CAR_Public/051121.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, November 21, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 230

                            Headlines

AIMCO PROPERTIES: Faces FLSA Violations Suit in CA State Court
AQUILA INC.: Securities Settlement Hearing Set February 3, 2006
BRIDGESTONE FIRESTONE: Faces Suit V. Liberia Slave, Child Labor
COLORADO: ACLU Files Lawsuit V. Law Barring Parolees From Voting
COOPER HAND: Recalls 890 Heating Elements Due to Injury Hazard

CV THERAPEUTICS: Discovery Proceeds in CA Securities Fraud Suit
DENTSPLY CORPORATION: Appeals Court Upholds Fraud Suit Dismissal
DENTSPLY CORPORATION: 166 Dentists Join Class in CA Fraud Suit
ENOGEX INC.: To Ask OK Court To Dismiss Gas Antitrust Litigation
ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Shareholder Lodges DE Suit Over $386M Buyout

FLORIDA: Suits Filed Over Damage Sustained From Hurricane Wilma
HARRY & DAVID: Recalls Olive Tapenade Due to Health Hazard
HOLLINGER INTERNATIONAL: IL Court Mulls Investor Suit Dismissal
ILLINOIS: Supreme Court Dismisses Lawsuit Over Automobile Titles
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Pays $3.7M to Settle OH Mill Workers' Suit

JUVENILE PRODUCTS: Recalls Vaporizers, Diffusers For Fire Hazard
LANDSTAR SYSTEM: FL Court Grants Certification To OOIDA Lawsuit
LOUISIANA: Orleans Parish Prisoners Detail Chaos After Katrina
MARATHON OIL: Faces Several Injury Suits For MTBE Contamination
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Seeks Review of Refusal to Dismiss GA Suit

NOVARTIS NUTRITION: Recalls Feeding Formula Due to Health Risks
OVERTURE SERVICES: NY Settlement Fairness Hearing Set April 2006
PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Stock Suit
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Continues To Face Cabin Stewards "Tips" Lawsuit
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: FL Court Dismisses Lawsuit For Deceptive Trade

SPS TEMPORARIES: Settles Workers' Discrimination Suit For $580T
STERICYCLE INC.: Reaches Settlement in 3CI Shareholder Lawsuit
SYCAMORE KIDS: Recalls 3.2T Breeze Strollers Due to Injury Risk
TEXAS: Mission Pollution Case Heard Before State Supreme Court
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS: Workers Launch Lawsuit For FLSA Violations

TRAVELERS PROPERTY: Asks MN Court To Dismiss Shareholder Suits
UNITED STATES: Government May Scratch Salvadoran Protections
UST INC.: FL Court Converts Tobacco Suit To Individual Action

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Baron & Budd Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. TX
BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX
FIRST BANCORP: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
HCA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in TN
INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in CA

WELLS FARGO: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. CA


                            *********


AIMCO PROPERTIES: Faces FLSA Violations Suit in CA State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
AIMCO Properties, L.P. and its subsidiary NHP Management Company
faces a class action filed in the Superior Court of California,
Contra Costa County, alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

A suit was initially filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia, alleging that the Company failed
to pay maintenance workers overtime for all hours worked in
excess of forty per week.  The suit attempts to bring a
collective action under the FLSA and seeks to certify state
subclasses in California, Maryland, and the District of
Columbia.  Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that the Company
and NHPMN failed to compensate maintenance workers for time that
they were required to be "on-call."  Additionally, the complaint
alleges the Company and NHPMN failed to comply with the FLSA in
compensating maintenance workers for time that they worked in
excess of 40 hours in a week.

In June 2005, the court conditionally certified the collective
action on both the on-call and overtime issues, which allows the
plaintiffs to provide notice of the collective action to all
non-exempt maintenance workers from August 7, 2000 through the
present. Those employees will have the opportunity to opt-in to
the collective action, and the Company and NHPMN will have the
opportunity to move to decertify the collective action.

Since the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify state
subclasses, on September 26, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a class
action with the same allegations in the Superior Court of
California (Contra Costa County).


AQUILA INC.: Securities Settlement Hearing Set February 3, 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, Western Division, will hold a fairness hearing for the
proposed $1,000,000 settlement in the matter: "Robert Carpe, et
al. v. Aquila, Inc., et al., No. 02-0388-CV-W-FJG," which was
filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Class A common stock of Aquila, Inc. (NYSE ticker:
ILA; CUSIP 918005109) during the period from April 24, 2001 to
December 3, 2001, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby (the
"Class").

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Fernando J.
Gaitan, Jr. in the Charles Evans Whittaker Courthouse, 400 E.
9th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, at 8:30 a.m., on
February 3, 2006 to determine whether the proposed settlement
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and to consider the application of Plaintiffs' Counsel
for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

For more details, contact Aquila, Inc. Securities Litigation,
c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, Post
Office Box 9000 #6301, Merrick, NY 11566-9000, Phone:
(800) 408-9856, Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com;
Jeffrey M. Haber, Esq. of BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD & LIFSHITZ, LLP, 10
East 40th St., New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 779-1414; Robert
A. Wallner, Esq. of MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN, LLP, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone:
(212) 594-5300; and Andrew Zivitz, Esq., SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY,
LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA  19087, Phone:
(610) 667-7706.


BRIDGESTONE FIRESTONE: Faces Suit V. Liberia Slave, Child Labor
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgestone Firestone faces a lawsuit in a California federal
court for allegedly using slave labor and child labor on its
huge rubber plantation in Harbel, Liberia, The Associated press
reports.

The suit contends workers live in a "gulag of misery," forced to
work or face starvation. It also contends that workers labor 12-
plus hours using primitive tools to tap the rubber trees, with
impossible quotas and pay cuts if quotas aren't met.

Organized by the Washington-based International Labor Rights
Fund, the suit seeks class action status for 12 adult workers
and 23 children. The lawsuit claims that the plaintiffs,
identified only as John, James and Jane Roe, could not bring
similar court actions in Liberia because of fear of retribution
and corrupt court system.

The Japanese company, with North American headquarters in
Nashville, says its workers have a labor union and are highly
paid. The company also pointed out that child labor is
forbidden. Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire is a unit
of Bridgestone Corporation.


COLORADO: ACLU Files Lawsuit V. Law Barring Parolees From Voting
----------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union launched a federal lawsuit
challenges a Colorado law that bars thousands of people on
parole from voting or registering to vote, The Associated Press
reports.

Norman Mueller, a volunteer attorney, told The Associated Press
that the statute violates the state constitution, which
according to him, bars prisoners from voting only if they are in
prison. He also told The Associated Press, "The Colorado Supreme
Court has said in several cases that when prisoners are released
on parole, they have completed their term of imprisonment."

The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of an estimated
6,000 people in Colorado who are on parole. The suit is now
pending before Judge Robert E. Blackburn of the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado.  Under Colorado
law, felons are allowed to vote only if they are no longer in
prison and are not on parole. Last year, Secretary of State
Donetta Davidson discovered 6,352 possible voter registration
matches for felons, and county clerks were ordered to check the
rolls for felons and flag them for poll judges.

Mr. Mueller told The Associated Press that nationwide, as many
as 5 million Americans are barred from voting by a variety of
state laws that forbid convicted felons from voting for varying
periods of time. Felons are kept from voting in every state but
Maine and Vermont, though restrictions vary.

The suit is styled, "Danielson et al v. Dennis, Case No. 1:05-
cv-02331-REB," filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado, under Judge Robert E. Blackburn.
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Ty Cheung Gee and Norman R.
Mueller of Haddon, Morgan, Mueller, Jordan, Mackey & Foreman,
PC, 150 East 10th Ave., Denver, CO 80203, U.S.A, Phone:
303-831-7364, Fax: 303-832-2628, E-mail: tgee@hmflaw.com and
nmueller@hmflaw.com; and Jennifer Jung-Wuk Lee and Mark
Silverstein of American Civil Liberties Union-Colorado, 400
Corona St., Denver, CO 80218, U.S.A, Phone: 303-777-5482, Fax:
303-777-1773, E-mail: jlee@aclu-co.org and msilver2@att.net.


COOPER HAND: Recalls 890 Heating Elements Due to Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Cooper Hand Tools, of Apex, North Carolina is
voluntarily recalling about 890 units of Wellerr Brand Heating
Elements.

According to the company, the housing of the heating element can
unexpectedly leak hot metal, posing a serious risk of a burn
injury to the user. Cooper has received four reports of the
housing of the heating element leaking hot metal. No injuries
have been reported.

The heating elements were sold for use in soldering irons. Only
heating elements with the following model numbers and dates
codes from May 2005 through August 2005 are included in this
recall: 1140A, 1233S, 1235S, 1236S, 1237S, 1237SBK, 2AC08,
2AC09, 2AC10, 37UG, 37BK, 6A909, 6A910, SL325, SL325BK, SL335,
SL345, 360, 361, 362, 363, 4033S, 4033SBK, 4035S, 4035SBK,
4037J, 4037S, 4037SBK, 4039S, 533S, 535S537S, 6A908. These
soldering irons are used by stained glass hobbyists. Pictures of
recalled products:

     (1) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06031a.jpg

     (2) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06031b.jpg

Manufactured in Mexico, the elements were sold at art supply
retail stores nationwide from May 2005 through August 2005 for
between $10 and $40.

Remedy: Consumers should stop using these soldering irons
immediately and return the heating element to the store where
purchased for a free replacement or refund.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Cooper
Hand Tools at (800) 476-3030 Ext. 1 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET
Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.cooperhandtools.com/recall.


CV THERAPEUTICS: Discovery Proceeds in CA Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class
action filed against CV Therapeutics, Inc. and certain of its
officers and directors in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.

Several suits were initially filed on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the Company's securities, and request
unspecified damages.  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, and the Company expects that
additional lawsuits containing substantially similar allegations
may be filed in the future.

In November 2003, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, and in
December 2003, the court consolidated all of the securities
class actions filed to date into a single action captioned
In re CV Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation."  In January
2004, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint.

The Company and the other named defendants filed motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint in March 2004.  In August
2004, these motions were granted in part and denied in part.
The court granted the motions to dismiss by two individual
defendants, dismissing both individuals from the action with
prejudice, but denied the motions to dismiss by the company and
the two other individual defendants.


DENTSPLY CORPORATION: Appeals Court Upholds Fraud Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeal upheld a lower
court ruling dismissing the class actions filed against Dentsply
Corporation on behalf of laboratories, and denture patients in
seventeen states who purchased Trubyte teeth or products
containing Trubyte teeth. The private party suits seek damages
in an unspecified amount.

The United States Department of Justice filed a complaint in the
United States District Court in Wilmington, Delaware, alleging
that the Company's tooth distribution practices violate the
antitrust laws and seeking an order for the Company to
discontinue its practices.  Subsequent to the filing of the
Department of Justice Complaint in 1999, several private party
class actions were filed based on allegations similar to those
in the Department of Justice case, on behalf of laboratories,
and denture patients in seventeen states who purchased Trubyte
teeth or products containing Trubyte teeth. These cases were
transferred to the U.S. District Court in Wilmington, Delaware.
The private party suits seek damages in an unspecified amount.

The Court has granted the Company's Motion on the lack of
standing of the laboratory and patient class actions to pursue
damage claims. The Plaintiffs in the laboratory case appealed
this decision to the Third Circuit and the Court has upheld the
decision of the District Court in dismissing the Plaintiffs'
damages claims, with the exception of allowing the Plaintiffs to
pursue a damage claim based on a theory of resale price
maintenance agreements between the Company and its tooth
dealers. This was not an issue in the government case and it is
unknown whether the Plaintiffs will pursue such a claim.


DENTSPLY CORPORATION: 166 Dentists Join Class in CA Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
166 dentists licensed to practice in California have opted-in to
the class in the suit filed against Dentsply International, Inc.
in Los Angeles County Superior Court in California.

On March 27, 2002, a Complaint was filed in Alameda County,
California (which was transferred to Los Angeles County) by
Bruce Glover, D.D.S. alleging, inter alia, breach of express and
implied warranties, fraud, unfair trade practices and negligent
misrepresentation in the Company's manufacture and sale of
Advance(R) cement.  The Complaint seeks damages in an
unspecified amount for costs incurred in repairing dental work
in which the Advance(R) product allegedly failed.

The Judge has entered an Order granting class certification, as
an Opt-in class (this means that after Notice of the class
action is sent to possible class members, a party will have to
determine they meet the class definition and take affirmative
action in order to join the class) on the claims of breach of
warranty and fraud.  In general, the Class is defined as
California dentists who purchased and used Advance(R) cement and
were required, because of failures of the cement, to repair or
reperform dental procedures.

The Notice of the class action was sent on February 23, 2005 to
the approximately 29,000 dentists licensed to practice in
California during the relevant period and a total of 166
dentists have opted into the class action.  As the result of a
recent decision by a California Appellate Court, the plaintiffs
have filed an appeal to convert the claim to an opt-out claim
from its current status as an opt-in claim. The Advance(R)
cement product was sold from 1994 through 2000 and total sales
in the United States during that period were approximately $5.2
million. The Company's primary level insurance carrier has
confirmed coverage for the breach of warranty claims in this
matter up to their policy limits.  The Advance(R) cement product
was sold from 1994 through 2000 and total sales in the United
States during that period were approximately $5.2 million.  The
Company's primary level insurance carrier has confirmed coverage
for the breach of warranty claims in this matter.


ENOGEX INC.: To Ask OK Court To Dismiss Gas Antitrust Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enogex, Inc. intends to ask the District Court of Comanche
County, Oklahoma to dismiss the putative class action filed
against it by G.M. Oil Properties, Inc.

The petition alleges that the Company exercises a monopoly power
with respect to its gathering facilities within the state of
Oklahoma.  The petition further alleges that, due to the alleged
monopoly power, the Company has caused damage to the plaintiff
and other small gas producers and marketers.  The Company is
filing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.


ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Shareholder Lodges DE Suit Over $386M Buyout
----------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder initiated a class action lawsuit over a planned
$386 million acquisition of Enterasys Networks by two private-
equity firms, The Eagle Tribune reports.

Under terms of the deal, the buyout firms will pay $13.92 per
share for the Andover-based computer networking and software
firm, a 32 percent premium over Enterasys' recent stock price.
The deal was not enough for shareholder Harold Weber, who filed
suit, alleging that Company officials failed to seek out the
best possible price before signing the deal. Mr. Weber named the
Company, along with the individual members of the company's
board of directors, in the complaint filed in Chancery Court in
Wilmington, Delaware.  Additionally, Mr. Weber's suit also named
as defendants, the Gores Group of Los Angeles and Santa Barbara,
California-based Tennenbaum Capital Partners, the two private-
equity firms leading the proposed buyout.

Mr. Weber states in his complaint, "The terms of the proposed
transaction were not the result of an auction process or active
market check. They are intrinsically unfair and inadequate from
the standpoint of the Enterasys shareholders."  Mr. Weber, who
is represented by Carmella Keener of Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross &
Goddess in Wilmington, Delaware, is also arguing that after
several years of restructuring, Enterasys was now poised for
rapid growth on its own and likely didn't need to sell at this
time. Instead, the complaint continued, the buyout offer
"allowed the price of Enterasys stock to be capped" and is
depriving shareholders of potentially much larger payouts in the
future.

On a recent conference call with investors, Gerald M. Haines,
executive vice president of strategic affairs at Enterasys said
the deal followed several months of talks with potential
suitors. He told investors, "This was a culmination of a
rigorous process that's been ongoing for the past three
quarters." He refused, however, to identify any other possible
suitors for the company. Pending shareholder and regulatory
approvals, the buyout is expected to close before the end of
March.


FLORIDA: Suits Filed Over Damage Sustained From Hurricane Wilma
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two lawsuits, each angling for class action status and accusing
three building companies of negligently installing roof tiles
that blew off during Hurricane Wilma, were commenced in Broward
Circuit Court in Florida, The South Florida Sun-Sentinel
reports.

David Dohner, a Miami lawyer and Weston resident, filed one of
those suits recently, on behalf of his neighbors, Anatoly and
Inna Osnovsky. The suit alleges that Weston's developer, Arvida,
violated building codes by inadequately applying the Osnoskys'
roof tiles that ultimately were torn off by the storm. Mold from
leaks damaged their home, according to the suit.

Within days of filing the suit, Mr. Dohner told The South
Florida Sun-Sentinel that a score of neighbors submitted their
names as potential plaintiffs seeking recourse for similar
damages. He also told The South Florida Sun-Sentinel that he
wants to bring the homeowners together in a class action case,
pending a judge's approval. He pointed out, "We're absolutely
seeking class certification. I expect the numbers [of
plaintiffs] to continue rising. I've been contacted by people in
all the various other [Weston] communities."

In the other suit by a homeowner whose roof tiles blew off
during the hurricane, Mr. Dohner is co-lead counsel, along with
attorney R. Timothy Vannatta of Boca Raton. The two represents
Michael Ruckdeschel of Davie, who is seeking damages from Sea
Ranch Properties of Fort Lauderdale and Latite Roofing & Sheet
Metal Co. of Pompano Beach. Like the Osnoskys, Mr. Ruckdeschel
also suffered a damaged roof and leaks.

In his suit, Mr. Vannatta makes claims similar to those on Mr.
Dohner's case. According to one of his lawyers, "The roof tiling
was not applied in compliance with what the building code
required."

As with the Osnosky's suit, Mr. Vannatta also anticipates adding
more names to his case. He told The South Florida Sun-Sentinel,
"We have spoken to several other persons in that community. Our
expectation is that we most likely at some point will try to
certify a class action status."


HARRY & DAVID: Recalls Olive Tapenade Due to Health Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
Harry & David Operations Corporation, of Medford, Oregon, is
recalling 200 jars of Black and Kalamata Olive Tapenade because
they have the potential to be contaminated with Clostridium
botulinum, a bacterium which can produce a toxin that can cause
life-threatening illness or death. Consumers are warned not to
use the product even if it does not look or smell spoiled.

Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause
the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-
vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in
breathing, weakness of muscles, abdominal distension and
constipation may also be common symptoms. People experiencing
these problems should seek immediate medical attention.

The Black and Kalamata Olive Tapenade was distributed throughout
the United States at Harry and David retail stores. The Black
and Kalamata Olive Tapenade was distributed in 11 oz. glass
jars. The lot code recalled is 23405-941H2. The lot code is ink
jetted with black ink on the shoulder of the glass jar. The item
number is located on an adhesive label on the bottom of the jar.
The adhesive label states: "Harry and David 888905 Tapenade
Olive"

The date of distribution to the Harry and David retail store
locations ranges from September 16 through September 26, 2005.
No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that product
had an unstable pH, an indication of inadequate processing.
Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused by a
temporary breakdown in the co-packer's production and packaging
processes. The product was produced by a co-packer, WDSR Foods,
LLC, dba Hagerty Foods, now owned by Enterprise Custom Foods,
Inc., Orange, CA, for Harry and David.

Consumers who have the Black and Kalamata Olive Tapenade product
should discard the product or return the product to the place of
purchase for a refund. Consumers with questions may also contact
the company at 1-800-345-5655.


HOLLINGER INTERNATIONAL: IL Court Mulls Investor Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois has yet to rule on Hollinger International, Inc.'s
motion to dismiss the amended shareholder class action filed
against it and certain of its officers and directors, styled "In
re Hollinger Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 04C-0834."

In February and April 2004, three alleged stockholders of the
Company (Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana, Kenneth
Mozingo, and Washington Area Carpenters Pension and Retirement
Fund) initiated purported class actions suits against the
Company, its former chief executive officer and founder Conrad
Black, certain former executive officers and certain current and
former directors of the Company, Hollinger Inc., Ravelston and
certain affiliated entities and KPMG LLP, the Company's
independent registered public accounting firm.

On July 9, 2004, the Court consolidated the three actions for
pretrial purposes.  Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint on August 2, 2004, and a second
consolidated amended class action complaint on November 19,
2004. The named plaintiffs in the second consolidated amended
class action complaint are Teachers' Retirement System of
Louisiana, Washington Area Carpenters Pension and Retirement
Fund, and E. Dean Carlson.  They are purporting to sue on behalf
of an alleged class consisting of themselves and all other
purchasers of securities of the Company between and including
August 13, 1999 and December 11, 2002.

The second consolidated amended class action complaint asserts
claims under federal and Illinois securities laws and claims of
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting in breaches of
fiduciary duty in connection with misleading disclosures and
omissions regarding certain "non-competition" payments, the
payment of allegedly excessive management fees, allegedly
inflated circulation figures at the Chicago Sun-Times, and other
alleged misconduct.  The complaint seeks unspecified money
damages, rescission, and an injunction against future
violations.

The suit is styled "In Re: Hollinger Intl Securities Litigation,
case no. 1:04-cv-00834," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge David
H. Coar.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

     (4) Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., 1201 N. Market Street, Suite
         2100, Wilmington, DE, 19801, Phone: 302.622.7000, Fax:
         302.622.7100, E-mail: info@gelaw.com

     (5) Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC,
         Chicago, IL, Phone: 800-470-6824, Fax: 312-621-1750,

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


ILLINOIS: Supreme Court Dismisses Lawsuit Over Automobile Titles
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Supreme Court dismissed a suit involving automobile
titles being heard in the state, ruling that there was no
legitimate reason to hash out a Louisiana dispute in an
Edwardsville courtroom, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.

The ruling was hailed by business groups as a major victory
against "venue shopping," the practice of filing national class
action suits in targeted jurisdictions like Madison County. It
was described as a jab at the county's court system, which has a
national reputation for being friendly to plaintiffs.

On the same day the ruling was handed down, in what proponents
say was a coincidence, an Illinois Senate committee meeting in
Chicago took testimony on legislation that would set strict new
rules governing where suits can be filed in the state of
Illinois. Business groups touted the recent Supreme Court ruling
as proof of the necessity of the legislation. The venue-shopping
bill is SB1724.

Lynda Mounts, assistant general counsel for the American
Insurance Association in Chicago, said in a written statement,
"For many years, Illinois has had a reputation . . . for having
a few overly friendly local courts that cater to out-of-state
lawsuits and at times issue blatantly unfair rulings." She goes
on to say, "The fact that this lawsuit went all the way to the
state Supreme Court before venue was correctly decided
reinforces the need for legislation that clearly delineates when
and where forum is proper in civil cases."

However, a major lawyers' group pointed out that the ruling
actually demonstrates that new legislation is not needed. Keith
Hebeisen, president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association
told The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "Our court system has done a
very good job of correcting (cases of alleged venue shopping)
within the existing rules." According to him, new legislation,
like the recently discussed bill in Chicago, is unnecessary.
"This case vindicates the current court system," he says of the
recent ruling.

The latest case involves allegations against State Farm
Insurance by Louisiana resident Christopher Gridley, who bought
a 1998 Volvo S70 from a Louisiana auction in November 1999. The
title did not reveal that the car had been involved in an
accident months earlier. Mr. Gridley sued State Farm, which had
allegedly obtained a "clean title" that obscured the car's
damage history.

Even though Mr. Gridley is a Louisiana resident and the alleged
fraud happened in Louisiana, the suit was filed in Madison
County, Illinois. The intent was to have it certified as a
national class action suit, with at least one Illinois resident
to be included among the "class" - that is, the group of people
allegedly harmed by State Farm's business practices.

State Farm argued that there was no legitimate reason to file
the case in Madison County, and that it should be heard in
either Louisiana or in Bloomington, Illinois, where the company
is based. However, a Madison County court denied that motion and
allowed the case could stay in Edwardsville. The Supreme Court's
recent ruling though overturns the circuit court decision and at
the same time expels the case from the Illinois civil court
system.

Illinois law does allow class action suits to be filed in
jurisdictions with only minor connections to the case, a
controversial standard that some in the Legislature are trying
to change. However, in a 14-page decision without dissent, the
state's high court ruled that the Mr. Gridley suit didn't even
meet that standard. In an opinion by Justice Robert Thomas, the
court ruled, "We find that the circuit court abused its
discretion in denying State Farm's motion" to move the case out
of Madison County. Judge Thomas further wrote, "Louisiana has an
interest in deciding this matter locally. In contrast, Illinois
courts have an interest in not being burdened with applying
foreign law in the absence of strong policy reasons and a strong
connection to the case."

John Hoffman of the Belleville law firm Korein Tillery, who is
representing Mr. Gridley, defended the concept of filing suits
in venues perceived as friendly. He pointed out, "I don't like
the term 'venue shopping' . . . but as an attorney, part of my
job is to file (cases) in a forum that I believe increases my
client's chances for victory."

Mr. Hoffman noted that the alternative courts suggested by State
Farm included Bloomington, the company's national corporate
headquarters. "If you ask me, that's '(venue) shopping'," Mr.
Hoffman says of the suggested alternative.

The Supreme Court's ruling in effect throws the case out of
Illinois, leaving plaintiffs with the option of filing in
Louisiana. Mr. Hoffman told The St. Louis Post-Dispatch that's
what the firm probably would do.

Justice Lloyd Karmeier, the Glen Carbon Republican elected after
a bitter campaign last year that became a referendum on tort
reform, didn't take part in the deliberations. The case was
argued before he was elected.

The case is the second such this fall in which the state Supreme
Court appeared to side with critics of the downstate civil court
system. Coincidentally, the previous case, also involved State
Farm. In that case, plaintiffs filing in Marion, Illinois won a
$1.06 billion national class action suit against the insurance
company for using "after-market" parts in car repairs. The
Supreme Court though in an opinion that one dissenting justice
described as a slap at downstate courts, overturned that
judgment in August.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Pays $3.7M to Settle OH Mill Workers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Co. will pay $3.7 million to settle a class
action lawsuit brought by some former salaried employees who
worked at Hamilton's B Street mill in Ohio, a judge's ruling
stated, The Hamilton Journal News reports.

In the suit, workers claimed that they were unfairly denied
severance payments offered in an IP company policy when they
accepted jobs with SMART Papers after it bought the B Street
mill in 2001. Dianne Noonan, who has worked at the mill through
three different paper companies, filed the suit in U.S. District
Court in Cincinnati along with co-worker Scott Dalesandro on
behalf of themselves and 147 others.

Commenting on the ruling, which was handed down after months of
negotiations between the parties, Ms. Noonan told The Hamilton
Journal News, "I'm glad it's over. A lot of us have 25 years
service with the company and above. We all deserve this money."

Elements of the case date back to 2000, when Champion
International merged with IP. In May of that year, just before
the merger, the company issued a severance policy for workers
terminated as a result of the companies' reorganization. After
IP sold the B Street mill to SMART Papers, IP refused to pay
severance benefits under that policy to workers who took jobs
with the new company.

Though IP representatives refused comment on the settlement,
they contend in their court filings that the severance benefits
were offered only to help those who were out of work because of
the transition, not those who carried on at the mill working for
a new company.

Money aside, Cincinnati lawyer Theresa Groh, who represented the
workers, told The Hamilton Journal News that ruling brought a
satisfying conclusion to nearly five years of work. He pointed
out, "You can't compare class action settlements on amounts. In
terms of other elements, it was certainly more hard-fought than
a lot that I've been involved with and I'm very pleased with
this settlement."

Although the class members will be getting less than they might
have under a ruling earlier this year that was later appealed,
Ms. Noonan told The Hamilton Journal News that she believed the
settlement was fair and was the most money workers could have
reasonably gotten from IP.

In that earlier ruling, Judge Sandra Beckwith ordered IP to pay
its former employees $4.2 million in severance payments,
$323,532 for their attorneys' fees, $6,335 in costs and $628,823
in back interest for a total of $5.1 million. Both the paper
company and the workers appealed.

The final agreement that was approved recently deducts $917,500
in attorneys' fees, $20,000 in incentive payments to Mr.
Dalesandro and Ms. Noonan and up to $25,000 in litigation costs
from the $3.7 million settlement. That leaves about $2.7 million
for the severance payments, which will be calculated according
to a formula mailed to the workers.

Court records show the final settlement payments will represent
about 64 percent of what the employees would have gotten under
the earlier ruling, according to Mr. Groh. He told The Hamilton
Journal News that if the ruling is not appealed, members of the
class should be paid by January. Those members have until
January 3 to return paperwork mailed with their settlement
notices in order to get paid, he adds.

A fairness hearing was scheduled for November 16 at the U.S.
District courthouse in Cincinnati with notices explaining the
settlement having been already mailed to workers who are part of
the class. Members of the class who object to the settlement
must file their objections with the court before November 1, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (October 4, 2005) reports.

The suit is styled, "Dalesandro, et al v. International Paper,
Case No. 1:01-cv-00109-SSB," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, under Judge Sandra S.
Beckwith. Representing the Plaintiff/s are Theresa L. Groh and
John Charles Murdock of Murdock Goldenberg Schneider & Groh,
LPA, 35 East Seventh St., Suite 600, Cincinnati, OH 45202-2015,
Phone: 513-345-8291, E-mail: tgroh@mgsglaw.com and
jmurdock@mgsglaw.com; and Myron Auer Wolf of Henderson, Deis &
Wolf - 1, 120 North Second St., Hamilton, OH 45011, Phone:
513-863-0664, Fax: 513-863-0664. Representing the Defendant/s
are:

     (1) Vincent J Miraglia of International Paper Company,
         Legal Department, 6400 Poplar Ave., Memphis, TN 38197,
         Phone: 901/419-3901, E-mail:
         vmiraglia@mcguirewoods.com;

     (2) Grant Spencer Cowan of Frost Brown Todd LLC - 1, 2200
         PNC Center, 201 E 5th St., Cincinnati, OH 45202-4182,
         Phone: 513-651-6800, Fax: 513-651-6745 (fax), E-mail:
         gcowan@fbtlaw.com; and

     (3) W. Carter Younger of McGuire Woods LLP - 1, One James
         Center, 901 E Cary St., Richmond, VA 23219, Phone: 804-
         775-4712, Fax: 804-775-4366.


JUVENILE PRODUCTS: Recalls Vaporizers, Diffusers For Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Juvenile Products Corporation, of Miami, Florida (THIS
COMPANY IS OUT OF BUSINESS.) is voluntarily recalling about
10,000 Vapor-Eze Waterless Vaporizers and 5,000 Vapor-Eze
Aromatherapy Diffusers.

According to the companies, a defective internal heater in the
recalled vaporizers and diffusers can cause sparking and emit
flames while in use. This poses a fire, burn and shock hazard to
consumers. There have been reports of 25 incidents involving
these products, including at least six fires and two reports of
burn injuries. In one incident, a young child was hospitalized
with burns to the face and hands and smoke inhalation. In
another incident, a consumer suffered a burned foot.

The recalled waterless vaporizers are white plastic with vents.
The aromatherapy diffusers are ivory plastic with vents. Both
are 5-inches wide by 3 -inches high. "Vapor-Eze," and
"Waterless Vaporizer" are written on the top of the vaporizer.
"Vapor-Eze" and "Aromatic Therapy" are written on the top of the
diffuser. Model 1070, 2070 or 3070 and "Juv. Prod's. Corp" are
printed on the bottom of the units. UPC Code 015715910701,
015715010008, 000157159104 or 0157150010145 is printed on the
packaging.

Manufactured in the United States, the recalled products were
sold discount department and drug stores, including Wal-Mart,
from June 2005 through September 2005 for about $20.

Remedy: Consumers should stop using the recalled waterless
vaporizer and aromatherapy diffuser immediately and return them
to the place of purchase for a full refund.

Consumer Contact: The manufacturer of these recalled products is
out of business. Consumers who purchased the recalled vaporizers
or diffusers at Wal-Mart should contact Wal-Mart at
(800) 925-6278 between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday, or visit http://www.Walmart.com- consumers who
purchased the products elsewhere should contact the retailer or
CPSC's Hotline at (800) 638-2772.


LANDSTAR SYSTEM: FL Court Grants Certification To OOIDA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Jacksonville Division granted class certification to
the class action filed against Landstar System, Inc., alleging
violations of certain federal leasing regulations.

On November 1, 2002, the Owner Operator Independent Drivers
Association, Inc. (OOIDA) and six individual Independent
Contractors filed a putative class action complaint, alleging
that certain aspects of the Company's motor carrier leases with
its Independent Contractors violate certain federal leasing
regulations and seeks injunctive relief, an unspecified amount
of damages and attorney's fees.

On March 8 and June 4, 2004, the Court dismissed all claims of
one of the six individual Plaintiffs on the grounds that the ICC
Termination Act is not applicable to leases signed before the
Act's January 1, 1996, effective date, and dismissed all claims
of all remaining Plaintiffs against four of the seven Company
entities previously named as Defendants.  Claims currently
survive against the following Company entities - Landstar Inway,
Inc., Landstar Ligon, Inc. and Landstar Ranger, Inc.

With respect to the remaining claims, the June 4, 2004 order
held that the Act created a private right of action to which a
four-year statute of limitation applies.  On November 30, 2004,
the Court heard oral argument on a motion by OOIDA to certify
the case as a class action.  On April 7, 2005, Plaintiffs filed
an Amended Complaint that included additional allegations with
respect to violations of certain federal leasing regulations.
On April 18 and June 10, 2005, Defendants filed motions for
partial summary judgment to address the claims of the Amended
Complaint. On August 30, 2005, the Court granted a motion by
Plaintiffs to certify the case as a class action, and set trial
for the April 2006 trial term.  On October 19, 2005, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied the Defendants'
petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the
class-certification order. The District Court is expected to
rule prior to trial on the pending motions for summary judgment.

The suit is styled, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association Inc. et al. v. Landstar System Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:02-cv-01005-HLA-MCR, which was filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, The Honorable
Henry Lee Adams Jr., presiding. The following represented the
Plaintiff/s: Daniel E. Cohen, Daniel R. Unumb, Paul D. Cullen,
Mary Craine Lombardo, Joseph A. Black and Susan Van Bell of The
Cullen Law Firm, PLLC, 1101 30th St., N.W., Suite 300,
Washington, DC 20007-3770, Phone: 202/944-8600 or 202/965-6100;
and Michael R. Freed of Brennan, Manna & Diamond, PL,  Humana
Centre Building, 76 S. Laura Street, Ste. 2110, Jacksonville, FL
32202, Phone: 904/366-1500, Fax: 904/366-1501, E-mail:
mrfreed@bmdpl.com. The following are representing the
Defendant/s:

     (1) Daniel R. Barney of Scopelitis, Garvin, Light & Hanson,
         P.C., 1850 M St., NW, Suite 280, Washington, DC 20036-
         5804, Phone: 202/783-5485, E-mail:
         dbarney@scopelitis.com;

     (2) Timothy W. Wiseman, Robert L. Browning and Gregory M.
         Feary of Scopelitis, Garven, Light & Hanson, P.C., 10
         W. Market St., Suite 1500, Indianapolis, IN 46204-2968,
         Phone: 317/637-1777, Fax: 317/687-2414;

     (3) Andrew Tysen Duva and Lawrence Joseph Hamilton, II of
         Holland & Knight, 50 North Laura St., Suite 3900,
         Jacksonville, FL 32202, Phone: 904/353-2000 or 904/353-
         2000 Ext. 25454, Fax: 904/358-1872, E-mail:
         lhamilton@hklaw.com.


LOUISIANA: Orleans Parish Prisoners Detail Chaos After Katrina
--------------------------------------------------------------
In legal papers filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, 45
men and women formerly detained at Orleans Parish Prison recount
disturbing details of being abandoned without food or water and
abused by guards after Hurricane Katrina struck.

The ACLU said that the scores of testimonials it has obtained
from prisoners contradict public statements made by Sheriff
Marlin N. Gusman that the prisoners had food and water and that
the evacuation went as planned.

"The prisoners' accounts are remarkably similar, and raise
serious claims that they were abandoned by prison officials and
subject to excessive force," said Eric Balaban of the ACLU
National Prison Project, which represents the prisoners in an
ongoing class-action lawsuit.

Prisoners claim that deputies forced them into their cells by
shooting bean bags, macing and tasering them. Once they were
returned to their cells, some deputies handcuffed the cell doors
to prevent them from escaping. As the locked cells began to
flood, prisoners hung signs out of the broken windows for help,
and others jumped into the water below. According to the
testimonials, deputies and members of the Special Investigation
Division shot at some of the prisoners who were attempting to
escape the rising water inside the jail, and several prisoners
report that they witnessed fellow prisoners getting shot in the
back.

When the prisoners were finally evacuated from the jail, many
were forced to wade through toxic, waste-filled water to the
Broad Street overpass on Interstate 10. Prisoners reported that
the armed guards at the overpass had K-9 dogs, which were used
to threaten them. Several prisoners said that the dogs bit other
prisoners. Many of the prisoners on the overpass said they were
maced and beaten, some for nothing more than sitting next to a
fellow prisoner who attempted to stand and stretch after being
forced to sit on the pavement for hours. Other prisoners recount
being maced and beaten for requesting food and water. Female
prisoners also report that deputies directed degrading and
sexually offensive comments at them.

"It was like we were left to die. No water, no air, no food. We
were left with deputies that were out of control," said one
woman, who is identified in legal papers as "Inmate #19." Before
filing the testimonials with the court, the ACLU redacted the
names of the prisoners in order to protect their safety.

"Inmate #19" said she was housed in a dorm with 100 other women
because of flooding. The women were left with nothing to eat or
drink, and many of them drank water out of trashcans. "I still
have recurring nightmares about what I saw and what I went
through," she said.

One man, who was housed at Unit F-2, said he and other prisoners
saw "a few dead bodies and we were told not to say anything or
we were going to be like them." The man, referred to as "Inmate
#41," said that when he was evacuated from the building, the
water was so high that prisoners had to swim or wade out to
safety. He eventually reached the Interstate 10 overpass, where
he was denied food and water for two days.

"The evacuation [was] hideous to say the least," said another
woman, referred to as "Inmate #6." "So gruesome that we had to
wade through standing toxic-contaminated water filled with
feces, urine and all kinds of other foreign debris for days on
end . [It is] almost impossible to fathom how one can survive it
and not be scarred to extremes."

Many prisoners say conditions worsened when they were moved to
other facilities, such as Hunt Correctional Facility. "Inmate
#7" described Hunt as "pure hell." "The guards treated us like
old nasty dogs. We could asked them nothing. [or] you might get
shot at," he said.

Another man, "Inmate #64," described lawlessness at Hunt.
"Everywhere you looked there were fights, people getting
stabbed, people getting raped. When [deputies] did come with
food, they threw it to us from scaffolds like they were at Mardi
Gras."

The ACLU said it has received hundreds of responses and plans to
release additional testimonials in the coming weeks. The
testimonials were obtained through a series of questionnaires
sent to prisoners who are now being held at various facilities
across Louisiana.

Summaries of more than 70 testimonials are found at:
www.aclu.org/Prisons/Prisons.cfm?ID=19414&c=26. Select
testimonials are available at:
www.aclu.org/Prisons/Prisons.cfm?ID=19416&c=26. More
testimonials will be posted soon.

For more information on the ACLU's efforts in the aftermath of
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, go to:
http://www.aclu.org/HurricaneRelief.


MARATHON OIL: Faces Several Injury Suits For MTBE Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marathon Oil, Inc. is named as a defendant, along with many
other refining companies, in over forty recently-filed cases in
thirteen states alleging methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE)
contamination in groundwater.  The plaintiffs generally are
water providers or governmental authorities and they allege that
refiners, manufacturers and sellers of gasoline containing MTBE
are liable for manufacturing a defective product and that owners
and operators of retail gasoline sites have allowed MTBE to be
discharged into the groundwater.

Several of these lawsuits allege contamination that is outside
of Marathon's marketing area. A few of the cases seek approval
as class actions. Many of the cases seek punitive damages or
treble damages under a variety of statutes and theories. As a
result, The Company has stopped producing MTBE at its
refineries. The potential impact of these recent cases and
future potential similar cases is uncertain. Marathon intends to
vigorously defend these cases.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Seeks Review of Refusal to Dismiss GA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. appealed to the United States Supreme
Court, after the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
refused to review its ruling upholding in part a lower court's
refusal to dismiss class action filed against it, styled
"Shirley Williams, et al vs. Mohawk Industries, Inc."

Four plaintiffs filed the suit in January 2004, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, alleging that they are former and current employees of
the Company and that the Company's actions and conduct,
including the employment of persons who are not permitted to
work in this country, have damaged them and the other members of
the purported class by suppressing the wages of the Company's
hourly employees in Georgia.  The plaintiffs seek a variety of
relief, including treble damages; return of any allegedly
unlawful profits; and attorney's fees and costs of litigation.

In February 2004, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint, which was denied by the Northern District in April
2004.  The Company then sought and obtained permission to file
an immediate appeal of the Northern District's decision to the
United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.  In June
2005, the 11th Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part the
lower court's decision.  In June 2005, the Company filed a
motion requesting review by the full 11th Circuit. The 11th
Circuit refused to hear the case and the Company now has
appealed to the United States Supreme Court.


NOVARTIS NUTRITION: Recalls Feeding Formula Due to Health Risks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Novartis Nutrition Corporation is recalling 2,712 bottles of an
enteral feeding formula which was incorrectly labeled as
Diabetisourcer AC 1.5 Liter bottles lot 2135L. The product
contained in these bottles is Resource Diabeticr TF a tube
feeding formulated for diabetes, which contains sodium and
calcium caseinate, components of milk. People with an allergy or
severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of a serious or life
threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. The
recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the FDA.

Healthcare professionals administering to patients who have an
allergy or sensitivity to milk should immediately stop using
this product. Healthcare institutions that have received
shipping cartons labeled Resource Diabeticr TF lot number 2135L
or bottles labeled Diabetisourcer AC 1.5 Liter bottles lot 2135L
should contact Novartis Customer Services at 1-800-333-3785.
Consumers who have questions can contact this same 800 number.

In addition the two products are not nutritionally equivalent.
The product label for Diabetisourcer AC indicates that the 1.5L
container provides 1800 calories and 150 grams of carbohydrate.
Consuming Resource Diabeticr TF, the patient would receive 1590
calories and 127 grams of carbohydrate in a 1.5L container.

The affected product was shipped nationwide and is only
distributed to healthcare institutional facilities. Affected
product is not distributed to retail outlets. The recalled
bottles were shipped in cartons correctly labeled as Resource
Diabeticr TF lot 2135L however the bottles were incorrectly
labeled as Diabetisource AC. Lot 2135L.

Novartis Nutrition Corporation has notified its distributors
requesting that they stop sale immediately and return all
product in their inventory.

Novartis Nutrition Corporation takes its mission of improving
the health and well being of patients in healthcare delivery
settings very seriously, and therefore believe it is necessary
to take this precautionary action.

For more details, contact Brandi Robinson, Phone: 212-830-2408.


OVERTURE SERVICES: NY Settlement Fairness Hearing Set April 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Overture Services, Inc.,
certain underwriters involved in the Company's initial public
offering, and certain of its current and former officers and
directors is set for April 24,2006, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On July 12, 2001, the first of several purported securities
class action lawsuits was filed.  The suits were later
consolidated.  Plaintiffs allege, among other things, violations
of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 involving undisclosed compensation to the underwriters, and
improper practices by the underwriters, and seek unspecified
damages.  Similar complaints were filed in the same court
against numerous public companies that conducted initial public
offerings of their common stock since the mid-1990s.

All of these lawsuits were consolidated for pretrial purposes
before Judge Shira Scheindlin.  On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint, alleging Rule 10b-5 claims of fraud.
On July 15, 2002, the issuers filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to comply with applicable pleading standards.  On
October 8, 2002, the Court entered an Order of Dismissal as to
all of the individual defendants in the Overture IPO litigation,
without prejudice.

On February 19, 2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the
Rule 10b-5 claims against certain defendants, including the
Company.  On August 31, 2005 the Court entered an order
confirming its preliminary approval of a settlement proposal
made by plaintiffs, which includes settlement of, and release of
claims against, the issuer defendants, including the Company


PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Stock Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Praecis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers.

In December 2004 and January 2005, the Company, Chairman and
(now former) Chief Executive Officer Malcolm Gefter, President
and (now former) Chief Operating Officer Kevin F. McLaughlin,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer Edward C. English, and
former President and Chief Operating Officer William K. Heiden,
were named as defendants in three purported class action
securities lawsuits.  The complaints generally allege securities
fraud during the period from November 25, 2003 through December
6, 2004. Each of the complaints purports to assert claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleges that the
Company and the individually named defendants made materially
false and misleading public statements concerning the Company's
business and financial results, particularly relating to
statements regarding the commercialization of Plenaxis.

On February 7, 2005, a motion was filed to consolidate the three
actions and to appoint lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On
February 18, 2005, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a brief response to that motion, reserving their rights to
challenge the adequacy and typicality, among other things, of
the proposed lead plaintiffs in connection with class
certification proceedings, if any.  On April 13, 2005, the Court
entered an Order granting the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate
the three actions (as well as each case that relates to the same
subject matter that may be subsequently filed in or transferred
to the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts), appoint lead plaintiffs and approve such
plaintiffs' selection of co-lead counsel. On August 1, 2005,
lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.
On September 12, 2005, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a Motion to Dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.
On October 24, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed an Opposition to the
Motion to Dismiss.

Those purported class actions are captioned:

     (i) Katz v. Praecis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Malcolm Gefter,
         Kevin McLaughlin, Edward English and William K. Heiden,
         Civil Action No. 04-12581-GAO (filed December 9, 2004),
         under Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr.

    (ii) Schwartz v. Praecis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Malcolm
         Gefter, Kevin McLaughlin, Edward English and William K.
         Heiden, Civil Action No. 04-12704-REK (filed December
         27, 2004) under Judge Robert E. Keeton and

   (iii) Bassin v. Praecis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Malcolm L.
         Gefter, Ph.D., Kevin F. McLaughlin, Edward C. English
         and William K. Heiden, Civil Action No. 05-10134-GAO
         (filed January 21, 2005) under Judge George A. O'Toole,
         Jr.

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

     (c) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (LA) 1801 Ave. of the
         Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067 Phone: (310)
         201-915, E-mail: (310) 201-916, info@glancylaw.com

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

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

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

     (g) Shapiro, Haber & Urmy LLP 75 State Street, Boston, MA,
         02109, Phone: 617.439.3939, Fax: 617.439.0134, E-mail:
         info@shulaw.com


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Continues To Face Cabin Stewards "Tips" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Caribbean Cruises, Inc. and one of its cruise brands
continues to face a purported class action lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.

The suit alleges that the Company's Celebrity Cruises improperly
requires its cabin stewards to share guest gratuities with
assistant cabin stewards.  The suit seeks payment of damages,
including penalty wages under 46 U.S.C. Section 10113 of U.S.
law and interest.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: FL Court Dismisses Lawsuit For Deceptive Trade
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida dismissed the class action filed against Royal Caribbean
Cruises, Inc., alleging that the Company improperly profit from
shore excursions offered to its guests by third party shore
excursion operators in violation of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The suit seeks payment of damages, including the difference
between what the Company collects from its guests for shore
excursions and what the Company pays to the shore excursion
operators.   The court dismissed the suit in September 2005.


SPS TEMPORARIES: Settles Workers' Discrimination Suit For $580T
---------------------------------------------------------------
The employment agency SPS Temporaries, Inc. and two of its
clients agreed to pay up to $580,000 to settle a class action
discrimination lawsuit, The Associated Press reports.

The suit accused them of discriminating against employees due to
race, sex, disability, age and national origin. Filed by the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), it also charges
the company of complying with requests from its clients to
provide temporary workers of a certain race or gender. The suit
further alleges that the Company destroyed documents showing it
coded applicants based on race, sex and national origin during
the EEOC's investigation. In addition, the suit also charges
that Jamestown Container Cos. requested white men as temporary
workers and Whiting Door Manufacturing Corporation in Akron
requested male workers, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(February 2, 2004) reports.

According to the EEOC, the Buffalo, New York-based firm agreed
to pay the amount. That money will then be placed into a claims
fund to be distributed to alleged victims of the discrimination.
Whiting Door agreed to a $60,000 contribution, while Jamestown
Container agreed to make a $20,000 payment. None of the
companies admitted wrongdoing.

The suit is styled, "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v.
SPS Temporaries, Inc., et al, Case No. 1:04-cv-00052-JTE-HBS,"
filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of New York, under Judge John T. Elfvin, with referral
to Judge Hugh B. Scott. Representing the Plaintiff/s are,
Katherine Bissell and Robert D. Rose of U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, New York District Office, 33 Whitehall
St., 5th Floor, New York, NY 10004-2112, Phone: 212-336-3690,
Fax: 212-336-3623, E-mail: katherine.bissell@eeoc.gov and
robert.rose@eeoc.gov. Representing the Defendant/s are, Thomas
E. Brydges of Jaeckle, Fleischmann & Mugel, 700 Fleet Bank
Bldg., Buffalo, NY 14202, Phone: 716-843-3812, Fax:
716-856-0432, E-mail: tbrydges@jaeckle.com; and Robert A. Doren
of Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, 40 Fountain Plaza, Key Center,
Suite 600, Buffalo, NY 14202-2200, Phone: 716-566-2833, Fax:
716-566-2808, E-mail: rdoren@bsk.com.


STERICYCLE INC.: Reaches Settlement in 3CI Shareholder Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, Inc. (NASDAQ:SRCL), the leading provider in North
America of medical waste management and compliance services for
the healthcare community, entered into a preliminary settlement
to resolve a pending class action lawsuit by the minority
shareholders of Stericycle's publicly traded majority-owned
subsidiary, 3CI Complete Compliance Corporation, and by 3CI. The
settlement remains subject to court approval.

Under the terms of the preliminary settlement, Stericycle will
pay a total of $32.5 million. After deducting the plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees, in an amount to be approved by the court, the
balance of the settlement amount will be paid to members of the
plaintiff class to settle all lawsuit claims and alleged damages
and will include the purchase or cancellation of all shares of
3CI stock held by the class. The stock purchase will allow 3CI
to become a wholly owned subsidiary of Stericycle.

Stericycle anticipates taking a one-time charge in the fourth
quarter of 2005 for settlement and legal expenses. A portion of
the $32.5 million will be booked towards the stock purchase when
the settlement is finalized. Stericycle does not anticipate that
this event will result in any changes to its preliminary 2006
guidance previously given in its conference call of October 25,
2005.

Stericycle and the individual defendants do not admit any
liability under the terms of the settlement, and continue to
maintain their position that they acted at all times in the best
interests of 3CI and its shareholders. "We agreed to settle this
lawsuit to put the matter behind us and focus on realizing the
synergies that can be obtained by integrating 3CI's operations
into our own," said Mark Miller, Stericycle's President and CEO.
"We vigorously fought these allegations for over three years,
and were fully prepared to take this matter to a trial on its
merits. However, considering the benefits that we expect to gain
by being able to integrate 3CI, we concluded that it was in
Stericycle's best interest to put an end to the continuing cost
and distraction of litigation and to eliminate the uncertainty
inherent in a jury trial."

The settlement provides for the dismissal with prejudice of
litigation filed in state court in Caddo Parish, Louisiana in
July 2002, and litigation pending in state court in Harris
County, Texas.

Trial for the class action filed against Stericycle, Inc. and
four of its officers and directors was set for September and
October 2005 in First Judicial District Court in Caddo Parish,
Louisiana. Larry F. Robb filed the suit, styled, "Robb et al. v.
Stericycle, Inc. et al., cause no. 467704-A," on June 20, 2002
on behalf of a class comprised of the Company's minority
stockholders, and derivatively on behalf of the Company. Mr.
Robb is a shareholder of the Company's majority-owned
subsidiary, 3CI Complete Compliance Corporation. The suit, which
was filed on behalf of the minority shareholders of 3CI and
derivatively on behalf of 3CI itself, alleges, among other
claims, that the Company and the four directors of 3CI who are
or were serving as the Company's designees (and who are or were
also officers or directors of the Company) unjustly enriched the
Company at the expense of 3CI and its other shareholders. The
plaintiff seeks, among other relief, actual and punitive damages
and an order requiring the buyout of 3CI's minority
shareholders, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (March 26,
2005) reports.

In September 2003, the full board of 3CI appointed a special
committee consisting of 3CI's three independent directors (one
of whom later resigned) to act on 3CI's behalf in respect of the
dispute with the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary Waste
Systems, Inc. (WSI), regarding the conversion rate of 3CI's
preferred stock.  In January 2004, the full board expanded the
special committee's authority to include an investigation of all
claims by the plaintiff in the Louisiana lawsuit and by the
third-party plaintiffs in the Texas lawsuit, and to act on 3CI's
behalf in respect of both lawsuits, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (March 26, 2005) reports.

After purporting to conduct an investigation of these claims,
the special committee concluded that the claims in the Louisiana
lawsuit had merit, and in December 2004, 3CI, at the special
committee's s direction, filed a joint petition with the
plaintiff superseding the plaintiff's prior petition but seeking
substantially the same relief as the prior petition. Prior to
filing the joint petition, 3CI, again at the special committee's
direction, entered into a joint prosecution agreement with the
plaintiff and his law firm pursuant to which two-thirds of the
work in prosecuting the suit would be performed by the plaintiff
and his law firm and one-third by 3CI and its counsel, and two-
thirds of any monetary recovery would be allocated to the
plaintiff (or plaintiff class) and one-third to 3CI, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (March 26, 2005) reports.

In January 2005, the Company filed a third-party complaint for
contribution from various former officers and directors of 3CI
who had participated in approving the actions complained of in
the joint petition.  The Company also filed a counterclaim
against the members of the special committee on the grounds,
among others, that they breached their fiduciary duties as
directors by failing to conduct a thorough investigation and
analysis of the plaintiff's claims before entering into the
joint prosecution agreement, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (March 26, 2005) reports.

In February 2005, the court granted class certification,
approved the plaintiff's law firm as class counsel, and
preliminarily approved the joint prosecution agreement subject
to the objections of members of the plaintiff class.  The court
scheduled the suit for trial in September 2005 if it is tried
before a jury and in October 2005 if it is tried before the
judge, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (March 26, 2005)
reports.


SYCAMORE KIDS: Recalls 3.2T Breeze Strollers Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Sycamore Kids Inc., of Fort Collins, Colorado is
voluntarily recalling about 3,200 units of Mountain Buggy Urban
Single and Urban Double, Breeze Strollers.

The recall is an expansion of the Sycamore Kids Inc. jogging
stroller recall announced on July 14, 2005 and includes
additional models.

According to company, the handlebar can crack or break, causing
the handlebar to detach while in use, posing a risk of injury to
young children. Sycamore Kids has received 22 reports of
handlebar either cracking or breaking when the stroller was
pulled up or taken down stairs. This resulted in two reports of
bruises and scrapes.

The recalled strollers have a metal frame and a cloth seat with
a sun canopy. The strollers were sold in a variety of colors
including, navy, red, black, silver and orange. A metal plate
above the footrest shows the Mountain Buggy logo with "Mountain
Buggy," "Urban," or "Breeze" written underneath on the metal
plate. The recalled Mountain Buggy Urban Single strollers have
item number U1204-002, and serial numbers between 000000 and
012893. The recalled Mountain Buggy Urban Double strollers have
item number U2204-002, and serial numbers between 000000 and
006957. The recalled Mountain Buggy Breeze strollers have item
number B1204-002, and serial numbers between 000000 and 000191.
The serial number and model number are on the back of the metal
plate. All recalled buggies have a gray handlebar button.

Manufactured in New Zealand, the strollers were sold at juvenile
furniture retailers and baby product stores and Web retailers
nationwide from December 2004 through July 2005 for between $400
and $640.

Remedy: Contact Sycamore Kids to find an authorized repair
center to receive a free replacement handlebar ratchet.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Sycamore
Kids Inc. toll-free at (866) 524-8805 anytime, or write to
support@mountainbuggyusa.com - this recall information also can
be found on the firm's Web site:
http://www.mountainbuggyusa.com.


TEXAS: Mission Pollution Case Heard Before State Supreme Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ester Salinas, the Mission, Texas woman who began a class action
suit against about 25 chemical companies in 1998, recently spoke
before the state Supreme Court, The Daily Texan reports.

The case involves several residents from Mission, who have
injuries they said were caused by exposure to harmful chemicals
in a nearby toxic waste site. The resident who are involved in
the case are seeking compensation for negligence, medical bills
and devalued property, according to attorney Linda Laurent of
Houston-based Reich and Binstock, one of several lawyers for the
plaintiffs.

The defendants in the case, which include Union Pacific Railroad
Company, URS Corporation and Chevron Chemical Corporation,
appealed to the state Supreme Court, asking them to order the
332nd District Court to reverse the trial date it set in May
2004. The Texas Supreme Court though has not yet decided the
case.

The defendants, represented by Richard Newman of San Antonio-
based Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., claim that they haven't been
given sufficient evidence to prepare their defense. Setting a
court date without this information was an abuse of discretion
by the trial court, Mr. Newman argues.

Ms. Kaurent told The Daily Texan that while the five plaintiffs
in the case provided causal evidence linking their injuries to
chemicals in the area, the defendants have requested such
evidence for several hundred others who also claim to have
chemical-related illnesses. Ms. Laurent represents the five
plaintiffs listed, each of whom have been diagnosed with non-
Hodgkins lymphoma. This form of cancer has been linked to
exposure to chlordane, one of the chemicals found in Mission,
according to Mrs. Salinas.

According to Ms. Laurent, the chemical plant ceased operations
about 30 years ago. However, many chemicals take years to break
down. For example, dioxin takes decades to break down and makes
up one-third of the herbicides used in Agent Orange, the
Pesticide Action Network North America Web site revealed.

The Hayes-Sammons Chemical Co., which processed and stored
chemicals for the companies involved in the class action suit,
is classified as a Superfund toxic waste site by the
Environmental Protection Agency. Superfund sites are
"uncontrolled hazardous waste sites," according to the EPA Web
site.

If the Texas Supreme Court denies the defendant's request, then
the lower court will hear the Mission residents' case. However
if the request is granted, the plaintiffs may have to provide
in-depth medical reports for the other claims, which will take
much more time and money, Ms. Laurent told The Daily Texan.


TEXAS INSTRUMENTS: Workers Launch Lawsuit For FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two Texas Instruments workers initiated a class action lawsuit
against the company for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, The Fort Worth Star Telegram reports.

Wilford Vogt of Irving and James Gauthier of Denison charge in a
recently filed federal lawsuit that Texas Instruments required
employees in its "fab facilities" to regularly work shifts of 12
hours and longer but only paid for 11.5 hours at work. It was
not clear from the lawsuit though whether Mr. Vogt and Mr.
Gauthier are still employed by TI. Nevertheless, the suit
contends that employees are due 32-42 minutes per day of unpaid
overtime.

The suit alleges that the unpaid work stems from a list of
activities employees were required to complete before starting
their shift and a briefing employees had to attend at the end of
their shift. According to the suit, shifts don't officially
start at the facilities until after employees have changed from
their street clothes to clean suits, as well as switching shoes,
putting on hair nets, washing hands, donning gloves and passing
through an air shower.

Additionally, the suit claims that Texas Instruments uses card
readers to account for when employees are on site. However it
never pays more than eight hours of regular pay and 3.5 hours of
overtime per shift.

The suit is styled, "Vogt et al v. Texas Instruments
Incorporated, Case No. 3:05-cv-02244," filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, under
Judge Sam A. Lindsay. Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Hal K.
Gillespie and David K. Watsky of Gillespie Rozen Watsky Motley &
Jones, 3402 Oak Grove Ave., Suite 200, Dallas, TX 75204, Phone:
214/720-2009, Fax: 214/720-2291, E-mail: hkg@grwlawfirm.com and
watsky@grwlawfirm.com.


TRAVELERS PROPERTY: Asks MN Court To Dismiss Shareholder Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Travelers Property Casualty Corporation and its board of
directors asked the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota to dismiss the securities class actions
filed in connection with the Company's merger with St. Paul
Companies, Inc. (SPC).

The Company and its board of directors were initially named as
defendants in three putative class action lawsuits brought by
shareholders alleging breach of fiduciary duty in connection
with the merger of the Company and SPC and seeking injunctive
relief as well as unspecified monetary damages.  The actions
were captioned:

     (1) Henzel, et al. v. Travelers Property Casualty Corp.,
         et al., (Jud. Dist. of Waterbury, Ct. Nov. 17, 2003);

     (2) Vozzolo v. Travelers Property Casualty Corp., et al.,
         (Jud. Dist. of Waterbury, Ct. Nov. 17, 2003); and

     (3) Farina v. Travelers Property Casualty Corp., et al.
         (Jud. Dist. of Waterbury, Ct. December 15, 2003)

The "Farina" complaint also named SPC and its former subsidiary,
Adams Acquisition Corporation, as defendants, alleging that they
aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duty.

On March 18, 2004, the company and SPC announced that all of
these lawsuits had been settled, subject to court approval of
the settlements.  The settlement included a modification to the
termination fee that could have been paid had the merger not
been completed, additional disclosure in the proxy statement
distributed in connection with the merger and a nominal amount
for attorneys' fees.  Before court approval of the settlement,
additional shareholder litigation was commenced, as described
below.  On September 12, 2005, plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew
their complaints without prejudice.

Beginning in August 2004, following post-merger announcements by
the Company, various shareholders of the Company commenced
fourteen putative class action lawsuits against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Plaintiff shareholders allege that certain disclosures relating
to the April 2004 merger between the Company and SPC contained
false or misleading statements with respect to the value of
SPC's loss reserves in violation of federal securities laws.
These actions have been consolidated under the caption "In re
St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation I" and a lead plaintiff
and lead counsel have been appointed.

An additional putative class action based on the same
allegations was brought in New York State Supreme Court.  This
action was subsequently transferred to the District of Minnesota
and was consolidated with "In re St. Paul Travelers Securities
Litigation I."  On June 24, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended consolidated complaint.

The amended consolidated complaint asserts claims under Sections
10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended.  It does not specify damages.  On August 23,
2005, the Company and the other defendants moved to dismiss the
amended consolidated complaint.

Three other actions against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors are pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.  Two
of these actions, styled "Kahn v. The St. Paul Travelers
Companies, Inc., et al. (November 2, 2004) and "Michael A.
Bernstein Profit Sharing Plan v. The St. Paul Travelers
Companies, Inc., et al., (November 10, 2004)," are putative
class actions brought by certain shareholders of the Company
against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.  In these two actions, plaintiff
shareholders allege violations of federal securities laws in
connection with the Company's alleged failure to make disclosure
relating to the practice of paying brokers commissions on a
contingent basis.  These actions have been consolidated as "In
re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II," and a lead
plaintiff has been appointed.  On July 11, 2005, the lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint. The
consolidated action will be coordinated with "In re St. Paul
Travelers Securities Litigation I" for pretrial purposes.

In the third of these actions, an alleged beneficiary of the
Company's 401(k) savings plan has commenced a putative class
action against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors captioned "Spiziri v. The St. Paul
Travelers Companies, Inc., et al." (Dec. 28, 2004).  The
plaintiff alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act based on allegations similar to those in "In re St.
Paul Travelers Securities Litigation I."  On June 1, 2005, the
Company and the other defendants in "Spiziri" moved to dismiss
the complaint.


UNITED STATES: Government May Scratch Salvadoran Protections
------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush administration is proposing to end protections bestowed
illegal immigrants newly arrived from El Salvador, arguing that
the safeguards interfere with new border control policies, The
Associated Press reports.

Immigration rights attorneys and activists though argued that
the so-called Orantes injunction that gave Salvadoran immigrants
special rights nearly two decades ago still was needed. Saul
Solorzano, executive director of the Central American Resource
Center in Washington told The Associated Press, "Many people
lose hope in the economy of El Salvador, they try to come to the
U.S. to find willing employers, and with this they will have a
harder time."

The protections were mandated by a federal judge as a result of
a class action suit by immigrants, who fled their country's
bloody civil war and claimed the U.S. government tried to coerce
them into going back. The 1988 injunction required immigration
authorities to advise Salvadorans of their right to a hearing
before an immigration judge and of their right to apply for
political asylum, among other things.

Recently, the Justice Department filed a motion in Los Angeles,
California seeking to dissolve that injunction. The Department
of Homeland Security argues that the protections get in the way
of the "expedited removal" policy the department extended in
September along the entire U.S.-Mexico border.

Under that policy, illegal immigrants who don't have a criminal
background or pose a national security threat can be removed
without a hearing. However, according to Homeland Security
Department spokesman Jarrod Agen, due to the injunction that
applies to Salvadorans, they are given notice to appear before
an immigration judge regardless of their background, even though
many of them never do.

Mr. Agen told The Associated Press, "Removing the injunction
seeks to end that, so that we can put them right into expedited
removal so that when they're caught they're detained and removed
as quickly as possible." He also said that it takes about 90
days for an illegal Salvadoran immigrant to be processed through
the detention and removal process, compared to 35 days for
immigrants who are handled through expedited removal.

Department of Homeland Security figures revealed that only
Mexican immigrants have surpassed Salvadorans in numbers of
arrests since the 2006 fiscal year began October 1. In the 2005
fiscal year, by contrast, Salvadorans were third, after Mexicans
and Hondurans.

The figures also indicated that some 6,600 Salvadorans were
arrested between October 1 and November 15 on the southwest
border. There were 106,200 Mexicans arrested during that period,
and 5,200 Hondurans. In the 2005 fiscal year, there were 39,300
Salvadorans arrested, compared to 1 million Mexicans and 52,700
Hondurans. Mr. Agen attributed the increase to the new expedited
removal policy that, for now, applies to all nationalities
except for Salvadorans.


UST INC.: FL Court Converts Tobacco Suit To Individual Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida converted the purported class action filed against UST
Inc. and other smokeless tobacco manufacturers into an
individual action.

Six plaintiffs initially filed the class action "on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated" against various
smokeless tobacco manufacturers including the Company and other
organizations for personal injuries, including cancers of the
mouth and larynx, oral lesions, leukoplakia, facial
disfigurement, gum and tooth loss, fear of cancer, death and
depression and other injuries allegedly resulting from the use
of the Company's smokeless tobacco products.  Plaintiffs also
claimed nicotine "addiction" and sought unspecified compensatory
damages and certain equitable and other relief, including but
not limited to, medical monitoring.

On July 12, 2005, plaintiffs' counsel served papers that seek to
convert this purported class action into an individual action on
behalf of a single plaintiff. In connection with these papers,
on August 15, 2005, the claims of two of the plaintiffs were
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.  On October 18, 2005,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims of three
additional plaintiffs.  On October 31, 2005, the Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss the three plaintiffs, without
prejudice, thereby converting this action from a purported class
action to an individual action on behalf of a single plaintiff.



                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Baron & Budd Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C., initiated a class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of all those who acquired shares
of Blockbuster, Inc. ("Blockbuster" or the "Company") (NYSE:BBI)
pursuant to the Company's exchange offer of Viacom, Inc.
("Viacom") stock for 144 million common shares of Blockbuster
(the "Exchange Offer"), and on behalf of those who purchased
Blockbuster shares in the open market between September 8, 2004
and August 9, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The lawsuit seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The suit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas and is pending before the Honorable David C. Godbey
against defendants Blockbuster, Viacom, National Amusements,
Inc. and certain of Viacom and Blockbuster's officers and
directors.

The complaint alleges that Viacom was Blockbuster's controlling
shareholder and that, prior to the Exchange Offer, Viacom caused
Blockbuster to pay a $5 per share special dividend, of which
Viacom was the primary beneficiary. In order to pay the
dividend, Blockbuster was forced to take on debt in the amount
of approximately $1.1 billion. As further set forth in the
complaint, defendants failed to disclose in the Prospectus and
throughout the Class Period that Blockbuster was unprepared to
build the technological infrastructure required to integrate its
in-store and online sales operations and to achieve the
Company's transformation away from being solely a movie rental
outlet. Moreover, the Company's core in-store rental operations
were not generating sufficient cash flow to fund Blockbuster's
attempts to diversify.

The truth began to emerge on August 9, 2005, when, before the
market opened, the Company reported:

     (1) a second-quarter net loss of $57.2 million, or $0.31
         per share -- well below Company-guided analyst
         estimates;

     (2) negative free cash flow of $118 million compared to
         positive free cash flow of $23 million in the second
         quarter of 2004; and

     (3) that it was abandoning its 2005 guidance.

The Company also announced that, on August 8, 2005, it had been
forced to amend its credit facility to provide for a waiver of
its leverage ratio covenants. After this announcement, the
Company's stock opened that morning at $7.05, down 11.9%, or
$0.96 from the previous day's closing price of $8.01. The stock
continued to decline as the market absorbed the full impact of
the announcement, falling to a six-year low of $6.30 on August
10, 2005.

After the Class Period, on November 8, 2005, defendants stated
in an SEC filings that Blockbuster "may not have sufficient cash
flows from operating activities, cash on hand and available
borrowings under our credit facilities to service our
indebtedness" and that the Company could be forced into
bankruptcy if it was unable to raise additional funds through a
private offering.

For more details, contact Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. or Zan Smith
of Baron & Budd, P.C., Phone: (800) 222-2766, E-mail:
info@baronbudd.com, Web site: http://www.baronandbudd.com.


BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of all those who
acquired shares of Blockbuster, Inc. (NYSE: BBI) pursuant to the
Company's exchange offer of Viacom, Inc. ("Viacom") stock for
144 million common shares of Blockbuster (the "Exchange Offer"),
and on behalf of those who purchased Blockbuster shares in the
open market between September 8, 2004 and August 9, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that Viacom was Blockbuster's controlling
shareholder and that, prior to the Exchange Offer, Viacom caused
Blockbuster to pay a $5 per share special dividend of which
Viacom was the primary beneficiary. In order to pay the
dividend, Blockbuster was forced to take on debt in the amount
of approximately $1.1 billion.

Subsequently, in the Prospectus issued in connection with
Viacom's divestiture of its Blockbuster shares, (the
"Prospectus"), defendants stated that Blockbuster planned to
transform itself "from a place where you go to rent a movie to a
brand where you go to rent, buy or trade a movie or game, new or
used, pay-by-the-day, pay-by-the-month, in-store or online." The
transformation was to be achieved through a series of
initiatives: Blockbuster Online (Internet sales); Movie Pass
(in-store movie subscription); Game Pass (in-store game
subscription); and "No More Late Fees." Defendants warned
investors that the transformation would require heavy investment
but assured them that Blockbuster's debt obligations would not
stand in the way and that, "the steady operating cash flow from
our core rental business has provided us with the ability to
invest in new initiatives."

As set forth in the complaint, defendants failed to disclose in
the Prospectus and throughout the Class Period that Blockbuster
was wholly unprepared to build the technological infrastructure
required to integrate its in-store and online sales operations
and otherwise execute the Company's transformation. Moreover,
the Company's core in-store rental operations were not
generating sufficient cash flow to fund Blockbuster's investment
in "new initiatives." The truth began to emerge on August 9,
2005, when, before the market opened, the Company reported:

     (1) a second-quarter net loss of $57.2 million, or $0.31
         per share --- well below Company-guided analyst
         estimates;

     (2) negative free cash flow of $118 million compared to
         positive free cash flow of $23 million in the second
         quarter of 2004; and

     (3) that it was abandoning its 2005 guidance.

The Company also announced that, on August 8, 2005, it had been
forced to amend its credit facility to provide for a waiver of
its leverage ratio covenants. After this announcement, the
Company's stock opened that morning at $7.05, down 11.9%, or
$0.96 from the previous day's closing price of $8.01. The stock
continued to decline as the market absorbed the full impact of
the announcement, falling to a six-year low of $6.30 on August
10, 2005.

After the Class Period, on November 8, 2005, defendants stated
in an SEC filing that Blockbuster "may not have sufficient cash
flows from operating activities, cash on hand and available
borrowings under our credit facilities to service our
indebtedness" and that the Company could be forced into
bankruptcy if it is unable to raise additional funds through a
private offering.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law
Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, Phone (888) 643-6735 or (610) 660-8000,
Fax: (610) 660-8080, E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com, Web site:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


FIRST BANCORP: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP initiated a class action in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
First BanCorp. ("First BanCorp") (NYSE:FBP) publicly traded
securities during the period between March 31, 2003 and October
24, 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. 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. Then, on October 21, 2005, the
Company disclosed that the SEC had issued a formal order of
investigation and on October 24, 2005, Fitch downgraded the
Company debt to BBB. On this news, First BanCorp's stock dropped
to below $12 per share.
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.

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) ("HCA" or the "Company")
between January 12, 2005 and July 12, 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 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 that 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 at info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com.


INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Interlink Electronics, Inc.
("Interlink" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LINK) between April 24,
2003 and November 1, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Interlink and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning Interlink's financial performance caused
the Company's stock price to become artificially inflated,
inflicting damages on investors. Interlink develops,
manufactures, markets, and sells intuitive interface devices and
components, such as wireless remote controls, for business and
home applications. The Complaint alleges that defendants made
repeated Class Period representations concerning the Company's
performance and prospects, which were materially false and
misleading as a result of the Company's improper accounting
practices and weak accounting controls.

On March 9, 2005, Interlink publicly announced it would restate
its financial results for the first three quarters of 2004 to
correct several instances of improper accounting. Then, on
November 2, 2005, Interlink shocked investors by announcing it
was again restating its financial statements -- this time for
all of 2003 and 2004 and for the first two quarters of 2005 --
wiping out previously reported earnings. This news sent
Interlink shares plummeting in value by 40%.

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.


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
MFS mutual funds from Wells Fargo Investments, LLC ("Wells Fargo
Investments") or H.D. Vest Investment Services, LLC ("H.D.
Vest") during the period between June 30, 2000 and June 8, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The MFS mutual funds and their respective symbols are as
follows:

MFS Capital Opportunities Fund (NASDAQ: MCOFX), (NASDAQ: MCOBX),
(NASDAQ: MCOCX), (NASDAQ: MFCRX), (NASDAQ: MCOTX), (NASDAQ:
EACOX),
(NASDAQ: EBCOX), (NASDAQ: ECCOX), (NASDAQ: MCOIX)
MFS Core Growth Fund (NASDAQ: MFCAX), (NASDAQ: MFCBX), (NASDAQ:
MFCCX),
(NASDAQ: MCFRX), (NASDAQ: MCRRX), (NASDAQ: MFCIX)
MFS Emerging Growth Fund (NASDAQ: MEGRX), (NASDAQ: MEGBX),
(NASDAQ: MFECX),
(NASDAQ: MFERX), (NASDAQ: MEGRX), (NASDAQ: EAGRX), (NASDAQ:
EBEGX),
(NASDAQ: ECEGX), (NASDAQ: MFEGX), (NASDAQ: MFEIX)
MFS Growth Opportunities Fund (NASDAQ: MGOFX), (NASDAQ: MGOBX)
MFS Large Cap Growth Fund (NASDAQ: MCGAX), (NASDAQ: MCGBX)
MFS Managed Sectors Fund (NASDAQ: MMNSX), (NASDAQ: MSEBX),
(NASDAQ: MMNCX)
MFS Mid Cap Growth Fund (NASDAQ: OTCAX), (NASDAQ: OTCBX),
(NASDAQ: OTCCX),
(NASDAQ: MMCRX), (NASDAQ: MCPRX), (NASDAQ: EAMCX), (NASDAQ:
EBCGX),
(NASDAQ: ECGRX), (NASDAQ: OTCIX)
MFS New Discovery Fund (NASDAQ: MNDAX), (NASDAQ: MNDBX),
(NASDAQ: MNDCX),
(NASDAQ: MFNRX), (NASDAQ: MNDRX), (NASDAQ: EANDX), (NASDAQ:
EBNDX),
(NASDAQ: ECNDX), (NASDAQ: MNDIX)
MFS New Endeavor Fund (NASDAQ: MECAX), (NASDAQ: MECBX), (NASDAQ:
MECCX),
(NASDAQ: MNERX), (NASDAQ: MENRX), (NASDAQ: MECIX)
MFS Research Fund (NASDAQ: MFRFX), (NASDAQ: MFRBX), (NASDAQ:
MFRCX),
(NASDAQ: MFRRX), (NASDAQ: MSRRX), (NASDAQ: EARFX), (NASDAQ:
EBRFX),
(NASDAQ: ECRFX)
MFS Strategic Growth Fund (NASDAQ: MFSGX), (NASDAQ: MSBGX),
(NASDAQ: MFGCX), (NASDAQ: MSGRX), (NASDAQ: MSTRX), (NASDAQ:
EASGX),
(NASDAQ: EBSGX), (NASDAQ: ECSGX), (NASDAQ: MSGIX)
MFS Technology Fund (NASDAQ: MTCAX), (NASDAQ: MTCBX), (NASDAQ:
MTCCX),
(NASDAQ: MTQRX), (NASDAQ: MTERX), (NASDAQ: MTCIX)
Massachusetts Investors Growth Stock (NASDAQ: MIGFX), (NASDAQ:
MIGBX),
(NASDAQ: MIGDX), (NASDAQ: MIGRX), (NASDAQ: MIRGX), (NASDAQ:
EISTX),
(NASDAQ: EMIVX), (NASDAQ: EMICX), (NASDAQ: MGTIX)
MFS Mid Cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: MVCAX), (NASDAQ: MCBVX),
(NASDAQ: MVCCX),
(NASDAQ: MMVRX), (NASDAQ: MCVRX), (NASDAQ: EACVX), (NASDAQ:
EBCVX),
(NASDAQ: ECCVX), (NASDAQ: MCVIX)
MFS Research Growth and Income Fund (NASDAQ: MRGAX), (NASDAQ:
MRGBX),
(NASDAQ: MRGCX), (NASDAQ: MGIRX), (NASDAQ: MRERX), (NASDAQ:
MRGRX)
MFS Strategic Value Fund (NASDAQ: MSVTX), (NASDAQ: MSVCX),
(NASDAQ: MQSVX),
(NASDAQ: MSVRX), (NASDAQ: MVSRX), (NASDAQ: EASVX), (NASDAQ:
EBSVX),
(NASDAQ: ECSVX), (NASDAQ: MSVLX), (NASDAQ: MISVX)
MFS Total Return Fund (NASDAQ: MSFRX), (NASDAQ: MTRBX), (NASDAQ:
MTRCX),
(NASDAQ: MFTRX), (NASDAQ: MTRRX), (NASDAQ: EATRX), (NASDAQ:
EBTRX),
(NASDAQ: ECTRX), (NASDAQ: MTRIX)
MFS Union Standard Equity Fund (NASDAQ: MUEAX), (NASDAQ: MUSBX),
(NASDAQ: MUECX), (NASDAQ: MUSEX)
MFS Utilities Fund (NASDAQ: MMUFX), (NASDAQ: MMUBX), (NASDAQ:
MMUCX),
(NASDAQ: MMURX), (NASDAQ: MURRX), (NASDAQ: MMUIX)
MFS Value Fund (NASDAQ: MEIAX), (NASDAQ: MFEBX), (NASDAQ:
MEICX),
(NASDAQ: MFVRX), (NASDAQ: MVRRX), (NASDAQ: EAVLX), (NASDAQ:
EBVLX),
(NASDAQ: ECVLX), (NASDAQ: MEIIX)
Massachusetts Investors Trust (NASDAQ: MITTX), (NASDAQ: MITBX),
(NASDAQ: MITCX), (NASDAQ: MITRX), (NASDAQ: MIRTX), (NASDAQ:
EAMTX),
(NASDAQ: EBMTX), (NASDAQ: ECITX), (NASDAQ: MITIX)
MFS Aggressive Growth Allocation Fund (NASDAQ: MAAGX), (NASDAQ:
MBAGX),
(NASDAQ: MCAGX), (NASDAQ: MAARX), (NASDAQ: MAWAX), (NASDAQ:
EAGTX),
(NASDAQ: EBAAX), (NASDAQ: ECAAX), (NASDAQ: MIAGX)
MFS Conservative Allocation Fund (NASDAQ: MACFX), (NASDAQ:
MACBX),
(NASDAQ: MACVX), (NASDAQ: MACRX), (NASDAQ: MCARX), (NASDAQ:
ECLAX),
(NASDAQ: EBCAX), (NASDAQ: ECACX), (NASDAQ: MACIX)
MFS Growth Allocation Fund (NASDAQ: MAGWX), (NASDAQ: MBGWX),
(NASDAQ: MCGWX), (NASDAQ: MGARX), (NASDAQ: MGALX), (NASDAQ:
EAGWX),
(NASDAQ: EBGWX), (NASDAQ: ECGWX), (NASDAQ: MGWIX)
MFS Moderate Allocation Fund (NASDAQ: MAMAX), (NASDAQ: MMABX),
(NASDAQ: MMACX), (NASDAQ: MAMRX), (NASDAQ: MARRX), (NASDAQ:
MAMDX),
(NASDAQ: EBMDX), (NASDAQ: ECMAX), (NASDAQ: MMAIX)
MFS Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MFBFX), (NASDAQ: MFBBX), (NASDAQ: MFBCX),
(NASDAQ: MFBRX), (NASDAQ: MBRRX), (NASDAQ: EABDX), (NASDAQ:
EBBDX),
(NASDAQ: ECBDX, (NASDAQ: MBDIX)
MFS Emerging Markets Debt Fund (NASDAQ: MEDAX), (NASDAQ: MEDBX),
(NASDAQ: MEDCX), (NASDAQ: MEDIX)
MFS Government Limited Maturity Fund (NASDAQ: MGLFX), (NASDAQ:
MGLBX),
(NASDAQ: MGLCX)
MFS Government Mortgage Fund (NASDAQ: MGMTX), (NASDAQ: MGTBX),
(NASDAQ: MGMIX)
MFS Government Securities Fund (NASDAQ: MFGSX), (NASDAQ: MFGBX),
(NASDAQ: MFGDX), (NASDAQ: MGSRX), (NASDAQ: MGVSX), (NASDAQ:
EAGSX),
(NASDAQ: EBGSX), (NASDAQ: ECGSX)
MFS High Income Fund (NASDAQ: MHITX), (NASDAQ: MHIBX), (NASDAQ:
MHICX),
(NASDAQ: EAHIX), (NASDAQ: EMHBX), (NASDAQ: EMHCX), (NASDAQ:
MHIIX),
(NASDAQ: MHIRX)
MFS High Yield Opportunities Fund (NASDAQ: MHOAX), (NASDAQ:
MHOBX),
(NASDAQ: MHOCX), (NASDAQ: MHOIX)
MFS Intermediate Investment Grade Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MGBFX),
(NASDAQ: MGBVX), (NASDAQ: MGBCX), (NASDAQ: MGBEX), (NASDAQ:
MIBRX)
MFS Limited Maturity Fund (NASDAQ: MQLFX), (NASDAQ: MQLBX),
(NASDAQ: MQLCX), (NASDAQ: EALMX), (NASDAQ: EBLMX), (NASDAQ:
ELDCX),
(NASDAQ: MLDRX)
MFS Research Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MRBFX), (NASDAQ: MRBBX),
(NASDAQ: MRBCX),
(NASDAQ: EARBX), (NASDAQ: EBRBX), (NASDAQ: ECRBX), (NASDAQ:
MRBIX),
(NASDAQ: MRBRX)
MFS Strategic Income Fund (NASDAQ: MFIOX), (NASDAQ: MIOBX),
(NASDAQ: MIOCX), (NASDAQ: MFIIX)
MFS Alabama Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MFALX), (NASDAQ: MBABX)
MFS Arkansas Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MFARX), (NASDAQ:
MBARX)
MFS California Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MCFTX), (NASDAQ:
MBCAX),
(NASDAQ: MCCAX)
MFS Florida Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MFFLX), (NASDAQ: MBFLX)
MFS Georgia Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MMGAX), (NASDAQ: MBGAX)
MFS Maryland Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MFSMX), (NASDAQ:
MBMDX)
MFS Massachusetts Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MFSSX), (NASDAQ:
MBMAX)
MFS Mississippi Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MISSX), (NASDAQ:
MBMSX)
MFS Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MMBFX), (NASDAQ: MMBBX)
MFS Municipal Limited Maturity Fund (NASDAQ: MTLFX), (NASDAQ:
MTLBX),
(NASDAQ: MTLCX)
MFS New York Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MSNYX), (NASDAQ:
MBNYX),
(NASDAQ: MCNYX)
MFS North Carolina Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MSNCX), (NASDAQ:
MBNCX),
(NASDAQ: MCNCX)
MFS Pennsylvania Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MFPAX), (NASDAQ:
MBPAX)
MFS South Carolina Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MFSCX), (NASDAQ:
MBSCX)
MFS Tennessee Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MSTNX), (NASDAQ:
MBTNX)
MFS Virginia Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MSVAX), (NASDAQ:
MBVAX),
(NASDAQ: MVACX)
MFS West Virginia Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MFWVX), (NASDAQ:
MBWVX)
MFS Emerging Markets Equity Fund (NASDAQ: MEMAX), (NASDAQ:
MEMCX),
(NASDAQ: MEMIX), (NASDAQ: MEMBX)
MFS Global Equity Fund (NASDAQ: MWEFX), (NASDAQ: MWEBX),
(NASDAQ: MWECX),
(NASDAQ: MWEIX), (NASDAQ: MGERX)
MFS Global Growth Fund (NASDAQ: MWOFX),
(NASDAQ: MWOBX), (NASDAQ: MWOCX), (NASDAQ: MWOIX), (NASDAQ:
MGLRX)
MFS Global Total Return Fund (NASDAQ: MFWTX), (NASDAQ: MFWBX),
(NASDAQ: MFWCX), (NASDAQ: MFWIX), (NASDAQ: MGRRX)
MFS International Growth Fund (NASDAQ: MGRAX), (NASDAQ: MGRBX),
(NASDAQ: MGRCX), (NASDAQ: MQGIX)
MFS International New Discovery Fund (NASDAQ: MIDAX), (NASDAQ:
MIDBX),
(NASDAQ: MIDCX), (NASDAQ: EAIDX), (NASDAQ: EBIDX), (NASDAQ:
ECIDX),
(NASDAQ: MWNIX), (NASDAQ: MINRX)
MFS International Value Fund (NASDAQ: MGIAX), (NASDAQ: MGIBX),
(NASDAQ: MGICX), (NASDAQ: MINIX)
MFS Research International Fund (NASDAQ: MRSAX), (NASDAQ:
MRIBX),
(NASDAQ: MRICX), (NASDAQ: EARSX), (NASDAQ: EBRIX), (NASDAQ:
ECRIX),
(NASDAQ: MRSIX), (NASDAQ: MRIRX)

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  * * *