CAR_Public/051116.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, November 16, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 227

                          Headlines

4086465 CANADA: Court Order Bars "Do Not Call Law" Violations
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Consolidated AWP Lawsuit in MA Court
ADAMS GOLF: DE Court Grants Certification To Investor Fraud Suit
ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS: DE Judge Dismisses Nexium Lawsuit
AVISTA CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Files Amended Suit in E.D. WA

BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Continues To Face Silicone Implants Suits
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Various Hemophiliac Injury Lawsuits
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Various Hemophiliac Injury Lawsuits
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: IL Court Allows Plaintiff to Amend Lawsuit
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: IL Court Mulls ERISA Fraud Suit Dismissal

BERTELSMANN AG: Withdraws Injunction Order in $17B Napster Suit
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Former Employee Files Overtime Wage Suit in CA
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Enters Mediation For CA Employee Wage Lawsuit
CERUS CORPORATION: CA Court Mulls Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
FLORIDA: U.S. Supreme Court Lets State Felon Vote Law Stand

GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: CA Court Approves KPMG Stock Suit Settlement
HAIR CUTTERY: MD Judge Dismisses Racial Discrimination Lawsuit
HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: U.S. Supreme Court Lets CA Ruling Stand
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Faces Stock, ERISA Suits After NYAG Lawsuit
ICT GROUP: Distributes Settlement For WV Wage Violations Lawsuit

ICT GROUP: Working To Settle Consumer Fraud Lawsuits in IL, LA
IDACORP INC.: Magistrate Judge Recommends Stock Suit Dismissal
ISABELLE'S INC.: Recalls Chicken Due To Listeria Contamination
J.S. HOVNANIAN: Settles Suit by Holiday Village East Residents
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Arguments on Suit Dismissal Appeal To Be Set

JUNIPER NETWORKS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement
LOUISIANA: Expert Says Suit V. FEMA Will Not Result in Windfall
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faces Injury Lawsuits V. Zicam Cold Remedy
NATIONWIDE LIFE: MD Court Mulls Mutual Fund Fraud Suit Dismissal
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Continues To Face MI Consumer Fraud Litigation

NATIONWIDE LIFE: CT Court Considers ERISA Suit Summary Judgment
NORTEL NETWORKS: Enters Mediation For NY Securities Fraud Suit
NORTEL NETWORKS: Enters Mediation For NY Securities Fraud Suit
NORTEL NETWORKS: Shareholders File Fraud Suit in Canadian Court
PNM RESOURCES: Seeks Dismissal of CA Antitrust Suit Cross-Claim

POZEN INC.: NC Court Dismisses With Prejudice Derivative Lawsuit
SONY BMG: Faces NY Suit Over Controversial Anti-Piracy Software
SONY COMPUTER: To Settle U.S., Canadian Suits Over Faulty PS2s
SUCCESS EXPRESS: Barred From Making False Post Office Job Offers
UCI MEDICAL: Faces CA Lawsuit Against Liver Transplant Program

VISA USA: Two More Retail Groups File Suit Over Interchange Fees
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: OK ERISA Suit Fairness Hearing Set This Week

                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
FIRST BANCORP: Lerach Coughlin Provides Update on NY Litigation
HCA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in TN
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Chitwood Harley Lodges Securities Suit in GA
WELLS FARGO: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. CA

                          *********

4086465 CANADA: Court Order Bars "Do Not Call Law" Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) received a final court order
barring several Canadian-based telemarketers from misleading
U.S. consumers about their ability - for a fee - to shield them
from other unwanted telemarketing calls, as well as various
types of fraud, including bank fraud and identity theft.

According to the Commission, the defendants often operated under
the guise of the FTC, another government agency, or a bank to
convince elderly consumers to provide them with their bank
account information. They then used this information to steal
hundreds of dollars from each victim, using either direct
electronic debits or "demand drafts," which operate like a check
but do not require the consumers' signature. In reality, the
Commission alleged, the defendants provided nothing at all for
their $399 up-front fee and had no way to sign consumers up for
the National Do Not Call Registry as promised.

In July 2004, the FTC charged the defendants with operating a
deceptive "consumer protection service," engaging in
telemarketing calls that targeted elderly consumers in the
United States and promised to protect them from telemarketing
and unauthorized banking. During the calls, the Commission
alleged, the defendants often posed as government or bank
officials in an attempt to trick consumers into disclosing their
bank account numbers. They then used this information to debit
money from the consumers' accounts. The FTC alleged that the
defendants stole some victims' money even after the consumers
specifically said they did not want the "services" offered.

The FTC also charged the defendants with misrepresenting the
cost of their products, sometimes telling consumers they were
free, then automatically debiting $399 from their bank accounts.
In other cases, they allegedly promised consumers a $500 credit
to offset the $399 charge, or claimed they would deduct the $399
in small installments. In all cases, the defendants never
received written permission to debit consumers' accounts.

According to the complaint, the defendants violated the FTC Act,
the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley
(GLB) Act by making false promises as to the "services" being
offered, misrepresenting the charge to consumers' bank accounts,
debiting payments for consumers' accounts without their express
consent, misrepresenting their affiliation with a bank or
government agency, and pretexting - obtaining consumers'
financial information under false pretenses. On July 19, 2004,
at the FTC's request, a U.S. district court judge entered a
temporary restraining order barring the defendants' illegal
activities and freezing their assets.

The court order settling the Commission's charges permanently
bars the defendants from selling or marketing any goods or
services that supposedly protect consumers against fraud,
deception, telemarketing, identity theft, or bank fraud. It also
contains provisions prohibiting:

     (1) misrepresentations that would violate the FTC Act,
         including all misrepresentations alleged in the
         complaint;

     (2) violations of the TSR, including those cited in the
         complaint; and

     (3) violations of the anti-pretexting provisions of the
         GLB.

The order also requires the defendants to give up more than
$345,000 to the FTC for consumer redress. Finally, the order
contains a suspended judgment against the defendants of $1.97
million, which would become due if the Commission determines
they have misrepresented their assets, along with standard
compliance requirements. In addition to the redress ordered in
this final order, approximately $44,000 was returned to
consumers during the litigation.

The court order settles the Commission's charges against the
following defendants:

     (1) 4086465 Canada, Inc., doing business as International
         Protection Center and Consumers Protection Center;

     (2) Alain Chikhani, also known as Allain Chikani,
         individually and as an owner, officer, director, and/or
         administrator of the corporate defendant; and

     (3) Rafik Chikani, individually and as an owner, officer,          
         director, and/or administrator of the corporate
         defendant.

The Commission vote approving the complaint and stipulated
judgment and order was 4-0. The FTC filed the judgment and order
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division, on November 4, 2005. It was signed by the
judge and entered by the court on November 7, 2005.

Copies of the complaint and stipulated final order are available
from the FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also from the  
FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC works for the
consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business
practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help
consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in
English or Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take
complaints), or to get free information on any of 150 consumer
topics, call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use
the complaint form at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters  
Internet, telemarketing, identity
theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer
Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of
civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and
abroad.  For more details, contact Mitchell J. Katz, Office of
Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2161 or contact Jon M. Steiger,
FTC East Central Region, Cleveland by Phone: 216-263-3442 or
visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/11/intprotect.htm.


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Consolidated AWP Lawsuit in MA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories continues to face 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.


ADAMS GOLF: DE Court Grants Certification To Investor Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Delaware
certified a Class in a class action lawsuit against Adams Golf,
Inc. and some of its officers, directors and underwriters
concerning alleged misstatements and omissions in Adams Golf's
Registration Statement for its initial public offering ("IPO")
in July 1998.

The law firm of Berger & Montague filed the suit on behalf of
class representatives, John Morrash, Kenneth Shockley, Todd
Tonore and Patricia Craus.

The suit, which affects persons or individuals who bought Adams
Golf Stock (OTC BB: ADGO) between July 10, 1998 and October 22,
1998, claims that the Registration Statement of the IPO failed
to disclose the risk that "gray marketing" could pose to Adams
Golf's sales. "Gray Marketing" is the unauthorized distribution
of a company's products to discount retailers. Adams Golf and
the other defendants deny that they failed to disclose any
material risks, made any material misrepresentations in or
omitted any material facts from the Registration Statement.

For more details, contact Todd S. Collins, Esq., Elizabeth W.
Fox, Esq. or Neil F. Mara, Esq., of Berger & Montague, P.C.,
1622 Locust St., Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 1-800-424-6690.


ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS: DE Judge Dismisses Nexium Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court in Delaware dismissed a potential class action
lawsuit that accused AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP of
defrauding customers through misleading advertising for Nexium,
The Brandweek Magazine reports.

Filed by the Pennsylvania Employee Benefit Trust Fund, the suit
alleged that AstraZeneca made a deliberate effort to give
consumers the impression that prescription Nexium was a far
superior antacid to Prilosec, which was due to pass into over-
the-counter status. AstraZeneca launched Nexium in 2001, just
before Prilosec lost its lucrative prescription-only label.  The
suit also alleged that Nexium was essentially Prilosec, and that
by advertising the drug as more effective than its predecessor,
AstraZeneca misled insurers and health management organizations
into paying for billions of dollars in prescriptions that were
not needed. Such misleading advertising is banned in Delaware
under the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, according to the suit.

In her November 8 ruling, which is a significant victory for
AstraZeneca and has potential repercussions for the rest of the
industry, Judge Sue Robinson wrote that the reason she was
dismissing the case was because "the information included in the
labeling of a new drug reflects a determination by the FDA that
the information is not 'false or misleading.'" In addition,
Judge Robinson ruled, "any statements made that comply with the
FDA approved labeling would not be actionable under a state
consumer fraud act because they are pre-empted by federal law."

Pharmaceutical marketers have long sought some form of legal
immunity for marketing products using language approved by the
Food & Drug Administration. Judge Robinson's ruling, if adopted
by other courts, would insulate companies from consumer fraud
actions in state courts.

The suit is styled, "Pennsylvania Employee Benefit Trust Fund v.
Zeneca Inc. et al, Case No. 1:05-cv-00075-SLR," filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware, under
Judge Sue L. Robinson. Representing the Plaintiff/s is Robert
Ray Davis of Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP, One Rodney Square, P.O.
Box 1035, Wilmington, DE 19899, Phone: (302) 656-2500, E-mail:
robertdavis@chimicles.com. Representing the Defendant is Rudolph
J. Scaggs, Jr. of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, 1201 North
Market St., P.O. Box 1347, Wilmington, DE 19899, Phone:
(302) 658-9200, E-mail: rscaggs@mnat.com.


AVISTA CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Files Amended Suit in E.D. WA
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended securities class action against
Avista Corporation and:

     (1) Thomas M. Matthews, the former Chairman of the Board,
         President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,

     (2) Gary G. Ely, the current Chairman of the Board,
         President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
         and

     (3) Jon E. Eliassen, the former Senior Vice President and
         Chief Financial Officer of the Company.

The suit, styled "In re Avista Corp. Securities Litigation,"
alleges violations of the federal securities laws in connection
with alleged misstatements and omissions of material fact
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  The plaintiffs allege that the Company did not
have adequate risk management processes, procedures and
controls. The plaintiffs further allege that the Company engaged
in unlawful energy trading practices and allegedly manipulated
western power markets. The plaintiffs assert that alleged
misstatements and omissions regarding these matters were made in
the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and other information made publicly available by the
Company, including press releases.  The class action complaint
asserts claims on behalf of all persons who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock during the period between November 23, 1999 and August 13,
2002.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint in October
2003 and the plaintiffs filed an answer to this motion in
January 2004.  Arguments before the Court on the motion were
held on March 19, 2004.  On April 15, 2004, the Court called for
additional briefing on what effect, if any, the FERC proceedings
have on this case.  On July 30, 2004, the Court denied the
Company's motion to dismiss this complaint, holding, among other
things, that the FERC proceedings may ultimately have some
evidentiary value relevant to the disclosure issues raised in
this case, but they do not preclude the resolution of those
issues by the Court.  In November 2004, the Company filed its
answer to the complaint denying the plaintiffs' allegations.

On June 13, 2005, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration
of its earlier motion to dismiss this complaint, based, in part,
on a recent United States Supreme Court decision with respect to
the pleading requirements surrounding a sufficient showing of
loss causation. In July 2005, the plaintiffs responded to the
Company's motion for reconsideration and the matter is scheduled
for arguments in September 2005 before the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.  On
October 19 2005, the Court granted the Company's motion for
reconsideration and granted the Company's motion to dismiss.  
The order to dismiss was issued without prejudice, and the Court
has allowed the plaintiffs until November 10, 2005 to amend
their complaint.

The suit is styled "The Hackett Group, et al v. Avista
Corporation, et al., case no. 2:00-cv-00262-RHW," filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington, under Judge Robert H. Whaley.  Representing the
Company are Curt Roy Hineline, David M. Jacobson and Evan L.
Schwab, Dorsey & Whitney LLP - SEA, U S Bank Center, 1420 5th
Avenue, Suite 3400, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-903-8800, Fax:
206-903-8820, E-mail: jacobson.david@dorsey.com,
schwab.evan@dorsey.com; and Donald Gene Stone of Paine Hamblen
Coffin Brooke & Miller - SPO, 717 W Sprague Avenue, Suite 1200,
Spokane, WA 99201-3503, Phone: 509-455-6000, Fax:
1-509-838-0007, E-mail: don.stone@painehamblen.com.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Randi D. Bandman and Michael Reese, Milberg Weiss
         Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP - CA(SF), 100 Pine Street,
         Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone:

     (2) Karl P Barth, Lovell Mitchell & Barth LLP, 1420 Fifth
         Avenue, Suite 2200, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: (425)
         452-9800, Fax: (425) 452-9801, E-mail:
         kbarth@lmbllp.com  

     (3) Steve W Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
         1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101,
         Phone: 206-623-7292, Fax: 12066230594, E-mail:
         steve@hbsslaw.com


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Continues To Face Silicone Implants Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries face
several lawsuits filed in various courts seeking damages for
injuries of various types allegedly caused by silicone mammary
implants previously manufactured by the Heyer-Schulte division
of American Hospital Supply Corporation (AHSC).

AHSC, which was acquired by Baxter in 1985, divested its Heyer-
Schulte division in 1984.  It is not known how many of these
claims and lawsuits involve products manufactured and sold by
Heyer-Schulte, as opposed to other manufacturers.  In December
1998, a panel of independent medical experts appointed by a
federal judge announced its findings that reported medical
studies contained no clear evidence of a connection between
silicone mammary implants and traditional or atypical systemic
diseases.  In June 1999, a similar conclusion was announced by a
committee of independent medical experts from the Institute of
Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences.  The
majority of the claims and lawsuits against the company have
been resolved. Certain of the proceedings are ongoing.

As of June 30, 2005, the Company, together with certain of its
subsidiaries, was named as a defendant or co-defendant in 35
lawsuits relating to mammary implants, brought by approximately
91 plaintiffs, of which 80 are implant plaintiffs and the
remainder are consortium or second generation plaintiffs. Of
those plaintiffs, two currently are included in the Lindsey
class action Revised Settlement described below, which accounts
for one of the pending lawsuits against the company.
Additionally, 34 plaintiffs have opted out of the Revised
Settlement (representing approximately 21 pending lawsuits), and
the status of the remaining plaintiffs with pending lawsuits is
unknown. Some of the opt-out plaintiffs filed their cases naming
multiple defendants and without product identification; thus,
the company believes that not all of the opt-out plaintiffs will
have viable claims against the company.  As of June 30, 2005, 25
of the opt-out plaintiffs had confirmed Heyer-Schulte mammary
implant product identification.  Furthermore, during the second
quarter of 2005, the Company obtained dismissals, or agreements
for dismissals, with respect to 9 plaintiffs.

After concluding the settlement, the company will continue to
participate in the resolution of class member claims, for which
reserves have been established, until 2010. In addition, as of
September 30, 2005, the Company remains a defendant or co-
defendant in approximately 30 lawsuits relating to mammary
implants brought by claimants who have opted out of the class
settlement.  The company has also established reserves for these
lawsuits.  The Company believes that a substantial portion of
its liability and defense costs for mammary implant litigation
may be covered by insurance, subject to self-insurance
retentions, exclusions, conditions, coverage gaps, policy limits
and insurer insolvency.

In addition to the individual suits against the company, a class
action on behalf of all women with silicone mammary implants was
filed on March 23, 1994 and is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama involving
most manufacturers of such implants, including the Company as
successor to AHSC.  The suit is styled "Lindsey, et al., v. Dow
Corning, et al., U.S.D.C., N. Dist. Ala., CV 94-P-11558-S."

The class action was certified for settlement purposes only by
the court on September 1, 1994, and the settlement terms were
subsequently revised and approved on December 22, 1995 (the
Revised Settlement).  All appeals directly challenging the
Revised Settlement have been dismissed.  In addition to the
Lindsey class action, the company also has been named in three
other purported class actions in various state and provincial
courts, only one of which is certified.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Various Hemophiliac Injury Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International, Inc. faces a number of claims and lawsuits
brought by individuals who have hemophilia, and their families,
all seeking damages for injuries allegedly caused by anti-
hemophilic factor concentrates VIII or IX derived from human
blood plasma (factor concentrates) processed by the company from
the late 1970s to the mid-1980s.

The typical case or claim alleges that the individual was
infected with the HIV virus by factor concentrates, which
contained the HIV virus.  None of these cases involves factor
concentrates currently processed by the Company.

As of June 30, 2005, the Company was named as a defendant in 82
lawsuits most of which have been or are expected to be
consolidated in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois and has received 161 claims in the
United States, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Spain and
Argentina.  Among the lawsuits, the company and other
manufacturers have been named as defendants in 70 lawsuits
pending or expected to be transferred to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf
of claimants, who are primarily non-U.S. residents, seeking
unspecified damages for HIV and/or Hepatitis C infections from
their use of plasma-based factor concentrates.

In March 2005, the District Court denied plaintiff's motion to
certify the purported classes. Thereafter, plaintiffs have filed
additional lawsuits on behalf of individual claimants outside of
the United States.  The defendants, including the Company, have
filed motions to dismiss these lawsuits based on "forum non
conveniens" grounds.  The United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois has approved a settlement of U.S.
federal court HIV factor concentrate cases.  As of December 31,
2004, all 6,246 claimant groups eligible to participate in the
settlement have been paid.

In addition, Immuno International AG (Immuno), acquired by the
Company in 1996, has unsettled claims and lawsuits for damages
for injuries allegedly caused by its plasma-based therapies. The
typical claim alleges that the individual with hemophilia was
infected with HIV and/or Hepatitis C by factor concentrates.
Immuno's successor is a participant in a foundation that would
make payments to Italian applicants who are HIV positive. At
least 370 applications are pending before that foundation.

Additionally, Immuno faces multiple claims stemming from its
vaccines and other biologically derived therapies. A portion of
the liability and defense costs related to these claims will be
covered by insurance, subject to exclusions, conditions, policy
limits and other factors. Pursuant to the stock purchase
agreement between the company and Immuno, as revised in April
1999, approximately 26 million Swiss Francs, which is the
equivalent of approximately $20 million based on the exchange
rate as of June 30, 2005, of the purchase price is being
withheld to cover these contingent liabilities.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Various Hemophiliac Injury Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International, Inc. faces a number of claims and lawsuits
brought by individuals who have hemophilia, and their families,
all seeking damages for injuries allegedly caused by anti-
hemophilic factor concentrates VIII or IX derived from human
blood plasma (factor concentrates) processed by the company from
the late 1970s to the mid-1980s.

The typical case or claim alleges that the individual was
infected with the HIV virus by factor concentrates, which
contained the HIV virus.  None of these cases involves factor
concentrates currently processed by the Company.  The United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has
approved a settlement of U.S. federal court HIV factor
concentrate cases.  As of December 31, 2004, all 6,246 claimant
groups eligible to participate in the settlement have been paid.

After concluding the settlement, as of September 30, 2005, the
Company remained as a defendant in approximately 80 lawsuits and
subject to 180 additional claims. Among the lawsuits, the
company and other manufacturers have been named as defendants in
approximately 70 lawsuits pending or expected to be transferred
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of claimants, who are primarily non-U.S.
residents, seeking unspecified damages for HIV or Hepatitis C
infections from their use of plasma-based factor concentrates.  
These claims are from France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Spain and
Argentina.  In March 2005, the District Court denied plaintiff's
motion to certify the purported classes. Thereafter, plaintiffs
have filed additional lawsuits on behalf of individual claimants
outside of the United States. The defendants, including the
Company, have filed motions to dismiss these lawsuits based on
"forum non conveniens" grounds.

In addition, Immuno International AG (Immuno), acquired by the
Company in 1996, has unsettled claims and lawsuits for damages
for injuries allegedly caused by its plasma-based therapies. The
typical claim alleges that the individual with hemophilia was
infected with HIV and/or Hepatitis C by factor concentrates.
Immuno's successor is a participant in a foundation that would
make payments to Italian applicants who are HIV positive. At
least 370 applications are pending before that foundation.

Additionally, Immuno faces multiple claims stemming from its
vaccines and other biologically derived therapies. A portion of
the liability and defense costs related to these claims will be
covered by insurance, subject to exclusions, conditions, policy
limits and other factors. Pursuant to the stock purchase
agreement between the company and Immuno, as revised in April
1999, approximately 26 million Swiss Francs, which is the
equivalent of approximately $20 million based on the exchange
rate as of June 30, 2005, of the purchase price is being
withheld to cover these contingent liabilities.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: IL Court Allows Plaintiff to Amend Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois granted one of the plaintiffs' motions to file an
amended consolidated class action against Baxter International,
Inc., its current Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial
Officer and their predecessors.  The court earlier dismissed the
predecessor suit.

In July 2004, a purported class action lawsuit was filed.  The
suit, which seeks recovery of unspecified damages, alleges that
the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
financial results, which allegedly caused Baxter common stock to
trade at inflated levels during the period between April 2001
and July 2004.  

Three similar purported class action lawsuits were filed in the
third quarter of 2004 in the same court against the same
defendants. These cases have been consolidated before a single
judge. In January 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint in the District Court.  In February 2005, the Company
filed its motion to dismiss.  In May 2005, the District Court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss this action in its
entirety. One of the consolidated plaintiffs has moved to alter
the judgment terminating its case and to file an amended
complaint.

The suit is styled "Higginbotham v. Baxter Intl Inc, et al.,
case no. 1:04-cv-04909," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge William
T. Hart.  Representing the Company is Matthew Robert Kipp of
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP, 333 West Wacker Drive,
Suite 2100, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 407-0700, E-mail:
mkipp@skadden.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Marvin Alan Miller, Christopher B. Sanchez and Jennifer
         Winter Sprengel of Miller Faucher and Cafferty, LLP, 30
         North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200, Chicago, IL 60602,
         Phone: (312) 782-4880, E-mail:
         mmiller@millerfaucher.com, csanchez@millerfaucher.com,
         or jsprenger@millerfaucher.com

     (2) Peter A. Binkow, Glancy & Binkow, LLP, 1801 Avenue of
         the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone:
         (310) 201-9150

     (3) Marc A. Topaz, Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of
         Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: (610) 667-7706


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: IL Court Mulls ERISA Fraud Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois has yet to rule on Baxter International, Inc.'s motion
to dismiss the class action filed against it, its current Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer and their
predecessors for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as amended.

In October 2004, a sole plaintiff filed the suit, alleging that
these defendants, along with the Administrative and Investment
Committees of the Company's Incentive Investment Plan and Puerto
Rico Savings and Investment Plan (the Plans), which are the
company's 401(k) plans, breached their fiduciary duties to the
Plans' participants by offering Company common stock as an
investment option in each of the Plans during the period of
January 2001 to October 2004.  Plaintiff alleges that Baxter
common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during this
period and seeks unspecified damages and declaratory and
equitable relief.  The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of
the Plans' participants who elected to acquire Baxter common
stock through the Plans between January 2001 and the present.
The defendants have moved to dismiss this action and the motion
currently is pending before the District Court.


BERTELSMANN AG: Withdraws Injunction Order in $17B Napster Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
German media giant Bertelsmann AG withdrew an injunction order
that held up a $17 billion class action lawsuit related to the
company's participation in illegal file-sharing service Napster,
The Hollywood Reporter reports.

According to the German constitutional court, Bertelsmann
withdrew the injunction, which it issued in June 2003, to
prevent U.S. music labels and musicians from suing the company
for supporting Napster before the service was shut down.

Bertelsmann loaned Napster $80 million over two years before the
file-sharing service was finally shut down in 2001. Music
copyright holders alleged that the loan kept Napster operating
longer than would otherwise have been possible, thus they sued
the German company, claiming $17 billion in damages due to
copyright violation.

Bertelsmann stated that it withdrew the court injunction
because, in its opinion, the German constitutional court would
have no further influence on the progress of the Napster suit.
In addition, the company, which called the suit "entirely
groundless," also said, that it would be "several years" before
it would come to court in the United States.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Former Employee Files Overtime Wage Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Restaurant, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior
Court of California, Los Angeles County, alleging various wage
claims, including failure to pay overtime wages and failure to
provide meal and rest breaks. The plaintiff also alleges "inter
alia" causes of action for contract rescission and negligence
based upon our alleged failure to properly classify certain
employees as "non-exempt" under California's overtime laws.

A former employee filed the suit on June 10, 2005.  The suit
also alleges a cause of action for unfair business practices
under California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et
seq.  The plaintiff purported to bring the causes of action in
the complaint on behalf of a class of current and former
employees comprised of all individuals who worked as salaried
kitchen managers in our California restaurants at any time from
June 2001 to the present.  

The same plaintiff filed a separate individual complaint on July
11, 2005, in another Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging
that he was wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy
and was discriminated against because of his alleged disability.  
The outcome of these matters cannot be ascertained at this time.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Enters Mediation For CA Employee Wage Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Restaurants, Inc. entered arbitration for the class action
filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
alleging violations of the state's labor laws.

A former Company employee filed the suit on February 5,2004 on
behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, alleging
causes of action for:

     (1) failure to pay reporting time minimum pay;

     (2) failure to allow meal breaks;

     (3) failure to allow rest breaks;

     (4) waiting time penalties;

     (5) civil penalties;

     (6) reimbursement for fraud and deceit;
   
     (7) punitive damages for fraud and deceit; and

     (8) disgorgement of illicit profits

On June 28, 2004, the Plaintiff stipulated to dismiss her
second, third, fourth, and fifth causes of action.  During
September 2004, the Plaintiff stipulated to arbitration of the
action. No further court action has been taken since that date.
The outcome of this matter cannot be ascertained at this time.


CERUS CORPORATION: CA Court Mulls Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California has yet to rule on Cerus Corporation's motion to
dismiss the third amended consolidated securities class action
filed against it and certain of its current and former
directors, alleging violations of federal securities laws.

On December 8, 2003, a class action complaint was filed alleging
that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by
making certain alleged false and misleading statements regarding
the compound used in the Company's red blood cell system.  The
plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the Company's securities during the
period from October 25, 2000 through September 3, 2003.  As is
typical in this type of litigation, several other purported
securities class action lawsuits containing substantially
similar allegations have since been filed against the
defendants.

On May 24, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint.
The consolidated complaint abandons the allegations raised in
the original complaints. Instead, the plaintiffs claim that the
defendants issued false and misleading predictions regarding the
initiation and completion of clinical trials, submission of
regulatory filings, receipt of regulatory approval and other
milestones in the development of the INTERCEPT Blood Systems for
platelets, plasma and red blood cells. The consolidated
complaint retains the same class period alleged in the original
complaints.

On June 17, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint substantially similar to the previous consolidated
complaint with additional allegations attributed to a
confidential witness.  On July 20, 2004, the defendants moved to
dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. On January 20, 2005,
the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend within 60
days.  On March 21, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated complaint, and on May 24, 2005, the plaintiffs
filed a third amended consolidated complaint.  The allegations
of both the second and third amended consolidated complaints
were similar to those contained in the previous amended
consolidated complaint.  On July 8, 2005, the defendants moved
to dismiss this third amended consolidated complaint.

The suit is styled "In re Cerus Corporation Securities
Litigation, 5:03-cv-05517-JF," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, under Judge
Jeremy Fogel.  Representing the plaintiffs are Patrick J.
Coughlin and William S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin Stoia &
Robbins LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA
94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax: 415-288-4534, E-mail:
patc@mwbhl.com or billl@lerachlaw.com.  Representing the Company
are Terri Garland and Raymond M. Hasu of Morrison & Foerster,
425 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-2482, Phone: 415-268-
7000, Fax: rhasu@mofo.com or tgarland@mofo.com.


FLORIDA: U.S. Supreme Court Lets State Felon Vote Law Stand
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court let stand a Florida law that generally
bars convicted felons from voting, even after they have
completed their term of prison, probation and parole, Reuters
reports.

The high court ruling is in response to an appeal, which argued
that the law could be challenged under a section of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits voter disqualification based
on race. The appeal involved eight Florida citizens who brought
a class action lawsuit on behalf of more than 613,000 Florida
felons who are barred from voting even though they have
completed their prison sentences and their terms of probation or
parole. The Floridians' suit sought to challenge the law, which
was initially adopted in 1868 and revised 100 years later, for
violating the Voting Rights Act and for disproportionately
disenfranchising blacks. Under that law, felons are barred from
voting for life unless Florida's Clemency Board has restored
their civil rights.

Every state in the nation, except for Maine and Vermont,
prohibit, to one degree or another, felons from voting. While
fourteen states, including Florida, generally bar felons from
voting even after they have served their sentences and have
completed their terms of probation and parole. Approximately 5
million felons who have been released from prison are legally
disenfranchised, civil rights experts have estimated. About 1.4
million black men remain permanently disenfranchised.

Attorneys who challenged the law expressed disappointment that
the Supreme Court rejected their appeal, which ends the lawsuit.
Catherine Weiss, associate counsel for the Brennan Center for
Justice at New York University School of Law told Reuters, "This
is a sad day for our democracy."


GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: CA Court Approves KPMG Stock Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California approved the settlement between the class and KPMG
LLP in relation to the securities class action filed against
Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc., styled "In re Gemstar-TV
Guide International Inc. Securities Litigation, in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
Master File No. 02-CV-2775 MRP (PLAx)."  

As a result, only the Class' securities fraud claims against Dr.
Yuen, the Company's former Chief Executive Officer, and Ms.
Leung, the Company's s former Chief Financial Officer, are still
pending.  The Company earlier reached a settlement with the
class in September 2004.  That settlement has been approved by
the court.

The suit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the 1934 Act) and the Securities Act of 1933 (the 1933
Act).  The alleged claims were brought under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the 1934 Act, Section 11 of the 1933 Act and SEC Rule
10b-5 and seek unspecified monetary damages.  The suit alleges
violations of the securities laws in connection with the
Company's accounting for certain transactions which were
subsequently restated between November 2002 and March 2003.  The
amended complaint seeks money damages on behalf of a purported
class of holders of the Company's securities during the relevant
time period, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (May
11,2004) stated.

In September 2004, prior to final approval of the settlement and
pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company
elected to substitute cash for 2,052,545 shares of Gemstar
common stock by paying $12.5 million into an escrow account.  On
September 15, 2004, the Court entered a final judgment that
approved the settlement of the claims against the Company,
dismissed the action against the Company with prejudice and
certified a class for settlement purposes.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company
relinquished control over the cash portion of the settlement
amount held in escrow.  Following the final court approval of
the settlement, the Company issued 328,407 shares from treasury
stock and made a payment of an additional $0.3 million in cash
to meet the stock trading price guarantee associated with such
shares to the plaintiffs' counsel for a portion of the
attorneys' fees.  The remaining 1,724,138 shares of Gemstar
common stock, plus any additional shares to be issued or cash
to be paid to meet the stock trading price guarantee, having an
aggregate value of $10.5 million, will be issued at a future
date in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement.

As previously reported, the plaintiff class will retain all of
its claims against Dr. Yuen, Ms. Leung, and the Company's former
independent public accountants, and the settlement does not
resolve the related shareholder derivative suits or the non-
consolidated securities fraud cases still pending against the
Company.  On September 19, 2005, the Court approved the
settlement between plaintiff Class and KPMG resolving the Class'
claims against KPMG, which included the claims assigned to the
Class by the Company.

The suit is styled "In Re: Gemstar-TV Guide, Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:02-cv-02775-MRP-PLA," under Judge Mariana
R. Pfaelzer.  Lawyers for the defendant is Stanley S. Arkin of
Arkin & Kaplan, 590 Madison Ave, 35th Fl, New York, NY 10022,
Phone: 212-333-0200, fax: 212-333-2350.  Lawyer for the
plaintiffs is Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (San
Diego, CA), 12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150, San Diego, CA,
92130, Phone: 858.793.0070, Fax: 858.793.0323, E-mail:
blbg@blbglaw.com


HAIR CUTTERY: MD Judge Dismisses Racial Discrimination Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a recently issued 50-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Deborah
K. Chasanow dismissed a racial discrimination lawsuit brought by
two black women against Hair Cuttery, The Washington Post
reports.  

The class action lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court
in Greenbelt, Maryland by Monica Clark of Capitol Heights and
Leslie Mercer of Reston, claimed that they were mistreated
because of their race repeatedly at several Hair Cuttery
locations in the Washington area. Specifically, the suit accuses
the chain of charging black customers more for services because
of their race and of sometimes refusing to serve them. It was
filed against two Falls Church companies, Creative Hairdressers
Inc., which owns Hair Cuttery, and Ratner Cos., which operates
the chain as well as other salons, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (January 17, 2005) reports.

However, in her ruling, Judge Chasanow granted the Hair
Cuttery's motion for summary judgment, determining that the
chain of unisex hair salons did not differentiate services or
prices for customers based on their race.

Judge Chasanow concluded that there was no evidence of
institutional discrimination by the hair-salon chain. On the
contrary, the judge said that the salons charged more for
certain services based on sound business considerations, not
solely on the race of the customer. She also wrote in her
ruling, "The evidence shows that the amount charged for a
service is related to how much time and effort is involved in
that service."

According to the lawsuit, Ms. Clark went to a Hair Cuttery in
Clinton in January 2004 and was charged $10 more for a wash and
set than the price advertised in the salon. About seven months
later, she again went to a Hair Cuttery in Waldorf, where she
alleges she was kept waiting for a half-hour and then ignored
and passed over for a white male. In October, she said, she went
to a Hair Cuttery in the Potomac Yard shopping center in
Alexandria for a wash, cut and blow dry. This time she alleges
that a stylist there tried to charge her $14 to cut her hair and
$24 to dry it. The standard price for a wash cut and dry was $13
and when she complained, the stylist refused to serve her, she
said. After having her hair done by another stylist, she then
complained to a store manager, but she alleges that the manager
told her that "her kind of hair" was difficult to blow dry, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (January 17, 2005) reports.

On the other hand, Ms. Mercer, the second plaintiff, said that
in August she went to a Hair Cuttery in Reston and requested a
roller set. She alleges that she was denied service and was told
that her "type of hair [was] too difficult to do," an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (January 17, 2005) reports.

The suit by both women is the second complaint of racial
discrimination filed against Hair Cuttery in the past year. In
June, an Anne Arundel County woman filed a complaint against
Creative Hairdressers in circuit court in Baltimore, alleging
that she was charged extra for services such as a shampoo and a
haircut that case has since been moved to federal court in
Baltimore, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (January 17,
2005) reports.

Hair Cuttery officials praised the decision by issuing a written
statement, wherein it's general counsel, Les Mardiks said, "The
50-page court opinion completely vindicates our policies,
training and strong stance on zero-tolerance for discrimination.
We investigated the allegations thoroughly and found no evidence
to support them."

The suit is styled, Clark et al v. Creative Hairdressers, Inc.
et al, Case No. 8:05-cv-00103-DKC," in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland, under Judge Deborah
K. Chasanow. Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Paul W. Mengel,
III, Gregory L. Murphy and Melissa Memolo Nichols of Vorys Sater
Seymour and Pease, LLP, 277 S Washington St., Ste. 310,
Alexandria, VA 22314, Phone: 17038376999, Fax: 17035494492, E-
mail: pwmengel@vssp.com, glmurphy@vssp.com and
mmnichols@vssp.com. Representing the Defendant's are, Margaret
Hutchins Campbell, Anthony Craig Cleland of Ogletree Deakins
Nash Smoak and Stewart, PC, Bank of America Plz., 600 Peachtree
St., NE Ste. 2100, Atlanta, GA 30308, Phone: 14048811300, Fax:
14048701732, E-mail: meg.campbell@ogletreedeakins.com and
craig.cleland@ogletreedeakins.com; and Steven Robert Semler of
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart, PC, 2400 N. St., NW
Fifth Fl., Washington, DC 20037, Phone: 12028870855, Fax:
12028870866, E-mail: steven.semler@odnss.com.


HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: U.S. Supreme Court Lets CA Ruling Stand
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a case with broad implications for the casino industry, the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a California resident could sue in
his home state claiming false advertising and deceptive business
practices by a Nevada casino, The Associated Press reports.

The court without comment let stand a California Supreme Court
ruling in the case, Snowney v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.,
which stated that California residents could file a suit in
their own state courts against the Nevada-based casino for false
advertising and deceptive business practices even though the
company had no properties in the state, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (June 7, 2005) reports.

The high court ruling stems from a 2002 class action suit filed
by a Los Angeles area man against a group of Harrah's
properties. Court documents reveal that in 2001, Frank Snowney
claimed that he made a reservation at a Harrah's resort, which
said the room would cost $50 a night plus room tax. However,
when Mr. Snowney, who is represented by attorney Edwin Schreiber
and his son, Eric, paid his bill it included a $3 energy
surcharge that Harrah's never disclosed he booked the room.
Thus, in his complaint, Ms. Snowney accused Harrah's of
deceptive business practices, breach of contract and unjust
enrichment, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (June 7,
2005) reports.

The case is styled, "Snowney v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.
S124286," filed in the Supreme Court of the State of California.
Representing the plaintiff are Edwin A Schreiber, Esq. and Eric
C. Schreiber of Schreiber & Schreiber, Inc., Mail: 16501 Ventura
Blvd., Suite 401, Encinco, CA 91436-2068. Representing the
Defendant is Robert W. Fischer, Esq. and Andrea K. Pallios, Esq.
of Fulbright & Jaowrski, LLP, Mail: 865 S. Figueroa St., 29th
Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017.


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Faces Stock, ERISA Suits After NYAG Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. and five of its
executive officers face two class actions filed in the United
States District Court in Connecticut, after New York Attorney
General Eliot Spitzer filed a civil complaint over insurance
fraud.

On October 14, 2004, the New York Attorney General's Office
filed a civil complaint (the "NYAG Complaint") against Marsh
Inc. and Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (collectively,
"Marsh") alleging, among other things, that certain insurance
companies, including the Company, participated with Marsh in
arrangements to submit inflated bids for business insurance and
paid contingent commissions to ensure that Marsh would direct
business to them.  The Company is not joined as a defendant in
the action.

Since the filing of the NYAG Complaint, the Company has become
aware of several private actions against it asserting claims
arising from the allegations of the NYAG Complaint.  The
securities suits allege claims under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.  The complaints
allege on behalf of a putative class of shareholders that The
Company and the five named individual defendants, as control
persons of The Company, "disseminated false and misleading
financial statements" by concealing that "(The Hartford) was
paying illegal and concealed `contingent commissions' pursuant
to illegal `contingent commission agreements.'"  The class
period alleged is November 5, 2003 through October 13, 2004, the
day before the NYAG Complaint was filed.  The complaints seek
damages and attorneys' fees.  

The suits were later consolidated in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut.  The consolidated amended
complaint alleges on behalf of a putative class of shareholders
that the Company and the four named individual defendants, as
control persons of the Company, failed to disclose to the
investing public that the Company's business and growth was
predicated on the unlawful activity alleged in the NYAG
Complaint.  The class period alleged is August 6, 2003 through
October 13, 2004, the day before the NYAG Complaint was filed.
The complaint seeks damages and attorneys' fees.

In addition, the Company is aware of three putative class
actions filed in the same court on behalf of participants in The
Hartford's 401(k) plan against The Hartford, Hartford Fire
Insurance Company, The Hartford's Pension Fund Trust and
Investment Committee, The Hartford's Pension Administration
Committee, The Hartford's Chief Financial Officer, and John/Jane
Does 1-15.  The suits assert claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"),
alleging that The Hartford and the other named defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants by, among
other things, failing to inform them of the risk associated with
investment in The Hartford's stock as a result of the activity
alleged in the NYAG Complaint.  The class period alleged is
November 5, 2003 through the present.  The complaints seek
restitution of losses to the plan, declaratory and injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees.


ICT GROUP: Distributes Settlement For WV Wage Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
ICT Group, Inc. has distributed the settlement for the class
action filed against it in the Circuit Court of Berkeley County,
West Virginia, alleging violations of the West Virginia Wage
Payment and Collection Act to members of the class.

William Shingleton filed the suit in 1998, alleging that the
Company and twelve current and former members of its management
violated the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act (the
Wage Act) for failure to pay promised signing and incentive
bonuses and wage increases, failure to compensate employees for
short breaks or "transition" periods, production hours worked
and improper deductions for the cost of purchasing telephone
headsets.

On March 1, 2005, the Company announced a settlement with the
plaintiffs to this litigation.  Under the terms of the
settlement, the Company, while continuing to dispute the
plaintiffs' allegations and without admitting liability or
wrongdoing, agreed to pay $14.75 million to the plaintiff class
to settle all allegations relating to unpaid wages, bonuses and
other claims, as well as potential payments for liquidated
damages allowed by West Virginia law of thirty days pay plus
interest, which was being sought for all class members
regardless of the amount of wages allegedly unpaid.

On June 27, 2005, the Court approved the proposed settlement
agreement that was announced on March 1, 2005. In September
2005, the settlement was distributed to the class. As of
September 30, 2005, the Company has no accruals remaining
related to the Shingleton litigation.


ICT GROUP: Working To Settle Consumer Fraud Lawsuits in IL, LA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ICT Group, Inc. is working on the settlement of several class
actions filed against it and Time Warner, Inc. or America
Online, alleging violations of consumer protection laws.

12 putative consumer class action lawsuits were initially filed
against Time Warner, Inc., or America Online, in various state
and federal courts during the period from July 2003 to December
2004. No class has been certified in any of these suits. All of
these suits allege that America Online, a customer of ICT,
violated consumer protection laws by charging members for
accounts they purportedly did not agree to create and that
America Online and the Company violated consumer protection laws
in the handling of subscribers' calls seeking to cancel accounts
and obtain refunds of amounts paid for such accounts.

America Online contracted with the Company to answer customer
service calls from America Online subscribers in accordance with
instructions provided by America Online.  America Online
employees and other call center contractors also answered
customer service calls from subscribers using the same
instructions.  Nine of the lawsuits that were filed in, or
removed to, Federal court have been centralized in the Central
District of California for consolidated or coordinated pre-trial
proceedings pursuant to a February 27, 2005 order of the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL).  The
defendants' Motion to Dismiss that complaint was denied. The
three remaining lawsuits were filed and remain in state courts.

The Company believes the allegations against it are without
merit and intend to fight them, including seeking dismissals and
summary judgments, as appropriate. America Online is paying for
the Company's defense and has agreed to indemnify it against any
costs or damages that it may incur as a result of these
lawsuits, the Company stated in a regulatory filing.

On April 5, 2005, the Company was joined as a co-defendant in
three additional cases and America Online and the Company signed
a settlement agreement with plaintiffs' counsel in the three
cases on behalf of a putative national class of all persons and
entities who were charged or billed by or through America Online
or its agents, assigns, contracted customer service providers,
or other designees acting on behalf of or through America
Online, for services and/or goods without their consent or
authorization. Consistent with America Online's agreement to
indemnify the Company against any costs or damages that it may
incur as a result of these lawsuits, all settlement payments or
services under the settlement agreement will be paid or provided
by America Online.  On April 7, 2005, the Circuit Court for St.
Clair County, Illinois, certified the settlement class, which
includes the putative classes alleged in all of the cases
discussed above, and preliminarily approved the settlement.

On May 9, 2005, the judge in the JPMDL Litigation issued an
order enjoining America Online and the Company from proceeding
with the settlement in St. Clair County, Illinois, to the extent
that the settlement releases the plaintiffs' claims in the MDL
Litigation. America Online and the Company have appealed this
decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

On June 22, 2005, one of the putative consumer class action
lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana was settled by agreement of the parties,
and the Court issued a joint motion to dismiss the matter with
prejudice. Consistent with America Online's agreement to
indemnify the Company against any costs or damages that it may
incur as a result of these lawsuits, all costs and payments
associated with the settlement were paid by America Online.

In October 2005, the Plaintiffs in the MDL Litigation agreed to
join the St. Clair County, Illinois settlement, and a revised
settlement agreement was signed on October 21, 2005. The
Plaintiffs in the MDL litigation have subsequently filed a
motion to vacate the injunction preventing AOL and ICT Group,
Inc. from proceeding with the settlement.


IDACORP INC.: Magistrate Judge Recommends Stock Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Magistrate Judge in the United States District Court
recommended dismissal for the consolidated securities class
action filed against IDACORP Inc. and certain of its officers
and directors in a report submitted to the court.

On May 26, 2004 and June 22, 2004, respectively, two shareholder
lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its
directors and officers, styled "Powell, et al. v. IDACORP, Inc.,
et al." and "Shorthouse, et al. v. IDACORP, Inc., et al."  The
lawsuits are putative class actions brought on behalf of
purchasers of IDACORP stock between February 1, 2002 and June 4,
2002.  The named defendants in each suit, in addition to the
Company, are:

     (1) Jon H. Miller,

     (2) Jan B. Packwood,

     (3) J. LaMont Keen and

     (4) Darrel T. Anderson

The complaints alleged that, during the purported class period,
the Company and/or certain of its officers and/or directors made
materially false and misleading statements or omissions about
the company's financial outlook in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5, thereby causing investors to purchase the
Company's common stock at artificially inflated prices.  More
specifically, the complaints alleged that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (i) the Company failed to appreciate the negative impact
         that lower volatility and reduced pricing spreads in
         the western wholesale energy market would have on its
         marketing subsidiary, IDACORP Energy;

    (ii) the Company would be forced to limit its origination
         activities to shorter-term transactions due to
         increasing regulatory uncertainty and continued
         deterioration of creditworthy counterparties;

   (iii) the Company failed to discount for the fact that IPC
         may not recover from the lingering effects of the prior
         year's regional drought and

    (iv) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
         reasonable basis for their positive statements about
         the Company and their earnings projections.

The Powell complaint also alleged that the defendants' conduct
artificially inflated the price of the Company's common stock.  
The actions seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as
other forms of relief.  By order dated August 31, 2004, the
court consolidated the Powell and Shorthouse cases for pretrial
purposes, and ordered the plaintiffs to file a consolidated
complaint within 60 days.

On November 1, 2004, the Company and the directors and officers
named above were served with a purported consolidated complaint
captioned "Powell, et al. v. IDACORP, Inc., et al.," which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho.  
The new complaint alleges that during the class period, the
Company and/or certain of its officers and/or directors made
materially false and misleading statements or omissions about
its business operations, and specifically the IDACORP Energy
financial outlook, in violation of Rule 10b-5, thereby causing
investors to purchase the Company's common stock at artificially
inflated prices.

The new complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose
and misrepresented the following material adverse facts, known
to it or recklessly disregarded by it:

     (a) IDACORP falsely inflated the value of energy contracts
         held by IE in order to report higher revenues and
         profits;

     (b) IDACORP permitted Idaho Power Company (IPC), its
         subsidiary, to inappropriately grant native load
         priority for certain energy transactions to IDACORP
         Energy;

     (c) IDACORP failed to file 13 ancillary service agreements
         involving the sale of power for resale in interstate
         commerce that it was required to file under Section 205
         of the Federal Power Act;

     (d) IDACORP failed to file 1,182 contracts that IPC
         assigned to IE for the sale of power for resale in
         interstate commerce that IPC was required to file under
         Section 203 of the Federal Power Act;

     (e) IDACORP failed to ensure that IE provided appropriate
         compensation from IE to IPC for certain affiliated
         energy transactions; and

     (f) IDACORP permitted inappropriate sharing of certain
         energy pricing and transmission information between IPC
         and IE.

These activities allegedly allowed IE to maintain a false
perception of continued growth that inflated its earnings.  In
addition, the new complaint alleges that those earnings press
releases, earnings release conference calls, analyst reports and
revised earnings guidance releases issued during the class
period were false and misleading.  The action seeks an
unspecified amount of damages, as well as other forms of relief.

The Company and the other defendants filed a consolidated motion
to dismiss on February 9, 2005, and the plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the consolidated motion to dismiss on March 28,
2005.  The Company and the other defendants filed their response
to the plaintiff's opposition on April 29, 2005 and oral
argument on the motion was held on May 19, 2005.

On September 14, 2005, Magistrate Judge Mikel H. Williams of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho issued a Report
and Recommendation that the defendants' motion to dismiss be
granted and that the case be dismissed.  The Magistrate Judge
determined that the plaintiffs did not satisfactorily plead loss
causation (i.e., a causal connection between the alleged
material misrepresentation and the loss) in conformance with the
standards set forth in the recent United States Supreme Court
decision of Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S._____,
125 S. Ct. 1627 (2005).  The Magistrate Judge also concluded
that it would be futile to afford the plaintiffs an opportunity
to file an amended complaint because it did not appear that they
could cure the deficiencies in their pleadings.  The parties
have each filed objections to different parts of the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation, and the matter is now before
the District Judge.

The suit is styled "Powell v. Idacorp, Inc, et al., case no.
1:04-cv-00249-EJL-MHW," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Idaho, under Judge Edward J. Lodge.  
Representing the Company are Rex Blackburn, BLACKBURN & JONES,
PO Box 7808, Boise, ID 83707, Phone: (208) 489-8989, Fax:
(208) 489-8988, E-mail: rex@blackburnjoneslaw.com; and David G.
Hetzel and Dennis F. Kerrigan, Jr., LEBOEUF LAMB GREENE &
MACRAE, 125 W 55th St, New York, NY 10019, Phone:
(212) 424-8000, Fax: (212) 424-8000, E-mail: dghetzel@llgm.com
and dennis.kerrigan@llgm.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are
John K. Grant,  Eli Greenstein, David A. Rosenfeld and Samuel H.
Rudman, LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA & ROBBINS, 100 Pine St #2600, San
Francisco, CA 94111,Phone: (415) 288-4545, E-mail:
drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com, and e_file_ny@lerachlaw.com; and
Richard H. Greener and John T. Simmons of Greener Banducci
Shoemaker P.A., 815 W Washington, Boise, ID 83702, Phone:
(208) 319-2600, Fax: (208) 319-2601, E-mail:
rgreener@greenerlaw.com or jsimmons@greenerlaw.com.  


ISABELLE'S INC.: Recalls Chicken Due To Listeria Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Isabelle's Kitchen, Inc., a Harleysville, Penn., firm, is
voluntarily recalling approximately 5,523 pounds of chicken
salad products that may be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service announced today.

The products subject to recall are:

     (1) Four-and-a-half-pound tubs of "ISABELLE'S KITCHEN INC.,
         HONEY DIJON PASTA CHICKEN SALAD." Each tub bears the
         establishment number "P-4629" inside the USDA seal of
         inspection and the sell by date, "Nov 19 05 305" or
         "Nov 22 05 308."

     (2) 30-pound buckets of "STEW LEONARD'S CHICKEN SALAD."
         Each bucket bears the establishment number "P-4629"
         inside the USDA seal of inspection and the sell by
         date, "Nov 19 05 305."

     (3) 30-pound buckets of "ISABELLE'S KITCHEN INC.,
         MARKETFARE CHICKEN SALAD." Each bucket bears the           
         establishment number "P-4629" inside the USDA seal of
         inspection and the sell by date, "Nov 21 05 A 306,"
         "Nov 21 05 B 306," "Nov 21 05 C 306," "Nov 21 05 D 306"
         or "Nov 21 05 E 306."

     (4) Five-pound tubs of "ISABELLE'S KITCHEN INC., TROPICAL
         CHICKEN SALAD, with Walnuts." Each tub bears the       
         establishment number "P-4629" inside the USDA seal of
         inspection and the sell by date, "Nov 20 05 306."

     (5) Five-pound tubs of "ISABELLE'S KITCHEN INC., CHICKEN
         SALAD, Bread Crumbs Added." Each tub bears the
         establishment number "P-4629" inside the USDA seal of
         inspection and the sell by date, "Nov 20 05 B 306"or
        "Nov 19 05 C 305."

The chicken salads were produced between November 1 and 4 and
were distributed to supermarkets and institutions in
Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania,
Virginia and West Virginia.

The problem was discovered through company microbiological
sampling. FSIS has received no reports of illnesses associated
with consumption of the product.  Consumption of food
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can cause listeriosis,
an uncommon but potentially fatal disease. Healthy people rarely
contract listeriosis. However, listeriosis can cause high fever,
severe headache, neck stiffness and nausea. Listeriosis can also
cause miscarriages and stillbirths, as well as serious and
sometimes fatal infections in those with weakened immune
systems, such as infants, the elderly and persons with HIV
infection or undergoing chemotherapy.

Media with questions about the recall should contact company
Chief Operating Officer Vincent Pupillo at (800) 355-7252.
Consumers with questions about the recall should contact company
Human Resources Manager Amy Grassi at (800) 355-7252.

Consumers with food safety questions can call the toll-free USDA
Meat and Poultry Hotline at (888) 674-6854. The hotline is
available in English and Spanish and can presently be reached 24
hours a day.


J.S. HOVNANIAN: Settles Suit by Holiday Village East Residents
--------------------------------------------------------------
After three years of legal wrangling, a class action suit filed
by residents of Holiday Village East in New Jersey against a
developer will soon come to a close with a proposed settlement,
The CourierPostOnline.com reports.

Filed in November 2002, the suit claims that the utility rooms
in homes built by J.S. Hovnanian & Sons LLC in the age-
restricted community do not provide enough ventilation to safely
operate a gas furnace, water heater and clothes dryer. According
to the suit, because of this, lint from the dryer could be
sucked into the furnace intake and block it, causing carbon
monoxide to accumulate in the home.

Under the proposed settlement, the developer would make any
repairs needed to the homes, according to Harry Schmoll, one of
the plaintiffs. Other plaintiffs in the case are Mr. Schmoll's
wife, Rita, and Leonard and Eleanor Egnack. Commenting on the
suit Mr. Schmoll told The CourierPostOnline.com, "Even though
it's taken a long time, I feel this is a great victory for
residents. It shows the little guy can stand up."

Court records show that a December 2, 2005 hearing was set in
Burlington County Superior Court to review the proposed
settlement. Residents who object to the proposal will have only
10 days before deadline to file their paperwork with the court.

Mr. Schmoll testified in April 2005 that a township plumbing
inspector discovered a ventilation problem in the utility room
in 2002 while inspecting connections for a new water heater. The
developer though maintains that the 900-plus homes follow all
codes, according to Richard Hunt, the lawyer representing J.S.
Hovnanian. He told The CourierPostOnline.com, "We're happy to
test the rooms for anyone who requests it. This is not a carbon
monoxide issue."


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Arguments on Suit Dismissal Appeal To Be Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments on the appeal of the dismissal of a consolidated
securities class action filed against Juniper Networks, Inc. and
certain of its current and former officers is set for December
2005 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

During the quarter ended March 31, 2002, a number of essentially
identical shareholder class action lawsuits were filed against
the Company and certain of its officers and former officers
purportedly on behalf of those stockholders who purchased the
Company's publicly traded securities between April
12, 2001 and June 7, 2001.

In April 2002, the court granted the defendants' motion to
consolidate all of these actions into one; in May 2002, the
court appointed the lead plaintiffs and approved their selection
of lead counsel and a consolidated complaint was filed in August
2002.  The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false and
misleading statements, assert claims for violations of the
federal securities laws and seek unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.

In September 2002, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. In March 2003, the court granted
defendants motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The plaintiffs
filed their amended complaint in April 2003 and the defendants
moved to dismiss the amended complaint in May 2003. The hearing
on defendants' motion to dismiss was held in September 2003. In
March 2004, the court granted defendants motion to dismiss,
without leave to amend.  In April 2004, the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal. The appeal has been fully briefed by the
parties.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Juniper
Networks, Inc., certain of its officers and:

     (1) Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,

     (2) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (3) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (4) Royal Bank of Canada (Dain Rauscher Wessels),

     (5) SG Cowen Securities Corporation,

     (6) UBS Warburg LLC (Warburg Dillon Read LLC),

     (7) Chase (Hambrecht & Quist LLC),

     (8) J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.,

     (9) Lehman Brothers, Inc.,

    (10) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.,

    (11) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated

This action was brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock in the Company's initial public offering in June
1999 and its secondary offering in September 1999.  
Specifically, among other things, this complaint alleged that
the prospectus pursuant to which shares of common stock were
sold in the Company's initial public offering and its subsequent
secondary offering contained certain false and misleading
statements or omissions regarding the practices of the
Underwriters with respect to their allocation of shares of
common stock in these offerings and their receipt of commissions
from customers related to such allocations.

Various plaintiffs have filed actions asserting similar
allegations concerning the initial public offerings of
approximately 300 other issuers. These various cases pending in
the Southern District of New York have been coordinated for
pretrial proceedings as "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92."

In April 2002, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint
in the action against the Company, alleging violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Defendants in the coordinated proceeding filed motions to
dismiss. In October 2002, the Company's officers were dismissed
from the case without prejudice pursuant to a stipulation. On
February 19, 2003, the court granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss, but declined to dismiss the claims
against the Company.

In June 2004, a stipulation for the settlement and release of
claims against the issuers, including the Company, was submitted
to the Court for approval.  The terms of the settlement, if
approved, would dismiss and release all claims against
participating defendants (including the Company). In exchange
for this dismissal, Directors and Officers insurance carriers
would agree to guarantee a recovery by the plaintiffs from the
underwriter defendants of at least $1 billion, and the issuer
defendants would agree to an assignment or surrender to the
plaintiffs of certain claims the issuer defendants may have
against the underwriters. On August 31, 2005, the Court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


LOUISIANA: Expert Says Suit V. FEMA Will Not Result in Windfall
---------------------------------------------------------------
A law professor says that a class action lawsuit brought by
Hurricane Katrina survivors against the Federal Emergency
Management Agency will unlikely result in huge cash payouts, The
BlackAmericaWeb.com reports.

According to Temple University law professor Craig Green, the
suit is likely being filed to prove a point and not collect the
large sums of money some have been seeking in high-profile cases
against pharmaceutical companies. In addition, Mr. Green told
The BlackAmericaWeb.com that there are a number of obstacles
facing the plaintiffs who are accusing FEMA of wrongfully
denying them assistance for securing temporary housing. Among
them, he points out, are certain protections afforded to
government agencies and the sheer fact that civil litigation is
never a quick process.
  
Mr. Green told The BlackAmericaWeb.com, "There is an explicit
federal statute that says there can't be any liability for
discretionary action on the part of FEMA. Admitting that it is
frustrating for many American citizens to learn that suing the
government is not as cut and dried as one may believe, Mr. Green
added, "It's a matter of [federal agencies deciding] where to
send the funds. On one hand, [the statutes] allow the government
to do its job without worry about being hauled in court. But on
the other hand, legitimate plaintiffs are left out in the cold."

Additionally, Mr. Green, who teaches courses in civil procedure
administration law, told The BlackAmericaWeb.com that the 63-
page complaint filed recently appears to be well thought out and
carefully put together by the public interest firms representing
Katrina survivors. Filing the suit, according to him, will bring
to light the plight of people looking for help during a
devastating time. He pointed out, "These are folks who feel like
they need attention, and this is the way to get attention. I'm
sure this was a last resort for them."

Acknowledging the numerous emails from former FEMA head Michael
Brown could come back to haunt the agency, Mr. Green told The
BlackAmericaWeb.com, "The internal workings of FEMA will be
useful probably for lawsuits other than this one. But some of
the stuff argued in this lawsuit is almost inevitable because
there will be mistakes in responding to a mammoth public
interest emergency."

Though some officials were not eager to discuss the matter, FEMA
spokesperson Nicol D. Andrews defended the agency's post-Katrina
performance by writing in an email statement to
BlackAmericaWeb.com, "FEMA has provided federal aid to more than
1.5 million families in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Aid will
continue until every family has received help from FEMA."

The plaintiffs may very well have better luck waiting to see
what action FEMA takes rather than anticipating the resolution
to their claim against the agency, since according to Mr. Green
it's highly unlikely any settlement would be made soon. He told
The BlackAmericaWeb.com, "Civil litigation is very slow, and by
the time they reach a final judgment, if it goes one way or the
other, it's going to be a very long from now." Adding that if
the case makes it before a judge, Mr. Green pointed out that
it's likely an uphill battle for the plaintiffs, which might be
one reason that people are now beginning to sue hospitals,
private entities that are not as protected by statutes like
FEMA. He specifically told The BlackAmericaWeb.com, "I don't
think they would actually win the lawsuit. If they did win, it
would be so far down the road that it may not even be relevant."

Currently pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, the suit was filed by The Lawyers
Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, The Public Interest
Law Project in Oakland and The Equal Justice Society along with
John K. Pierre, a Professor at Southern University Law Center,
who has been retained as local counsel, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (November 14, 2005) reports.

The lawsuit, the first file against FEMA in relation to its
response to Katrina, says that the agency has violated and
continues to violate Federal law by failing to discharge its
obligations as the federal agency chartered to care for victims
of natural disasters. It seeks a court order to require FEMA to
make it easier for victims to apply for temporary housing
assistance, to improve the agency's outreach and accessibility
and immediately to provide trailers or other alternatives to
replace shelters, tents and other makeshift arrangements. The
suit also asks the court to force FEMA to establish application
guidelines under which victims can obtain continued financial
assistance beyond a three-month period and receive adjustments
based on family size and other factors. The plaintiffs also
request that the court order FEMA to eliminate certain rules
regarding the use of funds victims have already received and to
cease a policy whereby FEMA makes room for its housing by
evicting and destroying the homes of residents of trailer parks,
an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 14, 2005)
reports.

The legal action was brought by 14 named plaintiffs on their own
behalf and on the behalf of a class of people who lived in
Louisiana, Mississippi or Alabama on August 29, 2005 in areas
that were subsequently declared Federal Disaster Areas, were
displaced by Hurricane Katrina and have or will apply for
disaster housing assistance under the Stafford Act, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (November 14, 2005) reports.


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faces Injury Lawsuits V. Zicam Cold Remedy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. faces claims from 366 individuals in
41 different lawsuits, alleging that the Company's Zicam Cold
Remedy product caused the permanent loss or diminishment of the
sense of smell or smell and taste. One of these lawsuits was
filed as a class action lawsuit covering named and unnamed
plaintiffs.  The claims of several individual plaintiffs have
been dismissed

The current cases that have been filed against the Company are:

     (1) Abramsen, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed March 8, 2004, in the Superior Court of Arizona
         (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-04415, consolidated
         under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product Liability Cases,
         Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No.
         CV2004-001338;

     (2) Adams, et al., vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed May 6, 2004, in the Superior Court of Arizona
         (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-008929, consolidated
         under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product Liability Cases,
         Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No.
         CV2004-001338;

     (3) Adamson, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed February 1, 2005, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2005-001880,
         consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product
         Liability Cases, Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa
         County), Case No. CV2004-001338;

     (4) Akers, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed August 20, 2004, in the Superior Court of Arizona
         (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-016010, consolidated
         under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product Liability Cases,
         Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No.
         CV2004-001338;

     (5) Alexander, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed June 30, 2005, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2005-051224;

     (6) Benkwith, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed May 3, 2004, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery
         County, Alabama, Case No. CV04-1180 CNP; removed to
         United States District Court for the Middle District of
         Alabama, Case No. 2:04 CV-00623-F;

     (7) Bentley, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed January 23, 2004, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-001338,
         consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product
         Liability Cases, Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa
         County), Case No. CV2004-001338;

     (8) Bourgeois, Deborah vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed February 22, 2005, in the United States
         District Court for the Northern District of Alabama,
         Middle Division, Case No. CV-05-PT-0393-M;

     (9) Bryant vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed
         June 9, 2004, in the District Court, Boulder County,
         Colorado, Case No. 04CV808, removed to United States
         District Court for the District of Colorado, Case No.
         04-MK-2317 (BNB);

    (10) Cappy, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed November 17, 2004, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-021668,
         consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product
         Liability Cases, Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa
         County), Case No. CV2004-001338;

    (11) Cash, Katie and David vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed January 13, 2005, in the Superior Court of
         California (Fresno County, Central Division), Case No.
         05 CE CG 00124;

    (12) Cheney, Sharon vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed April 20, 2005, in the Superior Court of Arizona
         (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2005-050458;

    (13) Connolly, Gay vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed October 22, 2004, in the State Court of Georgia
         (Cobb County), Case No. 2004A 9564-5;

    (14) Douillard, John R. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed May 6, 2004, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-008950,
         consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product
         Liability Cases, Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa
         County), Case No. CV2004-001338;

    (15) Flores vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed on
         December 30, 2004, in the Superior Court of California
         (Santa Clara County), Case No. 1:04-CV033194; removed
         to United States District Court Northern District of
         California (San Jose Division), Case No. C05 01090 PVT;

    (16) Flynn, Richard vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed May 20, 2005, in the Superior Court of California
         (Orange County), Case No. 05CC06403;

    (17) Gillespie, Julie vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed December 8, 2004, in the Superior Court of
         California (Orange County), Case No. 04CC11976; removed
         to United States District Court Central District of
         California (Southern Division), Case No. SACV 05-0047-
         DOC(ANx);

    (18) Goetz, Linda vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed May 18, 2005, in the Superior Court of Arizona
         (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2005-050298;

    (19) Hans, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed September 13, 2004, in the United States District
         Court, Western District of Kentucky, Case No.
         3:04CV540-R;

    (20) Hilton, Heather vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed June 17, 2004, in the State of Texas District
         Court, Tarrant County, Case No. 048-206162-04; removed
         to the United States District Court for the Northern
         District of Texas Fort Worth Division, Case No. 04CV-
         519-Y;

    (21) Hood, Michael and Terri vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.,
         et al., filed April 14, 2004, in the Circuit Court of
         the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County,
         Florida, General Jurisdiction Division, Case No.
         04006193;

    (22) Horvat, Diane vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed February 28, 2005, in Circuit Court of Cook
         County, Illinois County Department, Law Division, Case
         No. 2005L02324;


    (23) Hudson, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed February 11, 2005, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2005-002569,
         consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product
         Liability Cases, Case No. CV 2004-001338;

    (24) Hunter, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed June 4, 2004, in the Superior Court of Arizona
         (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-010830, consolidated
         under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product Liability Cases,
         Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No.
         CV2004-001338;

    (25) Hurst, Janet vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed May 13, 2005, in the Superior Court of the State
         of California (Orange County), Case No. 05CC06195;

    (26) Kalfian, Carol A. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed April 20, 2004, in the United States
         District Court for the District of Rhode Island, Case
         No. 04-119-ML;

    (27) Lusch, Barbara A. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed January 14, 2005, in the Circuit Court of
         the State of Oregon, Case No. 0501-00588; removed to
         the United States District Court for the District of
         Oregon, Case No. 3:05-CV-292-HA;

    (28) Lutche, Lucy B. vs. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed May 7, 2004, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-008704,
         consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product
         Liability Cases, Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa
         County), Case No. CV2004-001338;

    (29) Mayo, Derek vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed May 26, 2004, in the Superior Court of New
         Jersey, Law Division: Essex County, Docket No. ESX-L-
         3551-04; removed to the United States District Court
         for the District of New Jersey, Case No. 2:04-cv-3197;

    (30) Nelson, Tommy Ray and Sherry vs. Matrixx Initiatives,
         Inc., et al., filed February 28, 2005, in the Circuit
         Court for Roane County, Tennessee, Case No. 13328,
         removed to the United States District Court for the
         Eastern District of Tennessee Northern Division, Case
         No. 3:05-CV-193;

    (31) O'Hanlon, Dennis and Bonnie vs. Matrixx Initiatives,
         Inc., et al., filed October 29, 2004, in the Superior
         Court of California (Los Angeles County), Case No.
         BC322039; removed to United States District Court
         Central District of California (Los Angeles), Case No.
         CV04-10391 AHM(JTLx);

    (32) Orlansky, Robin vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed February 9, 2005, in the Superior Court of
         California (San Diego County), Case No. GIC 842519;

    (33) Ringbauer, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed February 11, 2004, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-002822,
         removed to the United States District Court for the
         District of Arizona, Case No. CIV04-0513-PHX-EHC;
         remanded to the Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa
         County), consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam
         Product Liability Cases, Superior Court of Arizona
         (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-001338;

    (34) Rostron, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed November 4, 2004, in the United States District
         Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle
         Division, Case No. CV-04-AR-3136-M, originally
         involving plaintiffs Rostron and McCune, was severed,
         Rostron was transferred to the United States District
         Court for the District of New Jersey by Order filed on
         March 15, 2005, Case No. 05-1547, and McCune continues
         in the United States District Court for the Northern
         District of Alabama, Middle Division, under Case No.
         CV-04-AR-3136-M;

    (35) Sutherland, Janie vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed December 18, 2003, in the Circuit Court of
         Etowah, Alabama, Case No. CV-2003-1635-WHR; removed to
         United States District Court for the Northern District
         of Alabama, Middle Division, Case No. CV-04-AR-0129-M;

    (36) Swanbeck, Steven vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed November 18, 2004, in the Superior Court of New
         Jersey Law Division: Morris County, Dock No. L-3096-04;

    (37) Wagner, Nicole vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed February 24, 2005, in Superior Court of
         California, County of San Diego, Case No. GIC 843335;

    (38) Williams, Rose Mary et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives,
         Inc., et al., filed December 29, 2004, in the United
         States District Court for the Northern District of
         Alabama, Middle Division, Case No. 4:04cv-3548-UWC; and

    (39) Wyatt, Susan vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed June 15, 2004, in the United States District
         Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern
         Division, Case No. CV-04-AR-1230-S.

    (40) Dobson, Donald and Jeannette vs. Matrixx Initiatives,
         Inc., et al., filed September 23, 2005, in the Circuit
         Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm
         Beach County, Florida, Case No. 50 2005CA 009059 XXXX
         MB;

    (41) Spiegel, Sylvia vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed September 1, 2005, in the Superior Court of Los
         Angeles, South District, Long Beach, Case No. NC037418

Generally, the cases filed in the Superior Court of Arizona have
been or the company expects will be consolidated under "In Re
Consolidated Zicam Product Liability Cases, Case No. CV
2004-001338."  A lawsuit styled "Alexander, et al., vs. Matrixx
Initiatives, Inc., et al.," filed June 30, 2005, in the Superior
Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2005-051224 has
been consolidated under the above litigation.  Various
defendants in the lawsuits, including manufacturers and
retailers, have sought indemnification or other recovery from us
for damages related to the lawsuits.

On August 9, 2005, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement to resolve the claim with respect to the case "Nelson
vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed December 8, 2003,
in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles, Case No. YC048136."  The terms of the settlement
agreement are confidential.

Various defendants in the lawsuits, including manufacturers and
retailers, have sought indemnification or other recovery from
the Company for damages related to the lawsuits. These cases are
generally in the early stages and the Company expects the first
trial to begin in August 2005, the Company said in a disclosure
to the Securities and Exchange Commission.  Also, plaintiffs'
law firms continue to solicit potential claimants through the
Internet and other media.

In its filing, the Company said it believes the allegations
relating to Zicam Cold Remedy are unfounded. Zicam Cold Remedy
has been studied in two independent, placebo-control studies. In
those studies, there was no statistically significant difference
in adverse events between the placebo and non-placebo group, and
there was no indication in either group of impairment to the
sense of smell. Further, the incidence of smell disorders is
reported at 1% to 2% of the population on average, and is very
common in those over age 50. Upper respiratory infections are
among the most common causes of impairment to sense of smell.
Therefore, any product such as Zicam Cold Remedy designed to
treat upper respiratory illnesses may be mistakenly associated
with distortion of sense of smell. The rate of reported
complaints of distortion of sense of smell associated with Zicam
Cold Remedy is well below these national incidence levels, the
Company said in the filing.

The Company also convened a two-day meeting of its Scientific
Advisory Board in September 2004 to review the findings of
studies initiated in the first quarter of fiscal 2004. The
Scientific Advisory Board is comprised of medical doctors and
researchers that are independent of the Company.  The Company
provided honorariums for members' attendance at meetings, travel
expenses, and funded grants to design and perform research
studies investigating the contention that Zicam Cold Remedy zinc
gluconate nasal gel is associated with disorders of smell.  
Members of the Scientific Advisory Board presented the results
of their studies on the epidemiology, anatomy, and physiology of
smell disorders. It was the unanimous opinion of the Scientific
Advisory Board that the cumulative scientific evidence does not
support the contention that Zicam Cold Remedy zinc gluconate
nasal gel is associated with disorders of smell. The Scientific
Advisory Board plans to do further testing of the zinc gluconate
nasal gel on human volunteers and animal models.  The Company
said in the filing that it anticipates the Scientific Advisory
Board will reconvene from time to time to review the findings of
ongoing studies.


NATIONWIDE LIFE: MD Court Mulls Mutual Fund Fraud Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland
has yet to rule on Nationwide Life Insurance Company's motion to
dismiss a class action filed against it and other investment
firms, alleging the Company engaged in market-timing trading
activity.

The suit was initially filed on April 13, 2004 in the Circuit
Court, Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois,
captioned "Woodbury v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company."  The
plaintiff claims to represent a class of persons in the United
States who, through their ownership of a Company annuity or
insurance product, held units of any Company sub-account
invested in mutual funds which included foreign securities in
their portfolios and which allegedly experienced market timing
trading activity. The complaint contains allegations of
negligence, reckless indifference and breach of fiduciary duty.
The plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
in an amount not to exceed $75,000 per plaintiff or class
member.

The Company removed this case to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois on June 1, 2004. The
plaintiffs moved to remand on June 28, 2004. On July 12, 2004,
the Company filed a memorandum opposing remand and requesting a
stay pending the resolution of an unrelated case covering
similar issues, which is an appeal from a decision of the same
District Court remanding a removed market timing case to an
Illinois state court.  On July 30, 2004, the U.S. District Court
granted the Company's request for a stay pending a decision by
the Seventh Circuit on the unrelated case mentioned above. On
December 27, 2004, the case was transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland and included in the
multi-district proceeding there entitled "In Re Mutual Funds
Investment Litigation."

On April 25, 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. In
response, on May 13, 2005, the plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint purporting to represent, with certain exceptions, a
class of all persons who held (through their ownership of an
NLIC annuity or insurance product) units of any the Company sub-
account invested in mutual funds that included foreign
securities in their portfolios and that experienced market
timing or stale price trading activity.  The First Amended
Complaint purports to disclaim, with respect to market timing or
stale price trading in the Company's annuities sub-accounts, any
allegation based on the Company's untrue statement, failure to
disclose any material fact, or usage of any manipulative or
deceptive device or contrivance in connection with any class
Member's purchases or sales of the Company annuities or units in
annuities sub-accounts.  The plaintiff claims, in the
alternative, that if the Company is found with respect to market
timing or stale price trading in its annuities sub-accounts, to
have made any untrue statement, to have failed to disclose any
material fact or to have used or employed any manipulative or
deceptive device or contrivance, then the plaintiff purports to
represent a class, with certain exceptions, of all persons who,
prior to the Company's untrue statement, omission of material
fact, use or employment of any manipulative or deceptive device
or contrivance, held (through their ownership of an NLIC annuity
or insurance product) units of any Company sub-account invested
in mutual funds that included foreign securities in their
portfolios and that experienced market timing activity.  The
First Amended Complaint alleges common law negligence and seeks
to recover damages not to exceed $75,000 per plaintiff or class
member, including all compensatory damages and costs.  On June
24, 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the First
Amended Complaint. The plaintiff has opposed that motion.

The suit is styled "In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation,
case no. 1:04-cv-03944-JFM," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland, under Judge J. Frederick
Motz.

Representing the Company are:

    (1) Shoshana Leah Gillers, Eric John Mogilnicki, Charles
        Collier Platt of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr
        LLP, 399 Park Ave, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 1-212-230-
        8841 Fax: 1-212-230-8888, E-mail:
        shoshana.gillers@wilmerhale.com,
        eric.mogilnicki@wilmerhale.com,
         charles.platt@wilmerhale.com  

     (2) Larry E. Hepler, W. Jason Rankin, Burroughs Hepler, 103
         W Vandalia St Ste 300, PO Box 510 Edwardsville, IL
         62025-0510, Phone: 1-618-656-0184

     (3) Gordon Pearson, Andrew R. Varcoe, Wilmer Cutler, 2445 M
         St NW, Washington, DC 20037 Phone: 1-202-663-6000 Fax:
         1-202-663-6363

Representing the Plaintiffs are:

     (i) Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Andrew Steven Friedman,
         Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint PC, 2901 N
         Central Ave Ste 1000, Phoenix, AZ 85012, Phone: 1-602-
         776-5903 Fax: 1-602-274-1199, E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com
         or afriedman@bffb.com  

    (ii) Eugene Yevgeny Barash, George A. Zelcs, Korein Tillery
         701 Market St Ste 300, St. Louis, MO 63108, Phone: 1-
         314-241-4844, Fax: 1-314-241-3525, E-mail:
         ebarash@koreintillery.com, gzelcs@koreintillery.com  

   (iii) Timothy G Blood, William J. Doyle, John J. Stoia, Jr.,
         Milberg Weiss, 401 B St Ste 1700, San Diego, CA 92101-
         3311, Phone: 1-619-231-1058, Fax: 1-619-231-7423


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Continues To Face MI Consumer Fraud Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Life Insurance Company continues to face the class
action filed against it, styled "United Investors Life Insurance
Company v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company and/or Nationwide
Life Insurance Company of America and/or Nationwide Life and
Annuity Insurance Company and/or Nationwide Life and Annuity
Company of America and/or Nationwide Financial Services, Inc.
and/or Nationwide Financial Corporation, and John Does A-Z,"
after the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Mississippi refused to dismiss the suit.

In its complaint, plaintiff United Investors alleges that the
Company and/or its affiliated life insurance companies caused
the replacement of variable insurance policies and other
financial products issued by United Investors with policies
issued by the Nationwide defendants.  The plaintiff raises
claims for:

     (1) violations of the Federal Lanham Act, and common law
         unfair competition and defamation,

     (2) tortious interference with the plaintiff's contractual
         relationship with Waddell & Reed, Inc. and/or its
         affiliates, Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc., Waddell &
         Reed Financial Services, Inc. and W&R Insurance Agency,
         Inc., or with the plaintiff's contractual relationships
         with its variable policyholders,

     (3) civil conspiracy, and

     (4) breach of fiduciary duty

The complaint seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, pre-
and post-judgment interest, a full accounting, a constructive
trust, and costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on June 1,
2004. On February 8, 2005 the court denied the motion to
dismiss.  On March 23, 2005, the Company filed its answer.

The suit is styled "United Investors Lif v. Nationwide Life
Insu, et al, case no. 2:04-cv-00012-NBB-SAA," filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Mississippi, under Judge Neal B. Biggers.

The Company is represented by Cal Mayo, Jr. of MAYO MALLETTE,
PLLC, P.O. Box 1456, Oxford, MS 38655, Phone: (662) 236-0055, E-
mail: cmayo@mayomallette.com; and Charles C. Platt and Peter K.
Vigeland, WILMER CUTLER PICKERING, LLP, 399 Park Avenue, New
York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 230-8860.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (i) William J. Baxley, Joel E. Dillard, BAXLEY DILLARD
         DAUPHIN MCKNIGHT & BARCLIFT, 2008 3rd Avenue South,
         Birmingham, AL 35233, Phone: (205) 271-1100

    (ii) Betsy P. Collins, Scott P. Hilsen, Caroline Keller,  
         ALSTON & BYRD, One Atlantic Center, 1201 West Peachtree
         Street, Atlanta, GA 30309-3424, Phone: (404) 881-7000

   (iii) Michelle Dean Easterling, EDWARDS, STOREY, MARSHALL &
         HELVESTON, P. O. Box 835, West Point, MS 39773-0835,
         Phone: (601) 494-5184, E-mail: mde@wpms.net  

    (iv) Charles M. Ferguson, Jr., James W. Gewin, Matthew H.
         Lembke, Hobart A. McWhorter, Michael R. Pennington,
         BRADLEY, ARANT, ROSE & WHITE, LLP - Birmingham, P.O.
         Box 830709, Birmingham, AL 35283-0709, Phone: (205)
         521-8000

     (v) Floyd D. Gaines, Andrew P. Walsh, GAINES PLLC, 2100
         Morris Avenue, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: (205) 320-
         2800

    (vi) Sam S. Thomas, UNDERWOOD/THOMAS, P.O. Box 24057,
         Jackson, MS 39225-4057, Phone: (601) 355-3668, E-mail:
         sst@underwoodthomas.com  


NATIONWIDE LIFE: CT Court Considers ERISA Suit Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
has yet to rule on Nationwide Life Insurance Company's
memorandum in support of summary judgment in a class action
filed against it entitled "Lou Haddock, as trustee of the Flyte
Tool & Die, Incorporated Deferred Compensation Plan, et al v.
Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. and Nationwide Life
Insurance Company."

The plaintiffs first amended their complaint on September 5,
2001 to include class action allegations and have subsequently
amended their complaint three times.  As amended, in the current
complaint the plaintiffs seek to represent a class of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) qualified retirement
plans that purchased variable annuities from the Company.  The
plaintiffs allege that they invested ERISA plan assets in their
variable annuity contracts and that the Company breached ERISA
fiduciary duties by allegedly accepting service payments from
certain mutual funds.  The complaint seeks disgorgement of some
or all of the payments allegedly received by the Company, other
unspecified relief for restitution, declaratory and injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees.

On December 13, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. The plaintiffs filed a supplement to that motion
on September 19, 2003. The Company opposed that motion on
December 24, 2003.

The suit is styled "Haddock, et al v. Nationwide, et al., case
no. 3:01-cv-01552-SRU," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut, under Judge Stefan R.
Underhill.

Representing the plaintiffs are Martin Woodward, Stanley, Mandel
& Iola, 3100 Monticello Ave., Suite 750, Dallas, TX 75205,
Phone: 214-443-4300, Fax: 214-443-0358, E-mail:
mwoodward@smi-law.com; and Michael A. Stratton, Stratton Faxon,
59 Elm St.
New Haven, CT 06510, Phone: 203-624-9500, E-mail:
mstratton@strattonfaxon.com.

Representing the Company are:

     (1) Jessica A. Ballou, Dennis F. Kerrigan, Jr., LeBoeuf,
         Lamb, Greene & MacRae, Goodwin Square, 225 Asylum St.,
         Hartford, CT 06103, Phone: 860-293-3535, Fax: 860-293-
         3555, E-mail: jballou@llgm.com or
         dennis.kerrigan@llgm.com

     (2) Charles C. Platt, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, 399 Park
         Ave., New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-230-8800


NORTEL NETWORKS: Enters Mediation For NY Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks Corporation has begun mediation for the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, related to
the Company's February 15, 2001 announcement in which it
provided revised guidance for financial performance for the 2001
fiscal year and the first quarter of 2001.  The suit also names
as defendants certain of its then current officers and
directors.

More than twenty-five purported class action lawsuits were
initially filed in the United States District Courts for the
Eastern District of New York, for the Southern District of New
York and for the District of New Jersey and in courts in the
provinces of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia in Canada, on
behalf of shareholders who acquired Company securities as early
as October 24, 2000 and as late as February 15, 2001.  The suits
allege, among other things, violations of U.S. federal and
Canadian provincial securities laws.  These matters also have
been the subject of review by Canadian and U.S. securities
regulatory authorities.

On May 11, 2001, the defendants filed motions to dismiss and/or
stay in connection with the three proceedings in Quebec
primarily based on the factual allegations lacking substantial
connection to Quebec and the inclusion of shareholders resident
in Quebec in the class claimed in the Ontario lawsuit. The
plaintiffs in two of these proceedings in Quebec obtained court
approval for discontinuances of their proceedings on January 17,
2002.  The motion to dismiss and/or stay the third proceeding
was heard on November 6, 2001 and the court deferred any
determination on the motion to the judge who will hear the
application for authorization to commence a class proceeding.  
On December 6, 2001, the defendants filed a motion seeking leave
to appeal that decision. The motion for leave to appeal was
dismissed on March 11, 2002.

On October 16, 2001, an order in the Southern District of New
York was filed consolidating twenty-five of the related U.S.
class action lawsuits into a single case, appointing class
plaintiffs and counsel for such plaintiffs. The plaintiffs
served a consolidated amended complaint on January 18, 2002. On
December 17, 2001, the defendants in the British Columbia action
served notice of a motion requesting the court to decline
jurisdiction and to stay all proceedings on the grounds that
British Columbia is an inappropriate forum. The motion has been
adjourned at the plaintiffs' request to a future date to be set
by the parties.

On April 1, 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
above consolidated U.S. shareholder class action on the ground
that it failed to state a cause of action under U.S. federal
securities laws. On January 3, 2003, the District Court denied
the motion to dismiss the consolidated U.S. class action
complaint.  The plaintiffs served a motion for class
certification on March 21, 2003.  On May 30, 2003, the
defendants served an opposition to the motion for class
certification. Plaintiffs' reply was served on August 1, 2003.
The District Court held oral arguments on September 3, 2003 and
issued an order granting class certification on September 5,
2003.  On September 23, 2003, the defendants filed a motion in
the Second Circuit for permission to appeal the class
certification decision.  The plaintiffs' opposition to the
motion was filed on October 2, 2003.  On November 24, 2003, the
Second Circuit denied the motion.  On March 10, 2004, the
District Court approved the form of notice to the class, which
was published and mailed.

On September 30, 2005, the Company announced that a mediator has
been jointly appointed by the two U.S. District Court Judges
presiding over two class action lawsuits pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to
oversee settlement negotiations between the Company and the lead
plaintiffs in both the above consolidated U.S. shareholder class
action and the U.S. shareholder class action consolidated on
June 30, 2004 described below.  The appointment of the mediator
was pursuant to a request by the Company and the lead plaintiffs
for the Courts' assistance to facilitate the possibility of
achieving a global settlement regarding these actions. The
settlement discussions before the mediator will be confidential
and non-binding on the parties without prejudice to their
respective positions in the litigation.  In the event that the
parties reach agreement, any such proposed resolution would be
subject to the Courts' approval. There can be no assurance that
the parties will agree upon a proposed resolution and, in the
event they do not, the actions would continue to proceed.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Enters Mediation For NY Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks, Inc. enters mediation for the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it and
certain of its then current and former officers and directors.

Subsequent to the March 10, 2004 announcement in which the
Company indicated it was likely that it would need to revise its
previously announced unaudited results for the year ended
December 31, 2003, and the results reported in certain of its
quarterly reports for 2003, and to restate its previously filed
financial results for one or more earlier periods, the Company
and certain of its then current and former officers and
directors were named as defendants in 27 purported class action
lawsuits.  These lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of shareholders
who acquired Nortel Networks Corporation securities as early as
February 16, 2001 and as late as May 15, 2004.

The suits allege, among other things, violations of U.S. federal
securities laws.  These matters are also the subject of
investigations by Canadian and U.S. securities regulatory and
criminal investigative authorities.  On June 30, 2004, the Court
signed Orders consolidating the 27 class actions and appointing
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. The plaintiffs filed a
consolidated class action complaint on September 10, 2004,
alleging a class period of April 24, 2003 through and including
April 27, 2004.  On November 5, 2004, the Company and the Audit
Committee Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
class action complaint.  On January 18, 2005, the lead
plaintiffs, NNC and the Audit Committee Defendants reached an
agreement in which NNC would withdraw its motion to dismiss and
plaintiffs would dismiss Count II of the complaint, which
asserts a claim against the Audit Committee Defendants. On May
13, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.

On September 30, 2005, the Company announced that a mediator has
been jointly appointed by the two U.S. District Court Judges
presiding over two class action lawsuits pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to
oversee settlement negotiations between the Company and the lead
plaintiffs in both this suit and the above consolidated U.S.
shareholder class action.  The appointment of the mediator was
pursuant to a request by the Company and the lead plaintiffs for
the Courts' assistance to facilitate the possibility of
achieving a global settlement regarding these actions.  The
settlement discussions before the mediator will be confidential
and non-binding on the parties without prejudice to their
respective positions in the litigation.  In the event that the
parties reach agreement, any such proposed resolution would be
subject to the Courts' approval. There can be no assurance that
the parties will agree upon a proposed resolution and, in the
event they do not, the actions would continue to proceed.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Shareholders File Fraud Suit in Canadian Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks, Inc. and Nortel Networks Corporation (NNC) and
certain of its current and former officers and directors and its
auditors face a purported class action proceeding filed in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, on behalf of
all Canadian residents who purchased Nortel Networks Corporation
securities from April 24, 2003 to April 27, 2004.

This lawsuit alleges, among other things, negligence,
misrepresentations, oppressive conduct, insider trading and
violations of Canadian corporation and competition laws in
connection with NNC's 2003 financial results and seeks damages
of Canadian $3,000, plus punitive damages in the amount of
Canadian $1,000, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and
costs of the action.  The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified
amount of monetary damages.


PNM RESOURCES: Seeks Dismissal of CA Antitrust Suit Cross-Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
PNM Resources Inc. is seeking the dismissal of the cross-claim
filed against it by the defendants in the class actions filed in
the United States District Court in California.

Several suits were initially filed in California state courts
against electric generators and marketers, alleging that the
defendants violated the law by manipulating the market to
grossly inflate electricity prices.  Named defendants in these
lawsuits include Duke Energy Corporation and related entities
along with other named sellers into the California market and
numerous other unidentified defendants.  Certain of these
lawsuits were consolidated for hearing in state court in San
Diego, California.

In May 2002, the named defendants served a cross-claim on the
Company.  Duke Energy Corporation also cross-claimed against
many of the other sellers into California.  Duke Energy
Corporation asked for declaratory relief and for indemnification
for any damages that might ultimately be imposed on it.  Several
defendants removed the case to federal court in California.  The
federal judge has entered an order remanding the matter to state
court, but the effect of that ruling has been stayed pending
appeal.

The Company has joined with other cross-defendants in motions to
dismiss the cross-claim.  In September 2005, the company
received an indication that Duke Energy Corporation intends to
dismiss all cross-complaints against other sellers once its
maximum liability is confirmed by final approval of its
settlement in the class action lawsuits.


POZEN INC.: NC Court Dismisses With Prejudice Derivative Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
POZEN Inc. (NASDAQ: POZN), a pharmaceutical company focused
primarily on products for the treatment of acute and chronic
pain, migraine, and other pain-related conditions, reports that
in a decision entered on November 10, 2005, the Superior Court
for the County of Orange in the State of North Carolina
dismissed in its entirety "with prejudice" the consolidated
shareholder derivative lawsuit previously pending against
certain of POZEN's current and former directors and officers.
The related class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina is ongoing.

Dr. John R. Plachetka, POZEN's chairman, president and CEO
stated, "We maintained all along that this lawsuit was without
merit and are pleased that the Court has agreed with our
assessment. We continue to believe that the pending class action
lawsuit is without merit and will continue to defend this
lawsuit vigorously."


SONY BMG: Faces NY Suit Over Controversial Anti-Piracy Software
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sony BMG Music Entertainment faces yet another class action
lawsuit stemming from the controversy over its anti-piracy
software, The Washington Post reports.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York by New York attorney, Scott Kamber, the federal suit
could potentially include consumers in all 50 states. The suit
names Sony and First4Internet, the company that produced the
anti-piracy software (a technology the company dubbed XCP). Its
two named plaintiffs are, James Michaelson from Illinois and an
Ori Edelstein from New Jersey.

The suit claims, "To date, over 3 million copies of XCP encoded
disks have been sold. It is probable that millions of consumers
have played these discs on their PC's and thus compromised their
systems without knowing it."

The suit closely follows a similar suit filed last week in
California. Filed in the Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles, that suit is asking the court to prevent Sony from
selling additional CDs protected by the anti-piracy software. In
addition, the suit seeks monetary damages for California
consumers who purchased them. In addition, the suit alleges that
Sony's software violates at least three California statutes,
including the "Consumer Legal Remedies Act," which governs
unfair and/or deceptive trade acts; and the "Consumer Protection
against Computer Spyware Act," which prohibits software that
takes control over the user's computer or misrepresents the
user's ability or right to uninstall the program. It also
alleges that Sony's actions violate the California Unfair
Competition law, which allows public prosecutors and private
citizens to file lawsuits to protect businesses and consumers
from unfair business practices, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (November 10, 2005) reports.  

Security experts warned that the anti-piracy software's ability
to hide on a Windows-based computer could also be used by
viruses to remain hidden on a PC, even from anti-virus programs.
Last week, someone mass-spammed several versions of a virus that
uses Sony's technology to remain cloaked on victims' machines.
Since then, anti-virus companies and even Microsoft have said
that they will consider Sony's software as spyware and remove it
as such.

Security expert Mark Russinovich, whose research kicked off the
suits, also found that removing the Sony software could cause
some Windows systems to crash. He also discovered that
uninstalling any of the software's components without first
going through Sony's multi-step authorization process can render
the user's CD-Rom drive completely useless for anything other
than a upholder.  

The New York complaint contends that the court needs to
intervene to stop Sony from possibly using this type of
technology in other product lines or reintroducing it in CDs at
a later date. According to the suit, "The plans Sony and F4i may
have for future use of this technology in the game or video
sector is currently unknown. Sony has even refused to disclose
which music titles it sold that were encoded with the XCP
technology."

Previously, Sony stated that it would temporarily suspend
production of CDs that include the anti-piracy software, but it
did not rule out using it in future products, nor did it issue a
recall of the CDs already sold. In a statement released last
week, the company, which is a joint venture by Sony and
Germany's Bertelsmann AG, said, "As a precautionary measure,
Sony BMG is temporarily suspending the manufacture of CDs
containing XCP technology. We also intend to re-examine all
aspects of our content protection initiative to be sure that it
continues to meet our goals of security and ease of consumer
use," an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 15, 2005)
reports.

For more details, visit http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/technology/daily/graphics/complaint_111405.pdf.  


SONY COMPUTER: To Settle U.S., Canadian Suits Over Faulty PS2s
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sony Computer Entertainment America ("SCEA"), recently agreed to
pay back customers that owned a defective PlayStationr2 computer
entertainment system ("PS2").

The proposed settlements to lawsuits in the United States (in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo) and
Canada (in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice) will cover the
PS2 models 30001, 30001R, 35001, 39001, 39010, 50001 and 50010.  

The plaintiffs in those cases claim that certain inappropriate
"Disc Read Error" messages are displayed and that some PS2s fail
to play and that some of them cause damage to CDs or DVDs during
playback. The companies that were sued included: SCEA, Sony of
Canada Ltd., and Toys "R" Us (Canada) Ltd.

The courts tentatively scheduled hearings for April 28, 2006 and
May 11, 2006 in the U.S. court and Canadian court, respectively,
to consider whether to give approval to the settlement. If they
approve the settlement, cash or game benefit may be distributed
as early as May 12, 2006, according to a settlement website.

For more details, visit http://www.ps2settlement.com/.


SUCCESS EXPRESS: Barred From Making False Post Office Job Offers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three corporations and their officers have been barred from
making false promises to consumers concerning employment with
the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) under the terms of a temporary
restraining order issued by a U.S. district court judge at the
request of the Federal Trade Commission.

The FTC alleged the defendants promised consumers help in
registering for and obtaining postal employment in the
consumer's area, and guaranteed them job placement if they
obtained a score of 90 or above on the USPS employment
examination. In reality, the defendants are not connected with
the USPS, and postal jobs are not available through them.

In its complaint, the FTC charged the defendants falsely claimed
that: they were connected with USPS; postal jobs were currently
available in the consumer's area; they would help consumers
register for and obtain jobs with the USPS; and getting a score
of 90 percent or above on the postal exam guarantees job
placement. The temporary restraining order freezes the
defendants' assets and bars them from continuing those
violations alleged by the FTC.

The FTC alleged that since at least 2003, the defendants ran
classified ads across the nation in employment guides and
newspapers. According to the FTC's complaint, the ads looked
official, with public announcement numbers and patriotic images
of the American flag and bald eagles. The FTC alleged the ads
led consumers to believe that the defendants were hiring for
postal jobs and were therefore connected with, or endorsed by,
the USPS. One ad stated "NOW HIRING ~ POSTAL JOBS ~ $16.20 -
$39.00 ~ GREEN CARD OK ~ *FULL FEDERAL BENEFITS ~ *PAID
TRAINING-NO EXPERIENCE NEEDED ~ *ACCEPTING CALLS 7 DAYS ~
1-877-265-2181 ~ PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT J4000."

According to the FTC, the telemarketers assured consumers there
were jobs available in the caller's geographic area and that
scoring 90 percent or better on the exam required for postal
employment would assure them a postal job. The FTC alleged the
defendants offered a study course, explaining it included the
U.S. Exam Guide, 12 practice tests and answer sheets, and
detailed instructions explaining when and where the exam is
being given and how to take it in the city where the customer
lived. Consumers were charged a one-time administration fee of
$129.90 or $139.90 for the study course and registration, and a
shipping and handling fee of $19.90. After consumers provided
payment information, the company's telemarketers told them they
were "registered."

In fact, applicants for many entry-level postal jobs are
required to take a postal examination. But the tests are usually
offered only every few years in any particular district. Also,
there are no job placement guarantees based on score. If
applicants pass the test by scoring at least 70 out of 100, they
are placed on a register, ranked by their score. When a position
becomea open, the local post office looks to the applicable
register for that geographic location and calls the top three
applicants. The score is only one of many criteria taken into
account for employment. Information on postal jobs is available
at the consumer's local post office, and applicants generally
receive a free packet of information about required exams. The
exams test general aptitude, something that cannot necessarily
be increased by studying. More information is available at the
Postal Service Web site, www.usps.com.

The FTC's complaint named as defendants Success Express, Inc.,
doing business as Success Express; Exam Resource Center, Inc.,
doing business as Exam Resource; Occupational Advancement
Center, Inc., doing business as Occupational Advancement;
Employment Resource, LLC, doing business as Employment Resource;
David James Daniell; Wanda J. Taugner; and Kathy L. Stafford.

A U.S. district court judge ordered an ex-parte temporary
restraining order barring the defendants from the four
violations alleged in the FTC's complaint, granting an asset
freeze, and appointing a receiver. The FTC ultimately seeks to
permanently bar the defendants from those violations and require
them to pay consumer redress.

The FTC received invaluable assistance in this matter from the
United States Postal Inspection Service and the USPS.  The
Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was
4-0. The complaint was filed under seal in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Michigan on October 18, 2005,
with the ex-parte TRO granted the same day. The seal was lifted
November 2, 2005.

Copies of the complaint are available from the FTC's Web site at
http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's Consumer Response  
Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent
fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the
marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot,
stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish
(bilingual counselors are available to take complaints), or to
get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-
free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form
at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing,  
identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer
Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of
civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and
abroad.  For more details, contact Jacqueline Dizdul, Office of
Public Affairs, by Phone: 202-326-2472 or Larissa Bungo, FTC's
East Central Region by Phone: 216-263-3403 or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/11/jobscam.htm.


UCI MEDICAL: Faces CA Lawsuit Against Liver Transplant Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit seeking class action status was launched in Orange
County Superior Court against UCI Medical Center for negligence,
fraud and conspiracy, The Associated Press reports.

Filed just days after the federal government cut funding for
liver transplants there after finding that more than 30 people
died over the past two years while waiting for livers, the
lawsuit alleged that hospital officials didn't tell patients
that the University of California, Irvine Medical Center hadn't
had a resident liver transplant surgeon since June 2003. Its two
surgeons were based in San Diego, some 90 miles away, and worked
under contract, according to the suit.

In addition, the 11-page lawsuit also alleged that three
doctors, Dr. David Imagawa, Dr. Muhammad Sheikh and Dr. Sean
Cao, conspired to perform surgeries that were more lucrative and
cutting-edge while neglecting transplant patients, even when
organs became available. According to the suit, the other
procedures attracted "more prestige, more patients, more profit
and more research funding" than transplants. The plaintiffs in
the case are, Andrea Razetto, her husband, Carlos, and Audrey
Degenhardt.

Lawrence Eisenberg, an attorney representing the three
plaintiffs told The Associated Press, "They rejected and turned
away hundreds of offers" of livers. He adds, "UCI actually
rejected donated livers and the patients languished on their
list and died." Mr. Eisenberg, who helped negotiate a $10
million settlement in 1997 for some plaintiffs who sued UCI
during a fertility clinic scandal in the mid-1990s, also told
The Associated Press that he would seek class action status for
the lawsuit.


VISA USA: Two More Retail Groups File Suit Over Interchange Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two more retail groups initiated class action lawsuits against
Visa USA, MasterCard Inc. and a number of major banks over the
fees they charge for processing credit card transactions, The
Associated Press reports.

Filed in the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of New York,
the latest cases were brought by the Tarrytown, New York-based
American Booksellers Association and the National Grocers
Association (NGA) and several of its members, including
Affiliated Foods Midwest, Coborn's Inc., D'Agostino's
Supermarkets and the Minnesota Grocers Association.

The focus of the cases are the so-called interchange fees, which
are paid by the merchants each time a customer uses a debit or
credit card to pay for a purchase. These fees are ultimately
passed on to consumers by way of higher prices.

When consumers purchase goods or services with a credit card,
the payment is processed through the merchant's bank and the
bank that issued the consumer the credit card. The issuing bank
charges the merchant's bank a fee to process the transaction.
The merchant's bank then adds its own fee for processing the
transaction, and passes on both of these fees -- collectively
known as interchange -- to the merchant, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (September 28, 2005) reports.

Interchange fees are meant to cover the cost of processing a
credit card transaction and the risk taken by the issuing bank
that the credit will not be repaid. These fees are substantially
higher in the United States than almost any other industrialized
country. Other countries have taken action to address the market
problem created by these monopolies. Recent changes in Australia
and countries in Europe, for example, have decreased rates from
about 0.95 percent to about 0.55 percent, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (September 28, 2005) reports.

In a prepared statement, Thomas K. Zaucha, president and chief
executive of the Arlington, Virginia-based NGA said, "Soaring
interchange fees are devastating the retail industry and
increasing costs for all American consumers." He blames the
rising fees on lack of a competitive market.

The recent suits are similar to a lawsuit filed in September by
four of the nation's largest merchant associations. The
plaintiffs in that action are, the National Association of
Convenience Stores (NACS), the National Association of Chain
Drug Stores (NACDS), the National Community Pharmacists
Association (NCPA) and the National Cooperative Grocers
Association (NCGA), all of which represent hundreds of thousands
of drug stores, convenience stores and food stores across the
United States that accept Visa and MasterCard as a form of
payment, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (September 28,
2005) reports.

All of the suits accuse Visa, MasterCard Inc. and the card
associations' member banks of engaging in collusive practices in
setting their interchange fees. Both Visa and MasterCard are
contending the allegations and argued that the fees are fair and
have promised to fight the suits.

In a statement, Visa USA vice president Paul Cohen even said
that the company remains confident it can defend the fees. He
said, "While we respect that businesses want to find ways to
lower their normal costs of doing business, merchants have many
options to improve their economics that do not include costly
and time-consuming litigation. It is disappointing that
plaintiffs attorneys continue to seek ways to undermine a system
that creates enormous value for merchants, through increased
sales, guaranteed payment and faster, easier transactions."

The suit is styled, American Booksellers Association v. Visa
U.S.A., Inc. et al, Case No. 1:05-cv-05319-JG-CLP," filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, under Judge John Gleeson, with referral to Judge Cheryl L.
Pollak. Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Michael V. Ciresi of
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, 2800 LaSalle Plaza, 800 LaSalle
Ave., Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015, Phone: (612) 349-8500; and
Neal A. Deyoung of Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder, 350 Fairfield Ave.,
P.O. Box 1661, Bridgeport, CT 06604, Phone: (203) 336-4421, Fax:
(203) 368-3244, E-mail: ndeyoung@koskoff.com.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: OK ERISA Suit Fairness Hearing Set This Week
----------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the third amended
class action against Williams Companies, Inc. is set for
November 16,2005 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma.

Four class action complaints have been filed against the
Company, the members of its Board of Directors and members of
its benefits and investment committees under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) ERISA by participants in
the Company's 401(k) plan.  A motion to consolidate these suits
has been approved.

In July 2003, the court dismissed the company and its Board from
the ERISA suits, but not the members of the benefits and
investment committees to whom the Company might have an
indemnity obligation.  If it is determined that the Company has
an indemnity obligation, it expects that any costs incurred will
be covered by its insurance policies.  On June 7, 2004, the
Court granted plaintiffs' request to amend their complaint to
add additional investment committee members and to again name
the Board of Directors.  On December 21, 2004, the Court denied
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against the
Director Defendants and denied the Motions to Dismiss filed by
the Directors and certain Committee Defendants. On April 26,
2005, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint again adding
the Company as a defendant in this matter.  

In September 2005, the parties agreed to settle these
consolidated matters for $55 million.  Of this amount, the
Company will pay $5 million, which has been accrued, and its
insurance carriers will pay $50 million.  This settlement
received preliminary court approval on September 28, 2005. A
fairness hearing is scheduled for November 16, 2005.


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars




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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

November 01-30, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

November 01-30, 2005
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

November 01-30, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

November 01-30, 2005
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

November 01-30, 2005
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, initiated
a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Barrier Therapeutics, Inc.
("Barrier Therapeutics" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BTRX) between
April 29, 2004 and June 29, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the District of New Jersey against
defendants Barrier Therapeutics, Geert Cauwenbergh (Chair and
CEO), Anne M. Vanlent (CFO) and Charles T. Nomides (COO).

The complaint alleges that Barrier Therapeutics is a
biopharmaceutical company engaged in the discovery, development
and commercialization of dermatological products and that, at
the commencement of the Class Period and thereafter, defendants
stated that two products, among others, were in Phase III
clinical trials: Hyphanox, an oral formulation of itraconazole,
an antifungal agent that purportedly treated vaginal yeast
infections as well as or better than fluconazole, the active
ingredient in the most widely prescribed oral treatment for this
disease, Diflucan and Zimycan, an antifungal agent in a zinc
oxide and petrolatum base used for treatment of diaper rash.

Defendants' statements were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose that:

     (1) the Company had not performed its clinical trials of
         Zimycan in conformity with FDA guidelines,

     (2) Hyphanox did not have a better safety or efficacy
         profile than fluconazole/Diflucan and, therefore,

     (3) defendants lacked any reasonable basis for their
         positive statements about the market opportunities
         presented by Hyphanox.

The truth began to emerge on June 29, 2005, when defendants
announced that the Company's Phase III trial results failed to
demonstrate that Hyphanox worked as well as Fluconazole for the
treatment of vaginal yeast infections. Following this
announcement, on June 30, 2005, shares of the Company's stock
fell by more than $6.75 per share -- a decline of more than 45%
-- to below $8.00 per share in regular trading on the NASDAQ on
very heavy volume.

For more detials, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman
or Andrei V. Rado of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone:
(800) 320-5081, E-mail: sfeerick@milbergweiss.com, Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com.


FIRST BANCORP: Lerach Coughlin Provides Update on NY Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins,
LLP, which filed a complaint on behalf of purchasers of First
BanCorp ("First BanCorp") (NYSE: FBP), is providing an update
regarding the litigation.

The class action was filed on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of First BanCorp's
publicly traded securities during the period between October 20,
2003 and August 25, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges First BanCorp and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. First BanCorp operates as the holding company for First
Bank Puerto Rico, which provides various financial services in
Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and British Virgin
Islands.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued false statements about First BanCorp's earnings, assets,
capital and prospects causing the Company's stock to trade at
artificially inflated levels. While the Company's stock price
dropped somewhat in the late spring of 2005 due to problems
announced by First BanCorp's competitors in Puerto Rico, as well
as an adverse interest rate environment, the stock soon
recovered as defendants did not own up to significant accounting
issues, such as those disclosed earlier by its competitors, and
the Company continued to report favorable financial results.
Then on August 25, 2005, the Company issued a press release
announcing that the Company had "received a letter from 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." As a result of this
disclosure, First BanCorp's stock dropped to $18.23 per share on
August 26, 2005. Later, on September 30, 2005, both the
Company's CEO and CFO suddenly announced they were resigning.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period defendants
concealed the following adverse information from the investing
public:
    
     (1) the Company's financial statements were materially
         false and misleading in that the Company had
         manipulated its accounting for mortgage loans purchased
         between 2000 and 2004;

     (2) the Company's internal controls were grossly weak,
         thereby allowing the Company's top management to
         manipulate them at will;

     (3) the Company's "record" quarterly income reported during
         the Class Period was a product of accounting fraud, not
         synergies produced by effective fiscal and personnel
         management; and

     (4) as a result, the Company's published financial
         statements violated Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles.

Since Lerach Coughlin filed a complaint, several law firms,
including the Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., have issued
press releases claiming to offer "information" about joining the
suit. Be advised that many of these firms have not even filed a
complaint. Rather, these press releases appear to be an
advertisement designed to solicit clients so that these firms
can participate in the case.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/firstbancorp/.


HCA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in TN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Middle District Of Tennessee on behalf of all securities
purchasers of HCA Inc. (NYSE: HCA - News; "HCA" or the
"Company") between January 12, 2005 and July 13, 2005 inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The complaint charges HCA Inc., Jack O. Bovender, Jr., Richard
M. Bracken and Robert Milton Johnson with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the
complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that in order to lower its bad-debt provisions and to
         appear more profitable the Company altered its policies
         for measuring bad-debt expenses;

     (2) that, despite HCA's attempts to obscure its true
         condition, the Company's debts from uninsured patients
         and/or from insured patients not paying their
         deductibles or co- payment obligations were increasing;
         and

     (3) that the Company was experiencing unfavorable trends
         that were decreasing its profitability.

On January 12, 2005, HCA revised upward its earnings forecast
for fourth quarter 2004. On this news, HCA's stock soared over
10 percent, from $39.68 to $43.70, after languishing in the $30
to $40 range for most of 2004. On March 28, 2005, HCA revised
upward its earnings forecast for the first quarter 2005. Once
again, the market reacted favorably to the news sending HCA's
stock to trade at over $50 per share. Both adjustments largely
resulted from lower-than-expected provisions for doubtful
accounts. On July 13, 2005, HCA lowered its guidance for the
second quarter, as a result of bigger than expected bad-debt
provisions. On this news, shares of HCA fell $4.86 per share, or
8.85 percent, on July 13, 2005, to close at $50.05 per share.

On September 23, 2005, the Company disclosed it had been
subpoenaed by the SEC and prosecutors for the Southern District
of New York for documents related to the stock sales by certain
HCA senior executives. On September 28, 2005, HCA disclosed that
the SEC had issued a formal order of inquiry with respect to the
insider trading at the Company and commenced a formal
investigation.

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


SPECTRUM BRANDS: Chitwood Harley Lodges Securities Suit in GA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, filed a new class
action complaint with an expanded Class Period against Spectrum
Brands, Inc. ("Spectrum" or the "Company"), David A. Jones and
Randall J. Steward. The expanded Class Period complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on behalf of persons who purchased Spectrum
common stock (NYSE: SPC) between January 4, 2005 through and
including November 11, 2005 (the "Class Period"). A copy of the
complaint is available from the court and will be posted on
Chitwood Harley Harnes' website, www.chitwoodlaw.com for the
next two months.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The nature of Defendants' fraud began to come to light, on July
28, 2005, the Complaint charges, when Defendants reported
results for the 3rd fiscal quarter of 2005, and investors first
learned that the Company could not maintain double-digit year-
over-year growth in the sales of its core battery products but,
rather, that battery sales were actually less than the prior
year. At the same time, Defendants belatedly revealed that, as a
result of the material decline in its core battery products, it
could not meet its guidance for either fiscal 2005 or 2006.
These sudden and shocking disclosures had an immediate impact on
the price of Spectrum Brands stock, which declined over $8.00
that day, falling over 20%, and closing at $30.10 per share.
Then, on September 7, 2005, prior to the market opening,
Defendants revealed that earnings for the fourth quarter ending
September 30, 2005 would be "substantially lower" than the
guidance previously reported. Defendants attributed the
shortfall to weak sales and "high (retail) inventory levels."
The unexpected news prompted additional analyst downgrades. In
response to the September 7, 2005 news, the stock dropped
another 13% on volume of 4.26 million. Disclosures on November
10 and November 14, 2005 sent the stock even further downward.
On November 10, 2005, the Company revised downward yet again its
earnings projection, and on November 14, 2005, the Company was
forced to admit that the United States Attorney's Office for the
Northern District of Georgia has "initiated an investigation
into recent disclosures by the Company regarding its results for
its third quarter ended July 3, 2005 and the Company's revised
guidance issued on September 7, 2005 as to earnings for the
fourth quarter of fiscal 2005 and fiscal year 2006."

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

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

    (ii) enabled defendants to register for sale with the SEC,
         more than $500 million of mixed securities;

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

    (iv) caused plaintiff and other members of the Class to
         purchase Spectrum Brands common stock at artificially
         inflated prices.

For more details, contact James M. Evangelista or Meryl W.
Edelstein of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, Phone: 888-873-3999,
ext. 6871 or 888-873-3999, ext. 6881, E-mail:
jevangelista@chitwoodlaw.com or medelstein@chitwoodlaw.com, Web
site: http://www.chitwoodlaw.com.  


WELLS FARGO: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC)
and certain of its affiliates, on behalf of those who purchased
from Wells Fargo Investments, LLC ("Wells Fargo Investments") or
H.D. Vest Investment Services, LLC ("H.D. Vest") one or more of
the Wells Fargo proprietary funds or non-proprietary funds
participating in the Wells Fargo and H.D. Vest revenue sharing
programs ("Wells Fargo Preferred Funds" and "H.D. Vest Preferred
Funds," as defined below) during the period between June 30,
2000 and June 8, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Wells Fargo proprietary funds and their respective trading
symbols are as follows:

Wells Fargo Advantage Agg Allocation Adm (NASDAQ: NWBEX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Asia Pacific (NASDAQ: SASPX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Asset Alloc Adm (NASDAQ: WFAIX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Asset Allocation (NASDAQ: SFAAX) (NASDAQ:
SASBX)
(NASDAQ: WFALX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Balanced Inv (NASDAQ: STAAX)
Wells Fargo Advantage C&B Lrg Cap Val (NASDAQ: CBEAX) (NASDAQ:
CBLLX)
(NASDAQ: CBEBX) (NASDAQ: CBECX) (NASDAQ: CBEQX) (NASDAQ: CBLSX)
Wells Fargo Advantage C&B Mid Cap Val (NASDAQ: CBMAX) (NASDAQ:
CBMIX)
(NASDAQ: CBMBX) (NASDAQ: CBMCX) (NASDAQ: CBMDX) (NASDAQ: CBMSX)
Wells Fargo Advantage C&B Tax Mgd Val (NASDAQ: CBTTX) (NASDAQ:
CBTIX)
(NASDAQ: CBTBX) (NASDAQ: CBTCX) (NASDAQ: CBTAX)
Wells Fargo Advantage CA Ltd-Term T/F (NASDAQ: SFCIX) (NASDAQ:
SCTIX)
(NASDAQ: SFCCX)
Wells Fargo Advantage CA Tax-Free (NASDAQ: SCTAX) (NASDAQ:
SGCAX)
(NASDAQ: SGCBX) (NASDAQ: SCTCX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Capital Growth (NASDAQ: WFCDX) (NASDAQ:
WWCIX)
(NASDAQ: SLGIX)
Wells Fargo Advantage CO Tax-Free (NASDAQ: NWCOX) (NASDAQ:
NCOTX)
(NASDAQ: NWCBX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Common Stock (NASDAQ: SCSAX) (NASDAQ:
SCSKX)
(NASDAQ: STSAX) (NASDAQ: STCSX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Cons Allocation Ad (NASDAQ: NVCBX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Corporate Bond (NASDAQ: SCBDX) (NASDAQ:
SCBNX)
(NASDAQ: STCBX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Discovery (NASDAQ: WFDDX) (NASDAQ: STDIX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Divers Bond Adm (NASDAQ: NVMFX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Diversified Eq (NASDAQ: NVDAX) (NASDAQ:
NVDEX)
(NASDAQ: NVDBX) (NASDAQ: WFDEX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Diversified Sm Adm (NASDAQ: NVDSX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Dividend Income (NASDAQ: WWIDX) (NASDAQ:
SDVIX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Emerg Mkt Focus (NASDAQ: MFFAX) (NASDAQ:
MNEFX)
(NASDAQ: MFFBX) (NASDAQ: MFFCX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Endeavor Lrg Cap (NASDAQ: STALX) (NASDAQ:
WELBX)
(NASDAQ: WELCX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Endeavor Select (NASDAQ: STAEX) (NASDAQ:
WECDX)
(NASDAQ: WECBX) (NASDAQ: WECCX) (NASDAQ: WFCIX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Enterprise (NASDAQ: SEPKX) (NASDAQ: SENAX)
(NASDAQ: WFEIX) (NASDAQ: SENTX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Equity Income (NASDAQ: NVAEX) (NASDAQ:
NVIEX)
(NASDAQ: NVBEX) (NASDAQ: WFEEX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Equity Index (NASDAQ: SFCSX) (NASDAQ:
SQIBX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Equity Value (NASDAQ: WLVAX) (NASDAQ:
WLVIX)
(NASDAQ: WLVBX) (NASDAQ: WLVCX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Government Sec (NASDAQ: SGVDX) (NASDAQ:
WGSCX)
(NASDAQ: SGVIX) (NASDAQ: STVSX) (NASDAQ: WGSDX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Growth (NASDAQ: SGRKX) (NASDAQ: SGRAX)
(NASDAQ: WGFCX) (NASDAQ: SGRNX) (NASDAQ: SGROX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Growth and Inc (NASDAQ: SGIKX) (NASDAQ:
SGNAX)
(NASDAQ: SGNIX) (NASDAQ: SGRIX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Growth Balanced (NASDAQ: WFGBX) (NASDAQ:
NVGBX)
(NASDAQ: NVGRX) (NASDAQ: WFGWX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Growth Equity (NASDAQ: NVEAX) (NASDAQ:
NVGEX)
(NASDAQ: NVEBX) (NASDAQ: WFGGX) (NASDAQ: WGEIX)
Wells Fargo Advantage High Income (NASDAQ: SHBAX) (NASDAQ:
SHYYX)
(NASDAQ: STHYX)
Wells Fargo Advantage High Yield Bond (NASDAQ: HYBAX) (NASDAQ:
HYBBX)
(NASDAQ: HYBCX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Income Plus (NASDAQ: STYAX) (NASDAQ:
STYBX)
(NASDAQ: WFIPX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Index (NASDAQ: NVINX) (NASDAQ: WFVEX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Infl Prot Bond (NASDAQ: IPBAX) (NASDAQ:
IPBIX)
(NASDAQ: IPBBX) (NASDAQ: IPBCX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Inst Emerg Mkt (NASDAQ: MIEMX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Interm Govt Inc (NASDAQ: NVGAX) (NASDAQ:
NVGIX)
(NASDAQ: NVBGX) (NASDAQ: WFGCX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Interm T/F Bd Inv (NASDAQ: SIMBX)
Wells Fargo Advantage International Eq (NASDAQ: SILAX) (NASDAQ:
SILBX)
(NASDAQ: WFECX) (NASDAQ: WFIEX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Intl Core (NASDAQ: WFIAX) (NASDAQ: WFIDX)
(NASDAQ: WFIBX) (NASDAQ: WFICX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Intl Value (NASDAQ: WFFAX) (NASDAQ: WFVDX)
(NASDAQ: WFVBX) (NASDAQ: WFVCX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Large Cap Appr (NASDAQ: WFAPX) (NASDAQ:
WFAKX)
(NASDAQ: WFABX) (NASDAQ: WFACX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Large Co Growth (NASDAQ: STRFX) (NASDAQ:
NVLAX)
(NASDAQ: NVLCX) (NASDAQ: NVLOX) (NASDAQ: WFLCX) (NASDAQ: WLCSX)
(NASDAQ: WFLZX)
Wells Fargo Advantage LifeStage (NASDAQ: SAGGX) (NASDAQ: SCONX)
(NASDAQ: SMDPX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Lrg Co Core (NASDAQ: SLGAX) (NASDAQ:
SLCKX)
(NASDAQ: WLCBX) (NASDAQ: WLCCX) (NASDAQ: WLCZX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Mid Cap Discpl (NASDAQ: SMCDX) (NASDAQ:
WFMDX)
(NASDAQ: WFMIX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Mid Cap Growth (NASDAQ: WFMCX) (NASDAQ:
WFMBX)
(NASDAQ: WFMHX) (NASDAQ: WFMZX)
Wells Fargo Advantage MN Tax-Free (NASDAQ: NMTFX) (NASDAQ:
NWMIX)
(NASDAQ: NWMBX) (NASDAQ: WMTCX) (NASDAQ: WMTZX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Mod Balanced (NASDAQ: WFMAX) (NASDAQ:
NVMBX)
(NASDAQ: WMOBX) (NASDAQ: WFBCX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Municipal Bond (NASDAQ: WMFAX) (NASDAQ:
WMFDX)

(NASDAQ: WMFBX) (NASDAQ: WMFCX) (NASDAQ: SXFIX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Natl Ltd-Tm T/F (NASDAQ: WNLAX) (NASDAQ:
NVLIX)
(NASDAQ: WNLBX) (NASDAQ: WNLCX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Natl Tax-Free (NASDAQ: NWTFX) (NASDAQ:
NTFTX)
(NASDAQ: NWTBX) (NASDAQ: WFNTX)
Wells Fargo Advantage NE Tax-Free Bd Adm (NASDAQ: GPTFX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Opportunity (NASDAQ: WOFDX) (NASDAQ:
SOPVX)
(NASDAQ: SOPFX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Outlook 2010 (NASDAQ: STNRX) (NASDAQ:
WFLGX)
(NASDAQ: SPTBX) (NASDAQ: WFOCX) (NASDAQ: WFOAX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Outlook 2020 (NASDAQ: STTRX) (NASDAQ:
WFLPX)
(NASDAQ: STPBX) (NASDAQ: WFLAX) (NASDAQ: WFOBX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Outlook 2030 (NASDAQ: STHRX) (NASDAQ:
WFLIX)
(NASDAQ: SGPBX) (NASDAQ: WFDMX) (NASDAQ: WFOOX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Outlook 2040 (NASDAQ: STFRX) (NASDAQ:
WFLWX)
(NASDAQ: SLPBX) (NASDAQ: WFOFX) (NASDAQ: WFOSX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Outlook Today (NASDAQ: STWRX) (NASDAQ:
WFLOX)
(NASDAQ: WFOKX) (NASDAQ: WFODX) (NASDAQ: WOTDX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Overseas (NASDAQ: WFIIX) (NASDAQ: SOVRX)
Wells Fargo Advantage S/T Hi-Yld Bd (NASDAQ: SSTHX) (NASDAQ:
STHBX)
Wells Fargo Advantage S/T Muni Bd (NASDAQ: WSSCX) (NASDAQ:
STSMX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Sh Dur Govt Bd (NASDAQ: MSDAX) (NASDAQ:
MNSGX)
(NASDAQ: MSDBX) (NASDAQ: MSDCX) (NASDAQ: WSGIX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Short-Term Bd (NASDAQ: SSTVX) (NASDAQ:
SSHIX)
(NASDAQ: SSTBX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Sm Cap Discpl (NASDAQ: WFSDX) (NASDAQ:
WFSSX)
(NASDAQ: SCOVX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Sm Cap Gr (NASDAQ: WFSIX) (NASDAQ: WFSZX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Sm/Mid Cap Val (NASDAQ: WWMDX) (NASDAQ:
SMMVX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Small Cap Gr (NASDAQ: MNSCX) (NASDAQ:
WMNIX)
(NASDAQ: WMNBX) (NASDAQ: WMNCX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Small Cap Opp (NASDAQ: NVSOX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Small Cap Value (NASDAQ: SMVAX) (NASDAQ:
SMVBX)
(NASDAQ: SMVCX) (NASDAQ: SSMVX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Small Co Growth (NASDAQ: WFSAX) (NASDAQ:
NVSCX)
(NASDAQ: WFSBX) (NASDAQ: WSMCX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Small Co Value (NASDAQ: SCVAX) (NASDAQ:
SCVIX)
(NASDAQ: SCVBX) (NASDAQ: SCVFX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Spec Fin Serv (NASDAQ: SIFEX) (NASDAQ:
SIFBX)
(NASDAQ: SIFCX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Spec Health Sci  (NASDAQ: WFHAX) (NASDAQ:
WFHBX)
(NASDAQ: WFHCX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Specialized Tech (NASDAQ: WFSTX) (NASDAQ:
WFTBX)
(NASDAQ: WFTCX) (NASDAQ: WFTZX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Stable Income  (NASDAQ: NVSAX) (NASDAQ:
NVSIX)
(NASDAQ: NVSBX) (NASDAQ: WSICX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Strategic Income (NASDAQ: SASAX) (NASDAQ:
SASIX)
(NASDAQ: SASCX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Total Ret Bond  (NASDAQ: MBFAX) (NASDAQ:
MNTRX)
(NASDAQ: MBFBX) (NASDAQ: MBFCX) (NASDAQ: MBFIX) (NASDAQ: WTRZX)
Wells Fargo Advantage U.S. Value (NASDAQ: WFUAX) (NASDAQ: SEQKX)
(NASDAQ: WFUBX) (NASDAQ: WFUCX) (NASDAQ: SEQIX)
Wells Fargo Advantage U/S Duration Bd (NASDAQ: STSDX) (NASDAQ:
SSDKX)
(NASDAQ: SSHCX) (NASDAQ: STGBX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Ult S/T Mun In (NASDAQ: SMUAX) (NASDAQ:
SMAVX)
(NASDAQ: SMAIX)
Wells Fargo Advantage Ultra S/T Inc (NASDAQ: WUSDX) (NASDAQ:
SADAX)
(NASDAQ: SADIX) (NASDAQ: STADX)
Wells Fargo Advantage WB Cons Allocation (NASDAQ: WBCAX)
Wells Fargo Advantage WB Equity (NASDAQ: WBGIX)
Wells Fargo Advantage WB Grow Allocation (NASDAQ: WBGGX)
Wells Fargo Advantage WB Growth Balanced (NASDAQ: WBGBX)
Wells Fargo Advantage WB Mod Balanced (NASDAQ: WBBBX)
Wells Fargo Advantage WB Tactical Equity (NASDAQ: WBGAX)
Wells Fargo Advantage WI Tax-Free (NASDAQ: WWTCX) (NASDAQ:
SWFRX)

The Wells Fargo Preferred Funds include mutual funds in the
following mutual fund families: Franklin Templeton Investments,
Putnam Investments, MFS Investment Management, Fidelity
Investments, Evergreen Investments, Alliance Bernstein
Investment Research and Management, Van Kampen Investments, AIM
Distributors, Inc., Oppenheimer Funds, Inc., Eaton Vance Managed
Investments, ING Funds Distributors, LLC, Allianz Global
Investors Distributors, LLC, Federated, The Hartford Mutual
Funds, Dreyfus Service Corporation, Delaware Investments,
Pioneer Investment Management, Inc., Scudder Investments, and
Wells Fargo Mutual Funds.

The H.D. Vest Preferred Funds include mutual funds in the
following mutual fund families: Oppenheimer Funds, Putnam
Investments, Scudder Investments, MFS Investment Management, Van
Kampen Investments, Lincoln Financial Distributors, AIM
Investments, Phoenix Investment Partners, John Hancock Funds,
Wells Fargo Funds, American Funds, and Franklin Templeton
Investments.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against defendant Wells
Fargo & Company and certain of its affiliated entities. The
complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. Unbeknownst to
investors, defendants, in clear contravention of their
disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, failed to
properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to
aggressively push Wells Fargo Investments and H.D. Vest sales
personnel to steer clients into purchasing certain Wells Fargo
Funds and Wells Fargo and H.D. Vest Preferred Funds
(collectively, "Shelf Space Funds") that provided financial
incentives and rewards to Wells Fargo and H.D. Vest and their
personnel based on sales. The complaint alleges that defendants'
undisclosed sales practices created an insurmountable conflict
of interest by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell
Shelf-Space Funds to their clients, even though such investments
were not in the clients' best interest. Wells Fargo Investments
and H.D. Vest's failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.

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

The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
Wells Fargo Financial Plan that held Wells Fargo Funds. The
Wells Fargo Financial Plans include, but are not limited to Full
Service Brokerage Accounts, Wells Asset Management accounts,
WellsChoice account, and WellsSelect account.

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

                            *********


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  * * *