---

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

           Monday, September 26, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 190

                         Headlines

AMERICAN REMANUFACTURERS: Recalls Brake Calipers For Crash Risk
ARKANSAS: Opt-Outs Made Amendment 59 Suit Settlement Possible
BEI TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholders File CA Suit V. Schneider Merger
CALIFORNIA: Credit Card Battle Tests Consumer Protection Laws
CALIFORNIA: Judge Likely to Dismiss Lawsuit Over 2003 Cedar Fire

CALIFORNIA: Teachers Suing CTA Shouted Down by Union Supporters
CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in CA
CANADA: NTI Sues Federal Government For Residential School Abuse
COSI INC.: NY Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
COUNTRY COACH: Recalls 33 1998-99 Motor Homes For Crash Hazard   

DOLLAR GENERAL: Recalls 445T Jewelry Sets Due to Lead Content
ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Court Mulls Suit Certification Denial
ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Court Hears Discovery Motions in Suit
GAMBRO HEALTHCARE: OH to Get $821,791 From Medicaid Fraud Deal
GAMBRO SUPPLY: TX Recovers $1.86M From Medicaid Investigation

GATEWAY REGIONAL: Court to Hear Motion to Dismiss For IL Suit
HOME DEPOT: EEOC Launches Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in NY
HOSPIRA INC.: IL Court Refuses To Dismiss ERISA Violations Suit
IMMERSION CORPORATION: Final Fairness Hearing Set January 2006
INTELSAT LTD.: Asks DC Court To Dismiss Suit V. IGO Resolution

JACUZZI BRANDS: Subsidiary Faces PA Bath Products Antitrust Suit
MAZDA NORTH: Recalls 5.5T 2006 Mazda5 SUVs Due to Fire Hazard   
MISSISSIPPI: Attorney General Files Suit V. Insurance Industry
MONOGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 145T Keyrings For Lead Content
MOSSIMO INC.: Faces Suit V. Giannulli Stock Acquisition Proposal

OFFICEMAX INC.: Settlement Resolves All OH Consumer Complaints
PRIORITY HEALTHCARE: Shareholders Sue V. Express Scripts Merger
REEBOK INTERNATIONAL: Shareholder Files Suit Over Adidas Merger
SALEEN INC.: Recalls 339 Passenger Vehicles Due to Crash Hazard   
SELECT MEDICAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated PA Securities Suit

SELECT MEDICAL: Reaches Settlement For DE Shareholder Fraud Suit
TYSON FOODS: Discovery Continues in Labor Dep't Wage Complaint
TYSON FOODS: Discovery Continues in AL FLSA Violations Lawsuit
TYSON FOODS: Asks PA Court To Stay Workers FLSA Violations Suit
TYSON FOODS: Court Stays Discovery in TN FLSA Violations Lawsuit

TYSON FOODS: DE Court Hears Arguments on Summary Judgment Appeal
TYSON FRESH: Court Mulls Appeal of AL Lawsuit Summary Judgment
TYSON FOODS: Reaches Settlement For AR Hog Producers Fraud Suit
TYSON FRESH: High Court Grants Certiorari For IBP Employee Suit

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Johnston & Perkinson Lodges Stock Suit in PA
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in MA
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in MA
DHB INDUSTRIES: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
HOST AMERICA: Wofsey Rosen Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT

UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges NY Suit Over AllianceBernstein Funds
UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges NY Suit Over Federated Mutual Funds
UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges Suit in NY Over PIMCO Mutual Funds
WORLD HEALTH: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in PA

                         *********


AMERICAN REMANUFACTURERS: Recalls Brake Calipers For Crash Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Remanufacturers, Inc. in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 5,000 units
of ARI / Brake Calipers due to crash risk. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID
Number: 05E058000.

According to the ODI, certain ARI caliper bolts with gold bolt
heads and head markings of "10.9 & FMI" sold with brake caliper
replacement equipment, which have a build code between June 7
and June 24, 2005. Due to a condition that makes the bolts
brittle, they may break without warning and the caliper could
become unanchored from the mounting bracket, possibly impairing
the braking ability of the vehicle. If the bolt break and the
caliper become unanchored, a vehicle crash could occur.   

As a remedy, ARI has notified its purchasers and will replace
the bolts free of charge. The recall began on August 29, 2005.

For more details, contact ARI, Phone: 714-234-2200, Better Brake
Parts, Phone: 419-228-9092 and NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline:
1-888-327-4236 or (TTY) 1-800-424-9153, Web site:
http://www.safecar.gov.


ARKANSAS: Opt-Outs Made Amendment 59 Suit Settlement Possible
-------------------------------------------------------------
Benton County taxpayers forfeited as much as 50 percent of
property tax refunds they might have been due, making way for a
$5.9 million settlement for the class action lawsuit that claims
local school districts and governments violated Amendment 59 of
the Arkansas Constitution by over collecting property taxes
between 1992 and 2003, The Springdale Morning News reports.  

A recent settlement hearing, David Matthews, the attorney
representing school districts in Rogers, Siloam Springs and
Gravette, "We would never have been able to settle but for (the
generosity of) our patrons."

Court records show that more than 10,000 residents filled out
green forms last year stating they voluntarily paid property
taxes and didn't want refunds.  Benton County Circuit Judge Tom
Keith stamped his approval on the $5.89 million settlement,
which was filed in 1997 against Benton County, Rogers, Lowell,
NorthWest Arkansas Community College and Rogers, Bentonville,
Siloam Springs and Gravette school districts.

Attorneys Dale Evans and Kent Hirsch both of whom filed the
lawsuit back in 1997 on behalf of taxpayers, claims local school
districts and governments violated Amendment 59 to the Arkansas
Constitution by over collecting property taxes for several years
in the 1990s. Amendment 59 limits the increase in property tax
revenue from reappraisals to 10 percent per year for each taxing
entity such as a school district or city. When a taxing entity's
revenue collection would increase more than 10 percent because
of property reappraisal, Amendment 59 triggers a mileage
rollback though the limit does not apply to increases resulting
from new construction or improvements, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (June 29, 2005) reports.

According to settlement terms, those taxpayers who returned the
green forms won't receive checks. Those refund amounts will be
removed from what will be distributed. Taxpayers also have the
option of not cashing checks to allow the schools and cities to
retain those funds. Once the suit is settled, no one can make
the same claim for the years 1990 to 2004.  In addition to the
$5.9 million payout, the defendants also agreed to pay about
$1.4 million to the attorneys who filed the suit. During the
hearing, the judge even acknowledged Mr. Evans and Mr. Hirsch
and their efforts to protect citizen rights.

The judge also stated at that hearing, "I'm not sure anyone
really understood Amendment 59 until the Supreme Court told us
years later what it meant. I'm quite sure there was never any
intent to violate the law, but that's not always the case.
Sometimes governments -- both state and local -- aren't always
well intended. Without class action suits, the taxpayers would
not have a remedy . the people wouldn't stand a chance."


BEI TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholders File CA Suit V. Schneider Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
BEI Technologies, Inc. the members of its board of directors and
John LaBoskey, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
face a shareholder class action filed in the California Superior
Court in San Francisco, captioned `Laborers' Local #231 Pension
Fund v. BEI Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-443578.'

The complaint alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duties in
connection with the decision of the Company and the Board of
Directors to enter into the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated
July 21, 2005 among the Company, Schneider Electric SA ("Parent"
or "Schneider") and Beacon Purchaser Corporation ("Purchaser").

More specifically, the complaint challenges the proposed
acquisition of the Company on grounds that the price is
inadequate, the acquisition is the result of a "flawed process"
and that the directors are financially interested in the
transaction and stand to receive benefits not shared by other
stockholders. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin
the proposed acquisition of the Company by Parent and Purchaser.
The case is still in the preliminary stages, and it is not
possible to quantify the impact, if any, on the Company.


CALIFORNIA: Credit Card Battle Tests Consumer Protection Laws
-------------------------------------------------------------
In a legal showdown that will test the bounds of consumer
protection laws, Visa USA Inc. and MasterCard International Inc.
are headed for the San Francisco County Superior Court to
determine whether they are obliged to notify 264,000 customers
that a computer hacker stole their account information, The
Associated Press reports.

The dispute to be argued revolves around a highly publicized
security breakdown at CardSystems Solutions Inc., one of the
nation's largest payment processors.  Initially disclosed by
MasterCard three months ago, the breach, which according to the
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, the breach was the largest of more
than 70 consumer information security breaches reported in the
past seven months, exposed up to 40 million credit and debit
card accounts to potential abuse between August 2004 and May
2005.

Internal investigations revealed that the still-unknown thief
grabbed enough sensitive details from CardSystems to defraud
about 264,000 Visa and MasterCard accountholders nationwide,
according to evidence gathered in the lawsuit, which was filed
by San Rafael, California, attorney Ira Rothken.  The
investigation also revealed that though no home addresses or
Social Security numbers were stolen in the CardSystems breach,
which thus minimizes the risk of identity theft, the hacking did
allow the thief to acquire customer names, account numbers and
security codes that could be used to create bogus credit and
debit cards.

Although a ruling in the class action consumer lawsuit would not
have legal standing outside the state, it would increase the
pressure on Visa and MasterCard to notify all affected
accountholders in this and any future breaches, which would
essentially compound the headaches that the CardSystems fiasco
has already caused.  Even though the scope of the CardSystems
break-in has been generally outlined, the credit card
associations have not sent warnings to the most vulnerable
customers.

San Francisco-based Visa and Purchase, New York-based MasterCard
maintain that such a responsibility should fall to the myriad
banks that administer the accounts because neither credit card
association has direct relationships with the affected
customers. Both Visa and MasterCard provide processing and
marketing services to thousands of banks nationwide, which is a
very profitable endeavor.

The suit is seeking a court order requiring Visa and MasterCard
to warn each Californian whose information was compromised. The
order is being sought under a pioneering state law that requires
consumers to be alerted whenever personal information stored on
computers is lost, stolen or breached.

Mr. Rothken told The Associated Press, "We are trying to
establish an efficient method that would hold Visa and
MasterCard responsible for giving all consumers their due
notices, so each customer can decide whether they want to change
their card number."

Replacing a credit card costs an issuer about $35, which would
total to $9.24 million for 264,000 cards that might have to be
replaced if customers learn of the fraud risk, with the cost
rising even higher to the industry if it's discovered even more
of the 40 million accounts are vulnerable.

Both Visa and MasterCard adamantly maintained that CardSystems'
lax security should be blamed for the breach. Infuriated by the
breakdown, Visa has since cut its ties with Atlanta-based
CardSystems, which says it has tightened controls to comply with
industry standards.

In their legal briefs, Visa and MasterCard have argued that
there's little chance any affected customer will lose a cent
because of the association's long-standing policies to reverse
all charges for fraudulent transactions. The "zero liability"
policy lessens the need to alert individual customers about the
fraud risks, according to MasterCard spokeswoman Sharon Gamsin.

In a statement, Visa also pointed out that it is comfortable
with its anti-fraud measures. Both companies though worry that
the opposite message might be sent if they are ordered to warn
individual customers. Visa's attorneys even argued in a court
brief, "Such an order would harm the banks' goodwill because
some customers would certainly be confused by the notice and
believe the issuing banks were somehow to blame for the security
breach."

For more details on the complaint, visit:
http://www.techfirm.com/cardsystems.pdf.

The suit is styled, Eric Parke, et al. v. CardSystems Solutions,
Inc., Case No. CGC-05-442624, which is pending in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco. Ira
P. Rothken of the Rothken Law Firm, 1050 borthgate Dr., Suite
520, San Rafael, CA 94903, Phone: (415) 924-4250, Fax:
(415) 924-2905; and Stan S. Mallison and Hector R. Martinez of
the law Offices of Mallison & Martinez, 1042 Brown Ave., Suite
A, Lafayette, CA 94549, Phone: (925) 283-3842, Fax:
(925) 283-3426, are representing the Plaintiff/s.


CALIFORNIA: Judge Likely to Dismiss Lawsuit Over 2003 Cedar Fire
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a tentative ruling designed to precede her official decision
in court, Superior Court Judge Lillian Y. Lim indicated that she
would likely throw out a civil suit by Cedar fire victims
seeking more than $100 million in damages against the county and
the state, The North County Times reports.

Set as a signal fire by a lost hunter on October 25, 2003, and
fueled by dry vegetation and hot Santa Ana winds, the Cedar fire
left at least 14 people dead and destroyed more than 2,200
homes. The blaze, which began in the Cleveland National Forest,
burned a swath from Ramona to Interstate 8 and became the
largest wildfire in state history.

Represented by Chicago-based attorney Mark Grotefeld, the 15
plaintiffs in the suit, who were hoping to get class action
status for all Cedar fire victims, claimed that the county and
the state did not properly control or manage the brush on the
rural federal land where the fire began.  In addition, they also
claimed that both the county and the state failed to dispatch
emergency workers quickly enough once the blaze began, and that
911 operators gave false assurances that help was on the way in
the early stages of the fire.  The suit targeted both San Diego
County and the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection.

In her tentative ruling, which came on the same day that a
federal court judge was poised to sentence Sergio Martinez, the
stranded hunter who set the fire, Judge Lim noted, "public
entities are immune from injuries caused by natural conditions
of unimproved property."

Deputy Attorney General Michael Cayaban, who represented the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection in the
suit, told The North County Times that he is "very pleased with
the ruling." He explained that Judge Lim correctly pointed to
immunities he says are designed to ensure that firefighters can
make tactical decisions without the fear of litigation. He
added, "I think it's an important ruling for firefighters across
the state."

Previously, Judge Lim threw out half of the claims in an earlier
lawsuit alleging the county and California's Department of
Forestry were negligent in their handling of the Cedar fire, but
the judge did leave door open for re-filing. The judge threw out
a portion of the suit that alleged the CDF didn't properly staff
the Ramona Airport facility where its firefighting tanker planes
are based, an earlier Class Action story (March 29, 2005)
reports.  Judge Lim also dismissed the part of the suit that
claimed firefighters should have doused the flames more quickly,
since under state law, the county and firefighters have immunity
from liability when battling a disaster, an earlier Class Action
story (March 29, 2005) reports.

In dismissing the suit, Judge Lim told attorneys for the
plaintiffs that they could re-file their negligence claims
within 14 days, if they could present a legal argument that
would overcome the barring of liability claims against public
agencies. Additionally, Judge Lim noted as she dismissed the
case that it was premature to make the case a class action suit,
an earlier Class Action story (March 29, 2005) reports.


CALIFORNIA: Teachers Suing CTA Shouted Down by Union Supporters
---------------------------------------------------------------
A news conference outside the California Teachers Association's
office by a small group of teachers and lawyers who are seeking
class action status for a lawsuit against the union was drowned
out by screams and chants by union supporters, The Associated
Press reports.

The suit, which was filed by The National Right to Work
Foundation in U.S. District Court in San Jose on behalf of six
named teachers and professors, claims that the CTA is illegally
collecting a $60 levy in each of the next three years to pay for
electioneering.

The union voted to raise dues by that amount in hopes of raising
$50 million to pay for a campaign against Propositions 74, 75
and 76 on the November 8 special election ballot.  In unveiling
their suit outside the CTA's offices, the group's speakers were
out shouted by about 100 teachers and other union supporters
carrying pro-union placards and yelling "Shame on you."

State Senator Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, who was there to
lend his support for the suit told The Associated Press, "This
is an example of the kind of intimidation, bullying and thuggery
that our public school teachers are enduring (from the union)
every day."

The suit seeks for the notification in writing of all 335,000
educators who are members and "fee-payers," which are those who
already opt out of other political union activities, of their
legal right not to pay the levy for a political campaign and
have their money returned right away.

Stefan Gleason, vice president of the foundation stated at the
news conference that the 335,000 teachers, professors and others
who are represented by the group were not consulted before the
vote and "they certainly were not allowed an opportunity to
object to, and prevent, this extraordinary expenditure of their
money for politics."

Lead attorney Milton Chappell told The Associated Press that
some of the plaintiffs were told it could take up to two years
to get their refunds. The CTA though countered that anyone who
has written to ask for the $60 will have it returned in October.

Commenting on the suit, CTA President Barbara Kerr told The
Associated Press that the lawsuit "has no basis in fact or in
law" and is a waste of the court's time.

The suit is styled, Liegmann et al. v. California Teachers
Association et al., Case no. 5:05-cv-03828-PVT, which is pending
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California with the Honorable Patricia V. Trumbull, presiding.
Milton L. Chappell of National Right to Work Legal Defense
Foundation, Inc., 8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600, Springfield, VA
22160, Phone: 703-770-3329, Fax: 703-321-9319, E-mail:
mlc@nrtw.org and Steven Burlingham of Gary Till & Burlingham,
5330 Madison Ave., Suite F, Sacramento, CA 95841, Phone:
916-332-8112, Fax: 916-332-8153, are representing the
Plaintiffs: Judith Liegmann, Anthony Lima, Caroline Worthington,
Colleen Hoover, Franklin Lowenthal and Gwynneth Morin.


CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed the consolidated securities class action
filed against Callidus Software, Inc. and certain of its present
and former executives and directors.

The suit originally alleged that the Company and the executives
and directors made materially false or misleading statements or
omissions in violation of federal securities laws.  The suit
seeks damages on behalf of a purported class of individuals who
purchased Company stock during the period from November 19, 2003
through June 23, 2004.

In October 2004, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. In
November 2004, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
naming the Company, Ronald J. Fior, its vice president for
finance and chief financial officer and Reed D. Taussig, our
former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer as defendants and
amending the purported class to include individuals who
purchased Company stock during the period from January 22, 2004
through June 23, 2004.

In February 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  The court granted the motion to dismiss in
May 2005 and granted Plaintiffs leave to amend. Plaintiffs
declined to amend the complaint and the court thereafter entered
a dismissal with prejudice on July 5, 2005.

The suit is styled "In Re: Callidus Software, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 04-CV-2707," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.  Lead
counsel for the plaintiffs are Robert S. Green of Green Welling
LLP, 235 Pine Street, 15th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94104
Phone: 415.477.6700, Fax: 415.477.6710, E-mail:
gw@classcounsel.com; and David Kessler, Michael K. Yarnoff and
Christopher Nelson of 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 is James
N. Kramer, William F. Alderman, M. Todd Scott of Orrick,
Herrington and Sutcliffe, LLP, 405 Howard St., San Francisco CA
94105, Phone: 415-773-5992 and Fax:  415-773-5759.


CANADA: NTI Sues Federal Government For Residential School Abuse
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. launched a class action lawsuit against
the Canadian government demanding compensation for Inuit
residential school alumni, The Nunatsiaq News reports.  

According to NTI president Paul Kaludjak, "The federal
government had stated that they want to settle with the
aboriginal people and we wanted to be part of the process."

The suit came three months after the federal government
appointed Justice Frank Iocabucci as a special mediator to
handle compensation for students of Indian residential schools.
That deal though excluded Inuit, which in turn angered several
Inuit organizations.  Mr. Kaludjak described the lawsuit as the
"initial step" taken by NTI. He told The Nunatsiaq News, "Our
main objective here is to help the Inuit population and make
sure that we help them get back into a solid family foundation
without having this hurt, this abuse, kept inside them."

A statement of claimed, which was on filed August 31, demands
that the government acknowledge responsibility for abuse in
Inuit residential schools, and pay out a total of $300 million
to Inuit who were residential school students. That money should
amount to about $10,000 per person plus $3,000 for each year
spent in school, which according to NTI is in line with what the
Assembly of First Nations has suggested it would like to see.

The claim lists two plaintiffs namely: Michelline Ammaq and
Blandina Tulugarjuk of Igloolik, who were both sent to Sir
Joseph Bernier Federal Day School in Chesterfield Inlet at age
six in the early 1960s. Both allege that they were beaten with a
yardstick, verbally abused by teachers, and actively discouraged
from speaking Inuktitut. One of them even alleges that a
supervisor sexually assaulted her at her dormitory repeatedly.

NTI is compiling a list out of the "several thousand" alumni who
lived in Grollier Hall and Stringer Hall in Inuvik, Akaitcho
Hall in Yellowknife and Bompass Hall in Fort Simpson, as well as
smaller hostels attached to federal schools in Arviat, Baker
Lake, Cambridge Bay, Sanikiluaq, Qikiqtarjuaq, Cape Dorset,
Igloolik, Kuujjuaraapik, Pangnirtung, Payne Bay, Pond Inlet and
Inukjuak. Residents of the tent hostel in Kugluktuk are also
included.

The suit alleges that children sent to the schools lived in a
regime that was "paramilitary in nature" and were deprived of an
opportunity to learn parenting skills. It further alleges that
some students at those schools were beaten, strapped or spanked
"in excess of the punishment acceptable by the Inuit community
or Canadian society at the time."  In addition, the suit further
alleges that others were subject to sexual abuse, including
fondling, inappropriate sexual exhibition and oral sex. It also
alleges that students missed out learning traditional survival
skills, and "were robbed of a sense of the value of their own
culture during their formative years."

On top of that, according to the suit, Inuit students received a
poor education, and many later had to repeat grades already
completed in residential schools.  All of this, according to the
24-page statement of claim, has had profound and long-lasting
effects on residential school alumni.

Upon receiving the statement of claim, the Attorney General of
Canada has 30 days to file a statement of defence or make an
appearance at the Nunavut Court of Justice.


COSI INC.: NY Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed the consolidated securities class action
filed against Cosi Inc., various of its officers and directors
and the underwriter of its IPO.

Nine suits were initially filed, alleging that the defendants
violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, by misstating, and by failing to disclose,
certain financial and other business information.  These actions
have been consolidated in "In re Cosi, Inc. Securities
Litigation."

On July 7, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint, alleging on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of Company stock allegedly traceable to its November 22, 2002
IPO, that at the time of the IPO, its offering materials failed
to disclose that the funds raised through the IPO would be
insufficient to implement the Company's expansion plan; that it
was improbable that the Company would be able to open 53 to 59
new restaurants in 2003; that at the time of the IPO, the
Company had negative working capital and therefore did not have
available working capital to repay certain debts; and that the
principal purpose for going forward with the IPO was to repay
certain existing shareholders and members of the Board of
Directors for certain debts and to operate the Company's
existing restaurants.  The plaintiffs in the Securities Act
Litigation generally seek to recover recessionary damages,
expert fees, attorneys' fees, costs of Court and pre- and post-
judgment interest.  

On August 22, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint, which was substantially similar to the
Consolidated Amended Complaint.  On September 22, 2003, the
Company filed motions to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended
Complaint in the Securities Act Litigation. Plaintiffs filed
their opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss on October
23, 2003.  The Company filed reply briefs on November 12, 2003.

On July 30, 2004, the Court granted plaintiffs permission to
replead their complaint against the Company.  On September 10,
2004, plaintiffs filed their Third Consolidated Amended
Complaint.  Plaintiffs abandoned their claim that the Company
misled investors about its ability to execute its growth plans.  
Instead, plaintiffs claim that the Company's offering materials
failed to disclose that, at the time of the IPO, the Company was
researching the possibility of franchising its restaurants.

On October 12, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' Third Consolidated Amended Complaint.  On November
19, 2004, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Company's
motion to dismiss.  On January 11, 2005, the Company filed a
reply brief in further support of our motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' Third Consolidated Complaint.  The Court granted the
Company's motion and heard oral arguments on the matter on July
15, 2005.  On July 28, 2005, the Court dismissed with prejudice
Plaintiff's Third Consolidated Complaint in its entirety and
ordered entry of judgment for the defendant.


COUNTRY COACH: Recalls 33 1998-99 Motor Homes For Crash Hazard   
--------------------------------------------------------------
Country Coach, Inc. in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 33 units of 1998-99 Country
Coach / Intrigue due to crash hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number:
05V398000.

According to the ODI, certain motor homes fail to comply with
the Requirements of Federal Motor vehicle Safety Standard No.
120, "Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than
Passenger Cars." These motor homes were inadvertently assigned
inadequate cold tire inflation pressures giving tires a lower
weight carrying capacity than the front and rear axle weight
ratings. This could lead to premature tire wear and potentially
a tire failure, which could result in the loss of steering
control and result in a crash.

As a remedy, dealers will replace both the front and rear tires
and issue a new federal tire label reflecting the corrected cold
tire inflation pressures. The recall is expected to begin on
September 23, 2005.

For more details, contact Country Coach, Phone: 1-800-547-8015
and NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY)
1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Recalls 445T Jewelry Sets Due to Lead Content
-------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Dollar General Corporation, of Goodlettsville, Tennessee
is voluntarily recalling about 445,000 units of Necklace and
Earring Sets.

According to the company, the recalled jewelry contains high
levels of lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and
can cause adverse health effects.  The flower necklace and
earring set features a floral design in four-color variations:
yellow, orange, pink and purple. The purse necklace and earring
set features a dangling purse charm in black, red, blue, orange,
pink or purple. The corded swirl necklace and earring set
features a twisted metal swirl pattern hanging from a black,
blue or purple cord. The faux amber necklace and earring set
features a large faux amber gem cut in a heart or cross shape.
The 5-strand bead necklace and earring set were sold in four-
color variations: orange, purple, blue and multi-color.

Manufactured in China, the necklace and earring sets were sold
at all Dollar General Stores nationwide from May 2005 through
August 2005 for between $1 and $3.  Consumers should take the
recalled jewelry away from children immediately and return to
Dollar General stores for a refund.  Consumer Contact: For
additional information, contact Dollar General at (800) 678-9258
between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.dollargeneral.com.


ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Court Mulls Suit Certification Denial
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles has
yet to rule on plaintiffs' appeal of the denial of class
certification for the lawsuit filed against Echostar
Communications Corporation, relating to the use of terms such as
"crystal clear digital video," "CD-quality audio," and "on-
screen program guide," and with respect to the number of
channels available in various of its programming packages.

David Pritikin and Consumer Advocates, a nonprofit
unincorporated association, filed the suit in 1999, alleging
breach of express warranty and violation of the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq.,
and the California Business & Professions Code Sections 17500 &
17200.

A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
the Company's motion for summary judgment was held during 2002.
At the hearing, the Court issued a preliminary ruling denying
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  However, before
issuing a final ruling on class certification, the Court granted
the Company's motion for summary judgment with respect to all of
the plaintiffs' claims. Subsequently, the Company filed a motion
for attorneys' fees which was denied by the Court. The
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's granting of
the Company's motion for summary judgment and the Company cross-
appealed the Court's ruling on its motion for attorneys' fees.

During December 2003, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part; and
reversed in part, the lower court's decision granting summary
judgment in the Company's favor.  Specifically, the Court found
there were triable issues of fact whether the Company may have
violated the alleged consumer statutes "with representations
concerning the number of channels and the program schedule."  
However, the Court found no triable issue of fact as to whether
the representations "crystal clear digital video" or "CD quality
audio" constituted a cause of action. Moreover, the Court
affirmed that the "reasonable consumer" standard was applicable
to each of the alleged consumer statutes.  Plaintiff argued the
standard should be the "least sophisticated" consumer. The Court
also affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiffs' breach of warranty
claim. Plaintiff filed a Petition for Review with the California
Supreme Court and the Company responded.

During March 2004, the California Supreme Court denied
Plaintiff's Petition for Review. Therefore, the action has been
remanded to the trial court pursuant to the instructions of the
Court of Appeals. Hearings on class certification were conducted
on December 21, 2004 and on February 7, 2005. The Court denied
Plaintiff's motion for class certification on February 10, 2005.
The Plaintiff has appealed this decision.


ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Court Hears Discovery Motions in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Arapahoe County District Court in the State of Colorado is
hearing discovery motions in the consumer class action filed
against Echostar Communications Corporation on behalf of its
satellite hardware retailers.

During October 2000, two separate lawsuits were filed by
retailers in the Arapahoe County District Court in the State of
Colorado and the United States District Court for the District
of Colorado, respectively, by Air Communication & Satellite,
Inc. and John DeJong, et al. on behalf of themselves and a class
of persons similarly situated.  The plaintiffs are attempting to
certify nationwide classes on behalf of certain of the Company's
satellite hardware retailers.  The plaintiffs are requesting the
Courts declare certain provisions of, and changes to, alleged
agreements between the Company and the retailers invalid and
unenforceable, and to award damages for lost incentives and
payments, charge backs, and other compensation.

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
stayed the Federal Court action to allow the parties to pursue a
comprehensive adjudication of their dispute in the Arapahoe
County State Court.  John DeJong, d/b/a Nexwave, and Joseph
Kelley, d/b/a Keltronics, subsequently intervened in the
Arapahoe County Court action as plaintiffs and proposed class
representatives.  

The Company has filed a motion for summary judgment on all
counts and against all plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a motion
for additional time to conduct discovery to enable them to
respond to our motion. The Court granted a limited discovery
period which ended November 15, 2004. The Court is hearing
discovery related motions and the Company expects the Court to
follow with a briefing schedule for the motion for summary
judgment.


GAMBRO HEALTHCARE: OH to Get $821,791 From Medicaid Fraud Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Jim Petro reports that Ohio will receive as
much as $821,791 as part of a 40-state, $37.5-million settlement
with Sweden-based Gambro Healthcare Inc. over allegations of
Medicaid fraud.

"I am proud of our efforts to aggressively pursue those who take
advantage of Ohio's Medicaid program," Mr. Petro said. "In this
case, my office, along with three other states, led the
negotiations that resulted in this substantial settlement."

The agreement with Gambro resolves allegations that the company
used a subsidiary company, Gambro Supply Corp., to improperly
bill Medicaid for providing supplies and equipment to patients
undergoing dialysis at home. Dialysis assists in removing toxins
from the blood when a patient's kidneys are unable to do so on
their own. One form of dialysis, peritoneal dialysis, can be
done by the patient at home after the patient has had sufficient
training.

By using their subsidiary, Gambro billed Medicaid at a higher
reimbursement rate than what was allowed under federal
regulations. As a result, the state Medicaid programs paid too
much for the dialysis services.  The settlement also covered
allegations that Gambro caused federal and state healthcare
programs to pay for unnecessary tests and services and that
Gambro paid kickbacks to physicians based on patient referrals
made to a Gambro clinic.

Similar agreements have been finalized in 39 other states and
the District of Columbia. The $37.5 million Medicaid recovery
represents damages and penalties. The settlement period covers
January 1, 1991, through September 30, 2004. The negotiations on
behalf of the states were conducted by the directors of the
Medicaid Fraud Control units from Ohio, North Carolina, South
Carolina and Missouri.

Last year, the federal government and Gambro entered into a
settlement agreement in which Gambro paid more than $308 million
to the federal government to settle civil liabilities from the
improper payments made to Gambro Supply Corp. Gambro Supply
Corp. also was fined $25 million in federal court in St. Louis
in 2004 when the corporation pleaded guilty to a charge of
health care fraud related to the improper billing.

Finally, as part of the settlement, Gambro has entered into a
Corporate Integrity Agreement with the United States Department
of Health and Human Services' Inspector General. The agreement
will require strict scrutiny of Gambro's billing practices for
the next five years.


GAMBRO SUPPLY: TX Recovers $1.86M From Medicaid Investigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott reports the recovery of $1.86
million for the Texas Medicaid program following a multi-state
investigation of Gambro Healthcare Inc. and its subsidiary,
Gambro Supply Corp. The total recovery reflects the amount
defrauded from the program, which comprises the state's
partnership with the federal government for managing this
program.

Gambro used its subsidiary supply company to fraudulently bill
Medicaid for equipment it provided to patients undergoing kidney
dialysis treatments at home, resulting in excessive payments to
the company from the government health care program.

"I am pleased this company is returning the money it swindled
from the Medicaid program," said Mr. Abbott. "Like many other
companies that have exploited the Medicaid program for profit,
this business has seen the error of its ways and is paying for
ripping off Texas taxpayers."

Gambro billed Medicaid through its subsidiary at a higher
reimbursement rate than was allowable by law, resulting in
Texas' and other states' Medicaid programs paying far too much
for the dialysis services. Dialysis helps in the removal of
toxins from the blood when a person's kidneys cannot perform
this bodily function.

The settlement also resolves allegations that Gambro
orchestrated unnecessary tests and services in which physicians
were paid kickbacks based on their referrals to Gambro's
facilities. The states were wrongly billed for these medically
unnecessary tests. The total nationwide restitution to Medicaid,
with penalties and interest, is $37.5 million and relates to
similar schemes to defraud 40 other states from January 1991
through September 2004.

Attorney General Abbott's Medicaid Fraud Control Unit and those
of other states investigated the company and its practices. As
part of the settlement, Gambro, with offices in several states,
will permit the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Office of Inspector General to scrutinize its billing practices
for the next five years.


GATEWAY REGIONAL: Court to Hear Motion to Dismiss For IL Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gateway Regional Medical Center's motion to dismiss in a class
action complaint that accuses it of inflating charges for
uninsured patients will be heard on September 26 by Circuit
Judge Daniel Stack in place of the retired Judge Philip Kardis,
The Madison County Record reports.

The plaintiffs in the suit, who are all from Illinois, are
Kimberly Chronister, Lisa Golino, Julia Holman, Linda Hughes,
and Robert Orasco. They are accusing the hospital of charging
unfair and unreasonable prices for medical care.

According to the suit filed by Chicago attorney James Branit of
Bullaro & Carton, "Gateway charged...more than triple what
Gateway received for the same services from the vast majority of
their other patients, often triple what governmental agencies
paid under Medicare and Medicaid; and more than triple the
actual cost of the care."

Gateway, represented by Richard Hunsaker, Patrick Cloud and
Michael Daniels of Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen in
Edwardsville, filed the motion to dismiss on June 15, stating,
"Plaintiff's failed to plead sufficient facts to state a claim
for breach of contract, Illinois Consumer Fraud, common law
fraud, or abuse of process, consequently, this Honorable Court
should dismiss each claim." The motion goes on to state, "More
specifically, the plaintiffs have not alleged facts indicating
that Gateway's conduct offended public policy, was immoral,
unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous, or caused substantial
injury to consumers."

In addition, the motion to dismiss also states, "None of the
plead facts in the complaint indicate that Gateway did anything
other than what they allegedly promised to do, charge their
regular rates."

The plaintiffs contend that the only group required to pay the
alleged inflated rates are those who do not qualify for Medicaid
or Medicare, or are not sufficiently covered by health
insurance, often because of financial inability. Fees charged to
the uninsured or under-insured "bore no rational relationship to
actual costs and were not 'regular' or 'usual and customary',"
according to their suit.

Court records show that all of the named plaintiffs have been
sued by Gateway seeking to recover money for medical services
provided to them or their minor children.

In its 10-count class action suit, the plaintiffs allege that
Gateway was in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, constructive fraud, fraudulent
misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of good faith and
fair dealing, unjust enrichment, theory of imposition,
unconscionability, civil conspiracy and declaratory judgment.

Additionally, the plaintiffs allege that if they had known the
truth about being charged regular rates for medical services,
they would not have accepted the services that Gateway provided,
or would have negotiated the charges before receiving the
services.


HOME DEPOT: EEOC Launches Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission initiated a
class action suit against Home Depot U.S.A. alleging that West
Indian employees at the Red Hook store were subjected to a
torrent of racist abuse by two managers, The New York Daily News
reports.

In the suit, the EEOC alleges that former worker Glenford
Edwards and other employees of West Indian origin were
repeatedly subjected to derogatory and insulting comments based
on their backgrounds. The managers, who were not identified in
the complaint filed in Brooklyn Federal Court, allegedly mocked
the workers' accents as well. A source familiar with the
investigation told The New York Daily News that the managers in
question are white.

The suit seeks back pay and punitive damages for Mr. Edwards and
other West Indian employees who were targets of the alleged
harassment.

Court records show that Mr. Edwards was fired from the store on
Hamilton Ave. after complaining about the alleged
discrimination. The suit does not specify the date of his
termination.

In response to the filing of the suit, Jerry Shields, a
spokesman for Home Depot U.S.A., stated that the company
maintains a zero-tolerance policy against discrimination. In a
press statement, Mr. Shields said, "Given our company's strong
commitment to equal employment opportunity, we are extremely
disappointed that these allegations are being made. We look
forward to addressing these allegations with the EEOC."

However, EEOC officials told The New York Daily News that the
discrimination suit was brought only after efforts to reach a
voluntary settlement with the Atlanta-based company were
exhausted.


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

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

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


IMMERSION CORPORATION: Final Fairness Hearing Set January 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Immersion Corporation in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York is set for January 9,2006.  

The court earlier granted preliminary approval to the settlement
of the suit, styled "In re Immersion Corporation Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, No. Civ. 01-9975 (S.D.N.Y.),"
related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
No. 21 MC 92 (S.D.N.Y.)."  The suit also names as defendants
three of its current or former officers or directors and certain
underwriters of the Company's November 12, 1999 initial public
offering (IPO).  Subsequently, two of the individual defendants
stipulated to a dismissal without prejudice.

The operative amended complaint is brought on purported behalf
of all persons who purchased the common stock of Immersion from
the date of the IPO through December 6, 2000.  It alleges
liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, on the grounds that the registration statement for the IPO
did not disclose that:

     (1) the underwriters agreed to allow certain customers to
         purchase shares in the IPO in exchange for excess
         commissions to be paid to the underwriters; and

     (2) the underwriters arranged for certain customers to
         purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
         predetermined prices.

The complaint also appears to allege that false or misleading
analyst reports were issued.  The complaint does not claim any
specific amount of damages.

Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over
300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000. The cases were consolidated for pre-
trial purposes.  On February 19, 2003, the Court ruled on all
defendants' motions to dismiss.  The motion was denied as to
claims under the Securities Act of 1933 in the case involving
Immersion, as well as in all other cases (except for 10 cases).
The motion was denied as to the claim under Section 10(b) as to
Immersion, on the basis that the complaint alleged that
Immersion had made acquisition(s) following the IPO.  The motion
was granted as to the claim under Section 10(b), but denied as
to the claim under Section 20(a), as to the remaining individual
defendant.

The Company and most of the issuer defendants have settled with
the plaintiffs.  In this settlement, plaintiffs have dismissed
and released all claims against the Immersion Defendants, in
exchange for a contingent payment by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in all of the
IPO cases, and for the assignment or surrender of certain claims
the Company may have against the underwriters. The Immersion
Defendants will not be required to make any cash payments in the
settlement, unless the pro rata amount paid by the insurers in
the settlement exceeds the amount of the insurance coverage, a
circumstance which the Company believes is remote. The
settlement will require final approval of the Court, which
cannot be assured, after class members are given the opportunity
to object to the settlement or opt out of the settlement.  The
Court has set a hearing date of January 9, 2006, to consider
final approval of the settlement.


INTELSAT LTD.: Asks DC Court To Dismiss Suit V. IGO Resolution
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intelsat Ltd. asked the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia to dismiss two class actions filed on June
24, 2004, and September 20, 2004 against it, arising out of a
resolution adopted by the governing body of the IGO prior to
privatization.

In each case, the named plaintiffs are Intelsat retirees,
spouses of retirees or surviving spouses of deceased retirees.
They allege, among other things, that the Company wrongfully
modified health plan terms to deny coverage to surviving spouses
and dependents of deceased Company retirees.  The Company has
moved to dismiss the complaints, arguing that the resolution is
not enforceable, that Intelsat has the right to modify the terms
of any postretirement health benefits being provided, and that
the associated damage claims are without merit.

On May 4, 2005 and again on May 9, 2005, one of the plaintiff
groups filed an amended complaint (including a motion for leave
to file the second amended complaint) to add certain factual
allegations and claims. On May 5, 2005, the other plaintiff
group filed an amended complaint.  Among other things, the
amended complaints contain a new claim based on language in the
resolution which states that if the Company's consolidated net
worth falls below $500,000, it would be required to establish an
irrevocable trust to accept funds for payment of these health
benefits and to obtain a letter of credit in an amount equal to
150% of the then current Financial Accounting Standards Board,
or FASB, valuation of the benefit liability, and that if the
Company's consolidated net worth falls below $300,000, the trust
can and will exercise this letter of credit, with the funds to
be paid into the trust. According to a Company filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company's consolidated
net worth is currently less than $300,000.  If the Company's
consolidated net worth falls below $300,000, the trust can and
will exercise this letter of credit, with the funds to be paid
into the trust.

A hearing on the motions to dismiss in both cases was conducted
on May 11, 2005, at which time the court consolidated the two
cases but did not make a final determination on the motions.  


JACUZZI BRANDS: Subsidiary Faces PA Bath Products Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Jacuzzi Brands, Inc. that operated its former
Eljer business faces a purported class action complaint brought
by private parties and filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The suit alleges that Eljer and certain of its competitors/co-
defendants conspired to fix prices for bath and kitchen fixtures
in the United States No specific amount of damages was claimed.  
This matter is not expected to have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows, the Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.


MAZDA NORTH: Recalls 5.5T 2006 Mazda5 SUVs Due to Fire Hazard   
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mazda North America Operations in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 5,500 units
of 2006 Mazda5 sports utility vehicles due to fire hazard. NHTSA
CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V412000.

According to the ODI, on certain vehicles, a heat buildup in the
exhaust system can occur, which could result in a fire.

As a remedy, Mazda will instruct owners to bring in their
vehicles and will be given a rental or loaner vehicle at no cost
while Mazda develops a remedy and makes repairs.  For more
details, contact Mazda, Phone: 1-800-222-5500 and NHTSA Auto
Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY) 1-800-424-9153, Web
site: http://www.safecar.gov.


MISSISSIPPI: Attorney General Files Suit V. Insurance Industry
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Jim Hood said that his office filed a civil
action in the Chancery Court of Hinds County, Mississippi, First
Judicial District against the insurance industry seeking to
declare void and unenforceable certain provisions contained in
property casualty insurance policies issued to Mississippi Gulf
Coast residents excluding coverage from damage caused by
Hurricane Katrina.

Attorney General Jim Hood stated, "All that the people have left
is hope and I'm not going to allow an insurance company to
wrongfully take that hope away. Although some insurance
companies are trying to do the right thing, I won't allow the
others to take advantage of people hurt by Hurricane Katrina."

The Complaint asks the Court to declare that certain insurance
contract provisions are void and unenforceable as the same are
contrary to public policy, are unconscionable, and are
ambiguous. The provisions at issue attempt to exclude from
coverage loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by water,
whether or not driven by wind. The Complaint states that these
provisions should be strictly construed against the insurance
companies who drafted the insurance policies and their
exclusions. The Complaint also states that the issuance of such
insurance policies violates the Mississippi Consumer Protection
Act.

The Complaint also asks the Court, among other things, to enter
a Temporary Restraining Order to immediately stop insurance
companies from asking property owners to sign documents stating
that their loss was caused by flood or water as opposed to wind,
and to stop using water exclusions to deny or reduce coverage
for hurricane damage or loss. The Court is also being asked to
enter a preliminary and permanent injunction with regard to
these same matters.

"I'm hopeful that next week we will be able to stop unscrupulous
insurance adjusters from requiring people to sign away their
rights to `flood damage' claims in exchange for a significantly
smaller amount which will be used for immediate living expenses.
I want to encourage the people to continue to fight and I'll do
everything I can to make sure that insurance companies pay what
they owe." Mr. Hood said.

For more details, contact Jacob Ray of The Office of the
Attorney General, P.O. Box 220, Jackson, MS 39205-0220, Phone:
601-359-3680, Telefax: (601) 359-2009.


MONOGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 145T Keyrings For Lead Content
--------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Monogram International Inc., of Pinellas Park, Florida
is voluntarily recalling about 145,000 units of Disney Princess
Bracelet Keyrings.

According to the company, the recalled jewelry contains high
levels of lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and
can cause adverse health effects.

The "Bracelet Keyring" is a pink plastic keyring attached to a
bracelet, which consists of pink and white beads or red and
white beads, a metal pendant and metal dividers between the
beads. It was sold under the brand Disney Princess. "Item
#24405" and "Made In China" are printed on the back of the
packaging.

Manufactured in China, the keyrings were sold at various
retailers including Walgreen and Wal-Mart nationwide from
November 2003 through June 2005 for about $3.

Consumers should take these recalled bracelet keyrings away from
children immediately and return them to Monogram International
for a refund.  Consumer Contact: Contact Monogram International
at (800) 736-1941 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday or visit their Web site: http://www.monogramdirect.comto  
receive instructions for returning the keyrings.


MOSSIMO INC.: Faces Suit V. Giannulli Stock Acquisition Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mossimo, Inc. faces a consolidated shareholder class action
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, styled
"In re Mossimo, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated Civil
Action No.1246-N."

On April 12, 2005, Mossimo Giannulli offered to acquire all of
the outstanding publicly held common stock of the Company at a
price of $4.00 per share.  Since then, six purported class
action lawsuits were filed, asserting that the Directors have
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders,
and seeks an injunction preventing the acquisition.  On May 27,
2005, the above referenced cases were consolidated.

The Company and its Board of Directors intend to vigorously
defend the lawsuits.  On April 19, 2005, the Board of Directors
appointed a Special Committee to consider and evaluate Mr.
Giannulli's proposal.  The Special Committee retained Houlihan
Lokey and Gibson Dunn & Crutcher to serve as the Committee's
independent financial advisor and legal counsel, respectively,
with respect to the Committee's evaluation of Mr. Giannulli's
proposal.  The Committee is currently in the process of
reviewing the terms of Mr. Giannulli's proposal as well as any
indications of interest expressed by other third- parties.


OFFICEMAX INC.: Settlement Resolves All OH Consumer Complaints
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro's office reached a settlement
with OfficeMax, Inc., which resulted in an agreement to honor
valid rebate requests and provide rainchecks for hundreds of
consumers in accordance with Ohio consumer laws.  

As part of the settlement, OfficeMax agreed to resolve all
consumer complaints filed with the office that were part of the
lawsuit, continue to resolve all valid consumer complaints, pay
$22,500 in civil penalties, and pay $25,000 to refund the state
for work it did to mediate consumer complaints against the
company.   

"We are pleased OfficeMax has agreed to abide by Ohio's consumer
protection laws and has made adjustments to its business
practices to ensure compliance with those laws," Mr. Petro said.  

Mr. Petro filed suit against OfficeMax in January for allegedly
failing to honor rebates and failing to provide rainchecks when
sale items were not in stock. The Attorney General's Office had
received more than 100 consumer complaints against OfficeMax in
the two years prior to the lawsuit. After it was filed the
office received hundreds of more complaints.

The Attorney General's Office will inspect OfficeMax's printed
and promotional advertisements to make sure it is not violating
Ohio's consumer protection laws. Consumers can file complaints
with Attorney General Jim Petro's office online at
http://www.ag.state.oh.usor by calling 1-800-282-0515.


PRIORITY HEALTHCARE: Shareholders Sue V. Express Scripts Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Priority Healthcare Corporation faces a shareholder class action
filed in the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit,
in and for Seminole County, Florida, in relation to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of July 21, 2005 by and
among the Company, Express Scripts, Inc. and Pony Acquisition
Corporation.  The suit also names as defendants each of the
Company's directors.

The suit, styled "James Hanson v. Priority Healthcare
Corporation, et al (Case No. 05-CA-1513-1627-K)," alleges, among
other things, that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties of good faith, fair dealing, loyalty and due
care to the Company's shareholders by failing to:

     (1) fully inform themselves of the market value of the
         Company before entering into the Merger Agreement;

     (2) act in the best interests of the Company's
         shareholders;

     (3) maximize shareholder value;

     (4) obtain the best financial and other terms when the
         Company's independent existence will be materially
         altered by the Merger Agreement; and

     (5) act in accordance with their fundamental duties of good
         faith, fair dealing, due care and loyalty.

The suit also alleges that the Company aided and abetted its
directors' breaches of their fiduciary duties via entering into
the Merger Agreement.  The suit seeks a declaration that the
lawsuit is properly maintainable as a class action and
certification of the plaintiff as class representative and
plaintiff's counsel as class counsel; a declaration that the
Merger Agreement was entered into in breach of fiduciary duties
and is therefore unlawful and unenforceable; an injunction
prohibiting the Company and its directors from proceeding with
the Merger Agreement; an injunction prohibiting the Company and
its directors from consummating the merger unless and until the
Company and its directors implement procedures to obtain the
highest possible price for the Company; an order directing the
Company's directors to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain
a transaction which is in the best interests of the Company's
shareholders until the process for the sale or auction of the
Company is completed and the highest possible price is obtained;
an award of costs and disbursements, including reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees; and such other and further relief
as the court may deem just and proper.


REEBOK INTERNATIONAL: Shareholder Files Suit Over Adidas Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder of Reebok International Ltd. initiated a proposed
class action lawsuit against the world's third-biggest shoe
manufacturer and its directors, claiming that a $3.8 billion
buyout offer by German sporting goods maker Adidas-Salomon AG is
"grossly inadequate," Reuters reports.

According to the Canton, Massachusetts-based firm's recent
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the suit was
filed by Bryan Jennings in Norfolk County, Massachusetts and it
suit alleges that Reebok directors failed to determine
sufficiently the true value of the company through a market
check or open bidding.

Adidas plans to buy the outstanding shares of Reebok for $59 per
share in cash. Reebok's shares, currently trading at $56.38 on
the New York Stock Exchange, jumped 30 percent on news of the
merger in early August.

The combined strength of the two companies would create an $11
billion sneaker and apparel giant that analysts say would be
more capable of challenging No. 1 Nike Inc. in the United
States. The merger is expected to be complete by the first half
of 2006.

Reebok also stated in a preliminary proxy statement filed with
the SEC that the suit is alleging that directors "breached their
fiduciary duties" and that the payment to shareholders "is
unfair and grossly inadequate." Reebok also stated that the
suit, which is seeking unspecified damages, asks the courts to
stop the merger agreement and direct the company to sell or
auction Reebok for the highest possible price.

Though Reebok was not immediately available for comment it did
state in the SEC filing that company planned to vigorously
defend itself against the lawsuit, which it believes was without
merit.


SALEEN INC.: Recalls 339 Passenger Vehicles Due to Crash Hazard   
---------------------------------------------------------------
Saleen, Inc. in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is
voluntarily recalling about 339 units of 2005 Saleen / S281
Supercharged passenger vehicles due to crash hazard. NHTSA
CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V413000.
  
According to the ODI, on certain vehicles, the bolts used to
fasten the hood latch and hinges to the fiberglass body of the
hood can become loose. The hood may become loose and/or separate
from its latch and/or hinge/s while driving, which could result
in a crash.

As a remedy, dealers will replace the hood bolts. The recall is
expected to begin during September 2005.

For more details, contact Saleen, Phone: 1-949-597-4900 and
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY)
1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov.


SELECT MEDICAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated PA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
Select Medical Corporation in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The suit also names
as defendants:

     (1) Martin Jackson,

     (2) Robert A. Ortenzio,

     (3) Rocco A. Ortenzio,

     (4) Patricia Rice

On August 24, 2004, Clifford C. Marsden and Ming Xu filed the
suit on behalf of the public stockholders of the Company,
alleging, among other things, failure to disclose adverse
information regarding a potential regulatory change affecting
reimbursement for the Company's services applicable to long-term
acute care hospitals operated as "hospitals within hospitals" or
as "satellites," and the issuance of false and misleading
statements about the financial outlook of the Company.  The
complaint seeks, among other things, damages in an unspecified
amount, interest and attorney's fees.

In February 2005, the Court appointed James Shaver, Frank C.
Bagatta and Capital Invest, die Kapitalanlagegesellschaft der
Bank Austria Creditanstalt Gruppe GmbH as lead plaintiffs.  On
April 19, 2005, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
purportedly on behalf of a class of shareholders of the Company,
against Martin Jackson, Robert A. Ortenzio, Rocco A. Ortenzio,
Patricia Rice, and the Company as defendants. The amended
complaint alleges, among other things, failure to disclose
adverse information regarding a potential regulatory change
affecting reimbursement for the Company's services applicable to
long-term acute care hospitals operated as hospitals within
hospitals, and the issuance of false and misleading statements
about the financial outlook of the Company. The amended
complaint seeks, among other things, damages in an unspecified
amount, interest and attorneys' fees.


SELECT MEDICAL: Reaches Settlement For DE Shareholder Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Select Medical Corporation reached a settlement for the
consolidated shareholder class action filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle County, opposing
the merger between the Company and Welsh Carson Anderson &
Stowe.

On October 18, 2004, Garco Investments, LLP filed a purported
class action on behalf of the unaffiliated stockholders of the
Company.  The suit also names as defendants the Company, Welsh
Carson and the company's directors:

     (1) Russell L. Carson,

     (2) David S. Chernow,

     (3) Bryan C. Cressey,

     (4) James E. Dalton, Jr.,

     (5) Meyer Feldberg,

     (6) Robert A. Ortenzio,

     (7) Rocco A. Ortenzio,

     (8) Thomas A. Scully,

     (9) Leopold Swergold, and

    (10) LeRoy S. Zimmerman

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's
directors violated their fiduciary duties by approving the
merger agreement before engaging in a full and fair sale process
or an active market check, and that Welsh Carson knowingly aided
and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty committed by
the director defendants.  The complaint seeks, among other
things, to enjoin the defendants from consummating the merger
or, alternatively, to rescind the proposed merger in the event
it has been consummated or award rescissory damages.

On November 3, 2004, Terrence C. Davey filed a similar class
action in the same court, on behalf of the unaffiliated
stockholders of the Company.  The suit named the same defendants
and made similar claims with the prior lawsuit.

On November 18, 2004, the Court entered an Order of
Consolidation which, among other things, consolidated the above-
mentioned actions under the caption "In re: Select Medical
Corporation Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 755-
N" and appointed co-lead plaintiffs' counsel.  On December 20,
2004, plaintiffs Garco Investments LLP and Terence C. Davey
filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint in the Court,
purportedly on behalf of the Company's unaffiliated stockholders
against all of the Company's directors, the Company and Welsh,
Carson, Anderson & Stowe. The amended complaint alleged, among
other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties owed to the plaintiffs and the Company's stockholders in
connection with the proposed going private transaction, that the
proposed merger consideration was not fair or adequate, and that
the defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented material
information in the proxy statement relating to the merger and/or
disseminated a "stale" fairness opinion by Banc of America
Securities LLC.

As a result of arm's-length settlement negotiations among
counsel in the Delaware consolidated lawsuit, on January 21,
2005 the parties executed a stipulation of settlement which
recognizes, among other things, that the allegations of the
amended complaint were a material factor in causing the Company
to make certain additional disclosures in the proxy statement,
and that those disclosures, and the other terms set forth in the
stipulation of settlement (which is on file with the Court) are
a fair and reasonable means by which to resolve the action. On
June 1, 2005, the Court, following a hearing, granted final
approval of the settlement.


TYSON FOODS: Discovery Continues in Labor Dep't Wage Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the civil complaint filed against
Tyson Foods, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, styled "Elaine L. Chao,
Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Tyson
Foods, Inc."

In 2000, the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of
Labor (DOL) conducted an industry-wide investigation of poultry
producers, including the Company, to ascertain compliance with
various wage and hour issues.  As part of this investigation,
the DOL inspected 14 of the Company's processing facilities.

On May 9, 2002, the complaint was filed alleging that the
Company violated the overtime provisions of the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) at the Company's chicken-processing
facility in Blountsville, Alabama.  The complaint does not
contain a definite statement of what acts constituted alleged
violations of the statute, although the Secretary of Labor has
indicated in discovery that the case seeks to require the
Company to compensate all hourly chicken processing workers for
pre- and post-shift clothes changing, washing and related
activities and for one of two unpaid 30-minute meal periods.  
The Secretary of Labor seeks unspecified back wages for all
employees at the Blountsville facility for a period of two years
prior to the date of the filing of the complaint, an additional
amount in unspecified liquidated damages, and an injunction
against future violations at that facility and all other chicken
processing facilities operated by the Company.

No trial date has been set.  The matter has been stayed pending
the outcome of the petitions for certiorari presently before the
U.S. Supreme Court in two other similar matters involving the
donning and doffing of certain personal protective clothing and
equipment, styled "Alvarez, et al. v. IBP" and "Tum,
et al. v. Barber Foods, Inc."

The suit is styled "Chao v. Tyson Foods, Inc., case no. 2:02-cv-
01174-VEH, filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, under Judge Virginia Emerson
Hopkins."

Lawyers for the United States Department of Labor are John A.
Black, Jaylyn Fortney, E. Wade Green, Jr. and George B. O'Haver
and Howard M. Radzely.  For more details, contact the US
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR-OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR, Atlanta Federal
Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Room 7T10, Atlanta, GA 30303 by
Phone: 1-404-562-2057 or Fax: 1-404-562-2073 or by E-mail:
black.john@dol.gov

Representing the company is Joel M. Cohn and Michael J. Mueller
of AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP, 1333 New Hampshire
Avenue, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036, Phone:
1-202-887-4000, Fax: 1-202-887-4288 E-mail:
mmueller@akingump.com; and Tony G. Miller and David M. Smith of
MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC, AmSouth Harbert Plaza, Suite 2400,
1901 6th Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2618, Phone:
254-1000, Fax: 254-1999, E-mail: tmiller@mcglaw.com and
dsmith@mcglaw.com.


TYSON FOODS: Discovery Continues in AL FLSA Violations Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in the lawsuit filed against Tyson Foods,
Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama, styled "M.H. Fox, et al. v. Tyson Foods,
Inc.," by 11 current and former employees of the Company.

The suit alleges the Company violated requirements of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  The suit alleges the Company failed
to pay employees for all hours worked and/or improperly paid
them for overtime hours.  The suit specifically alleges that:

     (1) employees should be paid for time taken to put on and
         take off certain working supplies at the beginning and
         end of their shifts and breaks and

     (2) the use of "mastercard" or "line" time fails to pay
         employees for all time actually worked.

Plaintiffs seek to represent themselves and all similarly
situated current and former employees of the Company, and
plaintiffs seek reimbursement for an unspecified amount of
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees and costs.  To
date, approximately 5,100 consents have been filed with the
District Court.

Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective treatment and
court-supervised notice to additional putative class members was
denied on February 27, 2004.  The plaintiffs re-filed their
motion for conditional collective treatment and court-supervised
notice to additional putative class members on April 2, 2004,
and the District Court has not ruled on this motion.  

No trial date has been set.  The matter has been stayed pending
the outcome of the petitions for certiorari presently before the
U.S. Supreme Court in two other similar matters involving the
donning and doffing of certain personal protective clothing and
equipment, styled "Alvarez, et al. v. IBP" and "Tum,
et al. v. Barber Foods, Inc."


TYSON FOODS: Asks PA Court To Stay Workers FLSA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania stayed the employees' class action filed against
Tyson Foods, Inc., styled "De Asencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc."

On August 22, 2000, seven employees of the Company filed the
case, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
for allegedly failing to pay for time taken to put on, take off
and sanitize certain working supplies, and violations of the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.  

Plaintiffs ask to represent themselves and all similarly
situated current and former employees of the poultry processing
plant in New Holland, Pennsylvania, and plaintiffs seek
reimbursement for an unspecified amount of unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, attorney fees and costs.  There are
approximately 560 additional current or former employees who
have filed consents to join the lawsuit.

The District Court, on January 30, 2001, ordered that notice of
the lawsuit be issued to all potential plaintiffs at the New
Holland facilities.  On July 17, 2002, the District Court
granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the state law claims.  
On September 23, 2002, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed
to hear the Company's petition to review the District Court's
decision to certify the state law claims.  On September 8, 2003,
the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's certification
of a class under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment & Collection Law,
ruling that those claims could not be pursued in federal court.  
The Court of Appeals further ruled that the Company must reissue
notice of their potential FLSA claims to approximately 2,170
employees who did not previously receive notice.  The Court of
Appeals remanded the matter to the District Court to proceed
accordingly on September 30, 2003, and notice was reissued.
Further proceedings in the District Court are pending, and no
trial date has been set.  The Company has requested the District
Court to stay the proceedings in this matter pending the outcome
of the petitions for certiorari presently before the U.S.
Supreme Court in "Alvarez" and "Tum."

The suit is styled "De Asencio et al v. Tyson Foods, Inc., case
no. 00-cv-04294-RK," filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under Judge Robert F.
Kelly.


TYSON FOODS: Court Stays Discovery in TN FLSA Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee stayed discovery in the class action filed against
Tyson Foods, Inc. and IBP, Inc., styled "Emily D. Jordan, et al.
v. IBP, Inc. and Tyson Foods, Inc."

On November 21, 2002, ten current and former hourly employees of
Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.'s (formerly IBP, Inc.) case-ready
facility in Goodlettsville, Tennessee, on behalf of themselves
and other unspecified, allegedly "similarly situated" employees,
claiming that the defendants have violated the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The suit alleges that defendants failed to pay employees for all
hours worked from the plant's commencement of operations in
April 2001.  In particular, the suit alleges that employees
should be paid for the time it takes to collect, assemble and
put on, take off and wash their health, safety and production
gear at the beginning and end of their shifts and during their
meal period.  The suit also alleges that the Company deducts 30
minutes per day from employees' paychecks regardless of whether
employees obtain a full 30-minute period for their meal.  
Plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that the defendants did not
comply with the FLSA, and an award for an unspecified amount of
back pay compensation and benefits, unpaid entitlements,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
attorney fees and costs.  

On January 15, 2003, the Company filed an answer to the
complaint denying any liability.  On January 14, 2003, the named
plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited court-supervised notice
to prospective class members.  The motion sought to
conditionally certify a class of similarly situated employees at
all of TFM's non-union facilities that have not been the subject
of FLSA litigation.

Plaintiffs then withdrew a request for conditional certification
of similarly situated employees at all of TFM's non-union
facilities and rather sought to include all non-exempt employees
that have worked at the Goodlettsville facility since its
opening.  On June 9, 2003, the Company filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment seeking the applicability of the injunction
entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
and affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
"(Metzler v. IBP, inc. 127 F. 3rd 959, 10th Cir. 1997)," which
the Company contends has a preclusive effect as to plaintiffs'
claims based on pre- and post-shift activities.  The plaintiffs
conducted discovery limited to that issue and responded to said
Motion on June 18, 2004.  The Company filed its reply on July 2,
2004.  On October 12, 2004, the District Court denied the
Company's motion for summary judgment.

On November 17, 2003, the District Court conditionally certified
a collective action composed of similarly situated current and
former employees at the Goodlettsville facility based upon
clothes changing and washing activities and unpaid production
work during meal periods, since the plant operations began in
April 2001.

Class Notices to approximately 4,500 prospective class members
were mailed on January 21, 2004.  Approximately 525 current and
former employees have opted into the class.  The District Court
stayed discovery on November 8, 2004, pending the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision on petitions for certiorari in "Alvarez" and
"Tum."

The suit is styled "Jordan, et al v. IBP, Inc., et al., case no.
02-CV-1132," filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, under Judge
Judge Aleta A. Trauger.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

     (1) Charles P. Yezbak, III, 144 Second Avenue North, Suite
         200, Nashville, TN 37201, Phone: (615) 250-2000

     (2) Molly A. Elkin, Gregory K. McGillivary, Heidi R.
         Burakiewicz of Woodley & McGillivary, 1125 15th Street,
         NW Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005 by Phone: (202) 833-
         8855

Representing the Company are:

     (i) John Randolph Bibb, Jr., Jonathan Jacob Cole of Baker,
         Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, Commerce
         Center, 211 Commerce Street, Suite 1000, Nashville, TN
         37201, Phone: (615) 726-5600

    (ii) Michael John Mueller, Joel Mark Cohn, Evangeline G.
         Paschal of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, 1333 New
         Hampshire Avenue, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036,
         Phone: (202) 887-4000


TYSON FOODS: DE Court Hears Arguments on Summary Judgment Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Delaware
heard oral arguments in the plaintiffs' appeal of the ruling
granting summary judgment in favor of Tyson Foods, Inc. in the
securities class action filed against it and officers Don Tyson,
John Tyson and Les Baledge.

Between June 22 and July 20, 2001, various plaintiffs commenced
actions, seeking monetary damages on behalf of a purported class
of those who sold IBP, Inc. (IBP) stock from March 29, 2001,
when the Company announced its intention to terminate its merger
agreement with IBP, through June 15, 2001, when a Delaware state
court rendered its Post-Trial Opinion ordering the merger to
proceed.  

Plaintiffs in the various actions alleged that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making, causing or allowing
to be made, certain allegedly false and misleading statements in
a March 29, 2001, press release issued in connection with the
Company's attempted termination of the merger agreement.  The
plaintiffs alleged that, as a result of the defendants' alleged
conduct, purported class members were harmed by an alleged
artificial deflation in the price of IBP's stock during the
proposed class period.  The various actions were subsequently
consolidated under the caption "In re Tyson Foods, Inc.
Securities Litigation" and, on December 4, 2001, the plaintiffs
in the consolidated action filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint.

On January 22, 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint.  By memorandum order dated October
23, 2002, the District Court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss.  On October 6, 2003, the
District Court certified a class consisting of those who
purchased IBP securities on or before March 29, 2001, and
subsequently sold such securities from March 30 through June 15,
2001, inclusive, and sustained damages as a result of such
transaction.  

Following the conclusion of discovery in the case, plaintiffs
and defendants each filed motions for summary judgment.  On June
17, 2004, the District Court rendered an opinion in favor of
defendants and against plaintiffs on all of plaintiffs' claims,
and entered an order to that effect.  On June 28, 2004,
defendants filed a motion requesting the District Court to
modify its order to include judgment in defendants' favor
against the class and on July 30, 2004, the District Court
entered such an order.  On August 6, 2004, plaintiffs filed a
Notice of Appeal.  Plaintiffs filed their brief on the appeal on
December 8, 2004, defendants filed their response on January 24,
2005 plaintiffs filed their reply brief on February 24, 2005.  
Oral arguments were held on September 12, 2005.


TYSON FRESH: Court Mulls Appeal of AL Lawsuit Summary Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States 11th Circuit Court of Appeal has yet to rule
on plaintiffs' appeal of the judgment in favor of Tyson Fresh
Meats, Inc. (TFM, formerly IBP, Inc.) in the cattle growers
antitrust class action filed against the Company.

In July 1996, certain cattle producers filed a class action
styled "Henry Lee Pickett, et al. v. IBP, Inc." in the U.S.
District Court, Middle District of Alabama, seeking
certification of a class of all cattle producers.  The complaint
alleged that TFM "used its market power and alleged captive
supply agreements to reduce the prices paid by TFM on purchases
of cattle in the cash market in alleged violation of the Packers
and Stockyards Act (PSA).

Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as
actual and punitive damages.  Plaintiffs submitted an amended
expert report on November 19, 2003, showing alleged damages on
all cash market purchases by TFM of approximately $2.1 billion.  
Trial of this matter began on January 12, 2004, and concluded on
February 10, 2004.  On February 17, 2004, a jury returned a
verdict against TFM on liability and gave an "advisory" verdict
on damages that estimated the impact on the cash market (i.e., a
group larger than the class) to be $1.28 billion.

On February 25, 2004, TFM filed a renewed motion requesting the
Court to enter a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) for TFM.  On
March 1, 2004, the plaintiffs filed motions asking the Court to
enter the $1.28 billion advisory verdict as an award of damages
to the plaintiffs and requesting prejudgment interest.  On March
22, 2004, the Court denied the plaintiff's motions for entry of
a damages award.  On April 23, 2004, the Court granted TFM's
JMOL motion, and held:

     (1) TFM had legitimate business reasons for using "captive
         supplies,"

     (2) there was "no evidence before the Court to suggest that
         [TFM's] conduct is illegal," and

     (3) "plaintiffs failed to present evidence at trial to
         sustain their burden with respect to liability and
         damages."

The plaintiffs have appealed the Court's entry of judgment in
favor of TFM to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and oral
arguments were heard by the Circuit Court on December 17, 2004.

The suit is styled "Pickett, et al v. Tyson Fresh Meats, et al,
2:96-cv-01103-LES-CSC," filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Alabama under Judge Lyle E.
Strom, presiding.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are:

     (i) Andrew Clay Allen, Joe R. Whatley, Peter Harrington
         Burke, Whatley Drake, LLC, PO Box 10647, Birmingham, AL
         35202-0647, Phone: 205-328-9576, Fax: 328-9669, Email:
         aallen@whatleydrake.com, jwhatley@whatleydrake.com or
         measterwood@whatleydrake.com

    (ii) David Alan Domina, Norah M. Kane, Domina Law PC, 1065
         North 115th Street, Suite 150, Omaha, NE 68154, Phone:
         402-493-4100, Fax: 402-493-9782, E-mail:
         dad@dominalaw.com or nmk@dominalaw.com,

   (iii) Ernest Clayton Hornsby, Jr., Morris Haynes & Hornsby
         The Financial Center, 505 North 20th Street, Suite
         1150, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: 205-324-4008, Fax:
         205-324-0803, Email: chornsby@bellsouth.net

    (iv) Larry Wade Morris, Morris, Haynes & Hornsby, PO Box
         1660, Alexander City, AL 35011-1660, Phone: 256-329-
         2000, Fax: 329-2015, Email: paralegal888@yahoo.com

     (v) Pierce Jackson Harris, Jr., Randy Beard, Beard & Beard
         PO Box 88, Guntersville, AL 35976-0088, Phone: 256-582-
         3189, Fax: 256-582-6787, Email: pj@beardandbeard.com or
         randy@beardandbeard.com

    (vi) Stephen K. Griffith, Knight Griffith McKenzie Knight
         McLeroy & Little LLP, PO Box 930, Cullman, AL 35056,
         Phone: 256-734-0456, Fax: 256-734-0466 or Email:
         skgriff@knight-griffith.com

Defending the Company are Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, 1501 K
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-736-8000, Fax: 202-
736-8711, Email: fvolpe@sidley.com and Nathan Hodne, Tyson
Foods, Inc., Asst. General Counsel, 2210 West Oaklawn Drive
Springdale, AR 72762, Phone: 479-290-4706, Fax: 479-290-7967
Email: Nathan.Hodne@Tyson.com


TYSON FOODS: Reaches Settlement For AR Hog Producers Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. agreed to settle the lawsuit filed by 82
individual plaintiffs against Tyson Foods, Inc., styled "Michael
Archer, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. and The Pork Group, Inc.,
CIV 2002-497."

The Company announced a restructuring of its live swine
operations which, among other things, resulted in the
discontinuance of relationships with approximately 130 contract
hog producers, including the plaintiffs.  In their complaint,
the plaintiffs allege that the Company committed fraud and
should be promissorily estopped from terminating the parties'
relationship.  The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs.  

Trial was scheduled to begin on August 1,2005 in the Circuit
Court of Pope County, Arkansas.  On July 19, 2005, the Company
announced it had agreed to settle the lawsuit and pay $42.5
million to 85 contract growing operations.  A definitive
settlement agreement has been signed and on August 2, 2005, the
court approved the settlement.  Pursuant to the settlement
agreement, the growers will be subject to a court order
requiring them to properly close the environmental waste systems
no longer in use on their farms.


TYSON FRESH: High Court Grants Certiorari For IBP Employee Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court granted Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.
(formerly IBP, Inc.)'s petition for certiorari for the lawsuit
filed against it, styled "Alvarez et al. v. IBP."  Oral
arguments are set for October 3,2005.

In 1998, the lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Washington against IBP (n/k/a Tyson
Fresh Meats, Inc. or TFM) by employees of its Pasco, Washington
beef slaughter and processing facility.  Plaintiffs brought this
action on behalf of themselves and TFM's Pasco employees
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
Sections 201-219; the Washington Minimum Wage Act, Revised Code
of Washington (RCW) Chapter 49.46; the Industrial Welfare Act,
RCW Chapter 49.12; the Wages-Reductions-Contributions Rebates
Act, RCW Chapter 49.52; and related regulations.  Eight hundred
fifteen plaintiffs sought additional compensation principally
for the time required to:

     (1) don and doff protective clothing at the beginning and
         the end of the workday and at meal periods;

     (2) walk between lockers or other locations where
         protective clothing was stored or distributed and their
         workstations; and

     (3) wash protective clothing and other equipment items at
         the end of the work shift.

Trial was held from September 27, 2000, until October 27, 2000.  
On September 14, 2001, the District Court entered its Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which resulted in a $3.1 million
judgment against TFM, comprised of back wages, exemplary
damages, and liquidated damages, with as yet no specified amount
for prejudgment interest.  On December 14, 2001, the District
Court awarded an additional $2 million for attorney fees and
costs.  TFM filed a timely Notice of Appeal and Plaintiffs filed
a timely notice of Cross-Appeal.  On August 5, 2003, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision
in part and reversed in part, and remanded the case to the
District Court for recalculation of damages.  If the ruling of
the Court of Appeals is upheld in its entirety, the Company will
have additional exposure in "Alvarez" of approximately $5
million.  

The Company filed a petition for rehearing by the panel of the
Court of Appeals or, in the alternative, a rehearing en banc,
which was denied on December 2, 2003.  It also filed a petition
to certify state law claims to the Washington Supreme Court
which was denied on September 23, 2003.  On December 5, 2003,
the Company filed a Petition to Stay the Mandate stating it
would file a Petition for Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court
seeking the Court's review of the Ninth Circuit's adverse
opinion.  

A Stay of the Mandate was ordered by the Ninth Circuit on
December 10, 2003.  A Petition for Certiorari was filed with the
U.S. Supreme Court on February 26, 2004.  After the parties
completed briefing on the Petition, on May 3, 2004 the Court
invited the U.S. Solicitor General to express its views on the
pending Petition.  On October 25, 2004, the Solicitor filed its
response, acknowledging the issues warranted further review but
advising that a First Circuit case ("Tum") would be better
suited for the Court's consideration of the issues.  On February
22, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on both the
"Alvarez" and "Tum" petitions.  Oral argument is scheduled
before the U.S. Supreme Court on October 3, 2005.

On November 5, 2004, a follow-on lawsuit to "Alvarez", entitled
"Maria Chavez, et al. v. IBP, Lasso Acquisition Corporation and
Tyson Foods, Inc." (Chavez) was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington by employees of TFM's
Pasco, Washington beef slaughter, processing and hides
facilities, again alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 - 219, as well as
violations of the Washington State Minimum Wage Act, RCW chapter
49.46, Industrial Welfare Act, RCW chapter 49.12, and the Wage
Deductions-Contribution-Rebates Act, RCW chapter 49.52.

The Chavez lawsuit similarly alleges TFM and/or the Company
required employees to perform unpaid work related to the donning
and doffing of certain personal protective clothing and
equipment, both prior to and after their shifts, as well as
during meal periods.  Plaintiffs further allege the holdings in
Alvarez support a claim of collateral estoppel and/or res
judicata as to many of the issues raised in this litigation.

Chavez initially was pursued as an opt-in, collective action
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), but the District Court granted
Plaintiff's motion seeking certification of a class of opt-out,
state law plaintiffs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
and notice was sent to potential state law claim class members.  
The state-law class contains approximately 3,900 class members,
including approximately 1,200 on the federal claim.  

The trial was held from September 7, 2004, through October 4,
2004.  The District Court issued its proposed findings of fact
and conclusions of law on December 8, 2004.  The District Court
has now informed the parties they have until February 21, 2005,
to provide the District Court with objections to the proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law and a trial brief on
damages, and until March 7, 2005, to file reply briefs.  The
District Court heard oral arguments based upon the party's
objections and damages briefings March 29, 2005.  The District
Court then filed its final findings of facts and conclusions of
law on the liability phase of the trial on May 18, 2005 and on
the damages on June 28, 2005 and July 14, 2005.  On July 20,
2005, judgment was entered for $11.4 million, exclusive of costs
and attorney fees.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Johnston & Perkinson Lodges Stock Suit in PA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Johnston & Perkinson ("J&P") initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of investors who
purchased the securities of ATI Technologies, Inc. ("ATI" or the
"Company")(Nasdaq:ATYT) between October 7, 2004 and June 22,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges ATI Technologies, Kwok Yuen Ho, David E.
Orton and Patrick G. Crowley with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
throughout the Class Period, ATI reported strong financial
results in publicly disseminated press releases and in filings
with the SEC. In addition, defendants repeatedly issued positive
guidance, claiming that ATI's purported leadership in graphics
and multimedia technologies in the consumer electronics and PC
markets would "continue driving growth for ATI in fiscal 2005."
As a result of these statements, the price of ATI stock became
artificially inflated during the Class Period. Certain Company
insiders, including defendants Kwok Yuen Ho and David E. Orton
took advantage of the artificial inflation in the price of the
Company's stock, and during the Class Period, each sold
approximately 40% of their personally-held ATI stock for total
proceeds of over $54 million.

On June 6, 2005, ATI warned that its revenues for the third
quarter 2005 would be $530 million, 5% below the Company's
guidance. The Company stated that a shift in its product mix
towards the lower end of the desktop and notebook market
contributed to a decline in gross margin for the quarter. In
addition, ATI claimed that the production of integrated graphics
processor products, which had margins well below the corporate
average, contributed to lower profit margins, and stated that it
was experiencing lower than anticipated yields on certain
products due to operational issues. As a result, the Company
lowered its guidance for its third and fourth quarter of 2005.
In reaction to this news, the price of ATI stock fell $1.58, or
10.3%, from its previous trading day's closing price of $15.26
per share, to close at $13.68 on June 7, 2005. On June 23, 2005,
the Company revealed in a press release that it had experienced
a net loss of $400,000 in the third quarter 2005, compared to a
$49 million profit in the same period in 2004. In addition,
defendants slashed their guidance for the fourth quarter,
projecting revenues to be approximately $550-580 million, 10%
lower than previously projected, and projecting gross margins to
be 29-30%, approximately 5% lower than defendants' previous
guidance of 34%. In reaction to this news, the price of ATI
stock declined even further, falling $0.98, or 7.6%, to close at
$11.80 on June 23, 2005.

For more details, contact Peter McDougall, Esq. of Johnson &
Perkinson, 1690 Williston Road, P.O. Box 2305, South Burlington,
VT 05403, Phone: 1-877-266-2133, E-mail:
pmcdougall@jpclasslaw.com, Web site: http://www.jpclasslaw.com.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Boston
Scientific Corporation (NYSE: BSX) between March 31, 2003 and
August 23, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

Additionally, Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. is
investigating whether the Boston Scientific Corporation
retirement plans may have imprudently invested in Boston
Scientific stock between March 31, 2003 and August 23, 2005.

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


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of all persons who purchased the
securities of Boston Scientific Corporation (NYSE:BSX) ("the
Company") between March 31, 2003 and August 23, 2005 (the "Class
Period"). Also included are all those who acquired Boston
Scientific through its acquisitions of Rubicon Medical,
CorAutus, Precision Vascular, Advanced Bionics, CryoVascular
Systems, and TriVascular.

Schatz & Nobel, P.C. also has substantial experience
representing employees who suffered losses from the purchase of
their employer's stock in their 401 (k) plans. If you bought
Boston Scientific through your Boston Scientific retirement
account and have information or would like to learn more about
these claims, please contact us.

The Complaint alleges that Boston Scientific, a company that
engages in the development and marketing of cardiovascular and
endosurgery medical device products, violated federal securities
laws by issuing false and misleading statements. Specifically,
the Complaint alleges that Boston Scientific provided highly
explicit false and misleading assurances of the Company's
ability to satisfy FDA regulations governing its medical device
product quality, as well as affirmative representations as to
the Company's knowledge and expertise regarding design,
development, marketing approval, and sales of its medical
devices.

On August 23, 2005, based on the cumulative impact of three
separate FDA warning letters, investors learned of defendants'
broad-based concealment of its broken quality program and the
risks the Company faced. As a result, Boston Scientific's stock
price fell 4.5 percent to $25.92. During the Class Period,
shares of Boston Scientific traded as high as $45.81 on April 5,
2004. While the Company's stock was trading at artificially
inflated prices, insiders sold over $400 million worth of their
personal holdings.

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


DHB INDUSTRIES: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abbey Gardy, LLP, commenced a Class Action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (Civil Action No. 05-4330) on behalf of a
class (the "Class") of all persons who purchased or acquired
securities of DHB Industries, Inc. ("DHB" or the
"Company")(AMEX:DHB) between April 21, 2004 and August 29, 2005
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a
series of material misrepresentations to the market during the
Class Period thereby artificially inflating the price of DHB
securities. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that during
the Class Period, DHB insiders sold approximately 194 million of
the their own shares at prices artificially inflated by
defendants' false and misleading statements about the Company's
bullet resistant body armor products.

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.


HOST AMERICA: Wofsey Rosen Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wofsey Rosen Kweskin & Kuriansky, LLP, initiated
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut on behalf of all purchasers of Host
America Corporation ("Host America" or the "Company") (Pink
Sheets:CAFE) securities during the period from July 12, 2005
through July 22, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action charges Host America and certain of its senior
officers with violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The alleged violations stem from the dissemination
of false and misleading statements, which had the effect --
during the Class Period -- of artificially inflating the price
of Host America's shares.

Investors allege that during the Class Period, the Company made
material misrepresentations concerning the nature of the
business relationship between Host America and Wal-Mart, which
triggered a run-up in Host America's stock price from $3.12 to
$14.25 in a span of 9 trading days. Moreover, insiders of Host
America profited handsomely from those misrepresentations,
selling over $6.92 million of Host America securities just after
this run-up.

On July 22, 2005, trading of Host America securities was halted,
pending SEC review in regards to its misleading announcement
made on July 12. At the time trading was halted, Host America
stock was priced at $13.92 per share. When trading resumed, the
price quickly fell to below $2.

For more details, contact Eric M. Higgins, Esq. of Wofsey Rosen
Kweskin & Kuriansky, LLP, Phone: (203) 327-2300, E-Mail:
higgins@wrkk.com.


UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges NY Suit Over AllianceBernstein Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against UBS-AG and its affiliated entities
("UBS"), on behalf of those who purchased AllianceBernstein
mutual funds from UBS between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The AllianceBernstein mutual funds and their respective symbols
are as follows:

AllianceBernstein All-Asia Investment Fund (NASDAQ: AALAX)
(NASDAQ: AAABX) (NASDAQ: AAACX)
AllianceBernstein Americas Government Income Trust (NASDAQ:
ANAGX)
(NASDAQ: ANABX) (NASDAQ: ANACX)
AllianceBernstein Balanced Shares (NASDAQ: CABNX) (NASDAQ:
CABBX)
(NASDAQ: CBACX)
AllianceBernstein Blended Style Series - U.S. Large Cap
Portfolio
(NASDAQ: ABBAX) (NASDAQ: ABBAX) (NASDAQ: ABBCX)
AllianceBernstein Bond Fund Corporate Bond Portfolio (NASDAQ:
CBFAX)
(NASDAQ: CBFBX) (NASDAQ: CBFCX)
AllianceBernstein Bond Fund Quality Bond Portfolio (NASDAQ:
ABQUX)
(NASDAQ: ABQBX) (NASDAQ: ABQCX)
AllianceBernstein Bond Fund U.S. Government Portfolio (NASDAQ:
ABUSX)
(NASDAQ: ABUBX) (NASDAQ: ABUCX)
AllianceBernstein Disciplined Value Fund (NASDAQ: ADGAX)
(NASDAQ: ADGBX)
(NASDAQ: ADGCX)
AllianceBernstein Disciplined Value Fund (NASDAQ: ADGAX)
(NASDAQ: ADGBX)
(NASDAQ: ADGCX)
AllianceBernstein Emerging Market Debt Fund (NASDAQ: AGDAX)
(NASDAQ: AGDBX) (NASDAQ: AGDCX)
AllianceBernstein Global Small Cap Fund (NASDAQ: GSCAX) (NASDAQ:
AGCBX)
(NASDAQ: GSCCX)
AllianceBernstein Global Strategic Income Trust (NASDAQ: AGSAX)
(NASDAQ: AGSBX) (NASDAQ: AGCCX)
AllianceBernstein Global Value Fund (NASDAQ: ABAGX) (NASDAQ:
ABBGX)
(NASDAQ: ABCGX)
AllianceBernstein Global Value Fund (NASDAQ: ABAGX) (NASDAQ:
ABBGX)
(NASDAQ: ABCGX)
AllianceBernstein Greater China '97 Fund (NASDAQ: GCHAX)
(NASDAQ: GCHBX)
(NASDAQ: GCHCX)
AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund (NASDAQ: CABDX) (NASDAQ:
CBBDX)
(NASDAQ: CBBCX)
AllianceBernstein Growth Fund (NASDAQ: AGRFX) (NASDAQ: AGBBX)
(NASDAQ: AGRCX)
AllianceBernstein Health Care Fund (NASDAQ: AHLAX) (NASDAQ:
CBBDX)
(NASDAQ: CBBCX)
AllianceBernstein High Yield Fund (NASDAQ: AHYAX) (NASDAQ:
AHHBX)
(NASDAQ: AHHCX)
AllianceBernstein Intermediate California Muni Portfolio
(NASDAQ: AICBX)
(NASDAQ: ACLBX) (NASDAQ: ACMCX)
AllianceBernstein Intermediate Diversified Muni Portfolio
(NASDAQ: AIDAX)
(NASDAQ: AIDBX) (NASDAQ: AIMCX)
AllianceBernstein Intermediate New York Muni Portfolio: (NASDAQ:
ANIAX)
(NASDAQ: ANYBX) (NASDAQ: ANMCX)
AllianceBernstein International Premier Growth Fund (NASDAQ:
AIPAX)
(NASDAQ: AIPBX) (NASDAQ: AIPCX)
AllianceBernstein International Value Fund (NASDAQ: ABIAX)
(NASDAQ: ABIBX)
(NASDAQ: ABICX)
AllianceBernstein International Value Fund (NASDAQ: ABIAX)
(NASDAQ: ABIBX) (NASDAQ: ABICX)
AllianceBernstein Mid-Cap Growth (NASDAQ: CHCAX) (NASDAQ: CHCBX)
(NASDAQ: CHCCX)
AllianceBernstein Multi-Market Strategy Trust (NASDAQ: AMMSX)
(NASDAQ: AMMBX) (NASDAQ: AMMCX)
AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Arizona Portfolio (NASDAQ:
AAZAX)
(NASDAQ: AAZBX) (NASDAQ: AAZCX)
AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund California Portfolio (NASDAQ:
ALCAX)
(NASDAQ: ALCBX) (NASDAQ: ACACX)
AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Florida Portfolio (NASDAQ:
AFLAX)
(NASDAQ: AFLBX) (NASDAQ: AFLCX)
AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Insured California Portfolio
(NASDAQ: BUICX) (NASDAQ: BUIBX) (NASDAQ: BUCCX)
AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Insured National Portfolio
(NASDAQ: CABTX) (NASDAQ: CBBBX) (NASDAQ: CACCX)
AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Massachusetts Portfolio
(NASDAQ: AMAAX) (NASDAQ: AMABX)
AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Michigan Portfolio (NASDAQ:
AMIAX)
(NASDAQ: AMIBX) (NASDAQ: AMICX)
AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Minnesota Portfolio (NASDAQ:
AMNAX)
(NASDAQ: AMNBX) (NASDAQ: AMNCX)
AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund National Portfolio (NASDAQ:
ALTHX)
(NASDAQ: ALTBX) (NASDAQ: ALNCX)
AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund New Jersey Portfolio (NASDAQ:
ANJAX)
(NASDAQ: ANJBX) (NASDAQ: ANJCX)
AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund New York Portfolio (NASDAQ:
ALNYX)
(NASDAQ: ALNBX) (NASDAQ: ANYCX)
AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Ohio Portfolio (NASDAQ:
AOHAX)
(NASDAQ: AOHBX) (NASDAQ: AOHCX)
AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Pennsylvania Portfolio
(NASDAQ: APAAX)
(NASDAQ: APABX) (NASDAQ: APACX)
AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Virginia Portfolio (NASDAQ:
AVAAX)
(NASDAQ: AVABX) (NASDAQ: AVACX)
AllianceBernstein New Europe Fund (NASDAQ: ANEAX) (NASDAQ:
ANEBX)
(NASDAQ: ANECX)
AllianceBernstein Premier Growth Fund (NASDAQ: APGAX) (NASDAQ:
APGBX)
(NASDAQ: APGCX)
AllianceBernstein Quasar Fund (NASDAQ: QUASX) (NASDAQ: QUABX)
(NASDAQ: QUACX)
AllianceBernstein Real Estate Investment Fund (NASDAQ: AREAX)
(NASDAQ: AREBX) (NASDAQ: ARECX)
AllianceBernstein Real Estate Investment Fund (NASDAQ: AREAX)
(NASDAQ: AREBX) (NASDAQ: ARECX)
AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Biotechnology Portfolio
(NASDAQ: ASBAX) (NASDAQ: AIBBX) (NASDAQ: ASBCX)
AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Biotechnology Portfolio
(NASDAQ: ASBAX) (NASDAQ: AIBBX) (NASDAQ: ASBCX)
AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Premier Portfolio
(NASDAQ: ASPAX)
(NASDAQ: ASPBX) (NASDAQ: ASPCX)
AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Premier Portfolio
(NASDAQ: ASPAX)
(NASDAQ: ASPBX) (NASDAQ: ASPCX)
AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Technology Portfolio
(NASDAQ: AITAX) (NASDAQ: AITBX) (NASDAQ: AITCX)
AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Technology Portfolio
(NASDAQ: AITAX) (NASDAQ: AITBX) (NASDAQ: AITCX)
AllianceBernstein Short Duration (NASDAQ: ADPAX) (NASDAQ: ADPBX)
(NASDAQ: ADPCX)
AllianceBernstein Small Cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: ABASX) (NASDAQ:
ABBSX)
(NASDAQ: ABCSX)
AllianceBernstein Small CapValue Fund (NASDAQ: ABASX) (NASDAQ:
ABBSX)
(NASDAQ: ABCSX)
AllianceBernstein Technology Fund (NASDAQ: ALTFX) (NASDAQ:
ATEBX)
(NASDAQ: ATECX)
AllianceBernstein Utility Income Fund (NASDAQ: AUIAX) (NASDAQ:
AUIBX)
(NASDAQ: AUICX)
AllianceBernstein Utility Income Fund (NASDAQ: AUIAX) (NASDAQ:
AUIBX)
(NASDAQ: AUICX)
AllianceBernstein Value Fund (NASDAQ: ABVAX) (NASDAQ: ABVBX)
(NASDAQ: ABVCX)
AllianceBernstein Value Fund (NASDAQ: ABVAX) (NASDAQ: ABVBX)
(NASDAQ: AVBCX)
AllianceBernstein Worldwide Privatization Fund (NASDAQ: AWPAX)
(NASDAQ: AWPBX) (NASDAQ: AWPCX)

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

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

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

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

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


UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges NY Suit Over Federated Mutual Funds
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against UBS-AG and its affiliated entities
("UBS"), on behalf of those who purchased Federated mutual funds
from UBS between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Federated mutual funds and their respective symbols are as
follows:

Adjustable Rate Securities Fund (NASDAQ: FEUGX) (NASDAQ: FASSX)
Alabama Municipal Cash Trust (NASDAQ: ALMXX)
American Leaders Fund, Inc. (NASDAQ: FALDX) (NASDAQ: FALBX)
(NASDAQ: FALCX) (NASDAQ: FALFX) (NASDAQ: FALKX)
Arizona Municipal Cash Trust (NASDAQ: AZMXX)
Automated Cash Management Trust (NASDAQ: ACCXX) (NASDAQ: ACMXX)
Automated Government Cash Reserves (NASDAQ: AGSXX)
Automated Government Money Trust (NASDAQ: AGMXX)
Automated Treasury Cash Reserves (NASDAQ: ATTXX)
Bond Fund (NASDAQ: FDBAX) (NASDAQ: FDBBX) (NASDAQ: FDBCX)
(NASDAQ: ISHIX)
California Municipal Cash Trust (NASDAQ: CALXX) (NASDAQ: CAIXX)
(NASDAQ: CACXX)
California Municipal Income Fund (NASDAQ: FCMIX) (NASDAQ: CMUIX)
Capital Appreciation Fund (NASDAQ: FEDEX) (NASDAQ: CPABX)
(NASDAQ: CPACX) (NASDAQ: CPAKX)
Capital Income Fund (NASDAQ: CAPAX) (NASDAQ: CAPBX) (NASDAQ:
CAPCX)
(NASDAQ: CAPFX)
Communications Technology Fund (NASDAQ: FCTAX) (NASDAQ: FCTEX)
(NASDAQ: FCTYX)
Connecticut Municipal Cash Trust (NASDAQ: FCTXX)
Conservative Allocation Fund (NASDAQ: FMCGX) (NASDAQ: FCGSX)
Equity Income Fund, Inc. (NASDAQ: LEIFX) (NASDAQ: LEIBX)
(NASDAQ: LEICX)
(NASDAQ: LFEIX)
European Equity Fund (NASDAQ: EURAX) (NASDAQ: EURBX) (NASDAQ:
EURCX)
Florida Municipal Cash Trust (NASDAQ: FLCXX) (NASDAQ: FLMXX)
Fund for U.S. Government Securities (NASDAQ: FUSGX) (NASDAQ:
FUSBX)
(NASDAQ: FUSCX)
GNMA Trust (NASDAQ: FGMAX) (NASDAQ: FGSSX)
Georgia Municipal Cash Trust (NASDAQ: GAMXX)
Global Equity Fund (NASDAQ: FGEIX) (NASDAQ: FGEFX) (NASDAQ:
FGEDX)
Global Value Fund (NASDAQ: WUFAX) (NASDAQ: WUFBX) (NASDAQ:
WUFCX)
Government Cash Series (NASDAQ: CTGXX)
Government Income Securities, Inc. (NASDAQ: FGOAX) (NASDAQ:
FGOBX)
(NASDAQ: FGOCX) (NASDAQ: FGOIX)
Government Obligations Fund (NASDAQ: GOIXX) (NASDAQ: GOSXX)
(NASDAQ: GORXX)
Government Obligations Tax-Managed Fund (NASDAQ: GOTXX) (NASDAQ:
GTSXX)
Government Ultrashort Duration Fund (NASDAQ: FGUAX) (NASDAQ:
FGUSX)
(NASDAQ: FEUSX)
Growth Allocation Fund (NASDAQ: FMGPX) (NASDAQ: FMGSX)
Growth Strategies Fund (NASDAQ: FGSAX) (NASDAQ: FGSBX) (NASDAQ:
FGSCX)
High Income Bond Fund, Inc. (NASDAQ: FHIIX) (NASDAQ: FHBBX)
(NASDAQ: FHICX)
High Yield Trust (NASDAQ: FHYTX)
Income Trust (NASDAQ: FICMX) (NASDAQ: FITSX)
Institutional High Yield Bond Fund (NASDAQ: FIHBX)
Intermediate Income Fund (NASDAQ: FIIFX) (NASDAQ: INISX)
Intermediate Municipal Trust (NASDAQ: FIMTX) (NASDAQ: FIMYX)
International Bond Fund (NASDAQ: FTIIX) (NASDAQ: FTBBX) (NASDAQ:
FTIBX)
International Capital Appreciation Fund (NASDAQ: IGFAX) (NASDAQ:
IGFBX)
(NASDAQ: IGFCX)
International Equity Fund (NASDAQ: FTITX) (NASDAQ: FIEBX)
(NASDAQ: FIECX)
International High Income Fund (NASDAQ: IHIAX) (NASDAQ: IHIBX)
(NASDAQ: IHICX)
International Small Company (NASDAQ: ISCAX) (NASDAQ: ISCBX)
(NASDAQ: ISCCX)
International Value Fund (NASDAQ: FGFAX) (NASDAQ: FGFBX)
(NASDAQ: FGFCX)
Kaufmann Fund (NASDAQ: KAUAX) (NASDAQ: KAUBX) (NASDAQ: KAUCX)
(NASDAQ: KAUFX)
Kaufmann Small Cap Fund (NASDAQ: FKASX) (NASDAQ: FKBSX) (NASDAQ:
FKCSX)
Large Cap Growth Fund (NASDAQ: FLGAX) (NASDAQ: FLGBX) (NASDAQ:
FLGCX)
Liberty U.S. Government Money Market Trust (NASDAQ: LUGXX)
(NASDAQ: LIBXX)
Limited Duration Fund (NASDAQ: FTRLX) (NASDAQ: FTRDX) (NASDAQ:
FLDIX)
(NASDAQ: FLDSX)
Limited Term Fund (NASDAQ: LTDFX) (NASDAQ: LTFSX)
Limited Term Municipal Fund (NASDAQ: LMINX)
Liquid Cash Trust (NASDAQ: LCTXX)
Managed Income Portfolio (NASDAQ: FMIPX) (NASDAQ: FIPSX)
Market Opportunity Fund (NASDAQ: FMAAX) (NASDAQ: FMBBX) (NASDAQ:
FMRCX)
Maryland Municipal Cash (NASDAQ: MDMXX)
Massachusetts Municipal Cash Trust (NASDAQ: MMCXX)
Master Trust (NASDAQ: FMTXX)
Max-Cap Index Fund (NASDAQ: MXCCX) (NASDAQ: FISPX) (NASDAQ:
FMXKX)
(NASDAQ: FMXSX)
Michigan Intermediate Municipal Trust (NASDAQ: MMIFX)
Michigan Municipal Cash Trust (NASDAQ: MIIXX) (NASDAQ: MINXX)
(NASDAQ: MIMXX)
Mid-Cap Index Fund (NASDAQ: FMDCX)
Mini-Cap Index Fund (NASDAQ: MNCCX) (NASDAQ: FMCPX)
Minnesota Municipal Cash Trust (NASDAQ: MNMXX) (NASDAQ: FEMXX)
Moderate Allocation Fund (NASDAQ: FMMGX) (NASDAQ: FMMSX)
Money Market Trust (NASDAQ: MMTXX)
Mortgage Fund (NASDAQ: FGFIX) (NASDAQ: FGFSX)
Muni and Stock Advantage Fund (NASDAQ: FMUAX) (NASDAQ: FMNBX)
(NASDAQ: FMUCX)
Municipal Cash Series (NASDAQ: CMSXX) (NASDAQ: MCTXX)
Municipal Obligations Fund (NASDAQ: MFCXX) (NASDAQ: MOFXX)
(NASDAQ: MOSXX)
Municipal Opportunities Fund, Inc. (NASDAQ: FMOAX) (NASDAQ:
FMOBX)
(NASDAQ: FMNCX) (NASDAQ: FMTFX)
Municipal Securities Fund, Inc. (NASDAQ: LMSFX) (NASDAQ: FMSBX)
(NASDAQ: LMSCX)
Municipal Ultrashort Fund (NASDAQ: FMUUX) (NASDAQ: FMUSX)
New Jersey Municipal Cash Trust (NASDAQ: NJMXX) (NASDAQ: NJSXX)
New York Municipal Cash Trust (NASDAQ: NYCXX) (NASDAQ: FNTXX)
New York Municipal Income Fund (NASDAQ: NYIFX) (NASDAQ: NYIBX)
North Carolina Municipal Cash Trust (NASDAQ: NCMXX)
North Carolina Municipal Income Fund (NASDAQ: NCIFX)
Ohio Municipal Cash Trust (NASDAQ: FOHXX) (NASDAQ: OHIXX)
(NASDAQ: OHTXX)
Ohio Municipal Income Fund (NASDAQ: OMIFX)
Pennsylvania Municipal Cash Trust (NASDAQ: PACXX) (NASDAQ:
PAMXX)
(NASDAQ: FPAXX)
Pennsylvania Municipal Income Fund (NASDAQ: PAMFX) (NASDAQ:
FPABX)
Prime Cash Obligations Fund (NASDAQ: PCCXX) (NASDAQ: PCOXX)
(NASDAQ: PRCXX)
Prime Cash Series (NASDAQ: CTPXX)
Prime Obligations Fund (NASDAQ: POIXX) (NASDAQ: PRSXX) (NASDAQ:
POLXX)
Prime Value Obligations Fund (NASDAQ: PVCXX) (NASDAQ: PVOXX)
(NASDAQ: PVSXX)
Short-Term Income Fund (NASDAQ: FSTIX) (NASDAQ: FSISX)
Short-Term Municipal Trust (NASDAQ: FSHIX) (NASDAQ: FSHSX)
Short-Term U.S. Government Trust (NASDAQ: FSUXX)
Stock Trust (NASDAQ: FSTKX)
Stock and Bond Fund, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSTBX) (NASDAQ: FSBBX)
(NASDAQ: FSBCX)
(NASDAQ: FSBKX)
Strategic Income Fund (NASDAQ: STIAX) (NASDAQ: SINBX) (NASDAQ:
SINCX)
(NASDAQ: STFSX)
Tax-Free Instruments Trust (NASDAQ: TFIXX) (NASDAQ: TFSXX)
Tax-Free Obligations Fund (NASDAQ: TBIXX) (NASDAQ: TBSXX)
(NASDAQ: TBTXX)
Tax-Free Trust (NASDAQ: FTFXX)
Total Return Bond Fund (NASDAQ: TLRAX) (NASDAQ: TLRBX) (NASDAQ:
TLRCX)
(NASDAQ: FTRBX) (NASDAQ: FTRKX) (NASDAQ: FTRFX)
Total Return Government Bond Fund (NASDAQ: FTRGX) (NASDAQ:
FTGSX)
Treasury Cash Series (NASDAQ: CTTXX) (NASDAQ: CTWXX)
Treasury Obligations Fund (NASDAQ: TOCXX) (NASDAQ: TOIXX)
(NASDAQ: TOSXX)
(NASDAQ: TOTXX)
Trust for Government Cash Reserves (NASDAQ: TGCXX)
Trust for Short-Term U.S. Government Securities (NASDAQ: TUSXX)
Trust for U.S. Treasury Obligations (NASDAQ: TTOXX)
U.S. Government Bond Fund (NASDAQ: FEDBX)
U.S. Government Securities Fund:1-3 Years (NASDAQ: FSGVX)
(NASDAQ: UFSGIX) (NASDAQ: FSGTX)
U.S. Government Securities Fund:2-5 Years (NASDAQ: FIGTX)
(NASDAQ: FIGKX)
(NASDAQ: FIGIX)
U.S. Treasury Cash Reserves (NASDAQ: UTIXX) (NASDAQ: TISXX)
Ultrashort Bond Fund (NASDAQ: FULAX) (NASDAQ: FULIX) (NASDAQ:
FULBX)
Virginia Municipal Cash Trust (NASDAQ: VAIXX) (NASDAQ: VACXX)

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

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

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

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

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


UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges Suit in NY Over PIMCO Mutual Funds
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against UBS-AG and its affiliated entities
("UBS"), on behalf of those who purchased PIMCO mutual funds
from UBS between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The PIMCO mutual funds and their respective symbols are as
follows:

PIMCO All Asset Fund (NASDAQ: PASAX), (NASDAQ: PASBX), (NASDAQ:
PASCX),
(NASDAQ: PAAIX), (NASDAQ: PAALX)
PIMCO Asset Allocation Fund (NASDAQ: PALAX), (NASDAQ: PALBX),
(NASDAQ: PALCX)
PIMCO CA Intermediate Muni Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PCMBX), (NASDAQ:
PCIMX)
PIMCO CA Muni Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PCAAX), (NASDAQ: PICMX)
PIMCO CCM Capital Appreciation Fund (NASDAQ: PCFAX), (NASDAQ:
PFCBX),
(NASDAQ: PFCCX), (NASDAQ: PAPIX)
PIMCO CCM Mid-Cap Fund (NASDAQ: PFMAX), (NASDAQ: PFMBX),
(NASDAQ: PFMCX),
(NASDAQ: PGMIX)
PIMCO CommodityRealReturn Strategy Fund (NASDAQ: PCRAX),
(NASDAQ: PCRBX),
(NASDAQ: PCRCX), (NASDAQ: PCRIX)
PIMCO Diversified Income Fund (NASDAQ: PDVAX), (NASDAQ: PDVBX),
(NASDAQ: PDICX), (NASDAQ: PDIIX)
PIMCO Emerging Markets Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PAEMX), (NASDAQ:
PBEMX),
(NASDAQ: PEBCX), (NASDAQ: PEBIX)
PIMCO Foreign Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PFOAX), (NASDAQ: PFOBX),
(NASDAQ: PFOCX),
(NASDAQ: PFORX)
PIMCO GNMA Fund (NASDAQ: PAGNX), (NASDAQ: PGGNX), (NASDAQ:
PCGNX),
(NASDAQ: PDMIX)
PIMCO Global Bond II Fund (NASDAQ: PAIIX), (NASDAQ: PBIIX),
(NASDAQ: PCIIX), (NASDAQ: PGBIX)
PIMCO High Yield Fund (NASDAQ: PHDAX), (NASDAQ: PHDBX), (NASDAQ:
PHDCX),
(NASDAQ: PHIYX)
PIMCO International StocksPlus TR Strategy Fund (NASDAQ: PIPAX),
(NASDAQ: PIPBX), (NASDAQ: PIPCX)
PIMCO Investment Grade Corporate Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PIGIX)
PIMCO Long-Term U.S. Govt. Fund (NASDAQ: PFGAX), (NASDAQ:
PGGBX),
(NASDAQ: PFGCX), (NASDAQ: PGOVX)
PIMCO Low Duration Fund (NASDAQ: PTLAX), (NASDAQ: PTLBX),
(NASDAQ: PTLCX),
(NASDAQ: PLDTX)
PIMCO Low Duration II Fund (NASDAQ: PLDTX)
PIMCO Low Duration III Fund (NASDAQ: PLDIX)
PIMCO Moderate Duration Fund (NASDAQ: PMDRX)
PIMCO Money Market Fund (NASDAQ: PYAXX), (NASDAQ: PYCXX),
(NASDAQ: PKCXX),
(NASDAQ: PMIXX)
PIMCO Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PMLAX), (NASDAQ: PNFBX),
(NASDAQ: PMLCX), (NASDAQ: PFMIX)
PIMCO NACM Flex-Cap Fund (NASDAQ: PNFAX), (NASDAQ: PNFBX),
(NASDAQ: PNFCX)
PIMCO NACM Global Fund (NASDAQ: NGBAX), (NASDAQ: NGBBX),
(NASDAQ: NGBCX)
PIMCO NACM Growth Fund (NASDAQ: NGWAX), (NASDAQ: NGWBX),
(NASDAQ: NGWCX)
PIMCO NACM International Fund (NASDAQ: PILAX), (NASDAQ: PILBX),
(NASDAQ: PILCX)
PIMCO NACM Pacific Rim Fund (NASDAQ: PPRAX), (NASDAQ: PPRBX),
(NASDAQ: PPRCX), (NASDAQ: NAPRX)
PIMCO NACM Value Fund (NASDAQ: PVUAX), (NASDAQ: PVUBX), (NASDAQ:
PVUCX)
PIMCO NFJ Dividend Value Fund (NASDAQ: PNEAX), (NASDAQ: PNEBX),
(NASDAQ: PNECX), (NASDAQ: NFJEX)
PIMCO NFJ Large-Cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: PNBAX), (NASDAQ: PNBBX),
(NASDAQ: PNBCX)
PIMCO NFJ Small-Cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: PCVAX), (NASDAQ: PCVBX),
(NASDAQ: PCVCX), (NASDAQ: PSVIX)
PIMCO NY Muni Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PNYAX)
PIMCO PEA Growth Fund (NASDAQ: PGWAX), (NASDAQ: PGFBX), (NASDAQ:
PGWCX),
(NASDAQ: PGFIX)
PIMCO PEA Growth and Income Fund (NASDAQ: PGRAX), (NASDAQ:
PGRBX),
(NASDAQ: PGNCX), (NASDAQ: PMEIX)
PIMCO PEA Innovation Fund (NASDAQ: PIVAX), (NASDAQ: PIVBX),
(NASDAQ: PIVCX), (NASDAQ: PIFIX)
PIMCO PEA Opportunity Fund (NASDAQ: POPAX), (NASDAQ: PQNBX),
(NASDAQ: POPCX), (NASDAQ: POFIX)
PIMCO PEA Renaissance Fund (NASDAQ: PQNAX), (NASDAQ: PGNBX),
(NASDAQ: PQNCX), (NASDAQ: PRNIX)
PIMCO PEA Target Fund (NASDAQ: PTAAX), (NASDAQ: PTABX), (NASDAQ:
PTACX),
(NASDAQ: PFTIX)
PIMCO PEA Value Fund (NASDAQ: PDLAX), (NASDAQ: PDLBX), (NASDAQ:
PDLCX),
(NASDAQ: PDLIX)
PIMCO RCM Biotechnology Fund (NASDAQ: RABTX), (NASDAQ: RBBTX),
(NASDAQ: RCBTX)
PIMCO RCM Global Healthcare Fund (NASDAQ: RAGHX), (NASDAQ:
RBGHX),
(NASDAQ: RCGHX)
PIMCO RCM Global Small-Cap Fund (NASDAQ: RGSAX), (NASDAQ:
RGSBX),
(NASDAQ: RGSCX), (NASDAQ: DGSCX)
PIMCO RCM Global Technology Fund (NASDAQ: RAGTX), (NASDAQ:
RBGTX),
(NASDAQ: RCGTX), (NASDAQ: DRGTX)
PIMCO RCM International Growth Equity Fund (NASDAQ: RAIGX),
(NASDAQ: RBIGX), (NASDAQ: RCIGX), (NASDAQ: DRIEX)
PIMCO RCM Large-Cap Growth Fund (NASDAQ: RALGX), (NASDAQ:
RBLGX),
(NASDAQ: RCLGX), (NASDAQ: DRLCX)
PIMCO RCM Mid-Cap Fund (NASDAQ: RMDAX), (NASDAQ: RMDBX),
(NASDAQ: RMDCX),
(NASDAQ: DRMCX)
PIMCO RCM Tax-Managed Growth Fund (NASDAQ: PMWAX), (NASDAQ:
PMWBX),
(NASDAQ: PMWCX), (NASDAQ: DRTIX)
PIMCO Real Return Fund (NASDAQ: PRTNX), (NASDAQ: PRRBX),
(NASDAQ: PRTCX),
(NASDAQ: PRRIX), (NASDAQ: PARRX), (NASDAQ: PRRRX)
PIMCO Real Return Fund (NASDAQ: PRRIX)
PIMCO Real Return II Fund (NASDAQ: PIRRX)
PIMCO Real Estate Real Return Strategy Fund (NASDAQ: PETAX),
(NASDAQ: PETBX), (NASDAQ: PETCX)
PIMCO Short Duration Municipal Income Fund (NASDAQ: PSDAX),
(NASDAQ: PSDCX), (NASDAQ: PSDIX)
PIMCO Short-Term Fund (NASDAQ: PSHAX), (NASDAQ: PTSBX), (NASDAQ:
PFTCX),
(NASDAQ: PTSHX)
PIMCO Stocks PLUS Fund (NASDAQ: PSPAX), (NASDAQ: PSPBX),
(NASDAQ: PSPCX),
(NASDAQ: PSTKX)
PIMCO Stocks PLUS Total Return Fund (NASDAQ: PTOAX), (NASDAQ:
PTOBX),
(NASDAQ: PSOCX), (NASDAQ: PSPTX)
PIMCO Total Return Fund (NASDAQ: PTTAX), (NASDAQ: PTTBX),
(NASDAQ: PTTCX),
(NASDAQ: PTTRX)
PIMCO Total Return II Fund (NASDAQ: PMBIX)
PIMCO Total Return III Fund (NASDAQ: PTSAX)
PIMCO Total Return Mortgage Fund (NASDAQ: PMRAX), (NASDAQ:
PMRBX),
(NASDAQ: PMRCX), (NASDAQ: PTRIX)

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

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

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

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

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


WORLD HEALTH: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in PA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, initiated a Class
Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of a class (the
"Class") consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of World Health Alternatives, Inc.
("World Health Alternatives" or the "Company'')(OTCBB:WHAIE),
between June 26, 2003 and August 18, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint charges World Health Alternatives and certain of
the Company's executive officers with violations of federal
securities laws. World Health Alternatives is a medical staffing
company that provides medical, professional and administrative
staffing services to the healthcare industry. The Complaint
alleges defendants' Class Period representations concerning
World Health Alternatives' financial condition and results of
operations were materially false and misleading when made for
the following reasons:

     (1) the Company lacked internal controls and its financial
         statements were materially incorrect;
     
     (2) the Company did not account properly for its shares
         outstanding and underpaid its tax liability;

     (3) Defendants' representations in certain financial
         statements and in the Sarbanes-Oxley certifications
         attesting to the financial statements' accuracy and the
         adequacy of World Health Alternatives' internal
         controls were false and misleading when made; and

     (4) as a consequence of the foregoing, defendants'
         statements concerning the Company's financial condition
         were materially misleading and the Company has to
         restate certain of its previously issued financial
         statements.

On August 16, 2005, World Health Alternatives announced that its
then-Chief Executive Officer, Richard E. McDonald, had resigned,
allegedly for family and health reasons. Three days later, on
August 19, 2005, the Company announced that it expected to
restate its prior financial statements, that an independent
investigation had been commenced, and that it had terminated its
engagement with Daszkal Bolton LLP, its outside auditors. The
Company also revealed that, among other things, it had made
irregular reports to its lenders, resulting in excess funding
which may have resulted in breaches of its financing agreements,
had underpaid certain tax liabilities, and had not properly
reported and/or accounted for all of its outstanding shares. In
response to this news, the Company's stock lost over 85% of its
value in a three-day period, wiping out millions of dollars of
market capitalization.

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq. or Lionel Z.
Glancy, Esq. 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.


                            *********


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  * * *