CAR_Public/051101.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, November 1, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 215


                            Headlines

ABBOT LABS: Judge Sets Certification Hearing For Oxycontin Suit
AETNA INC.: NY Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
AG EDWARDS: Continues To Face Employees' Wage Lawsuit in S.D. CA
BEELMAN RIVER: IL Judge Dismisses Nash Case For Lack of Movement
COCA-COLA CO.: Plaintiffs Launch Amended Securities Suit in GA

COCA-COLA CO.: Plaintiffs Launch Amended ERISA Suits in N.D. GA
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Uninsured Patients' Lawsuit in AL Court
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Uninsured Patients' Lawsuit in PA Court
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Uninsured Patients' Lawsuit in IL Court
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Uninsured Patients Lawsuit in IL Court

DECKER COLLEGE: Former Employee Files Suit in KY Over Lay Offs
EMCOR GROUP: CT Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal Deemed Final
ESTEE LAUDER: Subsidiaries Face Amended Consumer Lawsuit in CA
ESTEE LAUDER: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Nationwide Fraud Lawsuit
IBM: TX Court Extends Claims Period in Deskstar 75GXP Settlement

ILLINOIS FARMERS: High Court Cans Madison County Judge's Order
ILLINOIS: Oak Forest Officials Settle Suit Over Cell Phone Fees
INTRABIOTICS PHARMACEUTICALS: CA Court Mulls Lawsuit Dismissal
KINROSS GOLD: NV Court Certifies Breach of Contract Lawsuit
METALS USA: Inks Settlement For DE Suit V. Flag Holdings Merger

MICROTUNE INC.: Suit Settlement Fairness Hearing Set April 2006
NEW YORK: Judge Faults State in Oneonta Racial Profiling Lawsuit
RAYTHEON CO.: MA Court Yet To Rule on ERISA Fraud Suit Dismissal
SEMPRA ENERGY: Firm's EVP Comments Continental Forge Settlement
SOUTH CAROLINA: Allen Suit Was Filed Too Late, Defense Argues

TALISMAN ENERGY: NY Judge Limits Scope of Church of Sudan's Suit
UNITED SERVICES: IL Judge Gives Final OK to Bemis Settlement
UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Policyholders Sue Over Denied Claims


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in MA
DHB INDUSTRIES: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
LIPMAN ELECTRONIC: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
PIXAR ANIMATION: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in CA
REFCO INC.: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY

TAG-IT PACIFIC: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Suit in NY


                            *********



ABBOT LABS: Judge Sets Certification Hearing For Oxycontin Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County, Illinois Judge Ralph Mendelsohn set a June 28,
2006 certification hearing for a lawsuit filed against Abbot
Labs for its OxyContin drug, The Madison County Record reports.

Plaintiff Connie Mester claims that the Company and its
affiliates violated state consumer fraud law in marketing
OxyContin. Her attorney, James Rosemergy of Carey and Danis in
St. Louis, wrote that, "In their quest to sell the addictive and
dangerous drug, defendants used highly misleading and improper
tactics, misrepresented the appropriate use of OxyContin, and
failed to disclose and discuss the safety issues and potential
adverse effects of OxyContin."  In addition, Mr. Rosemergy wrote
that the misrepresentations resulted in "excessive,
inappropriate and unnecessary prescriptions."

The suit started in 2002 with Mary Renner moving to represent a
plaintiff class. Later in 2004, she dismissed her claims, and
thus Ms. Mester stepped in to replace her as lead plaintiff in
the case. Ms. Mester though has not moved to represent the
class. Judge Mendelsohn, in an October 13 order, set a January
13, 2006 deadline for her motion.  Judge Mendelsohn also set
deadlines of March 15 for Abbott Labs to oppose the motion,
April 14 for Ms. Mester to reply, and May 1 for Abbott Labs to
rebut.


AETNA INC.: NY Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York approved the settlement of the consolidated securities
class action filed against Aetna, Inc. and two of its current
and former officers and directors.

Laborers Tri-County Pension Fund, Goldplate Investment Partners
Ltd. and Sheila Shafran filed the suit, alleging that the
Company and two of its current or former officers and directors,
William H. Donaldson and John W. Rowe, M.D., violated federal
securities laws. Plaintiffs allege misrepresentations and
omissions regarding, among other things, the Company's ability
to manage and control medical costs and the appropriate reserve
for medical costs as of December 31, 2000, for which they seek
unspecified damages, among other remedies.

On October 15, 2002, the court heard argument on defendants'
motion to dismiss the Securities Complaint.  Effective February
2005, the parties agreed to dismiss Mr. Donaldson and Dr. Rowe
from the action, and the Company and class representatives
entered into an agreement to settle the Securities Complaint.
The court approved the Securities Settlement Agreement on
September 12, 2005.  The settlement amount was not material to
the Company.


AG EDWARDS: Continues To Face Employees' Wage Lawsuit in S.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
AG Edwards, Inc. continues to face a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of all financial consultants and trainees
who worked for the Company in California after June 30, 2000.

The action, among other relief, seeks overtime pay for financial
consultants, including trainees, on the basis that the financial
consultants should be classified as non-exempt employees under
California law, restitution of amounts that were deducted from
commissions owed to financial consultants to repay advances made
in prior months, payment for meal rest breaks to which financial
consultants are claimed to be entitled, and reimbursement for
certain alleged business-related expenses paid by financial
consultants.

Several other financial services firms have been sued in
California in similar actions, the Company said in a disclosure
to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The suit is styled "Mitchell v. AG Edwards and Sons, et al.,
case no. 3:02cv2218," filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California (San Diego), under Judge
Barry Ted Moskowitz.  Representing the plaintiffs is Joshua D.
Gruenberg of Larabee and Gruenberg, 2169 First Avenue, San
Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619)230-1234.  Representing the Company
is Daryl Steven Landy of Steefel Levitt and Weiss, One
Embarcadero Center, Suite 3000, San Francisco, CA 94111-3600,
Phone: (415)788-0900.


BEELMAN RIVER: IL Judge Dismisses Nash Case For Lack of Movement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County, Illinois Judge George Moran recently dismissed a
10 month old class action, styled "Nash vs. Beelman River
Terminals," for want of prosecution, The Madison County Record
reports.

Court records show that Ronald Nash, of Edwardsville, Illinois
sued last December 9, 2004, claiming that workers at Beelman, in
Venice, did not receive time and a half after 40 hours a week.
He moved to represent a class of all who worked more than 40
hours in a week since November 2001.

Plaintiff attorney Elizabeth Heller of Goldenberg, Miller,
Heller and Antognoli of Edwardsville signed the complaint. Later
on January 7, Defense attorney Stephen Wigginton of Belleville
answered.  Neither offered any motions and Judge Moran set case
management conferences throughout the year.  However, the
parties continued them by agreement.

Ms. Heller and Mr. Wigginton showed up in Judge Moran's
courtroom on September 28, among a throng that the judge had
summoned. Judge Moran had set 116 cases for that day. Ms. Heller
anticipated another rollover, however she did not get it, since
over her objection, Judge Moran dismissed the case.


COCA-COLA CO.: Plaintiffs Launch Amended Securities Suit in GA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff filed an amended securities class action against The
Coca-Cola Compnay and its former Chairmain of the board and
chief executive officer Douglas N. Daft, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

On May 9, 2005, a putative class action lawsuit, styled "Selbst
v. The Coca-Cola Company and Douglas N. Daft," was filed,
alleging violations of antifraud provisions of the securities
laws by the Company and Mr. Daft, former Chairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer of the Company.  The purported class
consists of persons, except the defendants, who purchased
Company stock between January 30, 2003 and September 15, 2004
and were damaged thereby.  The complaint alleges, among other
things, that during the class period the Company and Mr. Daft
made false and misleading statements concerning the financial
condition of the Company and its business outlook, strategy,
business model and relationship with key bottlers in internal
corporate memoranda, analysts' conference calls, press releases
and Securities and Exchange Commission filings.  The plaintiffs,
on behalf of the putative class, seek compensatory damages in an
amount to be proved at trial, extraordinary, equitable and/or
injunctive relief as permitted by law to assure that the class
has an effective remedy, award of reasonable costs and expenses,
including counsel and expert fees, and such other further relief
as the Court may deem just and proper.

On July 8, 2005, a putative class action lawsuit, styled
"Amalgamated Bank, et al. v. The Coca-Cola Company, et al." was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia against the Company, Douglas N. Daft, E.
Neville Isdell, Steven J. Heyer and Gary P. Fayard alleging
violations of antifraud provisions of the federal securities
laws.  The purported class consists of persons, except the
defendants, who purchased Company stock between January 30, 2003
and September 15, 2004 and were damaged thereby.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, that during the class period the
defendants made false and misleading statements about:

     (1) the Company's new business strategy/model,

     (2) the Company's execution of its new business
         strategy/model,

     (3) the state of the Company's critical bottler
         relationships,

     (4) the Company's North American business,

     (5) the Company's European operations, with a particular
         emphasis on Germany,

     (6) the Company's marketing and introduction of new
         products, particularly Coca-Cola C2, and

     (7) the Company's forecast for growth going forward

The plaintiffs claim that as a result of these allegedly false
and misleading statements, the price of the Company stock
increased dramatically during the purported class period.  The
complaint also alleges that in September and November 2004, the
Company and E. Neville Isdell acknowledged that the Company's
performance had been below expectations, that various corrective
actions were needed, that the Company was lowering its
forecasts, and that there would be no quick fixes.  In addition,
the complaint alleges that the charge announced by the Company
in November 2004 should have been taken early in 2003 and that,
as a result, the Company's financial statements were materially
misstated during 2003 and the first three quarters of 2004.  The
plaintiffs, on behalf of the putative class, seek compensatory
damages in an amount to be proved at trial, extraordinary,
equitable and/or injunctive relief as permitted by law to assure
that the class has an effective remedy, award of reasonable
costs and expenses, including counsel and expert fees, and such
other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

In September 2005, the plaintiff filed an amended consolidated
complaint providing, among other things, additional details
concerning the original complaint's allegations about
disclosures regarding the Company's operations in Germany.


COCA-COLA CO.: Plaintiffs Launch Amended ERISA Suits in N.D. GA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed amended class actions against The Coca-Cola
Company, certain of its current and former executive officers
and its benefits committee, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

During May, June and July 2005 three similar putative class
action lawsuits, styled "Pedraza v. The Coca-Cola Company, et
al.," "Shamery, et al. v. The Coca-Cola Company, et al." and
"Jackson v. The Coca-Cola Company, et al."), were filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia by participants in the Company's Thrift & Investment
Plan (the "Plan").  The suits allege breach of fiduciary duties
under the ERISA by the Company, certain current and former
executive officers, and the Company's benefits committee.  The
purported class in each of these cases consists of the Plan and
persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan
between May 13, 1997 and April 18, 2005 and whose accounts
included investments in Company stock.

The complaints allege that, among other things, the defendants
failed to exercise the required care, skill, prudence and
diligence in managing the Plan and its assets, take steps to
eliminate or reduce the amount of Company stock in the Plan,
adequately diversify the Plan's investments in Company stock,
appoint qualified administrators and properly monitor their and
the Plan's performance and disclose accurate information about
the Company.  The plaintiffs, on behalf of the putative class,
seek, among other things, declaratory relief, damages for Plan
losses and lost profits, imposition of constructive trust as a
remedy for unjust enrichment, injunctive relief, costs and
attorneys' fees, equitable restitution and other appropriate
equitable and monetary relief.

By order of the Court, the plaintiffs in these cases filed
amended complaints in September 2005 supplementing the
allegations in the original complaints and naming the specific
individuals who served on the Benefits Committee and the Asset
Management Committee as defendants.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Uninsured Patients' Lawsuit in AL Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
Circuit Court of Barbour County, Alabama, (Eufaula Division),
styled "Arleana Lawrence and Robert Hollins v Lakeview Community
Hospital and Community Health Systems, Inc."

This alleged class action was brought by the plaintiffs on
behalf of themselves and as the representatives of similarly
situated uninsured individuals who were treated at the Company's
Lakeview Hospital or any of the Company's other Alabama
hospitals. The plaintiffs allege that uninsured patients who do
not qualify for Medicaid, Medicare or charity care are charged
unreasonably high rates for services and materials and that we
use unconscionable methods to collect bills.  The plaintiffs
seek restitution of overpayment, compensatory and other
allowable damages and injunctive relief.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Uninsured Patients' Lawsuit in PA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, styled
"James Monroe v Pottstown Memorial Hospital and Community Health
Systems, Inc."

This alleged class action was brought by the plaintiff on behalf
of himself and as the representative of similarly situated
uninsured individuals who were treated at the Company's
Pottstown Memorial Hospital or any of its other Pennsylvania
hospitals.  The plaintiff alleges that uninsured patients who do
not qualify for Medicaid, Medicare or charity care are charged
unreasonably high rates for services and materials and that the
Company use unconscionable methods to collect bills. The
plaintiff seeks recovery under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law, restitution of
overpayment, compensatory and other allowable damages and
injunctive relief.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Uninsured Patients' Lawsuit in IL Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, styled "Chronister,
et al. vs. Granite City Illinois Hospital Company, LLC d/b/a
Gateway Regional Medical Center."

The complaint seeks class action status on behalf of the
uninsured patients treated at Gateway Regional Medical Center
and alleges statutory, common law, and consumer fraud in the
manner in which the hospital bills and collects for the services
rendered to uninsured patients.  The plaintiff seeks
compensatory and punitive damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Uninsured Patients Lawsuit in IL Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
Circuit Court of Williamson County, Illinois, styled "Sheri Rix
v. Heartland Regional Medical Center and Health Care Systems,
Inc."

This alleged class action was brought by the plaintiff on behalf
of herself and as the representative of similarly situated
uninsured individuals who were treated at the Company's
Heartland Regional Medical Center.  The plaintiff alleges that
uninsured patients who do not qualify for Medicaid, Medicare or
charity care are charged unreasonably high rates for services
and materials and that the Company uses unconscionable methods
to collect bills. The plaintiff seeks recovery for breach of
contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices
Act, restitution of overpayment, and for unjust enrichment.  The
plaintiff class seeks compensatory and other damages and
equitable relief.


DECKER COLLEGE: Former Employee Files Suit in KY Over Lay Offs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Totten, a laid-off financial aid officer of Decker College,
initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status against her
former employer claiming that it owes her $2,000 for work
performed and benefits.

According to Ms. Totten, 26, of Louisville, she has borrowed
more than $600 from her parents since being laid off September 6
then sold possessions at a yard sale to repay them. In an
interview with The Associated Press, "It's hard. You spend so
much time at a company and devote numerous hours to getting
something done and all of a sudden it's, 'Thanks, but no
thanks.'"

Just recently, the school, which is already under federal and
state investigation, announced on its Web site that it is
"temporarily closed, effective immediately."  Ms. Totten's suit
names the private, for-profit trade school along with five
executives as defendants.  Among those defendants is William
Weld, a former governor of Massachusetts who now runs a New York
investment firm, who until recently was the school's chief
executive officer.

The suit accuses the school and five executives of breach of
contract, violation of the state's wage and hour laws and
"unjust enrichment" by laying-off employees without paying for
work previously performed. Currently, Decker has acknowledged
laying-off about 500 employees in Louisville and elsewhere
around the country.

Decker's parent company, Compass Educational Holdings, and two
affiliated companies are also named in the suit. Besides Mr.
Weld, the lawsuit also names Gerald Woodcox and Jeffrey Woodcox
as defendants. A Decker official describes that the Woodcoxes,
of Louisville, as primary owners of the school, and Mr. Weld as
a part owner.

Decker is currently under investigation by the FBI and the U.S.
Department of Education's Office of Inspector General for
possible violations of federal law, including student loan
fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, and making false
statements to the federal government. In addition, Decker is
also under investigation by Attorney General Greg Stumbo's
office and the Kentucky Board for Proprietary Education.


EMCOR GROUP: CT Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal Deemed Final
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut's dismissal of the consolidated class action filed
against EMCOR Group, Inc. is deemed final after plaintiffs
failed to appeal the court's decision.

The suit, entitled "In re EMCOR Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation," also names as defendants:

     (1) Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Frank
         T. MacInnis,

     (2) Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
         Leicle E. Chesser, and

     (3) Senior Vice President-Chief Accounting Officer and
         Treasurer Mark A. Pompa

The individual defendants were later dismissed.  The plaintiff
purported to represent a class composed of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Company common stock and/or
other securities between April 9, 2003 and October 2, 2003,
inclusive.  The complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and of
Section 20(A) of the Securities Exchange Act, relating to
alleged misstatements and omissions in certain of the Company's
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, press
releases and other public statements between April 9 and October
2, 2003 and sought damages on behalf of the purported class in
unspecified amounts.

On August 2, 2005, the judge's order of dismissal was entered by
the  court and the time for the  plaintiff to appeal the
judge's decision expired thirty days thereafter.

The suit is styled "In re: EMCOR GROUP, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, case no. 3:04-cv-00531-JCH," filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut, under
Judge Janet C. Hall.  Representing the Company are:

     (i) David A. Becker, Erica P. McFarquhar, Latham & Watkins
         - DC, 555 11th St., NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC
         20004, Phone: 202-627-2200, Fax: 202-637-2201, E-mail:
         david.becker@lw.com or Erica.McFarquhar@lw.com

    (ii) Michele E. Rose or Laurie B. Smilan of Latham &
         Watkins, LLP - VA, Two Freedom Sq. 11955 Freedom Dr.,
         Suite 500, Reston, VA 20190, Phone: 703-456-1000, Fax:
         703-456-1001, E-mail: Michele.Rose@lw.com

   (iii) Jeffrey J. Vita or Heidi Zapp, Saxe, Doernberger &
         Vita, PC, 1952 Whitney Ave., Hamden, CT 06517, Phone:
         203-287-8890, E-mail: jjv@sdvlaw.com or hhz@sdvlaw.com

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (a) 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

     (b) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock,
         AR), P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR, 72221-5438,
         Phone: 501.312.8500, Fax: 501.312.8505,

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

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

     (e) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com

     (f) Landskroner - Grieco, Ltd., 1360 West 9th St., Suite
         200, Cleveland, OH, 44113-1904, Phone: 866.522.9500, E-
         mail: jack@landskronerlaw.com

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

     (h) Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, Phone:
         877.891.9880, E-mail: jshah@classactioncounsel.com


ESTEE LAUDER: Subsidiaries Face Amended Consumer Lawsuit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended nationwide class action against two
of Estee Lauder Companies, Inc.'s subsidiaries in the Superior
Court of California for the County of San Diego. The complaint
names approximately 25 other defendants, including manufacturers
and retailers

The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, restitution, and
general, special and punitive damages for alleged violations of
the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False
Advertising Law, and for negligent and intentional
misrepresentation. The purported class includes individuals "who
have purchased skin care products from defendants that have been
falsely advertised to have an 'anti-aging' or youth inducing
benefit or effect."

In September 2005, the court dismissed, with leave to replead,
all of the plaintiff's claims in a matter originally brought in
December 2004 by the plaintiff purporting to represent a
nationwide class.  In October 2005, the plaintiff filed a second
amended complaint which states the same allegations and requests
for relief, but only names one of the Company's subsidiaries and
two retailers as defendants.


ESTEE LAUDER: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Nationwide Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida to dismiss the
amended nationwide class action filed against its subsidiaries
and two of its department store customers.

The plaintiff, purporting to represent a nationwide class of
individuals "who have purchased skin care products from
Defendant that have been falsely advertised to have an 'anti-
aging' or youth-inducing benefit or effect," seeks injunctive
relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages for alleged
breach of express and implied warranties, negligent
misrepresentation, and false advertising and unfair business
practices. In September 2005, the Company moved to dismiss the
complaint.


IBM: TX Court Extends Claims Period in Deskstar 75GXP Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berdon Claims Administration, LLC, reports that District Court
for Burleson County Texas, 21st District, ordered that the
claims period be extended in the class action settlement styled
Daugherity, et. al. v. International Business Machines,
Corporation, (IBM), No. 23, 162. The Court's Order reopens the
claims period for the filing of additional claims until November
30, 2005. Under the Court's previous Order granting final
approval to the settlement, the claims period expired on August
29, 2005.

The class action lawsuit alleges that a family of hard disk
drives manufactured by IBM - known as a "Deskstar 75GXP" -
suffer from a defect or defects that negatively affect the
reliability of these hard disk drives. IBM denies plaintiffs'
allegations and admits no wrongdoing. Under the terms of the
settlement, eligible class members may be able to obtain various
benefits.

For more details, contact Claims Administrator, Marlene Hurwitz
of Berdon Claims Administration, LLC, Phone: (866) 206-6428, Web
site: http://www.ibmdeskstar75gxplitigation.com/.


ILLINOIS FARMERS: High Court Cans Madison County Judge's Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
Just three weeks before Madison County Circuit Judge Phillip
Kardis retired, the Illinois Supreme Court threw out an order he
entered in favor of plaintiffs in a class action, The Madison
County Record reports.

In an August 5 order, the Supreme Court remanded Austin v.
Illinois Farmers Insurance with instructions to dismiss.
Following the duty of obedience, Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron,
who has been handling procedural items in former Judge Kardis
cases, dismissed the suit on September 28.

Court records show that Ola Austin claimed in 2002 that Farmers
improperly reduced payouts under "medpay" provisions of its auto
insurance policy and moved to represent a plaintiff class.
Farmers moved in 2003 to compel arbitration. Attorney Troy
Bozarth of Edwardsville argued that the policy required
arbitration.

In a memorandum, Mr. Bozarth described the response of plaintiff
attorney Jeffrey Millar to the motion as "an all-out assault on
the very concept of arbitration."  Writing by hand, in block
letters, in a couple of lines, Judge Kardis denied the motion in
August 2003 though.

In September 2003, Farmers filed notice of appeal at the Fifth
Circuit in Mt. Vernon. In October 2003, Mr. Austin moved to
serve subpoenas in Maryland. Judge Kardis granted that motion,
ordering Montgomery County, Maryland to commission subpoenas.
The appellate court, however, upheld Judge Kardis last year and
Farmers appealed to the Supreme Court in September 2004, which
vacated the Fifth District decision.


ILLINOIS: Oak Forest Officials Settle Suit Over Cell Phone Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Officials for the city of Oak Forest, Illinois agreed to settle
a class action lawsuit over cell phone fees for a little more
than $66,000, The Star Newspapers reports.

Reached recently, the settlement includes more than $7,000 in
legal fees and almost $59,000 in other fees, which will be
placed into a fund that may generate grants for future 911
system upgrades.

The lawsuit named more that 100 municipalities in Illinois and
was filed by PrimeCo Personal Communications over infrastructure
maintenance fees, which were billed to the carrier and passed on
to customers from 1998 to 2002. It challenged a state law that
allowed municipalities to impose an infrastructure maintenance
fee on wireless companies who utilize the airways for
transmission instead of underground cables.

The Municipal Infrastructure Maintenance Fee Act, the law that
was challenged by the suit, allowed municipalities to recoup 1
percent of total charges on telecommunications bills. PrimeCo
argued that municipalities could not charge the infrastructure
fee because wireless companies did not use any of the rights-of-
way or underground wires used by traditional telecommunications
companies.

Though the law was terminated in 2002 when a simplified act was
signed into law, the class action settlement still required
municipalities to refund 70 percent of any fees it collected
before the law was simplified.

In Oak Forest, that amounted to almost $59,000. The city was
able to prove exactly how much it collected in cell phone fees.
Municipalities could not show that what they collected was
charged based on population.

Steven Jones, the city's administrator told The Star Newspapers,
"This could have cost us $118,000. Our financial department had
records of all the cell revenue we collected during the period."

The city council unanimously approved the settlement, as well as
a move to adjust the fiscal year 2006 budget to accommodate the
payment.


INTRABIOTICS PHARMACEUTICALS: CA Court Mulls Lawsuit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California has yet to rule on Intrabiotics Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed against it and certain of its officers.

Beginning on July 2, 2004, three purported class action
shareholder complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern of California against the Company and
several of its officers.  The actions were consolidated and a
consolidated amended complaint has been filed, purportedly
brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between September 5, 2003 and June 22, 2004.  The amended
complaint generally alleges that the Company and several of its
officers and directors made false or misleading statements
concerning the clinical trial of iseganan. The plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages.

On February 28, 2005, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  A hearing on
the motion to dismiss was held on June 17, 2005 and a ruling on
the motion is pending.

The suit is styled "In Re: IntraBiotics Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Securities Litigation, case no. 04-CV-2675," filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
under Judge Jeffrey S. White.  Lawyers for the Company are Boris
Feldman, Cheryl W. Foung, Kassra Powell Nassiri and Ignacio E.
Salceda of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road,
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050, Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax:
650-565-5100, E-mail: boris.feldman@wsgr.com, cfoung@wsgr.com,
knassiri@wsgr.com, isalceda@wsgr.com.

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) 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) Bruce G. Murphy, 265 Llwyds Lane, Vero Beach La, FL,
         32963, Phone: 561.231.4202,

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

     (5) Green & Jigarjian LLP, 235 Pine Street, 15th Floor, San
         Francisco, CA, 94104, Phone: 415.477.6700, Fax:
         415.477.6710,

     (6) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (Los Angeles), 355
         South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA, 90071,
         Phone: 213.617.9007, Fax: 213.617.9185, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com

     (7) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
         Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com

     (8) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr,
         New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com

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

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



KINROSS GOLD: NV Court Certifies Breach of Contract Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada
granted class action status to the matter: Brown v. Kinross Gold
U.S.A., Inc. et al., on behalf of all Persons and Entities who
Tendered Shares of the $3.75 Series B Convertible Preferred
Stock of Kinam Gold Inc. ("Kinam") to Kinross Gold Corporation
("Kinross") Pursuant to the February 20, 2002, Cash Tender Offer
(As Amended February 22, 2002 Made by Kinross; and/or (2)
Continue to Hold Shares of the $3.75 Series B Convertible
Preferred Stock of Kinam; and/or Did Not Tender Shares of the
$3.75 Series B Convertible Preferred Stock of Kinam to the
February 20, 2002, Cash Tender Offer (As Amended February 22,
2002) Made by Kinross but Have since Sold Such Shares Directly
to Kinross, Kinam or Kinross Gold U.S.A. Inc. ("Kinross
U.S.A.").

The lawsuit asserts claims against Kinross, Kinross U.S.A. Inc.,
Kinam and Robert M. Buchan for breach of contract (e.g., breach
of the terms of the Preferred) and breach of fiduciary duties.
The defendants have denied all allegations of wrongdoing
asserted against them and have asserted affirmative defenses.

For more details, contact Brown v. Kinross, c/o Heffler,
Radetich & Saitta L.L.P., 1515 Market Street, Suite 1700,
Philadelphia, PA 19102, Phone: (800) 528-7199; and Merrill G.
Davidoff, Esq. or Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. of Berger &
Montague, P.C., Phone: +1-215-875-3000.


METALS USA: Inks Settlement For DE Suit V. Flag Holdings Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metals USA, Inc. and each of its directors face a consolidated
class action filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, related to
the merger it entered into with Flag Holdings Corporation in
March 2005.

Two suits were initially filed, "Robert I. Mawinney v. James E.
Bolin, et al., C.A. No. 1367-N," filed on May 20, 2005 and "Taam
Associates, Inc. v. James E. Bolin, et al., C. A. No. 1383-N,"
filed on May 26, 2005.  The suits were later consolidated and a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on July
22, 2005.  The amended complaint alleges, among other things,
that the merger consideration to be paid to the Company's
stockholders is "grossly unfair, inadequate and substantially
below the fair or inherent value of the Company."  In addition,
the amended complaint alleges that the Company's directors
violated their fiduciary duties by, among other things, agreeing
to the merger price in order to benefit themselves personally
and financially and by failing to engage in a fair sales process
and invite other bidders, and failing to conduct an active
market check of the Company's value.  The amended complaint
further alleges that the proxy statement fails to disclose
material information regarding the proposed transaction.  The
amended complaint seeks, among other things, certification of
the lawsuit as a class action, a declaration that the defendants
have breached their fiduciary duties, an injunction preventing
completion of the merger (or rescinding the merger if it is
completed prior to the receipt of such relief), and ordering the
board of directors to permit a stockholders' committee to ensure
a fair procedure and adequate safeguards in connection with any
transaction for the Company's shares, compensatory damages to
the class, and attorneys' fees and expenses, along with such
other relief as the court might find just and proper.

On October 11, 2005, the Company agreed in principle to resolve
the suit.  Under the proposed settlement, among other things,
plaintiffs' claims will be extinguished and Flag Holdings and
Flag Acquisition will agree to waive, under certain
circumstances, their right to receive any portion of the
termination fee payable under the Merger Agreement in excess of
$13.6 million (representing a reduction of approximately 20% of
the termination fee).  In a filing before the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the company said it that it continues ". to
deny that we engaged in any wrongful acts and entered into this
settlement solely for the purpose of eliminating the burden and
expense of future litigation."  The proposed settlement is
subject to, among other things, final approval of the Court and
consummation of the Merger.  Upon approval of the proposed
settlement by the Court, plaintiffs' attorneys are expected to
apply for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.


MICROTUNE INC.: Suit Settlement Fairness Hearing Set April 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Microtune, Inc., Douglas
J. Bartek, former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; Everett
Rogers, former Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of
Finance and Administration and several investment banking firms
that served as underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering, is set for April 24,2006 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

Starting on July 11, 2001, multiple purported securities fraud
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The Company is
aware of at least three such complaints: "Berger v. Goldman,
Sachs & Co., Inc. et al.;" "Atlas v. Microtune et al.;" and
"Ellis Investments Ltd. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., Inc. et al."
The complaints are brought purportedly on behalf of all persons
who purchased the Company's common stock from August 4, 2000
through December 6, 2000 and are related to "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation" (IPO cases).

The Company, Mr. Bartek and Mr. Rogers were served with notice
of the Atlas complaint on August 22, 2001, however, they have
not been served regarding the other referenced complaints. The
Berger and Ellis Investment Ltd. complaints assert claims
against the underwriters only. The complaints were consolidated
and amended on May 29, 2002. The amended complaint alleges
liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended (1933 Act Claims) and Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (1934 Act
Claims), on the grounds that the registration statement for our
initial public offering did not disclose that:

     (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain of their
         customers to purchase shares in the offering in
         exchange for excess commissions paid to the
         underwriters, and

     (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain of their
         customers to purchase additional shares in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

The amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports
were issued. No specific amount of damages is 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 1998, 1999 and 2000. Those
cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes before the
Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin.  On February 19, 2003, the Court
ruled on all defendants' motions to dismiss.  The Court denied
the motions to dismiss the 1933 Act Claims.  The Court did not
dismiss the 1934 Act Claims against the Company and other
issuers and underwriters.

The Company has accepted a settlement proposal presented to all
issuer defendants.  Under the settlement, plaintiffs will
dismiss and release all claims against the Microtune defendants.
The insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring
the issuer defendants in all of the IPO cases will guarantee
plaintiffs a recovery of $1 billion, an amount that covers all
of the IPO cases. Under this guarantee, the insurers will pay
the difference, if any, between $1 billion and the amount
collected by the plaintiffs from the underwriter defendants in
all of the IPO cases.  The Microtune defendants will not be
required to pay any money in the settlement.  However, any
payment made by the insurers will be charged to the respective
insurance policies covering each issuer's case on a "pro rata"
basis (that is, the total insurance company payments will be
divided by the number of cases that settle). If the "pro rata"
charge exceeds the amount of insurance coverage for an issuer,
that issuer would be responsible for additional payments. The
proposal also provides that the insurers will pay for the
company's legal fees going forward. 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 to the extent the
settlement would have cut off contractual indemnification claims
that underwriters may have against securities issuers, such as
Microtune.  The Court set a hearing to consider final approval
of the settlement for January 9, 2006.  On September 1, 2005,
the Court finalized its preliminary approval of the settlement
and rescheduled the hearing to consider final approval of the
settlement for April 24, 2006.


NEW YORK: Judge Faults State in Oneonta Racial Profiling Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
New York Court of Claims Judge Thomas McNamara ruled that state
police violated a black woman's rights against unlawful searches
when she was stopped during a 1992 hunt for a knife-wielding
assailant who authorities believed was a black man, The
Associated Press reports.

In his ruling, Judge McNamara found that the state was liable
for damages to Sheryl Champen, the only female claimant in the
class action case. The judge is expected to issue a written
ruling within the next three months on whether the rights of 28
black men in Oneonta, New York, were likewise violated in
September 1992.

The lawsuit claims violations by authorities of the plaintiffs'
rights to equal protection, as well as their rights against
unlawful search and seizure and seeks more than $3 million in
damages on behalf of 60 black people, most of whom were male
students at the State University College at Oneonta.

As the trial ended last week, Judge McNamara reserved decision
on other parts of the suit. A hearing still has to be held
regarding Ms. Champen's damages, according to Robert Foley, the
judge's clerk.

Court records show that Ms. Champen was assistant admissions
director at the college when a 76-year-old white woman was
attacked at a home a half-mile (0.8 kilometers) away. The victim
identified her attacker as a black male, and a blood trail
indicated he had been cut. Using a list of black students at the
school, police systematically questioned them and black
residents of the small upstate city.

Ms. Champen was stopped by two troopers and asked for her
identification and to show her forearms as she stood in a line
to board a bus in Oneonta, according to the claimants' attorney
Scott Fein. Black men in line were also questioned.

Mr. Fein told The Associated Press, "Her situation was so
egregious. She's willing to forgo damages in exchange for a
comprehensive state policy against race profiling. The state
maintains they have a policy. ... But they need training and
accountability."

In defending the police, Assistant Attorney General Michael
Rizzo insisted there was no racial profiling pointing out that
their policy of pursing possible suspects based on a victim's
description is "race neutral."

The case started when a 77-year-old woman said she was attacked
in her home near the State University of New York campus in
Oneonta in September 1992. The woman identified her assailant as
a black male who may have cut himself, an earlier Class Action
Reporter (October 25, 2005) story reports.

At the request of state police, Oneonta State school
administrators produced a list of black, male students. Police
then systematically questioned nearly 100 students and examined
their hands and arms for wounds. Authorities also made so-called
"street sweeps" in the city, stopping another 200 black men and
at least one woman. No arrest was ever made though, an earlier
Class Action Reporter (October 25, 2005) story reports.

The Oneonta State official who turned over the list of names was
temporarily demoted. Former Gov. Mario Cuomo, the state police
and Oneonta State officials have all apologized for the
searches, an earlier Class Action Reporter (October 25, 2005)
story reports.

However, after the searches, a group of students, townspeople
and others sued in federal court in 1993 claiming local police,
state police, the city, state and college unconstitutionally
targeted them. In 1995, a federal judge dismissed their claim.
Later, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York agreed
in part, ruling that the searches did not violate the
Constitution's "equal protection" guarantee. The appeals court
though did not address the plaintiffs' claim that police
violated their Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable
searches or stops. In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to
hear the case. In the meantime, the case slowly progressed
through state courts, an earlier Class Action Reporter (October
25, 2005) story reports.

The state Court of Claims initially said it did not have the
authority to consider claims for monetary damages against the
state based on alleged constitutional violations. But, in 1996,
the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, ruled that New
Yorkers could seek monetary damages if state government violated
their constitutional rights. That ruling upheld the students'
claim of alleged state constitutional violations of being
discriminated against because of their race and against illegal
searches by police. In addition, the court also found that the
students might have a valid claim against the state for failure
to properly train its personnel. Thus, the Court of Claims was
ordered to reconsider the students' case on those points, an
earlier Class Action Reporter (October 25, 2005) story reports.


RAYTHEON CO.: MA Court Yet To Rule on ERISA Fraud Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts refused Raytheon Co.'s motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action filed against it, alleging violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

In May 2003, two purported class action lawsuits were filed on
behalf of participants in the Company's savings and investment
plans who invested in the Company's stock between August 19,
1999 and May 27, 2003. Both lawsuits are substantially similar
and have been consolidated into a single action.  In April 2004,
a second consolidated amended complaint was filed on behalf of
participants and beneficiaries in the Company's savings and
investment plans who invested in the Company's stock since
October 7, 1998.

The Second Consolidated Amended ERISA Complaint alleges that the
Company, its Pension and Investment Group, and its Investment
Committee breached ERISA fiduciary duties by failing to:

     (1) prudently and loyally manage plan assets,

     (2) monitor the Pension and Investment Group and the
         Investment Committee and provide them with accurate
         information,

     (3) provide complete and accurate information to plan
         participants and beneficiaries, and

     (4) avoid conflicts of interest.

In October 2004, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Consolidated Amended ERISA Complaint. In September 2005,
the court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to re-
file the motion after the completion of further discovery
conducted by the parties.

The suit is styled "Wall v. Raytheon CO. et al., 1:03-cv-10940-
RGS," filed in the United States District Court in
Massachusetts, under Judge Richard G. Stearns.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Peter H. LeVan, Jr., Hangley Aronchick Segal &
Pudlin, One Logan Square, 27th Floor, Philadephia, PA 19103-6933
US, Phone: 215-496-7071, Fax: 215-585-0300.  Representing the
Company are Rebecca Ruby Anzidei, James P. Gillespie, Nicole
Goldstein, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Suite 1200, 655 Fifteenth
St.,N.W., Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-879-5046, E-mail:
ranzidei@kirkland.com or jgillespie@kirkland.com.



SEMPRA ENERGY: Firm's EVP Comments Continental Forge Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Javade Chaudhri, executive vice president and general counsel of
Sempra Energy (NYSE:SRE), issued the following statement
regarding a settlement agreement by Sempra Energy, Southern
California Gas Co. and San Diego Gas & Electric with the County
of Los Angeles and 11 other individual plaintiffs in the
Continental Forge case. Terms of the agreement were not
disclosed.

"Our companies are pleased to have reached a mutually agreeable
settlement for a fraction of these particular plaintiffs'
claims. These individual plaintiffs were part of the
consolidated case, but not part of the initial class of Ventura
County natural gas customers and Southern California Edison
customers currently being heard in San Diego Superior Court.

"The allegations involved in this case are simply false and, as
part of this agreement, Sempra Energy and our affiliate
companies expressly deny any wrongdoing."

The Continental Forge class-action trial began Oct. 24, 2005,
and is expected to continue for three to five months. In
addition to the County of Los Angeles, the plaintiffs included
in this settlement are: the City of Burbank, City of Culver
City, City of Glendale, City of Upland, City of Vernon, County
of San Bernardino, Edgington Oil, Imperial Irrigation District,
World Oil Corporation, Demenno-Kerdoon and Lunday-Thaggard
Company.

For more details, contact Doug Kline, Sempra Energy and
Stephanie Donovan, Sempra utilities, Phone: (877) 866-2066, E-
mail: http://www.sempra.com.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Allen Suit Was Filed Too Late, Defense Argues
-------------------------------------------------------------
The civil-rights lawsuit brought against city of York, South
Carolina and five of its former police officers for a black
woman's murder in 1969 was filed too late, according to the
defendants' attorneys, The York Daily Record reports.

In a request to dismiss the civil-rights allegations, defense
attorneys argue that the family of Lillie Belle Allen failed to
file the suit within the two-year statute of limitations. Court
records show that the 27-year-old South Carolina woman was shot
and killed on North Newberry Street when race riots gripped the
city in the summer of 1969. Her family filed a civil-rights
lawsuit in U.S. Middle District Court on January 29, 2003.

That lawsuit contends that she was killed after white police
officers had provided city gangs with ammunition and incited
them to violence against minorities. It maintains that the
ensuing murder investigation was mishandled and that police and
city officials conspired to conceal evidence that could have
resulted in the timely prosecution of her killers.

Instead, according to the suit, Ms. Allen's murder remained
unsolved until two men were convicted of second-degree murder in
an October 2002 trial. Robert N. Messersmith, 56, is serving a
nine-to-19-year prison sentence and Gregory H. Neff, 57, is
serving 4 to 10 years. One of the civil suit defendants though,
former city police officer and ex-Mayor Charlie Robertson, was
acquitted of criminal charges in that same trial.

In a recent 80-page filing, defense attorneys point out that the
suit could have been filed as early as July 21, 1971, which was
exactly two years after Ms. Allen was killed, and as late as
October 2002.

According to them, the family missed six separate opportunities
to file their suit and remain within a two-year statute of
limitations each time:

     (1) A class-action suit brought in 1970 against then-Mayor
         Eli Eichelberger and city officials alleging
         unreasonable search and seizure, excessive force and
         summary punishment and the use of illegal police
         tactics during the riots. The family should have filed
         by 1972.

     (2) Retrospective media coverage in 1974, 1979, 1984, 1989
         and 1999 of the riots and Allen's death. The family
         should have filed within two years of each event.

     (3) The convening of an investigative grand jury in 2000
         that resulted in the arrests of Mr. Messersmith, Mr.
         Neff, Mr. Robertson and six other men. The family
         should have filed by 2002.

     (4) A letter written on August 28, 2000, by Jennie Settles,
         Ms. Allen's sister, to the Department of Justice
         alleging her sister's civil rights were violated. The
         family should have filed by 2002.

     (5) An October 22, 2000, article read by Ms. Allen's
         sister, Secina Toole, where witnesses alleged police
         provoked racial violence. The family should have filed
         by October 22, 2002.

     (6) An undated 2000 meeting at the crime scene where "the
         District Attorney" told family members "Mr. Robertson
         was likely involved in the death of Ms. Allen,"
         according to the defense's motion. The family should
         have filed by 2002.

In addition, defense attorneys noted in their filing that the
family's attorney, Harold Goodman, in a letter dated January 9,
2002, offered to defer filing the lawsuit while the city tried
to determine if the civil-rights claim was covered by its
insurance. In response, assistant city solicitor Don Hoyt warned
Mr. Goodman "your decision to file or not file" would not stop
the defense from arguing that the statute of limitation had
expired.

Ms. Allen's family is expected to respond to the motion to
dismiss before a November 4 conference scheduled by Judge Yvette
Kane.


TALISMAN ENERGY: NY Judge Limits Scope of Church of Sudan's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Denise Cote recently limited the scope of the 2001 lawsuit
brought by the Presbyterian Church of Sudan against Calgary-
based Talisman Energy Inc. (TSX: TLM) (NYSE: TLM) in U.S.
District Court in Manhattan by refusing to grant class action
status, The New York Newsday reports.

With the Judge Cote's ruling, it will now be up to the 2nd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals to decide by the end of this year
whether to consider the class action issue before the case goes
to trial in January 2007.

According to the plaintiffs, class action status is crucial to
set the stage for a potential large payout to Sudanese victims
and to set a precedent for U.S. courts to aid suffering people
worldwide who cannot find relief in their own courts.

Beth Van Schaack, assistant professor at the Santa Clara
University School of Law, who submitted court papers on behalf
of human rights groups and activists asking the appeals court to
hear the issue, argues that without it, "thousands of victims
will be effectively denied any opportunity to pursue legal
redress for acts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war
crimes."

The lawsuit, which was filed by a U.S. anti-slavery group,
alleges that the Company conspired with, or aided and abetted,
the Government of Sudan to commit violations of international
law in connection with the Company's now disposed-of interest in
oil operations in Sudan, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(August 1, 2005) reports.

The American Anti-Slavery Group charges the Company with
violating "international law for participating in the ethnic
cleansing of black and non-Muslim Minorities in southern Sudan,"
an earlier Class Action Reporter story (August 1, 2005) reports.

The suit also alleges, "Talisman, in an effort to protect its
oil fields in Sudan, aided and abetted the fundamentalist
Islamic government in its ongoing and self-proclaimed `jihad' -
a campaign that has resulted in massive civilian displacement;
the burning of villages, churches and crops; and the murder and
enslavement of innocent civilians," an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (August 1, 2005) reports.

Board member and attorney Carey D'Avino, and another lawyer,
Stephen Whinston filed the suit on behalf of plaintiffs that
include the Presbyterian Church of Sudan and two individuals, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (August 1, 2005) reports.

Last month, Judge Denise Cote ruled that the case cannot proceed
as a class action because issues concerning individual
plaintiffs were distinct and could not be decided as a class.

Ms. Van Schaack though argues that victims of genocide are left
with nowhere else to turn if U.S. courts force them to seek
justice in the country where they are oppressed.

In a telephone interview, Ms. Van Schaack told The New York
Newsday that winning class action status for the case might in
the future "force companies to think twice before they let the
host government provide security or workers who might be subject
to forced labor."

Among the groups that Ms. Van Schaack represents in the case is
the Center for Constitutional Rights, a non-profit organization
that has litigated significant international human rights cases
for 25 years. She also represents the Allard K. Lowenstein
International Human Rights Clinic at Yale Law School, which
conducts research for international tribunals.

Carey R. D'Avino, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in court
papers that denial of class certification "may sound the `death
knell' for 95 percent of class members," or tens of thousands of
people. "This bell tolls most chillingly for all human rights
victims against whom the district court's published decision,
albeit unintentionally, imposes a new and unjustified procedural
barrier," according to him.

In court papers filed before Judge Cote ruled, attorneys for
Talisman urged her not to certify a class. They wrote, "The
truth is that a class action proceeding in a United States court
is the wrong mechanism to untangle the human tragedy of a
decades-long civil war in Sudan." Talisman also pointed out that
a suggestion by plaintiffs that tens of thousands of class
members could travel to Kenya for videotaped depositions was
impractical.

In addition, the company also stated in court documents that the
plaintiffs "falsely assert" that Talisman upgraded airstrips at
two locations for "security" purposes when they actually had
"nothing to do with accommodating military activity." According
to the Company, "Plaintiffs similarly paint a grossly misleading
portrait that the government of Sudan's use of the airstrips for
offensive purposes was routine, and that Talisman Energy knew
and gave its approval for the government of Sudan to carry out
attacks on civilians."


The suit is styled, "The Presbyterian, et al v. Talisman Energy,
et al, Case No. 1:01-cv-09882-DLC-HBP," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Denise L. Cote. Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Carey R. D'Avino of Carey R. D'Avino, P.C., 1251 Avenue
         of the Americas, 42nd Floor, New York, NY 10020, Phone:
         (212) 278-1382;

     (2) Steven E. Fineman and Rachel Geman of Lieff Cabraser
         Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, 780 Third Ave., 48th Floor,
         New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-355-9500, Fax: 212-355-
         9592, E-mail: sfineman@lchb.com;

     (3) Linda Gerstel and Lawrence A. Kill of Anderson, Kill,
         Olick & Oshinsky P.C., 1251 Avenue of the Americas, New
         York, NY 10020, Phone: (212) 278-1000, Fax: (212) 278-
         1733, E-mail: lgerstel@andersonkill.com and
         lkill@andersonkill.com; and

     (4) Keino R. Robinson and Stephen A. Whinston of Berger
         & Montague, 1622 Locust St., Philadelphia, PA 19103,
         Phone: (215)-875-4655 and (215) 875-3097, Fax: (215)-
         875-4604 and (215) 875-4604, E-mail: krobinson@bm.net
         and swhinston@bm.net.

Representing the Defendant is Darcy Lynne O'Loughlin and Marc
Joel Gottridge of Lovells, 900 Third Avenue, 16th Floor, New
York, NY 10022, Phone: (212)-367-8381 and (212) 909-0600, Fax:
(212)-909-0666 and (212) 909-0666, E-mail:
darcy.o'loughlin@lovells.com and marc.gottridge@lovells.com.


UNITED SERVICES: IL Judge Gives Final OK to Bemis Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff attorneys in a class action suit will receive $7
million thanks to a settlement in the case, Bemis vs. United
Services Automobile Association (USAA), which Madison County
Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron granted final approval to on
October 21, The Madison County Record reports.

Represented by Richard Burke of the Lakin Law firm in Wood
River, Illinois, Chiropractor Gerald Bemis and other plaintiffs
claimed in a 2001 suit that USAA improperly reduced payouts
under "medpay" provisions of its policies.

After the parties settled, they hired Rust Consulting of
Faribault, Minnesota to administer claims. Rust Consulting
eventually mailed 269,100 notices.

Previously, Colorado residents tried to postpone final approval
of the settlement with their attorney Timothy Scott of Denver
writing to Judge Byron that Colorado law offered better remedies
than the settlement. Mt. Scott, however, did not send a filing
fee and Judge Byron ignored the document.

Rust Consulting received 1,347 responses from potential class
members who "opted out," preserving the right to file their own
claims.

Though the settlement agreement announced the legal fee, it did
not disclose the amount that USAA will distribute to the class
through Rust Consulting.

Mr. Burke and the other attorney of record, Jeffrey Millar of
the Lakin firm, will spread a little of the $7 million pot
around. Each plaintiff who testified by deposition will receive
a $10,000 "incentive," while other named plaintiffs will get
$3,000.


UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Policyholders Sue Over Denied Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Policyholders initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status
against UnumProvident Corporation, alleging that it
systematically sought ways to avoid paying claims to millions of
California customers, The MaineToday.com reports.

Filed in California Superior Court the suit comes less than a
month after the nation's largest disability insurer was ordered
to pay an $8 million fine to settle similar charges against the
company by state insurance regulators.

UnumProvident was created through the 1999 merger of Provident
Cos. of Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Unum Corporation of
Portland, Maine. It employs about 12,000, including 3,600 in
Maine, and last year paid more than $6 billion in benefits.

The California lawsuit seeks billions of dollars in premium
refunds and damages for denied claims. It also names
UnumProvident subsidiary Paul Revere Life Insurance Co. as one
of the defendants.

The lead plaintiff in the case is former Berkeley chiropractor
Joan Hangarter, who won a unanimous $7.7 million federal jury
award after she became disabled by tendonitis and Paul Revere
denied her benefits.

Attorney Ray Bourhis told MaineToday.com that he expects the
settlement with state officials to boost his case against the
Chattanooga-based insurer, which settled similar allegations
with 48 other states last year.

However, UnumProvident spokesperson Mary Clarke Guenther pointed
out that the previous California settlement should foreclose the
new claims. She also told MaineToday.com "We find his latest
complaint completely without merit and believe the recent
settlement with California makes Mr. Bourhis' charges moot."


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Boston Scientific
Corporation. (NYSE: BSX) ("BSX" or the "Company") between March
31, 2003 and August 23, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

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 BSX securities.

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.


DHB INDUSTRIES: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 DHB Industries, Inc. (AMEX:
DHB) ("DHB" or the "Company") between April 21, 2004 and August
29, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

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 DHB securities.

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.


LIPMAN ELECTRONIC: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased the
publicly traded securities of Lipman Electronic Engineering,
Ltd. ("Lipman " or the "Company") (NYSE:LPMA) between October 4,
2004 and September 27, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that Lipman violated federal securities
laws by making materially false or misleading public statements
concerning its acquisition of Dione, Plc. On September 28, 2005,
Lipman admitted that the "weaker than expected performance of
Dione" caused Lipman to lower its 2005 earnings guidance from
$1.39 - $1.42 per share, to $0.88 - $0.98 per share. Lipman also
announced that it had terminated the employment of Dione CEO
Shaun Gray and that it anticipated it would take a non-cash
impairment charge relating to goodwill and other intangible
assets in 2005. On this news, Lipman stock fell from a close of
$26.19 per share on September 27, 2005, to close at $20.48 per
share on September 28, 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.


PIXAR ANIMATION: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 Pixar Animation Studios
(NASDAQ: PIXR) ("Pixar" or the "Company") between January 18,
2005 and June 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.

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 Pixar securities.

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.


REFCO INC.: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 Refco, Inc. (OTC: RFXCQ)
("Refco" or the "Company"), between August 10, 2005 and October
13, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

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 Refco securities.

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.


TAG-IT PACIFIC: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Smith & Smith, LLP, initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased
securities of Tag-It Pacific, Inc. ("Tag-It Pacific" or the
"Company") (AMEX:TAG), between November 14, 2003 and August 12,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period
concerning the Company's financial performance, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Tag-It Pacific securities.

For more details, Howard Smith of Smith & Smith, LLP, 3070
Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, PA 19020, Phone:
(866) 759-2275, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com.


TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 Tempur-Pedic International,
Inc. (NASDAQ: TPX) ("Temper-Pedic" or the "Company") between
April 22, 2005 and September 19, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

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 Temper-Pedic
securities.

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.



                            *********


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  * * *