CAR_Public/051103.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, November 3, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 218


                            Headlines

ARIZONA: State's Attorney Asks Judge For Guidance in Flores Case
AZTAR CORPORATION: Seeks Attorneys' Fees, Costs in AZ Lawsuit
BELL CANADA: Faces Consumer Lawsuit Filed in Ontario, Canada
BROADCOM CORPORATION: CA Court Grants Final Settlement Approval
C-AND-O MOTORS: Judge OKs Class Status For Suit Over Daewoo Cars

CALIFORNIA: FTC - 19 Funeral Homes Complying With Funeral Rule
CANADA: Suits V. Burn-In Problems on Toshiba, Sony TV Sets Looms
CANADA: Health Canada Issues Warning About Cookware Health Risks
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Seeks To Limit OR Diocese Bankruptcy Deposition
CHEF'S DELIGHT: Recalls Beef Products For Listeria Contamination

CIB MARINE: Securities Fraud Litigation Transferred To E.D. WI
COOPER CAMERON: Working To Resolve TX Contaminated Water Suits
COOPER CAMERON: Reaches Settlement For Texas Landowner Lawsuit
DIVERSA CORPORATION: Final Fairness Hearing Set For April 2006
ELECTRONIC DATA: Enters MOU to Settle 2002 Consolidated Suits

GANNETT CO.: ERISA Violations Lawsuit Still Pending in CO Court
HALLIBURTON CO.: TX Court Mulls Dismissal of Amended Stock Suit
IDX SYSTEMS: Faces Purported Shareholder Fraud Suit in VT Court
IMCLONE SYSTEMS: FDA Grants Priority Review For ERBITUX Drug
JANUS CAPITAL: MD Court Junks Some Claims in Securities Lawsuit

JANUS CAPITAL: Discovery in CO Suit To Be Completed in Feb. 2006
JANUS CAPITAL: Asks CO Court To Dismiss Fund Investors' Lawsuit
LINCOLN ELECTRIC: Faces Manganese Injury Monitoring Litigation
LIPSEY MOUNTAIN: Trucking Firms Launch Breach-of-Contract Suit
OREGON: Scruggs Law To Announce Settlement in Uninsureds' Suit

PACIFIC TRADE: Recalls 17T Pillar Candles Due to Fire Hazard
PPG INDUSTRIES: Reaches Settlement For PA Glass Antitrust Suit
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP: OH Law Firm Helps Settle Telxon Case
PROVIDENCE HOSPITAL: Reaches Deal in Uninsured Patient's Suit
QUOVADX INC.: Final NY Suit Fairness Hearing Set For April 2006

QUOVADX INC.: CO Court Grants Certification To Securities Suit
QUOVADX INC.: Discovery in CO Securities Suit To Be Coordinated
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Enters Into MOU in Consolidated Actions
SALUS CORPORATION: Recalls Shampoo Caps Due to Bacteria Content
SMART & FINAL: Reports Lower Quarterly Profit Due to Settlement

UNION PACIFIC: Wants Derailment Suit Moved to TX Federal Court
VALENTINO LAS VEGAS: Settles EEOC Sexual Harassment Suit in NV
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Program to be Funded With Neoprene Award
WAL-MART STORES: MO Judge Grants Certification to Overtime Suit
WORLDCOM INC.: Investors Recover $651 Mil For Securities Fraud

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Curtiss V. Trinko Files Securities Suit in MA
MOTIVE INC.: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in TX
PIXAR ANIMATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Fraud Suit in CA
REFCO INC.: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges Securities Suit in GA

TAG-IT PACIFIC: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA

                            *********

ARIZONA: State's Attorney Asks Judge For Guidance in Flores Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawyer for the state of Arizona is asking a federal judge not
to cut off highway funding or to impose other sanctions, in
relation to a 13-year-old education class action, but wants him
to specify what the state needs to do to improve instruction of
students learning the English language, The Associated Press
reports.  The class action suit was originally filed in 1992 on
behalf of Nogales Unified School District students and parents.

At a recent hearing, attorney Jose Cardenas told U.S. District
Judge Raner C. Collins that the state needs "direction" from the
court because Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano and the
Republican-controlled Legislature can't agree how to comply with
court orders. He also told the judge that without that
direction, "we're not going to break this impasse."

However, Tim Hogan, executive director of Arizona Center for Law
in the Public Interest and attorney to the plaintiffs in the
class action Flores vs. State of Arizona told Judge Collins that
the case has dragged on for too many years already, that prior
court orders provide enough guidance and that what is needed now
are "powerful and meaningful sanctions" against the state to
prod elected officials into reaching a consensus. Mr. Hogan
suggests cutting off the state's federal highway dollars, which
is the source of funding for about half of the road and highway
work done by the state and local governments, or imposing a fine
of $1 million a day. "The issue is coercing compliance,"
according to Mr. Hogan.

Judge Collins said he would rule later on Mr. Hogan's motion
requesting sanctions. He also took under advisement a motion by
Mr. Hogan to prohibit the state from requiring that English-
learning students pass the AIMS (Arizona's Instrument to Measure
Standards) test in order to graduate from high school. The test
measures students' mastery of state curriculum standards in
math, reading and writing.

The AIMS graduation requirement begins in 2006 with students
becoming seniors this fall. However, a law passed by the
Legislature this spring is expected to allow small numbers of
students who don't pass the test to still graduate by getting
extra points through good grades on required courses, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (July 27, 2005) reports.

According to Mr. Hogan, implementing that requirement would be
unfair because of unfairness created by continuing shortcomings
in the state's programs for English-learners.  Mr. Cardenas
argued against the AIMS motion, pointing out that it would be
unfair to other students to exclude English-learners from the
new accountability requirement.

The recent hearing was held five years after a judge previously
assigned to the case ruled that the state's programs for
instruction of English-learning students failed to comply with
federal laws that guarantee equal opportunities in education.


AZTAR CORPORATION: Seeks Attorneys' Fees, Costs in AZ Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aztar Corporation asked the Superior Court of Maricopa County,
Arizona to grant them discretionary award from the plaintiff and
his counsel of the attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the
Company in defending the consumer class action filed against it.

Plaintiff Aaron Dolgin filed the suit, relating to a $1 per day
telephone surcharge assessed to certain guests at check-in at
the Tropicana Resort and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada and the
Tropicana Casino and Resort in Atlantic City, New Jersey (the
"Tropicana Hotels").  The hotels are owned and operated by
subsidiaries of the Company.

Plaintiff, Aaron Dolgin, brings claims based upon:

     (1) alleged violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act;

     (2) fraudulent advertising;

     (3) breach of contract;

     (4) breach of the implied-in-law covenant of good faith and
         fair dealing; and

     (5) unjust enrichment

In an order dated February 28, 2005, the Court denied the
plaintiff's motion to certify this matter as a class action.  As
a result, only the plaintiff's individual claims based on the
single $1 telephone surcharge he paid to the Tropicana Resort
and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada are still pending.  The
plaintiff has not actively litigated this matter since the
denial of the motion for class certification.  The Court
subsequently placed the case on the Inactive Calendar for
dismissal on June 20, 2005 unless the plaintiff filed a motion
to set the matter for trial before that date.  The plaintiff
failed to file a motion to set the matter for trial before the
June 20, 2005 deadline.

On July 15, 2005, the Court dismissed this case without
prejudice due to lack of prosecution.  On August 12, 2005, the
Company filed an application with the Court seeking a
discretionary award from the plaintiff and his counsel of the
attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the Company in defending
against the plaintiff's claims.  That application is still in
the briefing stages.


BELL CANADA: Faces Consumer Lawsuit Filed in Ontario, Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
The law office of Michael J. Munro commenced a class action
lawsuit against Bell Canada Inc., BCE Inc., and Bell Mobility in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The lawsuit concerns Bell's general representations to its
customers and Bell's overall conduct during and following a
service technician labor dispute in 2005. It is alleged that
despite Bell's knowledge of severe and widespread installation
delays, there was no warning of the expected delays on the Bell
web-site, nor did Bell circulate any form of notice of
installation delays to its wireline customers with their monthly
accounts. Instead, Bell continued to broadcast on its web site
under the "Moving?" section that arrangements for installation
of wireline services only needed to be made 1-2 weeks in advance
of a moving date, and Bell continued to broadcast over the web
that it offered "worry-free services" and that the "No. 1
reason" for using Bell services was "reliability".

In a press release dated March 31, 2005 Bell advised consumers
that it had "immediately implemented contingency plans to ensure
continued customer service." The Statement of Claim alleges that
this press release, and Bell's general assurances to its
customers were false and misleading business practices within
the meaning of the new Ontario Consumer Protection Act.

It is alleged that in an effort to preserve its market share and
prevent customers from going to competitors, Bell misled the
public as to the reliability of service that it could provide
during the material period. It is further alleged that all or
virtually all customers who were advised by Bell that wireline
service would be installed on an agreed upon date did not
receive installation of wireline service on that date (many
experienced disruptions of weeks, and in some cases months). By
failing to provide customers with advance warning of the
expected installation delays, it is alleged that Bell deprived
customers of the opportunity to investigate and secure
competitive communication services.

The Statement of Claim further alleges that Bell knew its
customers relied on their residential telephones for emergency
services such as 911, and yet despite this knowledge of clear
health and safety issues, Bell failed to warn its customers of
the severe and widespread service disruptions expected.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all existing and former
residential wireline customers of Bell Canada Inc. who,
following March 24, 2005, experienced an installation delay and,
as a result thereof, experienced increased wireless usage,
charges and/or expenses during the period of service disruption.

It is alleged that Bell Mobility was the primary beneficiary and
recipient of increased wireless charges paid by existing and
former residential wireline customers of Bell Canada Inc. The
Statement of Claim was issued on October 26, 2005.

For more details, contact Michael J. Munro, Phone:
(416) 410-4505, Web site: http://www.bellclassaction.com.


BROADCOM CORPORATION: CA Court Grants Final Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Broadcom
Corporation and certain of its current and former executive
officers.

From March through May 2001 the Company and three of its current
and former executive officers were served with a number of
shareholder class action complaints alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The essence of the
allegations was that the defendants intentionally failed to
disclose and properly account for the financial impact of
performance-based warrants assumed in connection with five
acquisitions consummated in 2000 and 2001, which plaintiffs
allege had the effect of materially overstating the Company's
reported and future financial performance.  In
June 2001, the lawsuits were consolidated before the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
into a single action entitled "In re Broadcom Corp. Securities
Litigation."

In October 2003, the court issued an order certifying a class of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of the Company, or bought or sold
options on the Company's stock, between July 31, 2000 and
February 26, 2001, with certain exceptions.  By a Stipulation of
Settlement dated as of June 24, 2005, the parties agreed to
settle the Class Action.  Under the Stipulation, the Class
Action will be dismissed with prejudice in exchange for an
aggregate payment of $150 million in cash, which will be
distributed to class members after the payment of costs of
administering the settlement and any fees and costs the Court
may award to plaintiffs' counsel.  The Company expects that its
insurance carriers will pay approximately $40 million of the
Settlement Fund.  Of the remaining balance, the Company paid
$108 million into an escrow account in July 2005. Any additional
amount necessary to bring the Settlement Fund to $150 million
will be paid into the escrow account by the Company no later
than two business days before the Court hearing on final
approval of the Stipulation.

In June 2005 the Court granted preliminary approval of the
Stipulation and the settlement set forth therein, set a hearing
date of September 12, 2005 on a motion for final approval, and
directed that a notice of the settlement be delivered to members
of the class and published in national media.  In September 2005
the court granted final approval of the Stipulation and entered
final judgment and an order of dismissal thereon and made
effective full releases by all class members of all claims
relating to the matters asserted in the Class Action. However,
two objectors to the settlement have filed notices of appeal
before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from, among other
things, the order granting final approval of the settlement and
the final judgment and order of dismissal. The Settlement Fund
will not be distributed to members of the class until all
appeals have been resolved. If for any reason the settlement
does not become final, or the Stipulation is cancelled or
terminated, contributions to the Settlement Fund will be
returned to the parties that made them (less any notice or
administrative costs incurred pursuant to the Stipulation), the
parties will be restored to their respective positions in the
litigation as of June 20, 2005, and the Company will continue to
contest the claims on the merits.

The Plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss the Class Action with
prejudice effective upon final Court approval.  The Plaintiffs
and Defendants have also agreed to releases covering all
asserted and unasserted, known and unknown, claims relating to
the Class Action and the prosecution of the Class Action,
contingent upon final approval of the settlement.  As part of
the settlement, the Company and the other Defendants continue to
deny any liability or wrongdoing with respect to the claims
raised in the Class Action.  If for any reason the settlement
does not become final, or if the Stipulation is cancelled or
terminated, contributions to the Settlement Fund will be
returned to the parties who made them (less any notice or
administrative costs incurred pursuant to the Stipulation), the
parties will be restored to their respective positions in the
litigation as of June 20, 2005, and the Company will continue to
contest the claims on the merits.

In February 2002 an additional complaint, entitled "Arenson, Et
al. v. Broadcom Corp., et al.," was filed by 47 persons and
entities in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Orange, against the Company and three of its
current and former executive officers.  The Company removed the
lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, where it was consolidated with the Class
Action.  The plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint
in that court that tracks the allegations of the Class Action
complaint.  The parties have completed discovery in this case.

Through orders issued in October and December 2004, the court
dismissed the claims of 31 plaintiffs on the ground that they
had sustained no damages.  By stipulation and order entered by
the court in January 2005, the parties agreed that the claims of
one of the dismissed plaintiff could be reinstated (subject to
that plaintiff's agreement that its damages, calculated in
accordance with the court's prior orders, did not exceed $745)
but that five additional plaintiffs should be dismissed because
they did not incur any damages.  Accordingly, the claims of 35
of the original 47 "Arenson" plaintiffs have been dismissed and
the claims of 12 plaintiffs remain. According to the opinion
provided by the plaintiffs' expert, the remaining plaintiffs
appear to have claims for no more than $1.6 million in potential
damages, which defendants contest and believe to be overstated.
The plaintiffs in the "Arenson" matter are not parties to the
proposed settlement of the Class Action, although the
Stipulation provides that the "Arenson" plaintiffs may elect
individually to become members of the class and participate in
that settlement in lieu of pursuing their claims in the
"Arenson" action.  The Court has stayed further proceedings in
the "Arenson" matter pending the hearing on final approval of
the settlement in the Class Action.

The Stipulation of Settlement in the Class Action provided to
the "Arenson" plaintiffs the option of joining the class in the
Class Action in exchange for dismissal of their claims
in the separate case. In September 2005 each of the Arenson
plaintiffs exercised that option. Accordingly, the Arenson
plaintiffs are now bound by the terms of the Class Action
settlement and the judgment in the Class Action, subject to the
outcome of the appeals. In October 2005 the parties filed a
stipulation dismissing the Arenson action with prejudice.

The suit is styled "In re Broadcom Securities Litigation, case
no. 8:01-cv-00275-DT-MLG," filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, under Judge
Dickran Tevrizian.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Barbara A. Podell, Berger & Montague, 1622 Locust St
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365, Phone: 215-875-3000

     (2) Brian L. Williams and Madge S. Thorsen of Heins Mills &
         Olson, 80 South 8th St, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone:
         612-338-4605, E-mail: bwilliams@heinsmills.com

     (3) Jonathan E. Behar, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
         and Robbins, 9601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 510, Los
         Angeles, CA 90210, Phone: 310-859-3100, Fax: 310-278-
         2148

     (4) Marc A. Topaz, Schiffrin & Barroway, 3 Bala Plaza E
         Ste 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706

Representing the Company are Christine WS Byrd, Daniel P.
Lefler, David Siegel, Harry Arthur Mittleman, Jason M. Goldberg,
Layn R. Phillips, Peter J. Gregora of Irell & Manella, 1800
Avenue of the Stars, Ste 900, Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276, Phone:
310-277-1010, E-mail: lphillips@irell.com and Patrick Ryan of
Ryan Whaley and Coldiron, 900 Robinson Renaissance, 119 North
Robinson, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-239-6040, E-mail:
pryan@ryanwhaley.com.


C-AND-O MOTORS: Judge OKs Class Status For Suit Over Daewoo Cars
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Kanawha County Circuit judge granted class action status to a
lawsuit filed against C-and-O Motors of St. Albans, West
Virginia, The Associated Press reports.

Darryl Smith, who purchased a Daewoo vehicle from C-and-O in
2002, filed the suit, which accuses the car dealer of unfair and
deceptive practices.  Mr. Smith alleges that C-and-O sold new
Daewoo vehicles between February 1, 2002 and August 1, 2002,
without informing consumers of Daewoo Motor America's financial
problems that could affect warranties. Besides C-and-O, the
lawsuit also names Love Daewoo and St. Albans Imports as
defendants.

Court records show that Daewoo Motor America filed for
bankruptcy protection in May 2002 after its South Korean parent
Daewoo Motor Co. went bankrupt in 2001. General Motors then
signed a deal with Daewoo and the Korean Development Bank to
invest $251 million for a 42 percent stake in a new company.

Judge Paul Zakaib certified the lawsuit as a class action on
October 5, which had the effect of allowing multiple consumers
in similar situations to participate in one lawsuit instead of
trying each case separately. Trial has been set for January 23
in Charleston.


CALIFORNIA: FTC - 19 Funeral Homes Complying With Funeral Rule
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Trade Commission conducted a recent sweep of 19
funeral homes in San Bernardino County, California, to test
compliance with the FTC's Funeral Rule.  All 19 homes were found
to be in compliance with the rule, The Federal Trade Commission
announced in a statement.

The FTC's Western Region office conducted the sweep as part of
the Commission's ongoing nationwide law enforcement program.
Under the program, FTC test shoppers visit funeral homes to see
if they comply with key requirements of the law, such as
providing consumers with an itemized general price list that
contains mandatory disclosures, and an itemized price lists for
caskets. The Funeral Rule is designed to ensure that consumers
receive price lists and are told they can purchase only the
goods and services they want or need.

"The compliance of these 19 funeral homes is good news for
consumers who live in Southern California," said Jeffrey
Klurfeld, director of the FTC's Western Region.

In January 1996, the FTC announced the Funeral Rule Offenders
Program (FROP), a joint effort with the National Funeral
Directors Association (NFDA), to boost compliance with the
Funeral Rule. Under the FROP, funeral homes that do not give
test shoppers itemized price lists in a prescribed time and
manner may choose to enter the FROP program rather than face
possible legal action, which could result in an injunction and
civil penalties. If they choose FROP, they make a voluntary
payment to the U.S. Treasury in lieu of civil penalties, and
enroll in a program administered by the NFDA, which includes a
review of price lists, compliance training, and follow-up
testing and certification.

Depending on the severity of the violation, funeral homes may be
given the opportunity to resolve law violations through means
other than through FROP or a formal law enforcement action,
which could result in an injunction and civil penalties. Among
those alternative means of resolving possible violations, a
funeral home may receive a letter notifying the funeral home
that it is not in compliance with the Rule and warning that
future noncompliance could result in a monetary penalty.

The Funeral Rule, promulgated by the FTC in 1984, was revised in
1994. One of its key requirements is that, at the beginning of
any discussion of funeral arrangements, goods, services or
prices, consumers must receive an itemized general price list
for use in comparison shopping, and other information,
including, for example, the fact that embalming is not
necessarily required by law. The FTC's Rule also makes clear
that consumers do not have to buy a package funeral, but
instead, may pick and choose the goods and services they want.

A free FTC brochure, Funerals: A Consumer Guide, describes
consumers' rights and legal requirements. A free FTC handbook
for funeral providers, Complying with the Funeral Rule, is also
available.  Copies of the FTC brochure and other documents
pertaining to the FROP program are available from the FTC's Web
site at http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's Consumer
Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20580 or call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP
(1-877-382-4357).  For more details, contact Mitchell J. Katz,
Office of Public Affairs, Phone: 202-326-2161 or Sylvia Kundig,
FTC's Western Region - San Francisco, Phone: 415-848-518 or
visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/11/funeralsweep.htm.


CANADA: Suits V. Burn-In Problems on Toshiba, Sony TV Sets Looms
----------------------------------------------------------------
A North Vancouver law firm is trying to certify class action
lawsuits against Sony and Toshiba over burn-in problems on big-
screen TV sets, CBC News reports.

Fixed images, such as network logos can end up permanently
burned into the TV screen and some owners' manuals warn against
leaving your set tuned to one channel for too long to prevent
burn-in.

However, lawyer Ken Baxter told CBC News that in the case of
Toshiba, the manual doesn't specify how long is too long. "To
put that into context, the third game of the world series went
to 14 innings and anyone who read this manual would have to be
thinking, 'Can I only watch two innings? Four innings? Nine? Can
I watch the end of the game?' "You wouldn't know. And that seems
to us to be wrong."  Mr. Baxter told CBC News that there could
be thousands of people in the province who bought expensive TVs
who deserve to have the case heard.

No one from Toshiba was available for comment. However, a
spokesperson for Sony Canada notes that a similar lawsuit was
thrown out of court in the U.S. "In similar situations in other
jurisdictions, this type of action has been thrown out of the
court because it's been found to be lacking in any kind of
merit," according to Sony's John Challinor.

Poyner-Baxter statement of claim against Toshiba (.pdf):
http://www.poynerbaxter.com/Toshiba/statement%20of%20claim.pdf;
and Poyner-Baxter statement of claim against Sony (.pdf):
http://www.poynerbaxter.com/Sony/statement%20of%20claim.htm.


CANADA: Health Canada Issues Warning About Cookware Health Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Health Canada issued an advisory about various materials used in
making cookware, which have potentially dangerous effects when
ingested in excessive amounts, or when heated to the high
temperatures associated with cooking, NewsInferno.com reports.

In its statement, the agency warned consumers about the contents
of cookware.  According to the agency, "aluminum is a soft
material that dissolves easily from worn cookware such as pots
and pans. In addition, the longer food is cooked in the
aluminum, the greater the amount that can enter food. Certain
foods such as vegetables and acidic foods absorb the highest
amount of aluminum."

The agency also asserted "copper in small amounts is actually
good for your health. In large amounts, however, it can be
poisonous. Pots and pans containing cooper are often coated with
another layer. Most cookware is coated to protect the copper,
but in the case of worn or abused cookware sometimes the
protective layer can erode . While iron and chromium are also
good for your health, too much of either can be toxic.  Plastic
cookware and plastic wrap are generally safe, but should never
be placed in a microwave oven unless they are clearly marked as
being microwave-safe."

The agency also mentioned the risks of using Teflon cookware,
due to the presence of C8 or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA),
which is used to manufacture the popular coating for cookware
and hundreds of other products like telephone cables, carpets,
clothing, computer chips, chemical piping, and automobile fuel
systems.

In the statement, the agency said "for the past two years, there
has been a growing concern over the safety of the manmade
chemical known as C8 or PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) which can
be found in everything from bread to birds, green beans to
ground beef, dolphins to drinking water, and in the blood of up
to 96% of the population of the United States . for Since there
are no known "natural" sources of C8, scientists are curious as
to how the chemical enters the environment. C8 has also
contaminated the groundwater in areas where Teflon is
manufactured."

DuPont, which also pioneered the development of PFOA and
continues to dominate its use, claims that the chemical is
harmless to humans. It also disputes that C8 is released during
normal cooking (as opposed to overheating).  However, the agency
emphasized that "others are not so sure that either assertion is
true. Studies have concluded that C8 is one of several toxic
gases released by Teflon when it is heated to temperatures
which, at their low end, are only slightly above normal cooking
temperatures."

"C8 has been shown to cause tumors in rats and fumes from Teflon
coated cookware can cause what is known as "polymer fume fever,"
a condition which has been shown to kill birds even at low
temperatures but which DuPont claims is harmless to humans if
the cookware is used at a temperature of up to 500 F. When
Teflon is overheated (above 700 F), fatal cases of polymer
fume fever in humans have occurred (at 842 F)," the agency
stated.

Last August, DuPont agreed to pay up to $343 million in
settlement of a class action arising out of the contamination of
drinking water in Ohio and West Virginia linked to its plant in
Parkersburg, West Virginia.  Of that amount, most of the $107
million to be paid for damages to the water supply of some
50,000 people living near the plant will be used to fund a
detailed scientific review and a landmark community health study
with respect to the dangers posed by C8. Up to another $235
million is to be set aside for future medical monitoring if the
studies find C8 can make people sick.  The company also
announced that it plans to dramatically decrease the use of PFOA
in Teflon coatings by the end of 2006.  With these
announcements, DuPont hoped the worst was over for its lucrative
Teflon business which nets a reported $200 million in profit a
year.

"In 2005, however, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
stated that tests on laboratory animals linked PFOA to liver,
pancreatic, and testicular cancer, reduced birth weight, birth
defects, and immune suppression.  The EPA also found that
elevated cholesterol and triglycerides were a risk of exposure
to C8. As a result, the EPA stated that low-level exposure to
PFOA could pose a `potential risk of developmental and other
adverse effects' in humans," the agency revealed.

Earlier this year, the EPA released a draft assessment of a
chemical used in the production of Teflon which, based on animal
studies, found "suggestive evidence" that the substance may be a
human carcinogen.  In May, the Justice Department has issued
grand jury subpoenas seeking documents from DuPont with respect
to PFOA and related chemical compounds. The suspicion is that
DuPont withheld critical information concerning possible health
risks posed by PFOA.

A 1961 internal document indicated that DuPont scientists had
already warned company executives to avoid human contact with
PFOA. DuPont faces more than $300 million in fines if it is
found guilty of withholding such information.

In August of this year, a draft report released by an
independent EPA scientific advisory board which reviewed the
earlier EPA assessment and which will now be submitted to the
EPA, concluded that PFOA (C8) is "likely" to be a human
carcinogen and, as a result, the EPA should conduct cancer risk
assessments for a variety of tumors found in rats and mice
exposed to it.

Another startling revelation was reported in the Charleston
Gazette on July 10. According to an April 2004 sworn statement
by Dr. Bruce Karrh, DuPont's former medical director, the
company found similar birth defects in two of eight children
born to women who worked at the Parkersburg chemical plant 25
years ago.

According to the Charleston Gazette article: "A DuPont
researcher said the number was `significantly greater' than the
expected rate of birth defects in the general population. In
April 1981, the researcher proposed that DuPont do a detailed
study to determine if exposure to the toxic chemical C8 was to
blame. Three months later, DuPont officials dropped the study, a
former top corporate doctor has testified. Dupont officials also
decided not to report its preliminary findings to federal
regulators, according to the testimony, obtained under the
Freedom of Information Act.`To my knowledge, it was never
reported to EPA, and, to my knowledge, I didn't ask anybody
whether it was reported,' Karrh said of the birth defects data."

This year two Florida law firms filed class-action lawsuits on
July 19, charging DuPont with concealing the potential health
hazards associated with Teflon nonstick cookware coatings. The
lawsuits were filed in a number of federal district courts.  The
relief being sought includes monetary damages to class members,
the creation of a fund for medical monitoring of consumers who
have bought and used products containing Teflon, and placing
warning labels on Teflon coated cookware.

Although DuPont announced it intends to "vigorously defend
itself against the allegations in the lawsuit," the mounting
problems for Teflon (and C8) may no longer be of the nonstick
variety, the agency said.  The independent study results would
also seem to indicate that anyone living in an area with high
levels of C8 in the available water supply should make every
effort to avoid drinking it.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Seeks To Limit OR Diocese Bankruptcy Deposition
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Holy See filed a motion seeking to limit the scope of the
deposition that the senior American at the Vatican, Archbishop
William Levada, is to give concerning the bankruptcy of his
former Portland, Oregon archdiocese which was prompted by clergy
sex abuse lawsuits, the Associated Press reports.

Last year, the Portland archdiocese declared bankruptcy due to
sex abuse lawsuits seeking more than $155 million in damages.
The diocese was the first to do so, as part of the fall-out of
the sex abuse scandal that rocked the Catholic Church in the
early 2000's.

Archbishop Levada was named by Pope Benedict XVI to take over
the pontiff's old job as prefect of the Vatican's Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith on May 13.  He had served as
Portland archbishop from 1986-95, after which he served as
archbishop of San Francisco.

On August 10,2005, Archbishop Levada was served with a subpoena
to give a deposition as a witness in the Portland archdiocese's
filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.  Lawyers for the
victims have said in court papers they wanted Levada as a
witness, not only because he was Portland archbishop, but
because he was "uniquely qualified" to testify about whether the
archdiocese's practices concerning the abuse of minors by
priests were consistent with those of the Roman Catholic Church.
They cited his past work at the congregation and on other clergy
sex abuses cases in the United States, the Associated Press
reports.

The lawyers for the abuse claimants had asked that Levada's
testimony cover such topics as discussions with officials at the
congregation concerning the destruction of records of alleged
sexual misconduct by priests, the nature of the secrecy oath he
took, canon law, and communications with the U.S. Conference of
Catholic Bishops and other dioceses.

However, lawyers for the Holy See and Archbishop Levada filed a
motion in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Oregon, asserting that
Archbishop Levada shouldn't have to testify about the Vatican's
policies because he enjoys immunity as an official of a foreign
state - the Holy See - and because the Vatican's own laws and
confidentiality oaths prevent it.  If Levada were to violate
such oaths, he could face "excommunication, confinement to a
residence or a house of penance for up to five years, and a
prohibition from holding any office or faculty," according to
the court documents obtained by The Associated Press.

"The issue is not one of trying to avoid relevant testimony
about Portland, but to request that the court establish an
appropriate scope for the deposition in regard to Archbishop
Levada's service at the Holy See," Jeffrey Lena, an attorney for
Levada and the Vatican, said in a phone interview with AP.

Erin Olson, an attorney for abuse victims in Oregon, told AP the
lengthy motion was expected.  "He's not trying to assert
immunity to prevent him from having to show up - he's trying to
assert immunity from having to answer certain, but not all,
questions," Ms. Olson said from her office in Portland.

She and other attorneys for victims will file a response to the
motions by Levada and the Holy See, with a hearing set for
December 16 followed by the deposition, beginning January 10 in
San Francisco.


CHEF'S DELIGHT: Recalls Beef Products For Listeria Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chefs' Delight Packing Co., Inc., a Brooklyn, N.Y., firm is
voluntarily recalling 2,263 pounds of ready-to-eat beef products
that may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
announced today.

The products subject to recall are:

     (1) Various sized bulk packages of "CHEFS' DELIGHT, N.Y.
         Deli Style, COOKED CORNED BEEF." Each package bears the
         establishment number "EST. 4395" inside the USDA seal
         of inspection.

     (2) Various sized bulk packages of "CHEFS' DELIGHT, N.Y.
         Deli Style, PASTRAMI, SMOKE FLAVORING ADDED, COATED
         WITH SPICES & BURNT SUGAR." Each package bears the
         establishment number "EST. 4395" inside the USDA seal
         of inspection.

The beef products were produced on October 12 and bulk packed
for distribution to restaurants and delicatessens in
Indianapolis, Indiana, and throughout the greater New York City
area.  The problem was discovered through FSIS microbiological
sampling. FSIS has received no reports of illnesses associated
with consumption of the products.

Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can
cause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease.
Healthy people rarely contract listeriosis. However, listeriosis
can cause high fever, severe headache, neck stiffness and
nausea. Listeriosis can also cause miscarriages and stillbirths,
as well as serious and sometimes fatal infections in those with
weakened immune systems, such as infants, the elderly and
persons with HIV infection or undergoing chemotherapy.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should
contact company Vice President Doug Karroll at (718) 388-8581.
Consumers with food safety questions can call the toll-free USDA
Meat and Poultry Hotline at (888) 674-6854. The hotline is
available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m.
to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food
safety messages are available 24 hours a day.
"Ask Karen" is the FSIS virtual representative available 24
hours a day to answer your questions at
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Food_Safety_Education/
Ask_Karen/index.asp#Question.


CIB MARINE: Securities Fraud Litigation Transferred To E.D. WI
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
Illinois agreed to transfer the consolidated securities class
action filed against CIB Marine Bancshares, Inc., certain of its
current and former officers and directors, and KPMG LLP, to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.

On June 3, 2005, Dennis Lewis, a shareholder, and various other
alleged Company shareholders filed the first consolidated The
filing consolidated two actions that had been filed in January
2005: one filed by Mr. Lewis in the United States District Court
for the Central District of Illinois, Urbana Division and
another filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division by Elaine
Sollberger, a purported shareholder, whose claims were
voluntarily dismissed in connection with the consolidation, and
have not been reasserted in the consolidated complaint.

Plaintiffs seek to maintain the action as a class action on
behalf of all persons who purchased common stock of CIB Marine
between April 12, 1999, and April 12, 2004, claiming violations
of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder by the Company and other defendants and liability of
certain defendants other than the Company and KPMG under Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act as controlling persons. The
gravamen of the complaint is that the financial condition of the
Company was overstated with the result that members of the
purported class acquired their Company stock at inflated prices.

All defendants have moved to dismiss the action on various
grounds. As a result of the filing of these motions, all
discovery in this action is automatically stayed. The court has
granted the motion of the Company and several other defendants
to transfer the action to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.

The suit is styled "Lewis et al v. Straka et al., case no. 2:05-
cv-01008-LA," filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, under Judge Lynn Adelman.
Representing the Company are Allan Horwich and John C. Martin,
Schiff Hardin LLP, Sears Tower, 233 S Wacker Dr - Ste 6600,
Chicago, IL 60606-6473, Phone: 312-258-5618, Fax: 312-258-5700,
E-mail: ahorwich@schiffhardin.com or jmartin@schiffhardin.com.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kristi L. Browne, The Patterson Law Firm, 33 N LaSalle
         St, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: 312-223-1699

     (2) James W Gardner and Douglas J. Phebus, Lawton & Cates,
         10 E Doty St - Ste 400, PO Box 2965, Madison, WI 53701-
         2965, Phone: 608-282-6200

     (3) Thomas Leiter and Samuel B. Zabek, The Leiter Group
         309A Main St, Peoria, IL 61602, Phone: 309-673-2922,
         Fax: 309-673-2387, E-mail: szabek@leitergroup.com

     (4) Joseph W. Phebus, Phebus & Koester, 136 W Main St.,
         Urbana, IL 61801, Phone: 217-337-1400, Fax: 217-337-
         1607


COOPER CAMERON: Working To Resolve TX Contaminated Water Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Cameron Corporation is working to resolve lawsuits filed
against it regarding contaminated underground water in a
residential area adjacent to a former manufacturing site of one
of its predecessors.

One suit, styled "Valice v. Cooper Cameron Corporation," filed
in the 80th Jud. Dist. Ct., Harris County, on June 21, 2002,
claims that the contaminated underground water has reduced
property values and threatens the health of the area residents
and request class action status which, to date, has not been
granted.  The case is filed as a class action. The plaintiffs
seek an analysis of the contamination, reclamation, and recovery
of actual damages for the loss of property value.  There are
approximately 150 homes in the affected area with an estimated
aggregate appraised value of $150,000,000.
The parties are currently engaged in settlement discussions.

One more suit, styled "Kramer v. Cameron Iron Works, Inc.,
Cooper Industries, Inc., Cooper Cameron Corporation, and
Tzunming Hsu and Shan Shan Hsu," filed in the 190th Judicial
District, Harris County, on May 29, 2003, alleges that the
plaintiffs purchased one of the homes in the area and alleges a
failure by the defendants to disclose the presence of
contamination and seek to recover unspecified monetary damages.

The Company has been and is currently working with the Texas
Commission of Environmental Quality and continues to monitor the
underground water in the area.  The Company is of the opinion
that there is no risk to area residents and that the lawsuits
essentially reflect concerns over possible declines in property
value.

In an effort to mitigate homeowners' concerns and reduce
potential exposure from any such decline, the Company has
entered into 21 agreements with residents that obligate the
Company to either reimburse the residents for the estimated
decline in value due to a potential buyer's concerns related to
the contamination should they sell their properties or to
purchase the property after an agreed marketing period.

Eight of these agreements remain outstanding. To date the
Company has four properties it has purchased that remain unsold,
with an aggregate appraised value of $10,944,000. The Company
has also negotiated settlements with owners of six properties
sold in the area that were not subject to any written agreement
with the Company. The Company has recognized total expenses of
$6,896,000 related to the various agreements or settlements with
homeowners.


COOPER CAMERON: Reaches Settlement For Texas Landowner Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Copper Cameron Corporation reached a settlement for the lawsuit
filed against it and its predecessor Cooper Industries, Inc. is
in the 212th Judicial District Court in Galveston County, Texas.

A purchaser of an option to purchase a parcel of the same former
manufacturing site filed the suit, styled "Silber/I-10 Venture
Ltd., f/k/a Rocksprings Ltd. v. Falcon Interests Realty Corp.,
Cooper Industries Inc. and Cooper Cameron Corporation (212th
Judicial District Court, Galveston County) on August 15, 2002.
The suit alleges fraud and breach of contract regarding the
environmental condition of the parcel under option. Plaintiffs
are claiming compensatory damages of approximately $7,500,000
plus punitive damages.

The sale was made by Cooper Industries, Inc. prior to its split-
off of Cooper Cameron, but plaintiffs allege successor liability
on the part of Cooper Cameron. The parties have settled this
matter and the case has now been dismissed.


DIVERSA CORPORATION: Final Fairness Hearing Set For April 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Diversa
Corporation and certain of its officers and directors is set for
April 2006.

In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the Company
and certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters
of its initial public offering, or IPO, violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on
allegations that the Company's registration statement and
prospectus prepared in connection with the Company's IPO failed
to disclose material facts regarding the compensation to be
received by, and the stock allocation practices of, the
Underwriters.  The complaint also contains claims for violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, based on allegations that this omission constituted
a deceit on investors.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.

This action is related to "In re Initial Public Offering Sec.
Litig., Case No. 21 MC 92," in which similar complaints were
filed by plaintiffs against hundreds of other public companies
(collectively, the "Issuers") that conducted IPOs of their
common stock in the late 1990s and 2000 (collectively, the "IPO
Cases").  On January 7, 2003, the IPO Case against the Company
was assigned to United States Judge Shira Scheindlin of the
Southern District of New York, before whom the IPO Cases have
been consolidated for pretrial purposes.

In February 2003, the Court issued a decision denying the motion
to dismiss the Sections 11 and 15 claims against the Company and
its officers and directors, and granting the motion to dismiss
the Section 10(b) claim against the Company without leave to
amend. The Court similarly dismissed the Sections 10(b) and 20
claims against two of its officers and directors without leave
to amend, but denied the motion to dismiss these claims against
one officer/director.

In June 2003, Issuers and Plaintiffs reached a tentative
settlement agreement and entered into a memorandum of
understanding providing for, among other things, a dismissal
with prejudice and full release of the Issuers and their
officers and directors from all further liability resulting from
Plaintiffs' claims, and the assignment to Plaintiffs of certain
potential claims that the Issuers may have against the
Underwriters. The tentative settlement also provides that, in
the event that Plaintiffs ultimately recover less than a
guaranteed sum of $1 billion from the Underwriters in the IPO
Cases and related litigation, Plaintiffs would be entitled to
payment by each participating Issuer's insurer of a pro rata
share of any shortfall in the Plaintiffs' guaranteed recovery.
In the event, for example, the Plaintiffs recover nothing in
judgment against the Underwriter defendants in the IPO Cases and
the Issuers' insurers therefore become liable to the Plaintiffs
for an aggregate of $1 billion pursuant to the settlement
proposal, the pro rata liability of our insurers, with respect
to the Company, would be $4 million, assuming that 250 Issuers
which approved the settlement proposal, and their insurers, were
operating and financially viable as of the settlement date.

In June 2004, the Company executed a settlement agreement with
the plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the memorandum of
understanding. On February 15, 2005, the Court issued a decision
certifying a class action for settlement purposes and granting
preliminary approval of the settlement subject to modification
of certain bar orders contemplated by the settlement.

On August 31, 2005, the Court reaffirmed class certification and
preliminary approval of the modified settlement in a
comprehensive order. In addition, the Court approved the form of
notice to be sent to members of the settlement classes, which
will be published and mailed beginning November 15, 2005.  The
Court has set a final settlement fairness hearing on the
settlement for April 24, 2006.  The settlement is still subject
to statutory notice requirements as well as final judicial
approval.

The suit is styled "In re Diversa Corp. Initial Public Offering
Sec. Litig., Case No. 02-CV-9699," 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


ELECTRONIC DATA: Enters MOU to Settle 2002 Consolidated Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Data Systems Corporation entered a memorandum of
understanding to settle consolidated class action securities
lawsuits filed in late 2002, MarketWatch reports.

According to EDS, it took a reserve of 3 cents a share for
shareholder litigation, reflecting the impact associated with
the settlement.

Previously, EDS filed a motion in the fourth quarter of 2002
that seeks for the consolidation of several securities class
actions filed against it and certain of its officers, form
September 2002 through November 2002. The suits were in response
to:

     (1) the Company's September 18, 2002 earnings pre-
         announcement,

     (2) publicity about certain equity hedging transactions
         that it had entered into, and

     (3) the drop in the price of the Company's common stock

The cases, filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, allege violations of various federal
securities laws and common law fraud based upon purported
misstatements and/or omissions of material facts regarding the
Company's financial condition, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (December 3, 2002) reports.


GANNETT CO.: ERISA Violations Lawsuit Still Pending in CO Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gannett Co., Inc. continues to face a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA).

On December 31, 2003, two employees of the Company's television
station KUSA in Denver filed the suit against the Company and
the Gannett Retirement Plan (Plan) on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated individuals who participated in the
Plan after January 1, 1998, the date that certain amendments to
the Plan took effect.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the current
pension plan formula adopted in that amendment violated the age
discrimination accrual provisions of the ERISA. The plaintiffs
seek to have their post-1997 benefits recalculated and seek
other equitable relief.


HALLIBURTON CO.: TX Court Mulls Dismissal of Amended Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas has yet to rule on Halliburton Co.'s motion to dismiss the
third amended securities class action filed against it, on
behalf of purchasers of its common stock.

On June 3, 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against us in
federal court on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock during the period of approximately May 1998 until
approximately May 2002 alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.  In addition, the plaintiffs allege that the
Company overstated its revenue from unapproved claims by
recognizing amounts not reasonably estimable or probable of
collection. After that date, approximately twenty similar class
actions were filed against the Company.  Several of those
lawsuits also named as defendants Arthur Andersen LLP, our
independent accountants for the period covered by the lawsuits,
and several of its present or former officers and directors. The
class action cases were later consolidated and the amended
consolidated class action complaint, styled "Richard Moore, et
al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was filed and served upon us
on April 11, 2003.

Subsequently, in October 2002 and March 2003, two derivative
actions arising out of essentially the same facts and
circumstances were filed, one of which was subsequently
dismissed, while the other was transferred to the same judge
before whom the "Moore" class action was pending.

In early May 2003, the Company announced that it had entered
into a written memorandum of understanding setting forth the
terms upon which both the "Moore" class action and the remaining
derivative action would be settled. In June 2003, the lead
plaintiffs in the "Moore" class action filed a motion for leave
to file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was
granted by the court. In addition to restating the original
accounting and disclosure claims, the second amended
consolidated complaint includes claims arising out of the 1998
acquisition of Dresser Industries, Inc. by the Company,
including that the Company failed to timely disclose the
resulting asbestos liability exposure (the "Dresser claims").
The Dresser claims were included in the settlement discussions
leading up to the signing of the memorandum of understanding and
are among the claims the parties intended to be resolved by the
terms of the proposed settlement of the consolidated "Moore"
class action and the derivative action.

The memorandum of understanding called for the Company to pay $6
million, which would be funded by insurance proceeds. After the
May 2003 announcement regarding the memorandum of understanding,
one of the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated class action
announced that it was dissatisfied with the lead plaintiffs'
counsel's handling of settlement negotiations and what the
dissident plaintiff regarded as inadequate communications by the
lead plaintiffs' counsel.  The dissident lead plaintiff further
asserted that it believed that, for various reasons, the $6
million settlement amount is inadequate.

The attorneys representing the dissident plaintiff, filed
another class action complaint in August 2003, raising
allegations similar to those raised in the second amended
consolidated complaint regarding the accounting and disclosure
claims and the Dresser claims. In addition, the complaint
enhances the Dresser claims to include allegations related to
the Company's accounting with respect to the acquisition,
integration, and reserves of Dresser.  The Company moved to
dismiss that complaint, styled "Kimble v. Halliburton Company,
et al.;" however, the court never ruled on our motion and
ordered the case consolidated with the "Moore" class action. On
August 3, 2004, the attorneys representing the dissident
plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file yet another class
action complaint styled "Murphey v. Halliburton Company, et
al.," which was subsequently granted by the court. The Murphey
complaint raised and augments allegations similar to those in
the "Moore" class action and the "Kimble" action, including
additional allegations regarding disclosure of asbestos
liability exposure.

On June 7, 2004, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement.  Following the transfer of the case(s)
to another district judge and a final hearing on the fairness of
the settlement, on September 9, 2004, the court entered an order
holding that evidence of the settlement's fairness was
inadequate and denying the motion for final approval of the
settlement in the "Moore" class action and ordering the parties,
among other things, to mediate.  After the court's denial of the
motion to approve the settlement, the Company withdrew from the
settlement as it believes It is entitled to do by its terms,
although the settling plaintiffs assert otherwise. In the days
preceding the mediation, two union-sponsored pension funds filed
motions seeking leave to intervene in the consolidated class
action litigation and to file their own class action complaint.
The court has granted those motions. The mediation was held on
January 27, 2005 and, at the conclusion of that day, was
declared by the mediator to be at an impasse with no settlement
having been reached.

After the mediation, the lead plaintiff and lead counsel filed
motions to withdraw as lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The
court conducted a hearing on those motions on April 29, 2005. At
that hearing the court appointed co-lead counsel and directed
that they file a third consolidated amended complaint not later
than May 9, 2005 and that the Company file its motion to dismiss
not later than June 8, 2005.  That motion has now been filed and
fully briefed.  The court has head the motion on August 2, 2005,
and has taken it under advisement.

On September 9, 2004, the court ordered that if no objections to
the settlement of the derivative action described above were
made by October 20, 2004, the court would finally approve the
derivative action settlement. On February 18, 2005, the court
entered an order dismissing the derivative action with
prejudice.

The suit is styled "The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting
Fund, Inc., et al v. Halliburton Company, et al., case no. 3:02-
cv-01152 ," filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, under Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn.
Representing the Company is Thomas E Bilek of Hoeffner & Bilek,
1000 Louisiana St, Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002, Phone:
713/227-7720, Fax: 713/227-9404, E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Richard S Schiffrin, Schiffrin & Barroway - Radnor, 280
         King of Prussia Rd, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610/667-
         7706, Fax: 610/667-7056

     (2) Marc R. Stanley, Stanley Mandel & Iola, 3100 Monticello
         Ave, Suite 750, Dallas, TX 75205, Phone: 214/443-4301,
         Fax: 214/443-0358, E-mail: mstanley@smi-law.com

     (3) Thomas Burt, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, 270
         Madison Ave, Ninth Floor, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         212/545-4600


IDX SYSTEMS: Faces Purported Shareholder Fraud Suit in VT Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
IDX Systems Corporation (Nasdaq: IDXC) was recently served with
a purported shareholder class action lawsuit against it and
certain of its officers and directors.

The complaint was filed on October 24, 2005 in Vermont Superior
Court, Chittenden County, and challenges the price of and the
process leading to IDX's previously announced merger agreement
with General Electric Company and a GE subsidiary.

"We believe the allegations are without merit. We adhered to a
comprehensive and rigorous review of strategic alternatives and
firmly believe that the transaction with GE is in the best
interests of IDX and its shareholders. This type of legal action
is not uncommon and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves. We
have no reason to believe that this lawsuit will affect the
close of the transaction," said James H. Crook, Jr., Chief
Executive Officer of IDX.


IMCLONE SYSTEMS: FDA Grants Priority Review For ERBITUX Drug
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Food and Drug Administration granted a
priority review for a new use for the colon-cancer drug Erbitux,
ImClone Systems Inc. and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., the product's
manufacturers, said Monday, according to the Associated Press.

The FDA rejected Erbitux in early 2002, sending ImClone shares
plummeting.  The companies are seeking to market the drug to
treat localized head and neck cancers along with radiation, or
for use by itself in treating head and neck cancers that have
returned or spread in cases where chemotherapy has failed or is
not appropriate.

Priority status means the FDA will review the marketing
application within six months of its submission rather than the
standard ten months. The companies submitted the application
August 30, according to AP.  Every year about 40,000 people in
the United States are diagnosed with head and neck cancers and
about 11,000 die from the disease.


JANUS CAPITAL: MD Court Junks Some Claims in Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland
(Baltimore) dismissed several of the claims in the consolidated
class action filed against Janus Capital Group, Inc. and certain
of its affiliates.

In September 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
and the Office of the New York State Attorney General (NYAG)
publicly announced that they were investigating trading
practices in the mutual fund industry.  The investigations were
prompted by the NYAG's settlement with a hedge fund, Canary
Capital, which allegedly engaged in irregular trading practices
with certain mutual fund companies.  While the Company was not
named as a defendant in the NYAG complaint against the hedge
fund, the Company was mentioned in the complaint as having
allowed Canary Capital to "market time" certain Janus funds.
Market timing is an investment technique involving frequent
short-term trading of mutual fund shares that is designed to
exploit market movements or inefficiencies in the way mutual
fund companies price their shares.  The NYAG complaint against
Canary Capital alleged that this practice is in contradiction to
policies stated in the prospectuses for certain Janus funds.

As a result of the investigations, more than 60 civil lawsuits
were filed in various state and federal courts against the
Company, and related entities and individuals, based on
allegations similar to those contained in the NYAG complaint
against Canary Capital.  In general, these lawsuits allege that
the Company allowed certain hedge funds and other investors to
engage in market timing trades in Janus funds.  Such lawsuits
assert a variety of theories for recovery, including, but not
limited to, alleged violations of the federal securities laws,
other federal statutes, including Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), and various common law doctrines.

The suits were later consolidated in the United States District
Court in Baltimore, Maryland, under the Case Number MDL No.
1586, 04-MD-15863.  There are five amended complaints in these
coordinated proceedings, including:

     (1) claims by a putative class of Janus fund investors
         asserting claims on behalf of the investor class,

     (2) derivative claims by investors in the Janus funds
         ostensibly on behalf of the Janus funds,

     (3) claims on behalf of participants in the Janus 401(k)
         plan,

     (4) claims brought on behalf of shareholders of Janus
         Capital Group Inc. on a derivative basis against the
         Board of Directors of Janus Capital Group Inc., and

     (5) claims by a putative class of shareholders of Janus
         Capital Group Inc. asserting claims on behalf of the
         shareholders.

On August 25, 2005, the court entered orders dismissing most of
the claims asserted against the Company and its affiliates by
fund investors (actions (i) and (ii) described above), except
certain claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company
Act of 1940. As a result of the court order, the Company, Janus
Capital Management LLC (JCM), the Advisory Committee of the
Janus 401(k) plan, and the current or former directors of Janus
are the remaining defendants in one or more of the actions
described in the preceding paragraph. The complaint in the
401(k) plan class action (action (iii) described above) was
voluntarily dismissed, but was recently refiled using a new
named plaintiff, captioned "Wangberger v. Janus Capital Group
Inc., et al., 05 CV-02711, D. Maryland" and asserting claims
similar to the initial complaint.

The suit is styled "In re: Alger, Columbia, Janus, MFS, One
Group, Putnam, Allianz Dresdner, case no. 1:04-md-15863-JFM,"
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, under Judge J. Frederick Motz.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Christopher S. Hinton of Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman and Herz LLP, 270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016,
Phone: 12125454663, Fax: 12125454653.  Representing the Company
is Andrew Santo Tulumello, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, 1050
Connecticut Ave NW Ste 300, Washington, DC 20036-5306, Phone:
12029558657, Fax: 12024670539, E-mail:
atulumello@gibsondunn.com.


JANUS CAPITAL: Discovery in CO Suit To Be Completed in Feb. 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janus Capital Group, Inc. faces a consolidated class action
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, challenging the investment advisory fees charged by
the Company to certain of the funds that it manages.

Three lawsuits were filed in April 2004 against the Company and
related entities, namely:

     (1) Fleisher, et al. v. Janus Capital Management, LLC, et
         al., Case Number 04-4062-SOW, United States District
         Court for the Western District of Missouri;

     (2) Sins, et al. v. Janus Capital Management, LLC, et al.,
         Case Number 04-WM-1647), filed in the United States
         District Court for the Southern District of Illinois,
         and

     (3) Dressel, et al. v. Janus Capital Corporation Case
         Number 04-00303-DRH, filed in the Madison County State
         Court in Illinois

"Fleisher" and "Sins" asserted breach of fiduciary duty under
Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act, and "Dressel"
asserted a claim for breach of contract.  The "Dressel" action
has been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff, and the
"Fleisher" and "Sins" actions have been consolidated and
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado.  Discovery is required to be completed by February
2006.  The plaintiffs in the consolidated case seek declaratory
and injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages.

The suit is styled "Wayne Cty Empl Retir v. Janus Capital Gr
Inc, et al., case no. 1:04-cv-00444-WDM," filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado, under Judge
Walker D. Miller.  Representing the Company is J. Gregory
Whitehair of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP-Colorado, D.C. Box No.
18, 1801 California Street, #4200 Denver, CO 80202-2641, U.S.A.,
Phone: 303-298-5923, Fax: 303-313-2845, E-mail:
gwhitehair@gibsondunn.com.  Representing the plaintiffs is
Robert J. Dyer, III, Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue,
Denver, CO 80218-1417 U.S.A., Phone: 303-861-3003, Fax:
303-830-6920, E-mail: bob@dyershuman.com.


JANUS CAPITAL: Asks CO Court To Dismiss Fund Investors' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janus Capital Group, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado to dismiss the class action filed
against it and several related entities, styled "Davis v.
Bailey, et al. Case Number 05-MK-42."

The suit relates to the submission of claims as class members
under numerous class actions.  The Davis action was filed on
behalf of fund investors and alleges that the Company failed to
make appropriate filings to ensure that its mutual funds
participated in various class action settlements, and that the
Company and others thereby breached fiduciary duties owed to
mutual fund shareholders.  The action asserts claims under
Sections 36(a) and (b), and 47(b) of the Investment Company Act
and for breach of fiduciary duty.

The suit is styled "Davis et al v. Bailey et al., case no. 1:05-
cv-00042-WYD-OES," filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado, under Judge Wiley Y. Daniel.
Representing the plaintiffs are Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III
of Cauley, Bowman, Carney & Williams, PLLC, P.O. Box 25438,
11311 Arcade Drive #200, Little Rock, AK 72221-5438 U.S.A.,
Phone: 501-312-8500, Fax: 501-312-8505; and Kevin Scott Hannon
of Hannon Law Firm, LLC, 1641 Downing Street, Denver, CO 80218,
U.S.A, Phone: 303-861-8800, Fax: 861-8855, E-mail:
khannon@hannonlaw.com.  Representing the Company are
Scott Pringle Sinor and Tucker K. Trautman of Dorsey & Whitney,
LLP-Colorado, District Court Box Number 2, 370 Seventeenth
Street, #4700, Denver, CO 80202-5647 U.S.A., Phone:
303-629-3400, Fax: 303-629-3450, E-mail: sinor.scott@dorsey.com
or trautman.tucker@dorsey.com.


LINCOLN ELECTRIC: Faces Manganese Injury Monitoring Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. is a co-defendant in cases
alleging manganese-induced illness, involving claims by
approximately 8,622 plaintiffs as of September 30,2005, which is
a net decrease of 2,941 from those previously reported at June
30, 2005.

In each instance, the Company is one of a large number of
defendants. The claimants in cases alleging manganese-induced
illness seek compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases
for unspecified sums. The claimants allege that exposure to
manganese contained in welding consumables caused the plaintiffs
to develop adverse neurological conditions, including a
condition known as manganism. Many of the cases are single
plaintiff cases but some multi-claimant cases have been filed,
including alleged class actions in various states.

At September 30, 2005, cases involving 5,052 claimants were
filed in or transferred to federal court where the Judicial
Panel on MultiDistrict Litigation (JPMDL) has consolidated these
cases for pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of Ohio.

Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in
similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 5,483 of those
claims were dismissed, 7 were tried to defense verdicts in favor
of the Company, 2 were tried to hung juries, 1 of which resulted
in a plaintiff's verdict upon retrial, and 1 of which resulted
in a defense verdict (subsequently, however, a motion for a new
trial has been granted) and 12 were settled for immaterial
amounts. The Company has appealed the 1 case tried to a
plaintiff's verdict. In addition, class action claims in 10
cases transferred by the JPMDL to the District Court that were
originally filed as purported class actions have been dropped.
However, plaintiffs have filed new class actions seeking medical
monitoring in seven state courts, five of which have been
removed to the District Court.


LIPSEY MOUNTAIN: Trucking Firms Launch Breach-of-Contract Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lipsey Mountain Spring Water of Norcross, Georgia faces a class
action filed by the Cullen Law Firm in the United States
District Court in Ocala, Florida charging that small business
truckers are being denied proper compensation for Hurricane
Katrina relief efforts.

The complaint, filed on behalf of the Owner-Operator Independent
Drivers Association, Inc. and three small business trucking
firms, alleges that the Company contracted with the State of
Florida to receive between $1,600.00 and $2,000.00 dollars per
day for holding trucks loaded with bottled water and ice on 24-
hour-per-day standby. Now that the emergency is over, the
Company and its freight broker are offering to pay only $600.00
per day to the small business truckers who actually did the
work.

"The State of Florida agreed to pay premium compensation for
emergency relief work, but only a small part of the compensation
is actually going to the trucking concerns that actually did the
work," said Paul D. Cullen, Sr., counsel for the plaintiffs. The
complaint alleges that the small business truckers should be
treated as third party beneficiaries under Lipsey's contract
with the State of Florida bypassing middlemen who are attempting
to keep all of the profits for themselves.

4 Points Logistics, LLC, a transportation broker located in
Leesburg, Florida, has also been named as a defendant. The
complaint alleges that 4 Points promised to pay the trucking
firms $60.00 per hour for each hour of "Detention," but then
reneged after the emergency was over. 4 Points is now trying to
limit the hourly payments to only 10 hours per day. Plaintiffs
seek damages against 4 Points for breach of contract.

"The ability of state and federal relief agencies to attract
drivers for future emergencies could be seriously jeopardized if
middlemen are allowed to retain compensation designed to attract
drivers for this hardship kind of duty," said Mr. Cullen.
According to Mr. Cullen, similar problems exist under FEMA
emergency relief contracts and his law firm has been asked to
address those problems in the near future.

Individuals who have hauled emergency supplies during the recent
hurricanes and who believe that they have not been properly
compensated are encouraged to contact The Cullen Law Firm at e-
mail protected from spam bots. To view a copy of the complaint,
please visit The Cullen Law Firm's website at www.cullenlaw.com.

For additional information, please contact Paul D. Cullen, Sr.,
The suit is styled "Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association, Inc. et al v. 4 Points Logistics, LLC et al., case
no. 5:05-cv-00440-WTH-GRJ," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Wm.
Terrell Hodges.  Representing the plaintiffs are Paul D. Cullen
and Joyce E. Mayers, The Cullen Law Firm, PLLC, 1101 30th
Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20007, Phone: (202) 944-8600
ext 777, Fax: (202) 944-8611; and Michael R. Freed, Brennan,
Manna & Diamond, PL, Humana Centre Building, 76 S. Laura Street,
Ste. 2110, Jacksonville, FL 32202, Phone: 904/366-1500, Fax:
904/366-1501, E-mail: mrfreed@bmdpl.com.


OREGON: Scruggs Law To Announce Settlement in Uninsureds' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Scruggs Law Firm, P.A. is set to announce at a press
conference the first class action settlement in the country by
uninsured patients with a non-profit hospital system that will
ensure fair pricing and charity care for those who can't afford
hospital bills. The settlement is part of the nationwide
litigation that was launched on behalf of uninsured patients by
Richard Scruggs and attorneys around the country in June 2004.

Highlights of today's press conference will include:

     (1) Comments by John Phillips and Brian Campf, lawyers for
         the Settlement Class, to explain the significant
         benefits the settlement will provide for uninsured
         patients of a major health system in Oregon.

     (2) Remarks by Mary Lou Hennrich, Member of the Board of
         Directors of the Oregon Health Action Campaign -- a
         nonpartisan healthcare policy and advocacy group-in
         support of the settlement and its significance to the
         community.

     (3) Personal testimony from at least one plaintiff.

The press conference will be held at The Hilton Hotel, 921 SW
6th Avenue, Second Floor, Room Broadway 4, in Downtown Portland,
Oregon.

To dial into the press conference, call 1-888-632-5950 and state
that you are calling for the press conference with "Williams
Love O'Leary Craine & Powers." There is no passcode.

For more details, contact Brian Campf, Phone: +1-503-849-9899,
for The Scruggs Law Firm, P.A.


PACIFIC TRADE: Recalls 17T Pillar Candles Due to Fire Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Pacific Trade International Inc., of Rockville, Maryland
and Target, of Minneapolis, Minnesota are voluntarily recalling
about 17,000 units of Pillar Candles With Jewels.

According the companies, the paint coating on the outside of the
candle can ignite, posing a fire hazard.

The candles measure about 3-inches in diameter and come in two
sizes - 3-inches and 6-inches high. Each candle has a black
paint coating and has eight diamond-like ornaments at evenly
spaced points approximately 1-inch from the candle's bottom
edge. They are packaged in clear plastic wrapping, which is tied
at the top with a ribbon. "Distributed by Target Corporation"
and the number 054 09 1533 or 054 09 2528 are printed on a label
on the bottom of each candle.

Manufactured in China, the candles were sold at all Target
stores nationwide during the month of August 2005 for about $5
or $8 depending on the size.

Remedy: Consumers should stop using the candles immediately and
return them to the nearest Target store for a Target GiftCard
worth the value of the returned candle.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Target at
(800) 440-0680 between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT, Monday through
Friday, or visit Target's Web site: http://www.target.com.


PPG INDUSTRIES: Reaches Settlement For PA Glass Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
glass antitrust suit filed against it and various other co-
defendants in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania.

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

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

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

On October 19, 2005, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement to settle the federal glass class action antitrust
case in order to avoid the ongoing expense of this protracted
case, as well as the risks and uncertainties associated with
complex litigation involving jury trials. Pursuant to the
settlement agreement, the company agreed to pay $60 million and
to bear up to $500,000 in settlement administration costs. The
Court must approve the settlement for it to become effective. As
a result of the settlement, the Company will also pay $900,000
pursuant to a pre-existing contractual obligation to a plaintiff
that is not participating in the federal glass class action
case. Finally, independent state court cases remain pending in
California and Tennessee involving claims that are not included
in the settlement of the federal glass class action case.
Notwithstanding that PPG has agreed to settle the federal glass
antitrust case, Company management remains steadfast in its
belief that there was no wrongdoing on the part of the Company
and also believes that it has meritorious defenses to the
independent state court cases.

The suit is styled "FLAT GLASS ANTITRUST, et al v. PPG
INDUSTRIES, et al., case no. 2:97-mc-00550-DWA," filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, under Judge Donetta W. Ambrose.  Representing the
Company is James R. Miller of Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, Two
PPG Place, Suite 400, Pittsburgh, PA 15222-5402, Phone:
(412) 281-7272, E-mail: jmiller@dmclaw.com.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Steven A. Asher and Leonard Barrack of Barrack, Rodos &
         Bacine, 2001 Market Street, 3300 Two Commerce Square,
         Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: (215) 963-0600

     (2) W. Joseph Bruckner and Richard A. Lockridge, Lockridge,
         Grindal, Nauen & Holstein, 100 Washington Avenue South,
         Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401, Phone: (612) 339-
         6900

     (3) Richard L. Creighton, Jr., Keating, Muething & Klekamp,
         One East Fourth Street, 1800 Provident Tower,
         Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: (513) 579-6513, Fax: (513)
         579-6400

     (4) Francis C. Rapp, Jr., Feldstein, Grinberg, Stein &
         McKee, 428 Boulevard of the Allies, Pittsburgh, PA
         15219, Phone: (412) 263 - 6099, Fax: (412) 263-6101, E-
         mail: fcr@fgsmlaw.com


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP: OH Law Firm Helps Settle Telxon Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Cleveland, Ohio-based law firm helped secure a $28 million
settlement in a class action lawsuit that accused accounting
giant PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, of accounting fraud in its
work with the Telxon Corporation, Crain's Cleveland Business
reports.

According to Kohrman Jackson & Krantz PLL, it and New York law
firm, Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling LLP, helped negotiate the
settlement, which is applicable to purchasers of Telxon's stock
from June 29, 1998, to February 23, 1999.  Brett Krantz, a
partner with Kohrman Jackson told Crain's Cleveland Business
that in agreeing to the settlement, PwC made no admission of
guilt.

The lawsuit alleged that PwC destroyed documents related to its
financial audits of Fairlawn-based Telxon, a maker of scanner
and handheld computers. Telxon shareholders filed a suit blaming
PwC for financial misstatements in audits of Telxon. A federal
judge then ruled that PwC failed to provide audit-related
documents to Telxon and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Additionally, Mr. Krantz told Crain's Cleveland Business that
PwC would not have agreed to the settlement if not for the
judge's ruling that the company failed to produce the documents.

In a January report, Judge Patricia Hemann wrote, "The only
conclusion the court can reach is that PWC and/or its counsel
engaged in deliberate fraud or was so recklessly indifferent to
their responsibilities as a party to the litigation that they
failed to take the most basic steps to fulfill those
responsibilities."

A judge must approve the agreement before former shareholders
receive any funds, Mr. Krantz pointed out. But when that
happens, shareholders could see the money in about six months,
he adds.


PROVIDENCE HOSPITAL: Reaches Deal in Uninsured Patient's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a closely watched class action
lawsuit against Providence Hospital System, which was filed on
behalf of uninsured patients who claim that the nonprofit
hospital system overcharged them, The Associated Press reports.

The suit alleges that the Oregon-based system contradicted its
stated mission of providing universal access to health care by
charging uninsured patients higher rates for the same services
than other patients.

According to attorneys involved in the case, the agreement, if
approved by the court, will affect tens of thousands of low-
income Oregonians. Brian Campf, an attorney representing
uninsured patients, told The Associated Press, "This is a
historic agreement and it will stick."

Similar lawsuits have been filed against hundreds of hospitals
in at least 27 states, alleging that tax-exempt nonprofit
hospitals charge higher prices to uninsured patients than
insured patients.

The settlement covers medical charges to uninsured patients at
seven Providence hospitals in Oregon over a six-year period,
going back four years and the next two years. Under the
settlement terms, all those charges will be recalculated.

Greg Van Pelt, senior vice president for Providence Health
System, told The Associated Press that the hospital system
disagrees with many of the allegations made by the plaintiffs,
but it was cheaper to settle for all concerned. He pointed out,
"Quite frankly the cost of litigation is so great it was in the
patients' best interest and the hospital's to get this resolved,
and this seemed the best way to do that."

The lawsuit is part of a national campaign headed by Richard
Scruggs, a Mississippi attorney who helped win multibillion-
dollar settlements with the tobacco industry in the 1990s to pay
states for smoking-related health care costs. Sid Backstrom,
spokesman for the Scruggs law firm told The Associated Press,
"Other hospitals around the country should take a hard look at
this" settlement.

Court records show that Gerry Hugo, a retired construction
worker and one of the lead plaintiffs in the case, was billed
about $13,000 for a routine hernia operation at a Providence
hospital. He took out a home equity loan after a collection
agency hired by the hospital threatened to place a lien on his
property. Mr. Hugo, 64, told The Associated Press, "I never
missed paying a bill in my whole life. I was raised that way,
and so were most people. But the bill has got to be fair." If
the settlement is approved, attorneys told The Associated Press
that Mr. Hugo would receive a $7,300 refund.

Commenting on the settlement, Mr. Hugo told The Associated Press
that it levels the playing field for poor people struggling to
cope with corporate health care providers. He adds, "So many
Americans have a feeling of impotence, that the decks are
stacked against them, the dice are rigged. You can't go up
against big corporations as an individual."


QUOVADX INC.: Final NY Suit Fairness Hearing Set For April 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Quovadx, Inc., certain of
its officers and directors and the 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.

The amended complaint asserts that the prospectus from the
Company's February 10, 2000 initial public offering (IPO) failed
to disclose certain alleged improper actions by various
underwriters for the offering in the allocation of the IPO
shares. The amended complaint alleges claims against certain
underwriters, the Company and certain officers and directors
under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.  The suit is styled "Bartula v. XCare.net, Inc., et
al., Case No. 01-CV-10075."

Similar complaints have been filed concerning more than 300
other IPOs. All of these cases have been coordinated as In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92.  In a
negotiated agreement, individual defendants, including all of
the individuals named in the complaint filed against the
Company, were dismissed without prejudice, subject to a tolling
agreement. Issuer and underwriter defendants in these cases
filed motions to dismiss and, on February 19, 2003, the Court
issued an opinion and order on those motions that dismissed
selected claims against certain defendants, including the Rule
10b-5 fraud claims against the Company, leaving only the Section
11 strict liability claims under the Securities Act of 1933
against the Company.

A committee of the Company's Board of Directors has approved a
settlement proposal made by the plaintiffs.  On February 15,
2005, the Court issued an order granting conditional preliminary
approval of the settlement.  On June 30, 2005, the Second
Circuit granted cert on the lower court's order certifying a
class for settlement purposes.  On August 31, 2005, the Court
entered an order confirming its preliminary approval of the
settlement. A hearing on the fairness of the settlement to the
shareholder class is set for April 24, 2006. If the settlement
is not achieved, the Company will continue to aggressively
defend the claims.

The suit is styled "In Re Quovadx, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation," 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


QUOVADX INC.: CO Court Grants Certification To Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
granted class certification to the securities suit filed against
Quovadx, Inc. and certain of its former officers, styled "Heller
v. Quovadx, Inc., et al."

On March 18, 2004, a purported class action complaint, styled
"Smith v. Quovadx, Inc. et al, Case No. 04-M-0509," was filed
against the Company, its now-former Chief Executive Officer and
its now-former Chief Financial Officer.  The complaint alleged
violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, purportedly on behalf of all
persons who purchased the Company's common stock from October
22, 2003 through March 15, 2004.  The claims are based upon
allegations the Company:

     (1) purportedly overstated its net income and earnings per
         share during the class period,

     (2) purportedly recognized revenue from contracts between
         the Company and Infotech Networks Group (Infotech)
         prematurely, and

     (3) purportedly lacked adequate internal controls and was
         therefore unable to ascertain the financial condition
         of the Company.

Eight additional, nearly identical class action complaints were
filed in the same Court based on the same facts and allegations.
The actions seek damages against the defendants in an
unspecified amount.  On May 17 and 18, 2004, the Company filed
motions to dismiss each of the complaints.  Since then, all but
one of the actions, entitled "Heller v. Quovadx, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:04-cv-00665-RPM (D. Colo.)," have been dismissed.
Thereafter, the plaintiff in "Heller" filed a first amended
complaint, which asserts the same claims as those asserted in
the original complaint, and includes allegations regarding the
Company's accounting for certain additional transactions.

On September 8, 2004, the Court approved the appointment of
David Heller as lead plaintiff.  On September 29, 2004, the
Court denied defendants' motions to dismiss the first amended
complaint and approved the appointment of Mr. Heller's counsel
as lead plaintiff's counsel.  On October 14, 2004, the Company
and the other defendants filed answers to the first amended
complaint, denying allegations of wrongdoing and asserting
various affirmative defenses.

On January 13, 2005, the Court approved a scheduling order that,
"inter alia," requires fact discovery, which has commenced, to
conclude eight months after the Court issues an order certifying
a class.  The Court issued its order certifying the class action
on April 12, 2005.  The deadline for completing fact discovery
is December 12, 2005.  On July 5, 2005, the plaintiff filed a
request to amend the scheduling order to accelerate the
discovery deadline to October 31, 2005 and to set the trial date
for December 5, 2005.  In an order dated July 22, 2005, the
Court denied the request. The court issued its order certifying
the class action on April 12, 2005. The deadline for completing
fact discovery is December 12, 2005. No trial date has been set.
The class action is still in the preliminary stages.

The suit is styled "Heller v. Quovadx, Inc., et al, case no.
1:04-cv-00665-RPM," filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado, under Judge Richard P. Matsch.
Representing the Company are John Alonzo Hutchings and Adam
Philip Stapen of Dill, Dill, Carr, Stonbraker & Hutchings, PC,
455 Sherman Street #300, Denver, CO 80203, U.S.A, Phone:
303-777-7373, Fax: 303-777-3823, E-mail:
jhutchings@dillanddill.com or astapen@dillanddill.com.
Representing the plaintiffs are Dennis Jeremy Herman, Jeffrey W.
Lawrence and Ex Kano S. Sams of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman & Robbins, LLP-SF CA, 100 Pine Street #2600, San
Francisco, CA 94111, U.S.A, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax:
415-288-4534, E-mail: dherman@lerachlaw.com,
jeffreyl@lerachlaw.com, exkanos@lerachlaw.com; and Kip Brian
Shuman of Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO
80218-1417, U.S.A, Phone: 303-861-3003, Fax: 303-830-6920, E-
mail: KShuman@DyerShuman.com.


QUOVADX INC.: Discovery in CO Securities Suit To Be Coordinated
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the amended securities class action filed against
Quovadx, Inc., its now-former Chief Executive Officer, its now-
former Chief Financial Officer and its Board of Directors in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
styled "Henderson v. Quovadx, Inc., et al, Case No. 04-M-1006
(OES)," should be coordinated with discovery in similar suits,
the court ruled.

On May 17, 2004, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
alleging violations of Section 11 and Section 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, purportedly on behalf of all
former shareholders of Rogue Wave Software, Inc. who acquired
the Company's common stock in connection with the Company's
exchange offer effective December 19, 2003.  The claims are
based upon the same theories and allegations as asserted in the
Section 10(b) class action (Heller v. Quovadx, et al.).

The Court denied the Plaintiff's motion to consolidate this
Section 11 action with the Section 10(b) cases and authorized
the two competing lead plaintiff candidates to take discovery of
each other in advance of a hearing on the appointment of lead
plaintiff.  On July 14, 2004, the Company and outside director
defendants filed an answer to the complaint, denying allegations
of wrongdoing and asserting various affirmative defenses. On
September 8, 2004, the Court directed the plaintiff to publish
new notice of pendency of this action inviting potential class
members to submit motions for appointment as lead plaintiff.  On
October 4, 2004, the Company's former CEO and CFO filed an
answer to the complaint, denying allegations of wrongdoing and
asserting various affirmative defenses.

On June29, 2005, the Court ordered the appointment of Special
Situations Fund as lead plaintiff.  On July 26, 2005, the lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint and a motion for
appointment of lead counsel. The amended complaint asserts the
same claims as those asserted in the original complaint, and
includes an additional allegation that the Infotech revenue was
falsely recognized as part of a fraud to inflate the Company's
stock price for the Rogue Wave acquisition.  On August 1, 2005,
the Court approved the appointment of Special Situations Fund's
counsel as lead plaintiff's counsel.

On August 23, 2005, the Company and outside director defendants
filed an answer to the amended complaint, denying allegations of
wrongdoing and asserting various affirmative defenses.  On
August 25, 2005, the Company's former CEO and CFO filed an
answer to the amended complaint, denying allegations of
wrongdoing and asserting various affirmative defenses. The court
has indicated that discovery in this action should be
coordinated with discovery in the "Heller" action. This class
action also is in the preliminary stages, and it is not possible
for the Company to quantify the extent of potential liability,
if any.

The suit is styled "Henderson v. Quovadx, Inc., et al., case no.
1:04-cv-01006-RPM," filed in the United States District Court in
Colorado, under Judge Richard P. Matsch.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Marcela A. Kirberger and Gavin J. Rooney of
Lowenstein Sandler, PC, 65 Livingston Avenue, Roseland, NJ
07068, U.S.A, Phone: 973-597-2450, Fax: 973-597-2451, E-mail:
mkirberger@lowenstein.com or grooney@lowenstein.com.
Representing the Company are John Alonzo Hutchings and Adam
Philip Stapen of Dill, Dill, Carr, Stonbraker & Hutchings, PC,
455 Sherman Street #300, Denver, CO 80203, U.S.A, Phone:
303-777-7373, Fax: 303-777-3823, E-mail:
jhutchings@dillanddill.com or astapen@dillanddill.com.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Enters Into MOU in Consolidated Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications International Inc. (NYSE:Q) entered into a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) with plaintiffs in the
consolidated Qwest putative securities class action. The
settlement class will consist of those who purchased Qwest
securities between May 24, 1999, and July 28, 2002. The MOU
requires the parties to enter into a settlement agreement
provided that certain additional documents are prepared by
plaintiffs as soon as reasonably possible.

Under the terms of the contemplated settlement agreement, Qwest
would pay a $400 million cash settlement in three installments:
$100 million would be paid within 30 days of receiving
preliminary court approval of the settlement, $100 million would
be paid within 30 days of final approval of the settlement and
the remaining $200 million would be paid by January 15, 2007,
plus interest at 3.75 percent on the $200 million between the
date of final approval of the settlement and the date of
payment. Arthur Andersen, a co-defendant, will be contributing
$10 million to Qwest to settle the plaintiffs' claims. The
contemplated settlement agreement and related documents that
will be filed with the court are subject to a number of material
conditions, including court approval.

Additionally, the settlement agreement can be terminated under
certain circumstances, including in the event that the SEC
elects not to distribute to the putative class members the $250
million penalty that Qwest has already committed to pay to the
SEC ($125 million of which has already been paid and the
remaining portion to be paid in December, 2005), and if
securities purchasers claiming losses of a specified amount seek
exclusion from the settlement class.

If a final settlement agreement is concluded pursuant to the
MOU, all claims in the litigation would be dismissed against
Qwest and all other defendants in that lawsuit except Joseph P.
Nacchio, Qwest's former chief executive officer, and Robert S.
Woodruff, Qwest's former chief financial officer.

By entering into the MOU, neither Qwest nor the other defendants
admit wrongdoing or liability.

For more details, contact Chris Hardman (Media Contact) of Qwest
Communications International Inc., Phone: 303-992-2085, E-mail:
chris.hardman@qwest.com or Stephanie Comfort (Investor Contact)
of Qwest Communications International Inc., Phone: 800-567-7296,
E-mail: IR@qwest.com, Web site: http://www.qwest.com.

SALUS CORPORATION: Recalls Shampoo Caps Due to Bacteria Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
Salus Corporation dba ICP Medical of Olivette, Missouri, has
voluntarily initiated a nationwide recall of all lot numbers of
shampoo caps with conditioner because some of the product is
contaminated with the bacteria Serratia marcescens. Serratia
marcescens has the potential to cause severe and life-
threatening illness, especially in those with a compromised
immune system. To date, no adverse effects have been reported as
a result of using these shampoo caps. The bacteria have the
potential to cause wound infections and then gain access to the
blood stream from infected wounds. Once in the blood stream the
bacteria have the potential to cause a number of life-
threatening complications and to cause sight-threatening eye
infections, as well as a number of other health problems.
Serratia marcescens is often resistant to many antibiotics
making treatment of an infection potentially problematic. The
shampoo caps may have been used in medical settings on patients
that are immuno-compromised or have head wounds.

The shampoo caps were manufactured under three brand names: (1)
The Salus Corporation dba ICP Medical brand name of CompleteBath
(Reorder No. ICP095230); the brand name of ReadyBath,
manufactured for Medline Industries, Inc., Mundelein, IL
(Reorder No. MSC095230); and the brand name of No-Rinse,
manufactured for No Rinse Laboratories, LLC, Centerville, OH
(Reorder No. 02000). The shampoo caps are packaged 1 disposable
cap per plastic bag. The plastic bag is labeled with the product
name. The product is used as a method of cleaning the hair
without the use of running water rather than using conventional
shampooing methods.

The shampoo caps were distributed to health care facilities and
institutions nationwide through Salus Corporation, Medline
Industries, and No Rinse Laboratories. The product can also be
purchased through the Internet. Salus Corporation Corporation
has notified their customers to arrange for return of the
shampoo caps.

Salus Corporation voluntarily initiated the recall after
learning complaints of odor had been received on the ReadyBath
Shampoo Cap with Conditioner. Their investigation has revealed
the potential source of the bacteria and has taken steps to
correct the problem.

The shampoo caps should be returned to the point of purchase or
by calling Salus Corporation dba ICP Medical at 314-429-1000.
Health care facilities or consumers may contact Tom Huling, Vice
President of Salus Corporation at 314-429-1000, ext. 226 for any
further questions.


SMART & FINAL: Reports Lower Quarterly Profit Due to Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Smart & Final, Inc reported a lower quarterly profit due to the
effects of a $19 million pre-tax charge that the food service
supply company took to settle class action litigation, Reuters
reports.

The company posted net income of $1 million or 3 cents per
diluted share in the third quarter ended October 9. Adjusting
for the charge, the company reported $12.3 million or 38 cents
per share, compared with $12 million or 37 cents per share for
the year-earlier quarter.

The class action lawsuit accuses the Grocery chain of not paying
its employees properly. It was filed in May 2001 and was
certified as a class action in 2004 with about 13,000 potential
plaintiffs, who include current and past employees of California
stores, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (September 16,
2005) reports.

The suit alleges that the Los Angeles-based chain failed to
properly calculate overtime pay and also neglected to pay for
all hours worked. It also alleges that other compensation was
not paid, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (September 16,
2005) reports.


UNION PACIFIC: Wants Derailment Suit Moved to TX Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Railroad Company recently filed a petition for
moving a lawsuit that is seeking class action status over an
October 15 trail derailment in Texarkana, Texas from Miller
County Circuit Court where it was filed to federal court, KTBS,
LA reports.

The petition states that the case should be tried in federal
court due to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, and due to
the amount of money, which may eventually be involved in the
suit.

Attorney R. Gary Nutter of Texarkana, Texas filed the suit on
behalf of residents Troy H. Bradford and Gloria Bradford and
their business Books Etc., an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (October 21, 2005) reports.

The suit is specifically accusing the Omaha, Nebraska-based
company of negligence, trespass, and causing a nuisance "in
allowing toxic and hazardous chemicals" into the community. It
thus seeks an order requiring the company to clean up any damage
and pay unspecified monetary compensation for personal injuries,
evacuation and cleanup costs, property loss, and lost income
resulting from the derailment, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (October 21, 2005) reports.

In a related matter, another class action lawsuit has been filed
by resident David Kemp, which according to has also been
petitioned by Union Pacific to be moved to federal court.

At about 5 a.m. on October 15, Saturday, a Union Pacific train
coming from Chicago struck the back of another UP train coming
from Pine Bluff in a rail yard on the south side of Texarkana.
Eight cars derailed, and a tanker car containing propylene
exploded and fire broke out. Fearing more explosions and a toxic
cloud, officials evacuated residences and nursing homes in the
area and prepared to move up to 1,500 nearby jail inmates.
Police said the home of Pearlie Mae Marshall, 61, was destroyed
and Ms. Marshall died in the accident. In addition, 12 people
complained of respiratory problems. Residents were allowed to
return home late Saturday. The fire from the tank car burned
itself out by 1:30 a.m. Sunday, UP has said, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (October 21, 2005) reports.


VALENTINO LAS VEGAS: Settles EEOC Sexual Harassment Suit in NV
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valentino Las Vegas, an Italian restaurant in The Venetian
hotel-casino that is accused of subjecting hostesses and
waitresses to sexual harassment recently agreed to settle a
federal class action lawsuit, The Associated Press reports.

According to U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the
restaurant will pay $600,000 to five female employees and other
potential victims, under terms of the settlement. Additionally,
it also agreed to institute anti-discrimination training and be
monitored by the EEOC for three years, the agency said.

Filed in the U.S. District Court in Las Vegas, the suit was
sparked by one woman's complaint to the agency.

The women charged that restaurant supervisors repeatedly groped
and propositioned them, and made sexual remarks from 2001 to
March 2003, according to EEOC attorney Dana Johnson. She told
The Associated press that most of the women were in their early
20s, and most of the alleged incidents involved one manager.

Mr. Johnson also told The Associated Press, "I would say that,
at the time, these women felt there was no one they could
complain to," and adds, "They could either put up with this or
quit."

Valentino Las Vegas, which opened in 1998, is part of Valentino
Restaurant Group, the operators of Caffe Giorgio in Las Vegas
and restaurants in Southern California, according to its Web
site.

The suit is styled, "U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION v. VALENTINO LAS VEGAS, LLC, et al., Case No. CV-S-
04-1357 - JCM-PAL," filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada. Representing the Plaintiff/s are,
Anna Park and Dana Johnson of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, 255 East Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90012, Phone:
(213) 894-1000. Representing the Defendant/s is, Carol Zucker of
Kamer Zucker & Abbott, 3000 W. Charleston Blvd., Las Vegas, NV
89102, Phone: 702-259-8640.


VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Program to be Funded With Neoprene Award
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vanderbilt University Law School will fund its recently created
civil and dispute resolution program through a $2.9 million
windfall from the settlement of a class action lawsuit against
Dow Chemical Co., The Nashville Business Journal reports.

The suit, Lankford v. Dow Chemical Co., which the school was not
a party to, involved plaintiffs in 29 states and the District of
Columbia. It alleged that three companies: Dow, DuPont Dow
Elastomers, and E.I. du Pont Nemours, conspired to fix prices of
Neoprene, a synthetic rubber used in the manufacture of many
consumer products.

Filed in Tennessee Circuit Court, the case eventually lead to
the defendants agreeing to settle it with no admission of
liability. The court judged impossible the task of identifying
individuals harmed through the defendants' actions and directed
the settlement fee go to an "appropriate charitable or
government organization."

Vanderbilt's civil litigation and dispute resolution program,
launched in the fall 2005, was deemed appropriate since
graduates practice in all jurisdictions in which the Lankford
case applied. The windfall though requires the school to report
to the court annually on use of the funds.

The Vanderbilt program is geared to advance litigation education
among students and faculty. Three program conferences have been
scheduled for 2006.


WAL-MART STORES: MO Judge Grants Certification to Overtime Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Millions of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) employees
nationwide may ultimately get paid for hours they're now
regularly forced to work "off the clock" without pay, thanks to
a recent ruling by a Missouri circuit court.

Missouri Circuit Court Judge Sandra Midkiff granted class action
status to approximately 250,000 current and former Wal-Mart
employees in Missouri who are challenging the company's illegal
practice of forcing them to work without pay and missing their
promised breaks.

"While this specific case applies only to current and former
Wal-Mart employees in Missouri, it promises to be the
breakthrough that will finally force Wal-Mart to quit
profiteering illegally at the expense of its own employees,"
said Steve Long, lead trial attorney with Shughart, Thomson and
Kilroy, a law firm based in Kansas City and Denver that has won
a similar ruling against Wal-Mart in Colorado and has pending
actions against the company in several other states.

The Missouri case is based on statements from numerous employees
and former employees of Wal-Mart who report being forced to
routinely work without pay -- some of them for 10 or more hours
a week -- so the company could avoid paying them overtime.

"What sets the Missouri case apart," Mr. Long said, "is that,
for the first time, Wal-Mart was forced by the court to provide
outside access to its electronic database. Based on Wal-Mart's
own data, it's abundantly clear they're forcing employees
collectively to work many thousands of hours each month without
pay. What they're doing is illegal. It's not fair to the men and
women who work for Wal-Mart."

Wal-Mart has refused to change its illegal practices despite
complaints from thousands of employees and former employees and
lawsuits in about 30 states, Mr. Long said. The battle generally
revolves around whether the employees will be able to sue the
company as a class, he said, because individual employees can't
afford to pursue such action on their own.

"To date Wal-Mart has been able to hide behind the courts," Mr.
Long said. "Hiding has quashed the complaints of employees, past
and present. Now Wal-Mart is facing justice, and we believe the
Missouri case, based on Wal-Mart's own data showing the enormous
scale of its profiteering at its employees' expense, will help
Wal-Mart employees recover money that should have gone into
their paychecks instead of the company's bank account."

The law firm of Shughart, Thomson and Kilroy obtained a
substantial settlement from Wal-Mart in Colorado after a court
there agreed to let present and former employees of the giant
retailer join in a class action against the company. More
recently, Wal-Mart has won decisions in several states denying
employees class-action status, making it virtually impossible to
hold the company legally accountable for its illegal actions in
those states since each employee in those states would have to
file a separate lawsuit.

"Wal-Mart's widespread abuse of its employees will ultimately
come to an end," Mr. Long predicted. "And when the full story is
told, today's ruling will be seen as a significant gain for Wal-
Mart's employees in their efforts to get paid for all the hours
they work."

For more details, contact Heather Schroeder or Lissa Christman,
Corporate Advocates for Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy P.C., Phone:
713-522-1009, (cell) 713-299-1312 or 312-259-8600, E-mail:
lchristman@corporateadvocates.net or
hschroeder@corporateadvocates.net.


WORLDCOM INC.: Investors Recover $651 Mil For Securities Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
A group of state and local retirement funds and insurance
companies recovered $651 million from WorldCom's investment
banks, auditors and company officers in a settlement announced
Thursday, the Associated Press reports.

The group is made of 68 state, local and union retirement funds
and insurance companies that had purchased WorldCom stocks and
bonds between 1998 and 2001, during which time company officials
had regularly altered WorldCom's financial statements to hide
losses.  The group did not join the class action filed by other
institutions and investors against the beleaguered company, in
hopes of gaining a better deal. Last month, a federal judge
approved a $6.1 billion settlement, to be paid to approximately
830,000 institutions and individual investors.

The $651 million recovery represents up to 83 percent above what
the funds and insurers would have received if they had remained
part of the class action, according to figures provided by
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP of San Diego,
the firm representing the plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs' counsel
William Lerach told AP that while the class action lawsuit winds
its way through the appeals process, delaying payments to
investors, the plaintiffs in this settlement will receive their
money promptly.  The defendant firms also agreed to cover
plaintiffs' legal costs and expenses, totaling another $94
million.

On top of the $651 million, Mr. Lerach told The AP he expects to
gain additional funds from the disgorgements paid by former
WorldCom Chief Executive Bernie Ebbers and former Chief
Financial Officer Scott Sullivan, both of whom were sentenced to
federal prison and heavily fined for their roles in the
accounting scandal.  Those recoveries are not expected to be
large, he added.

As part of the settlement, Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
two of the defendants in several non-class action suits filed by
the funds, also agreed to jointly petition the Securities and
Exchange Commission for more stringent disclosures by banks
underwriting future stock and bond offerings. The two Wall
Street firms will be joined in the petition by the California
Public Employees Retirement System and five other retirement
funds.  "I don't think ever before have Wall Street banks and
investors jointly petitioned the SEC to require more disclosure
in public offerings," Mr. Lerach told The AP.

However, Sean Coffey, lead counsel in the billion-dollar class
action against WorldCom's officers, directors and underwriters,
and New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi disputed Mr. Lerach's
claims of bettering the class-action results by such a wide
margin, saying the Lerach firm's figures were misleading,
according to The AP.  Mr. Lerach has denied the allegation.

Numerous fund officials, including California Treasurer Phil
Angelides, said they were pleased with the settlement, The AP
reports.

The SEC petition from JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, CalPERS and
retirement funds in Illinois and California will ask federal
regulators to mandate more thorough disclosures from investment
banks regarding the companies they represent in stock and bond
underwriting. The petition will suggest disclosures of loans
from the banks to companies and company officers, increased
information on who will receive blocks of pre-IPO stock in a
given company, and more information about the research coverage
underwriters will provide on the companies they've underwritten.
In addition to Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase, the other
investment banks were Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Lehman Brothers
Holdings Inc., UBS Warburg, Bank of America Corp., Deutsche
Bank, Credit Suisse Group subsidiary Credit Suisse First Boston
USA, Tokyo-Mitsubishi, ABN AMRO, WestLandes, BNP Paribas,
Caboto, and Mizuho.  Accounting firm Arthur Andersen paid $8
million as part of the settlement, while the insurance policies
covering directors and officers of WorldCom paid $4 million.

According to The AP, Mr. Lerach would not say why only Citigroup
and JPMorgan Chase agreed to join the SEC petition, saying
simply, "Our clients view the actions by Citi and Morgan in this
regard as highly responsible, and will take it into account in
deciding how they conduct their businesses in the future."


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Curtiss V. Trinko Files Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the 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 action, Civil Action Number 05-CV-12157 (JLT), is pending in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against defendants Boston Scientific Corporation,
and certain senior officers.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Boston
Scientific and the Individual Defendants violated provisions of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, causing Boston Scientific's
stock to trade at artificially inflated levels. Specifically,
the complaint alleges that Boston Scientific and the Individual
Defendants failed to disclose material facts and made false and
misleading statements of material fact concerning the Company's
abilities to satisfy the FDA's regulations governing the
Company's medical device product quality controls. The complaint
further alleges that the Individual Defendants sold over $400
million in Company stock as a result of insider trading.

According to the complaint, on August 23, 2005, investors
learned of the defendants' broad-based concealment of its failed
quality control program and the risks the Company faced as a
result of such failure. As a result, Boston Scientific's stock
price dropped $1.23 per share, or 4.5% to $25.92, on volume of
15.8 million shares - and nearly $19.98 per share or 43.4% from
its Class Period high of $45.81 on April 5, 2004.

For more details, contact Curtis V. Trinko, Esq. of The Law
Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, Phone: 212-490-9550, Fax:
212-986-0158, E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com.


MOTIVE INC.: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in TX
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated the first
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas against Motive, Inc.
(Nasdaq: MOTV), and certain officers and directors.

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 concerning its
projected revenues, which had the effect of artificially
inflating the shares' market price. The class period is from
July 11, 2005 through October 26, 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.


PIXAR ANIMATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Fraud Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Pixar Animation Studios (Nasdaq: PIXR) ("Pixar" or
the "Company") between January 18, 2005 and June 30, 2005
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Pixar, Steven P. Jobs, Edwin E. Catmull
and Simon T. Bax with violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts, known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that defendants, in an effort to demonstrate positive
         earnings and inflate the Company's sales figures,
         shipped millions of excess copies of "The Incredibles"
         home videos to the market;

     (2) that defendants' were aware that the video shipments
         significantly exceeded the levels of consumer demand,
         and as a result were eventually forced to increase the
         reserve for video returns;

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

     (4) that as a consequence of the foregoing defendants'
         statements with respect to the forecasted sale of "The
         Incredibles" home video units lacked in any reasonable
         basis.

On June 30, 2005, Pixar announced an update to its fiscal second
quarter 2005 guidance. Pixar stated that following a review of
the most current domestic and international home video sales
data for "The Incredibles," the Company updated its second
quarter home video projections to increase its reserves for
returns. On this news, shares of Pixar fell $6.99 per share, or
13.97 percent, on July 1, 2005, to close at $43.06 per share. On
August 26, 2005, Pixar revealed that it was under an SEC
investigation.

For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard A.
Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia
Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706,
E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com.


REFCO INC.: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, represents investors in a
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Refco, Inc.
("Refco") (OTC: RFXCQ.PK) and other defendants (Case No. 1:05-
cv-08663-DC). Refco securities purchasers between August 11,
2005, and October 18, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period") are
putative class members.

On October 31, 2005, based on a motion filed by Scott + Scott on
behalf of the investor Class, as well as discussions with
counsel for plaintiff and Bennett, the Court entered a Temporary
Restraining Order ("TRO") to freeze assets that suspended CEO
Phillip R. Bennett ("Bennett") obtained from his Refco stock
sales in the Company's August 2005 Initial Public Offering
("IPO"). The TRO is in effect pending an Order to Show Cause
hearing scheduled for December 1, 2005, at which time the Court
will determine whether or not a more permanent restraining order
should be issued maintaining the asset-freeze injunction
throughout the pendency of the litigation. Refco filed for
bankruptcy protection on October 17, 2005.

Scott + Scott's original complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, Refco and certain of its officers and directors,
including Bennett, as well as Refco's IPO underwriters and
independent auditor, violated provisions of the Securities Act
of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by issuing a
false and misleading Prospectus to investors as well as making
false and misleading statements during the Class Period. It is
alleged that because of these securities law violations,
investors were deceived out of over a billion dollars while
Bennett personally made off with over $111. Scott+Scott seeks to
secure Bennett's improperly obtained assets for the benefit of
investors who, because of the Refco bankruptcy, might be unable
to look to the insolvent Company for relief.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein of Scott + Scott, LLC,
Phone: +1-800-332-2259, ext. 22, or +1-619-251-0887 (Mobile), E-
mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com.


SPECTRUM BRANDS: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges Securities Suit in GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, filed a
lawsuit seeking class action status in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against
Spectrum Brands, Inc. ("Spectrum" or the "Company"), David A.
Jones and Randall J. Steward on behalf of all persons (the
"Class") who purchased the securities of Spectrum (NYSE: SPC)
during the period between and including January 4, 2005 through
September 6, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. During the Class
Period, the Complaint claims that Defendants misrepresented
that:

     (1) the Company was growing through acquisitions and
         diversifying revenues while maintaining sales of
         existing products and leveraging existing brands;

     (2) the combination of Rayovac and United presented a
         "compelling value proposition;"

     (3) management of the Company had an outstanding track
         record for successfully integrating acquired brands
         "while maintaining marketplace momentum" of its legacy
         brands;

     (4) Defendants were able to drive revenue growth of its
         core brands by cross selling its legacy products to
         accounts acquired through acquisitions;

     (5) the representations and warranties contained in the
         United Merger Agreement were true and accurate;

     (6) the Company was achieving "record" sales during the
         Class Period, with double digit increases in battery
         sales, "exceptional performance" across the board and
         with integrations proceeding according to plan; and

     (7) the integration of United was substantially complete
         and also proceeding according to plan.

The Complaint charges that the nature of Defendants' fraud began
to emerge on July 28, 2005, when Defendants reported results for
the third fiscal quarter of 2005, and investors first learned
that the Company could not maintain double-digit, year-over-year
growth in the sales of its core battery products but, rather,
that battery sales were actually less than the prior year. At
the same time, Defendants belatedly revealed that, as a result
of the material decline in its core battery products, it could
not meet its guidance for either fiscal 2005 or 2006. These
sudden and shocking disclosures had an immediate impact on the
price of Spectrum stock, which declined more than $8.00 that
day, falling more than 20% and closing at $30.10 per share. On
September 7, 2005, prior to the market opening, Defendants
revealed that earnings for the fourth quarter ending September
30, 2005 would be "substantially lower" than the guidance
previously reported. Defendants attributed the shortfall to weak
sales and "high (retail) inventory levels." The unexpected news
prompted additional analyst downgrades. In response to the
September 7, 2005 news, the stock dropped another 13%, on
volumes of 4.26 million. In total the stock lost 31% of its
value in response to the disclosures.

The Complaint explains Defendants' motivations, showing that the
misrepresentations and failure to disclose the conditions that
were adversely affecting the Company throughout the Class
Period:

     (1) enabled Defendants to acquire United using at least
         13.75 million shares of Company stock and using
         hundreds of millions of dollars raised through the sale
         of debt securities;

     (2) enabled Defendants to register for sale with the
         Securities and Exchange Commission more than $500
         million of mixed securities;

     (3) enabled Company insiders to sell millions of dollars
         of their privately-held Spectrum stock; and

     (4) caused Plaintiff and other members of the Class to
         purchase Spectrum common stock at artificially-inflated
         prices.

For more details, contact James E. Miller of Shepherd,
Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, Phone: +1-860-526-1100,
866-540-5505 or 877-891-9880, E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com, Web
site: http://www.classactioncounsel.com.


TAG-IT PACIFIC: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly
traded securities of Tag-It Pacific Inc. ("Tag-It" or the
"Company") (Amex: TAG) between November 14, 2003 and August 12,
2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that Tag-It violated federal securities
laws by making false or misleading statements public statements.
On August 15, 2005, Tag-It informed investors that it was going
to report a "significant operating loss" due to an increase in
reserves for accounts receivable and inventory. On August 22,
2005, Tag-It disclosed its reserve for doubtful accounts would
increase by $6.4 million and its reserves for inventory
obsolescence would increse by $1.55 million. On this news, Tag-
It stock fell from a close of $2.32 per share on August 12,
2005, to close at $1.37 per share on August 13, 2005.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212-490-2022, E-mail:
SSBNY@aol.com, Web site: http://www.ssbny.com.




                            *********


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

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

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2005.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *