CAR_Public/051012.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, October 12, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 202

                            Headlines


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: WA Court OKs Wardrobing Lawsuit Settlement
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Lawsuit
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Shareholders Launch Fraud Suits in S.D. OH
ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS: MN Court Hears Suit Certification Motion
ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Appeal MN Lawsuit Dismissal

ADVANCED EQUITIES: Suit Settlement Hearing Set January 5, 2006
AGILE SOFTWARE: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set April 24,2006
AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: NY Suit Fairness Hearing Set April 2006
APPLIED SIGNAL: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in N.D. CA
AUTHENTIDATE HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. NY

BEA SYSTEMS: Faces Investor Fraud Suit V. Plumtree Acquisition
BOOKHAM TECHNOLOGY: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
BROWN SHOE: CO Court Yet To Rule On Appeal of $1M Award in Suit
CALIFORNIA: Complaint V. Eel River Sawmills Heads to Court Soon
CARREKER CORPORATION: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Suit

CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE: Non-Profit Group to Hold Conference on Suit
CELLSTAR CORPORATION: DE Court Junks Lawsuit V. Asia Transaction
DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Recalls 256,409 Vehicles Due to Crash Hazard   
DAIMLERCHRYSLER COMMERCIAL: Recalls 123 Buses Due to Fire Hazard   
EXTREME NETWORKS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement

FINISAR CORPORATION: Final Fairness Hearing Set April 24, 2006
H&R BLOCK: Working To Resolve Consumer Lawsuits V. RAL Program
H&R BLOCK: Discovery Proceeds in IL Peace-of-Mind Program Suit
ILLINOIS: Fairview Heights Files Suit V. Internet Travel Sites
ILLINOIS: County Sheriff's Deputies Re-File Suit in State Court

KIA MOTORS: Recalls 74,276 Sedona EX Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard   
LIGHTSPAN INC.: NY Court Yet To Rule on Suit Dismissal Appeal
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Suit Fairness Hearing Set April 2006 in NY
MERCK & CO.: Firm Lodges Vioxx Suit On Behalf of Dutch Consumers
MICHAELS STORES: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA

NISSAN NORTH: Recalls 12.5T 2005 Xterra SUVs Due to Crash Hazard   
OHIO: Attorney General Files Lawsuit V. USA Baby Stores, Owner
PEP BOYS: Faces Possible Complaint From Nikota USA Inc. Receiver
PEP BOYS: Appeals Court Vacates PR Consumer Fraud Suit Dismissal
PERRIGO CO.: Working To Settle Ibuprofen Customer Antitrust Suit

SCHOOL SPECIALTY: Faces Shareholder Suits in WI Over Bain Merger
SEARS ROEBUCK: Trial in IL Securities Fraud Suit Set June 2006
SEARS ROEBUCK: Discovery Proceeds in IL ERISA Violations Lawsuit
SYNOPSYS INC.: Parties Agree To Dismiss CA Securities Fraud Suit
SYNOVIS LIFE: MN Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit

TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit in KY, Denies Allegations
TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR: FL Court Dismisses Suit V. Subsidiary
UNITED RETAIL: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
UTI WORLDWIDE: Continues To Face Gulf War Personal Injury Suit


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases          


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Spector Roseman Files Securities Suit in OH
AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Stock Suit in VA
AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Federman & Sherwood Lodges VA Fraud Suit
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in MA
DANA CORPORATION: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in OH

DANA CORPORATION: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in OH
TEMPUR-MEDIC: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in KY
TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Schatz & Nobel Files KY Fraud Suit


                            *********


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: WA Court OKs Wardrobing Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Superior Court of King County preliminarily
approved the settlement of the class action filed against
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. in the Washington Superior Court of King
County, over the Company's alleged "wardrobing" policy, styled
"Shelby Port, et al v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc."  

In 2003, an action was filed on behalf of a purported class of
employees and former employees of the Company alleging that the
Company required its employees to purchase and wear specified
clothes during specified times in violation of Washington law
and seeking, on behalf of the purported class, injunctive relief
and unspecified amounts of economic and liquidated damages. The
Company has filed an answer in this legal proceeding.

The plaintiffs filed, and the Company opposed, a motion to
certify a class of employees in the State of Washington. The
trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion and the Company has
commenced a discretionary appeal thereof.  The parties have
agreed to a settlement of this matter, which must be approved by
the trial court.  The parties filed a joint motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement on or about June 6,
2005.  The court preliminarily approved the settlement on June
13, 2005 and a final approval hearing was held on September 19,
2005.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties reached a settlement for the class action filed against
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. in the California Superior Court for Los
Angeles County, alleging violations of overtime wage laws,
styled "Bryan T. Kimbell, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated and on Behalf of the Public v.
Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc."

The plaintiffs, on behalf of their respective purported class,
seek injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of economic and
liquidated damages.  The plaintiffs allege that California
general and store managers were entitled to receive overtime pay
as "non-exempt" employees under California wage and hour laws.  

An answer was filed in the Kimbell case on September 4, 2002 and
the parties are in the process of discovery.  The trial court
has ordered a class of store managers in California certified
for limited purposes.  The parties have agreed to a settlement
of the matter, which must be approved by the California Superior
Court for Los Angeles County. The parties filed a joint motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement on August 26, 2005.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Shareholders Launch Fraud Suits in S.D. OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. faces several securities class actions
filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock
and other securities of the Company (NYSE: ANF) between June 2,
2005 and August 16, 2005, inclusive.  The suits are pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio.

The Complaints allege that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Abercrombie
securities.  No class has yet been certified in the suits.


ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS: MN Court Hears Suit Certification Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
heard plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification for the
lawsuit filed against ADC Telecommunications, Inc. and several
of its current and former officers, employees and directors.

This lawsuit was brought on behalf of a class of participants in
our Retirement Savings Plan who purchased the Company's common
stock as one of the investment alternatives under the plan from
February 2000 to present.  The lawsuit alleges a breach of
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA).

On February 2, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss this
lawsuit, which was denied by the court.  This case is now in the
discovery phase.  A hearing has been held regarding whether the
class should be certified.  A decision from that hearing is
currently pending.

The suit is styled "In Re: ADC Telecommunications ERISA
Litigation," filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota, under Judge Ann D. Montgomery.  Lawyers
for the Company are Andrew John Holly, Heather J. Klaas, Stephen
P. Lucke of Dorsey & Whitney - Mpls, 50 6th St S Ste 1500, Mpls,
MN 55402-1498, Phone: 612-340-8830, Fax: 612-340-8800 or by E-
mail: holly.andrew@dorsey.com, klaas.heather@dorsey.com, or
lucke.steve@dorsey.com.  Lead plaintiff is Lorraine L. Osborne.  
Law firms for the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Scott & Scott, PO Box 192 Colchester, Ct 06415, Phone:
         860-537-5537, Fax: 1-860-537-4432

     (2) Schiffrin & Barroway, 3 Bala Plz E Ste 400, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: (610) 667-7706 E-mail:
         jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com

     (3) Emerson Poynter LLP, 2228 Cottondale Ln Ste 100, Little
         Rock, AR 72202-2037, Phone: 501-907-2555, Fax: 501-907-
         2556

     (4) Russell M. Spence, Jr of Spence Law Firm, 10 S 5th St
         Ste 700, Mpls, MN 55402, Phone: 612-375-1555 E-mail:
         rspence@spencelawfirm.com


ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Appeal MN Lawsuit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the
dismissal of the consolidated securities class action filed
against ADC Telecommunications, Inc., styled "In Re ADC
Telecommunications, Inc. Securities Litigation."

On March 5, 2003, the Company was served with a shareowner
lawsuit brought by Wanda Kinermon that was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota.  The
complaint named the Company, William J. Cadogan, its former
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Robert E. Switz, its
Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer, as
defendants.  After this lawsuit was served, the Company was
named as a defendant in 11 other substantially similar lawsuits.

The consolidated lawsuit purports to bring suit on behalf of a
class of purchasers of the Company's publicly traded securities
from August 17, 2000 to March 28, 2001.  The complaint alleged
that the Company violated the securities laws by making false
and misleading statements about our financial performance and
business prospects during this period.  On November 24, 2003,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit, and the
court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice
on May 17, 2004.  Plaintiffs appealed this ruling.

The suit is styled "In Re: ADC Telecommunications, Inc.
Securities Litigation, case no. 0:03-cv-01194-JNE-JGL," filed in
the United States District Court in Minnesota," under Judge Joan
N. Ericksen.  Lawyers for the defendants are Daniel James Brown,
John Rock, Mitchell Widell Granberg, Peter W. Carter of Dorsey &
Whitney, 50 6th St S Ste 1500, Mpls, MN 55402-1498, Phone:
612-340-2600, Fax: 6123408800, E-mail: brown.daniel@dorsey.com,
rock.john@dorsey.com, granberg.mitchell@dorsey.com,
carter.peter@dorsey.com.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation
are:

     (1) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York),
         200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone:
         631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173,

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

     (3) Chitwood & Harley, 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2900
         Promenade II, Atlanta, GA, 30309, Phone: 888.873.3999,

     (4) Glancy and Binkow, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, suite 311,
         Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, E-mail:
         info@glancylaw.com

     (5) Kirby, McInerney & Squire LLP, 830 Third Avenue 10th
         Floor, New York Ave, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.317.2300,

     (6) Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield, Attorneys at Law, E-
         1000 First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota
         Street, St. Paul, MN, 55101, Phone: 800.465.1592, Fax:
         651.297.6543, E-mail: info@ralawfirm.com

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


ADVANCED EQUITIES: Suit Settlement Hearing Set January 5, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky - Louisville Division will hold a fairness hearing for
the proposed settlement in the matter: George W. Lawson, et al.,
v. Advanced Equities, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 3:00 CV
382, on behalf of all purchasers of Pixelion, Inc. Series A
convertible preferred stock from April 1, 1998 through March 5,
2001.

The hearing will be held on January 5, 2006, at 1:30 p.m. in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky, United States Courthouse, Louisville, KY 40202 to
determine:

     (1) whether a proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the
         above-entitled class action with Kring & Brown LLP and
         Shefsky & Froelich Ltd. for Eight Hundred Thousand
         Dollars ($800,000.00) in cash plus accrued interest
         (the "Settlement Fund") should be approved by the Court
         as fair, reasonable, and adequate;

     (2) whether the application of Plaintiffs' Counsel for an
         award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses
         should be approved; and

     (3) whether the action should be dismissed with prejudice.

For more details, contact Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq. of Berger &
Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust St., Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365,
Phone: (215) 875-3000; J. Bruce Miller, Esq. of J. Bruce Miller
Law Group, 605 W. Main St., Louisville, KY 40202, Phone:
(502) 587-0900; and Kenneth L. Sales, Esq. of Sales, Tillman,
Wallbaum, Catlett & Satterley, 1900 Waterfront Plaza, 325 W.
Main Street, Louisville, KY 40202, Phone: (502) 589-5600.


AGILE SOFTWARE: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set April 24,2006
-------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Agile Software
Corporation, Bryan D. Stolle and Thomas P. Shanahan and others
including underwriters Morgan Stanley and Deutsche Bank
Securities, is set for April 24,2006 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The case
is now captioned "In re Agile Software, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 01 CIV 9413 (SAS)," related to
"In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92
(SAS)."

On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs electronically served an amended
complaint. The amended complaint is brought purportedly on
behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock
from August 19, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  It names as
defendants the Agile Defendants; and several investment banking
firms that served as underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering and secondary offering.

The complaint 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 offerings did not disclose that:

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

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

The amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports
were issued. No specific damages are claimed.

The Company is aware that similar allegations have been made in
other lawsuits filed in the Southern District of New York
challenging over 300 other initial public offerings and
secondary offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000.  Those cases
have been consolidated for pretrial purposes before the
Honorable Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. On July 15, 2002, the Agile
Defendants (as well as all other issuer defendants) filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 19, 2003, the Court
ruled on the motions to dismiss. The Court denied the motions to
dismiss claims under the Securities Act of 1933 in all but 10 of
the cases. In the case involving the Company, these claims were
dismissed as to the initial public offering, but not the
secondary offering.

The Court denied the motion to dismiss the claim under Section
10(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company
and 184 other issuer defendants, on the basis that the amended
complaints in these cases alleged that the respective issuers
had acquired companies or conducted follow-on offerings after
the initial public offerings.  As a consequence, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss the Section 20(a) claims against
the individual defendants.  The motion to dismiss the Section
10(a) claims was granted with prejudice as to the individual
defendants.

The Company has decided to accept a settlement proposal
presented to all issuer defendants. In this settlement,
plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims against the Agile
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 control of certain claims the Company may have
against the underwriters.  The Agile 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 limits of the insurance coverage, a circumstance which the
Company does not believe will occur.  The settlement will
require approval of the Court, which cannot be assured, after
class members are given the opportunity to object to the
settlement.

On February 15, 2005, the Court issued an order providing
preliminary approval of the settlement except insofar as the
settlement would have cut off contractual indemnification claims
that underwriters may have against securities issuers, such as
the Company.  

The suit is styled "In re Agile Software, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 01 CIV 9413 (SAS)," related to
"In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: NY Suit Fairness Hearing Set April 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Agilent Technologies,
Inc., styled "Kassin v. Agilent Technologies, Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. 01-CV-10639," is set for April 24,2006 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The suit was filed against certain investment bank underwriters
for the Company's initial public offering (IPO), the Company and
various of its officers and directors at the time of the IPO. On
February 19, 2003, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the claims against it based on Section 10 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, but denied its
motion to dismiss the claims based on Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The Company and more than 200 other issuer defendants have
reached an agreement in principle for a settlement with
plaintiffs.  Under the settlement, plaintiffs' claims against
the Company and its directors and officers would be released, in
exchange for a contingent payment (which, if made, would be paid
by the Company's insurer) and an assignment of certain potential
claims.  On June 14, 2004, papers formalizing the settlement
among the plaintiffs, issuer defendants and insurers were
presented to the court.  The settlement remains subject to court
approval.

On February 15, 2005, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement contingent upon specified modifications, including
modification of a proposed bar order against future claims by
the underwriter.  Plaintiffs continue to prosecute their claims
against the underwriter defendants, and discovery is now
underway. On February 15, 2005, the Court preliminarily approved
the settlement contingent upon specified modifications,
including modification of a proposed bar order against future
claims by the underwriters.  On August 31, 2005, the Court
entered an order confirming its preliminary approval of the
settlement.  The settlement remains subject to final Court
approval.  A hearing is scheduled for April 24, 2006, to
determine whether the settlement is fair and adequate and should
be approved.  Plaintiffs continue to prosecute their claims
against the underwriter defendants, and discovery is now
underway.

The suit is styled ""Kassin v. Agilent Technologies, Inc., et
al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-10639," related to "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92
(SAS)," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


APPLIED SIGNAL: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Signal Technology, Inc. faces several securities class
actions filed on March 11 and April 19, 2005 in the United
States District Court, Northern District of California, styled
"Berson v. Applied Signal Technology Inc., No. 4:05-cv-1027
(SBA) (N.D. Cal.)" and "Sameyah v. Applied Signal Technology
Inc., No.4:05-cv-1615 (SBA) (N.D. Cal.)."

The complaints, which are substantially identical, are brought
on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased the
Company's securities during a class period of May 25, 2004
through February 22, 2005.  The complaints name the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer as
defendants, and allege that false and misleading statements
regarding the Company were issued during the class period.  
These statements were materially false and misleading because
the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company lacked the staffing necessary to
         execute on current projects while bidding for new
         business;

     (2) that the Company struggled to maintain adequate levels
         of backlog; and

     (3) that as a result of the foregoing, the defendants'
         positive statements about managing the Company's
         workflow and growth while maintaining profitability
         were lacking material basis when made.

A putative class member has moved for appointment as lead
plaintiff, and the litigation is in the preliminary stage.

The first suit in this litigation is styled "Brent Berson, et
al. v. Applied Signal Technology, Inc., et al., case no. 05-CV-
01027," filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, under Judge Saundra Brown
Armstrong.  Plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Baron & Budd, P.C., 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100,
         Dallas, TX, 75219, Phone: 800-946-9646, E-mail:
         info@baronbudd.com

     (2) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com

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

     (4) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com

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


AUTHENTIDATE HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
AuthentiDate Holdings Corporation faces several shareholder
class actions filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired its securities (Nasdaq:ADAT), between
September 29, 2003 and May 27, 2005, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

The suits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors.  According to the complaint,
defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.

The complaints allege that the Company entered into a
purportedly lucrative agreement with the United States Postal
Service ("USPS") to serve as the preferred provider of the USPS
Electronic Postmark(R) ("EPM"). Defendants did not fully
disclose, however, that the USPS Agreement required AuthentiDate
to attain certain performance and minimum revenues over a
specified period of time. On September 8, 2004, defendants
revealed that the Company had failed to generate sufficient
revenues under the agreement. Defendants, however, assured
investors that the Company and USPS had reached an agreement in
principle to amend its performance under the agreement, and that
the amendment would be finalized shortly. On February 8, 2005,
in an earnings conference call, defendant John J. Waters stated
that, "We did a few things recently which we think put us back
in compliance..." On April 29, 2005, defendants issued a press
release announcing that they had engaged a special counsel to
assist the Company's audit committee in "resolving certain
internal controls and corporate governance issues raised by the
Chief Financial Officer."

On May 27, 2005, the last day of the Class Period, defendants
issued a press release after the market had closed revealing
that the Company had received a second notice from USPS stating
that the Company had failed to attain the minimum revenue during
the period February 2005 through April 2005. Defendants also
disclosed that the USPS might exercise its right to terminate
the USPS Agreement if AuthentiDate was unable to cure the
default. In reaction to this news, the price of AuthentiDate
stock fell $0.54, or 15.5%, from its closing price of $3.48 on
May 27, 2005 to close at $2.94 on the following trading day, May
31, 2005, on unusually high trading volume of 1.28 million
shares.

The suits allege that the defendants were motivated to engage in
the alleged misconduct in order for Company insiders, including
defendants Dennis H. Bunt and John T. Botti, to sell 156,000
shares of their personally-held AuthentiDate stock at
artificially inflated prices, reaping proceeds of $1.7 million.
In addition, defendants were able to complete a private
placement of AuthentiDate stock at artificially inflated prices
for net proceeds of $69 million.


BEA SYSTEMS: Faces Investor Fraud Suit V. Plumtree Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bea Systems, Inc., Plumtree Software, Inc., which the Company
acquired in August 2005, and Plumtree's board of directors face
two similar class actions, opposing the acquisition.

On August 23, 2005, a class action lawsuit titled "Globis
Partners, L.P. v. Plumtree Software, Inc. et al., CA No. 1577-
N," was filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware
in and for New Castle County.  The suit alleges, among other
claims, that the consideration to be paid in the proposed
acquisition of Plumtree by the Company is unfair and inadequate.
The complaint seeks an injunction barring consummation of the
merger and, in the event that the merger is consummated, a
rescission of the merger and an unspecified amount of damages.

On August 24, 2005, a class action lawsuit titled "Keitel v.
Plumtree Software, Inc., et al., No. CGC 05-444355" was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
San Francisco. The complaint names Plumtree and all member of
Plumtree's board of directors as defendants alleging similar
complaints and seeking similar damages as the class action
brought by Globis Partners, L.P.


BOOKHAM TECHNOLOGY: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York preliminarily approved the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Bookham
Technology plc, Goldman, Sachs & Co. and FleetBoston Robertson
Stephens, Inc., two of the underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering in April 2000, and Andrew G. Rickman, Stephen J.
Cockrell and David Simpson, each of whom was an officer and/or
director at the time of the initial public offering.

On November 7, 2001, a Class Action Complaint was filed against
the Company and others in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  On April 19, 2002,
plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint.  The Amended Complaints
assert claims under certain provisions of the securities laws of
the United States.  They allege, among other things, that the
prospectuses for the Company's and New Focus, Inc.'s initial
public offerings were materially false and misleading in
describing the compensation to be earned by the underwriters in
connection with the offerings, and in not disclosing certain
alleged arrangements among the underwriters and initial
purchasers of ordinary shares, in the case of the Company, or
common stock, in the case of New Focus, from the underwriters.
The Amended Complaints seek unspecified damages (or in the
alternative rescission for those class members who no longer
hold ordinary shares, in the case of the Company or common
stock, in the case of New Focus), costs, attorneys' fees,
experts' fees, interest and other expenses.

In October 2002, the individual defendants were dismissed,
without prejudice, from the action.  In July 2002, all
defendants filed Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaints. The
motion was denied as to the Company and New Focus in February
2003. Special committees of the board of directors authorized
the companies to negotiate a settlement of pending claims
substantially consistent with a memorandum of understanding
negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer defendants and
their insurers.

Plaintiffs and most of the issuer defendants and their insurers
have entered into a stipulation of settlement for the claims
against the issuer defendants, including the Company.  Under the
stipulation of settlement, the plaintiff will dismiss and
release all claims against participating defendants in exchange
for a payment guaranty by the insurance companies collectively
responsible for insuring the issuers in the related cases, and
the assignment or surrender to the plaintiffs of certain claims
the issuer defendants may have against the underwriters.  On
February 15, 2005, the Court issued an Opinion and Order
preliminarily approving the settlement providing that the
defendants and plaintiffs agree to a modification narrowing the
scope of the bar order set forth in the original settlement
agreement.  The parties agreed to the modification narrowing the
scope of the bar order, and on August 31, 2005, the court
issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement and
setting a public hearing on its fairness for April 24, 2006.


BROWN SHOE: CO Court Yet To Rule On Appeal of $1M Award in Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
has yet to rule on plaintiffs' appeal of a $1 million damage
award granted to them by a Colorado jury in the class action
they filed against Brown Shoe Co., Inc., related to the
operations of its Redfield, Colorado site.

The Company is re-mediating, under the oversight of Colorado
authorities, the groundwater and indoor air at the Redfield site
and residential neighborhoods adjacent to and near the property
that have been affected by solvents previously used at the
facility.  Plaintiffs alleged claims for trespass, nuisance,
strict liability, unjust enrichment, negligence and exemplary
damages arising from the alleged release of solvents
contaminating the groundwater and indoor air in the areas
adjacent to and near the site.  

In December 2003, the jury hearing the claims returned a verdict
finding the Company's subsidiary negligent and awarded the class
plaintiffs $1.0 million in damages. The Company recorded this
award along with estimated pretrial interest on the award and
estimated costs related to sanctions imposed by the court
related to a pretrial discovery dispute between the parties.

In the first quarter of 2005, the federal court hearing a cost
recovery suit against other responsible parties approved a
settlement agreement between the Company, its co-defendant in
the class action lawsuit and an insurer which resolved all
remaining sanctions issues related to the class action.  
Accordingly, the Company reversed into income $0.7 million
related to accrued sanctions.

The suit is styled "Cherry Creek Tennis v. Brown Group Retail,
et al., case no. 1:03-cv-02505-ABJ-PAC," filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado, under Judge
Alan B. Johnson.  Representing the plaintiffs is Elizabeth
Tormoen Hickey of Alpern, Myers, Stuart, Scheuerman & Mathers,
14 North Sierra Madre, #A, Colorado Springs, CO 80903, U.S.A.,
Phone: 719-471-7955.  Representing the Company is Paul E.
Collins of Treece, Alfrey, Musat & Bosworth, P.C., 999 18th
Street, #1600, Denver, CO 80202, U.S.A., Phone: 303-292-2700,
Fax: 303-295-0414, E-mail: pcollins@tamblaw.com.


CALIFORNIA: Complaint V. Eel River Sawmills Heads to Court Soon
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed against Eel River Sawmills and
some of its current and former officers and directors will head
to court before March 23, according to an attorney for the
plaintiffs, The Eureka Reporter reports.

Bill Bertain, state law requires that civil cases go to trial
within five years, pointing out that March 23, 2001, represents
the date the case was originally filed in Humboldt County
Superior Court. Mr Bertain told The Eureka Reporter, "If the
promise had been kept, the employees would have had a majority
ownership of the company and the dollar value of the company at
the time of (owner Mel McLean's) death appears to have been well
in excess of $25 million."

According to background information in the lawsuit's fourth
amended complaint, Mr. McLean and his wife Grace had no children
and in or around 1988 they created an Employee Stock Ownership
Plan. The suit stated that through the plan, the couple intended
and promised to pass the majority ownership of Eel River
Sawmills to its employees.  The goal of the lawsuit is to
fulfill the promise and obtain a monetary award for the
employees, Mr. Bertain pointed out.

Eel River Sawmills President Dennis Scott though previously told
The Eureka Reporter, "The stock had to be purchased, not given,"
adding, "The money to purchase the stock had to come out of
company profits but because we were running out of logs, the
stocks could not be purchased. We had to curtail our operations
because of lack of logs. The company could not generate enough
profit to buy any stock."

Mr. Scott pointed out that the stock is basically worthless
because the timber industry has basically gone out of business
in California because of a lack of logs. Since 1989, 82 mills in
California have closed and more than 60,000 sawmill jobs have
been lost in California during this period, he said.  In
addition, Mr. Scott pointed out that right now there are five
major mills in the North Coast and all of them import logs. Some
of the mills import more than half of their logs from
Washington, Oregon and British Columbia, he adds.

Eel River Sawmills once employed roughly 550 people, but closed
down its operations in July, since according to Mr. Scott, "The
Company that purchased our mill closed down."  Mr. Scott
explains that without logs a sawmill cannot continue to operate.
He further explains, "If we had the timber supply we had in the
past we'd be operating with full employment like we had in the
past and there would be no change in our operations."

Now what is left of the company is being dissolved. According to
him, "We have about approximately 8,000 acres of timberlands
left to sell before we dissolve the corporation."

There was a substantial amount of value in the company when Mel
died, Mr. Bertain told The Eureka Reporter. He pointed out that
a key bit of evidence that the promise had been made is in a
letter that Mr. Scott wrote to employees and families of Eel
River Sawmills in June 1999 a couple of weeks after Mel's death.  
In a section of the letter provided by Mr. Bertain, Mr. Scott
wrote, "Many people have asked me what will happen to the
company now that Mel is gone. Mel's death does not cause a
change in our operation or philosophy. Even though Mel owned the
majority of the stock in Eel River Sawmills, there is a plan in
place that will transfer the majority of the voting stock to the
employees over time. The Mel and Grace McLean Foundation now
owns Mel's shares. Eventually, some company shares owned by the
Foundation will have to be sold to meet certain regulatory
requirements. We have ample time to accomplish this."

Additionally, in an October 2000 letter written and provided by
Mr. Scott to Eel River Sawmill's employees and their families,
he wrote, "Over the years, we have seen many changes in our
operations. Almost all of these changes have been necessary
because of the continuing reduction in available raw material
that is required to run our operations. In 1996, our company
sawed 85 million board feet of logs. For the recently completed
2000 fiscal year, our sawmills processed 47 million board feet,
a 45 percent reduction in four years. We were aware that
increased harvest plan regulations, political pressures and the
loss of our biggest log supplier, Louisiana-Pacific, would have
an adverse impact on our operations. . Crew meetings are being
held today to notify employees who will be affected by
reorganization. All operations at Mill B will be curtailed and
Mill D will be closed, effective Dec. 31. This reorganization
involves layoffs as well as employee transfers. . Our industry
continues to face hurdles and obstacles that threaten our
existence."

Mr. Bertain told The Eureka Reporter that depositions and
discovery in the case would take place over the next few weeks
with Sonoma County Judge Lloyd Von der Mehden presiding.  In
tern of progress in the case, Mr. Bertain told The Eureka
Reporter that there have been several fortunate developments in
the case for employees. According to him, those include the
plaintiffs acquiring representation by the addition of two more
law firms and the fact that Judge Von der Mehden overruled the
defendant's demurrers and allowed causes of action to proceed
against the defendants for fraud and deceit, breach of contract,
unjust enrichment and professional negligence. The plaintiffs
could also receive punitive damages for some of the causes of
action if the ruling is in their favor, Mr. Bertain added.

In legal fees, the lawsuit has cost Eel River Sawmills $250,000
so far and Mr. Scott estimates that it will cost at least
another $500,000. He told The Eureka Reporter, "At the end of
the day when all this money is paid for legal fees the company
will be forced into bankruptcy and nobody will get anything from
Eel River Sawmills because the shares will be worthless."


CARREKER CORPORATION: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carreker Corporation asked the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division to dismiss the
consolidated amended securities class action filed against it
and:

     (1) John D. Carreker Jr.,

     (2) Ronald Antinori,

     (3) Terry L. Gage and

     (4) Ernst & Young, the Company's auditors,

Several suits were initially filed and later consolidated in an
action styled "In re Carreker Corporation Securities Litigation,
Civil Action No. 303CV0250-M."  On October 14, 2003 the
plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The
complaint, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock between May 20, 1998 and December 10, 2002, inclusive,
alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, violations of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual
defendants, and violation of Section 20A of the Securities
Exchange Act against Mr. Carreker and Mr. Antinori.

The complaint also alleges, among other things, that defendants
artificially inflated the value of Company stock by knowingly or
recklessly misrepresenting the Company's financial results
during the purported class period.  On March 22, 2005 the Court
dismissed the action without prejudice and allowed the
plaintiffs 60 days in which to file an amended complaint. Also
the Court dismissed, with prejudice, all claims by shareholders
prior to July 31, 1999.

On May 31, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between July 30, 1999 and December 10, 2002,
inclusive, which reiterates the allegations in the first
complaint, and alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all
defendants (the Company, Mr. Carreker, Mr. Antinori and Mr.
Gage), violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against
the individual defendants, and violations of Section 20A of the
Securities Exchange Act against defendants Mr. Carreker, and Mr.
Antinori.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified amounts of
compensatory damages, interest and costs, including legal fees.  
On July 29, 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, primarily based on
various provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995.  The court has not yet ruled on this motion.

The suit is styled "In re Carreker Corporation Securities
Litigation, case no. 3:03-cv-00250," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, under Judge Jane J. Boyle.  Representing the Company
is Roger F Claxton of Claxton & Hill, 3131 McKinney Ave, Suite
700 LB 103, Dallas, TX 75204-2471, Phone: 214/969-9029, Fax:
214/953-0583, E-mail: claxtonhill@airmail.net.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (i) Mary L O'Connor, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld -
         Dallas, 1700 Pacific Ave, Suite 4100 Dallas, TX 75201-
         4618, Phone: 214/969-2800, Fax: 214/969-4343, E-mail:
         moconnor@akingump.com;

    (ii) Barry C. Barnett, Susman Godfrey - Dallas, 901 Main St
         Suite 4100 Dallas, TX 75202-3775, Phone: 214/754-1900,
         Fax: 214/754-1933, E-mail: bbarnett@susmangodfrey.com;

   (iii) Kenneth S. Marks, Susman Godfrey - Houston, 1000
         Louisiana St, Suite 5100, Houston, TX 77002-5096,
         Phone: 713/651-9366, E-mail: kmarks@susmangodfrey.com;

    (iv) Fred T. Isquith, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz,
         270 Madison Ave, Ninth Floor, New York, NY 10016,
         Phone: 212/545-4600, E-mail: isquith@whafh.com

     (v) Jeffrey W. Chambers, Ware Snow Fogel & Jackson, America
         Tower, 2929 Allen Parkway, 42nd Floor, Houston, TX
         77019, Phone: 713/659-6400, Fax: 713/659-6262,

    (vi) Thomas E Bilek, Hoeffner & Bilek, 1000 Louisiana St,
         Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713/227-7720,
         Fax: 713/227-9404, E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com


CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE: Non-Profit Group to Hold Conference on Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consejo de Latinos Unidos, a non-profit organization that aids
and educates uninsured Latinos and others, will host a news
conference discussing the class action lawsuit against Catholic
Healthcare West's alleged hospital price gouging and unfair
trade practices against the uninsured on Tuesday, October 11,
2005 at 10:30 a.m. PDT at Ramona Hall Community Center, 4580
North Figueroa Street, in the Highland Park area of Los Angeles.

Besides the price gouging allegations, Catholic Healthcare West
is accused of "dumping" patients on Los Angeles County's public
hospitals. Archie Lamb, nationally recognized healthcare trial
attorney who is spearheading the lawsuit, will be attending the
news conference. Three uninsured families impacted by egregious
hospital behavior by Catholic Healthcare West will also be
attending the event.

Consejo was credited by The Wall Street Journal with "a big win"
after forcing the nation's second largest hospital chain, Tenet
Healthcare, to change its aggressive billing practices against
the uninsured by signing a "Compact With the Uninsured."

The Consejo has released five national reports in the past four
years that show hospitals price gouge the uninsured. Typically,
hospitals charge the uninsured three or four times more than
what a hospital would accept as payment in full from an
insurance company. The aggressive practices by hospitals impacts
Latinos more greatly. One in three Latinos is uninsured.

For more details, contact Audrey Mullen, Phone: +1-703-548-1160,
or K.B. Forbes, Phone: +1-202-320-1212, both for the Consejo de
Latinos Unidos.


CELLSTAR CORPORATION: DE Court Junks Lawsuit V. Asia Transaction
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery for New Castle County dismissed
the class action filed against CellStar Corporation, styled
"Ruth Everson v. CellStar Corporation, James L. Johnson, John L.
Jackson, Jere W. Thompson, Dale V. Kesler and Terry S. Parker."

The Everson Suit alleged breach of fiduciary duty and corporate
waste in connection with the Company's proposal, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in March 2003 through a
preliminary proxy statement, to divest up to 70% of the Greater
China Operations, which would have included an initial public
offering (IPO) of its Greater China Operations on the Stock
Exchange of Hong Kong (SEHK). The Suit sought injunctive and
other equitable relief, recissory and/or compensatory damages
and reimbursement of attorney's fees and costs.

The Company announced on September 20, 2004, that it would not
proceed with the CellStar Asia Transaction at issue in the suit
due to changes in the People's Republic of China's economic
environment and handset industry. On May 25, 2005, the Court
entered a final order and judgment dismissing the suit without
prejudice as moot and awarding plaintiff's attorneys' fees and
expenses in the amount of $250,000 plus post-judgment interest.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Recalls 256,409 Vehicles Due to Crash Hazard   
-------------------------------------------------------------
DaimlerChrysler Corporation in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 256,409 units
of 2005 Chrysler / 300, 2005 Dodge / Dakota, 2005 Dodge /
Durango, 2005 Dodge / Magnum, 2005 Jeep / Liberty and 2005 Jeep/
Wrangler vehicles due to crash hazard.

According to ODI, on certain pickup trucks, sports utility and
passenger vehicles equipped with 42RLE automatic transmissions,
the cup plug that retains the park pawl anchor shaft may be
improperly installed. If the shaft moves out of position, the
vehicle may not be able to achieve "park" position. If this
occurs and the parking brake is not applied, the vehicle may
roll away and cause a crash without warning.

As a remedy, dealers will inspect the transmissions and install
a bracket to ensure the park pawl anchor shaft is retained in
the proper position. The recall is expected to begin during
November 2005.

For more details, contact DaimlerChrysler, Phone: 1-800-853-1403
OR the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or
1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER COMMERCIAL: Recalls 123 Buses Due to Fire Hazard   
----------------------------------------------------------------
DaimlerChrysler Commercial Buses, Inc. in cooperation with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 123
units of 2001-02 DaimlerChrysler / SLF buses due to fire hazard.

According to the ODI, on certain busses equipped with Sure Power
battery equalizers, P/N 52210 24V/12V 100 AMP Series 1, the
equalizers may experience a failure mode. These equalizers used
an inductor with the coils protected by insulation. Over time,
the inductor insulation may degrade creating a short. The
shorted inductor may cause the battery equalizer to smoke or
burn, and possibly result in a fire.

As a remedy, Sure Power will notify DaimlerChrysler's customers
and replace the equalizers free of charge.

For more details, contact Sure Power, Phone: 1-800-845-6269 EXT.
113 OR the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or
1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov.


EXTREME NETWORKS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Extreme
Networks, Inc. on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock from April 8, 1999 through December 6,
2000.  It also names as defendants six of the Company's present
and former officers and/or directors, including its CEO and
several investment banking firms that served as underwriters of
its initial public offering and October 1999 secondary offering.   
Subsequently, plaintiffs and one of the individual defendants
stipulated to a dismissal of that defendant without prejudice.

The complaint 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 offerings did not disclose that
the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers to
purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for excess
commissions paid to the underwriters; and the underwriters had
arranged for certain customers to purchase additional shares in
the aftermarket at predetermined prices.  The Securities Act
allegations against the Extreme Networks Defendants are made as
to the secondary offering only.  The amended complaint also
alleges that false analyst reports were issued.  No specific
damages are claimed.

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
pretrial purposes. On February 19, 2003, the Court ruled on all
defendants' motions to dismiss. The Court denied the motions to
dismiss the claims in the Company's case under the Securities
Act of 1933. The Court denied the motion to dismiss the claim
under Section 10(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against the Company and 184 other issuer defendants, on the
basis that the complaints alleged that the respective issuers
had acquired companies or conducted follow-on offerings after
their initial public offerings.  The Court denied the motion to
dismiss the claims under Section 10(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the remaining Extreme
Networks Defendants and 59 other individual defendants, on the
basis that the respective amended complaints alleged that the
individuals sold stock.

The Company executed a settlement agreement presented to all
issuer defendants. In this settlement, plaintiffs will dismiss
and release all claims against the Extreme Network 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 control of
certain claims the Company may have against the underwriters.
The Extreme Networks 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 does not
believe will occur. The settlement will require approval of the
Court, which cannot be assured. On February 15, 2005, the Court
issued an order providing preliminary approval of the
settlement, except insofar as the settlement would have cut off
contractual indemnification claims that underwriters may have
against securities issuers, such as the Company.  The Court has
scheduled a hearing for January 9, 2006 to consider final
approval of the settlement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


FINISAR CORPORATION: Final Fairness Hearing Set April 24, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Finisar Corporation is set
for April 24,2006 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The suit also names as
defendants:

     (1) Jerry S. Rawls, President and Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) Frank H. Levinson, Chairman of the Board and Chief
         Technical Officer,

     (3) Stephen K. Workman, Senior Vice President and Chief
         Financial Officer, and

     (4) an investment banking firm that served as an
         underwriter for the Company's initial public offering
         in November 1999 and a secondary offering in April
         2000.

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock from November 17, 1999 through December
6, 2000.  The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Sections 10(b) and 20(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, on the grounds that the prospectuses incorporated in the
registration statements for the offerings failed to disclose,
among other things, that the underwriter had solicited and
received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
investors in exchange for which the underwriter allocated to
those investors material portions of the shares of the Company's
stock sold in the offerings and the underwriter had entered into
agreements with customers whereby the underwriter agreed to
allocate shares of the Company's stock sold in the offerings to
those customers in exchange for which the customers agreed to
purchase additional shares of the Company's stock in the
aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  No specific damages are
claimed.

Similar allegations have been made in lawsuits relating to more
than 300 other initial public offerings conducted in 1999 and
2000, which were consolidated for pretrial purposes. In October
2002, all claims against the individual defendants were
dismissed without prejudice.  On February 19, 2003, the Court
denied the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint.

In July 2004, the Company and the individual defendants accepted
a settlement proposal made to all of the issuer defendants.
Under the terms of the settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss
and release all claims against participating defendants in
exchange for a contingent payment guaranty by the insurance
companies collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in
all the related cases, and the assignment or surrender to the
plaintiffs of certain claims the issuer defendants may have
against the underwriters.  Under the guaranty, the insurers will
be required to pay the amount, if any, by which $1 billion
exceeds the aggregate amount ultimately collected by the
plaintiffs from the underwriter defendants in all the cases. If
the plaintiffs fail to recover $1 billion and payment is
required under the guaranty, the Company would be responsible to
pay its pro rata portion of the shortfall, up to the amount of
the self-insured retention under its insurance policy, which may
be up to $2 million.  The timing and amount of payments that the
Company could be required to make under the proposed settlement
will depend on several factors, principally the timing and
amount of any payment by the insurers pursuant to the $1 billion
guaranty.  The settlement is subject to final approval of the
Court, which cannot be assured.

On February 15, 2005, the Court issued an order providing
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement except insofar
as the settlement would have cut off contractual indemnification
claims that underwriters may have against securities issuers,
such as the Company.  On April 13, 2005, the Court held a
further conference to determine the final form, substance and
program of class notice and set a hearing for April 24, 2006 to
consider final approval of the settlement.


H&R BLOCK: Working To Resolve Consumer Lawsuits V. RAL Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. is working to resolve litigation filed against
it throughout the country, regarding its refund anticipation
loan (RAL) programs.  Plaintiffs in the RAL Cases have alleged,
among other things:

     (1) that disclosures in the RAL applications were
         inadequate, misleading and untimely;

     (2) that the RAL interest rates were usurious and
         unconscionable;

     (3) that the Company did not disclose that it would receive
         part of the finance charges paid by the customer for
         such loans;

     (4) that Company breached state laws on credit service
         organizations;

     (5) that the Company committed a breach of contract, unjust
         enrichment, unfair and deceptive acts or practices and
         violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
         Organizations Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices
         Act; and

     (6) that the company owed, and breached, a fiduciary duty
         to its customers in connection with the RAL program.

In many of the RAL Cases, the plaintiffs seek to proceed on
behalf of a class of similarly situated RAL customers, and in
certain instances the courts have allowed the cases to proceed
as class actions.  In other cases, courts have held that
plaintiffs must pursue their claims on an individual basis, and
may not proceed as a class action.  The amounts claimed in the
RAL Cases have been very substantial in some instances.

The Company has successfully defended against numerous RAL
Cases, although several of the RAL Cases are still pending. Of
the RAL Cases that are no longer pending, some were dismissed on
the Company's motions for dismissal or summary judgment and
others were dismissed voluntarily by the plaintiffs after denial
of class certification.  Other cases were settled, with one
settlement resulting in a pretax expense of $43.5 million in
fiscal year 2003.

A suit, styled "Lynne A. Carnegie, et al. v. Household
International, Inc., H&R Block, Inc., et al., (formerly Joel E.
Zawikowski, et al. v. Beneficial National Bank, H&R Block, Inc.,
Block Financial Corporation, et al.), Case No. 98 C 2178," is
still pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.  In March 2004,
the court either dismissed or decertified all of the plaintiffs'
claims other than part of one count alleging violations of the
racketeering and conspiracy provisions of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  On May 9, 2005, the
parties agreed to a settlement, subject to court approval. The
settlement agreement provided for the defendants to pay $110
million in cash and $250 million face value in freely
transferable rebate coupons and all persons who applied for and
obtained a RAL through an H&R Block office or certain lenders
from January 1, 1987 through April 29, 2005 (the "Carnegie
Settlement Class") to release all claims against the Company
regarding RALs or certain services provided in connection with
RALs.  The settlement agreement also specified required business
practices, procedures, disclosures and forms for use in making
RALs and barred members of the Carnegie Settlement Class from
commencing any other claims or actions against us regarding RALs
made pursuant to such practices, procedures, disclosures and
forms. On May 26, 2005, the court denied approval of the
proposed settlement.  This class action case is scheduled to go
to trial on February 2006.

Another suit, styled "Sandra J. Basile, et al. v. H&R Block,
Inc., et al, April Term 1992 Civil Action No. 3246," is pending
in the Court of Common Pleas, First Judicial District of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County, instituted on April 23, 1993.
The court decertified the class on December 31, 2003.  
Plaintiffs appealed the de-certification, and the Pennsylvania
appellate court denied the plaintiff's appeal.  The Pennsylvania
appellate court subsequently granted plaintiff's motion for "en
banc" review of its earlier denial of plaintiff's appeal. Re-
argument is expected to occur in September 2005.

Another suit, styled "Levon and Geral Mitchell, et al. v. H&R
Block and Ruth R. Wren, Case No.CV-95-2067," was filed in the
Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama, on June 13, 1995.  
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted, and
defendants appealed the certification. The appeal is pending
before the Alabama Supreme Court.

Another suit, styled "Deandra D. Cummins, et al. v. H&R Block,
Inc., et al., Case No. 03-C-134," was filed in the Circuit Court
of Kanawha County, West Virginia, on January 22, 2003.  This
class action case is scheduled to go to trial on October 17,
2005.

Another suit, styled "Lynn Becker v. H&R Block, Case No. CV-
2004-03-1680, was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Summit
County, Ohio, on April 15, 2004.  The case was removed to
federal court, and plaintiffs moved to remand the case back to
state court. The case currently is stayed pending the U.S.
District Court's ruling on plaintiff's motion to remand and
defendant's motion to compel arbitration.

Another suit, styled "Joyce Green, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc.,
Block Financial Corporation, et al., Case No. 97195023," was
filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, on July
14, 1997. This case is awaiting trial.  No trial date has been
set.


H&R BLOCK: Discovery Proceeds in IL Peace-of-Mind Program Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against H&R
Block, Inc. in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois,
styled "Lorie J. Marshall, et al. v. H&R Block Tax Services,
Inc., et al., Civil Action 2003L000004."

The court granted the suit class certification on August 27,
2003.  Plaintiffs' claims consist of five counts relating to the
peace-of-mind (POM) program under which the applicable tax
return preparation subsidiary assumes liability for additional
tax assessments attributable to tax return preparation error.
The plaintiffs allege that the sale of POM guarantees
constitutes:

     (1) statutory fraud by selling insurance without a license,

     (2) an unfair trade practice, by omission and by "cramming"
         (i.e., charging customers for the guarantee even though
         they did not request it or want it), and

     (3) a breach of fiduciary duty

In August 2003, the court certified the plaintiff classes
consisting of all persons who from January 1, 1997 to final
judgment:

     (i) were charged a separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a
         defendant "H&R Block" class member;

    (ii) reside in certain class states and were charged a
         separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a defendant "H&R
         Block class member" not licensed to sell insurance; and

   (iii) had an unsolicited charge for POM posted to their bills
         by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R Block class member.

Persons who received the POM guarantee through an H&R Block
Premium office and persons who reside in Alabama are excluded
from the plaintiff class.  The court also certified a defendant
class consisting of any entity with names that include "H&R
Block" or "HRB," or are otherwise affiliated or associated with
H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., and that sold or sells the POM
product. The trial court subsequently denied the defendants'
motion to certify class certification issues for interlocutory
appeal. Discovery is proceeding. No trial date has been set.

There is one other putative class action pending against the
Company in Texas that involves the Peace of Mind guarantee. This
case is being tried before the same judge that presided over the
Texas RAL Settlement and involves the same plaintiffs attorneys
that are involved in the Marshall litigation in Illinois and
substantially similar allegations. No class has been certified
in this case.


ILLINOIS: Fairview Heights Files Suit V. Internet Travel Sites
--------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Fairview Heights initiated a class action lawsuit in
St. Clair County Circuit Court against companies that operate
Internet travel sites for failing to reimburse it for taxes on
gross receipts, The Madison County Record reports.  The suit
names as defendants:

     (1) Priceline.com,

     (2) Orbitz,

     (3) Hotels.com,

     (4) Hotwire,

     (5) Cheap Tickets,

     (6) Expedia,

     (7) Travelnow.com,

     (8) Travelocity.com,

     (9) Travelweb,

    (10) LowestFare.com and

    (11) Site 59.com

The defendants are accused of charging consumers taxes based on
retail room rates, while only paying taxes on wholesale room
rates and then pocketing the difference. The suit, filed on
October 5, 2005, states, "Defendants have sold hotel rooms to
the public and collected taxes on those rooms, but failed to pay
the taxes due and owing to the City of Fairview Heights and
other class members on these transactions."

In its suit, Fairview Heights claim that the defendants are
charging and collecting taxes from consumers that are not being
remitted to the appropriate municipal class members. The city
also claims that in addition to the rental price of the hotel
rooms, the occupants are required to pay a transient occupancy
tax.  Additionally, the complaint states that the defendants
contract with hotels for rooms and sell the rooms to members of
the public and charge and collect taxes from occupants based on
the marked up rooms rates, but only remit tax amounts based on
the lower negotiated rate, unlawfully retaining the difference.

"All taxing authorities in the State of Illinois authorized to
impose a tax upon persons engaging in the business of renting,
leasing or letting rooms in a hotel or motel on the gross rental
receipts from such renting, leasing or letting," are eligible to
join the class, the complaint states.

Finally, the complaint states, "Defendants acted willfully,
wantonly, with oppression, and with a conscious disregard of the
rights of plaintiff and class, such that plaintiff requests that
the trier of fact, in the exercise of sound discretion, award
plaintiff and the class additional damages for the sake of
example and in sufficient amount to punish defendants for their
conduct."

Kevin Hoerner of Becker, Paulson, Hoerner & Thompson of
Belleville, Paul Weiss and William Sweetnam of Freed & Weiss of
Chicago, Bradley Lakin and Richard Burke of the Lakin Law Firm
in Wood River, William Harte of Chicago and Karl Barth of Lovell
Mitchell & Barth in Seattle will represent Fairview Heights and
the class.


ILLINOIS: County Sheriff's Deputies Re-File Suit in State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Retired Winnebago County sheriff's deputies whose federal
lawsuit over health insurance costs was dismissed recently re-
filed their suit in state court, The Rockford Register Star
reports.

Though they're using the same argument as last time - that the
county stiffed its retired employees in violation of state law -
they hope this time it will stick.

Retired sheriff's employees John Germano, Angelo Guirlando and
Larry Claytor on behalf of all retired deputies filed the suit,
which is seeking class action status for the case as well as
damages in excess of $100,000, attorney's fees and reduced
health insurance costs.

First Deputy State's Attorney Chuck Prorok told Rockford
Register Star that the county hasn't determined how it will
respond to the lawsuit. Though he did say that he expects to
submit a response by this week.

"Right now, I really don't know how it's going to work out,"
said Mr. Germano, whose suit against the county began in 2001.
The retired crime scene technician told The Rockford Register
Star that he's seen his monthly insurance premiums jump from
$302 in 1998, a year after he left the department, to $668 this
year.

At issue is a provision in the state's insurance code that says
retired deputies including those on disability will be provided
with the same insurance coverage as employed deputies "and no
distinction or discrimination in the amount of rate of premiums
or in any waiver of premium or other benefit shall be made."

After being told about the state's code by a friend, Mr.
Germano, talked to attorney Thomas Greenwald and filed suit in
federal court. The case was given class action status, which
meant that he could represent all retired deputies.

However, Mr. Germano lost, not necessarily because his case was
flawed, but because he filed it in the wrong jurisdiction. On
July 2, 2004, U.S. District Judge Philip Reinhard dismissed the
case without prejudice, saying the proper jurisdiction for
actions concerning state law is state court.

Mr. Germano's group went on to appeal and met with the same
result in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals: The case was
dismissed because it was filed in the wrong place.

Despite its dismissal, Judge Michael S. Kanne, writing for the
three-justice panel, included an opinion that seems to bolster
Mr. Germano's argument. In the opinion filed June 20, Judge
Kanne wrote, "There is no doubt that the Winnebago County policy
is in violation of state law." He added, "The statute creates a
claim of entitlement to retired deputies; therefore, the
county's actions deprived Mr. Germano and his class of a
constitutionally protected property interest."

Mr. Prorok though pointed out that Judge Kanne's writings don't
mean Mr. Germano has a case now. "That's what we call dictum,
which is not a ruling or a precedent," he said. "It may or may
not be accurate."

Still, Mr. Germano told The Rockford Register Star that he has a
good case and is willing to fight it to the end. He said, "I
went to almost all the federal court hearings and I figure I'll
do the same now. We got this started, and we might as well
finish it."


KIA MOTORS: Recalls 74,276 Sedona EX Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard   
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kia Motors, Inc. in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 74,276 units of 2002-04 Kia
Sedona EX passenger vehicles due to fire hazard.

According to the ODI, on certain vehicles equipped with power
seats, the wiring under the front seats could be misrouted,
allowing contact with metal seat components. This could
eventually result in a short circuit condition that may result
in a short circuit condition that may then result in a fire in
the junction box area of the vehicle.

As a remedy, dealers will inspect and re-route the wires under
the power seats, if necessary, as well as install protective
seaming welts around those wires to better insulate them. The
recall is expected to begin during November 2005.

For more details, contact Kia, Phone: 1-800-333-4542 OR the
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web
site: http://www.safecar.gov.


LIGHTSPAN INC.: NY Court Yet To Rule on Suit Dismissal Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York has yet to rule on plaintiffs' motion to reconsider the
dismissal of a securities class action filed against Credit
Suisse First Boston and several of its clients, including
Lightspan, Inc., captioned "Liu, et al. v. Credit Suisse First
Boston Corp., et al."

The complaint alleges that Credit Suisse First Boston, its
affiliates, and the securities issuer defendants (including the
Company) manipulated the price of the issuer defendants' shares
in the post-initial public offering market.

The securities issuer defendants (including the Company) filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint in September 2004 on the grounds
of multiple pleading deficiencies.  On April 1, 2005, the
complaint was dismissed with prejudice. On April 15, 2005, the
plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. The court has not
yet ruled on that motion.

The suit is styled "Liu v. Credit Suisse First Boston
Corporation, case no. 1:04-cv-03757-SAS," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  Representing the plaintiffs is
John G. Watts, Yearout & Traylor, P.C. 800 Shades Creek Parkway,
Ste 500 Birmingham, Al 35209 Phone: (205)-414-8160.  
Representing the Company is Michael L. Hirschfeld, Milbank,
Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, L.L.P. 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza New York,
NY 10005 Phone: (212) 530-5000 Fax: (212) 530-5219.


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Suit Fairness Hearing Set April 2006 in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
A public hearing for the fairness of the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Marvell
Technology Group, Inc., certain of its officers and the
underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO) is tentatively
set for April 24,2006 in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

On July 31, 2001, a putative class action suit was filed against
two investment banks that participated in the underwriting of
the Company's IPO on June 29, 2000.  That lawsuit, which did not
name the Company or any of its officers or directors as
defendants, was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  Plaintiffs allege that the
underwriters received "excessive" and undisclosed commissions
and entered into unlawful "tie-in" agreements with certain of
their clients in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Thereafter, on September 5, 2001, a second putative class action
was filed in the Southern District of New York relating to the
Company's IPO.  In this second action, plaintiffs named three
underwriters as defendants and also named as defendants Marvell
and two of the Company's officers, one of whom is also a
director. Relying on many of the same allegations contained in
the initial complaint in which Marvell was not named as a
defendant, plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated
various provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  In both actions, plaintiffs
seek, among other items, unspecified damages, pre-judgment
interest and reimbursement of attorneys' and experts' fees.

These two actions relating to the Company's IPO have been
consolidated with hundreds of other lawsuits filed by plaintiffs
against approximately 40 underwriters and approximately 300
issuers across the United States.  Defendants in the
consolidated proceedings moved to dismiss the actions.  In
February 2003, the trial court issued its ruling on the motions,
granting the motions in part, and denying them in part. Thus,
the cases may proceed against the underwriters and the Company
as to alleged violations of section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933 and section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Claims against the individual officers have been voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice by agreement with plaintiffs. On June
26, 2003, the plaintiffs announced that a settlement among
plaintiffs, the issuer defendants and their directors and
officers, and their insurers has been structured, a part of
which provides that the insurers for all issuer defendants would
guarantee up to $1 billion to investors who are class members,
depending upon plaintiffs' success against non-settling parties.

The Company's board of directors has approved the proposed
settlement, which will result in the plaintiffs' dismissing the
case against the Company and granting releases that extend to
all of its officers and directors. Definitive settlement
documentation was completed in early June 2004 and first
presented to the court on June 14, 2004.  On February 15, 2005,
the court issued an opinion preliminarily approving the proposed
settlement, contingent upon certain modifications being made to
one aspect of the proposed settlement  - the proposed "bar
order". The court ruled that it had no authority to deviate from
the wording of the Plaintiff's Securities Law Reform Act of 1995
and that any bar order that may issue should the proposed
settlement be finally approved must be limited to the express
wording of 15 U.S.C. section 78u-4(f)(7)(A).  The court
scheduled a further conference for April 13, 2005, for the
purposes of making a final determination as to the form,
substance and program of class notice, and scheduling a Rule 23
public hearing on the fairness of the proposed settlement.  On
May 2, 2005 the issuer defendants and plaintiffs jointly
submitted an amendment to the settlement agreement conforming
the language of the settlement agreement with the court's
February 15, 2005 ruling regarding the bar order.  The court on
August 31, 2005 issued an order preliminarily approving the
settlement and setting a public hearing on its fairness for
April 24, 2006 due to difficulties in mailing the required
notice to class members.

The suit is styled "IN RE MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC. INITIAL
PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION," filed in relation to "IN
RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File
No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira
N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


MERCK & CO.: Firm Lodges Vioxx Suit On Behalf of Dutch Consumers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kenneth B. Moll & Associates, Ltd. initiated the
first class action lawsuit on behalf of all citizens of the
Netherlands who allegedly died or were seriously injured by the
pain medication Vioxx.

The suit accuses United States pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co.
of failing to properly research the known risks of Vioxx and
warn Dutch consumers of potentially fatal side effects. "Vioxx
should never have been marketed in the first place," said
Kenneth B. Moll, whose firm filed the first worldwide class
action regarding Vioxx last fall.

On September 30, 2004, Merck withdrew Vioxx from all worldwide
markets after studies showed a three-fold risk of heart attack
and stroke. "Merck's decision to withdraw Vioxx from the market
came years after the company first learned of the health risks,"
said Mr. Moll. "Countless individuals in the Netherlands and
around the world have suffered severe and fatal injuries which
could have been avoided if Merck had acted responsibly." On
August 19, 2005, a Texas jury awarded $253.5 million to a widow
of a man who died after taking Vioxx. "The verdict clearly shows
Merck's culpability in their decision to put profits ahead of
the safety of their consumers," said Mr. Moll.

For more details, contact Tiffany Donnelly of Kenneth B. Moll &
Associates, Ltd., Phone: 312-558-6444, Fax: 312-558-1112, Web
site: http://www.kbmoll.com.


MICHAELS STORES: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior
Court of California, San Diego County on behalf of all current
and former hourly retail employees employed in California from
July 13,2005 to the present.

On July 13, 2005, Michael Clark, a former assistant manager and
Lucinda Prouty, a former department manager in San Diego,
California, filed the suit, alleging that the Company failed to
pay overtime wages, provide meal and rest periods (or
compensation in lieu thereof), and provide itemized employee
wage statements.  The Clark suit also alleges that this conduct
was in breach of California's unfair competition law. The
plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, damages for unpaid overtime
pay, meal break penalties, waiting time penalties, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.  Under the Class Action Fairness Act,
the Company intends to remove the case to federal court.


NISSAN NORTH: Recalls 12.5T 2005 Xterra SUVs Due to Crash Hazard   
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nissan North America, Inc. in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 12,500 units
of 2005 Nissan / Xterra sports utility vehicles due to crash
hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V458000.

According to the ODI, on certain SUVs equipped with a Nissan
Accessory tow hitch, in adequate quality of some welded joints
in the hitch assembly may result in separation of the hitch from
the vehicle when being used to tow. This could result in a
trailer separating from the vehicle and cause a crash without
warning.

As a remedy, dealers will replace the tow hitches. The recall is
expected to begin on October 24, 2005.

For more details, contact Nissan, Phone: 1-800-647-7261 OR the
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web
site: http://www.safecar.gov.


OHIO: Attorney General Files Lawsuit V. USA Baby Stores, Owner
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Jim Petro filed a lawsuit against Jim Lankey of
Perrysburg, Ohio, and three USA Baby stores that he operates,
charging that the stores provided substandard customer service,
violating state consumer protection laws.

Consumer complaints filed with Mr. Petro's office stated the
stores failed to deliver merchandise and failed to provide
refunds on undelivered items.  

According to Mr. Petro, "Since August 2003 our office has
received more than 70 complaints about these stores. The stores
worked with our office to resolve some of them but continued to
show a pattern and practice of violating Ohio consumer laws."

In the suit Mr. Petro also alleges that Mr. Lankey's businesses
also accepted money for baby furniture and accessories knowing
they were in a precarious financial position which could result
in the consumers not receiving their purchased goods.

Mr. Petro asked the court to order Mr. Lankey to pay restitution
to consumers who made purchases at his USA Baby stores but did
not get their merchandise or a refund. He also is asking for
civil penalties of $25,000 per violation.

In addition, Mr. Petro also asked that the judge order Mr.
Lankey to cease doing business until all fines to the state and
restitution to the consumers are paid in full. The case was
filed in Lucas County Common Pleas Court.

Petro's suit names the following as defendants:

     (1) James P. Lankey, Individually, 28923 Simmons Rd.,
         Perrysburg, Ohio 43551-3643

     (2) NEO Baby, Inc., 7654 West Bancroft St., Toledo, Ohio
         43614 d/b/a USA Baby at 25027 Center Ridge Rd.,
         Westlake, Ohio 44145       

     (3) Sunshiny Day, Inc., 28923 Simmons Rd., Perrysburg, Ohio
         43551 d/b/a/ USA Baby at 2919 State St., Cuyahoga
         Falls, Ohio 44223

     (4) Baby Bucks, Inc., 5630 N. Main St., Sylvania, Ohio
         43560 d/b/a USA Baby at 5549 Monroe St., Sylvania, Ohio
         43560

The attorney general also alleged that Mr. Lankey failed to
provide goods and services to consumers out of the now-closed
USA Baby store formerly located at 4010 Powell Rd., Powell,
Ohio.

For more details, contact Michelle Gatchell, Attorney General's
Office, Phone: (614) 466-3840 or 1-800-282-0515, Web site:
http://www.ag.state.oh.us/.


PEP BOYS: Faces Possible Complaint From Nikota USA Inc. Receiver
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pep Boys Manny Moe & Kack received a letter from counsel to the
court-appointed receiver of Nikota USA, Inc. (a former
merchandise vendor since 2003), which ceased operations in March
2005 after a lender foreclosed on a loan.

The letter proposed a meeting between the Company and the
counsels for the receiver and the lender to discuss an ongoing
dispute between the Company and the receiver regarding the
Company's accounts payable balance and certain returned
defective merchandise.  The letter included sweeping allegations
with respect to the Company's business practices and was
accompanied by a draft complaint against the Company and certain
of its employees that alleges breach of contract, unfair
business practices under the California Commercial Code,
accounting fraud and violations of the Rackeeter Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and purports to seek class
action relief for all merchandise vendors to the Company.  

The Company believes that these allegations are entirely without
merit and that the transactions questioned by the receiver's
counsel were properly documented, accounted for and immaterial
to the Company's financial position and results of operations at
all times, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities
and Exchange Commission.  


PEP BOYS: Appeals Court Vacates PR Consumer Fraud Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the
United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico's
summary judgment and dismissal of the class action field against
Pep Boys Corporation, styled "Tomas Diaz Rodriguez; Energy Tech
Corporation v. Pep Boys Corporation; Manny, Moe & Jack
Corporation Puerto Rico, Inc. d/b/a Pep Boys"

The suit was previously instituted against the Company in the
Court of First Instance of Puerto Rico, Bayamon Superior
Division on March 15, 2002.  The action was subsequently removed
to, and is currently pending in, the United States District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico.  Plaintiffs are
distributors of a product that claims to improve gas mileage.  
The plaintiffs alleged that the Company entered into an
agreement with them to act as the exclusive retailer of the
product in Puerto Rico that was breached when the Company
determined to stop selling the product.

On March 29, 2004, the Company's motion for summary judgment was
granted and the case was dismissed.  The plaintiff appealed and,
on June 3, 2005, the United States Court of Appeal for the First
Circuit vacated the summary judgment order and remanded the case
to the Court of First Instance of Puerto Rico, Bayamon Superior
Division for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.


PERRIGO CO.: Working To Settle Ibuprofen Customer Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Co. is attempting to settle three suits, two of which
are class actions that have been consolidated with one another,
filed on behalf of Company customers (i.e., retailers) and the
other consisting of four class action suits filed on behalf of
indirect Company customers (i.e., consumers), alleging that the
plaintiffs overpaid for children's ibuprofen suspension product
as a result of the Company's agreement with Alpharma, Inc.

While the Company has been defending these claims, it has also
participated in settlement negotiations with the plaintiffs. The
most recent negotiations lead the Company to believe it may
settle all of the lawsuits for a combination of cash payments
and product donations, the aggregate value of which the Company
anticipates will approximate $4,500.  The Company recorded a
charge of $4,500 in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2005 as its
best estimate of the combined expected cost of the settlements.


SCHOOL SPECIALTY: Faces Shareholder Suits in WI Over Bain Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
School Specialty, Inc. faces shareholder suits filed following
the Company's May 31, 2005 announcement that it had signed a
definitive merger agreement to be acquired by an affiliate of
Bain Capital Partners, LLC ("Bain").  The two suits were filed
in the Circuit Court for Outagamie County, Wisconsin, styled
"Neal Auman v. School Specialty, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-
765" and "Adams Family Trust v. School Specialty, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 05-CV-771."

The complaint in each action purports to have been filed by a
shareholder of the Company who seeks to maintain the suit as a
class action on behalf of all holders of Company stock,
excluding those related to or affiliated with any of the
defendants. In addition to the Company, each complaint names the
Company's directors and Bain as defendants. The complaints
assert claims arising out of the Company's May 31, 2005
announcement and allege that the Company and its directors
breached fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders by
negotiating and agreeing to the Transaction at a price that the
plaintiffs claim to be inadequate. Between both actions the
plaintiffs seek, among other things, to enjoin or to rescind the
Transaction, other injunctive relief and/or damages and other
monetary relief.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Trial in IL Securities Fraud Suit Set June 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial for the consolidated securities class action filed against
Sears, Roebuck and Co., is set for June 2006 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Several actions were initially filed on and after October 18,
2002 against the company and certain of its current and former
officers, alleging that certain public announcements by the
Company concerning its credit card business violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The Court has consolidated the
actions and certified the consolidated action as a class action.
Discovery is underway.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Discovery Proceeds in IL ERISA Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated class action filed
against Sears Roebuck and Co., certain of its officers and
directors and alleged fiduciaries of its 401(k) Savings Plan,
seeking damages and equitable relief under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

On and after November 15, 2002, several actions were filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, on behalf of participants in the Plan.  The suits
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA in connection
with the Plan's investment in the Company's common shares and
alleged communications made to Plan participants regarding the
Company's financial condition.

The Court has consolidated these actions and certified the
consolidated action as a class action. Discovery is underway. No
trial date has been set.


SYNOPSYS INC.: Parties Agree To Dismiss CA Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties agreed to dismiss the amended securities class action
against Synopsys, Inc. in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California this month.

On August 25, 2004, a class action complaint entitled "Kanekal
v. Synopsys, Inc., et al., No. C-04-3580," was filed against the
Company and certain of its officers alleging violations of the
Exchange Act.  The complaint purports to be a class action
lawsuit brought on behalf of persons who acquired Synopsys stock
during the period of December 3, 2003 through August 18, 2004.  
The complaint alleges that the individual defendants caused
Synopsys to make false and misleading statements about Synopsys'
business, forecasts, and financial performance, and that certain
Synopsys officers or employees sold portions of their stock
holdings while in the possession of adverse, non-public
information.  The complaint does not specify the amount of
damages sought.

In November 2004, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff in the
case.  Discovery has not commenced in the case and no trial date
has been established.  In January 2005, the lead plaintiff, the
Wu Group, filed an amended complaint.  The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint and a motion for
sanctions in March 2005.  In August 2005, the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss, but denied its motion for
sanctions, and allowed the plaintiff 30 days to amend their
complaint. The Parties have since stipulated, subject to final
Court approval, to a dismissal with prejudice, with each side
bearing its own fees and costs.


SYNOVIS LIFE: MN Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
dismissed the consolidated securities class action filed against
Synovis Life Technologies, Inc. and certain of its executive
officers by individual shareholders who seek to represent a
class of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the
period from October 16, 2003 to May 18, 2004.

The complaints generally allege that the defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false or misleading
statements about the Company's business and prospects, which
artificially inflated the price of the Company's securities.  No
damages have been specified.  The complaint alleges that during
the Class Period, defendants concealed the following materially
adverse facts:

     (1) that the Company's surgical business was not on track
         for year-to-year growth and was actually declining;

     (2) that the performance of the Company's surgical business
         lagged because of disappointing sales of its Peri-
         Strips product;

     (3) that the performance of the Company's interventional
         business had little to zero growth prospects and was
         suffering because Synovis' largest customers were not
         placing orders due to inventory build-up; and

     (4) that as a result, the Company's projections of fiscal
         2004 EPS of $0.56-$0.60 and revenue of $75-$79 million
         had no reasonable basis and were false and misleading.

Defendants' misrepresentations were revealed on May 19, 2004,
when Synovis issued a press release reporting its revenue and
earnings for fiscal 2004 which were drastically below its
previously touted 2004 guidance.

These lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into a single
case, which expanded the class period from May 21, 2003 through
May 18, 2004. The consolidated complaint generally alleges that
the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing false or misleading statements about the Company's
business and prospects, which artificially inflated the price of
the Company's securities.

On August 25, 2005, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to
amend the consolidated complaint and granted the Company's
motion to dismiss these consolidated lawsuits, with prejudice,
after finding that the amended consolidated complaint failed to
plead plaintiffs' claims with sufficient particularity, as
required under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995.


TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit in KY, Denies Allegations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. (NYSE: TPX), the market-leading
manufacturer, marketer and distributor of premium mattresses and
pillows worldwide, reports the filing of a complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky.

The complaint is a purported class action and names the Company
and certain of its officers and directors as defendants. It
alleges violations of federal securities laws, and the central
allegation is that certain of the Company's public disclosures
between April 22, 2005 and September 19, 2005 were false or
misleading. The Company adamantly denies that any of its public
disclosures have violated any federal securities law.

The Company believes that this lawsuit is baseless, and it
intends to vigorously defend against all claims asserted in the
case.

For more details, contact Dale Williams, Chief Financial Officer
of Tempur-Pedic International, Inc., Phone: 1-800-805-3635; or
Jody Burfening or Harriet Fried, both of Lippert-Heilshorn &
Association, Phone: +1-212-838-3777, for Tempur-Pedic
International, Inc.; Web site: http://www.tempurpedic.com.


TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR: FL Court Dismisses Suit V. Subsidiary
-------------------------------------------------------------
TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. (Nasdaq: TQNT) reports that the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
dismissed with prejudice the class action complaint filed
against Sawtek, Inc. ("Sawtek"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of
TriQuint since 2001, and former officers of Sawtek.

The complaint originated from several nearly identical putative
civil class action lawsuits filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida against Sawtek and
former officers of Sawtek.

The cases were consolidated into one action, and an amended
complaint was filed in the consolidated action on July 21, 2003.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss on September 3, 2003, and
the complaint was dismissed with prejudice on October 6, 2005.

For more details, contact TriQuint Semiconductor, Phone:
503-615-9000, Fax: 503/615-8900, Web site:
http://www.triquint.com.


UNITED RETAIL: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Retail Incorporated reached a settlement for the overtime
wage suit filed in California Superior Court, Los Angeles
County, styled "Erik Stanford vs. United Retail Incorporated."  
A former store manager in California filed the suit on behalf of
certain current and former associates in California in the
previous four years.  The suit asserts state wage and hour
claims.

The Stanford case was settled at a cost of $1.8 million.  In
anticipation of the settlement, compensation of store managers
employed by the Company in California had been converted from
salaries to hourly wages in January 2005.


UTI WORLDWIDE: Continues To Face Gulf War Personal Injury Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
UTi Worldwide, Inc. continues to face a consolidated class
action filed in the District Court of Brazaria County, Texas
(23rd Judicial District), where it is alleged that various
defendants sold chemicals that were utilized in the 1991 Gulf
War by the Iraqi army which caused personal injuries to U.S.
armed services personnel and their families, including birth
defects.  The suit names 82 other defendant companies.

Two class action lawsuits which were originally filed on
September 19, 1995 and subsequently consolidated.  The lawsuits
were brought on behalf of the military personnel who served in
the 1991 Gulf War and their families and the plaintiffs are
seeking in excess of $1 billion in damages.

To date, the plaintiffs have not obtained class certification.  
The company believes it is a defendant in the suit because an
entity that sold the company assets in 1993 is a defendant. The
Company believes it will prevail in this matter because the
alleged actions giving rise to the claims occurred prior to the
Company's purchase of the assets, the Company said in a
regulatory filing.  The company further believes that it will
ultimately prevail in this matter since it never manufactured
chemicals and the plaintiffs have been unable to thus far
produce evidence that the company acted as a freight forwarder
for cargo that included chemicals used by the Iraqi army.



                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars




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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 9, 2005
C-8/PFOA SCIENCE, RISKS & LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Resort, Santa Barbara, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

December 5-6, 2005
ADVANCED NATIONAL FORUM ON ENVIRONMENTAL INSURANCE COVERAGE AND
CLAIMS
American Conferences
The Waldorf Astoria, New York, NY
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

October 01-31, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

October 01-31, 2005
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

October 01-31, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

October 01-31, 2005
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

October 01-31, 2005
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

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

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

October 06, 2005
CATASTROPHIC LOSS TELECONFERENCE: HURRICANE KATRINA
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

October 25, 2005
ASBESTOS RELATED DISEASES TELECONFERENCE:
LUNGS 101, UNDERSTANDING PULMONOLOGY AND ANALYSIS OF
MESOTHELIOMA
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 26, 2005
WORKPLACE MISCONDUCT LITIGATION
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

November 02, 2005
VIOXX(R) THE ERNST JURORS SPEAK
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                 New Securities Fraud Cases          


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Spector Roseman Files Securities Suit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, on behalf of purchasers
of the common stock of Abercrombie & Fitch Co. ("Abercrombie" or
the "Company") (NYSE:ANF) between May 17, 2005 through August
16, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, defendants made statements that were materially false
and misleading because they failed to disclose the following
facts, among others:

     (1) demand for Abercrombie's products was slowing,
         resulting in material amounts of unsold products and
         rising inventories;

     (2) contrary to defendants' representations that the denim
         products were "non-risk" from an inventory standpoint,
         meaning they would not be marked down if demand was
         poor, unsold denim products presented a material risk
         to the Company's profitability; and

     (3) the Company's profit margins were being negatively
         impacted by markdowns on unsold products.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman of Spector, Roseman
& Kodroff, P.C., Phone: 888-844-5862, E-mail:
classaction@srk-law.com, Web site: http://www.srk-law.com.


AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Stock Suit in VA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of AMERIGROUP Corporation
(NYSE: AGP) ("AMERIGROUP" or the "Company") between April 27,
2005 and September 28, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of AMERIGROUP
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Evan J. Smith, Esq. or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esq. of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite
602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 877-LEGAL-90, E-mail:
clients@brodsky-smith.com.


AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Federman & Sherwood Lodges VA Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia against AMERIGROUP Corporation (NYSE: AGP).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from April 27, 2005 through September 28, 2005.

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


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in MA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Boston Scientific Corporation ("Boston
Scientific" or the "Company") (NYSE:BSX), between March 31, 2003
and August 23, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Boston Scientific and certain of the
Company's executive officers with violations of federal
securities laws. Boston Scientific develops, manufactures and
markets medical devices and technologies used in interventional
medical specialties -- including cardiology, oncology,
endoscopy, urology and gynecology -- and also offers a variety
of other less-invasive medical products. The Complaint alleges
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 concerning the Company's knowledge
and expertise with respect to the design, development, marketing
approval, and sales of its medical devices. The complaint
further alleges that during the Class Period certain of the
defendants sold millions of shares of Boston Scientific stock,
resulting in proceeds of approximately $400 million.

On August 23, 2005, based on the cumulative impact of three
separate FDA Warning Letters, investors learned of defendants'
broad based concealment of Boston Scientific's defective and
deficient internal controls and corporate compliance processes
and the risks the Company faced. As a result of this news,
Boston Scientific's stock price dropped $1.23, or 4.5 percent,
on volume of 15.8 million shares, to close at $25.92 per share -
- which was $19.89, or 43.4 percent, below its Class Period high
of $45.81 on April 5, 2004.

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


DANA CORPORATION: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in OH
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, on behalf of purchasers
of the common stock of Dana Corporation ("Dana" or the
"Company") (NYSE:DCN) between March 23, 2005 through September
14, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that on September 15, 2005,
Dana announced that it would restate its second quarter 2005
financial results and lowered its 2005 earnings guidance from
$1.30 - $1.45 per share, to $0.60 - $0.70 per share. On this
news, Dana stock fell from a close of $12.78 per share on
September 14, 2005, to close at $9.86 per share on September 15,
2005. On October 10, 2005, the Company announced that it will
restate its financial results for fiscal 2004 and the first half
of fiscal 2005 because it failed to properly account for issues
involving customer pricing and transactions with suppliers in
Dana's commercial vehicle business. The Company further stated
that it will also delay the release of its third-quarter
earnings results, originally scheduled for Oct. 19 and that it
will write off U.S. deferred tax assets, which as of June 30
totaled about $740 million.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman of Spector, Roseman
& Kodroff, P.C., Phone: 888-844-5862, E-mail:
classaction@srk-law.com, Web site: http://www.srk-law.com.


DANA CORPORATION: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio on behalf of all persons who purchased the
publicly traded securities of Dana Corporation ("Dana " or the
"Company") (NYSE:DCN) between March 23, 2005 and September 14,
2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that Dana violated federal securities laws
by making false or misleading public statements. On September
15, 2005, Dana announced that it would restate its second
quarter 2005 financial results and lowered its 2005 earnings
guidance from $1.30 - $1.45 per share, to $0.60 - $0.70 per
share. On this news, Dana stock fell from a close of $12.78 per
share on September 14, 2005 to close at $9.86 per share on
September 15, 2005.

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


TEMPUR-MEDIC: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in KY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Tempur-Pedic
International, Inc. (NYSE: TPX) between April 22, 2005 and
September 19, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Schatz & Nobel Files KY Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., filed a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on behalf of all
persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of Tempur-
Pedic International, Inc. (NYSE:TPX) ("Tempur-Pedic") between
April 22, 2005 and September 19, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Tempur-Pedic violated federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading public
statements. Specifically, defendants reiterated aggressive sales
and earnings guidance for 2005, even after Tempur-Pedic had
begun to experience a slowdown. During the Class Period,
defendants' failed to disclose the following adverse facts:

     (1) demand for Tempur-Pedic's products was slowing as
         competitors were gaining a foothold in the visco-
         elastic market;

     (2) defendants' repeated express assurances that the
         competition was not having a materially negative, or
         any impact on the Company, even in response to express
         concerns raised by analysts, were untrue and provided
         false comfort to investors while inflating the price of
         Tempur-Pedic stock; and

     (3) in light of increasing competition that was already
         having a noticeable effect on the Company's business,
         defendants' guidance, reiterated on July 21, 2005,
         lacked any reasonable basis.

During the Class Period, insiders and entities associated with
insiders, sold a total of 5,620,591 shares of Tempur-Pedic
common stock, for proceeds of $131,910,207.

On September 19, 2005, Tempur-Pedic issued lower guidance for
2005, which it attributed to a number of factors, including
competition that it had said was not and would not have a
negative impact, at least not one large enough to cause it to
lower its 2005 guidance. On this news, Tempur-Pedic common stock
plummeted 28.5 percent to $11.70 per share on July 20, 2005.

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


                            *********


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  * * *