CAR_Public/051122.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, November 22, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 231

                            Headlines

AUTOBYTEL INC.: CA Court To Rule on Suit Dismissal in Jan. 2006
BROADWING CORPORATION: Final Fairness Hearing Set For April 2006
BUSINESS COMPUTER: WA Judge Grants Certification to Student Suit
CHIQUITA BRANDS: Continues To Face Antitrust Lawsuits in S.D. FL
CHIQUITA BRANDS: Faces Four Lawsuits Due To DBCP Chemical in CA

CORN PRODUCTS: IL Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
ELECTRONIC DATA: Reaches Settlement For TX Securities Fraud Suit
EL PASO: Formal Discovery Stayed in TX Securities Fraud Lawsuits
EL PASO: TX Fraud Lawsuit For ERISA Violations Remains Stayed
EL PASO: Continues To Face ERISA Fraud Suit in CO Federal Court

EL PASO: KS Court Mulls Certification For Second Antitrust Suit
EL PASO: Unit Faces LA Suits For Hurricane Katrina, Rita Damages
EL PASO: Continues To Face Oklahoma Natural Gas Royalties Suit
FIDELITY FEDERAL: Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment Ruling
FIDELITY FEDERAL: Named As Defendant in FL Ponzi Scheme Lawsuit

FLORIDA: Pinellas County School Board Sued For Unequal Education
FLORIDA POWER: Faces Suit Over Power Failure During Hurricane
ILLINOIS: Judge Approves Settlement of Child Healthcare Lawsuit
INCO LIMITED: Ontario Court Certifies Homeowners' Class Action
MATCH.COM: Faces Lawsuit For Employee-Written Romantic E-mails

MIRANT CORPORATION: GA Court Approves Investor Suit Settlement
NEW YORK: Ruling in "Light" Cigarettes Case Unlikely Before 2006
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Continues To Face MO Securities Fraud Suit
OHIO: Residents Seek Certification For Styrene Leak Injury Suit
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: FL Court Finds Billing Practices "Deceptive"

REFCO INC.: Abandons Plans to Consolidate Customers' Lawsuits
SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Faces Amended Overtime Wage Lawsuit in N.D. CA
SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Faces CA Lawsuits V. Oracle Corporation Merger
SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
SIMON PROPERTY: Continues To Face Gift Card Consumer Fraud Suits

WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Faces Suits V. Defective Calypso Machines
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Probing Potential Product Safety Problem
YAHOO INC.: Personals Service Sued Over Conjured Dating Partners

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Scott + Scott to File Lead Plaintiff Motion
GUIDANT CORPORATION: DeValerio Pease Files Securities Suit in IN
INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Fraud Suit in TX
MOTIVE INC.: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in
MOTIVE INC.: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. TX

MOTIVE INC.: Rosen Law Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. TX
TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Suit in KY
TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Suit in KY
TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Suit in KY
WELLS FARGO: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA

                         *********


AUTOBYTEL INC.: CA Court To Rule on Suit Dismissal in Jan. 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California will hear Autobytel, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its current directors and current and former officers
in January 2006.

Several claims were initially filed between October and December
2004 on behalf of stockholders who purchased shares during the
period July 24, 2003 through October 21, 2004. The claims
alleged in all of these purported class actions are virtually
identical, and purport to allege violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. In this regard, the plaintiffs allege
that the Company misrepresented and omitted material facts with
respect to its financial results and operations during the time
period between July 24, 2003 and October 20, 2004.  The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs, as well as accountants' and experts' fees.

On January 28, 2005, the court ordered the consolidation of the
currently pending class actions into a single case pursuant to a
stipulation for consolidation signed by all parties.  On March
14, 2005, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the
selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel.  Additional
lawsuits asserting the same or similar claims may be filed as
well.

On June 30, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed and served a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint alleging violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The putative class
period is July 24, 2003 to October 21, 2004.  Defendants filed
and served a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint on August 1, 2005.  The hearing is currently
set for January 2006.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Scott Tanne, et al. v. Autobytel, Inc., et al., case no. 04-CV-
8987," filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation
are:

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

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

     (3) Lim, Ruger & Kim, LLP, 1055 West Seventh Street, Suite
         2800, Los Angeles, CA, 90017, Phone: 213-955-9500, Fax:
         213-955-9511, E-mail: info@lrklawyers.com

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

     (5) 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

     (6) Pomerantz,Haudek, Block, Grossman & Gross, 100 Park
         Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone:
         212.661.1100,

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

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

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


BROADWING CORPORATION: Final Fairness Hearing Set For April 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Broadwing Corporation, its
directors and officers who signed the registration statement in
connection with its initial public offering, and certain of the
underwriters that participated in the Company's initial public
offering, is set for April 24,2006 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

Between May 7, 2001 and June 15, 2001, nine class action
lawsuits were filed relating to the Company's initial public
offering on behalf of all persons who purchased our stock
between July 28, 2000 and the filing of the complaints.  The
Company's directors and officers have since been dismissed from
the case, without prejudice.  The complaints allege that the
registration statement and prospectus relating to our initial
public offering contained material misrepresentations and/or
omissions in that those documents did not disclose that certain
of the underwriters had solicited and received undisclosed fees
and commissions and other economic benefits from some investors
in connection with the distribution of the Company's common
stock in the initial public offering and that certain of the
underwriters had entered into arrangements with some investors
that were designed to distort and/or inflate the market price
for the Company's common stock in the aftermarket following the
initial public offering.  The complaints ask the court to award
to members of the class the right to rescind their purchases of
the Company's common stock (or to be awarded rescissory damages
if the class member has sold the Company's stock) and
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys'
and experts witness' fees and other costs.

By order dated October 12, 2001, the court appointed an
executive committee of six plaintiffs' law firms to coordinate
their claims and function as lead counsel.  Lead plaintiffs have
been appointed in almost all of the IPO allocation actions,
including the Company's action. On October 17, 2001, a group of
underwriter defendants moved for Judge Shira Scheindlin's
recusal. Judge Scheindlin denied that application.  On December
13, 2001, the moving underwriter defendants filed a petition for
writ of mandamus seeking the disqualification of Judge
Scheindlin in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.  On April 1, 2002, the Second Circuit denied the moving
underwriter defendants' application for a writ of mandamus
seeking Judge Scheindlin's recusal from this action.

On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed amended complaints in each
of the actions, including the Company's action.  On May 23,
2002, a conference was held at which the court set a briefing
schedule for the filing of motions to dismiss the amended
complaints.  On July 1, 2002, the underwriter defendants filed
their motion to dismiss the amended complaints. On July 15,
2002, the issuer defendants filed their motion to dismiss the
amended complaints. The briefing on the motions to dismiss has
been completed, and the judge heard oral arguments on the
motions on November 1, 2002. On February 19, 2003, the issuer
defendants' motion to dismiss was granted with regard to certain
claims and denied with regard to certain other claims. As to the
Company, the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims, alleging that
the Company participated in a scheme to defraud investors by
artificially driving up the price of the securities, were
dismissed with prejudice, but the Section 11 claims, alleging
that the registration statement contained a material
misstatement of, or omitted, a material fact at the time it
became effective, survived the motion to dismiss.

On June 14, 2004, the plaintiffs and issuer defendants presented
the executed settlement agreement to Judge Scheindlin during a
court conference. Subsequently, the plaintiffs and issuer
defendants made a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement. On July 14, 2004, the underwriter
defendants filed a memorandum of law in opposition to
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement. Reply briefs have been submitted and the parties are
awaiting the court's decision on the motion. The settlement
agreement is subject to the approval of the district court. On
February 15, 2005, Judge Scheindlin granted preliminary approval
of the proposed settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and
defendants, including the Company.

The proposed settlement is a $1 billion dollar guaranteed
settlement. The insurance companies for the defendants agreed to
pay up to $1 billion dollars in total to the extent that
judgment is rendered for the plaintiffs. If investors succeed in
recovering more than $1 billion from the banks, the companies
that went public, such as the Company, will not have to pay any
additional amounts. The defendants' insurance companies will be
paying the settlement, subject to the district court's final
approval.

On August 31, 2005, the Judge issued an order clarifying certain
provisions of the proposed settlement and set deadlines for the
final approval of the proposed settlement.  The Judge scheduled
the fairness hearing on the proposed settlement for April 24,
2006.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


BUSINESS COMPUTER: WA Judge Grants Certification to Student Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Pierce County, Washington judge cleared the way for a class
action lawsuit against a for-profit career school that closed
last March amid allegations it preyed on low-income students,
TheNewsTribune.com reports.

In that recently issued ruling, thousands of former students of
the Gig Harbor-based Business Computer Training Institute
potentially could enter the lawsuit, which already has nearly 50
former students joining. The suit claims that they were misled
about the quality of the education BCTI provided and their
prospects for a job after graduation. Many were recruited
outside welfare or unemployment offices and claim that they were
promised good-paying technology jobs if they completed BCTI
programs.  Those programs, which taught basic word processing,
spreadsheets and other computer skills, cost about $11,000 for a
30-week program. Many students used taxpayer-backed loans to pay
for their education. But some claim their BCTI education didn't
prepare them for even basic office work, leaving them with few
employment prospects but thousands of dollars in debt.

However, BCTI opposed the certification, alleging that students
got out of the program what they put into it. The school also
argued in court filings that about 28,000 students have
graduated from BCTI's Washington campuses since 1985, and many
have gone on to successful careers at prominent companies.  The
school also claimed that students didn't get jobs for reasons
unrelated to BCTI, including not looking for work and quitting
jobs the school helped them get. It further claimed that the
students have presented no evidence they were coerced to enroll
and even argued that the students' claims were varied and
conflicting and that a class action lawsuit would be
inappropriate.

Superior Court Judge Thomas Larkin though disagreed. In an order
his ruling, he found that the students' claims to be similar
enough to certify the lawsuit as a class action. He also found
"the plaintiffs have set forth substantial evidence that they
will prevail at trial." Thus he tentatively scheduled for a
trail next August. Essentially, Judge Larkin's ruling opens the
lawsuit to students of BCTI's Washington campuses who attended
as far back as 1985.

BCTI closed its seven campuses in Washington and Oregon on March
14 amid state investigations in Washington and Oregon. A
Washington investigation found evidence that falsified
admissions tests allowed unqualified students to get financial
aid. A broader Oregon investigation concluded that BCTI misled
students, enrolled students who couldn't benefit from its
programs and reported inaccurate graduation and job-placement
statistics to the state.


CHIQUITA BRANDS: Continues To Face Antitrust Lawsuits in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chiquita Brands International, Inc. and three of its competitors
continue to face several class actions filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
behalf of entities that purchased bananas in the United States
directly from the defendants from May 2003 (in one case from
July 2001) until the present.

Five suits were initially filed, alleging that the defendants
engaged in a conspiracy to artificially raise or maintain prices
and control and restrict output of bananas in the United States.
The plaintiffs seek treble damages for violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Antitrust Act. The complaints provide no specific
information regarding the allegations.   Three additional
lawsuits were filed in the same court, including one purporting
to be on behalf of "indirect" banana purchasers.  The Company
expects that all the pending lawsuits will be consolidated into
one case.


CHIQUITA BRANDS: Faces Four Lawsuits Due To DBCP Chemical in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chiquita Brands International, Inc. faces several lawsuits filed
between October 2004 and May 2005, in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County, alleging injuries caused by an
agricultural chemical called DBCP.  The suit also names two
manufacturers and two banana producing companies as defendants.

The plaintiffs in these U.S. lawsuits claim to have been workers
on banana farms in Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala and Honduras,
owned or managed by the defendant banana companies and allege
sterility and other injuries as a result of exposure to DBCP.

In October 2005, the Company learned of a lawsuit filed against
the same defendants, including the Company, in civil court in
the City of David, Panama on behalf of approximately 400 persons
who allegedly suffered a variety of injuries and illnesses,
mostly other than sterility, resulting from exposure to DBCP.

However, no evidence or argument has yet been offered in the
Panama lawsuit to support or explain the plaintiffs' alleged
exposure to DBCP, the allegations of injury or illness, or the
amount demanded ($85 million). Similarly, little or no
substantive discovery has occurred in the U.S. cases, where the
alleged damages have not yet been quantified. None of the U.S.
or Panamanian suits identify how many of the approximately 5,800
total named plaintiffs purport to have claims against the
Company, as opposed to other banana company defendants.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Company states "Although the Company has little information with
which to evaluate these lawsuits, it believes it has meritorious
defenses, including the fact that the Company used DBCP
commercially only from 1973 to 1977 while it was registered for
use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and to its
knowledge never used DBCP commercially in either Guatemala or
Honduras. The EPA did not revoke DBCP's registration for use
until 1979."

In 1998, the Company settled, for $4.7 million, virtually all of
the then-pending DBCP cases against it, which had been brought
in U.S. and foreign courts on behalf of approximately 4,000
claimants in Panama, the Philippines and Costa Rica. (A
purported DBCP class action in Hawaii state court that had
identified 11 claimants against the three banana producing
companies and alleged an indeterminate number of other claimants
was not settled and remains pending but dormant). At that time,
the Company believed that these settlements covered the great
preponderance of workers who could have had claims against the
Company arising in these three countries. To the Company's
knowledge, the Company did not use DBCP in other countries, the
Company said in its SEC filing.


CORN PRODUCTS: IL Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class actions filed against Corn Products
International, Inc. and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois have
been ordered consolidated.

Several suits were initially filed by the following named
plaintiffs, in each case individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, on the following dates:

     (1) Monty Blatt, May 20, 2005;

     (2) Dale Anderson, May 27, 2005;

     (3) Adam Shapiro, June 1, 2005;

     (4) Neil Hildebrand, June 24, 2005; and

     (5) Philip Brust, June 27, 2005

The complaints allege violations of certain federal securities
laws and seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between January 25,
2005 and April 4, 2005.  The plaintiffs allege that the Company
made false and misleading statements and omissions of material
facts based on its disclosure regarding earnings projections and
operating margins, claiming alleged violations by each named
defendant of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and alleged
violations by certain of the Company's officers of Section 20A
of Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  All of these class actions
have been consolidated in the matter of "Monty Blatt v. Corn
Products International, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 05 C 3033)."


ELECTRONIC DATA: Reaches Settlement For TX Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Data Systems, Inc. reached a settlement agreement for
the settlement of the consolidated securities class action and
class action for violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) filed against Electronic Data Systems, Inc.
and certain of its current and former officers, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Numerous purported shareholder class action suits were initially
filed from September through December 2002 in response to its
September 18, 2002 earnings pre-announcement, publicity about
certain equity hedging transactions that it had entered into,
and the drop in the price of EDS common stock. The cases allege
violations of various federal securities laws and common law
fraud based upon purported misstatements or omissions of
material facts regarding the Company's financial condition. In
addition, five purported class action suits were filed on behalf
of participants in the EDS 401(k) Plan against the Company,
certain of its current and former officers and, in some cases,
its directors, alleging the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties under the ERISA and made misrepresentations to the class
regarding the value of EDS shares. The Company's motions to
centralize all of the foregoing cases in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas have been granted.

Representatives of two committees responsible for administering
the EDS 401(k) Plan notified the Company of their demand for
payment of amounts they believe are owing to plan participants
under Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 as a result
of an alleged failure to register certain shares of EDS common
stock sold pursuant to the plan during a period of approximately
one year ending on November 18, 2002. The committee
representatives have asserted that plan participants to whom
shares were sold during the applicable period are entitled to
receive a return of the amounts paid for the shares, plus
interest and less any income received, upon tender of the shares
to EDS. The Company believes it can assert arguments and
defenses that could significantly reduce or eliminate any
liability. However, some of the legal principles involved in
these arguments and defenses are subject to significant
uncertainties.

On July 7, 2003, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated
securities action described above and the lead plaintiffs in the
consolidated ERISA action described above each filed a
consolidated class action complaint.  The amended consolidated
complaint in the securities action alleges violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rule 10b 5
thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiffs
allege that the Company and certain of its former officers made
false and misleading statements about the financial condition of
EDS, particularly with respect to the NMCI contract and the
accounting for that contract.  The class period is alleged to be
from February 7, 2001 to September 18, 2002.

The consolidated complaint in the ERISA action alleges violation
of fiduciary duties under ERISA by some or all of the defendants
and violation of Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act by
selling unregistered EDS shares to plan participants.  The named
defendants are EDS and, with respect to the ERISA claims,
certain current and former officers of EDS, members of the
Compensation and Benefits Committee of its Board of Directors,
and certain current and former members of the two committees
responsible for administering the plan. The Company's motions to
dismiss the consolidated securities action and the consolidated
ERISA action were denied by the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas.

On November 8, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas certified a class in the ERISA action on
certain of the allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, of all
participants in the EDS 401(k) Plan and their beneficiaries,
excluding Defendants, for whose accounts the plan made or
maintained investments in EDS stock through the EDS Stock Fund
between September 7, 1999 and October 9, 2002. Also on November
8, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas certified a class in the ERISA action on the allegations
of violation of Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of all
participants in the Plan and their beneficiaries, excluding the
Defendants, for whose accounts the Plan purchased EDS stock
through the EDS Stock Fund between October 20, 2001 and November
18, 2002. The Company filed a petition to the U.S. Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeal on November 23, 2004 requesting that the Court
hear and reverse the trial court's class certification order as
to the class certified in the ERISA action. On December 29,
2004, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal granted the Company's
petition to appeal the class certification order from the
District Court. That court also granted the Company's motion to
expedite the appeal, and oral arguments were heard on the appeal
on April 5, 2005.

On May 5, 2005, the Company reached an agreement with the class
representatives in the ERISA action to settle that action,
subject to final approval of the settlement an independent
fiduciary and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Texas and the receipt of certain assurances from the
Department of Labor, and filed a joint motion to stay the
proceedings with the District Court pending such approvals,
which motion had been granted.  A motion to stay the Fifth
Circuit appeal had also been granted. Under the terms of the
settlement, a cash payment of $16.5 million would have been paid
entirely by one of the Company's insurers. In addition, the
Company would have agreed to continue to make the matching
contribution under the EDS 401(k) Plan through 2006 and to make
certain changes to the Plan. However, on June 30, 2005, the
District Court denied the motions of the Company and the class
representatives to approve the settlement. Following that
action, the Company and the class representatives filed motions
to lift the stay of the Fifth Circuit appeal.

On February 11, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas certified a class in the consolidated
securities action of all persons and entities, excluding
defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired EDS securities
between February 7, 2001 through September 18, 2002 and who were
damaged thereby. The Company filed a petition to the U.S. Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeal on February 28, 2005 requesting that the
Court hear and reverse the trial court's class certification
order as to the class certified in the securities action. On
April 28, 2005, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal granted the
Company's petition to appeal the class certification order from
the District Court. On October 24, 2005, the U.S. Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's certification order.
On November 1, 2005, the Company entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the lead plaintiff and class representative
in the consolidated securities action to settle that action,
subject to final approval of the settlement by the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The terms of the
settlement provide for a cash payment of $137.5 million. The
Company estimates approximately one-half of such payment would
be made by its insurers.

The securities suit is styled "In re Electronic Data Systems
Securities Litigation, case no 6:03-cv-110," filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, under
Judge Leonard Davis.  Representing the plaintiffs is Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (San Diego, CA), 12544 High
Bluff Drive, Suite 150, San Diego, CA, 92130, Phone:
858.793.0070, Fax: 858.793.0323, E-mail: blbg@blbglaw.com.
Representing the Company is G. Irvin Terrell, Shira Radinsky
Yoshor, and Larry Dean Carlson of Baker Botts LLP, 910 Louisiana
Suite 3000, One Shell Plaza, Houston TX 77002-4995 USA Phone:
713-229-1215, Fax: 1-713-229-1522 and Kirk Alan Parry, Jr. of
Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, 2500 First
Union Capitol Center, PO Box 2611, Raleigh NC 27602-2611, USA,
Phone: 919-821-6621.

The ERISA Suit is styled "In re Electronic Data Systems
Corporation ERISA Litigation, case no. 6:03-MD-1512," filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas, under Judge Leonard Davis.  Plaintiffs are represented by
Barry C. Barnett of Susman Godfrey LLP, 901 Main Street, Suite
4100, Dalass Texas 75202-3775, Phone: 214-754-1900, Fax: 214-
754-1933.  Representing the Company are:

     (1) David J. Bailey and Michael McConnell of Jones Day -
         Atlanta, 1420 Peachtree Street Suite 800 Atlanta, GA
         30309-3053 Phone: 214/969-3700, Fax: 12149695100, E-
         mail: djbailey@jonesday.com or mmcconnell@jonesday.com

     (2) Richard P. Keeton, Nickens Keeton Lawless Farrell &
         Flack, 600 Travis Suite 7500, Houston, Tx 77002, Phone:
         713/571-9191, Fax: 713/571-9652, E-mail:
         rkeeton@nickenskeeton.com

     (3) Robert H Klonoff, Jones Day-Kansas City MO, 500 East
         52nd St, Kansas City, MO 64110, E-mail:
         rhklonoff@jonesday.com


EL PASO: Formal Discovery Stayed in TX Securities Fraud Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Formal discovery is stayed for the remaining consolidated
securities class action filed against El Paso Corporation in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division.

Numerous purported shareholder class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers since 2002, alleging violations of
federal securities laws.   One of these lawsuits has been
dismissed and the remaining lawsuits were consolidated.  The
consolidated lawsuit generally challenges the accuracy or
completeness of press releases and other public statements made
during the class period from 2001 through early 2004, related to
wash trades, mark-to-market accounting, off-balance sheet debt,
overstatement of oil and gas reserves and manipulation of the
California energy market. The consolidated lawsuit is currently
stayed.

The purported shareholder class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, are:

     (1) Marvin Goldfarb, et al v. El Paso Corporation, William
         Wise, H. Brent Austin, and Rodney D. Erskine, filed
         July 18, 2002;

     (2) Residuary Estate Mollie Nussbacher, Adele Brody Life
         Tenant, et al v. El Paso Corporation, William Wise, and
         H. Brent Austin, filed July 25, 2002;

     (3) George S. Johnson, et al v. El Paso Corporation,
         William Wise, and H. Brent Austin, filed July 29, 2002;

     (4) Renneck Wilson, et al v. El Paso Corporation, William
         Wise, H. Brent Austin, and Rodney D. Erskine, filed
         August 1, 2002;

     (5) Sandra Joan Malin Revocable Trust, et al v. El Paso
         Corporation, William Wise, H. Brent Austin, and Rodney
         D. Erskine, filed August 1, 2002;

     (6) Lee S. Shalov, et al v. El Paso Corporation, William
         Wise, H. Brent Austin, and Rodney D. Erskine, filed
         August 15, 2002;

     (7) Paul C. Scott, et al v. El Paso Corporation, William
         Wise, H. Brent Austin, and Rodney D. Erskine, filed
         August 22, 2002;

     (8) Brenda Greenblatt, et al v. El Paso Corporation,
         William Wise, H. Brent Austin, and Rodney D. Erskine,
         filed August 23, 2002;

     (9) Stefanie Beck, et al v. El Paso Corporation, William
         Wise, and H. Brent Austin, filed August 23, 2002;

    (10) J. Wayne Knowles, et al v. El Paso Corporation, William
         Wise, H. Brent Austin, and Rodney D. Erskine, filed
         September 13, 2002;

    (11) The Ezra Charitable Trust, et al v. El Paso
         Corporation, William Wise, Rodney D. Erskine and H.
         Brent Austin, filed October 4, 2002.

The purported shareholder class actions relating to the
Company's reserve restatement filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, which have
now been consolidated with the above referenced purported
shareholder class actions, are:

     (i) James Felton v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn, Jr.,
         Douglas Foshee and D. Dwight Scott;

    (ii) Sinclair Haberman v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn,
         Jr., and William Wise;

   (iii) Patrick Hinner v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn,
         Jr., Douglas Foshee, D. Dwight Scott and William Wise;

    (iv) Stanley Peltz v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn,
         Jr., Douglas Foshee and D. Dwight Scott;

     (v) Yolanda Cifarelli v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn,
         Jr., Douglas Foshee and D. Dwight Scott;

    (vi) Andrew W. Albstein v. El Paso Corporation, William
         Wise;

   (vii) George S. Johnson v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn,
         Jr., Douglas Foshee, and D. Dwight Scott;

  (viii) Robert Corwin v. El Paso Corporation, Mark Leland,
         Brent Austin; Ronald Kuehn, Jr., D. Dwight Scott and
         William Wise;

    (ix) Michael Copland v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn,
         Jr., Douglas Foshee and D. Dwight Scott;

     (x) Leslie Turbowitz v. El Paso Corporation, Mark Leland,
         Brent Austin, Ronald Kuehn, Jr., D. Dwight Scott and
         William Wise;

    (xi) David Sadek v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn, Jr.,
         Douglas Foshee, D. Dwight Scott;

   (xii) Stanley Sved v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn, Jr.,
         and William Wise;

  (xiii) Nancy Gougler v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn,
         Jr., Douglas Foshee and D. Dwight Scott;

   (xiv) William Sinnreich v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn,
         Jr., Douglas Foshee, D. Dwight Scott and William Wise;

    (xv) Joseph Fisher v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn,
         Jr., Douglas Foshee, D. Dwight Scott and William Wise;

   (xvi) Glickenhaus & Co. v. El Paso Corporation, Rod Erskine,
         Ronald Kuehn, Jr., Brent Austin, William Wise, Douglas
         Foshee and D. Dwight Scott;

  (xvii) Haberman v. El Paso Corporation et al and Thompson v.
         El Paso Corporation et al.

The purported shareholder action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York is styled
"IRA F.B.O. Michael Conner et al v. El Paso Corporation, William
Wise, H. Brent Austin, Jeffrey Beason, Ralph Eads, D. Dwight
Scott, Credit Suisse First Boston, J.P. Morgan Securities, filed
October 25, 2002.


EL PASO: TX Fraud Lawsuit For ERISA Violations Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against El Paso Corporation in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, styled
"William H. Lewis, III v. El Paso Corporation, et al." has been
stayed.

The suit was filed in December 2002, alleging generally that the
Company's direct and indirect communications with participants
in the El Paso Corporation Retirement Savings Plan included
misrepresentations and omissions that caused members of the
class to hold and maintain investments in El Paso stock in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA). That lawsuit was subsequently amended to include
allegations relating to the Company's reporting of natural gas
and oil reserves.

The suit is styled "Lewis, et al v. EL Paso Corporation, et al.,
case no. 4:02-cv-04860," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, under Judge Lynn N.
Hughes.  Representing the plaintiffs are Thomas E. Bilek of
Hoeffner and Bilek LLP, 1000 Louisiana, Suite 1302 Houston, TX
77002, Phone: 713-227-7720, Fax: 713-227-9404, E-mail:
tbilek@hb-legal.com; and Joseph H. Meltzer, Schiffrin & Barroway
LLP, Three Bala Plz E, Ste 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone:
610-667-7706.  Representing the Company is Stephen D. Susman of
Susman Godfrey, 1000 Louisiana Ste 5100, Houston, TX 77002-5096,
Phone: 713-651-9366, Fax: 713-654-6670, E-mail:
ssusman@susmangodfrey.com.


EL PASO: Continues To Face ERISA Fraud Suit in CO Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Corporation continues to face a class action filed in
the United States District Court for Denver, Colorado, styled
"Tomlinson, et al. v. El Paso Corporation and El Paso
Corporation Pension Plan," alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The lawsuit seeks class action status and alleges that the
change from a final average earnings formula pension plan to a
cash balance pension plan, the accrual of benefits under the
plan, and the communications about the change violate the ERISA
and/or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

The suit is styled "Tomlinson et al v. El Paso Corporation et
al., case no. 1:04-cv-02686-WDM-OES," filed in the United States
District Court in Denver, Colorado under Judge Walker D. Miller.
Representing the plaintiffs are Stephen R. Bruce of Stephen R.
Bruce, Law Offices, 805 15th Street, NW #210, Washington, DC
20005, U.S.A., Phone: 202-371-8013, Fax: 202-371-0121, E-mail:
stephen.bruce@prodigy.net; and Barry Douglas Roseman of Roseman
& Kazmierski, LLC, 1120 Lincoln Street #1607, Denver, CO 80203-
2141, U.S.A, Phone: 303-839-1771, Fax: 861-9214, E-mail:
broseman@nela.org.  Representing the Company are Raymond W.
Martin of Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP, United States District
Court Box 19, 1801 California Street #3600, Denver, CO 80202
U.S.A, Phone: 303-244-1863, Fax: 303-244-1879, E-mail:
martin@wtklaw.com; and Christopher James Rillo of Sonnenschein,
Nath & Rosenthal, 685 Market Street, Sixth Floor, San Francisco,
CA 94105, U.S.A., Phone: 415-882-5000, Fax: 543-5472.


EL PASO: KS Court Mulls Certification For Second Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Stevens County, Kansas has yet to rule on
plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification to the second
class action filed against a number of El Paso Corporation's
subsidiaries and other natural gas companies, styled "Will
Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines and Their Predecessors, et al."

The suit was originally filed in 1999, alleging that the
defendants mis-measured natural gas volumes and heating content
of natural gas on non-federal and non-Native American lands.
The plaintiffs seek to recover royalties that they contend they
should have received had the volume and heating value of natural
gas produced from their properties been differently measured,
analyzed, calculated and reported, together with pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest, punitive damages, treble damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and future injunctive
relief to require the defendants to adopt allegedly appropriate
gas measurement practices.  No monetary relief has been
specified in this case.

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of a nationwide class
of natural gas working interest owners and natural gas royalty
owners was denied in April 2003.  Plaintiffs were granted leave
to file a Fourth Amended Petition, which narrows the proposed
class to royalty owners in wells in Kansas, Wyoming and Colorado
and removes claims as to heating content. A second class action
has since been filed as to the heating content claims. The
plaintiffs have filed motions for class certification in both
proceedings and the defendants have filed briefs in opposition
thereto. Motions for class certification have been briefed and
argued in both proceedings, and the parties are awaiting the
court's ruling.


EL PASO: Unit Faces LA Suits For Hurricane Katrina, Rita Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
One of El Paso Corporation's affiliates has been named in two
class action petitions for damages filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against all
oil and gas pipeline and production companies that dredged
pipeline canals, installed transmission lines or drilled for oil
and gas in the marshes of coastal Louisiana.  The lawsuits are
styled "George Barasich, et al. v. Columbia Gulf Transmission
Company, et al." and "Charles Villa Jr., et al. v. Columbia Gulf
Transmission Company, et al."

The suits assert that the defendants caused erosion and land
loss which destroyed critical protection against hurricane
surges and winds and was a substantial cause of the loss of life
and destruction of property.  The first lawsuit alleges damages
associated with Hurricane Katrina.  The second lawsuit alleges
damages associated with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.


EL PASO: Continues To Face Oklahoma Natural Gas Royalties Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated natural gas royalties class action
filed against El Paso Corporation and with Burlington Resources,
Inc. commenced on October 10,2005 in the the District Court of
Washita County, State of Oklahoma

Two class action lawsuits were initially filed in 1997, styled
as "Bank of America, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Company, et
al.," and "Deane W. Moore, et al. v. Burlington Northern, Inc.,
et al.  The suits were subsequently consolidated by the court.
The plaintiffs seek an accounting and damages for alleged
royalty underpayments from 1982 to the present on natural gas
produced from specified wells in Oklahoma, plus interest from
the time such amounts were allegedly due, as well as punitive
damages. The court has certified the plaintiff classes of
royalty and overriding royalty interest owners, and the parties
have completed discovery.  The plaintiffs have filed expert
reports alleging damages in excess of $1 billion.

Pursuant to a recent summary judgment decision, the court ruled
that claims previously released by the settlement of "Altheide
v. Meridian," a nation-wide royalty class action against
Burlington and its affiliates are barred from being reasserted
in this action.  The Company believe that this ruling eliminates
a material, but yet unquantified portion of the alleged class
damages, it stated in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.  While Burlington accepted the Company's
tender of the defense of these cases in 1997, pursuant to the
spin-off agreement entered into in 1992 between El Paso Natural
Gas (EPNG) and Burlington Resources, Inc., and had been
defending the matter since that time, at the end of 2003 it
asserted contractual claims for indemnity against the Company.

A third action, styled "Bank of America, et al. v. El Paso
Natural Gas and Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Company," was
filed in October 2003 in the District Court of Kiowa County,
Oklahoma asserting similar claims as to specified shallow wells
in Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico. Defendants succeeded in
transferring this action to Washita County.  A class has not
been certified.


FIDELITY FEDERAL: Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a
lower court ruling granting Fidelity Federal Bank & Trust's
motion for summary judgment in the class action filed against
it, styled "James Kehoe v. Fidelity Federal Bank & Trust."

The suit was filed on July 1, 2003 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.  In this action, Mr.
Kehoe, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
persons, alleged that the Company violated the Driver Privacy
Protection Act by obtaining driver registration information from
the State of Florida for use in its marketing efforts.  Mr.
Kehoe seeks as damages the statutory minimum of $2,500 per class
member.  Mr. Kehoe has alleged that the class numbers over
560,000 individuals.

On June 14, 2004, the Court granted the Company's Motion for
Summary Judgment and entered a Final Judgment in favor of the
Company against Mr. Kehoe ruling that there could be no
statutory minimum damages award unless there were some actual
damages.  Mr. Kehoe pled no and had no actual damages.  This
issue was only one of several issues raised by the Company.  The
Court did not rule on the other issues.  Mr. Kehoe appealed that
ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and on August 26,
2005, the Circuit Court reversed the Trial Court's Order of
Summary Judgment and remanded this case back to the Trial Court
for further proceedings, stating that if there was a finding of
damages that such damages could be no less than the statutory
minimum per class member.  Consequently, the potential damages
that could be awarded would be the result of multiplying the
statutory minimum of $2,500 per class member by the total class
of defendants.  However, the Circuit Court also stated that the
Trial Court, "in its discretion, may fashion what it deems to be
an appropriate award." The Circuit Court also stated that, "the
use of the word `may' suggests that the award of any damages is
permissive and discretionary." The Company intends to petition
the Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari to appeal the Circuit
Court's ruling.  In addition, the Company intends to schedule a
class certification hearing and at the hearing to assert a
variety of theories opposing certification.


FIDELITY FEDERAL: Named As Defendant in FL Ponzi Scheme Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity Federal Bank & Trust was named as a defendant in the
amended lawsuit filed in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm
Beach County, Florida, styled "William Adams et al., vs. Thomson
Financial, Inc., Fidelity Federal Bank & Trust, N.A., Fidelity
Investments Services, L.L.C., d/b/a Fidelity Investments,
National Financial Services, L.L.C., f/k/a National Financial
Services Corporation, Zoe Marrero."

The plaintiffs in this case have alleged various causes of
action against numerous defendants which arise from plaintiffs'
investments in various entities controlled and operated by
Thomas Abrams, who was convicted of running a Ponzi Scheme. The
Company is a named defendant in one count of the complaint
alleging aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. The
allegations are based upon the Company allowing Mr. Abrams to
set up accounts with it, deposit monies in them, issue bank
checks based upon the deposits and instructions from authorized
signatories on the accounts and generally offer banking services
to the Abrams entities.  Plaintiffs make additional allegations
that the Company solicited clients for the Abrams entities and
pressured clients to place deposits with the Abrams entities and
the Company.  There is no specific request for damages, other
than the jurisdictional amount of in excess of $15,000.  The
Plaintiffs allege they lost in excess of $18.0 million investing
with Mr. Abrams.

On May 20, 2005, the Court entered an Order granting in part the
Company's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.  The
Court struck all of Plaintiff's claims for non-economic damages
(e.g., custodial damages), and dismissed the aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty claim, with leave to amend, based on
each Plaintiff's failure to allege specific ultimate facts that
the bank's alleged actions were the proximate cause of
plaintiff's losses. A Third Amended Complaint has been filed
which attempts to add a second claim against the Company,
alleging a violation of Florida's Fraudulent Transfer Statute.


FLORIDA: Pinellas County School Board Sued For Unequal Education
----------------------------------------------------------------
A first-of-its-kind class action lawsuit in Pinellas County,
Florida could force the local school board to reveal how it
teaches and disciplines its 20,000 black students, who struggle
academically in disproportionate numbers to students of other
races, FOX News reports.

William Crowley, who filed the lawsuit, told FOX News, "Public
education, to me personally, is specifically set up to dumb us
down." According to him, the white-run school system allowed his
son to fall behind. His remedy doesn't call for monetary
remuneration and instead, he wants the system fixed. He also
told Fox News, "The facts are overwhelming and not just in
Pinellas County, but nationwide, there is a high failure rate of
black students across this country."

The lawsuit cites a consistent gap between black and white high-
school graduates in Pinellas County. The suit cited that the
class failure rate is more than twice as high among blacks. It
also cites that discipline problems are 39 percent more frequent
than with white students.

School Board Superintendent Clayton Wilcox told Fox News that
the explanation is simple: More black students break the rules.
He pointed out that his teachers couldn't be held accountable
for life lessons some students never learn at home. Mr. Wilcox
specifically told Fox News, "Someone needs to point a finger
back at themselves and say 'What part do I have in this?' and
maybe this community needs to look at itself and ask, `what part
do we have in this?'

Some observers are arguing that the lawsuit could compel black
students and their parents to discuss in open court how they
prepare their children for school, both academically and
socially.  One critic argues that it's not the school's fault
that black students are not learning. Ward Connerly, head of the
American Civil Rights Institute, "To suggest that the school
district can somehow uniquely single out black kids and give
them inferior educations while giving other kids a better
education is kind of ludicrous."

The next step in the case is to notify each student in this
county that they are part of a class action lawsuit. For its
part, the school board says it simply wants to get back to the
business of teaching, but also wants its day in court.


FLORIDA POWER: Faces Suit Over Power Failure During Hurricane
-------------------------------------------------------------
South Florida attorneys commenced a lawsuit against Florida
Power & Light Co., alleging that millions of its customers lost
power during Hurricane Wilma because of the company's "gross
negligence in its failure to properly maintain, secure and
protect its utility poles and substations," The South Florida
Sun-Sentinel reports.

Filed in Broward Circuit Court, the suit also alleged that FPL
"has routinely engaged in a practice of cutting staff to
increase its profit margins," and that a reduced work force
impaired the company's ability "to properly inspect and repair
faulty equipment." According to the suit, during Hurricane
Wilma, this led to widespread disruptions of electrical service,
preventable delays in FPL's ability to repair damage and "great
economic harm" to residents and businesses in South Florida.

Hurricane Wilma left three-quarters of FPL's 4.3 million
customers in the dark, many for two weeks or more. About 98
percent of customers in Broward and Palm Beach counties lost
electric service, and 99 percent of subscribers in Miami-Dade
County were without power. FPL's repair costs from Hurricane
Wilma and two other hurricanes this year are estimated at more
than $500 million, a bill that ultimately will be paid by
customers.

The suit, which seeks class action status, is not trying to
obtain money from FPL. Philip Freidin of Freidin & Dobrinski
P.A., one of the attorneys who filed the action told The South
Florida Sun-Sentinel, "As relief, we want a judge or court to
order FPL to allocate resources to prevent this kind of blackout
in the future." The utility should have "marshaled their
resources before the storm rather than after," he added.

The plaintiffs named in the case are Peter Rabbino and Legal
Computer Consultants Inc., a Florida corporation based in
Broward County. Besides Mr. Freidin, Randy Rosenblum and Manuel
Dobrinski of Freidin & Dobrinski; Harley S. Tropin of Kozyak,
Tropin & Throckmorton P.A.; Joel S. Perwin; and Adam M.
Moskowitz, are also representing them.


ILLINOIS: Judge Approves Settlement of Child Healthcare Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow approved a settlement that
requires the state of Illinois to increase payments to doctors
and dentists who care for children from low-income families, The
Associated Press reports.  The settlement, which takes effect
January 1, doubles Medicaid payment rates for some types of
office visits. It is expected to cost the state an additional
$45 million a year.

The class action lawsuit was brought in 1992 on behalf of
children on Medicaid in Cook County. But despite being filed
only for those children, the settlement will raise reimbursement
rates statewide and encourage doctors to serve the poor,
according to Fred Cohen, attorney for the plaintiffs.

Mr. Cohen told The Associated Press, for some children, the
settlement could mean "the difference between getting care
before something goes wrong ... and getting care in an emergency
room." Judge Lefkow ruled last year that Illinois had violated
federal Medicaid laws for failing to provide promised benefits.


INCO LIMITED: Ontario Court Certifies Homeowners' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a unanimous decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal certified a
class action brought by homeowners in Port Colborne, Ontario
against Inco Limited ("Inco") the world's leading nickel
producer.

The homeowners seek to recover damages for alleged environmental
contamination. Between 1918 and 1984, Inco operated a refinery
in Port Colborne that processed nickel. During that 66-year
period, Inco's refinery deposited tonnes of nickel oxide into
the surrounding environment. The homeowners allege that this
nickel oxide contaminated the Port Colborne area, in particular,
a low-income area adjacent to and downwind from Inco's refinery
known as Rodney Street. In September 2000, the Ontario Ministry
of Environment (the "Ministry") released a report stating that
Inco had discharged contaminants into the natural environment,
which posed a risk both to the environment and to human health
for some Port Colborne residents. The release of the Ministry's
report had a significant impact upon property values in the Port
Colborne area.

The homeowners claim that the nickel oxide emitted in the
environment by Inco is toxic and has affected the physical and
emotional health and well being of the residents of Port
Colborne. The nickel oxide is alleged to have caused widespread
damage to the lands, homes and businesses in Port Colborne.

The courts below had refused to allow the case to proceed. The
Ontario Court of Appeal, Ontario's highest court, decided today
that the courts below erred in refusing to allow the case to
proceed as a class action, ordering that it should be certified
as a class action and permitted to proceed to trial.  The court
certified claims for negligence, public nuisance and trespass.
The court held that dealing with all of the facts and issues
raised in the case should be dealt with in one trial because it
would result in a substantial savings of time and expense. The
court further found that access to justice would be greatly
enhanced by a class action. The evidence before the court was
that many of the homeowners are the most vulnerable, being
elderly, on fixed incomes, persons with disability or recipients
of social assistance.  Ultimately, the court held that the
homeowners could not afford to bring individual actions and that
a class action was the best way by which to ensure that they had
access to justice and a real possibility of redress.

The homeowners claim more than $750 million in damages against
Inco. The law firms of Cunningham Gillespie LLP and Koskie
Minsky LLP, a leading Canadian class action law firm, represent
the plaintiff homeowners.

For more details, contact Kirk Baert, Phone: (416) 595-2117, E-
mail: kbaert@koskieminsky.com or Eric Gillespie, Phone:
(416) 703-5400, E-mail: ekg@cunnigham-gillespie.com.


MATCH.COM: Faces Lawsuit For Employee-Written Romantic E-mails
--------------------------------------------------------------
Match.com, a unit of IAC/Interactive Corporation stands accused
in a federal lawsuit of goading members into renewing their
subscriptions through bogus romantic e-mails sent out by company
employees, Reuters reports.

The suit contends that in some instances people on the Match
payroll even went on sham dates with subscribers as a marketing
ploy. "This is a grossly fraudulent practice that Match.com is
engaged in," according to H. Scott Leviant, a lawyer at Los
Angeles law firm Arias, Ozzello & Gignac LLP, which brought the
suit. Mr. Leviant told Reuters that Match "promotes the policies
of integrity to protect members, and yet they themselves, we
allege, are misleading their entire customer base."

Company spokeswoman Kristin Kelly told Reuters that the company
"absolutely does not" employ people to go on dates with
subscribers or to send members misleading e-mails professing
romantic interest. She pointed out that the company has about 15
million members worldwide and 250 employees.

The suit, which seeks class action status, came as growth in the
online dating industry has slowed, although web matchmaking
still remains a big business. U.S. consumers spent $245.2
million on online personals and dating services in the first
half of 2005, up 7.6 percent from a year earlier, according to
the Online Publishers Association, which is a slower growth rate
compared with several years ago. At the same time, competition
among online dating services is fierce, with some sites offering
newfangled features such as extensive compatibility surveys to
match up people with similar temperaments and outlooks.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles by
plaintiff Matthew Evans, who contends that he went out with a
woman he met through the site who turned out to be nothing more
than "date bait" working for the company. According to his suit,
the relationship went nowhere. Mr. Evans claims that Match set
up the date for him because it wanted to keep him from pulling
the plug on his subscription and was hoping he'd tell other
potential members about the attractive woman he met through the
service. Though he was unavailable for comment, Mr. Evan's
attorney described the plaintiff as a working professional of
Orange County, California, who is in his 30s.

Mr. Leviant told Reuters that his client found out about the
alleged scam after the woman he dated confessed that Match
employed her. Additionally, the suit also claims that the
company violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act, a law best known for being used in prosecuting
organized crime.

The suit is styled, "Evans v. IAC/InteractiveCorp et al, Case
No. 8:05-cv-01104-CJC-RNB," filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, under Judge Cormac
J. Carney. Representing the Plaintiff are, Mike M. Arias, H.
Scott Leviant and Louis Pacella of Arias Ozzello & Gignac, 6701
Center Dr. W, Ste. 1400, Los Angeles, CA 90045-1558, Phone:
310-670-1600, Fax: 310-670-1231; and Devin R. Lucas, Richard E.
Quintilone II and Heather K Rowell of Quintilone and Associates,
15 Studebaker, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92618-2013, Phone:
949-458-9675.


MIRANT CORPORATION: GA Court Approves Investor Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia approved the settlement of the securities class action
filed against Mirant Americas Generation, LLC, and certain of
its current and former officers and managers, styled "Wisniak v.
Mirant Americas Generation, LLC, et al."

On June 11, 2003, a purported class action lawsuit alleging
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia.  The
plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of all persons who
purchased debt securities of Mirant Americas Generation pursuant
to or traceable to an exchange offer completed by Mirant
Americas Generation in May 2002 in which $750 million of bonds
registered under the Securities Act of 1933 were exchanged for
$750 million of previously issued senior notes of Mirant
Americas Generation.  The plaintiff alleges, among other things,
that the Company's restatement in April 2003 of prior financial
statements rendered the registration statement filed for the May
2002 exchange offer materially false. The complaint seeks
damages, interest and attorneys' fees.

The defendants have removed the suit to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. This action
is stayed as to Mirant Americas Generation by the filing of its
Chapter 11 proceeding.  On November 19, 2003, the Bankruptcy
Court entered an order staying this action also with respect to
the individual defendants to avoid the suit impeding the ability
of Mirant Americas Generation to reorganize or having a negative
effect upon its assets. On December 8, 2003, the district court
took notice of the Bankruptcy Court's order dated November 19,
2003 staying the litigation and administratively closed the
action.  On December 16, 2003, the plaintiff dismissed Mirant
Americas Generation as a defendant, without prejudice, and filed
a proof of claim against Mirant Americas Generation in the
bankruptcy proceedings asserting the same claims set forth in
the lawsuit.

The Company and the plaintiff have entered into a stipulation of
settlement of the Wisniak suit and the claim filed against
Mirant Americas Generation that was approved by the Bankruptcy
Court on January 19, 2005. Under the terms of the stipulation of
settlement, the plaintiff will seek certification of a class by
the district court that will receive $2.25 million to be paid by
insurers for Mirant Americas Generation and an allowed,
unsecured claim for $2 million against Mirant subordinated to
the claims of its other unsecured creditors. On September 6,
2005, the district court entered an order approving the
settlement and dismissing the action.


NEW YORK: Ruling in "Light" Cigarettes Case Unlikely Before 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in New York will likely not rule until 2006 on
whether a case that would let smokers sue the tobacco industry
over the promotion of "light" cigarettes can move forward as a
class action, according to attorneys, FOX News reports.

U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein recently issued a ruling that
paves the way for him to make that decision in a case where
tobacco companies are accused of conspiring to defraud consumers
into thinking that light cigarettes are safer than regular
smokes. In an opinion that recently released opinion, Judge
Weinstein found that plaintiffs could use a method known as
"fluid recovery" in seeking damages in the case, which was
brought forward under federal racketeering law.  Under fluid
recovery, damages in large class action cases can be paid out in
ways other than just giving cash directly to plaintiffs.
Establishing a large pool of money that could be used for public
purposes could be done instead.

Paul Gallagher, an attorney at Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,
who represents the plaintiffs, told FOX News in a recent
interview, "If he had ruled the other way on this, the case
would have pretty much been over. This lays the foundation, now
he has overcome in his mind a huge hurdle to class
certification."  Mr. Gallagher also told FOX News that it could
be early summer before Judge Weinstein decides whether or not to
let the case go forward as a class action. But if he does,
smokers all over the country could seek damages if the
defendants lose, as long as the smokers' claims have not already
been decided in state courts.

The case is similar to several state court cases in which
smokers are using consumer fraud laws to seek damages, including
a closely watched Illinois case in which Altria Group Inc.'s
Philip Morris USA unit was ordered to pay $10.1 billion in
damages. That case is on appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.

A lawyer for Altria stressed that Judge Weinstein had not yet
decided on whether the multibillion-dollar New York case could
proceed as a class action. William Ohlemeyer, vice president and
associate general counsel for Altria, told FOX News in an
interview, "The idea that this allows this case to go forward,
that the judge removed a hurdle, is quite overstating" the
ruling.

Mr. Ohlemeyer also pointed out that that the U.S. Second Circuit
Court of Appeals, which oversees Judge Weinstein's district in
New York, has found in the past that fluid recovery should not
be allowed in this type of case. He told FOX News, "Judge
Weinstein is entitled to his opinion but I'm quite confident the
Second Circuit will disagree with him." He adds that Judge
Weinstein's ruling was not something that could be appealed
until after a potential trial.

Tobacco stock analysts downplayed the importance of Judge
Weinstein's decision, though some said it was likely that he
would eventually allow the case to proceed as a class action.
Bonnie Herzog, an analyst at Citigroup Investment Research told
FOX News, "We believe this case will be less of an issue for the
industry if other lights cases are resolved favorably. We do not
believe this decision alone will have an impact on the timing of
the split-up of Altria."

Defendants in the New York case include: Altria Group Inc. (MO)
and Philip Morris USA (search); Loews Corporation's (LTR)
Lorillard Tobacco unit, which has a tracking stock, Carolina
Group (CG); Vector Group Ltd.'s (VGR) Liggett Group; Reynolds
American Inc.'s (RAI) R.J. Reynolds Tobacco unit and British
American Tobacco Plc unit British American Tobacco Investments
Ltd.


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Continues To Face MO Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Financial, Inc. and three of its executive officers
continue to face a consolidated securities class action after
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri refused to dismiss the suit.


Since April 2004, a number of substantially similar class action
lawsuits have been filed and consolidated into a single action.
The suit alleges that the defendants made public statements that
were misleading for failing to disclose certain regulatory and
licensing matters.  The plaintiffs purport to have brought this
consolidated action on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock (and sellers of put options on the
Company's stock) during the period October 29, 2003 through
April 8, 2004.  On January 14, 2005, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss this action, and on May 12, 2005, the court denied
such motion.

The suit is styled "In Re: Novastar Financial Securities
Litigation, case no. 4:04-cv-00330-ODS," filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Missouri under
Judge Ortrie D. Smith.  Representing the Company is Erin Bansal
of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 405 Howard Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-773-5700.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Bruce D. Bernstein, Michael B. Eisenkraft and
Richard H. Weiss of Milberg, Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP,  One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY 10119, Phone:
212-594-5300; and James M. Evangelista of Chitwood Harley Harnes
LLP, 1230 Peachtree St., N.E., Suite 2300, Atlanta, GA 30309,
Phone: (404) 607-6871, fax: (404)876-4476, E-mail:
jevangelista@chitwoodlaw.com.


OHIO: Residents Seek Certification For Styrene Leak Injury Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys representing residents affected by the release of a
toxic chemical from a railroad car in Ohio last August asked a
Hamilton County judge to combine their lawsuits into a single
class action complaint against the companies they blame for the
chemical leak, The Associated Press reports.

They argued in their request to the judge that about 30,000
residents and workers affected by the leak, which forced a
three-day evacuation of 800 homes and businesses, should be paid
damages. In addition they argued that anyone within a 3.2-mile
radius of the leak should be paid as well.

Last August 28, a tanker owned by Houston-based Westlake
Chemical, leaked vapor from its load of styrene, a chemical that
is used to make plastics, synthetic rubber and resins, is a
highly flammable liquid hazardous to breathe in gaseous form.
Residents in the area sued Westlake Chemical, Indiana and Ohio
Railway Corporation and Kinder Morgan Liquid Terminals over the
leak.

James O'Connell, an attorney for the railroad, told The
Associated Press that his company already has settled with many
residents. However, he would not say how many or disclose dollar
amounts. After hearing arguments from both sides, Hamilton
County Common Pleas Judge Melba Marsh still gave no indication
when she will rule on the request for class action status.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: FL Court Finds Billing Practices "Deceptive"
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Palm Beach County Court judge issued a stinging retribution
against Quest Diagnostics, finding that the way it bills
customers is "unfair and deceptive" and ordering that the
practice stop, The Palm Beach Post reports.

The recently issued ruling found the nation's largest diagnostic
laboratory company of charging Kirk Friedland more than it
should have for blood work done as part of his annual physical.
It also stated that the company failed to return the overcharged
amount until Mr. Friedland filed suit.  In her 10-page ruling,
Judge Laura Johnson also found that Quest engaged in deceptive
and unfair trade practices by making a claim that Mr. Friedland
owed an amount the company knew to be false and violated a state
statute governing consumer collection practices by demanding
that Mr. Friedland pay money that was not owed.

Philip Valente, a West Palm Beach attorney who filed the lawsuit
on behalf of Friedland in April 2001, told The Palm Beach Post,
"Kirk was incensed by the fact that they would charge this made-
up amount and then put the onus on the customer to get their
money back."

Mr. Friedland told The Palm Beach Post, "Instead of sending (the
claim) to my insurer, they charged me the top rate." When the
West Palm Beach resident discovered the mistake he contacted
Quest and requested a refund.

"The first thing we did was tell Quest if you give him his money
back, nothing will happen. They refused and we filed suit,"
according to Mr. Valente. Thus, ten months after his initial
refund request and four months after the suit was filed, Quest
cut Mr. Friedland a check for $260.

Quest defended its actions by calling it a "billing error" and
said the company does not have a policy or practice of
improperly billing patients. Quest spokesman Gary Samuels, who
indicated that that the company plans to appeal also said, "We
made a data-entry error four years ago with this one patient.
After we became aware of the error through the lawsuit, we
reimbursed him."

Mr. Samuels further defended Quest by saying, "the company
interacts with 140 million people each year, and we are
committed to virtual perfection, but even with that there are
some things that go wrong. When that happens we try to fix
them."

With the ruling though, Mr. Valente, Mr. Friedland's attorney,
is now asking the judge to outline a plan that not only would
make Quest comply with her order but would require the company
to notify all of its customers that they may have been
overcharged. He told The Palm Beach Post, "At least they will
know that someone is looking over their shoulder."

Paul Geller, a Boca Raton class action lawyer whose own lawsuit
against Quest is pending in Palm Beach County federal court,
called Judge Johnson's ruling "a very strong order" that showed
Mr. Friedland's case was not an isolated event "but reflective
of Quest's standard operating procedure" and that it will
provide his case with a boost. Mr. Geller told The Plam Beach
Post, "It's certainly a step in the right direction, and we
think it will help us," an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(September 5, 2005) reports.

A health care provider balance-bills when it charges a patient
for the difference between the rate it negotiated with a managed
care provider and the amount it normally would charge. In most
cases, the negotiated rate is one-third to two-thirds of the
health care provider's usual fee.  Quest Diagnostics, with
corporate headquarters in New Jersey, performs 250 million
diagnostic tests every year. Last year alone, the company
reported revenues of $5.1 billion, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (September 5, 2005) reports.

Mr. Geller, who filed the suit on behalf of all Floridians, told
The Palm Beach Post, "We think this is a widespread practice.
These companies make enormous profits by doing this," an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (September 5, 2005) reports.


REFCO INC.: Abandons Plans to Consolidate Customers' Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Refco Inc. scrapped plans to consolidate lawsuits by customers,
who are demanding their money back, into a class action, saying
that there were other ways of dealing with claims totaling in
excess of $1.8 billion, The Herald News Daily reports.

In a court hearing before federal bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain,
one of Refco's attorneys, Anthony Clark, said that the
commodities broker's units "badly need breathing room" from
litigation. He pointed out that 18 pending lawsuits over
customer property had already cost the estate more than $1
million in four weeks. At that hearing, Judge Drain heard claims
by numerous customers, including Inter Financial Services Ltd.,
with $150 million tied up in the debtors' estate, and investment
guru Jim Rogers' funds, with a $362 million claim.

Refco previously contemplated have the suits consolidated filed
stating that it would be the most cost-effective way to settle a
dispute that already involves more than $1.8 billion in customer
claims. The firm told Judge Drain that 45 customers of its Refco
Capital Markets Ltd. unit have sued to get their money back
since Refco filed for bankruptcy on October 17. According to
Refco's filing their claims total $1.84 billion, and "hundreds
or thousands more account holder complaints likely will be
filed." Judge Drain set a November 18 hearing date on Refco's
request for a class action, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (November 11, 2005) reports.


SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Faces Amended Overtime Wage Lawsuit in N.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Siebel Systems, Inc. continues to face an amended class action
filed against it by its former employees, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging
violations of overtime wage law.

On January 15, 2004 and May 5, 2004, Zhiyu Zheng, a former
employee, as representative of a recently certified class of
Siebel Software Engineers and Senior Software Engineers, filed
the suit, claiming that based on their job duties, Siebel
Software Engineers and Senior Software Engineers do not meet
exemption criteria as defined under California law, and as such
are owed back wages, overtime pay, and certain other benefits.


SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Faces CA Lawsuits V. Oracle Corporation Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Siebel Systems, Inc. faces several class actions filed in the
Superior Court of California, relating to the proposed merger of
the Company with Oracle Corporation.

On September 12, 2005, Gloria Showers, on behalf of herself and
purportedly on behalf of a class of the Company's stockholders,
and Sheldon Miller, on behalf of himself and purportedly on
behalf of a class of the Company's stockholders, each filed a
complaint in the Superior Court of California against the
Company and members of the Company's Board of Directors.  On
September 15, 2005, Robert Corwin, on behalf of himself and
purportedly on behalf of a class of the Company's stockholders,
filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California against
the Company and members of the Company's Board of Directors on
similar claims.

The complaints allege in substance that the directors breached
their fiduciary duties in agreeing to the proposed Merger for
failing to maximize stockholder value.  The Miller and Corwin
complaints also name Oracle as a defendant on the ground that it
aided and abetted the alleged violations.  These complaints seek
injunctive relief and damages together with interest and
reimbursement of costs and expenses of litigation.


SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California heard Siebel Systems, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against the Company.

On March 10, 2004, William Wollrab, on behalf of himself and
purportedly on behalf of a class of the Company's stockholders,
filed the suit, alleging claims in connection with various
public statements made by the Company and seeking damages
together with interest and reimbursement of costs and expenses
of litigation.

This complaint was consolidated and amended on August 27, 2004,
with the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago being
appointed to serve as lead plaintiff. In October 2004, the
Company filed a motion for dismissal of this case, which was
granted on January 28, 2005. Plaintiffs in this case filed a
second amended complaint on February 28, 2005, and the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 27,
2005.  A hearing on the motion occurred on November 4, 2005.

Another securities class action is pending against the Company
and certain members of its board of directors in the Superior
Court of California.  On April 12, 2004, Pamela Plotkin, on
behalf of herself and purportedly on behalf of a class of the
Company's stockholders, filed the suit, which alleges claims in
connection with various public statements made by the Company
and seeks damages together with interest and reimbursement of
costs and expenses of litigation.

The court dismissed the complaint on September 23, 2004, but
gave Ms. Plotkin leave to file a new, amended complaint, which
was subsequently filed by Ms. Plotkin. The court dismissed the
amended complaint on December 28, 2004, but again gave Ms.
Plotkin leave to file a new, amended complaint. Ms. Plotkin
filed a new amended complaint on January 14, 2005.  On February
2, 2005, the parties to this complaint agreed to stay (i.e.,
place on hold) the entire case until the motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in the federal class action has been decided.

The suit is styled "In re Siebel Systems, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 04-CV-00983," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (Main office, Philadelphia),
         3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone: 215.963.0600, Fax:
         215.963.0838, E-mail: info@barrack.com

     (2) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (San Diego), 402 West Broadway,
         San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 619.230.0800, Fax:
         619.230.1874, E-mail: info@barrack.com

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

     (4) Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP

     (5) Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, 100 Park
         Avenue, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 212.907.0700, Fax:
         212.818.0477, E-mail: info@glrslaw.com

     (6) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (San Francisco, CA), 100
         Pine Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94111,
         Phone: 415.772.4700, Fax: 415.677.1233, E-mail:
         info@kaplanfox.com

     (7) 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

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

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

    (10) Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, 1515 Locust Street,
         2nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215-561-
         3600, Fax: 215-561-3000, bmgross@bernardmgross.com

    (11) Law Offices of Marc Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite
         202, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.660.8000, Fax:
         610.660.8080, E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com


SIMON PROPERTY: Continues To Face Gift Card Consumer Fraud Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Property Group, LP and its affiliate SPGGC, Inc. continues
to face litigation, alleging consumer fraud related to the sale
of co-branded, bank-issued gift cards.

On November 15, 2004, the Attorneys General of Massachusetts,
New Hampshire and Connecticut filed complaints in their
respective state Superior Courts against the two defendants,
alleging that the sale of co-branded, bank-issued gift cards
sold in certain of its Portfolio Properties violated gift
certificate statutes and consumer protection laws in those
states. Each of these suits seeks injunctive relief, unspecified
civil penalties and disgorgement of any fees determined to be
improperly charged to consumers.

In addition, the Company is a defendant in three other
proceedings relating to the gift card program. Each of the three
proceedings has been brought by a private plaintiff as a
purported class action and alleges violation of state consumer
protection laws, state abandoned property and contract laws or
state statutes regarding gift certificates or gift cards and
seeks a variety of remedies including unspecified damages and
injunctive relief.


WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Faces Suits V. Defective Calypso Machines
----------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation continues to face 10 purported class
action lawsuits in eight states related to its Calypso clothes
washing machine.  Three of the original purported class actions
have been dismissed and the remaining 10 cases are in various
stages of discovery.

The complaints in these lawsuits generally allege violations of
state consumer fraud acts, unjust enrichment, and breach of
warranty based on the allegations that the washing machines have
various defects. There are no allegations of any personal
injury, catastrophic property damage, or safety risk. The
complaints generally seek unspecified compensatory,
consequential and punitive damages.


WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Probing Potential Product Safety Problem
---------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation is currently investigating a supplier-
related quality and potential product safety problem that may
affect up to 3.5 million appliances manufactured between 2000
and 2002, the Company revealed in a disclosure to the Securities
and Exchange Corporation.

The Company currently estimates that its potential cost from
this matter ranges from zero to $235 million, depending upon
whether it is determined that some or all of the appliances must
be repaired or replaced, whether the cost of any such corrective
action is borne initially by the Company or the supplier, and,
if initially borne by the Company, whether it will be successful
in recovering its costs from the supplier.  In addition, the
Company could incur other costs arising out of this matter,
which cannot currently be estimated but could be material.


YAHOO INC.: Personals Service Sued Over Conjured Dating Partners
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit was launched against Yahoo Inc.'s personals service,
which is accused of posting profiles of fictitious potential
dating partners on its Web site to make it look as though many
more singles subscribe to the service than actually do, Reuters
reports.

The suit, which both seek class action status, came as growth in
the online dating industry has slowed, although Web matchmaking
still remains a big business. U.S. consumers spent $245.2
million on online personals and dating services in the first
half of 2005, up 7.6 percent from a year earlier, according to
the Online Publishers Association. That's a slower growth rate
compared with several years ago.

Robert Anthony, of Broward County, Florida, filed the suit. It
was brought in U.S. District Court in San Jose, California,
accusing the company of breach of contract, fraud and unfair
trade practices. Peter McNulty of the McNulty Law Firm in Bel
Air, California, represents Mr. Anthony in the case.

The suit is styled, "Anthony v. Yahoo!, Inc., Case No. 5:05-cv-
04175-PVT," filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, under Judge Patricia V.
Trumbull. Representing the Plaintiff is Peter J. McNulty of
McNulty Law Firm, 827 Moraga Drive, Bel Air, CA 92101-1502,
Phone: 310-471-2707, Fax: 310-472-7014, E-mail:
peter@mcnultylaw.com. Representing the Defendant is Michele D.
Floyd of Reed Smith Crosby Heafey, LLP, Two Embarcadero Center,
Suite 2000, P.O. Box 7936, San Francisco, CA 94120, Phone:
415-543-8700, Fax: 415-391-8269, E-mail: mfloyd@reedsmith.com.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Scott + Scott to File Lead Plaintiff Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, the first to file a
securities class action against Boston Scientific Corporation
(NYSE: BSX) ("Boston Scientific") on September 21, 2005, will
file a lead plaintiff motion with the Court on November 21,
2005. The firm represents both individual and institutional
investors of Boston Scientific in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts (Case No. 1:05-cv-11934-
JLT).

Also included in the suit are all those who acquired Boston
Scientific through its acquisitions of Rubicon Medical,
CorAutus, Precision Vascular, Advanced Bionics, CryoVascular
Systems and TriVascular.

The complaint, filed as the first complaint at client request on
September 21, 2005, alleges that Boston Scientific and certain
individual defendants violated the federal securities laws
(provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) by making
false and misleading assurances of the Company's ability to
satisfy FDA regulations governing its medical device product
quality. This falsity, the complaint alleges, caused its stock
to trade at artificially inflated levels. The complaint also
alleges over $400 million was sold in insider trading.

In late September and early October, it was reported that a
hospital in Michigan temporarily halted the use of the Boston
Scientific stent when it allegedly caused injury to a few
patients. On November 14, 2005, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration stated it was investigating the matter. Also on
the 14th, the Company hired J.P. Morgan Securities, Deutch Banc
Securities and UBS Securities to underwrite the sale of $750
million of debt to repay borrowings and fund other needs.

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


GUIDANT CORPORATION: DeValerio Pease Files Securities Suit in IN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana against Guidant Corporation (NYSE: GDT). The
complaint seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who purchased Guidant common
stock between December 15, 2004 and November 3, 2005, inclusive.

The lawsuit claims that Guidant and a number of individual
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b)
and 78t, and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Sections 240.10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

According to the complaint, on December 15, 2004, Johnson &
Johnson agreed to acquire Guidant for an astounding $25.4
billion, citing Guidant's strong ICD business as a key component
of the acquisition. All the while, defendants knowingly or
recklessly withheld information from investors concerning the
serious and life-threatening wiring and battery defects that
many of its ICDs were suffering. Starting in June 2005, with two
recalls impacting nine separate ICD product lines and
culminating in November with news of a government investigation
related to Guidant's disclosures, as well as revelations in a
complaint filed by New York's Attorney General that defendants
knew of the defects for years, Guidant slowly leaked the truth
about its defective ICDs to the public. When the market did
finally learn the full extent of defendants' fraud on November
3, 2005, the price of Guidant's common stock had fallen to
$57.57, down more than 23% from its Class Period high of $75.05
per share.

For more details, contact Leslie R. Stern, Esq. or Bryan A.
Wood, Esq. of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, One
Liberty Square, Boston, MA, Phone: (800) 516-9926, E-mail:
law@bermanesq.com, Web site:
http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/Guidant-Cplt.pdf.


INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Fraud Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Interlink Electronics,
Inc. ("Interlink" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:LINK) between April
24, 2003 and November 1, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit was filed against Interlink and certain officers and
directors ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's financial performance.

On March 9, 2005, Interlink announced that it would restate its
financial results for the first three quarters of 2004 to
correct certain accounting issues. Then, on November 2, 2005,
Interlink further announced that it was again restating its
financial statements; however, this time for all of 2003 and
2004 and for the first two quarters of 2005. Shares of Interlink
reacted negatively to the news, dropping nearly 40%.

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


MOTIVE INC.: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thee law firm of Federman & Sherwood, which initiated a
securities class action against Motive, Inc. (Nasdaq: MOTV) and
certain of its officers and directors, is seeking to expand the
class period of the federal securities class action from April
21, 2005 through October 26, 2005. The previous class period is
from July 11, 2005 through October 26, 2005.

The Complaint, which was filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas, alleges violations of
federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including
allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations
to the market concerning its projected revenues, which had the
effect of artificially inflating the shares' market price. The
class period is from July 11, 2005 through October 26, 2005.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of FEDERMAN &
SHERWOOD, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102,
Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com, Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com.


MOTIVE INC.: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas,
on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of Motive, Inc. ("Motive" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:MOTV) between April 21, 2005 and October 26,
2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed
against Motive, Scott L. Harmon and Paul M. Baker
("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
the Company failed to disclose or misrepresented that the
Company had improperly recognized $5.2 million in revenue from a
licensing agreement, which inflated revenues, that the Company's
financials were not presented in accordance with Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and the Company lacked
the necessary personnel and controls to issue accurate financial
statements.

On October 4, 2005, Motive announced that it expected core
revenue to be in a range of $15.5 million to $17.5 million,
compared to revenue of $23 million for the same period in the
prior year. Shares reacted negatively to the news, dropping
$2.25 per share, or 35.9%, to $4.01 per share. Then, on October
27, 2005, Motive issued a press release announcing financial
results for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, as well as its
decision to restate its financial results for the quarters ended
March 31, 2005 and June 30, 2005. In reaction to this
announcement, Motive shares took an additional hit, falling from
$4.12 per share to $3.66 per share, a decline of approximately
11.2% on heavy volume.

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


MOTIVE INC.: Rosen Law Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
Case No. A-05-CV-963 on behalf of all purchasers of Motive, Inc.
("Motive or "the Company") (Nasdaq:MOTV) securities between
April 21, 2005 through October 26, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period Motive and
certain of the Company's executive officers issued materially
false and misleading financial statements to the investing
public and made misstatements regarding its financial prospects
in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b 5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleges that Motive issued false and misleading
financial statements for the first two quarters of 2005. On
October 27, 2005, Motive announced that it would be restating
its financial statements for the first two quarters of 2005.
Before news of the restatement was released to the public, Scott
L. Harmon, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, sold 8,000 shares of his privately held stock for
proceeds in excess of $49,585.

For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. of The Rosen Law
Firm, Phone: (886) 767-3653 or (212) 686-1060, Fax:
(212) 202-3827, E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com, Web site:
http://www.rosenlegal.com.


TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Suit in KY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins,
LLP, initiated a class action has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas on
behalf of purchasers of Motive, Inc. ("Motive") (NASDAQ:MOTV)
common stock during the period between June 25, 2004 and October
26, 2005, inclusive, including those who purchased their shares
pursuant to the Company's June 2004 Initial Public Offering
("IPO").

The complaint charges Motive and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and the Securities Act of 1933. Motive supplies management
software for networked products and services.

The complaint alleges that Motive went public in its June 2004
IPO pursuant to a false and misleading Registration Statement
and Prospectus which failed to disclose the full truth
concerning the Company's revenue recognition practices. The
complaint further alleges that during the Class Period
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's current earnings and strong future
results, causing and maintaining the artificial inflation in
Motive's stock price throughout the Class Period and enabling
defendants to sell 282,000 shares of their Motive stock at
artificially inflated prices for proceeds of $2.7 million.

Then on October 4, 2005, defendants disclosed that Motive would
report much lower results in 2005 than prior representations.
Subsequently, on October 27, 2005, before the market opened,
Motive announced it would restate its Q1-Q2 2005 results due to
improper revenue recognition. In response to these revelations,
Motive's stock dropped to $3.66 per share compared to its Class
Period high of $15.25 per share.

For more details, contact William Lerach of Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, Phone: 800-449-4900, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/motive/.


TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Suit in KY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins,
LLP, initiated a class action in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on behalf of
purchasers of Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. ("Tempur-Pedic")
(NYSE:TPX) publicly traded securities during the period between
April 22, 2005 and September 19, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Tempur-Pedic and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Tempur-Pedic engages in the manufacture, marketing, and
distribution of advanced visco-elastic products under the TEMPUR
and Tempur-Pedic brands worldwide.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and prospects. Then, on September 19, 2005, after
defendants had sold $8.3 million worth of their own shares,
Tempur-Pedic issued lower guidance for 2005, sending the
Company's shares plummeting, falling 28% in one day, from $16.38
per share on September 19, 2005 to $11.70 on September 20, 2005.

According to the complaint, defendants knew, but concealed from
the investing public during the Class Period, the following
adverse material facts:

     (1) that Tempur-Pedic's market share in the visco-elastic
         market was declining, eliminating the Company's
         prospects for the 2005 growth defendants had projected;

     (2) that even by July 21, 2005, when the Company was
         publicly faced with the fact that increased
         competition was rumored to have already negatively hurt
         the Company's business, defendants reiterated positive
         guidance, despite clear signals that such guidance was
         even more unattainable than it was when it was first
         issued;

     (3) that the Company's strength vis-a-vis its retail
         channel and its visco-elastic product line was not
         expanding as defendants claimed;

     (4) that the Company's "worldwide leadership position" was
         not "continu(ing) to grow" as defendants repeatedly
         claimed;

     (5) that the Company was not on track to meet its goal of
         increasing sales in its retail channel by 30%-35%;

     (6) that the Company's offerings and marketing strategy
         were cannibalizing the Company's other products; and

     (7) that as a result of the above, the Company's FY 2005
         projections of $880-$890 million in revenue and $1.10-
         $1.13 earnings per share were grossly overstated.

For more details, contact William Lerach of Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, Phone: 800-449-4900, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/tempur/.


TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Suit in KY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood, LLP, initiated a federal
securities fraud class action suit on behalf of all purchasers
of the securities of Tempur-Pedic, International, Inc.
(NYSE:TPX) ("Tempur-Pedic" or the "Company") between April 22,
2005 and September 19, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint, captioned EUGENE C. ONORATO v. TEMPUR-PEDIC
INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (Lexington
Division) and charges Tempur-Pedic, Dale E. Williams, Robert B.
Trussell, Jr., H. Thomas Bryant and P. Andrews McLane with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint
specifically alleges that by the beginning of the Class Period,
investors were concerned that the Company's competitors, (such
as Sealy, Serta and Simmons), were making significant inroads
into the visco-elastic market that would challenge Tempur-
Pedic's dominance or, potentially erode Company profits if
Tempur-Pedic was forced to slash prices to successfully compete.
Defendants assuaged these concerns by knowingly or with reckless
disregard misrepresenting that Tempur-Pedic's business was not
suffering from the effects of competition and would continue to
grow strongly. As the Class Period progressed, defendants
reiterated aggressive sales and earnings guidance for 2005, even
after the Company had actually begun to experience a slowdown.
The Complaint charges defendants with knowingly or recklessly
failed to disclose that:

     (1) contrary to defendants' express representations the
         demand for Tempur-Pedic's expensive visco-elastic
         mattresses had, in fact, slowed;

     (2) the Company faced increased competition in its niche
         sector in the form of cheaper offerings from its
         competitors; and

     (3) as a consequence of the foregoing, defendants'
         encouraging statements about Tempur-Pedic's business
         prospects and market position lacked in any reasonable
         basis.

The complaint also alleges that defendants were motivated to
commit the wrongdoing alleged herein in order to sell their
personally held Tempur-Pedic stock at artificially inflated
prices. During the Class Period, insiders and entities
associated with insiders, sold a total of 5,620,591 shares of
Tempur-Pedic common stock at artificially inflated prices, for
proceeds of $131,910,207. $124,550,000 of that amount was sold
by TA Associates. TA Associates is a controlling shareholder of
the Company and has two nominee directors on Tempur-Pedic's
board of directors -- Jeffrey S. Barber and Chairman P. Andrews
McLane. Mr. McLane is also a managing director of TA Associates.

On September 19, 2005, Tempur-Pedic lowered its financial
guidance for fiscal 2005. Tempur-Pedic attributed this change to
a number of factors, including competition that it had
previously claimed was not and would not negatively impact the
Company in a manner large enough to require 2005 guidance to be
lowered. In fact, Tempur-Pedic had reiterated this assurance
less than a month before the September 19 announcement. On this
news, shares of Tempur-Pedic common stock dropped $4.68 per
share, or 28.5 percent, to close at $11.70 per share, on heavy
trading volume.

For more details, contact Virgilio Soler, Jr., Shareholder
Relations Department of Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Ave.,
8th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (877) 935-7400, E-mail:
vsoler@whesq.com.


WELLS FARGO: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.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
AIM 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 AIM mutual funds and their respective symbols are as
follows:

AIM Advantage Health Sci (NASDAQ: IAGHX) (NASDAQ: IGHBX)
(NASDAQ: IGHCX) AIM Aggressive Growth (NASDAQ: AAGFX) (NASDAQ:
AAGBX) (NASDAQ: AAGCX) (NASDAQ: AAGVX) (NASDAQ: ARRGX) AIM Asia
Pacific Growth (NASDAQ: ASIAX) (NASDAQ: ASIBX) (NASDAQ: ASICX)
AIM Basic Balanced (NASDAQ: BBLAX) (NASDAQ: BBLBX) (NASDAQ:
BBLCX) (NASDAQ: BBLIX) (NASDAQ: BBLTX) (NASDAQ: BBLRX) AIM Basic
Value (NASDAQ: GTVLX) (NASDAQ: GTVBX) (NASDAQ: GTVCX) (NASDAQ:
GTVVX) (NASDAQ: GTVRX) AIM Blue Chip (NASDAQ: ABCAX) (NASDAQ:
ABCBX) (NASDAQ: ABCCX) (NASDAQ: ABCVX) (NASDAQ: BCIVX) (NASDAQ:
ABCRX) AIM Capital Development (NASDAQ: ACDAX) (NASDAQ: ACDBX)
(NASDAQ: ACDCX) (NASDAQ: ACDVX) (NASDAQ: ACDIX) (NASDAQ: ACDRX)
AIM Charter (NASDAQ: CHTRX) (NASDAQ: BCHTX) (NASDAQ: CHTCX)
(NASDAQ: CHTVX) (NASDAQ: CHRRX) AIM Conservative Allocation
(NASDAQ: ACNAX) (NASDAQ: ACNBX) (NASDAQ: ACNCX) (NASDAQ: ACNIX)
(NASDAQ: ACNRX) AIM Constellation (NASDAQ: CSTGX) (NASDAQ:
CSTBX) (NASDAQ: CSTCX) (NASDAQ: CSITX) (NASDAQ: CSTRX) AIM
Developing Markets (NASDAQ: GTDDX) (NASDAQ: GTDBX) (NASDAQ:
GTDCX) AIM Diversified Dividend Fund (NASDAQ: LCEAX) (NASDAQ:
LCEDX) (NASDAQ: LCEVX) (NASDAQ: LCEIX) AIM Dynamics (NASDAQ:
IDYAX) (NASDAQ: IDYBX) (NASDAQ: IFDCX) (NASDAQ: IDICX) (NASDAQ:
FIDYX) (NASDAQ: IDYKX) AIM Energy (NASDAQ: IENAX) (NASDAQ:
IENBX) (NASDAQ: IEFCX) (NASDAQ: FSTEX) (NASDAQ: IENKX) AIM
European Growth (NASDAQ: AEDAX) (NASDAQ: AEDBX) (NASDAQ: AEDCX)
(NASDAQ: EGINX) (NASDAQ: AEDRX) AIM European Small Company
(NASDAQ: ESMAX) (NASDAQ: ESMBX) (NASDAQ: ESMCX) AIM Financial
Services (NASDAQ: IFSAX) (NASDAQ: IFSBX) (NASDAQ: IFSCX)
(NASDAQ: FSFSX) (NASDAQ: FSFKX) AIM Floating Rate (NASDAQ:
XAFRX) (NASDAQ: XFRCX) AIM Global Aggressive Growth (NASDAQ:
AGAAX) (NASDAQ: AGABX) (NASDAQ: AGACX) AIM Global Equity
(NASDAQ: GTNDX) (NASDAQ: GNDBX) (NASDAQ: GNDCX) (NASDAQ: GNDIX)
AIM Global Growth (NASDAQ: AGGAX) (NASDAQ: AGGBX) (NASDAQ:
AGGCX) AIM Global Health Care (NASDAQ: GGHCX) (NASDAQ: GTHBX)
(NASDAQ: GTHCX) (NASDAQ: GTHIX) AIM Global Real Estate (NASDAQ:
AGREX) (NASDAQ: BGREX) (NASDAQ: CGREX) (NASDAQ: IGREX) (NASDAQ:
RGREX) AIM Global Value (NASDAQ: AWSAX) (NASDAQ: AWSBX) (NASDAQ:
AWSCX) AIM Gold & Precious Metals (NASDAQ: IGDAX) (NASDAQ:
IGDBX) (NASDAQ: IGDCX) (NASDAQ: FGLDX) AIM Growth Allocation
(NASDAQ: AADAX) (NASDAQ: AAEBX) (NASDAQ: AADCX) (NASDAQ: AADIX)
(NASDAQ: AADRX) AIM High Income Municipal Bond (NASDAQ: AHMAX)
(NASDAQ: AHMBX) (NASDAQ: AHMCX) AIM High-Yield (NASDAQ: AMHYX)
(NASDAQ: AHYBX) (NASDAQ: AHYCX) (NASDAQ: AHIYX) (NASDAQ: HYINX)
AIM Income (NASDAQ: AMIFX) (NASDAQ: ABIFX) (NASDAQ: ACIFX)
(NASDAQ: AIIVX) (NASDAQ: AMIRX) AIM Intermediate Government
(NASDAQ: AGOVX) (NASDAQ: AGVBX) (NASDAQ: AGVCX) (NASDAQ: AGOIX)
(NASDAQ: AGIVX) (NASDAQ: AGVRX) AIM International Growth
(NASDAQ: AIIEX) (NASDAQ: AIEBX) (NASDAQ: AIECX) (NASDAQ: AIEVX)
(NASDAQ: AIERX) AIM International Small Company (NASDAQ: IEGAX)
(NASDAQ: IEGBX) (NASDAQ: IEGCX) AIM Intl Core Equity (NASDAQ:
IBVAX) (NASDAQ: IBVBX) (NASDAQ: IBVCX) (NASDAQ: IBVIX) (NASDAQ:
IIBCX) (NASDAQ: IIBRX) AIM Large Cap Basic Value (NASDAQ: LCBAX)
(NASDAQ: LCBBX) (NASDAQ: LCBCX) (NASDAQ: LCBIX) (NASDAQ: LCINX)
(NASDAQ: LCBRX) AIM Large Cap Growth (NASDAQ: LCGAX) (NASDAQ:
LCGBX) (NASDAQ: LCGCX) (NASDAQ: LCIGX) (NASDAQ: LCGIX) (NASDAQ:
LCRGX) AIM Leisure (NASDAQ: ILSAX) (NASDAQ: ILSBX) (NASDAQ:
IVLCX) (NASDAQ: FLISX) (NASDAQ: ILEKX) AIM Limited Maturity
Treasury (NASDAQ: SHTIX) (NASDAQ: LMTAX) (NASDAQ: ALMIX) AIM Mid
Cap Basic Value (NASDAQ: MDCAX) (NASDAQ: MDCBX) (NASDAQ: MDCVX)
(NASDAQ: MDICX) (NASDAQ: MDCRX) AIM Mid Cap Core Equity (NASDAQ:
GTAGX) (NASDAQ: GTABX) (NASDAQ: GTACX) (NASDAQ: GTAVX) (NASDAQ:
GTARX) AIM Mid Cap Growth (NASDAQ: AMCAX) (NASDAQ: AMCBX)
(NASDAQ: AMCVX) (NASDAQ: AMIGX) (NASDAQ: AMGRX) AIM Moderate
Allocation (NASDAQ: AMKAX) (NASDAQ: AMKBX) (NASDAQ: AMKCX)
(NASDAQ: AMLIX) (NASDAQ: AMKRX) AIM Moderate Growth Allocation
(NASDAQ: AAMGX) (NASDAQ: AMBGX) (NASDAQ: ACMGX) (NASDAQ: AIMGX)
(NASDAQ: RAMGX) AIM Moderately Conservative Alloc (NASDAQ:
CAAMX) (NASDAQ: CMBAX) (NASDAQ: CACMX) (NASDAQ: CMAIX) (NASDAQ:
CMARX) AIM Multi-Sector (NASDAQ: IAMSX) (NASDAQ: IBMSX) (NASDAQ:
ICMSX) (NASDAQ: IIMSX) AIM Municipal Bond (NASDAQ: AMBDX)
(NASDAQ: AMBBX) (NASDAQ: AMBCX) (NASDAQ: AMBIX) AIM
Opportunities I (NASDAQ: ASCOX) (NASDAQ: SCPBX) (NASDAQ: SCOCX)
AIM Opportunities II (NASDAQ: AMCOX) (NASDAQ: MCOVX) (NASDAQ:
MCODX) AIM Opportunities III (NASDAQ: LCPAX) (NASDAQ: LCPBX)
(NASDAQ: LCPCX) AIM Premier Equity (NASDAQ: AVLFX) (NASDAQ:
AVLBX) (NASDAQ: AVLCX) (NASDAQ: AVLVX) (NASDAQ: AVLRX) AIM Real
Estate (NASDAQ: IARAX) (NASDAQ: AARBX) (NASDAQ: IARCX) (NASDAQ:
IARIX) (NASDAQ: REINX) (NASDAQ: IARRX) AIM S&P 500 Index
(NASDAQ: ISIIX) (NASDAQ: ISPIX) AIM Select Equity (NASDAQ:
AGWFX) (NASDAQ: AGWBX) (NASDAQ: AGWCX) AIM Short Term Bond
(NASDAQ: STBAX) (NASDAQ: STBCX) (NASDAQ: ISTBX) (NASDAQ: STBRX)
AIM Small Cap Equity (NASDAQ: SMEAX) (NASDAQ: SMEBX) (NASDAQ:
SMECX) (NASDAQ: SMEIX) (NASDAQ: SMERX) AIM Small Cap Growth
(NASDAQ: GTSAX) (NASDAQ: GTSBX) (NASDAQ: GTSDX) (NASDAQ: GTSVX)
(NASDAQ: GTSRX) AIM Small Company Growth (NASDAQ: ISGAX)
(NASDAQ: ISGBX) (NASDAQ: ISGCX) (NASDAQ: FIEGX) (NASDAQ: ISCKX)
AIM Summit (NASDAQ: SMMIX) AIM Tax-Free Intermediate (NASDAQ:
AITFX) (NASDAQ: ATFAX) (NASDAQ: ATFIX) AIM Technology (NASDAQ:
ITYAX) (NASDAQ: ITYBX) (NASDAQ: ITHCX) (NASDAQ: FTPIX) (NASDAQ:
FTCHX) (NASDAQ: ITHKX) AIM Total Return Bond (NASDAQ: TBRAX)
(NASDAQ: TBRDX) (NASDAQ: TBRCX) (NASDAQ: TBRIX) (NASDAQ: TBRRX)
AIM Trimark (NASDAQ: ATKAX) (NASDAQ: ATKBX) (NASDAQ: ATKCX) AIM
Trimark Endeavor (NASDAQ: ATDAX) (NASDAQ: ATDBX) (NASDAQ: ATDCX)
(NASDAQ: ATDIX) (NASDAQ: ATDRX) AIM Trimark (NASDAQ: ATKIX)
(NASDAQ: ATKRX) AIM Trimark Small Companies (NASDAQ: ATIAX)
(NASDAQ: ATIBX) (NASDAQ: ATICX) (NASDAQ: ATIIX) (NASDAQ: ATIRX)
AIM Utilities (NASDAQ: IAUTX) (NASDAQ: IBUTX) (NASDAQ: IUTCX)
(NASDAQ: FSTUX) AIM Weingarten (NASDAQ: WEINX) (NASDAQ: BWEIX)
(NASDAQ: CWEIX) (NASDAQ: IWEIX) (NASDAQ: RWEIX)

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.



                            *********


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  * * *