CAR_Public/051108.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, November 8, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 221


                                 Headlines

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Working To Settle AWP Lawsuit in MA Court
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: New Fenofibrate Antitrust Suits Filed in DE
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Continues To Face OxyContin Fraud Lawsuits
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Plaintiffs Appeal Antitrust Suit Dismissal
ADVANCED NEUROMODULATION: Faces Consolidated TX Securities Suit

AIR FRANCE: Passengers Want to Initiate Suit Over Toronto Crash
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: MO Settlement Fairness Hearing Set Dec. 2005
AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: Settles Individual Overtime Claims in CA
ATHEROGENICS INC.: NY Court Mulls Transfer of Stock Suit To GA
CALIFORNIA: Judge Denies State Workers' Call to Bar Deductions

CALIFORNIA: Woman Files Suit V. Placer County Over Strip Search
CATHOLIC CHURCH: KY Church Abuse Settlement Proceedings Stalled
CENDANT CORPORATION: Inks Partial Settlement For NY PRIDES Suit
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: MO Securities Suit Settlement Finalized
DUN & BRADSTREET: Plaintiffs Appeal CT Summary Judgment Ruling

DUN & BRADSTREET: Employees Launch ERISA Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
ERIE FAMILY: Final Suit Settlement Hearing Set December 12,2005
GOLDEN EAGLE: Recalls Smoked Salmon Due to Salmonella Content
HOME DEPOT: NJ Court Certifies Managers' Overtime Pay Lawsuit
MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Ex-Mouseketeer Charged With Mail Fraud

MINNESOTA: Millie Lacs County Settles Strip Search Suit For $2M
OWENS CORNING: MA Suit Status Conference Set For November 8,2005
OWENS CORNING: Plaintiffs Appeal Ohio Securities Suit Dismissal
OWENS CORNING: Reaches Settlement For Consumer Fraud Litigation
PACER INTERNATIONAL: Asks CA Court To Approve Suit Settlement

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Sales Suit
TIME WARNER: Stock, ERISA Lawsuit Fairness Hearing Set Feb. 2006
WAL-MART: Beats Back Canadian Worker's Suit Over Store Closure

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

DANA CORPORATION: Ann D. White Files Securities Fraud Suit in OH
DANA CORPORATION: Mager & Goldstein Lodges Securities Suit in OH
FIRST BANCORP: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
FIRST BANCORP: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in IN

GUIDANT CORPORATION: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in IN
MOTIVE INC.: Federman & Sherwood Provides Advisory on Fraud Suit
TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Murray Frank Files Fraud Suit in KY

                            *********


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Working To Settle AWP Lawsuit in MA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories is working to settle the consolidated class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, alleging violations of federal
antitrust laws.

The suits generally allege that the Company and numerous other
pharmaceutical companies reported false pricing information in
connection with certain drugs that are reimbursable under
Medicare and Medicaid.  These cases brought by private
plaintiffs and State Attorneys General generally seek damages,
treble damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution, and
attorneys fees.

The federal court cases have been consolidated in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts under
the Multidistrict Litigation Rules as "In re: Pharmaceutical
Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL 1456."  The
following previously reported cases have now been transferred to
MDL 1456:

     (1) International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 68
         Welfare Fund;

     (2) County of Rockland;

     (3) County of Westchester;

     (4) Digel;

     (5) State of California ex rel. Ven-A-Care of the Florida
         Keys; and

     (6) Turner

One of the previously reported federal court cases, Rice, has
been dismissed without prejudice.  Two new federal cases have
been filed and have been or will be transferred to MDL 1456:
City of New York, filed in August 2004 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York; and County
of Nassau, filed in November 2004 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.  Cases are also
pending in eight state courts:

     (i) Swanston, filed in March 2002 in the Superior Court for
         Maricopa County, Arizona;

    (ii) State of West Virginia ex rel. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr.,
         Attorney General, filed in October 2001 in the Circuit
         Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia;

   (iii) Peralta, a minor by and through his Guardian ad Litem,
         Filamena Iberia, filed in October 2001 in the Superior
         Court for Los Angeles County, California;  

    (iv) State of Nevada, filed in January 2002 in the Second
         Judicial District Court in Washoe County, Nevada;

     (v) Commonwealth of Kentucky ex rel. Albert B. Chandler
         III, Attorney General, filed in September 2003 in the
         Circuit Court of Franklin County, Kentucky;  

    (vi) Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, filed in March 2004 in
         the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania;

   (vii) State of Ohio, filed in March 2004 in the Court of
         Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio;

  (viii) State of Texas ex rel. Greg Abbott, Attorney General,
         filed in May 2004 in the District Court of Travis
         County, Texas; and

    (ix) State of Wisconsin, filed in June 2004 in the Circuit
         Court of Dane County, Wisconsin

The Company has settled all of the claims, with the exception of
the claims brought on behalf of a group of retail pharmacies
that "opted-out" of the class action settlement.  The Company
has agreed to pay $2.3 million to these opt-out plaintiffs to
settle their Sherman Act claims.  These plaintiffs' Robinson-
Patman claims are pending in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.

During the third quarter, six additional New York counties filed
lawsuits in federal court in New York that have been or will be
transferred to MDL 1456.  One previously reported case, County
of Erie, has now been transferred to MDL 1456.  In addition, two
cases were removed to federal court - Commonwealth of Kentucky
ex rel. Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General and State of
Illinois.  

The consolidated suit is styled "In re Average Wholesale Price
Litigation, case no. 1:01-cv-12257-PBS," filed in the United
States District Court in Massachusetts, under Judge Patti B.
Saris.  Representing the plaintiffs are David J. Bershad and J.
Douglas Richards of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP,
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY 10119, Phone:
212-594-5300.  Representing the Company are Daniel E. Reidy,
Jeremy P. Cole, Jessie A. Witten, Tina M. Tabacchi, and Toni-Ann
Citera of Jones Day, 77 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60601-
1692, Phone: 312-782-3939, E-mail: tmtabacchi@jonesday.com,
jawitten@jonesday.com, tcitera@jonesday.com; and Jeffrey I.
Weinberger, Munger Tolles & Olson, 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite
3500, Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560, Phone: 213-683-9100.


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: New Fenofibrate Antitrust Suits Filed in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories, Fournier Industrie et Sante, and
Laboratoires Fournier, S.A. (Fournier) face four new lawsuits,
including to new class actions, filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging antitrust
and unfair competition claims in connection with the sale of
fenofibrate formulations.

Nine suits are already pending in.  In the third quarter of
2005, four additional lawsuits, including two purported class
actions, were filed in the same court.  The two purported class
actions are captioned "Philadelphia Federation of Teachers
Health and Welfare Fund v. Abbott Laboratories, et al.," and
"Cindy Cronin v. Abbott Laboratories, et al." The two individual
lawsuits are captioned "CVS Pharmacy,Inc., Rite Aid Corporation,
Rite Aid Headquarters Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al." and
"Pacificare Health Systems, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al."
These cases seek damages, treble damages and other relief.


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Continues To Face OxyContin Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories, Inc. continues to face numerous lawsuits
involving the drug oxycodone, a drug manufactured and sold by
Purdue Pharma under the trademark OxyContin.  The Company
promoted OxyContin to certain specialty physicians, including
surgeons and anesthesiologists, under a co-promotion agreement
with Purdue Pharma.

Most of the lawsuits allege generally that plaintiffs suffered
personal injuries as a result of taking OxyContin.  A few
lawsuits allege consumer protection violations and unfair trade
practices. One suit by a third party payor alleges antitrust
pricing violations and overpricing of the drug.

As of September 30, 2005, a total of 195 lawsuits are pending in
which the Company is a party, of which 19 cases are pending in
federal court and 176 cases are pending in state court.  185
cases are brought by individual plaintiffs, and 10 cases are
brought as purported class action lawsuits.  Purdue Pharma is a
defendant in each lawsuit and, pursuant to the co-promotion
agreement, Purdue is required to indemnify the Company in each
lawsuit.


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Plaintiffs Appeal Antitrust Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota's dismissal of the class action filed
against Abbott Laboratories, styled "In re Canadian Import
Antitrust Litigation."

The suit generally alleges that the Company and numerous other
pharmaceutical manufacturers violated antitrust laws by
conspiring to prevent re-importation of drugs from Canada. The
consolidated lawsuit purports to be a class action brought on
behalf of all United States residents who purchased and/or paid
for brand name prescription drugs manufactured by the
defendants.  The plaintiffs seek an injunction prohibiting
efforts to stop re-importation, a refund of all allegedly
unlawful profits received by the defendants, treble damages, and
attorneys fees.

In August 2005, the court dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs'
federal law claims, and dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs'
state law claims.  Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal.

The suit is styled "In Re: Canadian Import Antitrust Litigation,
case no. 0:04-cv-02724-JNE-JGL," filed in the United States
District Court in Massachusetts, under Judge Joan N. Ericksen.


ADVANCED NEUROMODULATION: Faces Consolidated TX Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Neuromodulation Systems, Inc and certain of its
officers and directors face a consolidated securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas.

Three suits were initially filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities between April 24, 2003 and February 16,
2005, inclusive.  The suits are styled:

     (1) PLA, LLC vs. Advanced Neuromodulation Systems, Inc., et
         al, filed March 1, 2005;

     (2) RAI Investment Club vs. Advanced Neuromodulation
         Systems, Inc., et al, filed March 9, 2005; and

     (3) Clifford A. Leavitt vs. Advanced Neuromodulation
         Systems, Inc. et al, filed April 28, 2005

In late May 2005, the court granted an order consolidating the
three previously filed class action securities lawsuits into a
single consolidated complaint styled as: "PLA, LLC vs. Advanced
Neuromodulation Systems, Inc., et al." The court also granted an
order appointing lead and liaison counsel and appointing the
lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.  The three previously filed suits
each alleged the Company violated federal securities laws by the
issuance of false and misleading statements to the market
regarding the Company's financial performance throughout the
Class Period, which statements allegedly had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. In particular, the claims alleged that improper
marketing and sales practices accounted for the Company's
revenue growth, citing, among other things, the Company's public
announcement made on February 17, 2005 that the Company had
received a subpoena from the Office of the Inspector General,
Department of Health and Human Services, requesting documents
related to sales and marketing, reimbursement, Medicare and
Medicaid billing and other business practices.  The plaintiffs
were seeking unspecified compensatory damages and costs and
expenses of litigation.  

No class has been certified at this time.  The lead plaintiff
filed an amended consolidated complaint in September 2005. By
agreement with the plaintiffs, the Company's answer is due by
January 16, 2006.

The suit is styled "PLA LLC v. Advanced Neuromodulation Systems
Inc et al., case no. 4:05-cv-00078-RAS-DDB," filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, under
Judge Richard A. Schell.  Representing the company is Gerard G.
Pecht of Fulbright & Jaworski - Houston, 1301 McKinney, Suite
5100, Houston, TX 77010, Phone: 713/651-5160, Fax: 17136515246,
E-mail: gpecht@fulbright.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Roger F. Claxton, Claxton & Hill, 3131 McKinney, L.B.
         103 #700, Dallas, TX 75204, Phone: 214/969-9029, Fax:
         12149530583, E-mail: claxtonhill@airmail.net

     (2) Elton Joe Kendall, Provost Umphrey Law Firm, 3232
         McKinney Ave, Suite 700, Dallas, Tx 75201, Phone:
         214/744-3000, Fax: 12147443015, E-mail:
         jkendall@provostumphrey.com

     (3) Christopher S. Polaszek, Maya Saxena, and Peter E.
         Seidman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, 5200
         Town Center Circle, Suite 600 Tower 1, Boca Raton, FL
         33486, Phone: 561/361-5000, Fax: 15613678400, E-mail:
         cpolaszek@milbergweiss.com, msaxena@milbergweiss.com,
         pseidman@milbergweiss.com


AIR FRANCE: Passengers Want to Initiate Suit Over Toronto Crash
---------------------------------------------------------------
Some passengers who were on an Air France flight that crashed on
landing in Toronto's Pearson airport last August 2 want to
launch a class action suit, The CBC News reports.

The plane, an Airbus 340-300, careened its way down the runway,
plunged into a ravine and then burst into flames.  Luckily, none
of the passengers and crewmembers on board died.  Approximately
100 passengers though say that they want compensation for the
trauma they're still living with and plan to meet with lawyers
to discuss a class action suit.

Salah Abdulrahim and his parents, who live in Mississauga, are
among involved in the effort. They say that, since the crash,
the smallest sound can send the 11-year-old boy into a panic. He
told CBC News, "I think it's because every day, the plane crash
always sticks in my mind and I can't think of anything else but
it." Since the incident, Mr. Salah has taken up writing a lot of
poetry, all of it dealing with death, and has been diagnosed
with post-traumatic stress disorder.

The young Abdulrahim's parents also told CBC News that their
lives have been affected as well and they want someone held
accountable. The boy's mother, Sakina, told CBC News, "We lost
the joy of life totally, including him. You don't feel like
eating. ...Your dreams [are] kind of gone at the time."

According to the family's legal representative, attorney Paul
Miller, the lawsuit could set a precedent because airlines
currently only compensate for bodily harm, not emotional damage.
Mr. Miller told CBC News that he's prepared to carry the fight
all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.  Mr. Miller also
told CBC News, "It's not fair to say everyone should be able to
just bounce back because let me tell you if they could, they
would. Because no one in Canada gets rich off these types of
lawsuits."

The Abdulrahims told CBC News that they only want money to
compensate for their lost luggage and to make a point. Salah's
father, Hussein Abdulrahim even told CBC News, "To be left out,
to go and do things on our own, without any help from anybody,
this is not right."


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: MO Settlement Fairness Hearing Set Dec. 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
shareholder class actions filed against AMC Entertainment, Inc.,
related to its merger with Marquee Holdings, Inc, is set for
December 2,2005, in the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
Missouri.

On July 22, 2004, two lawsuits purporting to be class actions
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
one naming the Company, the Company's directors, Apollo
Management and certain entities affiliated with Apollo as
defendants and the other naming the Company, the Company's
directors, Apollo Management and Marquee Holdings as defendants.  
Those actions were consolidated on August 17, 2004.  The
plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed an amended complaint
in the Chancery Court on October 22, 2004 and moved for
expedited proceedings on October 29, 2004.

On July 23, 2004, three more lawsuits purporting to be class
actions were filed in the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
Missouri, each naming the Company and the Company's directors as
defendants.  These lawsuits were consolidated on September 27,
2004.  The plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed an
amended complaint in the Circuit Court of Jackson County on
October 29, 2004.  The Company filed a motion to stay the case
in deference to the prior-filed Delaware action and separate
motion to dismiss the case in the alternative on November 1,
2004.

In both the Delaware action and the Missouri action, the
plaintiffs generally allege that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the Merger, that
the transaction is unfair to the minority stockholders of the
Company, that the merger consideration is inadequate and that
the defendants pursued their own interests at the expense of the
stockholders.  The lawsuits seek, among other things, to recover
unspecified damages and costs and to enjoin or rescind the
Merger and related transactions.

On November 23, 2004, the parties in this litigation entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding providing for the settlement
of both the Missouri action and Delaware action.  Pursuant to
the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, the parties
agreed, among other things, that:

     (1) Marquee would waive Section 6.4(a)(C) of the merger
         agreement to permit the Company to provide non-public
         information to potential interested parties in response
         to any bona fide unsolicited written acquisition
         proposals by such parties (which it did),

     (2) the Company would make certain disclosures requested by
         the plaintiff in the proxy statement and the related
         Schedule 13E-3 in connection with the special meeting
         to approve the Merger (which it did) and

     (3) the Company would pay, on behalf of the defendants,
         fees and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel of
         approximately $1.7 million (which such amounts the
         Company believes are covered by its existing directors
         and officers insurance policy).

In reaching this settlement, the Company confirmed to the
plaintiffs that Lazard and Goldman Sachs had each been provided
with the financial information included in the Company's
earnings press release, issued on the same date as the
announcement of the merger agreement.  The Memorandum of
Understanding also provided for the dismissal of the Missouri
action and the Delaware action with prejudice and release of all
related claims against the Company, the other defendants and
their respective affiliates.  The settlement as provided for in
the Memorandum of Understanding is contingent upon, among other
things, approval by the court.


AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: Settles Individual Overtime Claims in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Multi-Cinema, Inc. reached a settlement for the
remaining individual claims in the two overtime wage lawsuits
filed against it in the Orange County, California Superior court
refused to grant class certification.

The first suit is styled "Conrad Grant v. American Multi-Cinema,
Inc. and DOES 1 to 100, case no. 03CC00429."  On September 26,
2003, plaintiff filed this suit as a purported class action on
behalf of himself and other current and former "senior
managers," "salary operations managers" and persons holding
similar positions who claim that they were improperly classified
by the Company as exempt employees over the prior four years.  
On April 28, 2004, William Baer and additional plaintiffs filed
a related case titled "William Baer and Anisnara Hamlzonek v.
American Multi-Cinema, Inc. and DOES 1 to 100, case no.
04CC00507."  

On December 9, 2004, the Baer Court denied plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, and on January 7, 2005, the Grant Court
granted defendants' motion to strike the class allegations.  In
both the Baer and Grant proceedings, individual wage and hour
claims against the Company remain to be litigated.  The Company
has reached a settlement on Mr. Grant's individual claims
against the Company, but the settlement agreement is still in
the process of being formalized.


ATHEROGENICS INC.: NY Court Mulls Transfer of Stock Suit To GA
--------------------------------------------------------------
AtheroGenics, Inc. and some of its executive officers and
directors continues to face a consolidated securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, styled "In re Atherogenics
Securities Litigation."  

Purported securities class action lawsuits were initially filed
against the Company and some of its executive officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on January 5, 2005 and February 8, 2005 and
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta division on January 7, 2005, January 10, 2005,
January 11, 2005 and January 25, 2005.

The allegations in these lawsuits relate to the Company's
disclosures regarding the results of the CART-2 clinical trial
for AGI-1067. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of Company securities during
the period after these disclosures were made in September 2004
to December 31, 2004.

Plaintiffs filed separate motions to consolidate these lawsuits
in both the Southern District of New York and the Northern
District of Georgia on March 7, 2005.  In addition, three class
members simultaneously moved for appointment as lead plaintiffs
in both districts on March 7, 2005.  On April 18, 2005, the
Honorable Richard J. Holowell ordered the New York Actions
consolidated and appointed lead plaintiff and co-lead counsel.  
On July 5, 2005, the Company filed a motion to transfer the New
York Action to the Northern District of Georgia. On July 14,
2005, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Georgia Actions.
The New York Action and the defendants' motion to transfer that
action to Georgia are still pending.  

The suit is styled "In Re: Atherogenics Securities Litigation,
case no. 1:05-cv-00061-RJH," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Richard
J. Holwell.  Representing the Company is Dawn M. Wilson of
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, 399 Park Avenue, NY, NY
10022, Phone: (212)-230-8862, Fax: (212)-230-8888, E-mail:
dawn.wilson@wilmerhale.com.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

     (1) Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA),
         One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 2109, Phone:
         617.542.8300, Fax: 617.230.0903, E-mail:
         info@bermanesq.com

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

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

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

     (6) Dyer & Shuman, LLP 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
         80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
         mail: info@dyershuman.com

     (7) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         (Melville), 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY,
         11747 Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com

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

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

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

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

    (12) Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, 35 East State
         Street, Media, PA, 19063, Phone: 877.891.9880, E-mail:
         jshah@classactioncounsel.com

     (13) Wolf Popper, LLP 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY,
         10022-6689Ave Phone: 877.370.7703, Fax: 212.486.2093,
         E-mail: IRRep@wolfpopper.com


CALIFORNIA: Judge Denies State Workers' Call to Bar Deductions
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. rejected a request
from about 4,000 state employees for an order barring special
payroll deductions for a union fund to fight two of Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger's initiatives, The Sacramento Bee reports.

Previously, the federal judge issued a temporary restraining
order prohibiting the deductions. However, after a lengthy
hearing last week, Judge England decided not to issue a
preliminary injunction, which would have remained in force until
the lawsuit is resolved on its merits.

The governing body of the Service Employees International Union,
Local 1000, which represents about 86,000 state employees, voted
in August to deduct one-quarter of 1 percent of gross wages for
the pay periods between September 1 and December 31 to combat
Propositions 75 and 76 on this week's ballot.  The assessment is
being levied on the local's members and an additional 28,000
nonunion employees who work in categories covered by the local's
collective bargaining agreements and who pay "fair share" dues
to the union. About 4,000 of the latter group objected to the
assessment because they do not oppose the two-targeted
initiatives.  According to union projections, the assessment
will generate approximately $12 million for television and radio
advertising, direct mail, voter registration and get-out-the-
vote activities aimed at defeating the two propositions.

The Virginia-based National Right to Work Legal Defense
Foundation filed the legal challenge on behalf of eight nonunion
employees and one member of the union. Their attorney, W. James
Young, hopes to eventually persuade Judge England to certify the
suit as a class action on behalf of the approximately 114,000
state employees who pay dues to Local 1000.

Union attorney Jeffrey Demain agreed in court that his client
would refund money already withheld from the paychecks of the
eight nonunion employees and will stop taking the special
assessment out of their checks. Other than those eight, the
union is free to levy the assessment on union members and
nonmembers alike.

Proposition 75 would require public employee labor unions to get
written approval from their members before using dues for
political purposes. On the other hand, proposition 76, sponsored
by the California Chamber of Commerce and the California
Business Roundtable, would give governors broad new budget-
cutting authority.

Mr. Young argued that the union's effort to defeat these
measures is "purely political," that the money raised is being
used for political speech, and imposing the special assessment
on people who favor the propositions is a violation of their
free speech rights guaranteed by the Constitution.  Mr. Demain
conceded that Mr. Young might be right with respect to
Proposition 75. However, he argued that the other measure is an
attack on the working conditions of the union's membership.

In denying the request, Judge England said that, absent an
audit, it is impossible for him to parse the uses of the
assessment fund, making a preliminary injunction impractical.


CALIFORNIA: Woman Files Suit V. Placer County Over Strip Search
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alleging that she was videotaped, strip-searched without cause
and humiliated in front of male deputies in the Placer County
Jail, Angelic Sanchez initiated a federal class action lawsuit
against county officials, The Auburn Journal reports.

Filed in U.S. District Court in Sacramento, Ms. Sanchez's suit
alleges that she was stripped naked by a female deputy and
forced to expose her genitalia as male deputies watched. She
also alleges that she was videotaped during the procedure and
watched as other women underwent similar humiliations.  
Mark E. Merin, Ms. Sanchez's Sacramento-based lawyer, told The
Auburn Journal, "I have rarely seen a women who is both so
believable and so abused in a strip search. What they did to her
was reprehensible."

Although his department had yet to examine the lawsuit, Capt.
John Fitzgerald, who oversees the jail, told The Auburn Journal
that policies prohibit such actions. He pointed out, "Our
philosophy is to treat every inmate with courtesy, dignity and
respect."  According to Capt. Fitzgerald, strip searches of men
and women are never videotaped and members of the opposite sex
are never allowed to watch the opposite gender being searched.
Normally, a single deputy searches one inmate at a time in a
closed, private room, Mr. Fitzgerald told The Auburn Journal.

Mr. Merin told The Auburn Journal that in advance of filing the
lawsuit he asked to see the jail policies, which the sheriff's
department refused to produce, contending that they were
privileged and confidential.

The lawsuit says Mr. Sanchez was arrested in January 2004 for a
"minor crime not involving violence, drugs and weapons," and was
taken to the Roseville city jail. The next day, she was
transported to the Placer County Jail, where she was given a
body cavity search without cause, according to the suit. It goes
on to state, "Prior to her arraignment, she was coerced, forced,
and compelled to strip naked, by an Asian female deputy."  

The suit recounts that Ms. Sanchez was forced to bend over and
expose her genitalia to the woman. The female deputy then made
gagging sounds, which alerted Ms. Sanchez to the fact that there
were male deputies watching from a doorway. Another woman, whom
the suit describes as a Caucasian female, underwent similar
treatment.  The lawsuit also claims Ms. Sanchez heard deputies
say they wanted to remove the woman's clothing to see if her
"boobs were real or not." Ms. Sanchez allegedly watched as the
woman had her head slammed against the wall by deputies, leaving
a noticeable cut on her face.

Mr. Fitzgerald though maintains that deputies are trained not to
make inappropriate comments, and every inmate is not strip-
searched. He told The Auburn Journal, "It depends on the
circumstances of the arrest."

The suit is contending that strip and cavity searches should
only be performed on an inmate if deputies believe they may be
in possession of contraband or weapons, but neither woman had
cause to be searched. It names Sheriff Ed Bonner as being
"personally responsible for the promulgation and continuation of
the strip-search policy (and) practice" to which Ms. Sanchez and
others in a two-year period were subjugated.

Mr. Merin told The Auburn Journal that he asked his client why
she hadn't reported the alleged incident sooner. According to
him, "It was so traumatic, she couldn't bring it up. She was
ashamed." He also told The Auburn Journal that he believes now
that his client has come forward, other alleged victims -
including the second unidentified woman named in the suit - will
be encouraged to speak up.

The suit seeks yet undermined monetary damages for physical,
mental, emotional distress, invasion of privacy and violation of
their 4th Amendment and 14th Amendment rights. Visit,
http://www.auburnjournal.com/articles/2005/11/06/news/top_storie
s/11complaint.txt, to view the suit.

For more details, contact Mark E. Merin, of LAW OFFICES OF MARK
E. MERIN, 2001 P Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95814, Phone:
(916) 443-6911 Fax: (916) 447-8336, E-mail: mark@markmerin.com.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: KY Church Abuse Settlement Proceedings Stalled
---------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement talks in a lawsuit over how alleged victims of sexual
abuse will be paid in a proposed $120 million class action
settlement with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Covington were
recently put on hold, The Associated Press reports.

According to court documents filed by attorneys for all the
parties, the delay came about because the number of people
affected by the abuse will not be known for a couple of weeks.
Since July, talks between the diocese, the sexual abuse
plaintiffs and the three companies, The American Mutual
Insurance Co., Catholic Mutual Relief Society and Catholic
Relief Insurance Co. have been ongoing.  The diocese agreed to
pay $40 million from its assets and said it would rely on
insurance to pay up to $80 million more in claims. The diocese
filed suit when the insurance companies objected, saying the
costs would potentially bankrupt them.

In the recently filed motion, attorneys said "a number of
significant issues" have been resolved in the federal suit. But,
without the final number of people making claims in the class
action lawsuit, there is no way to know how much money will be
required to pay all the claims or which insurance companies will
have to pay for which claims, according to the lawyers.

Since the alleged abuse took place over more than 50 years,
different insurance policies apply to different claims,
attorneys pointed. "Accordingly, the parties have deferred
further settlement negotiations until after the census and opt
out periods have closed," the attorneys noted in their motion.

The deadline for filing claims or opting out of the class action
suit is on November 10. A status conference in the case is set
for November 21, and a hearing to consider final approval is set
for January 9, 2006.

A state judge granted approval in July of the proposed class
action settlement between victims of sexual abuse and the
Diocese of Covington. It would compensate victims who were
fondled, raped or sodomized by priests and other church
employees.  The amounts paid out to plaintiffs will depend on
the size of the settlement fund, the number and nature of claims
and the severity of each victim's abuse. The settlement would be
among the largest church sex abuse payouts in the country if the
full $120 million were paid. The Covington Diocese spans 14
counties and has 89,000 parishioners.

The class action lawsuit was filed in Boone County Circuit Court
by Cincinnati-based attorney Stan Chesley, claims that 21
priests and some other workers abused more than 150 victims in
the Diocese of Covington for decades while church officials did
nothing to stop the misconduct, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (February 18, 2003) reports.

According to the court filings, from about 1956, information on
the sexual abuse of minors by diocesan priests has been
concealed from the public, including parents of children in
schools and parishes where the alleged perpetrators were
assigned, as well as from family members of employees of the
diocese. Specifically, the suit accuses the diocese, which is
just across the Ohio River from Cincinnati, of a 50-year cover-
up of sexual abuse by priests and others, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (February 18, 2003) reports.


CENDANT CORPORATION: Inks Partial Settlement For NY PRIDES Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cendant Corporation reached a settlement for claims of a
specific class in the consolidated class action filed against it
in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, after its April 15, 1998 announcement of the discovery
of accounting irregularities in the former CUC International,
Inc. (CUC) business units.

The suit, styled "Welch & Forbes, Inc. v. Cendant Corp., et.
al., No. 98-2818 (WHW)," is a consolidated class action filed on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's PRIDES securities between
February 24 and August 28, 1998. The suit also names as
defendants Cendant Capital I, a statutory business trust formed
by the Company to participate in the offering of PRIDES
securities; seventeen current and former officers and directors
of Cendant, CUC and HFS, Incorporated; Ernst & Young, LLP, CUC's
former independent accounting firm; and the underwriters for the
PRIDES offering, Merrill Lynch & Co.; Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith Incorporated; and Chase Securities Inc.

The Amended Consolidated Complaint in the PRIDES Action alleged
that, among other things, the lead plaintiffs and members of the
class were damaged when they acquired PRIDES securities because,
as a result of accounting irregularities, financial statements
issued by the Company prior to April 15, 1998 were materially
false and misleading, and its April 15, 1998 press release
announcing the discovery of such accounting irregularities
failed to fully disclose the impact thereof on the Company's
previously issued financial statements.  On March 17, 1999, the
Company entered into an agreement to settle the claims of class
members in the PRIDES Action who purchased PRIDES securities on
or prior to April 15, 1998. The settlement did not resolve
claims based upon the purchases of PRIDES after April 16, 1998.

On October 28, 2005, the Company reached an agreement in
principle to settle the claims of class members in the PRIDES
Action who purchased PRIDES securities between April 16 and
August 28, 1998 pursuant to which Cendant would pay
$32.5 million in cash plus 3.5% of any net recovery from
litigation Cendant is pursuing against Ernst & Young, arising
from the accounting irregularities. Interest will accrue on the
cash settlement from the earlier of either approval by the
United States District Court in New Jersey or February 1, 2006
at the federal funds rate applicable at that time. The
settlement is subject to execution of a definitive settlement
agreement and court approval, which Cendant presently expects to
occur in early 2006.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: MO Securities Suit Settlement Finalized
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the consolidated securities class action and
the shareholder derivative suits filed against Charter
Communications, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri is deemed final.  

Fourteen putative federal class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company and certain of its former and present
officers and directors in various jurisdictions allegedly on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities during the
period from either November 8 or November 9, 1999 through July
17 or July 18, 2002.  Unspecified damages were sought by the
plaintiffs.

In general, the lawsuits alleged that the Company utilized
misleading accounting practices and failed to disclose these
accounting practices and/or issued false and misleading
financial statements and press releases concerning the Company's
operations and prospects.

In October 2002, the Company filed a motion with the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) to transfer the
Federal Class Actions to the Eastern District of Missouri. On
March 12, 2003, the Panel transferred the six Federal Class
Actions not filed in the Eastern District of Missouri to that
district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
with the eight Federal Class Actions already pending there. The
Panel's transfer order assigned the Federal Class Actions to
Judge Charles A. Shaw.  By virtue of a prior court order,
StoneRidge Investment Partners LLC became lead plaintiff upon
entry of the Panel's transfer order.  StoneRidge subsequently
filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint.  The Court subsequently
consolidated the Federal Class Actions into a single action for
pretrial purposes.

On June 19, 2003, following a status and scheduling conference
with the parties, the Court issued a Case Management Order
setting forth a schedule for the pretrial phase of the
Consolidated Federal Class Action.  Motions to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint were filed.  On February 10,
2004, in response to a joint motion made by StoneRidge and
defendants the Company, Carl E. Vogel, president and chief
executive officer and Paul Allen, the court entered an order
providing, among other things, that the parties who filed such
motion engage in a mediation within ninety (90) days; and all
proceedings in the Consolidated Federal Class Actions were
stayed until May 10, 2004.  On May 11, 2004, the Court extended
the stay in the Consolidated Federal Class Action for an
additional sixty (60) days.  On July 12, 2004, the parties
submitted a joint motion to again extend the stay, this time
until September 10, 2004.  The Court granted that extension on
July 20, 2004.  

On August 5, 2004, Stoneridge, the Company and the individual
defendants who were the subject of the suit entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding setting forth agreements in
principle to settle the Consolidated Federal Class Action. These
parties subsequently entered into Stipulations of Settlement
dated as of January 24, 2005 (described more fully below) which
incorporate the terms of the August 5, 2004 Memorandum of
Understanding.

The Consolidated Federal Class Action is entitled, "In re
Charter Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation, MDL Docket
No. 1506 (All Cases), StoneRidge Investments Partners, LLC,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
Charter Communications, Inc., Paul Allen, Jerald L. Kent, Carl
E. Vogel, Kent Kalkwarf, David G. Barford, Paul E. Martin, David
L. McCall, Bill Shreffler, Chris Fenger, James H. Smith, III,
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., Motorola, Inc. and Arthur Andersen,
LLP, Consolidated Case No. 4:02-CV-1186-CAS."

On September 12, 2002, a shareholders derivative suit was filed
in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri
against the Company and its then current directors, as well as
its former auditors.  A substantively identical derivative
action was later filed and consolidated into the State
Derivative Action.  The plaintiffs allege that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
establish and maintain adequate internal controls and
procedures.  Unspecified damages, allegedly on the Company's
behalf, are sought by the plaintiffs.

The consolidated State Derivative Action is entitled "Kenneth
Stacey, Derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Charter
Communications, Inc., v. Ronald L. Nelson, Paul G. Allen, Marc
B. Nathanson, Nancy B. Peretsman, William Savoy, John H. Tory,
Carl E. Vogel, Larry W. Wangberg, Arthur Andersen, LLP and
Charter Communications, Inc."

On March 12, 2004, an action substantively identical to the
State Derivative Action was filed in the Missouri State Court,
against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors, as well as its former auditors. The plaintiffs in
that case alleged that the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to establish and maintain adequate
internal controls and procedures.  Unspecified damages,
allegedly on the Company's behalf, were sought by plaintiffs. On
July 14, 2004, the Court consolidated this case with the State
Derivative Action.  This action is entitled "Thomas Schimmel,
Derivatively on behalf on Nominal Defendant Charter
Communications, Inc., v. Ronald L. Nelson, Paul G. Allen, Marc
B. Nathanson, Nancy B. Peretsman, William D. Savoy, John H.
Tory, Carl E. Vogel, Larry W. Wangberg, and Arthur Andersen,
LLP, and Charter Communications, Inc."

Separately, on February 12, 2003, a shareholders derivative
suit, was filed against the Company and its then current
directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri. The plaintiff in that suit alleged that
the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and
grossly mismanaged the Company by failing to establish and
maintain adequate internal controls and procedures. Unspecified
damages, allegedly on the Company's behalf, were sought by the
plaintiffs.  The Federal Derivative Action is entitled "Arthur
Cohn, Derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Charter
Communications, Inc., v. Ronald L. Nelson, Paul G. Allen, Marc
B. Nathanson, Nancy B. Peretsman, William Savoy, John H. Tory,
Carl E. Vogel, Larry W. Wangberg, and Charter Communications,
Inc."

The Company entered into Memoranda of Understanding on August 5,
2004 setting forth agreements in principle regarding settlement
of the Consolidated Federal Class Action, the State
Derivative Action(s) and the Federal Derivative Action.  The
Company and various other defendants in those actions
subsequently entered into Stipulations of Settlement dated as of
January 24, 2005, setting forth a settlement of the Actions in a
manner consistent with the terms of the Memoranda of
Understanding. The Stipulations of Settlement, along with
various supporting documentation, were filed with the Court on
February 2, 2005.

The Stipulations of Settlement provide that, in exchange for a
release of all claims by plaintiffs against the Company and its
former and present officers and directors named in the Actions,
the Company will pay to the plaintiffs a combination of cash and
equity collectively valued at $144.0 million, which will include
the fees and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel.  Of this amount,
$64.0 million will be paid in cash (by Charter's insurance
carriers) and the balance will be paid in shares of Charter
Class A common stock having an aggregate value of $40.0 million
and ten-year warrants to purchase shares of Charter Class A
common stock having an aggregate warrant value of  $40.0
million, with such values in each case being determined pursuant
to formulas set forth in the Stipulations of Settlement.  The
warrants would have an exercise price equal to 150% of the fair
market value (as defined) of Charter Class A common stock as of
the date of the entry of the order of final judgment approving
the settlement.  In addition, Charter expects to issue
additional shares of its Class A common stock to its insurance
carrier having an aggregate value of $5.0 million. In the event
that the valuation formula in the Stipulations provides for a
per share value of less than $2.25, Charter may elect to
terminate the settlement. As part of the settlements, Charter
will also commit to a variety of corporate governance changes,
internal practices and public disclosures, some of which have
already been undertaken and none of which are inconsistent with
measures Charter is taking in connection with the recent
conclusion of the SEC investigation.  Documents related to the
settlement of the Actions have now been executed and filed.  On
February 15, 2005, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri gave preliminary approval to the
settlement of the Actions. The settlement of each of the
lawsuits remains conditioned upon, among other things, final
judicial approval of the settlements following notice to the
class, and dismissal with prejudice of the consolidated
derivative actions now pending in Missouri State Court, which
are related to the Federal Derivative Action.

On May 23, 2005, the court conducted the final fairness hearing
for the Actions, and on June 30, 2005, the Court issued its
final approval of the settlements.  Members of the class had 30
days from the issuance of the June 30 order approving the
settlement to file an appeal challenging the approval.  Two
notices of appeal were filed relating to the settlement, but the
Company does not yet know the specific issues presented by such
appeals nor have briefing schedules been set.

As amended, the Stipulations of Settlement provide that, in
exchange for a release of all claims by plaintiffs against
Charter and its former and present officers and directors named
in the Actions, the Company would pay to the plaintiffs a
combination of cash and equity collectively valued at $144
million, which will include the fees and expenses of plaintiffs'
counsel. Of this amount, $64 million would be paid in cash (by
the Company's insurance carriers) and the $80 million balance
was to be paid (subject to the Company's right to substitute
cash therefor described below) in shares of Charter Class A
common stock having an aggregate value of $40 million and ten-
year warrants to purchase shares of Charter Class A common stock
having an aggregate warrant value of $40 million, with such
values in each case being determined pursuant to formulas set
forth in the Stipulations of Settlement.  However, Charter had
the right, in its sole discretion, to substitute cash for some
or all of the aforementioned securities on a dollar for dollar
basis. Pursuant to that right, Charter elected to fund the $80
million obligation with 13.4 million shares of Charter Class A
common stock (having an aggregate value of approximately $15
million pursuant to the formula set forth in the Stipulations of
Settlement) with the remaining balance (less an agreed upon $2
million discount in respect of that portion allocable to
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees) to be paid in cash. In addition,
Charter had agreed to issue additional shares of its Class A
common stock to its insurance carrier having an aggregate value
of $5 million; however, by agreement with its carrier Charter
has paid $4.5 million in cash in lieu of issuing such shares.
Charter delivered the settlement consideration to the claims
administrator on July 8, 2005, and it will be held in escrow
pending any appeals of the approval.  On July 14, 2005, the
Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis dismissed with prejudice
the State Derivative Actions.  As part of the settlements,
Charter has committed to a variety of corporate governance
changes, internal practices and public disclosures, some of
which have already been undertaken and none of which are
inconsistent with measures Charter is taking in connection with
the recent conclusion of the SEC investigation.

Members of the class had 30 days from the issuance of the June
30 order approving the settlement to file an appeal challenging
the approval.  Two notices of appeal were filed relating to the
settlement.  Those appeals were directed to the amount of fees
that the attorneys for the class were to receive and to the
fairness of the settlement. At the end of September 2005,
Stipulations of Dismissal were filed with the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals resulting in the dismissal of both appeals with
prejudice. Procedurally therefore, the settlements are final.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Plaintiffs Appeal CT Summary Judgment Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut's ruling granting summary judgment in
favor of The Dun & Bradstreet, Corporation in relation to one
count in the consolidated class action filed against it in the
United States District Court in Connecticut, alleging violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act (ERISA).

In March 2003, a lawsuit seeking class action status was filed
against the Company on behalf of 46 specified former employees
relating to our retirement plans.  During the fourth quarter of
2004 most of the counts in the complaint were dismissed.  The
complaint, as amended in July 2003, sets forth the following
putative class:

     (1) current D&B employees who are participants in The Dun &
         Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account and were
         previously participants in its predecessor plan, The
         Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan;

     (2) current employees of Receivable Management Services
         Corporation (RMSC) who are participants in The Dun &
         Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account and were
         previously participants in its predecessor plan, The
         Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan;

     (3) former employees of D&B or D&B's Receivable Management
         Services (RMS) operations who received a deferred
         vested retirement benefit under either The Dun &
         Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account or The Dun &
         Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan; and

     (4) former employees of D&B's RMS operations whose
         employment with D&B terminated after the sale of the
         RMS operations but who are not employees of RMSC and
         who, during their employment with D&B, were "Eligible
         Employees" for purposes of The Dun & Bradstreet Career
         Transition Plan

The Amended Complaint estimates that the proposed class covers
over 5,000 individuals.  There are four counts in the Amended
Complaint. Count 1 claims that the Company violated ERISA by not
paying severance benefits to plaintiffs under its Career
Transition Plan. Count 2 claims a violation of ERISA in that the
Company's sale of the RMS business to RMSC and the resulting
termination of its employees constituted a prohibited discharge
of the plaintiffs and/or discrimination against the plaintiffs
for the "intentional purpose of interfering with their
employment and/or attainment of employee benefit rights which
they might otherwise have attained."  Count 3 claims that the
plaintiffs were materially harmed by the Company's alleged
violation of ERISA's requirements that a summary plan
description reasonably apprise participants and beneficiaries of
their rights and obligations under the plans and that,
therefore, undisclosed plan provisions (in this case, the
actuarial deduction beneficiaries incur when they leave D&B
before age 55 and elect to retire early) cannot be enforced
against them. Count 4 claims that the 6.60% interest rate (the
rate is actually 6.75%) used to actuarially reduce early
retirement benefits is unreasonable and, therefore, results in a
prohibited forfeiture of benefits under ERISA.

In the Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs sought payment of
severance benefits; equitable relief in the form of either
reinstatement of employment with D&B or restoration of employee
benefits (including stock options); invalidation of the
actuarial reductions applied to deferred vested early retirement
benefits, including invalidation of the plan rate of 6.60% (the
actual rate is 6.75%) used to actuarially reduce former
employees' early retirement benefits; attorneys' fees and such
other relief as the court may deem just.

In September 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Counts
1, 3 and 4 of the Amended Complaint on the ground that
plaintiffs cannot prevail on those claims under any set of
facts, and in February 2004, the Court heard oral argument on
the Company's motion. With respect to Count 4, the Court
requested that the parties conduct limited expert discovery and
submit further briefing. In November 2004, after completion of
expert discovery on Count 4, the Company moved for summary
judgment on Count 4 on the ground that an interest rate of 6.75%
is reasonable as a matter of law. Briefing on that motion has
now been completed.  Meanwhile, on November 30, 2004 the Court
issued a ruling granting the Company's motion to dismiss Counts
1 and 3. Shortly after that ruling, plaintiffs' counsel
stipulated to dismiss Count 2 (which challenged the sale of the
RMS business as an intentional interference with employee
benefit rights, but which the motion to dismiss did not
address).  Plaintiffs' counsel also stipulated to a dismissal of
Count 1, the severance pay claim, agreeing to forego any appeal
of the Court's dismissal of that claim. Plaintiffs' counsel did
file a motion to join party plaintiffs and to amend the amended
complaint to add a new count challenging the adequacy of the
retirement plan's mortality tables. The court granted the motion
and the Company filed its objections.

On June 6, 2005, the court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment as to Count 4 (the interest rate issue) and
also denied the plaintiffs' motion to further amend the
Complaint to add a new claim challenging the mortality tables.
On July 8, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal;
they are appealing the ruling granting the motion to dismiss,
the ruling granting summary judgment, and the denial of leave to
amend their complaint.

The suit is styled "McCarthy, et al v. Dun & Bradstreet, et al.,
case no. 3:03-cv-00431-SRU," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut, under Judge Stefan R.
Underhill.  Representing the plaintiffs are Thomas G. Moukawsher
and Ian O. Smith, Moukawsher & Walsh - Htfd, Capitol Place, 21
Oak St., Suite 209, Hartford, CT 06106, Phone: 860-278-7000,
Fax: 860-548-1740, E-mail: tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com or
ismith@mwlawgroup.com.  Representing the Company are
Sandra K. Lalli, Patrick W. Shea, and Carla R. Walworth, Paul,
Hastings, Janofsky & Walker - CT, 1055 Washington Blvd., 9Th
Floor, Stamford, CT 06901, Phone: 203-961-7400, Fax:
203-359-3031, E-mail: sandralalli@paulhastings.com,
patrickshea@paulhastings.com, carlawalworth@paulhastings.com.  


DUN & BRADSTREET: Employees Launch ERISA Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation faces a class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, on behalf of a current employee relating to the
Company's retirement plans.  The complaint seeks certification
of current or former employees who participated in The Dun &
Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan before January 1, 2002 and who
have participated in The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation Retirement
Account at any time since January 1, 2002, other than employees
who on December 31, 2001:

     (1) were at least age 50 with 10 years of vesting service,

     (2) had attained an age which, when added to his or her
         years of Vesting Service, was equal to or greater than
         70; or

     (3) had attained age 65,

The Complaint estimates that the proposed class covers over
1,000 individuals.  There are five counts in the Complaint.
Count 1 claims that the Company violated the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) by reducing the rate of an
employee's benefit accrual on the basis of age. Count 2 claims a
violation of ERISA's non-forfeitability requirement, because the
plan allegedly conditions receipt of cash balance benefits on
foregoing the early retirement benefits plaintiff earned prior
to the adoption of the cash balance amendment. Count 3 claims
that the cash balance plan violates ERISA's "anti-backloading"
rule. Count 4 claims that the Company failed to supply advance
notice of a significant benefit decrease. Count 5 claims that
the Company failed to provide an adequate Summary Plan
Description.

The plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Company's cash
balance plan is ineffective and that its Master Retirement Plan
is still in force and effect, and plaintiff's benefit accrual
under the cash balance plan must be unconditional and not
reduced because of age; an injunction prohibiting the
application of the cash balance plan's reduction in the rate of
benefit accruals because of age and its conditions of benefits
due under the plan, and ordering appropriate equitable relief to
determine plan participant losses caused by the Company's
payment of benefits under the cash balance plan's terms and
requiring the payment of additional benefits as appropriate;
attorneys' fees and costs; interest; and such other relief as
the court may deem just.

The suit is styled "Finley v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp et al., case
no. 1:05-cv-05134, filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Paul E. Plunkett.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Paul William Mollica of Meites,
Mulder, Burger & Mollica, 208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1410
Chicago, IL 60604, Phone: (312) 263-0272, E-mail:
pwmollica@mmbmlaw.com.


ERIE FAMILY: Final Suit Settlement Hearing Set December 12,2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the civil class
action filed against Erie Family Life Insurance Company in the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania is
set for December 12,2005.

The Company issued a life insurance policy to the plaintiff. The
class action alleges that the Company charged and collected
annual premium for the first year, but did not provide 365 days
of insurance coverage. The complaint alleges that the policy
forms and applications used by the Company do not disclose "that
a portion of the first premium will cover a period of time
during which the Company does not provide insurance coverage."

The Complaint contains four counts. In Count I, Plaintiff
alleges that the conduct of the Company violated the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
Count II of the Complaint alleges a cause of action for breach
of contract. Count III alleges that the Company breached its
duty of good faith and fair dealing. In Count IV of the
Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a cause of action for unjust
enrichment and/or restitution.  The Company answered the
Complaint and denied liability on all counts.

In early 2004, the parties reached an agreement to settle this
lawsuit. Under the Settlement Agreement, the Company agreed to
provide supplemental life insurance coverage to qualifying class
members in an amount equal to 4.62% of the face value of the
underlying policy for a period of 180 days.  On April 30, 2004,
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement
Agreement. After the filing of the Motion for Preliminary
Approval, Plaintiff and the Company agreed the Company would pay
attorneys' fees in an amount up to $150,000, and to reimburse
certain litigation costs and expenses in an amount up to
$15,000.

The Court preliminarily reviewed the proposed settlement. As a
result of conferences with the Court, the parties engaged in
further settlement negotiations. The parties entered into an
Amended and Re-Stated Class Action Settlement Agreement. On
March 11, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary
Approval of the Amended and Re-Stated Class Action Settlement
Agreement.

The Settlement Agreement provides qualifying class members the
option of choosing the supplemental life insurance coverage,
discussed above, or a cash payment.  Qualifying class members
who select the cash payment option shall receive a maximum of
one cash payment of $10.67 for each policy, irrespective of
number of purchasers and/or owners of the policy. If a
qualifying class member does not submit a cash payment selection
form within the timeframe set forth in the Settlement Agreement,
the qualifying class member shall automatically receive the
supplemental life insurance coverage. The Company agrees to pay
attorneys' fees in an amount up to $150,000, and will reimburse
administrative costs and expenses in an amount up to $14,000.

On July 27, 2005, the Court entered an Order preliminarily
approving the settlement and directing the issuance of notice to
the class.  The Company issued notice to potential class members
in September 2005. Any class member who wishes to be excluded
from the class must file a written exclusion no later than
November 18, 2005.  Any class member who objects to any aspect
of the proposed settlement must file a written objection no
later than November 18, 2005. Any class member choosing the cash
payment alternative must complete and mail the Cash Payment
Selection Form on or before November 18, 2005.  A Fairness
Hearing is scheduled for December 12, 2005.


GOLDEN EAGLE: Recalls Smoked Salmon Due to Salmonella Content
-------------------------------------------------------------
Golden Eagle Smoked Foods of Hialeah, Florida, is recalling
3672.75 lbs of Smoked Salmon because it has the potential to be
contaminated with Listeria Monocytogenes, an organism which can
call serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children,
frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term
symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

The recalled Smoked Salmon was distributed to FL, MN, NY, GA and
CA, through wholesales and distributors.

The Sliced Smoked Salmon product comes packaged in variable
weight vacuum packages under the brand names; Golden Eagle,
Fjord, Hickory House and Imperial. The affected product bears
the following batch code on the back label just above the UPC
symbol: 21644. The recall is limited to this specific batch
number only and it was produced at the Hialeah plant in Florida,
as designated on the label on the back of the package.

No illnesses have been reported to date in conjunction this
problem.

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing
by the Florida Department of Agriculture revealed the presence
of listeria monocytogenes.

Customers who have purchased any packs of this Sliced Smoked
Salmon matching the description above are urged to return them
to the place of purchase for a full refund. Customers with any
questions may contact the company at 315-512-5900.


HOME DEPOT: NJ Court Certifies Managers' Overtime Pay Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Past and present Assistant Store Managers of The Home Depot,
Inc. stores across New Jersey won a significant victory on
October 31, 2005 when the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted a motion to conditionally certify
their lawsuit for overtime pay as a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

Plaintiffs filed their Complaints in August 2004, each claiming
that Home Depot improperly classified its Merchant Assistant
Store Manager and/or Sales Assistant Manager positions ("MASMs")
as exempt. "The Home Depot misclassified MASMs under the FLSA to
avoid paying overtime, even though the misclassified MASMs were
required to work a minimum of 55 hours per week performing
primarily non-exempt duties. The MASMs are owed substantial back
overtime pay and, upon appropriate proof, liquidated damages as
well," says Lee Squitieri of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, one of the
law firms that represent plaintiffs.

Now conditionally certified as a collective action, the
collective action includes potentially thousands of MASMs who
have worked at Home Depot, Inc. stores across New Jersey since
August, 1998.  

Plaintiffs and the collective class are represented by Squitieri
& Fearon, LLP of New York and New Jersey; Deutsch Resnick, P.A.
of New Jersey; Reitman Parsonnet, P.C. of New Jersey and Bahan &
Associates of California.  For more details, contact Lee
Squitieri, Esq. and Daniel R. Lapinski, Esq. of Squitieri &
Fearon, LLP, Phone: (212) 421-6492 and (856) 797-4611, E-mail:
lee@sfclasslaw.com or dan@sfclasslaw.com; Joseph S. Fine, Esq.
of Reitman & Parsonnet, P.C., Phone: (973) 622-8347, E-mail:
joefine@reitpar.com; Gerald J. Resnick, Esq. of Deutsch &
Resnick, P.A., Phone: (201) 498-0900, E-mail:
gresnick@njemployeerights.com; and Della Bahan, Esq. of Bahan &
Associates, Phone: (626) 796-5100.


MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Ex-Mouseketeer Charged With Mail Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
Darlene Gillespie, a Mouseketeer from the 1950s TV show, "Mickey
Mouse Club," was charged with mail fraud for taking more than
$300,000 in payouts from a class action suit, The New York Post
reports.

Specifically, Ms. Gillespie, 64, and her husband Jerry
Fraschilla are accused in New York of forming bogus companies to
grab a large chunk of the settlement reached in a case against
Measurement Specialties.  Both Ms. Gillespie and her husband are
currently in the custody of federal authorities in California
pending a bail hearing.  Ms. Gillespie served two years in
prison and her husband served nine months for a 1998 securities
fraud convictions.  She was also reportedly convicted of
shoplifting in 1997, for which she received probation.


MINNESOTA: Millie Lacs County Settles Strip Search Suit For $2M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota's Mille Lacs County will pay $2 million to settle
allegations that inmates in the county jail were subject to
illegal strip searches, The Associated Press reports.

Vincent J. Moccio, who is representing the inmates told The
Associated Press of the settlement, "We are extremely pleased
with the settlement, which vindicates the constitutional rights
of (the plaintiffs)."  Mr. Moccio also told The Associated Press
that those who will share in the settlement were arrested for
misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors that did not involve drugs
or weapons. He estimated that about 1,200 people could be
eligible to share in the class action settlement, which the
county's insurer will pay out.

According to Mr. Moccio, the deal, which was approved in Mille
Lacs County District Court, didn't determine whether the strip
searches were illegal. He told the Associated Press though that
the county changed its policy by the end of March 2004.  Though
an official in the county court administrator's office verified
the settlement, County Board Chairman Phil Peterson and County
Attorney Jan Kolb did not return several phone calls seeking
comment on it.


OWENS CORNING: MA Suit Status Conference Set For November 8,2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
A status conference in the class action filed against certain of
Owens Corning's current and former directors and officers will
be held today at the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.  The Company is not named in the
suit.

The suit, filed on April 30, 2001 and styled "John Hancock Life
Insurance Company, et al. v. Goldman, Sachs, et al.," purports
to be a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of
certain unsecured debt securities of the Company in offerings
occurring on or about April 30, 1998 and July 23, 1998. The
complaint alleges that the registration statements pursuant to
which the offerings were made contained untrue and misleading
statements of material fact and omitted to state material facts
which were required to be stated therein and which were
necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, in
violation of sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933. The amended complaint seeks an unspecified amount of
damages or, where appropriate, rescission of the plaintiffs'
purchases.  

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action on November
20, 2001. A hearing was held on this motion on April 11, 2002,
and the Court issued a decision denying the motion on August 26,
2002. On March 9, 2004, the Court granted class certification as
to those claims relating to written representations but denied
certification as to claims relating to alleged oral
representations.


OWENS CORNING: Plaintiffs Appeal Ohio Securities Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, Western Division's dismissal of a
lawsuit filed against Owens Corning's current and former
directors and officers, captioned Robert Greenburg, et al. v.
Glen Hiner, et al.

Subsequent to January 27, 2003, three substantially similar
actions, with named plaintiffs Nicholas Radosevich, Howard E.
Leppla, and William Benanchietti, respectively, were filed
against the same defendants in the same court. On July 30, 2003,
the court consolidated the four cases under the caption `Robert
Greenburg, et al. v. Glen Hiner, et al.," and appointed lead
plaintiffs JKF Investment Co., Icarus Trading, Inc. and HGK
Asset Management. An amended complaint was filed by the
plaintiffs on or about September 8, 2003.  The Company was not
named in the lawsuit.

The suit purported to be a class action for securities fraud
under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, on behalf of a class comprised of persons who purchased
stock of Owens Corning during the period from September 20,
1999, through October 4, 2000. The complaint sought an
unspecified amount of damages and/or, where appropriate,
rescission.

On March 3, 2005, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the action, on the grounds that the plaintiffs' claims
are time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations.  
The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal.


OWENS CORNING: Reaches Settlement For Consumer Fraud Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Owens Corning reached an agreement in principle to settle two
lawsuits filed against them by three purchasers of a specialty
roofing product.  

The purchasers filed proofs of claim in the aggregate amount of
$275 million on behalf of themselves individually and on behalf
of a purported class of pre-petition claimants with respect to
such product, and have moved the United States Bankruptcy Court
to certify such class. The USBC has continued class
certification for pre-petition claimants pending mediation of
the claims.   In addition, Owens Corning has been named a
defendant in a purported class action, originally filed in the
Superior Court for the County of San Joaquin, California, on
behalf of post-petition claimants with respect to such product.
Subsequently, Owens Corning removed the California proceeding to
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of
California CBC), and the CBC, upon Owens Corning's motion,
ordered that the proceeding be transferred to the USBC.

In late October 2005, Owens Corning reached an agreement in
principle to settle both purported class actions. The settlement
is subject to final documentation and to approval by the
Bankruptcy Court.


PACER INTERNATIONAL: Asks CA Court To Approve Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pacer International, Inc. asked the Los Angeles Superior Court
for the State of California to grant final approval to the
settlement of the class action filed against two of its
subsidiaries engaged in local cartage and harbor drayage
operations, Interstate Consolidation, Inc., which was
subsequently merged into Pacer Cartage, Inc., and Intermodal
Container Service, Inc.

The suit alleges, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty,
unfair business practices, conversion and money had and received
in connection with monies (including insurance premium costs)
allegedly wrongfully deducted from truck drivers' earnings.  

The plaintiffs and defendants entered into a Judge Pro Tempore
Submission Agreement in October 1998, pursuant to which they
waived their rights to a jury trial, stipulated to a certified
class, and agreed to a minimum judgment of $250,000 and a
maximum judgment of $1.75 million.  In August 2000, the trial
court ruled in the Company's favor on all issues except one,
namely that in 1998 the Company's subsidiaries failed to issue
to the owner-operators new certificates of insurance disclosing
a change in the Company's subsidiaries' liability insurance
retention amount, and ordered that restitution of $488,978 be
paid for this omission.  Plaintiffs' counsel then appealed all
issues except one (the independent contractor status of the
drivers), and the Company's subsidiaries appealed the insurance
retention disclosure issue.

In December 2003, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's
decision as to all but one issue, reversed the trial court's
decision that the owner-operators could be charged for the
workers compensation insurance coverage that they elected to
obtain through the Company's subsidiaries, and remanded back to
the trial court the question of whether the collection of
workers compensation insurance charges from the owner-operators
violated California's Business and Professions Code and, if so,
to determine an appropriate remedy.  The Company sought review
at the California Supreme Court of this workers compensation
issue, and the plaintiffs sought review only of whether the
Company's subsidiaries' providing insurance for the owner-
operators constituted engaging in the insurance business without
a license under California law.  In March 2004, the Supreme
Court of California denied both parties' petitions for appeal,
thus ending all further appellate review.

As a result, the Company successfully defended and prevailed
over the plaintiffs' challenges to core operating practices of
the Company, establishing that the owner-operators were
independent contractors and not employees of the Company and the
Company may charge the owner-operators for liability insurance
coverage purchased by the Company. Following the California
Supreme Court's decision, the only remaining issue is whether
the Company's subsidiaries' collection of workers compensation
insurance charges from the owner-operators violated California's
Business and Professions Code and, if so, what restitution, if
any, should be paid to the owner-operator class. This issue was
remanded back to the same trial court that heard the original
case in 1998.

In the fourth quarter of 2004, the trial court set the schedule
for the remand trial and ordered each of the parties to present
its case to the court by way of written submissions of the
affidavits, records and other documentary evidence and the legal
arguments upon which such party would rely in the remand trial.
Following these submissions, the court would then determine
whether to schedule and hear oral testimony and argument. During
the second quarter of 2005, and following extensions of filing
deadlines, the parties delivered their respective evidentiary
submissions and initial briefs to the court.  The court extended
into the third quarter the deadlines for filing final response
and reply briefs.

During the second quarter of 2005 the Company also engaged in
earnest discussions with the plaintiffs in an attempt to
structure a potential settlement of the case within the original
$1.75 million cap but on a claims-made basis that would return
to the Company any settlement funds not claimed by members of
the plaintiff class. The Company believes that the ongoing cost
of litigating the final issue in the case (including defending
appeals that the plaintiffs' counsel has assured would occur if
the Company were to prevail in the remand trial), taken together
with the original $488,978 restitution award for the Company's
failure to disclose the change in its liability insurance
retention amount, would exceed the net liability to the Company
of a final settlement on a claims-made basis within the cap of
$1.75 million.

During the discussions that occurred during the second quarter,
the Company reached an agreement in principle with the
plaintiffs to settle the litigation on a claims-made basis
within the cap of $1.75 million. The settlement agreement is
subject to signing of definitive documents and approval of the
court.  Based on the settlement agreement, the Company increased
its reserve to the full amount of the $1.75 million cap at the
end of the second quarter. During the third quarter, the parties
signed the definitive documents reflecting the settlement
agreement, and the settlement agreement and related documents
received the preliminary approval of the court. Pursuant to the
settlement agreement, the Company has retained an independent
third party to administer the claims process. Upon completion of
this process, the Company and plaintiffs' counsel will submit
the final settlement of claims to the court for final approval.
Upon final court approval, payment of allowed claims will be
made and the settlement will be completed. The Company presently
expects that the claims process and final settlement will be
concluded in the first quarter of 2006.

The same law firm prosecuting the "Albillo" case has filed a
separate class action lawsuit in the same jurisdiction on behalf
of a putative class of owner-operators (the "Renteria" class
action) who are purportedly not included in the "Albillo" class.
The claims in the "Renteria" case, which is being stayed pending
full and final disposition of the remaining issue in "Albillo,"
mirror those in "Albillo," specifically, that the Company's
subsidiaries' providing insurance for their owner-operators
constitutes engaging in the insurance business without a license
in violation of California law and that charging the putative
class of owner-operators in "Renteria" for workers compensation
insurance that they elected to obtain through the Company's
subsidiaries violated California's Business and Professions
Code.  The Company believes that the final disposition of the
insurance issue in "Albillo" in the Company's favor precludes
the plaintiffs from re-litigating this issue in "Renteria."


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Sales Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa's refusal to amend its ruling granting
Principal Financial Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the sales
practices class action filed against it and its wholly owned
subsidiaries, Principal Life Insurance Company and Principal
Financial Services, Inc.

On December 23, 2004, a lawsuit was filed in Iowa state court on
behalf of a proposed class comprised of the settlement class in
the Principal Life sales practices class action settlement,
which was approved in April 2001 by the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Iowa. This new lawsuit claims
that the treatment of the settlement costs of that sales
practices litigation in relation to the allocation of
demutualization consideration to Principal Life policyholders
was inappropriate.  Demutualization allocation was done pursuant
to the terms of a plan of demutualization approved by the
policyholders in July 2001 and Insurance Commissioner of the
State of Iowa in August 2001.  The lawsuit further claims that
such allocation was not accurately described to policyholders
during the demutualization process and is a breach of the sales
practices settlement.

On January 27, 2005, the Company filed a notice to remove the
action from state court to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Iowa.  On July 22, 2005, the
plaintiff's motion to remand the action to state court was
denied, and the Company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit was
granted.  On September 21, 2005, the plaintiff's motion to alter
or amend the judgment was denied. On October 4, 2005, the
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United State Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.  

A lawsuit was filed against the Company, Principal Life, and
Principal Financial Services, Inc. in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Iowa on October 31, 2005. The
claims and allegations in the new lawsuit are substantially the
same as those in the December 23, 2004 lawsuit, but the proposed
class is limited to those members of the settlement class in the
Principal Life sales practices class action settlement who did
not own annuities and who received demutualization consideration
in the form of cash under the plan of demutualization. Our time
to respond or to move to dismiss the lawsuit has not yet
expired.

The suit is styled "Sofonia v. Principal Life Insurance Company
et al., case no. 4:05-cv-00040-RP-TJS," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, under
Judge Robert W. Pratt.  Representing the Company are Brian L.
Campbell of Faegre & Benson - DM, 801 Grand Avenue, Suite 3100
Des Moines, IA 50309-8002, Phone: 515 248 9000, Fax: 515 248
9010, E-mail: bcampbell@faegre.com; and Carl Micarelli of
Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, 919 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022,
Phone: 212 909 6000, Fax: 212 909 6836, E-mail:
cmicarelli@debevoise.com.  Representing the plaintiffs is David
J. Darrell of the Baudino Law Group, PLC, 2600 Grand Avenue,
Suite 300, Des Moines, IA 50312, Phone: 515 282 1010, Fax: 515
282 1066, E-mail: darrell@baudino.com.


TIME WARNER: Stock, ERISA Lawsuit Fairness Hearing Set Feb. 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the massive
shareholder fraud and Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) litigation filed against AOL Time Warner, Inc. and
coordinated in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York is set for February 22,2006.

As of August 1, 2005, 31 shareholder class action lawsuits have
been filed naming as defendants the Company, certain current and
former executives of the Company and, in several instances,
America Online.  These lawsuits were filed in U.S. District
Courts for the Southern District of New York, the Eastern
District of Virginia, the Eastern District of Texas and the
Southern District of Florida.

The complaints purport to be made on behalf of certain
shareholders of the Company and allege that the Company made
material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs claim that the Company failed to
disclose America Online's declining advertising revenues and
that the Company and America Online inappropriately inflated
advertising revenues in a series of transactions.  Certain of
the lawsuits also allege that:

     (1) certain of the individual defendants and other insiders
         at the Company improperly sold their personal holdings
         of Time Warner stock,

     (2) the Company failed to disclose that the America Online-
         Historic TW Merger was not generating the synergies
         anticipated at the time of the announcement of the
         merger and,

     (3) the Company inappropriately delayed writing down more
         than $50 billion of goodwill.

The lawsuits seek an unspecified amount in compensatory damages.
All of these lawsuits have been centralized in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings (along with the federal
derivative lawsuits and certain lawsuits brought under the ERISA
under the caption "In re AOL Time Warner Inc. Securities and
ERISA Litigation.  Additional lawsuits filed by individual
shareholders have also been consolidated for pretrial
proceedings.

The Minnesota State Board of Investment (MSBI) has been
designated lead plaintiff for the consolidated securities
actions and filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 15,
2003, adding additional defendants including additional officers
and directors of the Company, Morgan Stanley & Co., Salomon
Smith Barney Inc., Citigroup Inc., Banc of America Securities
LLC and JP Morgan Chase & Co.  Plaintiffs also added additional
allegations, including that the Company made material
misrepresentations in its registration statements and joint
proxy statement-prospectus related to the America Online-
Historic TW Merger and in its registration statements pursuant
to which debt securities were issued in April 2001 and April
2002, allegedly in violation of Section 11 and Section 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

On July 14, 2003, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On May 5, 2004, the district
court granted in part the defendants' motion, dismissing all
claims with respect to the registration statements pursuant to
which debt securities were issued in April 2001 and April 2002
and certain other claims against other defendants, but otherwise
allowing the remaining claims against the Company and certain
other defendants to proceed.  On August 11, 2004, the court
granted MSBI's motion to file a second amended complaint.  On
July 30, 2004, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on
the basis that plaintiffs cannot establish loss causation for
any of their claims, and thus plaintiffs do not have any
recoverable damages.  That motion is pending.  On April 8, 2005,
MSBI moved for leave to file a third amended complaint to add
certain new factual allegations and four additional individual
defendants.  That motion is also pending.

The Company has reached an agreement in principle with MSBI for
the settlement of the consolidated securities actions. The
tentative settlement is reflected in a Memorandum of
Understanding dated as of July 29, 2005 between the lead
plaintiff and the Company. Under the proposed settlement, $2.4
billion will be paid by the Company into a settlement fund for
the members of the class represented in the action. In addition,
the $150 million previously paid by the Company into a fund in
connection with the settlement of the investigation by the DOJ
will be made available to the class, and the Company will use
its best efforts to have the $300 million it previously paid in
connection with the settlement of its SEC investigation
transferred to the settlement fund for the class. The proposed
settlement is subject to completion of final documentation and
preliminary and final court approval as well as other
conditions. At this time, there can be no assurance that these
conditions will be met and that the settlement of the securities
class action litigation will receive preliminary or final court
approval.  Ernst & Young also has agreed to a settlement in this
litigation matter and will pay $100 million.


As of August 1, 2005, three putative class action lawsuits have
been filed alleging violations of ERISA in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of current and former participants in the Time Warner Savings
Plan, the Time Warner Thrift Plan and/or the TWC Savings Plan
(the "Plans"). Collectively, these lawsuits name as defendants
the Company, certain current and former directors and officers
of the Company and members of the Administrative Committees of
the Plans.

The lawsuits allege that the Company and other defendants
breached certain fiduciary duties to plan participants by, inter
alia, continuing to offer Time Warner stock as an investment
under the Plans, and by failing to disclose, among other things,
that the Company was experiencing declining advertising revenues
and that the Company was inappropriately inflating advertising
revenues through various transactions. The complaints seek
unspecified damages and unspecified equitable relief.  

The ERISA actions have been consolidated as part of the "In re
AOL Time Warner Inc. Securities and ERISA Litigation," described
above.  On July 3, 2003, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint naming additional defendants, including Time Warner
Entertainment (TWE), certain current and former officers,
directors and employees of the Company and Fidelity Management
Trust Company.  On September 12, 2003, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated ERISA complaint. On March 9,
2005, the court granted in part, and denied in part, the
Company's motion to dismiss. The court dismissed two individual
defendants and TWE for all purposes, dismissed other individuals
with respect to claims plaintiffs had asserted involving the TWC
Savings Plan, and dismissed all individuals who were named in a
claim asserting that their stock sales had constituted a breach
of fiduciary duty to the Plans. The Company filed an answer to
the consolidated ERISA complaint on May 20, 2005.

As of August 1, 2005, 11 shareholder derivative lawsuits have
been filed naming as defendants certain current and former
directors and officers of the Company, as well as the Company as
a nominal defendant.  Three have been filed in New York State
Supreme Court for the County of New York, four have been filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
and four have been filed in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware for New Castle County. The complaints allege that
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing the
Company to issue corporate statements that did not accurately
represent that America Online had declining advertising
revenues, that the America Online-Historic TW Merger was not
generating the synergies anticipated at the time of the
announcement of the merger, and that the Company inappropriately
delayed writing down more than $50 billion of goodwill, thereby
exposing the Company to potential liability for alleged
violations of federal securities laws.  The lawsuits further
allege that certain of the defendants improperly sold their
personal holdings of Company securities.  The lawsuits request
that all proceeds from defendants' sales of Time Warner common
stock, all expenses incurred by the Company as a result of the
defense of the shareholder class actions discussed above and any
improper salaries or payments, be returned to the Company.  The
four lawsuits filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware for New Castle County have been consolidated under the
caption, "In re AOL Time Warner Inc. Derivative Litigation."  A
consolidated complaint was filed on March 7, 2003 in that
action, and on June 9, 2003, the Company filed a notice of
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On May 2, 2003,
the three lawsuits filed in New York State Supreme Court for the
County of New York were dismissed on "forum non conveniens"
grounds and plaintiffs' time to appeal has expired. The four
lawsuits pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York have been centralized for coordinated or
consolidated pre-trial proceedings with the securities and ERISA
lawsuits described above under the caption "In re AOL Time
Warner Inc. Securities and ERISA Litigation."  On October 6,
2004, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint in
three of these four cases.

On July 1, 2003, a suit styled "Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP v.
AOL Time Warner Inc. et al." was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company,
current and former officers, directors and employees of the
Company and Ernst & Young LLP.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of
material fact in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, Section 11, Section 12,
Section 14(a) and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, Section 18
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The complaint also
alleges common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The
plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory and
punitive damages.

This lawsuit has been consolidated for coordinated pretrial
proceedings under the caption "In re AOL Time Warner Inc.
Securities and ERISA Litigation" described above.  On July 16,
2004, plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding certain
institutional defendants, including Historic TW, and certain
current directors of the Company.  On November 22, 2004, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

On November 11, 2002, Staro Asset Management, LLC filed a
putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of certain
purchasers of Reliant 2.0% Zero-Premium Exchangeable
Subordinated Notes for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws. Plaintiff is a purchaser of subordinated notes,
the price of which was purportedly tied to the market value of
Time Warner stock. Plaintiff alleges that the Company made
misstatements and/or omissions of material fact that
artificially inflated the value of Time Warner stock and
directly affected the price of the notes. Plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages and/or rescission. This lawsuit has been
consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings under the
caption "In re AOL Time Warner Inc. Securities and ERISA
Litigation" described above.

On May 23, 2003, a suit styled "Treasurer of New Jersey v. AOL
Time Warner Inc. et al.," was filed in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Mercer County, naming as defendants the Company, certain
current and former officers, directors and employees of the
Company, Ernst & Young LLP, Citigroup Inc., Salomon Smith
Barney, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase and Banc of America
Securities. The complaint is brought by the Treasurer of New
Jersey and purports to be made on behalf of the State of New
Jersey, Department of Treasury, Division of Investments and
certain funds administered by the Division.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Company made material
misrepresentations in its registration statements in violation
of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The
Plaintiff also alleges violations of New Jersey State law for
fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of damages.

On October 29, 2003, the Company moved to stay the proceedings
or, in the alternative, dismiss the complaint.  Also on October
29, 2003, all named individual defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The parties have
agreed to stay this action and to coordinate discovery
proceedings with the securities and ERISA lawsuits described
above under the caption "In re AOL Time Warner Inc. Securities
and ERISA Litigation."

On February 24, 2004, a suit, styled "Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Public School Employees Retirement System
et al. v. Time Warner Inc. et al." was filed in the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County naming as defendants the
Company, certain current and former officers, directors and
employees of the Company, America Online, Historic TW, Morgan
Stanley & Co., Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Banc of
America Securities LLC, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co and Ernst & Young
LLP.

The Plaintiffs had previously filed a request for a writ of
summons notifying defendants of commencement of an action.  
Plaintiffs allege that the Company made material
misrepresentations in its registration statements in violation
of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiffs
also allege violations of Pennsylvania law, breach of fiduciary
duty and common law fraud. They seek unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages.

The Plaintiffs also dismissed the four investment banks from the
complaint in exchange for a tolling agreement. The remaining
parties have agreed to stay this action and to coordinate
discovery proceedings with the securities and ERISA lawsuits
described above under the caption "In re AOL Time Warner Inc.
Securities and ERISA Litigation." Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on June 14, 2005.

In July 2005, the Company reached an agreement in principle for
the settlement of the consolidated securities class action
litigation.  The settlement is reflected in a written agreement
between the lead plaintiff and the Company. On September 30,
2005, the court issued an order granting preliminary approval of
the settlement and certified the settlement class.  The court
has scheduled the final approval hearing for February 22, 2006.
In connection with reaching the agreement in principle on the
securities class action, the Company established a reserve of
$2.4 billion during the second quarter of 2005. Ernst & Young
LLP also has agreed to a settlement in this litigation matter
and will pay $100 million. Pursuant to the settlement, in
October 2005, the Company paid $2.4 billion into a settlement
fund (the "MSBI Settlement Fund") for the members of the class
represented in the action. In addition, the $150 million
previously paid by Time Warner into a fund in connection with
the settlement of the investigation by the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ) was transferred to the MSBI Settlement
Fund, and the Company is using its best efforts to have the $300
million it previously paid in connection with the settlement of
its Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation
transferred to the MSBI Settlement Fund.

The suit is styled "In Re: AOL Time Warner, Inc. Securities and
ERISA Litigation, case no. 1:02-cv-05575-SWK," filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York under Judge Shirley Wohl Kram.  Representing the Company is
Rachel G. Skaistis, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, 825 Eighth
Avenue New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 474-1000, Fax:
(212) 474-3700, E-mail: rskaistis@cravath.com.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Samuel D. Heins of Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C.,
700 Northstar East 608 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, MN
55402, Phone: 612-338-4605.


WAL-MART: Beats Back Canadian Worker's Suit Over Store Closure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Retail giant Wal-Mart succeeded in beating back a class action
lawsuit filed by an employee who says he lost his livelihood
when the chain closed its Saguenay, Quebec store, The Canadian
Press reports.  However, the lawyer for the employee may appeal
the Quebec Superior Court decision in the chain's favor.

Court records show that the Saguenay store was closed on April
29 as workers sought to form a union. Wal-Mart continues to
maintain that the closure was not related to the workers
actions. The chain reasons that it was shut because it was not
making money.  Wal-Mart's attorneys argued Alain Pedneault's
case was more appropriate for the Quebec Labour Relations Board.

Justice Marc Beaudoin agreed and thus ruled that the board is
capable of handling the case and granting damages to Mr.
Pedneault if he won.  Gilles Gareau, a lawyer for Mr. Pedneault
told The Canadian Press that he could not see the sense behind
the judgment and will consider an appeal.

Commenting on the ruling, Yanik Deschenes, a spokesman for Wal-
Mart, told The Canadian Press that the retailer was satisfied
with the judge's decision.

Workers at the Saguenay, Quebec store became the first Wal-Mart
employees to unionize since a Windsor, Ontario outlet was
briefly accredited in the 1990s. The Arkansas-based retailer
though closed the Quebec store before the workers could obtain a
collective agreement, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
reports.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


DANA CORPORATION: Ann D. White Files Securities Fraud Suit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ann D. White Law Offices initiated a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased the securities of
Dana Corporation (NYSE:DCN) between March 23, 2005 and September
14, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that Dana made false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's financial performance and
condition. On September 15, 2005 Dana issued a press release
announcing that it would restate second quarter results and that
it was dramatically reducing guidance for 2005, to $0.60-$0.70
per share from $1.30-$1.45. In addition, the Company announced
that it may be in violation of certain loan covenants, and that
it might have to write down the value of certain U.S. deferred
tax assets. In reaction to the announcement, Dana's stock price
fell dramatically from $12.78 per share on September 14, 2005 to
$9.86 per share on September 15, 2005, a drop of 22.8%.

For more details, contact Ann D. White, Esq. or Mandy Roth, Esq.
of Ann D. White Law Offices, P.C., Phone: 1-866-389-0274 or
1-866-389-0274, E-mail: awhite@awhitelaw.com and
mroth@awhitelaw.com.  


DANA CORPORATION: Mager & Goldstein Lodges Securities Suit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Mager & Goldstein, LLP, initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio on behalf of all purchasers of securities of
Dana Corporation ("Dana" or the "Company") (NYSE:DCN) between
March 23, 2005 and September 14, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint charges that Dana, Michael J. Burns (CEO,
Chairman) and Robert C. Richter (CFO) violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading
representations regarding the Company's performance, financial
statements and expected earnings for 2005. Specifically, the
defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose that:

     (1) the Company improperly recognized price increases in
         its commercial vehicle business;

     (2) the written certifications filed with the SEC by the
         Individual Defendants regarding Dana's financial
         condition contained misstatements and were patently
         false;

     (3) the Company lacked the proper personnel and internal
         controls to issue accurate statements and projections;
         and

     (4) defendants' guidance was devoid of any rational basis
         and despite their assurances, projected goals could not
         be met without a material drop in raw material prices.

Before the opening of regular trading on September 15, 2005,
Dana issued a press release indicating that it would likely
restate its financial results from the second quarter of 2005.
In addition, Dana announced that it had substantially lowered
its 2005 earnings guidance from $1.30 to $1.45 per share to
$0.60 to $0.70 per share, a reduction of greater than 100%.

The market reacted to this news and the price of Dana stock
tumbled drastically from $12.78 per share on September 14, 2005
to $9.86 per share on September 15, 2005, a one-day drop of
22.8% on unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Jayne Arnold Goldstein, of Mager &
Goldstein, LLP, 2825 University Drive Suite 350 Coral Springs,
FL 33065, Phone: 954-341-0844 or 866-284-3280, E-mail:
jgoldstein@magergoldstein.com.  


FIRST BANCORP: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of First BanCorp
("First BanCorp" or the "Company") (NYSE:FBP) between October
20, 2003 and August 25, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit was filed against First BanCorp, Angel Alvarez-Perez
and Annie Astor-Carbonell ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
during the Class Period Defendants concealed material adverse
information including:

     (1) that the Company's financial statements were materially
         false and misleading because the Company had
         inappropriately accounted for mortgage loans between
         2000 and 2004;

     (2) that the Company's purportedly strong financial results
         were a direct result of accounting fraud;

     (3) as a result, the Company's published financial results
         were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles.

On August 25, 2005, First BanCorp issued a press release
indicating that it had received a letter from the SEC indicating
that the agency had opened an informal investigation into the
Company's accounting for mortgage loans purchased from two other
financial institutions. Shares reacted negatively to the news,
falling approximately 9% to $18.26 per share the following day.
On September 30, 2005, the Company announced that its CEO and
CFO had suddenly resigned. Shares once again reacted negatively,
trading approximately 8% lower to close at $15.56 on Monday
October 3, 2005. Then on October 21, 2005, the SEC upgraded its
probe of the Company to a formal investigation.

For more details, contact Mark S. Goldman, Esq. of The Law Firm
of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-753-2796, E-mail:
info@gsk-law.com.


FIRST BANCORP: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody, initiated a class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities
of First BanCorp (NYSE: FBP) during the period between October
20, 2003 and August 25, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges First BanCorp violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading public statements. On August
25, 2005, First BanCorp announced that it had "received a letter
from the Securities and Exchange Commission (the 'SEC') in which
the SEC indicated that it was conducting an informal inquiry
into the Company. The inquiry pertains, among other things, to
the accounting for mortgage loans purchased by the Company from
two other financial institutions during the Calendar years 2000
through 2004." On this news, the price of First Bancorp stock
fell from a close of $19.94 per share on August 25, 2005, to
close at $18.16 per share on August 26, 2005.

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


GUIDANT CORPORATION: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in IN
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., filed a securities
class action on behalf of those who acquired the securities of
Guidant Corporation (NYSE: GDT) ("Guidant" or the "Company")
between December 15, 2004 and November 3, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The case was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana. The action charges that the
Company and certain of its former and/or current officers and/or
directors violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of materially false and misleading statements to the market
during the Class Period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


GUIDANT CORPORATION: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in IN
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, initiated a securities fraud
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana against Guidant Corporation
("Guidant") (NYSE: GDT) and certain individual defendants.
Guidant securities purchasers between December 15, 2004 and
November 3, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period") are putative
class members. Guidant claims to provide therapeutic medical
solutions for customers, patients, and healthcare systems
worldwide.

The complaint alleges that Guidant and certain of its officers
and directors violated provisions of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, causing the Company's stock price to become
artificially inflated. On December 15, 2004, Guidant entered
into a $24.5 billion merger deal with Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:
JNJ). According to the complaint, while the Company pointed to
its defibrillator business as a key component of that deal, it
concealed from investors significant unaddressed product defect
and liability issues of the Company's implantable defibrillator
product lines.

On June 17, 2005, the FDA issued a nationwide recall
notification impacting Guidant's implantable defibrillators and
cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators. Within that
notification, the FDA advised the public that the malfunction of
Guidant's devices could lead to a serious, life- threatening
event for a patient. On July 18, 2005, the FDA published a
"Recall - Firm Press Release" on its website, that now revealed
the Company's knowledge of pacemaker-related defects. In the
recall publication, Guidant warned physicians and patients to
seek replacement of at least nine different cardiac pacemaker
models and product lines.

Johnson & Johnson representatives subsequently revealed to the
investment community that, as of October 18, 2005, it was
seeking alternatives to the merger deal in earnest, as a direct
result of the "developments" at Guidant. On November 2, 2005,
Johnson & Johnson warned that it might withdraw from the merger
deal due to broad product recalls and a regulatory agency
investigation. Finally, on November 3, 2005, the Attorney
General of the State of New York filed a complaint, alleging
"repeated and persistent fraud" by the Company in connection
with its defibrillator sales. As investors learned the truth
about the allegations of fraud made by the State of New York,
the Company's shares tumbled from $60.40 on November 2, 2005, to
as low as $57.05 per share in heavy trading.

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


MOTIVE INC.: Federman & Sherwood Provides Advisory on Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood filed the first class action
lawsuit against Motive, Inc. (Nasdaq: MOTV).

The firm seeks to recover investors' losses and has discovered
that several law firms have published announcements, even though
they have not filed a lawsuit and may not have information about
the lawsuit.

Federman & Sherwood is the only law firm that has filed an
announcement in compliance with the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). If you are a shareholder of
Motive, Inc., or own the Company's common stock during the
period between July 11, 2005 and October 26, 2005, you should
not be confused or misled by these other announcements.

For more details, contact K. Lynn Nunn of FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD,
120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone:
(405) 235-1560, E-mail: kln@federmanlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.federmanlaw.com.


TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Murray Frank Files Fraud Suit in KY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky, on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Tempur-Pedic
International, Inc. ("Tempur-Pedic" or the "Company") (NYSE:TPX)
between April 22, 2005 and September 19, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The complaint charges Tempur-Pedic, Dale E. Williams, Robert B.
Trussell, Jr., H. Thomas Bryant and P. Andrews McLane with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented material adverse
facts, which the Company knew or recklessly disregarded.
Specifically, the Company failed to disclose that demand for
Tempur-Pedic's expensive visco-elastic mattresses had lessened,
despite the Company's public expressions; and that the Company's
niche sector faced competition in the form of cheaper offerings
from Sealy, Simmons Bedding, and Serta International. Despite
the foregoing material problems the Company faced, the Company
continued to issue encouraging statements about Tempur-Pedic's
business prospects and market position without reasonable basis
for doing so.

On September 19, 2005, Tempur-Pedic lowered its financial
guidance for fiscal 2005 On this news, shares of Tempur-Pedic
common stock fell $4.68 per share, or 28.5 percent, on September
19, 2004, to close at $11.70 per share.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi, Christopher Hinton or
Bradley Dyer of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, Phone:
(800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.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  * * *