---

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

           Wednesday, September 7, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 177

                            Headlines

ADVANCEPCS: NJ Court Mulls Summary Judgment For ERISA Lawsuit
ARIZONA: Attorney General Calls For Gas Price-Gouging Protection
ATICO INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 480T Arm Bands For Drowning Hazard
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Enters Mediation in CA Homeowners' Suit
CALIFORNIA: Attorney General to Probe Alleged Gas Price Gouging

CALIFORNIA: Suit Filed V. Firms Over Acrylamide Content in Foods
CALIFORNIA: Lodi, Stockton SA Shut out of $20M Corn Syrup Deal
CAREMARK RX: Appeals Certification In AL Suit V. 1999 Settlement
CAREMARK RX: Discovery Proceeds in IL Antitrust Violations Suit
CAREMARK RX: Plaintiffs Stay Appeal of CA Court Judgment in Suit

CAREMARK RX: Appeals AL Court's Refusal To Alter Suit Dismissal
CAREMARKPCS: Plaintiffs File Amended CA Consumer Antitrust Suit
CAREMARKPCS: PA Court Nixes Appeal of Antitrust Suit Arbitration
DELAWARE: Attorney General Reminds Consumers of Zylon Settlement
ELECTRONIC DATA: TX Court Refuses To Approve Lawsuit Settlement

INKINE PHARMACEUTICALS: PA Court OKs Investor Lawsuit Settlement
ITALY: Genoa Civil Court Awards Parmalat Investors $287,728.59
KENNETH COLE: Faces Two Employee Wage Lawsuits in CA State Court
KVH INDUSTRIES: Asks RI Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
PRG SCHULTZ: GA Court Grants Final Approval To Suit Settlement

PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: VA Fraud Suit Dismissal Deemed Final
SAWTEK INC.: FL Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
SILICON IMAGE: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Fraud Lawsuit
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Faces DE Suits V. Sunshine Acquisition Merger
STAR GAS: Plaintiffs Launch Consolidated Securities Suit in CT

STILLWATER MINING: MT Court Considering Stock Lawsuit Dismissal
TENNESSEE GAS: KS Court Mulls Gas Royalties Suits Certification
WORLD WIDE: Recalls 25T 16-Inch BMX Bicycles For Injury Hazard

                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Suit in OH
ARBINET-THEXCHANGE: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
ARBINET-THEXCHANGE: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in NJ
HOST AMERICA: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CT
HOST MAERICA: Murray Frank Provides Updates on Stock Suit in CT

IMMUCOR INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in GA
IMMUCOR INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in GA
IMMUCOR INC.: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges Securities Suit in GA

                         *********

ADVANCEPCS: NJ Court Mulls Summary Judgment For ERISA Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
has yet to rule on AdvancePCS's motion seeking summary judgment
for the class action, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

In March 1998, PCS Health Systems, Inc., a subsidiary of PCS
Holding Corporation, which was acquired by Advance Paradigm (now
known as AdvancePCS) in October 2000, was served with a
purported class action lawsuit filed by Ed Mulder.  The lawsuit
alleges that PCS Health Systems, Inc. acts as a fiduciary, as
that term is defined in ERISA, and has breached certain
purported fiduciary duties under ERISA.  The plaintiff is
seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages in an unspecified
amount.  The plaintiff purported to represent a nation-wide
class consisting of all members of all ERISA plans for which PCS
Health Systems, Inc. provided PBM services during the class
period.

The Company opposed certification of this class, and in July
2003 the court entered an order certifying a more limited class
comprised only of members of those ERISA plans for which PCS
Health Systems, Inc. provided services under its contract with a
single HMO for a limited time period.  Discovery in this lawsuit
is proceeding.


ARIZONA: Attorney General Calls For Gas Price-Gouging Protection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Terry Goddard called soaring gasoline prices in
Arizona unjustified and said they underscore the need for an
anti-gouging law, which the state Legislature has twice
rejected.

"A national tragedy is being exploited by an industry that is
already reaping record profits," Mr. Goddard said. "Pump price
increases this week of 30 cents or more a gallon in this state
are not justified by Hurricane Katrina or the higher cost of
crude oil. Gasoline sold in Arizona does not come from the Gulf
Coast, and the gas being pumped today was in the pipeline long
before the hurricane hit. Consumers deserve more protection from
this kind of profiteering."

Mr. Goddard said he would reintroduce anti-gouging legislation
next year. His proposal, which would trigger enforcement if the
governor declared an emergency, was turned down in the past two
legislative sessions. More than half of the states have price-
gouging laws. They include Florida, where Attorney General
Charlie Crist, a Republican, has aggressively enforced its
statute.

"Without an anti-gouging law, Arizona has very limited legal
ability to protect consumers from unreasonable increases," Mr.
Goddard said. "This law also would have a deterrent effect,
giving companies stronger incentive to be sure their higher
prices can be justified. The oil companies should stop playing
'Can You Top This' and stick with the rules of supply and
demand."

Mr. Goddard also announced that he is joining a task force of
attorneys general that will explore a multi-state inquiry into
the sudden surge in gas prices. The action follows a recent
nationwide conference call with his colleagues devoted to gas
prices.  Mr. Goddard emphasized he is not advocating price
controls on gasoline. He did, however, call on the federal
government to do more to restrain price hikes.

"Federal officials should be using their legal and persuasive
powers to put downward pressure on gas prices," he said. "The
Energy Department, Federal Trade Commission and other agencies
with jurisdiction need to do whatever they can to hold the oil
companies, refiners, wholesalers and retailers accountable."

The Attorney General's Office will continue to monitor gas price
increases and look for any evidence that there have been
violations of the state's antitrust statutes.


ATICO INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 480T Arm Bands For Drowning Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Atico International USA, Inc., of Fort Lauderdale,
Florida and CVS Pharmacy, Inc., of Woonsocket, Rhode Island is
voluntarily recalling about 480,000 pairs of Surf ClubT Arm
Bands.

The seams of the inflatable arm bands can tear, causing them to
deflate. This poses a drowning hazard to young children. Atico
International has received two reports of the seams of
inflatable arm bands tearing during use. No injuries have been
reported. This recall is being conducted to prevent the
possibility of injuries.

The recalled plastic inflatable arm band pool floats are bright
orange on the outside and white on the inside with an inflation
valve on each side. They are imprinted with a "Surf Club" logo,
"CVS/pharmacy," and "Caution: This is not a lifesaving device.
Do not leave child unattended while in use." When inflated, the
arm bands measure about 8-inches long by 6-inches wide.  
Manufactured in China, the arm bands were sold at all CVS stores
nationwide from April 2003 through August 2005 for about $1.

Parents should immediately stop their children from using the
recalled arm band pool floats and return them to CVS for a full
refund.  Consumer Contact: Consumers with questions should call
Atico toll-free at (877) 546-4835 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET
Monday through Friday, or visit the company's Web site at
http://www.aticousa.com.   


AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Enters Mediation in CA Homeowners' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
AvalonBay Communities, Inc. entered mediation and settlement
discussion with the parties in the California class action
lawsuit filed against it, styled "Julie E. Ko v. AvalonBay
Communities, Inc. and Does 1 through 100."

The suit, filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court in
California, purports to be brought on behalf of all of the
Company's former California residents who, during the four-year
period prior to the filing of the suit, paid a security deposit
to the Company for the rental of residential property in
California and had a portion of the deposit withheld by the
Company in excess of the damages actually sustained by the
Company. The plaintiff seeks compensatory and statutory damages
in unspecified amounts as well as injunctive relief,
restitution, and an award of attorneys' fees, expenses and costs
of suit. The complaint seeking class certification was amended
in March 2004 and the Company responded to the amended complaint
on May 3, 2004.


CALIFORNIA: Attorney General to Probe Alleged Gas Price Gouging
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Bill Lockyer launched an investigation into
possible illegal profiteering by gasoline retailers and oil
companies in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, announcing he will
subpoena records from refiners and probe the pricing practices
of gas station owners.

According to Attorney General, "Hurricane Katrina has broken
families, devastated communities and destroyed lives. It's
during times such as this that it's most important we pull
together, act with one heart, and rebuild with a sense of
community. To unjustly profit from tragedy is unconscionable. I
hope this investigation does not find that such greed has
afflicted oil companies and gas station operators in
California."

Aside from the subpoenas, Mr. Lockyer announced that he has
established a special email address where consumers, oil company
employees, gas station workers and others can submit information
and/or documents about gouging and suspected unlawful conduct.
The email address is gaspricinghotline@doj.ca.gov.

Mr. Lockyer said his office has received complaints from
California consumers about rising prices at gas stations
following Hurricane Katrina. His investigation will examine
whether oil companies or retailers have colluded to violate
antitrust laws, run afoul of state laws that prohibit unfair
business practices, or violated state law that prohibits
retailers from unduly increasing gasoline prices more than 10
percent during government-declared emergencies. Violations of
the price-gouging statute are subject to civil enforcement
actions or misdemeanor criminal prosecutions.

The federal government on August 27 and August 28 declared
emergencies in states hit by Hurricane Katrina.  Mr. Lockyer
said he would support calls for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
to declare a state of emergency in California.

Mr. Lockyer also said that he would work with a task force of
Attorneys General from other states to examine gasoline-pricing
issues related to Hurricane Katrina. His office has been
monitoring the gasoline and oil market in California since 1999.
The state's drivers historically have paid some of the highest
prices in the country, and suffered chronic price spikes caused
by a variety of forces.

Mr. Lockyer noted California receives little or no refined
gasoline from the Gulf region, and no crude oil. He questioned
whether disruptions in the oil and gasoline infrastructure
caused by Hurricane Katrina, while no doubt severe, could
legitimately explain any significant effect on California's
market. "Certainly, the storm cannot be used to justify gouging
Californians while thousands of our fellow Americans suffer," he
said.


CALIFORNIA: Suit Filed V. Firms Over Acrylamide Content in Foods
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Bill Lockyer today filed suit against nine
manufacturers of potato chips and french fries, seeking a court
order that will require the firms to warn consumers that some of
their food products contain acrylamide, a chemical known by the
state to cause cancer.

According to the Attorney General, "In taking this action, I am
not telling people to stop eating potato chips or french fries.
I know from personal experience that, while these snacks may not
be a necessary part of a healthy diet, they sure taste good. But
I, and all consumers, should have the information we need to
make informed decisions about the food we eat. Proposition 65
requires companies to tell us when we're exposed to potentially
dangerous toxins in our food. The law benefits us all, and as
Attorney General, I have a duty to enforce it."

Filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, A.G. Lockyer's
complaint alleges the companies have violated Proposition 65, a
landmark ballot initiative enacted by voters in 1986. The law
requires businesses to provide "clear and reasonable" warnings
before exposing people to known carcinogens or reproductive
toxins. The defendants in the lawsuit are:

     (1) Burger King Corporation, french fries

     (2) Cape Cod Potato Chips, Inc./Lance, Inc. (parent
         company), Cape Cod potato chips

     (3) Frito-Lay, Inc./PepsiCo, Inc., Lay's potato chips/Lay's
         baked potato chips

     (4) H.J. Heinz, Inc., Ore-Ida frozen potato products
     
     (5) Kettle Foods, Inc., Kettle Chips

     (6) KFC Corporation, KFC Potato Wedges

     (7) McDonald's Corporation, french fries

     (8) Procter & Gamble Distributing Co./Procter & Gamble

     (9) Manufacturing Co., Pringles

    (10) Wendy's International, Inc., french fries

A by-product created by the reaction of chemicals in food and
high heat, acrylamide has been found at low levels in a wide
variety of foods. The lawsuit asks the court to require warnings
on potato chips and french fries because they have higher levels
of acrylamide than other foods.

Acrylamide has long been known to exist in industrial products,
and since 1990 has been on the Proposition 65 list of
carcinogens. Prior to 2002, however, acrylamide was not known to
be present in food. But in early 2002, scientists in Sweden made
the startling finding that certain starchy foods cooked in high
heat contain acrylamide.

Since the 2002 discovery, the World Health Organization, the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and California's Office
of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) have studied
the issue. OEHHA has gathered data and published a report, which
includes estimates of acrylamide levels for 40 foods. Given that
assessment, it is estimated that consumers of french fries
receive up to 125 times the amount of acrylamide that requires a
warning under current regulations, while consumers of potato
chips receive as much as 75 times the level requiring a warning.
The report is available online at
www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/acrylamideqa.html.

Additionally, OEHHA has initiated formal rulemaking proceedings
to determine the extent to which OEHHA believes warnings should
be required on food products containing acrylamide. A.G. Lockyer
said legal action is necessary to ensure appropriate warnings
are provided on products containing particularly high levels of
acrylamide.

A.G. Lockyer said he intends to work with the defendants in the
case to find a way to effectively give consumers information
about the acrylamide in their products, while at the same time
preventing undue public alarm and unnecessary warning signs
concerning foods that contain insignificant amounts of the
chemical.

The Attorney General's action is not the first to seek consumer
warnings for these foods. A private suit filed in 2002 by the
Committee for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT) named
McDonald's and Burger King as defendants, and is pending in Los
Angeles County Superior Court. Another set of two private suits
filed on August 3, 2005 by Environmental World Watch, Inc. (EWW)
identified a number of the same defendants as the Attorney
General's suit. Additional actions were filed on August 25, 2005
by the Environmental Law Foundation. The Attorney General will
ask that all pending suits be assigned to the same judge so they
may proceed in the most efficient way.

Since the initial findings of acrylamide in 2002, numerous tests
have been conducted on the products in this case and confirm
that they are subject to Proposition 65 warning requirements.
Lockyer noted that the potato chips and french fries made by the
defendants in his lawsuit have not been shown to contain more
acrylamide than their competitors' products. The firms were
named as defendants, he explained, because they were the
companies targeted in the actions filed by EWW, ELF and CERT.

Under Proposition 65, a private party intending to file a
lawsuit must first notify the Attorney General's Office. The
Attorney General may sue the same defendants. If the Attorney
General's Office decides to file a lawsuit, the office typically
takes over prosecution of the case against those defendants.


CALIFORNIA: Lodi, Stockton SA Shut out of $20M Corn Syrup Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Food banks and kitchens that feed the elderly and poor in San
Joaquin and Stanislaus counties will receive $869,000 from a
settled class action lawsuit over high fructose corn syrup price
fixing, however, the Lodi Salvation Army, the one that feeds the
hungry every day isn't getting a dime, The Stockton Record
reports.

The Lodi Salvation Army, which also runs a food bank that
handles tons of food and distributes food boxes to needy
families, wasn't among the charities awarded money in the case
against four companies accused of price fixing even though it
feeds the hungry 365 days a year.

Frank Severs, who heads the Salvation Army's Lodi division, told
The Stockton Record, "We've got two emergency food programs, and
everybody got some, and we didn't. We're all figuring out how to
pay our bills."

Additionally, the Salvation Army provides a free lunch and
dinner to all who come through the doors of its shelter on
Sacramento Street, serving an average of 80 dinners a day.

Other Lodi nonprofits though were awarded a total of $110,000,
which included: The Lodi Boys & Girls Club receiving $50,000 and
Lodi House and the Loel Center each getting $30,000.

According to Jim Brown, the lead attorney in the lawsuit, the
attorneys and the Stanislaus County court selected the charities
with about $2.6 million being awarded statewide. Mr. Brown told
The Stockton Record if attorneys had sought requests from
eligible charities, there probably would have been less money
for Stanislaus and San Joaquin counties.

Mr. Brown also told The Stockton Record that he hadn't heard
from the Lodi Salvation Army, but the Stockton Salvation Army
called to complain about being shut out of the awards. He was
quick to point out though, "It's not a criticism of the
Salvation Army. I did the best I could."

Court documents revealed that the settlement stems from a suit
that accuses four companies of conspiring to fix prices for high
fructose corn syrup whose main use is in soft drinks. The
companies are Archer-Daniels-Midlands Co., Cargill Inc., A.E.
Stanley Manufacturing Co. and Corn Products Corporation, all of
whom will pay $20 million under the settlement approved recently
in Stanislaus County Superior Court, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (August 18, 2005) reports.

The settlement stipulated that most of the money would go to
food manufacturers who bought the syrup for their products,
while a smaller share was to be designated for distribution
among charitable groups that provide food or nutritional
counseling to the needy.

However, Mr. Brown told The Stockton Record that the charities
could receive additional money in the future, since some food
manufacturers in line for awards may not qualify if they bought
the corn syrup indirectly, which will potentially free those
dollars for nonprofits. He explains, "There is a reasonable
possibility there may be further money that can be distributed
to charities, and the Salvation Army has made known their desire
to receive some of it. I'm glad to hear from them, and I can
understand if they felt they were unfairly singled out, but they
weren't."

Upon hearing the news of more money possible becoming available,
Mr. Severs told The Stockton Record he was encouraged with this
news especially since a shelter for women and children will be
opening soon.


CAREMARK RX: Appeals Certification In AL Suit V. 1999 Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caremark Rx appealed the Circuit Court of Jefferson County,
Alabama's ruling granting class certification to the lawsuit
filed against it, styled "McArthur v. Caremark Rx, et al."

In October 2003, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit filed by John Lauriello in the Circuit Court of
Jefferson County, Alabama.  The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a
purported class of persons who were participants in the 1999
settlement of then pending securities class action and
derivative lawsuits against the Company and others.  Also named
as defendants are several insurance companies that had provided
coverage to Caremark Rx up to the time of the settlement. The
lawsuit seeks, among other things, to recover approximately $3.2
billion in compensatory damages plus unspecified punitive
damages, pre-judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees from
the defendants for their alleged intentional, reckless and/or
negligent misrepresentation and suppression of material facts
relating to the amount of insurance coverage that was available
to pay any settlement or judgment arising out of the claims that
were resolved by the 1999 settlement.  Alternatively, the
lawsuit seeks to re-open the judgment approving the 1999
settlement.  

After the court overruled the defendants' joint motion to
dismiss in July 2004, the defendants filed their answers, which,
among other things, denied all of the material allegations of
the complaint. The parties then filed pleadings setting out
their respective positions as to how this case should proceed.  
In January 2005, the court signed an order on class
certification that, among other things, held that this case will
proceed as a class action and set out a schedule for challenging
the adequacy of John Lauriello to serve as class representative,
as well as the appointment of Mr. Lauriello's lawyers to act as
class counsel. The defendants have filed papers with the Alabama
Supreme Court seeking immediate appellate review of the trial
court's order, and requested that the Supreme Court stay the
proceedings in the trial court pending appellate review.

In November 2003, a second putative class action lawsuit was
filed by Frank McArthur in the Circuit Court of Jefferson
County, Alabama arising out of the same 1999 settlement of then
pending securities class action and derivative lawsuits against
Caremark Rx and others. This lawsuit also was filed on behalf of
a purported class of persons who were participants in the 1999
settlement, and named as defendants Caremark Rx, several
insurance companies that had provided coverage to Caremark Rx up
to the time of the settlement, and a number of lawyers and law
firms involved in negotiating and securing the approval of the
1999 settlement.  The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to
recover approximately $3.2 billion in compensatory damages plus
unspecified punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, costs and
attorneys' fees from the defendants for their alleged
intentional, reckless and/or negligent misrepresentation and
suppression of material facts relating to the amount of
insurance coverage that was available to pay any settlement or
judgment arising out of the claims that were resolved by the
1999 settlement.

In December 2003, John Lauriello, the plaintiff in the lawsuit
described above, filed a motion to intervene and a motion to
dismiss, abate or stay this lawsuit on the grounds that it was a
duplicative, later-filed, class action complaint.  In January
2004, the Company and the other defendants filed their own
motion to dismiss, abate or stay the lawsuit as a later-filed
class action that is substantially similar to the Lauriello
lawsuit. The defendants' motion to stay was granted by the
court, and the lawsuit was transferred to an Administrative
Docket where it will be reviewed every ninety (90) days. In
February 2005, the plaintiffs in the stayed McArthur case filed
motions in the Lauriello case seeking to intervene in that
litigation and asking for the right to challenge the adequacy of
John Lauriello as class representative and his lawyers as class
counsel. The court denied the McArthur plaintiffs' motion to
intervene. The McArthur plaintiffs have appealed the trial
court's order, and asked the Alabama Supreme Court to stay
proceedings in the trial court pending their appeal.


CAREMARK RX: Discovery Proceeds in IL Antitrust Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Initial discovery is proceeding in the class action filed
against Caremark Rx, Inc., Caremark, Inc. and AdvancePCS (now
known as CaremarkPCS) and two pharmacy benefit manager
competitors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. and C& C,
Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc., two independent
pharmacies filed the suit originally in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, which
asserted two claims under a single count purportedly arising
under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The court granted a motion filed by Caremark Rx and Caremark to
transfer venue to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois pursuant to the terms of the
pharmacy services agreements between Caremark and the
plaintiffs.  The court also granted a motion filed by AdvancePCS
to compel arbitration of any claims between it and the
plaintiffs pursuant to the pharmacy services agreements it has
with the plaintiffs. The parties are in the process of selecting
an arbitration panel. The case against Caremark Rx and Caremark
is in the initial stages of discovery.  The plaintiffs are
seeking three times actual monetary damages and injunctive
relief enjoining the alleged antitrust violations.

The suit is styled "N Jackson Pharm Inc, et al v. Caremark RX
Inc, et al, case no. 1:04-cv-05674," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under
Judge Milton I. Shadur.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) W. Michael Atchison, Victor E. Grimm, Anthony C.
         Harlon, Starnes & Atchison, P.O. Box 598512,
         Birmingham, AL, 35259-8512, Phone: (205) 868-6000

     (2) Erik F. Dyhrkopp, Michael Edward Martinez, Scott M.
         Mendel, Paula W. Render, Michael Sennett, Bell, Boyd &
         Lloyd LLC, 70 West Madison Street, Suite 3300, Chicago,
         IL 60602-4207, Phone: (312) 372-1121

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (i) Andrew C. Allen, Russell J. Drake, Othni Lathram, Joe
         R. Whatley, Whatley, Drake, LLC, 2323 2nd Avenue North,
         P.O. Box 10647, Birmingham, AL 35202-0647, Phone: (205)
         328-9576

    (ii) Christopher W. Cantrell, A. David Fawal, Archie J.
         Lamb, Law Offices of Archie Lamb, LLC, 2017-2nd Avenue
         North #200, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: (205)324-4644

   (iii) Kathleen Currie Chavez, Chavez Law Firm, 1245 Executive
         Place, Suite F-100, Geneva, IL 60134, Phone: (630)232-
         4480

    (iv) Gregory C. Cook, Balch & Bingham, Post Office Box 306,
         Birmingham, AL 35201-0306, Phone: (205) 251-8100

     (v) Robert M. Foote, Craig S. Mielke, Foote, Meyers,
         Mielke, Flowers & Solano, 416 South Second Street,
         Geneva, IL 60134, Phone: (630) 232-6333

    (vi) Gail A McQuilkin, Harley S. Tropin, Kozyak Tropin &
         Throckmorton PA, 2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th Floor, Coral
         Gables, FL 33134, Phone: 305-372-1800, Fax: 305-372-
         3508

  (viii) Nicholas B Roth, Eyster Key Tubb Weaver & Roth
         P.O. Box 1607, Decatur, AL 35602, Phone: (256)353-6761

    (ix) Edward K. Wood, Jr., Law Offices of Edward Kirk Wood
         P.O. Box 382434, Birmingham, AL 35238, Phone: (205)612-
         0243


CAREMARK RX: Plaintiffs Stay Appeal of CA Court Judgment in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs stayed their appeal of the Los Angeles County
Superior Court in California's ruling granting judgment in favor
of AdvancePCS (now known as CaremarkPCS), Caremark Rx and
Caremark, Inc. and other defendants in the representative action
alleging violations of state unfair competition law.

In March 2003, the Company, Caremark Rx and Caremark were served
with a putative representative action filed by American
Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME), a
labor union comprised of numerous autonomous local unions and
affiliations. Other pharmacy benefit management (PBM) companies
also are named as defendants in this lawsuit. The lawsuit
alleges violations of the California unfair competition law.

Specifically, the lawsuit challenges alleged business practices
of PBMs, including practices relating to rebates, pricing,
formulary management and mail order services. The lawsuit seeks
injunctive relief, restitution and disgorgement of revenues.
This case has been coordinated with the Irwin case described
above before a single judge in Los Angeles County.  Based on
recent changes in applicable law that restrict a party's ability
to bring lawsuits under California's unfair competition law, the
AFSCME entered into a stipulation for the entry of judgment
subject to the right of appeal, and the court entered judgment
on that case in favor of the defendants on March 1. AFSCME has
subsequently appealed the decision to the California Court of
Appeal, and the parties have agreed to stay the appeal pending
the outcome of similar cases currently pending before the
California Supreme Court.


CAREMARK RX: Appeals AL Court's Refusal To Alter Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama's denial of their motion to alter
or amend its dismissal ruling for the class action filed against
Caremark Rx, Inc. and Caremark, Inc.

Roland Bickley originally filed the suit in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, on behalf
of the Georgia Pacific Corporation Life, Health and Accident
Plan, alleging that the defendants each act as a fiduciary as
that term is defined in the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) and that the defendants have breached certain
purported fiduciary duties under ERISA. In August 2002, this
case was ordered transferred to the United States District
Court, Northern District of Alabama.

The Company was subsequently served in May 2002 with a virtually
identical lawsuit, containing the same types of allegations,
which was filed by Mary Dolan, on behalf of Wells Fargo Health
Plan, and also filed in the United States District Court,
Central District of California. In December 2002, this case was
also ordered transferred to the United States District Court,
Northern District of Alabama.  Both of these lawsuits were
amended to name the Company as a defendant, and Caremark Rx was
dismissed from the second case filed.

The defendants, as applicable, filed motions seeking the
complete dismissal of both of these actions on various grounds.
In December 2004, the court presiding over the Bickley matter
entered an order dismissing that casein its entirety with
prejudice, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing, had
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that Caremark
was not a fiduciary under ERISA as to the plaintiff.  In January
2005, Mr. Bickley filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the court's
order seeking only to limit the bases upon which the Court
dismissed the case, which was denied by the court in February
2005.  Mr. Bickley has subsequently appealed the dismissal of
his action to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit, where it is now pending, and the United States
Department of Labor has filed an amicus brief.  The Dolan motion
to dismiss remains pending before the court.

The suit is styled "Bickley v. Caremark RX, Inc., et al, case
no. 2:02-cv-02197-VEH," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama, under Judge Virginia
Emerson Hopkins.


CAREMARKPCS: Plaintiffs File Amended CA Consumer Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against AdvancePCS (now
known as CaremarkPCS), Caremark Rx and Caremark Inc., in the
California Superior Court for Los Angeles County, alleging
violations of the California unfair competition law.

In March and April of 2003, Robert Irwin filed a complaint the
Company, and subsequently Caremark Rx and Caremark, Inc.,
individually and purportedly as a private attorney general on
behalf of the general public of the State of California, the
non-Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) health plans
who contract with pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) companies and
the individuals who are members of those plans.  Other PBM
companies are also named as defendants in this lawsuit, which
alleges violations of the California unfair competition law.

Specifically, the lawsuit challenges alleged business practices
of PBMs, including practices relating to pricing, rebates,
formulary management, data utilization and accounting and
administrative processes. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief,
restitution and disgorgement of revenues.  Recent changes in
applicable law may affect whether or to what extent Mr. Irwin
can continue with the case. In July 2005, Mr. Irwin filed an
amended complaint to attempt to address the changes in law, and
the PBM companies intend to file a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.


CAREMARKPCS: PA Court Nixes Appeal of Antitrust Suit Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied plaintiffs' appeal of its decision
compelling arbitration in the class action filed against
CaremarkPCS (formerly known as AdvancePCS).

Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc., d/b/a Burns Pharmacy
and Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co., d/b/a Parkway Drugs #4,
purportedly on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, and the Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National
Community Pharmacists Association, filed the suit, which alleges
antitrust violations under Section 1 of the Sherman Act arising
from the Company's establishment of network rates for retail
pharmacies.  The plaintiffs seek for themselves and the
purported class three times actual monetary damages and
injunctive relief enjoining the alleged antitrust violations.
The court granted a motion filed by the Company to compel
arbitration of any claims between it and the plaintiffs pursuant
to the pharmacy services agreements it has with the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the court's decision
or to have the decision certified for an immediate appeal, which
motion was denied.


DELAWARE: Attorney General Reminds Consumers of Zylon Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General M. Jane Brady reminds Delaware consumers, and
entities that purchased, possess or own a bulletproof vest
manufactured by Second Chance Body Armor, Inc., which contain
Zylon, a fiber sold by Toyobo Company, Ltd. and Toyobo America
Inc., that they must register their contact information with the
Zylon Class Administrator by September 9, 2005 to receive
settlement proceeds.

In October 1998, Second Chance Body Armor, Inc. started selling
bulletproof vests that were expressly warranted to provide
protection, without defects in material or workmanship. The
vests however contained Zylon, a fiber manufactured by Toyobo
Company, Ltd., which rapidly destabilized when exposed to
conditions of heat and humidity. By March 2004 several states
filed class action lawsuits naming Second Chance and Toyobo as
defendants.

On February 9, 2005, the Oklahoma District Court certified a
national class to represent all purchasers, owners and
possessors of the defective product. It also acknowledged its
limitation over the Defendant Second Chance, which had filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Second Chance remains subject to the
jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. Counsel for the national
class and Defendant Toyobo successfully negotiated the twenty-
nine million dollar settlement that created a fund for class
members who purchased, own or posses a bulletproof vest
containing Zylon. In order to receive part of the settlement
proceeds, class members must register by September 9, 2005.

All submissions to the Claims Administrator must be sent by
first class U.S. Mail, by hand delivery, or electronically, to
Zylon Class Administrator, P.O. Box 1700, Faribault, MN 55021-
1700, (877) 567-2754, http://www.zylonvestclassaction.com.  
Timeliness of all submissions and notices shall be measured by
the postmark if the submission is made by mail, or by the date
of the actual receipt of the submission if made by hand or
electronic means.


ELECTRONIC DATA: TX Court Refuses To Approve Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas refused approval for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action and class action for violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) filed against
Electronic Data Systems, Inc. and certain of its current and
former officers.

Numerous purported shareholder class action suits were initially
filed from September through December 2002 in response to its
September 18, 2002 earnings pre-announcement, publicity about
certain equity hedging transactions that it had entered into,
and the drop in the price of EDS common stock. The cases allege
violations of various federal securities laws and common law
fraud based upon purported misstatements or omissions of
material facts regarding the Company's financial condition. In
addition, five purported class action suits were filed on behalf
of participants in the EDS 401(k) Plan against the Company,
certain of its current and former officers and, in some cases,
its directors, alleging the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties under the ERISA and made misrepresentations to the class
regarding the value of EDS shares. The Company's motions to
centralize all of the foregoing cases in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas have been granted.

Representatives of two committees responsible for administering
the EDS 401(k) Plan notified the Company of their demand for
payment of amounts they believe are owing to plan participants
under Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 as a result
of an alleged failure to register certain shares of EDS common
stock sold pursuant to the plan during a period of approximately
one year ending on November 18, 2002. The committee
representatives have asserted that plan participants to whom
shares were sold during the applicable period are entitled to
receive a return of the amounts paid for the shares, plus
interest and less any income received, upon tender of the shares
to EDS. The Company believes it can assert arguments and
defenses that could significantly reduce or eliminate any
liability. However, some of the legal principles involved in
these arguments and defenses are subject to significant
uncertainties.

On July 7, 2003, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated
securities action described above and the lead plaintiffs in the
consolidated ERISA action described above each filed a
consolidated class action complaint.  The amended consolidated
complaint in the securities action alleges violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rule 10b 5
thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiffs
allege that the Company and certain of its former officers made
false and misleading statements about the financial condition of
EDS, particularly with respect to the NMCI contract and the
accounting for that contract.  The class period is alleged to be
from February 7, 2001 to September 18, 2002.  

The consolidated complaint in the ERISA action alleges violation
of fiduciary duties under ERISA by some or all of the defendants
and violation of Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act by
selling unregistered EDS shares to plan participants.  The named
defendants are EDS and, with respect to the ERISA claims,
certain current and former officers of EDS, members of the
Compensation and Benefits Committee of its Board of Directors,
and certain current and former members of the two committees
responsible for administering the plan. The Company's motions to
dismiss the consolidated securities action and the consolidated
ERISA action were denied by the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas.

On November 8, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas certified a class in the ERISA action on
certain of the allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, of all
participants in the EDS 401(k) Plan and their beneficiaries,
excluding Defendants, for whose accounts the plan made or
maintained investments in EDS stock through the EDS Stock Fund
between September 7, 1999 and October 9, 2002. Also on November
8, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas certified a class in the ERISA action on the allegations
of violation of Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of all
participants in the Plan and their beneficiaries, excluding the
Defendants, for whose accounts the Plan purchased EDS stock
through the EDS Stock Fund between October 20, 2001 and November
18, 2002. The Company filed a petition to the U.S. Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeal on November 23, 2004 requesting that the Court
hear and reverse the trial court's class certification order as
to the class certified in the ERISA action. On December 29,
2004, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal granted the Company's
petition to appeal the class certification order from the
District Court. That court also granted the Company's motion to
expedite the appeal, and oral arguments were heard on the appeal
on April 5, 2005.

On May 5, 2005, the Company reached an agreement with the class
representatives in the ERISA action to settle that action,
subject to final approval of the settlement an independent
fiduciary and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Texas and the receipt of certain assurances from the
Department of Labor, and filed a joint motion to stay the
proceedings with the District Court pending such approvals,
which motion had been granted.  A motion to stay the Fifth
Circuit appeal had also been granted. Under the terms of the
settlement, a cash payment of $16.5 million would have been paid
entirely by one of the Company's insurers. In addition, the
Company would have agreed to continue to make the matching
contribution under the EDS 401(k) Plan through 2006 and to make
certain changes to the Plan. However, on June 30, 2005, the
District Court denied the motions of the Company and the class
representatives to approve the settlement. Following that
action, the Company and the class representatives filed motions
to lift the stay of the Fifth Circuit appeal.


The securities suit is styled "In re Electronic Data Systems
Securities Litigation, case no 6:03-cv-110," filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, under
Judge Leonard Davis.  Representing the plaintiffs is 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.  
Representing the Company is G. Irvin Terrell, Shira Radinsky
Yoshor, and Larry Dean Carlson of Baker Botts LLP, 910 Louisiana
Suite 3000, One Shell Plaza, Houston TX 77002-4995 USA Phone:
713-229-1215, Fax: 1-713-229-1522 and Kirk Alan Parry, Jr. of
Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, 2500 First
Union Capitol Center, PO Box 2611, Raleigh NC 27602-2611, USA,
Phone: 919-821-6621.

The ERISA Suit is styled "In re Electronic Data Systems
Corporation ERISA Litigation, case no. 6:03-MD-1512," filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas, under Judge Leonard Davis.  Plaintiffs are represented by
Barry C. Barnett of Susman Godfrey LLP, 901 Main Street, Suite
4100, Dalass Texas 75202-3775, Phone: 214-754-1900, Fax: 214-
754-1933.  Representing the Company are:

     (1) David J. Bailey and Michael McConnell of Jones Day -
         Atlanta, 1420 Peachtree Street Suite 800 Atlanta, GA
         30309-3053 Phone: 214/969-3700, Fax: 12149695100, E-
         mail: djbailey@jonesday.com or mmcconnell@jonesday.com

     (2) Richard P. Keeton, Nickens Keeton Lawless Farrell &
         Flack, 600 Travis Suite 7500, Houston, Tx 77002, Phone:
         713/571-9191, Fax: 713/571-9652, E-mail:
         rkeeton@nickenskeeton.com  

     (3) Robert H Klonoff, Jones Day-Kansas City MO, 500 East
         52nd St, Kansas City, MO 64110, E-mail:
         rhklonoff@jonesday.com


INKINE PHARMACEUTICALS: PA Court OKs Investor Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania
granted final approval to the settlement of the class action
filed against InKine Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

On March 15, 2004, the Company withdrew a public offering of six
million shares of its common stock.   The decision to withdraw
the offering was made when it came to the Company's attention
that its certificate of incorporation did not contain any
provision exempting it from providing preemptive rights in
connection with certain securities offerings.  

On March 19, 2004, a purported class action lawsuit, naming the
Company as the defendant, was filed in the Court of Common
Pleas, Philadelphia County, on behalf of a putative class of
holders of InKine equity shares who allege that they were denied
certain claimed preemptive rights during the last six years.

On October 12, 2004, the Company entered into an agreement with
an undisclosed third-party who agreed to fund the Company's
settlement of damages and costs incurred in connection with the
class action lawsuit.   The company also entered into, and filed
with the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, a
settlement agreement with the class of InKine shareholders. On
June 14, 2005, the Company received final court approval of its
settlement and the agreement.

The suit is styled "Korman v. Inkine Pharmaceutical Co., Inc.,
case no. 040304341," filed in the Court of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, under Judge Howland W.
Abramson.  Representing the Company is Mary Kay Brown of
Buchanan Ingersoll PC, 1835 Market St. 14th fl, Philadelphia, PA
19103, Phone: (215)-665-8700.  Representing plaintiff Bernard
Korman is Robin B. Shore, 1622 Locust St., Philadelphia, PA,
Phone: (000)-875-4679.


ITALY: Genoa Civil Court Awards Parmalat Investors $287,728.59
--------------------------------------------------------------
The first class action ever brought in Italy resulted in the
awarding of $287,728.59 (230,000 euros) in damages to a group of
retail investors who bought bonds in the now-collapsed Italian
dairy group, Parmalat, in 2000, the La Stampa reports.

In its ruling, a Genoa civil court stated that the bank, which
issued the bonds, the Genoese savings bank Cassa di Risparmio di
Genova, failed to warn the bond buyers of the risks they were
running.


KENNETH COLE: Faces Two Employee Wage Lawsuits in CA State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. faces two employee wage lawsuits
filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los
Angeles.

In 2004, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company on behalf of current or former store managers or
assistant managers who purport to bring suit on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated store managers and
assistant managers.

In 2005, a second purported class action was filed on behalf of
floor supervisors.  In each lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege,
among other claims, that they worked hours for which they were
entitled to receive, but did not receive, overtime compensation
under California law.  The lawsuits seek damages, penalties,
restitution, reclassification and attorneys' fees and costs.  


KVH INDUSTRIES: Asks RI Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Rhode
Island has yet to rule on KVH Industries, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against
it and certain of its officers.

The suit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 under that
statute, as well as claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
under the Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of purchasers of our
securities in the period between October 1, 2003 and July 2,
2004. The Teamsters Affiliates Pension Plan has been appointed
lead plaintiff.  This matter consolidates into one action eight
separate complaints filed between July 21, 2004 and September
15, 2004.

On January 14, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.  The court heard oral arguments on
May 10, 2005 but has not acted on the defendants' motion.


PRG SCHULTZ: GA Court Grants Final Approval To Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia granted final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against PRG Schultz
International, Inc.

Beginning on June 6, 2000, three putative class action lawsuits
were filed against the Company and certain of its present and
former officers.  These cases were subsequently consolidated
into one proceeding styled "In re Profit Recovery Group
International, Inc. Sec. Litigation, Civil Action File No. 1:00-
CV-1416-CC."  On November 13, 2000, the Plaintiffs in these
cases filed a Consolidated and Amended Complaint.  In that
Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the Company, John M. Cook,
Scott L. Colabuono, the Company's former Chief Financial
Officer, and Michael A. Lustig, the Company's former Chief
Operating Officer, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by allegedly disseminating false and misleading
information about a change in the Company's s method of
recognizing revenue and in connection with revenue reported for
a division.  Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf
of a class of persons who purchased the Company's stock between
July 19, 1999 and July 26, 2000.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified
amount of compensatory damages, payment of litigation fees and
expenses, and equitable and/or injunctive relief.

On January 24, 2001, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint for failure to state a claim under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. 78u-4 et seq.  The
Court denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on June 5, 2001.  
Defendants served their Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint on June
19, 2001.  The Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification on December 3, 2002.

On February 8, 2005, the Company entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement of the Securities Class Action Litigation.  On
February 10, 2005, the Court preliminarily approved the terms of
the Settlement.  On May 26, 2005, the Court approved the
Stipulation of Settlement entered into by the Company with
Plaintiffs' counsel, on behalf of all putative class members,
pursuant to which it agreed to settle the consolidated class
action for $6.75 million, which payment was made by the
insurance carrier for the Company.


PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: VA Fraud Suit Dismissal Deemed Final
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia's dismissal of the consolidated securities class action
filed against Primus Telecommunications Group, Inc. and four of
its officers, styled "In re Primus Telecommunications Group,
Incorporated Securities Litigation," is deemed final after
plaintiffs failed to file an appeal.

Plaintiffs sued on behalf of certain purchasers of Company
securities between February 14, 2003 and July 29, 2004.  In
December 2004, the plaintiffs filed their Consolidated and
Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs alleged that the Primus
Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5. Plaintiffs sought damages, among other things,
on the theory that the Primus Defendants fraudulently published
false and misleading statements and/or fraudulently concealed
adverse, non-public information about the Company, thereby
artificially inflating the price of its securities.

The suit also covered matters related to:

     (1) PTI's acquisition in 2002 of Cable & Wireless's
         customers in the United States and migration and
         attrition of such customers;

     (2) VOIP initiatives and challenges faced by Primus with
         respect to launching the various VOIP products; and

     (3) the Company's network and decisions to lease capacity
         versus purchase capacity.

The Primus Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit in
January 2005.  On March 11, 2005, the court dismissed the suit
with prejudice. The court ruled that plaintiffs would not be
permitted to amend further their complaint.  The plaintiffs did
not appeal the decision dismissing their complaint, and the time
in which to appeal has lapsed.


SAWTEK INC.: FL Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida re-heard the balance of Sawtek, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against it,
certain of its current and former officers and Triquint
Semiconductor, Inc., its parent company.

In February 2003, several nearly identical putative civil class
action lawsuits were filed. The cases were consolidated into one
action, and an amended complaint was filed in this action on
July 21, 2003.  The amended class action complaint is
purportedly filed on behalf of purchasers of Company stock
between January 2000 and May 24, 2001, and alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act, as well as Securities and Exchange Commission Rule
10b-5, by making false and misleading statements and/or
omissions to inflate the Company's stock price and conceal the
downward trend in revenues disclosed in the Company's May 23,
2001 press release.  The complaint does not specify the amount
of monetary damages sought.

The Company and the individual defendants filed their motion to
dismiss on September 3, 2003, and briefing on the motion was
completed on November 19, 2003. The court heard oral argument on
November 21, 2003, and issued an order partially denying the
motion to dismiss on December 19, 2003.  Specifically, the court
found that the complaint was not barred by the statute of
limitations, but reserved ruling on the other aspects of the
motion to dismiss.  Because the statute of limitations issue is
a novel question of law, the court stayed the proceedings in
this case to allow the defendants to file an interlocutory
appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  The defendants
duly filed for interlocutory appeal on January 22, 2004.
Because the Court of Appeals has been considering the identical
issue in another matter, the appeal process has been stayed,
pending the Court of Appeals' decision in the other matter.

On June 1, 2005, the Eleventh Circuit issued a memorandum
decision in the unrelated case that raised the similar statute
of limitations issue.  The Court of Appeals held that factual
issues were raised, which precluded resolution of the statute of
limitations issues at this time.  The Court of Appeals remanded
that case to the lower court for the purpose of making factual
findings. The Sawtek appeal process with respect to the statute
of limitations remains stayed pending remand of this unrelated
case.

On June 3, 2005, the defendants requested the United States
District Court to lift its stay of the proceedings in the Sawtek
case, and to proceed to rule on the remaining issues raised in
the motion to dismiss the complaint.  The District Court has
allowed the parties to file supplemental briefing on or before
August 19, 2005, and scheduled a hearing for August 25, 2005 to
hear re-argument on the balance of the motion to dismiss the
complaint.

The suit is styled "IN re Sawtek, Inc. Securities Litigation,
case no. 6:03cv294," filed in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida under Judge Gregory A.
Presnell.  Representing the plaintiffs are Cauley Geller, Bowman
Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton, FL), One Boca Place, 2255
Glades Road, Suite 421A, Boca Raton, FL, 33431, Phone:
561.750.3000, Fax: 561.750.3364; and Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP,
3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706,
Fax: 610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.  Representing
the Company are:

     (1) Douglas A. Clark, Gregory A. Harris, Lyle Roberts,
         Cheryl Foung, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 1955
         Freedom Dr, Suite 1500, Reston, VA 20190, USA, Phone:
         703/ 734-3100

     (2) Tracy Ann Marshall, John Michael Brennan of
         Grayrobinson, PA, 301 E Pine St, Suite 1400, PO Box
         3068, Orlando, FL 32802-3068, USA, Phone: 407/ 843-8880
         Ext:5616, Fax: 407/ 244-5690, E-mail:
         Tmarshal@gray-Robinson.com or
         Jbrennan@gray-Robinson.com  

     (3) Kurtis T. Bauerle of Harris, Harris, Bauerle & Sharma,
         PA, The Park Building, 250 S Orange Ave, Suite 100,
         Orlando, FL 32801, USA, Phone: 407/ 843-0404, Fax: 407-
         843-0444, E-mail: Kurt@hhbslaw.com


SILICON IMAGE: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended securities class action against
Silicon Image, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock from October 19,2004 to January 24,2005.

According to a press release dated February 1, 2005, a class
action lawsuit was initially filed on behalf of all persons who
purchased, converted, exchanged, or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Silicon Image, Inc., against defendants Silicon
Image and certain officers and directors of the Company.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
thereunder, thereby artificially inflating the price of Silicon
Image securities. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company gave fourth quarter guidance on October 19, 2004 and has
since undergone a time of undisclosed executive uncertainty, and
distractions which were not disclosed while insiders sold
Company stock.  Plaintiffs allege that:

     (i) on November 11, 2004, the Company appointed Steven Laub
         as Chief Executive Officer and President;

    (ii) the Company failed to disclose material adverse facts,
         including fundamental disputes between Steven Laub and
         others at Silicon Image regarding Mr. Laub's relative
         role and responsibility which resulted in substantial
         distractions from achieving guidance;

   (iii) 281,742 shares were sold by insiders at Silicon Image
         who were in a position to know of the material adverse
         information of the fundamental disputes and resulting
         distractions; and

    (iv) the SEC commenced a formal investigation into trading
         in Silicon Image shares on January 25, 2005.

Further, on or around January 25, 2005, the Company issued two
press releases. One release, entitled "Silicon Image Announces
Appointment of Steve Tirado as Chief Executive Officer Replacing
Steven Laub," announced the resignation of its Chief Executive
Officer and President, Steven Laub, and appointment of
Christopher Paisley as the Company's new Chairman of the Board
of Directors. The second press release, entitled "Silicon Image
Reports Fourth Quarter 2004 Financials," stated that the
Company's revenue in the fourth quarter decreased by 4% in
comparison to the third quarter. The price of the Company stock
has declined by 15% since January 24, 2005.

On April 27, 2005, the Court issued an order appointing lead
plaintiffs and approving the selection of lead counsel.  On July
27, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint.
The amended complaint no longer names Mr. Gargus as an
individual defendant, but adds David Lee as an individual
defendant. By stipulation and order, the defendants' deadline to
file any motion to dismiss is September 26, 2005.

The suit is styled "Landon Curry, et al. v. Silicon Image, Inc.,
et al., case no. 05-CV-00456," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, under
Judge Maxine M. Chesney.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation
are:

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

    (ii) Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP, 500 Fifth Avenue, New
         York, NY, 10110, Phone: 212.608.1900, Fax:
         212.719.4677, E-mail: info@lshllp.com


SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Faces DE Suits V. Sunshine Acquisition Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
SS&C Technologies, Inc. faces two class actions filed by its
shareholders in the Delaware Court of Chancery, opposing the
proposed buyout by Sunshine Acquisition Corporation, an
affiliate of The Carlyle Group, of the Company's outstanding
shares of common stock for a price of $37.25 per share in cash
(the "Acquisition").  

On July 28, 2005, Paulena Partners, LLC filed a class action
lawsuit against the Company, William C. Stone and the Company's
other directors, and Sunshine Acquisition Corporation, alleging
that merger agreement does not represent the best price
available in the market and allegedly benefits Mr. Stone at the
expense of the public stockholders.  

On August 3, 2005, Stephen Landen also filed a class action
lawsuit against the Company and its board members in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint seeks to
enjoin the Acquisition and alleges that the Acquisition is in
furtherance of an unfair plan by Mr. Stone to take the Company
private in a transaction that is inherently unfair to the
Company's public stockholders and is the product of the
defendants' conflicts of interest and breaches of fiduciary
duties.


STAR GAS: Plaintiffs Launch Consolidated Securities Suit in CT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended securities class action
against Star Gas Partners, L.P. in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut.  The suit also names as
defendants certain of the Company's subsidiaries and officers
and directors.

Several suits were initially filed, styled:

     (1) Carter v. Star Gas Partners, L.P., et al, No 3:04-cv-
         01766-IBA, et. al

     (2) Feit v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1832
         (filed on 10/29/2004),

     (3) Lila Gold v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1791
         (filed on 10/22/2004),

     (4) Jagerman v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1855
         (filed on 11/3/2004),

     (5) McCole, et al v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-
         1859 (filed on 11/3/2004),

     (6) Prokop v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1785
         (filed on 10/22/2004),

     (7) Seigle v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1803
         (filed on 10/25/3004),

     (8) Strunk v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1815
         (filed on 10/27/2004),

     (9) Harriette S. & Charles L. Tabas Foundation v. Star
         Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1857 (filed on
         11/3/2004),

    (10) Weiss v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1807
         (filed on 10/26/2004),

    (11) White v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1837
         (filed on 10/9/2004),

    (12) Wood v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1856
         (filed on 11/3/2004)

    (13) Yopp v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1865
         (filed on 11/3/2004),

     (14) Kiser v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1884
          (filed on 11/9/2004),

     (15) Lederman v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1873
          (filed on 11/5/2004),

     (16) Dinkes v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No.04-1979
         (filed 11/22/04) and

     (17) Gould v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-2133
          (filed on 12/17/2004)

The Class Action plaintiffs generally allege that the
Partnership violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by purportedly
failing to disclose, among other things:

     (i) problems with the restructuring of the Company's
         dispatch system and customer attrition related thereto;

    (ii) that the Company's heating oil division's business
         process improvement program was not generating the
         benefits allegedly claimed;

   (iii) that Star Gas was struggling to maintain its profit
         margins in its heating oil division;

    (iv) that Star Gas' second quarter 2004 profit margins were
         not representative of its ability to pass on heating
         oil price increases; and

     (v) that Star Gas was facing an inability to pay its debts
         and that, as a result, its credit rating and ability to
         obtain future financing was in jeopardy.

The Class Action plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages including interest against the defendants
jointly and severally and an award of reasonable costs and
expenses.

On February 23, 2005, the Court consolidated the Class Action
Complaints and heard argument on motions for the appointment of
Lead Plaintiff. On April 8, 2005, the Court appointed the Lead
Plaintiff.  Pursuant to the Court's order, the lead plaintiff
filed a consolidated amended complaint on June 20, 2005.  The
Consolidated Amended Complaint named as defendant:

     (a) Star Gas Partners, L.P.;

     (b) Star Gas LLC;

     (c) Irik Sevin;

     (d) Audrey L. Sevin;

     (e) Hanseatic Americas, Inc.;

     (f) Paul Biddelman;

     (g) Ami Trauber;

     (h) A.G. Edwards & Sons Inc.;

     (i) UBS Investment Bank; and

     (j) RBC Dain Rauscher Inc.

The Consolidated Amended Complaint added claims arising out of
two registration statements, the same transactions under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The
defendants have until August 19, 2005 to file an answer or
otherwise move to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint.


STILLWATER MINING: MT Court Considering Stock Lawsuit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Montana
will continue to hear Stillwater Mining Co.'s motion to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its senior officers on June 24,2005.

In 2002, nine lawsuits were filed on behalf of a class of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of the
Company from April 20, 2001 through and including April 1, 2002.
They assert claims against the Company and certain of its
officers under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs challenge the accuracy of
certain public disclosures made by the Company regarding its
financial performance and, in particular, its accounting for
probable ore reserves.

In July 2002, the court consolidated these actions, and in May
2003, the case was transferred to federal district court in
Montana.  In May 2004, defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' second amended complaint, and in June 2004,
plaintiffs filed their opposition and defendants filed their
reply.

Defendants have reached an agreement in principle with
plaintiffs to settle the federal class action subject to
documentation and court approval. Under the proposed agreement,
any settlement amount will be paid by the Company's insurance
carrier and will not involve any out-of-pocket payment by the
Company or the individual defendants.  In light of the proposed
settlement, the parties have requested that the hearing on
defendants' motion to dismiss be taken off calendar, without
prejudice to their right to reinstate the motion in the event
the parties are not successful in negotiating the terms of the
final settlement papers.


TENNESSEE GAS: KS Court Mulls Gas Royalties Suits Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Stevens County, Kansas has yet to rule on
motions for class certification of two lawsuits filed against
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., a number of its affiliates and other
natural gas companies.

The first suit, styled "Will Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines and
Their Predecessors, et al.," alleges that the defendants
mismeasured natural gas volumes and heating content of natural
gas on non-federal and non-Native American lands and seek to
recover royalties that they contend they should have received
had the volume and heating value of natural gas produced from
their properties been differently measured, analyzed, calculated
and reported, together with prejudgment and postjudgment
interst, punitive damages, treble damages, attorneys' fees,
costs and expenses, and future injunctive relief to require the
defendants to adopt allegedly appropriate gas measurement
practices.  No monetary relief has been specified in this case.

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of a nationwide class
of natural gas working interest owners and natural gas royalty
owners was denied in April 2003. Plaintiffs were granted leave
to file a Fourth Amended Petition, which narrows the proposed
class to royalty owners in wells in Kansas, Wyoming and Colorado
and removes claims as to heating content.  A second class action
petition has since been filed as to the heating content claim.  
Motions for class certification have been briefed and argued in
both proceedings, and the parties are awaiting the court's
ruling.


WORLD WIDE: Recalls 25T 16-Inch BMX Bicycles For Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), World Wide Cycle Supply Inc., of Islandia, New York is
voluntarily recalling about 25,000 units of Harley-Davidson 16-
inch BMX Bicycles.

The fork that holds the front wheel can separate at the weld,
causing the rider to fall and suffer injuries. World Wide Cycle
Supply Inc. has received 15 reports of fork welds breaking on
these bicycles. There have been reports of six riders suffering
injuries including injuries to the face, hands and mouth such as
bruises, lacerations and lost teeth.

The bicycle has a yellow and red painted flame pattern with a
yellow fork and a sticker containing the words "Harley-Davidson"
on the fork leg. Only bicycles with the following serial numbers
are being recalled:

     (1) 02F0026155 through 02F0032454

     (2) 03A0007772 through 03A0013271

     (3) 03A0018849 through 03A0027348

     (4) 03B0004011 through 03B0007460
   
     (5) 03C0019597 through 03C0023496

     (6) 03D0006431 through 03D0008030

     (7) 03E0022835 through 03E0023134

     (8) 03F0027500 through 03F0031059

     (9) 03F0037194 through 03F0040493

    (10) 03F0026276 through 03F0033275

    (11) 03F0040194 through 03F0045493

The serial number can be found on the bottom bracket shell,
which is located underneath the pedals and can be viewed by
turning the bicycle upside down. Picture of recalled products:

     (1) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml05/05256.jpg

Manufactured in China, the bicycles were sold at all Toys "R" Us
stores nationwide from July 2002 through June 2005 for about
$80.

Consumers should stop riding the bicycle immediately and return
it to a Toys "R" Us store for store credit in the amount of the
purchase price.

Consumer Contact: Call World Wide Cycle Supply at (800) 944-9951
between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit
the Toys R Us Web site at http://www.toysrus.com.These bicycles  
were sold through a licensing arrangement with Harley-Davidson
and were not manufactured by Harley-Davidson. Consumers should
not contact Harley-Davidson.



                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

September 8-9, 2005
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: PROSECUTION & DEFENSE STRATEGIES 2005
Practising Law Institute
Chicago, IL
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

September 19-20, 2005
NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

September 26-27, 2005
CONSUMER FINANCE LITIGATION & CLASS ACTIONS
American Conferences
New York
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

September 26-27, 2005
REINSURANCE SUMMIT
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

September 26-27, 2005
WATER CONTAMINATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Marina del Rey Los Angeles
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

September 26-27, 2005
BAD FAITH LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

September 27, 2005
INSURANCE FRAUD CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

September 27, 2005
REINSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

September 27, 2005
REINSURANCE ARBITRATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

September 27-28, 2005
PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF FINITE AND STRUCTURED RISK
(RE)INSURANCE
American Conferences
New York
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

September 29-30, 2005
RAA'S RE CLAIMS SEMINAR: REINSURANCE CLAIMS MANAGEMENT BY CLAIMS
PROFESSIONALS FOR CLAIMS PROFESSIONALS
Mealey Publications
New York, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 2005
ASBESTOS LIABILITY FORUM
Mealey Publications
London, England
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 2005
LAW CLIENT DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 6-7, 2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

October 7, 2005
REINSURANCE LAW & PRACTICE 2005: NEW LEGAL & BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENTS IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENT
Practising Law Institute
New York, NY
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

October 17-18, 2005
BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz Carlton, Phoenix
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 17-18, 2005
INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
Mealey Publications
The Ritz Carlton, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 18-19, 2005
RAA'S REFINANCE SEMINAR--ABC'S OF FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Mealey Publications
The Ritz Carlton, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 19, 2005
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS WALL STREET FORUM: MASS TORT LITIGATION
Mealey Publications
The Carlyle Hotel
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 24-25, 2005
C-8/PFOA SCIENCE, RISKS LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Rittenhouse Philadephia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 26-27, 2005
PREVENTING AND DEFENDING WAGE & HOUR CLAIMS & CLASS ACTIONS
American Conferences
Sheraton Fisherman's Wharf Hotel, San Francisco, CA
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563

October 27, 2005
HEART DEVICE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 27-28, 2005
RETAIL & HOSPITALITY LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 28, 2005
PREVENTING AND DEFENDING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS &
LITIGATION
American Conferences
Sheraton Fisherman's Wharf Hotel, San Francisco, CA
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563

October 28, 2005
DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 3-4, 2005
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS
ALI-ABA
Washington DC
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 3-4, 2005
MANUFACTURER'S LIABILITY CONFERENCE: LEGAL PROTECTIONS CRUCIAL
TO YOUR BOTTOM LINE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Coconut Grove, Miami
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 7, 2005
ALL SUMS: REALLOCATION & SETTLEMENT CREDITS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 7-8, 2005
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS: COPYRIGHT - FROM TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS TO
THE DIGITAL AGE
Mealey Publications
Downtown Conference Center at Pace University, New York City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 7-8, 2005
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT & MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz Carlton Phoenix, Phoenix
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 7-8, 2005
FUNDAMENTALS OF REINSURANCE LITIGATION & ARBITRATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Downtown Conference Center at Pace University, New York City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 9, 2005
CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Four Seasons Resort, Santa Barbara
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 10-11, 2005
CALIFORNIA SECTION 17200 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Four Seasons Resort Santa Barbara
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 14-15, 2005
SILICA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 15-16, 2005
12TH ADVANCED NATIONAL FORUM ON LITIGATING BAD FAITH AND
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
American Conferences
Fontainebleau Resort, Miami, FL, United States
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563

November 17-18, 2005
ASBESTOS LIABILITY FORUM
Mealey Publications
London, England
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 17-18, 2005
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact: 800-320-2227; 850-436-6094 (fax)

December 1-2, 2005
REINSURANCE GENERAL COUNSEL'S CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

December 5-6, 2005
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

December 6, 2005
ASBESTOS INSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

December 7, 2005
ASBESTOS INSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

December 12-14, 2005
10th Annual Drug & Medical Device Litigation
10TH ANNUAL DRUG & MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conferences
The Waldorf Astoria, New York, NY, United States
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563

December 12-13, 2005
VIOXX LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Caesars Palace, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

December 12-13, 2005
LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Pentagon City, Washington DC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

January 23-24, 2005
ADVANCED INSURANCE COVERAGE ISSUES
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

April 5-8, 2006
INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

February 16-17, 2006
ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Coral Gables, Miami, Florida
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 25-26, 2006
INSURANCE COVERAGE 2006: CLAIM TRENDS & LITIGATION
Practising Law Institute
New York
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

September 28-30, 2006
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614


* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

September 01-30, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

September 01-30, 2005
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

September 01-30, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

September 01-30, 2005
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

September 01-30, 2005
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

October 05, 2005
LIFE OF A REINSURANCE CLAIM
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 06, 2005
EMAIL DISCOVERY AND RETENTION POLICIES FOR CORPORATE COUNSEL
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 11, 2005
MTBE TELECONFERENCE: NEW GROUNDBREAKING RULINGS IN THE FEDERAL
MDL
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 11, 2005
ASBESTOS INSURANCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 25, 2005
ASBESTOS MEDICINE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 26, 2005
CA SUPREME COURT DECISION--SEXUAL HARRASSMENT
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 01, 2005
REAL WORLD APPLICATION OF ADDITIONAL INSURED CLAIMS
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 16, 2005
HRT
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 17, 2005
FOOD LIABILITY--ADVERTISING PRACTICES
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 17, 2005
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY TUTORIAL
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 30, 2005
PESTICIDES
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 30, 2005
ASBESTOS SCREENINGS
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

December 6, 2005
WELDING RODS
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

December 7, 2005
PERCHLORATE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

December 8, 2005
SSRI's TELECONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

December 14, 2005
FINITE RISK REINSURANCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

December 14, 2005
CLASS CERTIFICATION--HOW TO GET A CLASS CERTIFIED OR DEFEAT
CERTIFICATION
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  


December 15, 2005
D&O TELECONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

December 15, 2005
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ISSUES
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINAITON
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

_______________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to
carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Suit in OH
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abbey Gardy, LLP, initiated a Class Action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio on behalf of a class (the "Class") of all
persons who purchased or acquired securities of Abercrombie &
Fitch Co. ("Abercrombie" or the "Company")(NYSE: ANF) between
June 2, 2005 and August 16, 2005 inclusive (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 Abercrombie securities. The
Complaint names as defendants Abercrombie, Michael S. Jeffries,
Robert Singer and Michael W. Kramer. The Complaint alleges that
Abercrombie

     (1) carried out a scheme to deceive the investing public;
       
     (2) made untrue statements of material fact and/or omitted
         to state material facts necessary to make the
         statements not misleading; and

     (3) engaged in acts, practices, and a course of business
         which operated as a fraud and deceit upon the
         purchasers of the Company's securities in an effort to
         maintain artificially high market prices for
         Abercrombie securities.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the class
period, Abercrombie made positive public announcements about its
monthly and quarterly sales results while, at the same time they
did not reveal that the Company's margins, a material indicator
of the Company's true financial condition, would be lower in its
2005 second fiscal quarter. In July 2005, Abercrombie's Chairman
and CEO sold more than 1.6 million shares of Abercrombie common
stock reaping $118 million in profits based on negative,
material Company information known to him, but unknown to
Plaintiff and the Class. Following the revelation of the
material, undisclosed information, Abercrombie's common stock
price plummeted, resulting in substantial losses to
shareholders.

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


ARBINET-THEXCHANGE: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, initiated a Class
Action lawsuit in New Jersey on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of purchasers of Arbinet thexchange, Inc. ("Arbinet"
or the "Company") (Nasdaq:ARBX) who purchased their shares
pursuant or traceable to Arbinet's December 16, 2004, initial
public offering (the "IPO" or the "Offering").

The Complaint charges certain of its officers, directors and
underwriters with violations Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933. Plaintiff claims that defendants issued a materially false
and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus in
connection with the Company's IPO. Arbinet is the leading
electronic market for trading, routing and settling
communications capacity. The Complaint alleges that the
Registration Statement failed to adequately disclose and
misrepresented material information concerning, among other
things:

     (1) the Company's inability to match sellers' supply with
         buyers' demand, and -- contrary to the Registration
         Statement and defendants' statements -- that the
         Company's trading platform was illiquid;

     (2) in an effort to mask the Company's illiquid business
         model, the failure to disclose in the Registration
         Statement that the Company actually was offering
         incentives to sellers to do business on the exchange;
         and

     (3) a shift from land-line minutes to cell-based minutes,
         thereby causing a shift to shorter-duration calls, and
         its negative impact on the Company's prospects.

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg 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.


ARBINET-THEXCHANGE: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey against Arbinet-
thexchange Inc. (NASDAQ: ARBX) on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock issued in its initial public offering.
The complaint names as defendants the company and certain of its
underwriters and directors.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the company made
material misstatements or omissions in its registration
statement for its initial public offering, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 16, 2004.

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.


HOST AMERICA: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CT
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, which filed a
class action suit in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut (Docket No. 05-CV-1270) against Host
America and certain of its officers, directors and certain
shareholders, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
the publicly traded common stock of Host America between July
12, 2005 and July 22, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period") is
proving an update on the status of the legal action.  

According to the firm, after a nearly six-week suspension,
trading in the securities of Host America Corp. ("Host America"
or the "Company") (Nasdaq: CAFE) resumed yesterday, September 1,
2005. The price of the Company's stock, which last traded on
July 22, 2005 at $14.25 per share, plummeted on heavy trading
volume to close yesterday at $3.71, down more than 73%.

Kaplan Fox's complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
Host America and certain of its officers, directors and/or
certain shareholders violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by
making a series of materially false and misleading statements
concerning the nature and scope of the Company's business
relationship with Wal-Mart, resulting in the price of Host
America's stock being artificially inflated during the Class
Period. It is further alleged that certain defendants violated
Section 20A of the Exchange Act by improperly selling during the
Class Period vast amounts of their respective stock holdings in
the Company, reaping millions of dollars in proceeds.

On July 22, 2005, the Securities and Exchange Commission ordered
a suspension of trading in Host America securities and on July
25, 2005, the Company disclosed that "the SEC had commenced a
formal investigation of Host, certain of its officers, directors
and others in connection with a press release issued by Host on
July 12, 2005 relating to dealings between Host and Wal-Mart
Stores Inc."

On August 31, 2005, Host America issued a press release stating,
among other things, that with respect to the Company's July 12,
2005 press release that ... "while Host believed that there was
an oral understanding between Host and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
that Host would begin surveying 10 Wal-Mart stores, there is not
and has never been, a formal, written agreement with Wal-Mart
concerning the proposed 10-store survey that was the subject of
the July 12, 2005 press release nor is there any agreement for
the installation of LightMasterPlus(R). To date, neither Host
nor its wholly-owned energy management subsidiary R.S. Services,
Inc. has received from Wal-Mart a list of the 10 stores to be
surveyed. Further, it is Host's understanding that any purchase
and/or installation of the LightMasterPlus(R) will require
approval by Wal-Mart senior management."

The Company also announced that "based on the preliminary
findings of the Special Committee's investigation into the facts
and circumstances surrounding the July 12, 2005 press release,
the Board of Directors of Host voted yesterday, August 30, 2005,
to take the following personnel actions: Effective as of
yesterday, Geoffrey Ramsey, Chief Executive Officer and
President of Host, was placed on administrative leave without
pay pending the completion of the Special Committee's
investigation and its determination regarding what further
personnel actions are necessary and appropriate. David Murphy,
Chief Financial Officer of Host, was appointed to serve as
acting Chief Executive Officer and President. In addition, Mr.
Ramsey has also resigned as a member and Chairman of the Board
of Directors. Mr. Ramsey was not a member of any committee of
the Board of Directors."

For more details, contact Laurence D. King of Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer, LLP, San Francisco, Phone: 415-772-4700, Fax: 415-
772-4707, E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com OR Frederic S. Fox, Joel B.
Strauss, Donald R. Hall, or Jeffrey P. Campisi of King of Kaplan
Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, New York, Phone: 800-290-1952 or
212-687-1980, Fax: (212) 687-7714, E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com.


HOST MAERICA: Murray Frank Provides Updates on Stock Suit in CT
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, which initiated a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut, on behalf of shareholders who purchased
or otherwise acquired the securities of Host America Corporation
("Host America" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: CAFE) between July
12, 2005 and July 22, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period") is
issuing a notice to update investors regarding the class action
lawsuits that have been filed against Host America in connection
with its July 12, 2005 press release.

After a significant independent investigation, Murray, Frank &
Sailer LLP filed the first of several class action lawsuits
against Host America on August 8, 2005 alleging that the July
12, 2005 Form 8-K and press release were false and misleading.

Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP is seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against defendants Host
America, EnergyNSync, Geoffrey Ramsey, David Murphy, Roger
Lockhart, and Peter Sarmanian.

The complaint filed alleges that "Wal-Mart was not a customer of
the Company's in connection to purchasing the LightMasterPlus .
. . Wal-Mart had made no commitment to purchase or install the
LightMasterPlus outside of the test installation" and therefore,
defendants had no basis for stating that the test installation
was a "first-phase roll-out," that "the next phase will involve
a significant number of stores," or that the purported
installation was a "major event for our company." On August 31,
2005, Host America issued a press release updating investors
about the ongoing investigation into its July 12, 2005 notice.
In the press release, Host America informed investors that the
Company "never had a written agreement" or "any agreement for
the installation of LightMasterPlus(r)" with Wal-Mart and that
nearly two months after Host America's announcement on July 12,
2005, "neither Host nor its wholly-owned energy management
subsidiary R.S. Services, Inc. has received from Wal-Mart a list
of the 10 stores to be surveyed." In reaction to Host America's
August 31, 2005, corrective disclosure, the price of the
Company's common stock closed on September 1, 2005, down $10.54
per share, or more than 73 percent.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi, Christopher S. Hinton
or Bradley P. Dyer of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, Phone:
(800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com, Web site:
http://www.murrayfrank.com/CM/NewCases/NewCases280.asp.


IMMUCOR INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on
behalf of purchasers of Immucor, Inc. ("Immucor") (NASDAQ:
BLUDE) common stock during the period between January 7, 2005
and August 29, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Immucor and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

During the Class Period, defendants caused Immucor's shares to
trade at artificially inflated levels by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial statements, business and prospects. This
caused the Company's stock to trade as high as $34.98 per share.
Defendants took advantage of this artificial inflation selling
139,500 shares of their Immucor stock for proceeds of $4.2
million.

On August 26, 2005, Immucor announced a formal Securities and
Exchange Commission investigation into payments made by
Immucor's Italian subsidiary in October 2003 to a physician
connected to a hospital with which Immucor did business.

Then, on August 29, 2005, after the market closed, the Company
announced that it had revised its net income for fiscal 2005 to
account for a previously unrecorded accrual for employee bonuses
and furthermore made an announcement that it had accepted the
resignation of defendant Steven Ramsey from the post of Chief
Financial Officer.

On this news, Immucor's stock collapsed to as low as $22.67 per
share before closing at $24 per share on volume of 6.2 million
shares.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin, 401 B St., Suite 1600, San Diego, CA 92101,
Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com,
Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/immucor/.


IMMUCOR INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in GA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Immucor Inc. (Nasdaq: BLUD)
between Jan. 7, 2005 and August 29, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint alleges the defendants misrepresented that
Norcross, Ga.-based Immucor's financial statements and
disclosures fairly and accurately reflected the company's
results of operations. The complaint also charges that
defendants' Sarbanes-Oxley certifications between Jan. 7 and
Aug. 29 were also false and misleading, as the company allegedly
lacked adequate internal controls and failed to keep proper
books and records.

The suit claims the nature of defendants' alleged fraud began to
come to light on Aug. 26, when the company reported the
Securities and Exchange Commission launched a formal
investigation into payments made by its Italian unit and its
president, De Chirico, in October 2003 to a physician connected
with a hospital with which the company was doing business.

After the market closed on Aug. 29, Immucor reported CFO Steven
C. Ramsey resigned, it revised its previously issued results for
at least two quarters in order to account for an unrecorded
accrued bonus and it said its 10-K for fiscal year 2005 would be
further delayed due to additional accounting and auditing
procedures.

In response to this news, the price of Immucor's common stock
dropped from $28.61 on Aug. 25, before the market learned of the
SEC's formal investigation, to close at $24 a share on Aug. 30.
About 6 million shares of stock were traded on Aug. 30 alone.
This volume is nearly 10 times the average daily volume, the
suit said.

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.


IMMUCOR INC.: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges Securities Suit in GA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC,
initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on
behalf of all persons (the "Class") who purchased the securities
of Immucor, Inc. (Nasdaq: BLUDE) ("Immucor" or the "Company")
during the period January 7, 2005 and August 29, 2005 (the
"Class Period"). Also named as Defendants are Dr. Gioacchino De
Chirico, Steven C. Ramsey, and Edward L. Gallup.

The Complaint alleges that the Company violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. During the Class
Period, the complaint claims that Defendants misrepresented that
Immucor's financial statements and disclosures fairly and
accurately reflected the Company's results of operations as
required by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP")
and the Exchange Act. The Complaint further charges that
Defendants' Sarbanes-Oxley certifications during the Class
Period were also false and misleading, as the Company, knowingly
or with severe recklessness, lacked adequate internal controls
and failed to keep proper books and records, in violation of its
well-publicized Code of Corporate Conduct.

The nature of Defendants' fraud began to come to light on August
26, 2005, when the Company was forced to announce that the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") had launched a
formal investigation into payments made by its Italian unit and
its President, Defendant De Chirico, in October 2003 to a
physician connected with a hospital with which the Company was
doing business. After the market closed on August 29, 2005, the
Company revealed further that its Chief Financial Officer had
resigned, that it would be revising its previously-issued
results for at least two quarters in order to account for a
previously unrecorded accrued bonus, and that its Form 10-K for
fiscal year 2005 would be further delayed due to additional
accounting and auditing procedures the Company claimed were
necessary to properly reflect the accrued bonus and to render
the internal controls report required by Section 404 of
Sarbanes-Oxley.

In response to this news, the price of the Company's common
stock dropped from a closing price of $28.61 on August 25, 2005
before the market learned of the SEC's formal investigation to
close at $24.00 per share on August 30, 2005. A staggering 6
million shares of Immucor common stock were traded on August 30,
2005 alone. This volume is nearly ten times the average daily
volume.

During the first six months of 2005, Immucor insiders sold
approximately 186,000 shares, for proceeds of about $4,970,000
million. During this time, Defendants led the market to believe
that the internal control issue involving the Italian subsidiary
was "an isolated event" that was not expected to lead to more
than a $350,000 fine and increased investigation expenses that
had already been factored into the Company's bottom line. In
fact, however, the opposite was true. Immucor's internal control
problems, as the market later learned, were not confined to its
Italian subsidiary and did not center solely around this alleged
"isolated event."

For more details, contact James E. Miller, Esq. or James C.
Shah, Esq. of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, Phone:
+1-866-540-5505 or +1-877-891-9880, E-mail:
jmiller@classactioncounsel.com or jshah@classactioncounsel.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  * * *