, Erie County, Ohio, styled
"Scott M. Lukouski, et. al. vs. National Marine, Inc., Sky
Financial Group, Inc., et. al., Case No. 2004 CV 685."

In October 2004, the Company was one of the named defendant
lenders in the purported class action complaint seeking remedies
related to the financing of watercraft by Second National Bank
of Warren, a predecessor of Sky Bank.  In the acquisition, Sky
Financial assumed a portfolio of indirect boat loans originated
through National Marine, Inc.  The complaint alleges that
defendants engaged in fraudulent activities in connection with
the purchase, sale and financing of watercraft, and that
defendant lenders failed to follow prudent banking practices in
the purchase of commercial paper from National Marine.

The Company has received an executed partial release and
assignment from 10 of the 14 plaintiffs in the class action. The
terms of each partial release and assignment vary, and are
specific to the individual facts applicable to each plaintiff.


WEST BEND: Recalls 14T Carafes, Replacements For Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), West Bend Housewares LLC, of West Bend, Wisconsin is
voluntarily recalling about 14,000 units of 10-Cup Coffeemaker
Carafes and Replacement Carafes.

The carafe handle can unexpectedly loosen or break, resulting in
the carafe falling. This can cause burn injuries from hot coffee
or lacerations from broken glass. West Bend Housewares has
received 194 reports of the handles breaking, including three
reports of consumers receiving burns to their hands and arms.

The carafe is a 10-cup capacity glass pot with a black, plastic
handle. It is used with the West Bend Housewares 10-cup
Automatic Coffeemaker (item # 56870). The 10-cup replacement
carafe was sold separately (item # 5815). There is a four-digit
date code printed on the bottom of the coffeemaker. Date codes
beginning with 04 are included in this recall. Pictures of the
recalled carafes:

     (1) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml05/05246a.jpg

     (2) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml05/05246b.jpg

Manufactured in China, the carafes and their replacements were
sold at AAFES, Dillards, Bi-Mart and retail stores that sell
housewares from July 2004 through July 2005 for about $32. The
replacement carafe was sold separately for about $8.

Consumers should stop using the recalled carafes immediately and
contact West Bend Housewares to receive a replacement carafe
free of charge.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact West Bend
Housewares at (800) 874-4084 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.westbend.com.



                New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICAN ITALIAN: Abbey Gardy Examines Securities Fraud Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abbey Gardy, LLP is investigating securities
fraud claims against American Italian Pasta Company ("AIPC" or
the "Company") (NYSE:PLB) and certain of its officers and
directors.

A lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock
of AIPC between October 25, 2000 and August 9, 2005 (the "Class
Period"). The Complaint alleges that defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market during the Class
Period, thereby artificially inflating the price of AIPC
securities.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that

     (1) AIPC failed to disclose or misrepresented that the
         Company failed to properly expense $6.6 million in
         promotional allowances and deduction receivables;

     (2) the Company failed to take timely write-downs;

     (3) the Company maintained inadequate reserves for slow
         moving, damaged, and discontinued inventories;

     (4) the Company failed to record $1.9 million in certain
         fixed asset retirements; and

     (5) as a result the AIPC's financials were not prepared in
         accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles ("GAAP").

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, AIPC stated the SEC was
investigating the Company for various unspecified financial
restatements and for transactions of the company's stock by
outsiders in late 2004 and early 2005. Additionally, AIPC 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.

Abbey Gardy has not filed a lawsuit against the defendants;
however, if you purchased or otherwise acquired AIPC securities
and either lost money on the transaction or still hold the
securities and would like to know more about the case filed or
our investigation, please contact:

For more details, contact Susan Lee or Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. of
Abbey Gardy, LLP, Mail: 212 East 39th St., New York, NY, 10016,
Phone: (212) 889-3700 or (800) 889-3701 (Toll Free), E-mail:
slee@abbeygardy.com.


ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in PA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all
persons who purchased the common stock of ATI Technologies Inc.
(Nasdaq: ATYT) ("ATI") between October 7, 2004 and June 23, 2005
(the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that ATI violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that, during the Class
Period, ATI issued a series of materially false and misleading
statements regarding ATI's business and prospects and concealed
serious operations issues that would have a material effect on
its financial results. On June 6, 2005, ATI warned that its
revenue for the third quarter 2005 would fall well below its
previously announced forecast. On June 23, 2005, ATI reported a
quarterly loss of $445,000 compared to a profit of $48.6 million
in the third quarter 2004 and further reduced fourth quarter
2005 revenue expectations by $20-$50 million.

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


BRANTLEY CAPITAL: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm is investigating allegations that Brantley
Capital Corporation ("Brantley" or the "Company") (Pink Sheets:
BBDC) violated the federal securities laws by materially
misstating the value of certain assets on its balance sheet.

The Rosen Law Firm's investigation focuses on allegations that
Brantley overvalued its equity interest in Flight Options, which
represented approximately 43% of the total value of the
Company's assets since at least August 14, 2003.

As a result of these allegations of misconduct, the Rosen Law
Firm is considering filing a class action on behalf of investors
who purchased Brantley Capital stock during the period from
August 15, 2003 through 3, 2000 through June 2, 2004 against the
Company and its former management.

For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. of The Rosen Law
Firm P.A., Phone: (212) 686-1060, 1-866--767-3653 or
917-797-4425, Fax: (212) 202-3827, E-mail:
lrosen@rosenlegal.com, Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com.


HOST AMERICA: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on
behalf of purchasers of Host America Corporation ("Host
America") (NASDAQ:CAFE) publicly traded securities during the
period between July 12, 2005 and July 22, 2005 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Host America and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Host America operates employee cafeterias and executive
restaurants at corporations and develops energy conservation
software products and systems.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding a
purported agreement the Company had reached with Wal-Mart stores
for installation of its LightMaster Plus on the fluorescent
lighting system of ten Wal-Mart stores (as a first-phase roll-
out). As alleged in the Complaint, these statements were
materially false and misleading because defendants knew, but
failed to disclose:

     (1) that the Company's relationship with Wal-Mart was
         limited to a test installation;

     (2) that the Company had no agreement for any subsequent
         installations in other Wal-Mart stores; and

     (3) that as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
         statements describing this deal as a "first-phase roll-
         out, " that it was their belief that "the next phase
         will involve a significant number of stores," and that
         this was a "major event for the Company," were lacking
         in a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

These false statements caused Host America stock to skyrocket
from a close of $3.12 per share on July 11, 2005, to an intra-
day high of $16.88 per share on July 19, 2005, only one week
later.

Then, on July 22, 2005, the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") halted trading in the Company's shares amid concerns
that the Company's July 12 press release had been "misleading."
Prior to the halt in trading, Host America insiders sold
millions of dollars worth of their personally-held Host America
shares at artificially inflated prices.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Host America publicly traded securities during the Class
Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Lerach
Coughlin, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class
actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial
fraud.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/hostamerica/.


ISOLAGEN INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of all
persons who purchased the common stock of Isolagen, Inc. (Amex:
ILE) ("Isolagen") between March 3, 2004 and August 1, 2005 (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Isolagen violated federal securities
laws. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Isolagen made a
series of false or misleading statements concerning the
development and commercialization of its autologous cellular
therapies and its prospects for FDA approval. On August 1, 2005,
Isolagen disclosed that the preliminary results from a Phase III
clinical trial for the treatment of contour deformities
(wrinkles) had not met all four primary end points and that
neither of two dermal studies had achieved independent
statistical significance. On this news, Isolagen stock fell from
a close of $5.59 per share on July 29, 2005, to close at $2.84
per share on August 1, 2005.

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


MERCURY INTERACTIVE: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott LLC initiated a securities class
action complaint against Mercury Interactive Corporation
(Nasdaq: MERQE).

The class action for securities fraud was brought against
Mercury Interactive Corporation ("MercInteractive") and other
individual defendants. It was brought on behalf of all
shareholders who purchased or acquired MercInteractive
securities from December 1, 2004 until July 5, 2005. The case is
also brought on behalf of those purchasing notes convertible to
shares of Company stock, pursuant to the Company's 0 Coupon
Senior Convertible Notes (due 2008 offering).

MercInteractive, an enterprise software company, provides
software and services to the business technology optimization
(BTO) marketplace. Its BTO offerings, known as Mercury
Optimization Centers, consist of integrated software, services,
and practices that enable companies to use a center of approach
to govern the priorities, processes, and people of information
technology (IT); deliver and manage applications; and integrate
IT strategy and execution. MercInteractive offers products and
services in three product lines: IT governance, application
delivery, and application management. The company's IT
governance offerings are used to prioritize and automate IT
business processes from demand through production. Its
application delivery offerings enable customers to optimize
custom-built and prepackaged software applications before they
go into production. MercInteractive's application management
offerings enable customers to optimize business availability and
problem resolution, as well as to proactively manage and
automate the repair of production problems. In addition, the
company provides a range of professional and educational
services, as well as customer support offerings that enable
partners and customers to implement, customize, manage, and
extend its BTO offerings. MercInteractive offers its products
and services primarily through its direct sales organization, as
well as through inside corporate sales professionals worldwide.
The company has strategic alliances principally with Oracle, SAP
AG, Siebel Systems, and Accentor. Mercury Interactive
Corporation was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in Mountain
View, California.

As late as April 28, 2005, Defendants increased their previous
2005 annual guidance, serving to affirm prior statements that
the company was continuing in a positive direction. Unbeknownst
to investors, it is alleged that Defendants concealed auditing
expenses during the class period.

Scott + Scott, LLC litigates cases throughout the nation on
behalf of citizens of every continent. The firm dedicates itself
to client communication and satisfaction and is currently
litigating major securities, antitrust and employee retirement
plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents
pension funds, charities, foundations, individuals and other
entities worldwide. Please visit the Scott + Scott website to
learn more about the firm, its practice and other cases.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein or Amy K. Saba of Scott
+ Scott, LLC, Phone: 1-800-332-2259, +1-619-251-0887 or
1-800-332-2259, ext. 26, E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com or
asaba@scott-scott.com, Web site: http://www.scott-scott.com.


PATTERSON COMPANIES: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, initiated
a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Patterson Companies, Inc.
(NASDAQ: PDCO) between February 24, 2005 and May 25, 2005.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota against the Company, and its Chief
Executive Officer, Peter L. Frechette. According to the
complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Patterson, which describes itself as a "value added distributor
serving the dental, companion-pet veterinarian and
rehabilitation supply markets" touted quarter after quarter of
record results that where purportedly achieved as a result of
the successful execution of the Company's business strategy,
which included acquiring numerous companies over the past few
years. The complaint alleges that defendants knew that the
estimates they publicly issued for the fourth quarter of 2005
were impossible to meet, due to the Company's inability to
profitably integrate these acquisitions, and increased costs
such as previously undisclosed personnel incentive programs
needed to boost lagging sales. During the class period and
before the truth was revealed, Company insiders sold over $44
million worth of Patterson stock.

On May 26, 2005, defendants reported that the Company had missed
its fourth quarter 2005 earnings projections, and that it would
need to dramatically reduce its expectations for the first
quarter of 2006. In response to this announcement, the price of
Patterson stock dropped from $52.96 per share on May 25, 2005 to
$45.46 per share on May 26, 2005 on unusually heavy trading
volume of over 10.2 million shares traded, much greater than the
Company's average trading volume of around 500,000 shares.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman of Milberg Weiss
Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New
York, NY, 10119-0165, Phone: (800) 320-5081, E-mail:
sfeerick@milbergweiss.com, Web site: http://www.milbergweiss.com
OR Maya Saxena or Joseph White of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman, LLP, 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 600, Boca Raton,
FL, 33486, E-mail: msaxena@milbergweiss.com or
jwhite@milbergweiss.com.


RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: Murray Frank Files Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of RenaissanceRe
Holdings ("RenaissanceRe" or the "Company") (NYSE:RNR)
(BMG7496G1033) between January 24, 2002 and July 25, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

RenaissanceRe, through its subsidiaries, provides reinsurance
and insurance worldwide. The complaint alleges that defendants'
Class Period representations regarding RenaissanceRe were
materially false and misleading when made for the following
reasons:

     (1) that the Company entered into and improperly accounted
         for various contracts with Inter-Ocean Reinsurance
         Company, Ltd, which allowed the Company to effectively
         manipulate and smooth its earnings during the Class
         Period;

     (2) that the Company improperly accounted for premiums
         received during the first three quarters of 2004 on
         multi-year reinsurance contracts, which all caused the
         Company to misstate its net income figures for the
         Class Period;

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls;

     (4) that the Company's financial results were in violation
         of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP").

On February 22, 2005, RenaissanceRe announced its plan to
restate its financial statements. On February 28, 2005,
RenaissanceRe announced that it had received a subpoena from the
SEC in connection with an industry-wide investigation into non-
traditional insurance products. On June 15, 2005, RenaissanceRe
announced that it had received a subpoena from the United States
Attorney for the Southern District of New York. On July 11,
2005, RenaissanceRe announced that Michael W. Cash resigned
following his refusal to accept service of a subpoena from the
SEC calling for his testimony in its investigation into the
restatement of the Company's financial statements. On July 25,
2005, the Company announced that James N. Stanard, the Company's
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, had received a "Wells
Notice" from the SEC staff in connection with the SEC's ongoing
investigation into the restatement of the Company's financial
statements.

On this news, shares of RenaissanceRe fell $4.25 per share, or 9
percent, to close on July 25, 2005, at $42.98 per share.

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


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Abraham Fruchter Lodges Stock Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, initiated a
class action commenced in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Symbol Technologies, Inc. ("Symbol") (NYSE: SBL) publicly traded
securities during the period between May 10, 2004 and August 1,
2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Symbol and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Symbol engages in the design, development, manufacture,
and service of products and systems used in enterprise mobility
solutions.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous positive statements about the
Company's performance and future prospects. As alleged in the
Complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading
because defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the
following adverse facts, which were known, or recklessly
disregarded by them, at all relevant times:

     (1) that Symbol had inadequate and deficient internal and
         financial controls;

     (2) that Symbol's reported expenses were understated;

     (3) that Symbol had massive overcapacity, inefficient
         operations and obsolete assets;
      
     (4) that Symbol was experiencing declining demand for its
         products; and
  
     (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements
         concerning the Company's financial prospects were
         lacking in a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

As the market learned the true information about Symbol, the
inflation caused by Defendants' misrepresentations was removed
and the price of Symbol common stock fell by nearly 50% from its
Class Period high.

For more details, contact Jack G. Fruchter of Abraham Fruchter &
Twersky LLP, Phone: 800/440-8986 or 212/279-5050, E-mail:
jfruchter@aftlaw.com.


TREX COMPANY: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in VA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, initiated a Class
Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Virginia on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Trex Company, Inc. ("Trex" or the
"Company'') (NYSE:TWP), between October 25, 2004 and June 22,
2005, (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Trex and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning Trex's operations and financial
performance caused Trex's stock price to become artificially
inflated, inflicting damages on investors. Trex manufactures and
distributes wood/plastic composite products primarily for
residential and commercial decking and railing applications. The
Complaint alleges that defendants' Class Period representations
concerning Trex were materially false and misleading when made
for the following reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

On June 22, 2005, Trex shocked the market when it announced that
the Company expected a substantial loss for second quarter 2005
and guided its earnings lower for the year. As a result of this
news, shares of Trex fell $10.59 per share, or 29.66%, on June
23, 2005, to close at $25.11 per share.

Additionally, during the Class Period and with the Company's
stock trading at artificially inflated prices, Company insiders
sold 680,395 shares for gross proceeds of $29,833,121.

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq. or Lionel Z.
Glancy of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the
Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150
or (888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site:
http://www.glancylaw.com.


UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against UBS-AG ("UBS") (NYSE: UBS) and its
affiliated entities, on behalf of those who purchased from UBS
one or more of the UBS proprietary funds ("UBS Funds") or non-
proprietary funds participating in the UBS Revenue Sharing
Program (the "UBS Tier I Funds," as defined below) between May
1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its
affiliated entities. The "UBS Tier I Funds" includes mutual
funds in the following mutual fund families: AIM, Alliance,
American Funds, Columbia, Davis Funds, Dreyfus, Eaton Vance,
Federated, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, John Hancock, Hartford,
Lord Abbett, MFS, Oppenheimer, PIMCO, Pioneer, Putnam, Scudder,
UBS Global Asset Management, and Van Kampen.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. Unbeknownst to
investors, defendants, in clear contravention of their
disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, failed to
properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to
aggressively push UBS sales personnel to steer clients into
purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I Funds (collectively,
"Shelf Space Funds") that provided financial incentives and
rewards to UBS and its personnel based on sales. The complaint
alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales practices created an
insurmountable conflict of interest by providing substantial
monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to their clients,
even though such investments were not in the clients' best
interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.

The action also includes a subclass of people who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The investment advisors financed these
arrangements by illegally charging excessive and improper fees
to the fund that should have been invested in the underlying
portfolio. In doing so, they breached their fiduciary duties to
investors under the Investment Company Act and state law and
decreased shareholders' investment returns.

The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or a resource management accounts.

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



                            *********


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

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