CAR_Public/051123.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, November 23, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 232

                           Headlines

AETHER SYSTEMS: Final NY Suit Fairness Hearing Set April 2006
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Discovery Proceeds in TX Securities Fraud Suit
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: NJ Court Mulls Appeal of Stock Suit Dismissal
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: IL Court Refuses To Dismiss Suit Remand Appeal
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Plaintiffs File Amended MD Mutual Fund Suits

ALLIANCE CAPITAL: NY Court Dismisses Most Claims in Stock Suit
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Continues To Face Mutual Fund Lawsuits in MD
ANDRX CORPORATION: Working To Settle Cardizem CD Antitrust Suits
ANDRX CORPORATION: FL Court Approves Wellbutrin Suit Settlement
ANDRX CORPORATION: MI Court Nixes PPA Personal Injury Lawsuit

APPLE COMPUTER: Appeal Filed Challenging iPod Settlement in CA
AXIS CAPITAL: Continues To Face Consolidated Stock Lawsuit in NY
BEMIS CO.: Discovery Continues in PA Labelstock Antitrust Suit
BLIZZARD ENETRTAINMENT: Parents of Chinese WOW Player Files Suit
BOOKHAM TECHNOLOGY: Final Fairness Hearing Set April 2006 in NY

CALIFORNIA: Humboldt County Faces Illegal Strip Search Lawsuit
CAPITAL ONE: WV Woman Files Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
CENTERPLATE INC.: Mediation Proceeds in CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
CLARK REFINING: Jury Awards $120M To IL Injury Suit Plaintiffs
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL: Faces Uninsured Patients' Suit in CA Court

CONSECO INC.: Faces Amended Securities Fraud Lawsuit in IN Court
CONSECO INC.: Trial in Consumer Fraud Suit Set July 2006 in CA
CONSECO INC.: IN Court Grants Approval To ERISA Suit Settlement
CONSECO INC.: CO Appeals Court Upholds Suit Certification Denial
CONSECO LIFE: Reaches Settlement For FL Consumer Fraud Lawsuit

FLEMING COMPANIES: Securities Settlement Hearing Set November 29
FLORIDA: Families File Suit Over Inadequate Medicaid Child Care
FOUNTAINHEAD TITLE: Suit Settlement to Reimburse MD Homeowners
FRONT SIGHT: Members Launch RICO Suit in CA V. Company, Founder
GYMBOREE CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Lawsuit

HEALTHTRONICS SURGICAL: Settlement Hearing Set December 1, 2005
HUB INTERNATIONAL: Continues To Face IL Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
HUB INTERNATIONAL: Limited Discovery Proceeds in Insurance Suit
INFORMATICA CORPORATION: Final Fairness Hearing Set Jan. 2006
INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS: Inks Settlement for DE Securities Suit

INTERMUNE INC.: CA Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
KENTUCKY: 373 Possible Claimants in Covington Diocese Abuse Case
MANHATTAN NATIONAL: Continues To Face NM Policyholder Fraud Suit
MATCH.COM: Repudiates Baseless Suit Filed by Mathew Evans in CA
MERIX CORPORATION: Shareholders File Amended OR Securities Suit

MOLINA HEALTHCARE: New Mexico Unit Faces Pharmacy Fees Lawsuit
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Securities Lawsuits Consolidated in CA Court
NOVARTIS OPHTHALMICS: Recalls Products Due to Sterility Concerns
OLIN CORPORATION: AL Judge Denies Certification For Mercury Suit
OPENTV CORPORATION: Final NY Fairness Hearing Set April 24,2006

RED ROBIN: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuits in CO
SONY BMG: EFF Lodges Suit in CA Over Copy Protection Technology
VIRBAC CORPORATION: Suit Settlement Hearing Set December 1, 2005
WAL-MART STORES: Attorneys Commence Amended Janitors' Suit in NJ
WILLIS GROUP: CA Suit Reactivation Hinges on High Court Decision

WILLIS GROUP: Faces Insurance Brokerage Frees Fraud Litigation
WILLIS GROUP: Enters Mediation For Gender Discrimination Lawsuit


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

GENERAL MOTORS: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges MI Securities Fraud Suit
IMERGENT INC.: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Fraud Suit in UT
INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: Brian Felgoise Lodges CA Securities Suit
INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: Charles J. Piven Files CA Securities Suit
MOTIVE INC.: Dyer & Shuman Sets January Lead Plaintiff Deadline

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


                            *********


AETHER SYSTEMS: Final NY Suit Fairness Hearing Set April 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York will hear on April 24,2006 arguments for final approval
of the settlement of the consolidated securities class action
filed against Aether Systems, Inc. and certain of its officers
and directors.

The Company is among the hundreds of defendants named in nine
class action lawsuits seeking damages on account of alleged
violations of securities law.  The case is being heard in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The court has consolidated the actions by all of the
named defendants that actually issued the securities in
question.  Now there are approximately 310 consolidated cases
before Judge Shira Scheindlin, including the Aether Systems
action, under the caption "In Re Initial Public Offerings
Litigation, Master File 21 MC 92 (SAS)."

These actions were filed on behalf of persons and entities that
acquired the Company's common stock after its initial public
offering in October 20, 1999.  Among other things, the
complaints claim that prospectuses, dated October 20, 1999 and
September 27, 2000 and issued by the Company in connection with
the public offerings of common stock, allegedly contained untrue
statements of material fact or omissions of material fact in
violation of securities laws because the prospectuses allegedly
failed to disclose that the offerings' underwriters had
solicited and received additional and excessive fees,
commissions and benefits beyond those listed in the arrangements
with certain of their customers which were designed to maintain,
distort and/or inflate the market price of the Company's common
stock in the aftermarket.  The actions seek unspecified monetary
damages and rescission.

Initial motions to dismiss the case were filed and the court
held oral argument on the motions to dismiss on November 1,
2002.  On February 19, 2003, the court issued an Opinion and
Order on defendants' motions to dismiss, which granted the
motions in part and denied the motions in part.  As to the
Company, the motion to dismiss the claims against it was denied
in its entirety.  Discovery has now commenced.  The plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the officer and director
defendants of the Company.

On June 26, 2003, the Plaintiff's Executive Committee in this
case announced a proposed settlement with the issuers.  The
proposed settlement is a settlement among the plaintiffs, the
issuer-defendants, including the Company, and the officer and
director defendants of the issuers.  The plaintiffs will
continue litigating their claims against the underwriter-
defendants.  Under terms of the proposed settlement, the Company
would not incur any material financial or other liability.  On
June 14, 2004, the plaintiffs and issuer defendants presented
the executed settlement agreement to Judge Scheindlin during a
court conference.  Subsequently, plaintiffs and issuers 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 in support of the
settlement were submitted to the court.  In December 2004, the
court ordered additional briefing on the motion.  All of the
additional briefs were submitted to the court.  On February 15,
2005, Judge Scheindlin issued an Opinion and Order granting
preliminary approval to the settlement agreement.  The court
will schedule a fairness hearing on the proposed settlement and
subsequently will decide whether to grant final approval to the
settlement agreement.  The process of communicating formal
notice of the proposed settlement to the plaintiff classes has
been initiated.  The court has scheduled a fairness hearing on
the proposed settlement for April 24, 2006, and subsequently
will decide whether to grant final approval to the settlement
agreement.  

The suit is styled "In re Aether Systems, Inc. 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


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Discovery Proceeds in TX Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class
action filed against Alliance Capital Management L.P., and
numerous defendants, in relation to Enron Corporation's December
2001 bankruptcy, styled "In re Enron Corporation Securities
Litigation," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

The principal allegations of the Enron Complaint, as they
pertain to the Company, are that the Company violated Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended with respect
to a registration statement filed by Enron Corporation and
effective with the SEC on July 18, 2001, which was used to sell
$1.9 billion Enron Zero Coupon Convertible Notes due 2021.
Plaintiffs allege that the registration statement was materially
misleading and that Frank Savage, who was at that time an
employee of the Company and a director of the Alliance Capital
Management Corporation (ACMC), signed the registration statement
at issue. Plaintiffs further allege that the Company was a
controlling person of Frank Savage. Plaintiffs therefore assert
that the Company is itself liable for the allegedly misleading
registration statement. Plaintiffs seek rescission or a
rescissionary measure of damages.

On June 3, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss the Enron
Complaint as the allegations therein pertain to it. On March 12,
2003, that motion was denied. A First Amended Consolidated
Complaint, with substantially similar allegations as to the
Company, was filed on May 14, 2003.  The Company filed its
answer on June 13, 2003. On May 28, 2003, plaintiffs filed an
Amended Motion for Class Certification.  On October 23, 2003,
following the completion of class discovery, the Company filed
its opposition to class certification.  That motion is pending.
4:01-cv-03624 Newby, et al v. Enron Corporation, et al
Melinda Harmon, presiding

The suit is styled, Mark Newby et al., v. Enron Corp., et al.,
H-01-3624 (S.D. Tex.), pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas before Judge Melinda
Harmon. William Lerach of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins, LLP, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, is representing the Plaintiff/s.  
Representing the Company are James N. Benedict, Jason A.
D'Angelo, Mark A. Kirsch, James F. Moyle of Clifford Chance US
LLP, Two Hundred Park Ave, New York, NY 10166-0153, Phone:
212-878-8000 and Ronald Earl Cook of Cook & Roach LLP, 1111
Bagby Ste 2650, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-652-2800, Fax:
713-652-2029.


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: NJ Court Mulls Appeal of Stock Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
has yet to rule on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the
class action filed against Alliance Capital Management L.P.,
styled `Patrick J. Goggins, et al. v. Alliance Capital
Management L.P., et al."  The suit also names as defendants
Alliance Premier Growth Fund and individual directors and
certain officers of Premier Growth Fund.

The suit was originally filed in federal court in New York.  On
August 13, 2003, the court granted the Company's motion to
transfer the Complaint to the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey.  On December 5, 2003, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint, which alleges that defendants
violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
because the Fund's registration statements and prospectuses
contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted
material facts.

More specifically, the Amended Complaint alleges that the Fund's
investment in Enron was inconsistent with the Fund's stated
strategic objectives and investment strategies.  Plaintiffs seek
rescissionary relief or an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages on behalf of a class of persons who purchased shares of
Premier Growth Fund during the period October 31, 2000 through
February 14, 2002.  On January 23, 2004, the Company moved to
dismiss the complaint.  On December 10, 2004, the court granted
the Company's motion and dismissed the case. On January 5, 2005,
plaintiff appealed the court's decision.

The suit is styled "GOGGINS, et al v. ALLIANCE CAPITAL, et al.,
case no. 2:03-cv-04082-JLL-RJH," filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, under Judge Jose
L. Linares.  Representing the Company are James N. Benedict,
CLIFFORD CHANGE US LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166,
Phone: 212 878-8000; and Joel M. Silverstein and Herbert Jay
Stern, STERN & KILCULLEN, 75 Livingston Avenue, Roseland NJ
07068 Phone: 973-535-1900.  Representing the plaintiffs are
Patrick Louis Rocco and Jennifer A. Sullivan, SHALOV STONE &
BONNER LLP, 163 Madison Avenue, PO Box 1277, Morristown NJ
07962-1277, Phone: (973) 775-8997, E-mail: procco@lawssb.com or
jsullivan@lawssb.com.  


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: IL Court Refuses To Dismiss Suit Remand Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois refused to dismiss Alliance Capital Management L.P.'s
appeal of a court ruling remanding a class action entitled "Erb,
et al. v. Alliance Capital Management L.P." to the the Circuit
Court of St. Clair County, Illinois.

The plaintiff, purportedly a shareholder in Alliance Premier
Growth Fund, alleges that the Company breached unidentified
provisions of Premier Growth Fund's prospectus and subscription
and confirmation agreements that allegedly required that every
security bought for Premier Growth Fund's portfolio must be a
"1-rated" stock, the highest rating that the Company's research
analysts could assign.  Plaintiff alleges that the Company
impermissibly purchased shares of stocks that were not 1-rated.

On June 24, 2004, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the
Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois.  The suit
allegations are substantially similar to those contained in the
previous complaint, however, the amended complaint adds a new
plaintiff and seeks to allege claims on behalf of a purported
class of persons or entities holding an interest in any
portfolio managed by the Company's Large Cap Growth Team.
The Amended Complaint alleges that the Company breached its
contracts with these persons or entities by impermissibly
purchasing shares of stocks that were not 1-rated.  Plaintiffs
seek rescission of all purchases of any non-1-rated stocks the
Company made for Premier Growth Fund and other Large Cap Growth
Team clients' portfolios over the past eight years, as well as
an unspecified amount of damages.

On July 13, 2004, the Company removed the Erb action to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois on the basis that plaintiffs' claims are preempted
under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act.  On
August 30, 2004, the District Court remanded the action to the
Circuit Court.  On September 15, 2004, the Company filed a
notice of appeal with respect to the District Court's order.  On
December 23, 2004, plaintiffs moved to dismiss the Company's
appeal.  

The suit is styled "Erb et al v. Alliance Capital Management LP,
case no. 3:04-cv-00485-GPM-PMF," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, under
Judge G. Patrick Murphy.  Representing the Company are Rebecca
R. Jackson and Darci F. Madden, Bryan Cave - St. Louis,
Generally Admitted, 211 North Broadway, One Metropolitan Square,
Suite 3600, St. Louis, MO 63102, Phone: 314-259-2000, E-mail:
rrjackson@bryancave.com or dfmadden@bryancave.com; and James F.
Moyle, Clifford, Chance et al., 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY
10166, Phone: 212-878-8000, E-mail:
james.moyle@cliffordchance.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are
Diane M. Heitman, Steven A. Katz and Douglas R. Sprong of Korein
Tillery - Swansea, Generally Admitted, 10 Executive Woods Court,
Swansea, IL 62226-2030, Phone: 618-277-1180, E-mail:
dheitman@koreintillery.com, katzman001@att.net,
dsprong@koreintillery.com.  


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Plaintiffs File Amended MD Mutual Fund Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed amended class actions against Alliance Capital
Management L.P., according to four claim types, in the United
States District Court of Maryland.

On October 2, 2003, a purported class action complaint entitled,
"Hindo, et al. v. AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund, et
al.," was filed against the Company, Alliance Capital Management
Holding, L.P., Alliance Capital Management Corporation (ACMC),
AXA Financial Corporation, the AllianceBernstein Funds, the
registrants and issuers of those funds, certain officers of the
Company and certain other defendants not affiliated with the
Company, as well as unnamed Doe defendants.

The Hindo Complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York by alleged
shareholders of two of the AllianceBernstein Funds.  The
Complaint alleges that certain of the Alliance defendants failed
to disclose that they improperly allowed certain hedge funds and
other unidentified parties to engage in "late trading" and
"market-timing" of AllianceBernstein Fund securities, violating
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 206 and 215 of the
Investment Advisers Act.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount
of compensatory damages and rescission of their contracts with
the Company, including recovery of all fees paid to Alliance
Capital pursuant to such contracts.


Since October 2, 2003, forty-three additional lawsuits making
factual allegations generally similar to those in the Hindo
Complaint were filed in various federal and state courts against
the Company and certain other defendants, and others may be
filed. Such lawsuits have asserted a variety of theories for
recovery including, but not limited to, violations of the
Securities Act, the Exchange Act, the Advisers Act, the
Investment Company Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA), certain state securities statutes and
common law.  All of these lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of
damages.

On February 20, 2004, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ("MDL Panel") transferred all federal actions to the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
("Mutual Fund MDL"). On March 3, 2004 and April 6, 2004, the MDL
Panel issued orders conditionally transferring the state court
cases against the Company and numerous others to the Mutual Fund
MDL. Transfer of all of these actions subsequently became final.
Plaintiffs in three of these four actions moved to remand the
actions back to state court.  On June 18, 2004, the Court issued
an interim opinion deferring decision on plaintiffs' motions to
remand until a later stage in the proceedings.  Subsequently,
the plaintiff in the state court individual action moved the
Court for reconsideration of that interim opinion and for
immediate remand of her case to state court, and that motion is
pending.  Defendants are not yet required to respond to the
complaints filed in the state court derivative actions.

On September 29, 2004, plaintiffs filed consolidated amended
complaints with respect to four claim types: mutual fund
shareholder claims; mutual fund derivative claims; derivative
claims brought on behalf of Alliance Holding; and claims brought
under ERISA by participants in the Profit Sharing Plan for
Employees of Alliance Capital.  All four complaints include
substantially identical factual allegations, which appear to be
based in large part on the SEC Order.  The claims in the mutual
fund derivative consolidated amended complaint are generally
based on the theory that all fund advisory agreements,
distribution agreements and 12b-1 plans between the Company and
the AllianceBernstein Funds should be invalidated, regardless of
whether market timing occurred in each individual fund, because
each was approved by fund trustees on the basis of materially
misleading information with respect to the level of market
timing permitted in funds managed by the Company.  The claims
asserted in the other three consolidated amended complaints are
similar to those that the respective plaintiffs asserted in
their previous federal lawsuits.


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: NY Court Dismisses Most Claims in Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismisses all but one claim in the consolidated
securities class action filed against Alliance Capital
Management LP, styled "Aucoin, et al. v. Alliance Capital
Management L.P., et al."  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Alliance Capital Management Holding L.P.,

     (2) Alliance Capital Management Corporation,

     (3) AXA Financial Corporation,

     (4) Alliance Bernstein Investment Research and Management,
         Inc. (ABIRM),

     (5) certain current and former directors of the
         AllianceBernstein Funds, and

     (6) unnamed Doe defendants

The first suit filed names the AllianceBernstein Funds as
nominal defendants. The Complaint was filed by an alleged
shareholder of the AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund.  The
Aucoin Complaint alleges, among other things:

     (i) that certain of the defendants improperly authorized
         the payment of excessive commissions and other fees
         from AllianceBernstein Fund assets to broker-dealers in
         exchange for preferential marketing services,

    (ii) that certain of the defendants misrepresented and
         omitted from registration statements and other reports
         material facts concerning such payments, and

   (iii) that certain defendants caused such conduct as control
         persons of other defendants.

The Complaint asserts claims for violation of Sections 34(b),
36(b) and 48(a) of the Investment Company Act, Sections 206 and
215 of the Advisers Act, breach of common law fiduciary duties,
and aiding and abetting breaches of common law fiduciary duties.
Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages
and punitive damages, rescission of their contracts with
Alliance Capital, including recovery of all fees paid to
Alliance Capital pursuant to such contracts, an accounting of
all AllianceBernstein Fund-related fees, commissions and soft
dollar payments, and restitution of all unlawfully or
discriminatorily obtained fees and expenses.

Since June 22, 2004, nine additional lawsuits making factual
allegations substantially similar to those in the first suit
were filed against the Company and certain other defendants. All
nine of the lawsuits were brought as class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, assert claims substantially identical to the Aucoin
Complaint, and are brought on behalf of shareholders of
AllianceBernstein Funds.

On February 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint that asserts claims substantially similar
to the lawsuits referenced above.  On April 14, 2005, defendants
moved to dismiss the Aucoin Consolidated Amended Complaint.  On
October 19, 2005, the District Court dismissed each of the
claims set forth in the Aucoin Consolidated Amended Complaint,
except for plaintiff's claim under Section 36(b) of the
Investment Company Act.

The suit is styled "In re: Alliancebernstein Mutual Funds
Excessive Fee Litigation, case no. 1:04-cv-04885-SWK," filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, under Judge Shirley Wohl Kram.  Representing the
Company are Mark Holland and Mark Adam Kirsch of Clifford Chance
US, LLP (NYC), 31 West 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019-6131,
Phone: (212)-878-8432, Fax: (212)-878-8375, E-mail:
mark.holland@cliffordchance.com or
mark.kirsch@cliffordchance.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are
Jerome M. Congress, Kim Elaine Levy, Janine Lee Pollack, Michael
Robert Reese, Steven Schulman, Peter Edward Seidman of Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New
York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-594-5300, Fax: 212-868-1229, E-mail:
klevy@milberg.com, jpollack@milbergweiss.com,
mreese@milberg.com, sschulman@milbergweiss.com; and Marshall N.
Perkins and Charles J. Piven, The World Trade Center-Baltimore
401 East Pratt Street, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone:
(410) 332-0030.


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Continues To Face Mutual Fund Lawsuits in MD
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Capital Management L.P. faces amended class actions
filed according to four claim types, in the United States
District Court of Maryland.

On October 2, 2003, a purported class action complaint entitled,
"Hindo, et al. v. AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund, et
al.," was filed against the Company, Alliance Capital Management
Holding, L.P., Alliance Capital Management Corporation (ACMC),
AXA Financial Corporation, the AllianceBernstein Funds, the
registrants and issuers of those funds, certain officers of the
Company and certain other defendants not affiliated with the
Company, as well as unnamed Doe defendants.

The Hindo Complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York by alleged
shareholders of two of the AllianceBernstein Funds.  The
Complaint alleges that certain of the Alliance defendants failed
to disclose that they improperly allowed certain hedge funds and
other unidentified parties to engage in "late trading" and
"market-timing" of AllianceBernstein Fund securities, violating
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 206 and 215 of the
Investment Advisers Act.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount
of compensatory damages and rescission of their contracts with
the Company, including recovery of all fees paid to Alliance
Capital pursuant to such contracts.

Since October 2, 2003, forty-three additional lawsuits making
factual allegations generally similar to those in the Hindo
Complaint were filed in various federal and state courts against
the Company and certain other defendants, and others may be
filed. Such lawsuits have asserted a variety of theories for
recovery including, but not limited to, violations of the
Securities Act, the Exchange Act, the Advisers Act, the
Investment Company Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA), certain state securities statutes and
common law.  All of these lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of
damages.

On February 20, 2004, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ("MDL Panel") transferred all federal actions to the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
("Mutual Fund MDL"). On March 3, 2004 and April 6, 2004, the MDL
Panel issued orders conditionally transferring the state court
cases against the Company and numerous others to the Mutual Fund
MDL. Transfer of all of these actions subsequently became final.
Plaintiffs in three of these four actions moved to remand the
actions back to state court.  On June 18, 2004, the Court issued
an interim opinion deferring decision on plaintiffs' motions to
remand until a later stage in the proceedings.  Subsequently,
the plaintiff in the state court individual action moved the
Court for reconsideration of that interim opinion and for
immediate remand of her case to state court, and that motion is
pending.  Defendants are not yet required to respond to the
complaints filed in the state court derivative actions.

On September 29, 2004, plaintiffs filed consolidated amended
complaints with respect to four claim types: mutual fund
shareholder claims; mutual fund derivative claims; derivative
claims brought on behalf of Alliance Holding; and claims brought
under ERISA by participants in the Profit Sharing Plan for
Employees of Alliance Capital.  All four complaints include
substantially identical factual allegations, which appear to be
based in large part on the SEC Order.  The claims in the mutual
fund derivative consolidated amended complaint are generally
based on the theory that all fund advisory agreements,
distribution agreements and 12b-1 plans between the Company and
the AllianceBernstein Funds should be invalidated, regardless of
whether market timing occurred in each individual fund, because
each was approved by fund trustees on the basis of materially
misleading information with respect to the level of market
timing permitted in funds managed by the Company.  The claims
asserted in the other three consolidated amended complaints are
similar to those that the respective plaintiffs asserted in
their previous federal lawsuits.


ANDRX CORPORATION: Working To Settle Cardizem CD Antitrust Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrx Corporation is working to resolve and settle several class
actions filed against it and Aventis (formerly Hoechst Marion
Roussell, Inc.) in connection with a patent infringement suit
brought by Aventis with regard to its product Cardizem CD.

The actions pending in federal court have been consolidated for
multi-district litigation purposes in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, with one of the
cases filed by a group of direct purchasers having since been
remanded back to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. The complaint in each action alleges that
Aventis and the Company, by way of the 1997 stipulation, have
engaged in alleged state antitrust and other statutory and
common law violations that allegedly have given Aventis and the
Company a near monopoly in the U.S. market for Cardizem CD and a
generic version of that pharmaceutical product.  Each complaint
seeks compensatory damages on behalf of each class member in an
unspecified amount and, in some cases, treble damages, as well
as costs and counsel fees, disgorgement, injunctive relief and
other remedies.

In June 2000, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan granted summary judgment to plaintiffs finding that
the 1997 stipulation was a per se violation of antitrust laws.
On June 13, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit affirmed the district court's decision.  On October 12,
2004, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review this case.

Essentially reiterating the claims asserted against us in the
aforementioned Cardizem CD antitrust class action litigation and
seeking the same relief sought in that litigation are:

     (1) the May 14, 2001 complaint filed by the attorneys
         general for the states of New York and Michigan, joined
         by 13 additional states and the District of Columbia,
         on behalf of their government entities and consumers
         resident in their jurisdictions, which was subsequently
         amended to add 12 additional states and Puerto Rico to
         the action;

     (2) the July 26, 2001 complaint filed by Blue Cross Blue
         Shield of Michigan, joined by three other Blue Cross
         Blue Shield plans;

     (3) two actions pending in state courts in Florida, and

     (4) two actions pending in state courts in Kansas

On November 26, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan approved a settlement between the direct
purchasers and Aventis and the Company.  In October 2003, the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
approved a settlement between the indirect purchasers and
Aventis and the Company.  In November 2004, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied an appeal of the
District Court's approval of that settlement.  On May 23, 2005,
the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal. On May 31,
2005, a motion was entered granting the plaintiffs motion to
distribute the settlement funds to consumers.

In April 2004, the Company settled its litigation with the four
Blue Cross Blue Shield plaintiffs who opted-out of the
settlement with the indirect purchasers.  The Company also
agreed with all remaining plaintiffs, consisting of the direct
purchaser groups that opted out of the settlement with the
direct purchaser class, upon a methodology for disposing of the
claims asserted by that group after receiving such guidance as
the U.S. Supreme Court may give on the issues raised.  As a
result of that methodology, and the U.S. Supreme Court's
determination that it will not review the decision of the Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the parties have settled this
matter and have dismissed or are in the process of dismissing
all related cases.


ANDRX CORPORATION: FL Court Approves Wellbutrin Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida approved the settlement for the consolidated class
action filed against Andrx Corporation and certain of its
current and former officers and directors for alleged material
misrepresentations regarding the expiration dating for the
Company's generic versions of Wellbutrin SR/Zyban.

Seven complaints were initially filed, alleging that the Company
knew that our products would not receive timely FDA Approval.
All of these cases were consolidated and on October 20, 2003,
the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida against the Company and Richard J. Lane, its former
Chief Executive Officer, alleging a class period from March 1,
2002 through March 4, 2003.

After the District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
this complaint, on March 5, 2004, the plaintiffs further amended
their complaint. This matter was settled in March 2005 for
$2,500. This settlement was approved by the court on October 7,
2005.  The proposed settlement does not require a material
payment by the Company, as the settlement proceeds will mainly
be paid by its insurance carrier.


ANDRX CORPORATION: MI Court Nixes PPA Personal Injury Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Michigan Circuit Court for the County of Ingham dismissed
the class action filed against Andrx Corporation, arising out of
the use of phenylpropanolamine (PPA) in its products.

Beginning in October 2001, 12 product liability lawsuits were
filed against the Company and others.  The actions have been
consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington.  The Company was named in the
suits because we acquired the Entex product from Elan.  While
PPA was at one time contained in Elan's Entex product, the
Company reformulated Entex upon acquiring it from Elan and
eliminated PPA as an active ingredient thereof. All of these
cases were dismissed, either voluntarily or pursuant to court
order.  Notwithstanding a court order dated September 15, 2004,
which dismissed the case and enjoined the re-filing of that case
in state court, in December 2004, the plaintiff in one of those
actions, Laura M. Bonucchi, filed an amended complaint in the
Michigan court, to again name the Company as a defendant in
connection with this matter.  Elan has agreed to indemnify the
Company with respect to this claim. On October 13, 2005, the
Michigan Circuit Court dismissed this matter with prejudice.


APPLE COMPUTER: Appeal Filed Challenging iPod Settlement in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement to a class action lawsuit against Apple Computer,
Inc. that was brought by customers over the iPod's rechargeable
battery is being appealed, holding up resolution of the case,
The Digit LIVE News reports.

Apple representatives confirmed that the settlement over claims
that the company misrepresented the capabilities of the iPod's
rechargeable battery was being appealed. The company though
stressed that it did not file the appeal.

According to a notice posted on the iPod Settlement Web site:
http://www.appleipodsettlement.com/,the appeal was filed on  
October 24, 2005 in the Superior Court of California, County of
San Mateo. As a result, settlement benefits will not be provided
unless and until the appeal is resolved. This process, the Web
site notes, could take an extended period of time (up to a year
or more).

Under the settlement approved by San Mateo County Superior Court
Judge Beth Labson Freeman, customers who bought iPod's first two
models will be entitled to either $25 cash or $50 credit at an
Apple store or if they paid Apple to repair an iPod battery, the
company must refund half of the cost to them. On the other hand,
those who own iPod's third model will be entitled to a free
replacement battery if it fails. Additionally, the settlement
stipulates that affected customers are only those who bought
their iPods before May 31, 2004. These customers must have
experienced battery failure to be eligible and all claims must
be postmarked by September 30, 2005, according to a Web site
created for the settlement, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (September 1, 2005) reports.  

The settlement covered U.S. owners of first, second or third-
generation iPods who purchased their devices before May 31,
2004. For third-generation iPod owners, Apple offered to extend
the one-year warranty for a second year. Third-generation iPod
owners who submit a claim could either get their battery
replaced for free or get a store credit for S$50, that can be
redeemed at the Apple Store online or at kiosks at brick-and-
mortar Apple Store locations.

Consumers who bought a first or second-generation iPod who
experienced a battery failure within two years of purchase could
get a $50 Apple Store credit, or a check payment of $25. And
those first, second or third-generation iPod owners who paid for
a battery replacement under Apple's iPod Battery Replacement
Program would be paid 50 percent of their costs, according to
the agreement.

The suit, which was brought in December 2003 by the San
Francisco-based law firm Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo LLP,
claimed that Apple Computer Inc. misrepresented the durability
and usability of the internal, rechargeable Lithium-Ion battery
in the company's popular personal digital music player.  
Specifically, the suit claimed that Apple failed to disclose
battery limitations on its first three iPod models. The device,
which has a rechargeable battery that cannot be replaced because
of its design, was advertised to have eight hours of play when
fully charged, but users complained that play time gradually
decreased after months of use, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (August 30, 2005) reports.

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


AXIS CAPITAL: Continues To Face Consolidated Stock Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended securities class action
against AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd. and certain of its executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Two suits were initially filed, relating to the practices being
investigated by the Attorney General of the State of New York
and other state regulators.  The suits are styled "James Dolan
v. AXIS Capital Holdings Limited, Michael A. Butt and John R.
Charman" (filed on October 28, 2004) and "Robert Schimpf v. AXIS
Capital Holdings Limited, Michael A. Butt, Andrew Cook and John
R. Charman," (filed on November 5, 2004).

The suits were filed on behalf of purchasers of AXIS Capital
Holdings Ltd. (NYSE: AXS) publicly traded securities during the
period between August 6, 2003 and October 14, 2004 (the "Class
Period").  The complaints charge AXIS and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaints further allege that during the Class Period,
defendants disseminated materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's results and operations. The
true facts, which were known by each of the defendants but
concealed from the investing public during the Class Period,
were as follows:

     (1) that the Company was paying illegal and concealed
         "contingent commissions" pursuant to illegal
         "contingent commission agreements;"

     (2) that by concealing these "contingent commissions" and
         such "contingent commission agreements," the defendants
         violated applicable principles of fiduciary law,
         subjecting the Company to enormous fines and penalties
         totaling potentially tens, if not hundreds, of millions
         of dollars; and

     (3) that as a result, the Company's prior reported revenue
         and income was grossly overstated.

On April 13, 2005, these lawsuits were consolidated and will now
be known as "In re AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd. Securities
Litigation."  The lawsuit alleges securities violations in
connection with the failure to disclose payments made pursuant
to contingent commission arrangements and seeks damages in an
unspecified amount.  On May 13, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an
amended, consolidated complaint and added as defendants the
managing underwriters and one of the selling shareholders in the
Company's secondary offering completed in March 2004.

The suit is styled "Dolan v. AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd. et al.,
case no. 1:04-cv-08564-RJH," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Richard
J. Holwell.  Representing the Company is Benjamin E. Rosenberg
of Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP, 405 Lexington Avenue,
New York, NY 10174, Phone: (212) 891-9231, Fax: (212) 891-9519,
E-mail: benjamin.rosenberg@dechert.com.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia,
Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 406
Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-
mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com.


BEMIS CO.: Discovery Continues in PA Labelstock Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated class action filed
against Bemis Co., Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Morgan
Adhesives Company, in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Fifteen civil lawsuits were initially filed, five of which
purport to represent a nationwide class of labelstock
purchasers.  The suits allege a conspiracy to fix prices within
the self-adhesive labelstock industry.

On November 5, 2003, the Judicial Panel on MultiDistrict
Litigation (JPMDL) issued a decision consolidating all of the
federal class actions for pretrial purposes in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, before
the Honorable Chief Judge Vanaskie.  Judge Vanaskie entered an
order which calls for discovery to be taken on the issues
relating to class certification and briefing on plaintiffs'
motion for class certification to be completed in November 2005.  
At this time, a discovery cut-off and a trial date have not been
set.

The Company has also been named in four lawsuits filed in the
California Superior Court in San Francisco.  Three of these
lawsuits seek to represent a class of all California indirect
purchasers of labelstock and each alleged a conspiracy to fix
prices within the self-adhesive labelstock industry.  These
three lawsuits have been consolidated.  The fourth lawsuit seeks
to represent a class of California direct purchasers of
labelstock and alleges a conspiracy to fix prices within the
self-adhesive labelstock industry.

Finally, the Company has been named in one lawsuit in Vermont,
seeking to represent a class of all Vermont indirect purchasers
of labelstock, one lawsuit in Ohio, seeking to represent a class
of all Ohio indirect purchasers of labelstock, one lawsuit in
Nebraska seeking to represent a class of all Nebraska indirect
purchasers of labelstock, one lawsuit in Kansas seeking to
represent a class of all Kansas indirect purchasers of
labelstock, one lawsuit in Tennessee, seeking to represent a
class of purchasers of labelstock in various jurisdictions, and
one lawsuit in Arizona seeking to represent a class of Arizona
indirect purchasers of labelstock, all alleging a conspiracy to
fix prices within the self-adhesive labelstock industry.

The suit is styled "In Re Pressure Sensitive Labelstock
Antitrust Litigation, case no. 3:03-mdl-01556-TIV," filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, under Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie.  Representing the
Company are:

     (1) Jackson N. Steele, Hamilton Gaskins Fay & Moon PLLC,
         2020 Charlotte Plaza, 201 S. College Street, Charlotte,
         NC 28244-2020, Phone: 704-344-1117

     (2) Frank J. Tunis, Wright & Reihner, P.C., 148 Adams
         Avenue, Scranton, PA 18503, Phone: 570-961-1166, Fax:
         570-9611199, E-mail: fjtunis@wrightreihner.com; and

     (3) Aaron F. Biber, Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen, P.A., 1700
         Pillsbury Center South, 220 South Sixth Street,
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-4511, Phone: 612-339-4295, Fax:
         6123393161, E-mail: abiber@mansfieldtanick.com

Representing the plaintiffs are W. Joseph Bruckner, Yvonne M.
Flaherty and Richard A. Lockridge, Lockridge, Grindal & Nauen
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401-
2179, Phone: 612-339-6900, Fax: 612-339-0981, E-mail:
bruckwj@locklaw.com, flaheym@locklaw.com,
ralockridge@locklaw.com; and Jeremy L. Johnson and Seymour J.
Mansfield, Mansfield Tanick & Cohen, P.A., 1700 U.S. Bank Plaza
South, 220 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402-4511,
Phone: 612-339-4295, E-mail: jjohnson@mansfieldtanick.com or
smansfield@mansfieldtanick.com.  


BLIZZARD ENETRTAINMENT: Parents of Chinese WOW Player Files Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blizzard Entertainment faces a lawsuit filed by two Chinese
parents who claim that their 13-year-old child died when
reenacting a scene in online game, World of Warcraft (WOW), The
Xinhua News Agency reports.

According to the Chinese news agency Xinhua, the boy jumped to
his death while reenacting a scene from the game. The anti-
Internet addiction advocate Zhang Chunliang is backing the
parents in the case.  Zhang Chunliang is supporting other 63
parents whose children have also allegedly suffered from online
gaming addiction and plans to file a class action suit.

China's online game market brought in $580 million this year,
and is the fastest-growing market in the world, according to
research firm DFC Intelligence. That market is set to nearly
triple in size to an estimated $1.7 billion by 2010. There are
around 1.5 million paying World of Warcraft players in China


BOOKHAM TECHNOLOGY: Final Fairness Hearing Set April 2006 in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Bookham Technology plc,
Goldman, Sachs & Co. and FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,
two of the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering
in April 2000, and Andrew G. Rickman, Stephen J.
Cockrell and David Simpson, each of whom was an officer and/or
director at the time of the initial public offering, is set for
April 24,2006 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On November 7, 2001, a Class Action Complaint was filed against
the Company and others in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  On April 19, 2002,
plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint.  The Amended Complaints
assert claims under certain provisions of the securities laws of
the United States.  They allege, among other things, that the
prospectuses for the Company's and New Focus, Inc.'s initial
public offerings were materially false and misleading in
describing the compensation to be earned by the underwriters in
connection with the offerings, and in not disclosing certain
alleged arrangements among the underwriters and initial
purchasers of ordinary shares, in the case of the Company, or
common stock, in the case of New Focus, from the underwriters.
The Amended Complaints seek unspecified damages (or in the
alternative rescission for those class members who no longer
hold ordinary shares, in the case of the Company or common
stock, in the case of New Focus), costs, attorneys' fees,
experts' fees, interest and other expenses.

In October 2002, the individual defendants were dismissed,
without prejudice, from the action.  In July 2002, all
defendants filed Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaints. The
motion was denied as to the Company and New Focus in February
2003. Special committees of the board of directors authorized
the companies to negotiate a settlement of pending claims
substantially consistent with a memorandum of understanding
negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer defendants and
their insurers.

Plaintiffs and most of the issuer defendants and their insurers
have entered into a stipulation of settlement for the claims
against the issuer defendants, including the Company.  Under the
stipulation of settlement, the plaintiff will dismiss and
release all claims against participating defendants in exchange
for a payment guaranty by the insurance companies collectively
responsible for insuring the issuers in the related cases, and
the assignment or surrender to the plaintiffs of certain claims
the issuer defendants may have against the underwriters.  On
February 15, 2005, the Court issued an Opinion and Order
preliminarily approving the settlement providing that the
defendants and plaintiffs agree to a modification narrowing the
scope of the bar order set forth in the original settlement
agreement.  The parties agreed to the modification narrowing the
scope of the bar order, and on August 31, 2005, the court issued
an order preliminarily approving the settlement and setting a
public hearing on its fairness for April 24, 2006.

The suit is styled "In re Bookham Technology, PLC Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," and is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin, under docket number 01 Civ.
9922 (Sas).  The suit is related to In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.).  The
plaintiff firms in this suit are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), Mail:
         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), Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-
         1065, Phone: 212.594.5300,

     (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 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, Mail: 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), Mail: 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, Mail: 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com


CALIFORNIA: Humboldt County Faces Illegal Strip Search Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Mark Merin initiated a class action lawsuit against the
Humboldt County Sheriff's Office in California for what he
alleged is the practice of "illegal strip searches," The Eureka
Reporter reports.

According to Mr. Merin, a Sacramento-based attorney, "Ms.
(Ellin) Spellman, who is the plaintiff in this case, was up
vacationing with a girlfriend (on the North Coast). She was
pulled over for driving (with a blood alcohol level) over the
legal limit . and she was over the legal limit." He specifies
that on September 23, 2004, Ms. Spellman, 23, and her friend
were stopped on their way back to the campsite where they were
staying in Garberville.

Deputies drove Ms. Spellman's friend, whom Mr. Merin alleged was
much more inebriated than his client, back to the campsite,
while Ms. Spellman was arrested on suspicion of driving under
the influence of drugs and/or alcohol and driven by sheriff's
deputies to the Humboldt County jail in Eureka. Mr. Merin told
The Eureka Reporter, "All they were going to do was hold her for
four hours or so until she sobered up. While she was in the jail
she was subjected to a strip search . so her body could be
examined. The way it was done was a little unusual. They had her
strip down several items in the presence of men."

Mr. Merin told The Eureka Reporter that Ms. Spellman was told
she could keep one item of clothing, not including a bra, on the
top half of her body while she was being held. "They claim .
that security concerns require that they have people in their
custody strip down to only one item of clothing on their top,"
according to him.

Humboldt County Sheriff Gary Philp, who told The Eureka Reporter
that his office follows the law pertaining to strip searches and
pat-downs, said about the keeping of one item is true. "We would
give them the option to choose (the item) out of convenience for
them," according to Mr. Philp.

Mr. Merin told The Eureka Reporter that Ms. Spellman wasn't
wearing a bra, but she had a tank top underneath her outer
layers of clothing and did not want to sit in the area in a tank
top, thus, she had to take off her tank top and put on another
shirt while a female deputy stood with her and two male deputies
stood elsewhere in the room. He said her back was to the male
deputies. "She felt extremely uncomfortable. She's a young woman
and she is not in the habit of stripping in mixed company,"
according to Mr. Merin. Typically, Mr. Merin told The Eureka
Reporter, strip searches are not done on individuals who are
arrested for minor, nonviolent crimes if there is not reasonable
cause to believe that they may have weapons or contraband.

Mr. Philp told The Eureka Reporter that he agrees with Mr. Merin
and added that a strip search is not the same as the standard
pat down and removal of extra layers of clothing. However, in a
situation such as the one Ms. Spellman was in, Mr. Philp
explains that a person is given a private area to change in or
typically a deputy of the same gender will hold up a blanket or
stand in front of the person while he or she changes. Noting
that he cannot comment on Ms. Spellman's allegations because
they are the subject of a lawsuit, he told The Eureka Reporter,
"We would not expose a person to the general ogling of officers
or other persons in the area."

As defined in the jail's policies and procedures, a strip search
"requires a person to remove or arrange his or her clothing to
permit a visual inspection of the underclothing, breast,
buttocks or genitalia of such person." Mr. Philp explains, "If
there are certain allegations of violence or narcotics, (a
person) may be strip searched." If an officer thinks a strip
search is necessary, the officer must fill out an affidavit that
needs to be reviewed and approved by a shift manager, according
to Philp. However, Mr. Philp told The Eureka Reporter, "They're
(strip search/affidavit) fairly rare, I'd have to say. There
have to be extenuating circumstances. We do pat-down searches
and if someone has layers of clothing, they will have to remove
some layers."

Mr. Merrin told The Eureka Reporter that his case is expected to
go to trial within the next year and others have joined the
suit, although only Ms. Spellman is named in it. He also told
The Eureka Reporter, "We are seeking an injunction against the
continuation of the illegal practices - that is, they will have
to stop strip searching people without reasonable suspicion
(that those subjected) are carrying contraband or weapons." He
goes on to say, "We are seeking compensatory damages for all
people strip searched illegally at the Humboldt County jail in
the last three years - two years before the filing of the
complaint, February 8. It's the public's job to demand that the
facilities be run in a constitutional way and hopefully in
Humboldt County it will be."


CAPITAL ONE: WV Woman Files Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Bank faces a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
that accuses it of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, The Associated Press reports.

Filed by Earlene West of Gandeeville, the suit alleges that
Capital One acquired several charged-off credit card accounts
from Providian, including Ms. West's. The suit also claims that
Ms. West's account had been previously settled with a debt
collector hired by Providian.  The suit claims that Ms. West
received numerous letters and telephone calls from Capital One
and its collector to settle the debt despite having
documentation to show it had been paid. Ms. West's repeated
written and oral requests for Capital One to stop contacting her
were ignored, according to the suit.

William Bands, one of Ms. West's attorneys told The Associated
press, "This is a case where (Ms. West) played by the very rules
laid down in favor of the credit card companies, but was still
forced to endure harassing phone calls and letters."

Asked for comment on the case, Capital One spokeswoman Tatiana
Stead told The Associated Press, "We don't comment on pending
litigation." Capital One Bank, based in Glen Allen, Virginia, is
a subsidiary of Capital One Financial Corporation in McLean,
Virginia.

The suit is styled, "West v. The Westmoreland Agency, Inc. et
al, Case No. 2:05-cv-00912," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. Representing
the Plaintiffs are: William L. Bands, Harry F. Bell, Jr. and
Harry F. Bell, Jr. of BELL & BANDS, P.O. Box 1723, Charleston,
WV 25326-1723, Phone: 304/347-1700, Fax: 304/347-1715.


CENTERPLATE INC.: Mediation Proceeds in CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action filed against Centerplate, Inc. in
the California Superior Court for Orange County, styled "Holden
v. Volume Services America, Inc. et al." entered mediation in an
attempt to settle the suit.

A former employee at one of the California stadiums the Company
serves initially filed the suit in California state court,
alleging violations of local rules relating to overtime wage,
rest and meal period and related laws with respect to this
employee and others purportedly similarly situated at any and
all of the facilities the Company serves in California. The
Company had removed the case to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, but in November 2003 the
court remanded the case back to the California Superior Court.
The purported class action seeks compensatory, special and
punitive damages in unspecified amounts, penalties under the
applicable local laws and injunctions against the alleged
illegal acts.  

The parties agreed to non-binding mediation in September 2005.  
Mediation is currently proceeding. The Company believes its
business practices are, and were during the period alleged, in
compliance with the law.

In August 2004, a second purported class action, Perez v. Volume
Services Inc, d/b/a Centerplate," was filed in the Superior
Court for Yolo County, California.  "Perez" makes substantially
identical allegations to those in "Holden."  Consequently, the
Company demurred and the case was stayed on November 9, 2004
pending the resolution of "Holden."  As in "Holden," the Company
believes that its business practices are, and were during the
period alleged in "Perez," in compliance with the law.  


CLARK REFINING: Jury Awards $120M To IL Injury Suit Plaintiffs
--------------------------------------------------------------
A jury verdict totaling $120.1 million was reached for
plaintiffs in two of three classes on consolidated class action
lawsuits against a now-defunct oil refinery in Blue Island,
Illinois that was owned by Clark Refining and Marketing, since
renamed Premcor, The NBC5.com reports.

According to a clerk for Circuit Court Judge Cheryl A. Starks,
one successful class sued based on a chemical accident in 1994
that made numerous high school students ill. The other class was
contained in a nuisance complaint against the refinery by
neighbors. The clerk told NBC5.com that the class for the high
school students received $100,000, while the class of neighbors
alleging the nuisance received $80 million in compensatory
damages and $40 million in punitive damages.  The third class,
which was suing for family expenses to pay medical bills, did
not receive any money in the verdict, according to plaintiff
attorney Mary Ann Pohl.

In October 1994, a chemical release from the refinery required
48 students from Eisenhower High School in Blue Island to be
hospitalized, according to a news report. Premcor shut down the
refinery in 2001, according to a news report.


COMMUNITY HOSPITAL: Faces Uninsured Patients' Suit in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the wake of a nationwide trend of lawsuits filed on behalf of
the uninsured, a Southern California attorney launched a class
action suit against Community Hospital of the Monterey
Peninsula, claiming that the nonprofit hospital overcharges
uninsured patients, The Monterey County Herald reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of the estate of Kathleen Mikel, a
74-year-old Monterey resident who died after 17 days in the
hospital and was charged about $214,000. Long Beach attorney
Stephen Garcia told The Monterey County Herald that the amount
was much higher than an insurance company or HMO would have paid
for the same services. Mr. Garcia estimated the amount billed to
an insurance company would have been around $75,000.

The lawsuit comes on the heels of a slew of similar class action
suits filed across the country last year. Mississippi resident
Richard Scruggs, the attorney who took on Big Tobacco and won,
spearheaded the suits. Dozens of those state and federal
lawsuits claim that nonprofit hospitals routinely overcharge the
uninsured and are overly aggressive in their billing and
collection practices. Chief among the complaints are charges
that hospitals charge much more to uninsured patients than
insurance companies, which have traditionally negotiated hefty
discounts.

Mr. Garcia acknowledges the similarity to the Scruggs suits,
which he said are "doing the same things for the same reasons."
He told The Monterey County Herald that because it enjoys the
tax benefits of having nonprofit status, Community Hospital has
a legal obligation to provide "reasonable" rates, meaning they
should be negotiable between the two parties, an option that
according to him was never offered to Ms. Mikel. Mr. Garcia also
told The Monterey County Herald that the woman's bill included
charges for services never rendered, although the complaint does
not provide details.

Asked for comment on the suit, Laura Zehm, the hospital's vice
president of finance told The Monterey County Herald, "I'm
surprised, because that just isn't our policy." Community
Hospital, according to her, never gives discounts to insurers or
HMOs. She also said, "We get the same payment from Blue Shield
or Blue Cross as we do from any patient. I think we're fairly
unique."

That policy does not always go over well with insurers,
according to Ms. Zehm, who have come to expect hefty discounts
from hospitals. She told The Monterey County Herald, "At times
we get pretty strong pushback, but we stand firm on it." She
also told The Monterey County Herald, that Community Hospital
offers a program in which it pays most or all expenses for
patients who make less than three times the federal poverty
level.

Ms. Mikel, according to the suit, entered the hospital April 1,
2005, after suffering from multiple falls, but developed serious
bedsores that became infected. Ultimately, Ms. Mikel died from
the infection April 17.

The suit alleges that as a nonprofit hospital, Community
Hospital has an obligation to provide affordable care, but
instead has been "unjustly enriched" by what the suit describes
as unfair, aggressive and fraudulent billing practices.

Mr. Garcia hopes a judge will grant his case class action
status, because many other uninsured Community Hospital
patients, he said, have had their credit ruined by the
hospital's collection practices. He told The Monterey County
Herald that he was encouraged by the fact that the Scruggs
lawsuits recently met with two major successes in Oregon: one
similar case against a nonprofit hospital was granted class
status by a state judge, while another hospital agreed to
settle.

The complaint does not list a specific amount for damages
sought, but for one of the numerous alleged violations it says
"the class is entitled to the lesser of $500,000 or 1 percent of
Community Hospital's net worth." Mr. Garcia told The Monterey
County Herald that his real aim is changing hospital practices.


CONSECO INC.: Faces Amended Securities Fraud Lawsuit in IN Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated securities class action
against Conseco, Inc. and certain of its former officers in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana.

After its Predecessor (Conseco, Inc., incorporated in Indiana)
announced its intention to restructure on August 9, 2002, eight
purported securities fraud class action lawsuits were filed on
behalf of persons or entities who purchased the Predecessor's
common stock on various dates between October 24, 2001 and
August 9, 2002.  The plaintiffs allege claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act") and allege material omissions and
dissemination of materially misleading statements regarding,
among other things, the liquidity of Conseco and alleged
problems in Conseco Finance Corporation (CFC's) manufactured
housing division, allegedly resulting in the artificial
inflation of the Company's Predecessor's stock price.

On March 13, 2003, all of these cases were consolidated into one
case in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana, captioned "Franz Schleicher, et al. v.
Conseco, Inc., Gary Wendt, William Shea, Charles Chokel and
James Adams, et al., Case No. 02-CV-1332 DFH-TAB."  The
complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages.   The
plaintiffs have filed a consolidated class action complaint with
respect to the individual defendants.

The Company's liability with respect to this lawsuit was
discharged in its Predecessor's plan of reorganization and its
obligation to indemnify individual defendants who were not
serving as an officer or director on the Effective Date is
limited to $3 million in the aggregate under such plan.  This
limit was reached in May 2005.  Its liability to indemnify
individual defendants who were serving as an officer or director
on the Effective Date, of which there is one such defendant, is
not limited by such plan.  

A motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of defendants Shea,
Wendt and Chokel and on July 14, 2005, this matter was
dismissed.  Plaintiffs were given until August 24, 2005 to amend
their complaint. James S. Adams filed for bankruptcy on July 29,
2005, Case No. 1:02-cv-1332-DFH-TAB (Southern District,
Indiana).


CONSECO INC.: Trial in Consumer Fraud Suit Set July 2006 in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated life insurance fraud class action
filed against Conseco, Inc. and certain certain subsidiaries,
including principally Conseco Life Insurance Company ("Conseco
Life") is set for July 2006 in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California.

Numerous purported class action and individual lawsuits  were
initially filed, alleging, among other things, breach of
contract, fraud and misrepresentation with regard to a change
made in 2003 and 2004 in the way cost of insurance charges are
calculated for life insurance policies sold primarily under the
names "Lifestyle" and "Lifetime."  Approximately 86,500 of these
policies were subject to the change, which resulted in increased
monthly charges to the policyholders' accounts.  Many of the
purported class action lawsuits were filed in Federal courts
across the United States.  On June 23, 2004, the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated these lawsuits into the
action now referred to as "In Re Conseco Life Insurance Co. Cost
of Insurance Litigation, Cause No. MDL 1610 (Central District,
California)."

On September 23, 2004, plaintiffs in the multi-district action
filed an amended consolidated complaint and, at that time, added
the Company as a defendant. The amended complaint alleges, among
other things, that the change enabled the Company to add $360
million to its balance sheet. The amended complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages as well
as an injunction that would require the Company to reinstate the
prior method of calculating cost of insurance charges and refund
any increased charges that resulted from the change.  On April
26, 2005, the Judge in the multi-district action certified a
nationwide class on the claims for breach of contract and
injunctive relief. On April 27, 2005, the Judge certified a
statewide California class for injunctive and restitutionary
relief pursuant to California Business and Professions Code
Section 17200 and breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing, but denied certification on the claims for fraud and
intentional misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment. Trial
is currently set to begin on or about July 11, 2006.

Other cases now pending include purported nationwide class
actions in Indiana and California state courts. Those cases
filed in Indiana state courts have been consolidated into the
case now referred to as "Alene P. Mangelson, et al. v. Conseco
Life Insurance Company, Cause No. 29D01-0403-PL-211 (Superior
Court, Hamilton County, Indiana)."  Four putative nationwide
and/or statewide class-action lawsuits filed in California state
courts have been consolidated and are being coordinated in the
Superior Court of San Francisco County under the new caption
"Cost of Insurance Cases, Judicial Council Coordination
Proceeding No. 4384 (Judicial Council of California)."  On
January 25, 2005 an Amended Complaint making similar allegations
was filed in the case captioned "William Schwartz v. Jeffrey
Landerman, Diann P. Urbanek, Metro Insurance, Inc., Samuels
Jacky Insurance Agency, Conseco Life Insurance Company,
Successor to Philadelphia Life Insurance Company, Case No. GD
00-011432 (Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania)."  Additionally, Schwartz filed a purported
nationwide class action captioned "William Schwartz and Rebecca
R. Frankel, Trustee of the Robert M. Frankel Irrevocable
Insurance Trust v. Conseco Life Ins. Co. et al., Case No. GD 05-
3742 (Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania)."

On May 16, 2005 an individual lawsuit was filed in Illinois
captioned "Sidney Bark, Shirley Bark, Marla Bark Dembitz, Caryn
Bark and Toni Bark v. Conseco Life Insurance Company,
Massachusetts General Life Insurance Company, Brown, Brown and
Gomberg, LTD; and Gerald R. Gomberg, Case No. 2005L005353
(Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Law
Division)," which has been removed to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On August 9, 2005,
Conseco Life was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

On May 24, 2005 a lawsuit was filed in Illinois on behalf of a
putative statewide class captioned "William J. Harte,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Conseco Life Insurance Company, Case No. 05CH08925 (Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division)," which has
been removed to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois. On September 6, 2005, the
JPML issued a conditional order to transfer and consolidate the
Harte action with MDL 1610.

On May 25, 2005 an individual lawsuit was filed in California
captioned "Leslie C. Garland, M.D., and the Leslie C. Garland
Irrevocable Trust v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, successor
to Massachusetts General Life Insurance Company and DOES 1
through 50 inclusive, Case No. BC330898 (Superior Court, County
of Los Angeles, California)," which has been removed to the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California and consolidated and coordinated with MDL 1610.

On September 14, 2005, an individual lawsuit was filed in Hawaii
by approximately 800 plaintiffs captioned AE Ventures For Archie
Murakami et al. v. Conseco, Inc. and Conseco Life Insurance
Company and Doe Defendants 1-100; Case No. CV05-00594SOM (U.S.
District Court, District of Hawaii).

The suit is styled "In re Conseco Life Insurance Company Cost of
Insurance Litigation, case no. 2:04-ml-01610-AHM-Mc," filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, under Judge A. Howard Matz.  Representing the
Company is Kirkland & Ellis, 777 S Figueroa St, Ste 3700, Los
Angeles, CA 90017, Phone: 213-680-8400.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Christopher Casper and John Yanchunis, James
Hoyer Newcomer & Smiljanich, 1 Urban Centre, 4830 W Kennedy
Blvd, Ste 550, Tampa, FL 33609, Phone: 813-286-4100; and Timothy
P. Dillon of Timothy P. Dillon Law Offices, 361 Forest Avenue,
Suite 205, Laguna Beach, CA 92651, Phone: 949-376-2800, E-mail:
timothy@dillonlaw.net.


CONSECO INC.: IN Court Grants Approval To ERISA Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana granted final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated class action filed against Conseco, Inc., Conseco
Services LLC and certain of the Company's current and former
officers, styled "Roderick Russell, et al. v. Conseco, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:02-CV-1639 LJM."

In October 2002, Roderick Russell filed the suit on behalf of
himself and purportedly on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated, and on behalf of the ConsecoSave Plan.  The
complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages.  The purported
class action consists of all individuals whose 401(k) accounts
held common stock of the Company's Predecessor (also named
Conseco, Inc.) at any time since April 28, 1999.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by
continuing to permit employees to invest in the Company's
Predecessor's common stock without full disclosure of the
Company's true financial condition.

The Company reached a tentative settlement with the Russell
plaintiffs for $10 million in February 2005, subject to the
negotiation of a final settlement agreement.  The proposed class
action settlement must also be approved by the district court
after a fairness hearing is conducted.  The Company has
established a liability of $10 million for the cost of the
tentative settlement.

The Company will pursue recovery of any settlement in the
Russell matter, from its fiduciary insurance carrier, RLI
Insurance Company (RLI).  However, on February 13, 2004, RLI
filed a declaratory judgment action asking the court to find no
liability under its policy for the claims made in the Russell
matter due to certain releases provided to them pursuant to
RLI's agreement to settle a case involving the Predecessor
related to a different policy coverage, "RLI Insurance Company
v. Conseco, Inc., Stephen Hilbert, et al., Case No. 1:04-CV-
0310DFH-TAB," also pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District, Indiana.  On March 15, 2004, RLI
filed an amended complaint adding Conseco Services as an
additional defendant.  On March 30, 2004, RLI filed a second
amended complaint adding certain individual plan fiduciaries as
defendants. On May 24, 2004, the Company filed its answer to the
second amended complaint and counterclaims for declaratory
judgment and breach of contract.  On September 2, 2004, RLI
filed a motion for judgment on all counterclaims. The court has
stayed this matter until the Russell matter is resolved.

A final settlement agreement has been reached. A fairness
hearing was conducted on October 14, 2005, at which time the
district court signed the final order of approval and dismissed
the case.

The suit is styled "Roderick Russell, et al. v. Conseco, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:02-CV-1639 LJM," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, under Judge
Larry J. McKinney.  Representing the Company are Shannon M.
Barrett, Robert N. Eccles, Garry S. Tell, O'MELVENY & MYERS,
LLP, 1625 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006-4001 Phone:
(202) 383-5300 Fax: (202) 383-5414; and Steven Kenneth Huffer,
Scott A. Weathers, HUFFER & WEATHERS, 151 North Delaware Street
Suite 1850 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317)822-8010 Fax:
(317)822-8088 E-mail: steve_huffer@hufferandweathers.com, and
scott_weathers@hufferandweathers.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) T. David Copley, Garry Gotto, Elizabeth T. Leland, Lynn
         Sarko, KELLER ROHRBACK, L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue Suite
         3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052  Phone: (206) 623-1900 Fax:
         (206) 623-3384 E-mail: dcopley@kellerrohrback.com,
         bleland@kellerrohrback.com, lsarko@kellerrohrback.com

     (2) Carol A. Nemeth, Henry J. Price, Ronald J. Waicukauski,
         Audrey M. Bogard, PRICE WAICUKAUSKI RILEY & DEBROTA 301
         Massachusetts Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone:
         (317) 633-8787 Fax: (317) 633-8797 E-mail:
         cnemeth@price-law.com, hprice@price-law.com,
         rwaicukauski@price-law.com, abougard@price-law.com


CONSECO INC.: CO Appeals Court Upholds Suit Certification Denial
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the District Court of Adams
County, Colorado's ruling denying class certification to the
nationwide lawsuit filed against four of Conseco, Inc.'s
subsidiaries.

The suit, styled "Jose Medina and others similarly situated v.
Conseco Annuity Assurance Company, Conseco Life Insurance
Company, Bankers National Life Insurance Company and Bankers
Life and Casualty Company, Cause No. 01-CV-2465," alleges among
other things breach of contract regarding alleged non-disclosure
of additional charges for those policyholders paying via premium
modes other than annual.

On November 10, 2003, the court denied the plaintiff's motion
for class certification.  On January 26, 2004, the plaintiff
appealed the trial court's ruling denying class certification.
All further proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of
the appeal.  The Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the trial
court's ruling on August 25, 2005. Plaintiffs' counsel has
indicated that they will re-file the case with a smaller
proposed plaintiff class.  


CONSECO LIFE: Reaches Settlement For FL Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco Life Insurance Company settled the consolidated
nationwide class action filed against it in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, styled "In Re
PLI Sales Litigation, Cause No. 01-MDL-1404."  The complaint
alleges, among other things, fraudulent sales and a "vanishing
premium" scheme.  

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment against both
named plaintiffs, which motion was granted in June 2002.  
Plaintiffs appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.  The
11th Circuit, in July 2003, affirmed in part and reversed in
part, allowing two fraud counts with respect to one plaintiff to
survive.  The plaintiffs' request for a rehearing with respect
to this decision has been denied. The Company filed a summary
judgment motion with respect to the remaining claims. This
summary judgment was denied in February
2004.  In March 2004, the remaining plaintiff filed a motion to
substitute plaintiff, to which the Company has objected. The
motion to substitute plaintiff has been denied.

On April 23, 2004, a similar case was filed in the same court,
styled "Harold R. Arthur, individually and as Trustee of the
Harold A. Arthur Revocable Living Trust, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Conseco Life Insurance
Company, Case no. 6:04-CV-587-ORL-31KRS."  The case was
consolidated with the PLI Sales Practices Litigation in May
2004. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on all of
Plaintiff Arthur's claims and the court took that motion under
advisement on February 10, 2005.  The plaintiff's motion for
class certification was denied.  The Company's motion for
summary judgment on Plaintiff Arthur's claim was denied. This
matter has been settled and the case dismissed.


FLEMING COMPANIES: Securities Settlement Hearing Set November 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas, Texarkana Division will hold a fairness hearing for the
proposed $93.95 million settlement in the matter, In re: Fleming
Companies Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 5-03-MD-1530
(TJW). The case was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired Fleming Securities between May 9, 2001 and
February 25, 2003.

The hearing will be held on November 29, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. at
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas, 100 E. Houston St., Marshall, TX 75671.

For more details, contact Claims Administrator, Fleming
Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Heffler, Redetich &
Saitta, LLP, P.O. Box 440, Philadelphia, PA 19105-0440, Phone:
1-800-252-5745.


FLORIDA: Families File Suit Over Inadequate Medicaid Child Care
---------------------------------------------------------------
Five Florida families joined the Florida Pediatric Society and
the Academy of Pediatric Dentistry in launching a lawsuit in
Miami federal court demanding reform of the state's Medicaid
system and alleging that thousands of poor and disabled children
aren't getting the preventive health care services to which
they're entitled, The Sun-Sentinel.com reports.

The lawsuit names Gov. Jeb Bush's top three state health
officials, the heads of the state Agency for Health Care
Administration, the Department of Children & Family Services and
the Department of Health. Modeled after a similar case in
Oklahoma, the suit contends that the state Medicaid program is
violating federal law by operating a health system for the poor
that sets reimbursement rates too low to keep enough doctors and
dentists in the program. The plaintiffs are asking the judge to
expand the suit to a class action.

Dr. Luis St. Petery, a Tallahassee physician and the executive
vice president of the Florida Pediatric Society told The Sun-
Sentinel.com, "We are filing this action because Florida
Medicaid isn't meeting its obligation. By federal law, they are
supposed to ensure that Medicaid children have the same access
to care as the rest of Florida's children."

The lawsuit points to cases in which children's health has been
endangered because they couldn't get medical care. One of those
cases is that of the parents of Blanche Spell, a 16-year-old
Miami girl who has struggled for more than a year with a
Medicaid-funded HMO to get dental treatment. Another case is
that of the mother of Vanessa and Jennifer Patino, also of
Miami, whose daughters also haven't received dental care covered
by the same insurer, Atlantic Dental Inc.

Also named in the lawsuit is the family of Theodore Torchin of
Coral Springs, whose nighttime nursing care was cut off by a
Medicaid insurer. The parents of Thomas and Nathaniel Gorenflo
of Palm Beach Gardens, whose treatments were delayed because too
few specialists in their area would take Medicaid for payment
was also another case cited in the lawsuit.

According to the lawsuit, state health reports found that in the
budget year ending in the fall of 2004, more than 500,000
Medicaid-enrolled Florida children were furnished no preventive
health-care services at all. The suit claims that among children
not getting medical checkups that year were more than 30,000
children young than 12 months, more than 152,000 children
between the ages of 1 and 5, and more than 337,000 children
between the ages of 6 and 18.

State health officials named in the lawsuit, including AHCA
Secretary Alan Levine, who previously told The Sun-Sentinel.com
that the solution to concerns raised in the lawsuit would be
approval of the governor's Medicaid reform plan. The changes,
according to him, would give insurers incentives to make sure
Medicaid recipients get health checkups.


FOUNTAINHEAD TITLE: Suit Settlement to Reimburse MD Homeowners
--------------------------------------------------------------
If a federal judge approves their settlement, thousands of
Marylanders stand to get reimbursed for overcharges by
Fountainhead Title Group, a prominent state title company, The
Baltimore Sun reports.

Once a federal judge signs off on their settlement, the company
will have to pay about 7,100 Maryland homeowners $2 million,
which is about $265 dollars apiece. The settlement stems from a
2003 class action lawsuit, wherein homebuyers complained that
subcontractors hired to do title work for Fountainhead
overcharged them. Title work is essentially the paperwork, or
deed, done to establish property ownership.

Aside from the money, the settlement also calls for the shutting
down of as many as 20 "affiliated businesses" accused of either
charging homeowners for title work that was never done or
double-billing them. The settlement was signed on November 2 but
still needs final approval from a U.S. District Court judge in
Baltimore. According to court papers, the title company did not
admit any wrongdoing under the settlement.

One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the class action
lawsuit filed in 2003 praised the outcome, saying it serves as a
warning to homebuyers. Phillip R. Robinson, an attorney with
Civil Justice Inc., a Baltimore nonprofit public interest group
that helped bring the suit against Fountainhead told The
Baltimore Sun, "The lessons to be learned in this kind of matter
are that homeowners need to ask about every part of their
closing costs. They should also hire their own legal counsel to
review these documents."

The plaintiffs in the case alleged that the title company
violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. That law
allows companies to set up affiliated business partnerships, but
draws a line when it comes to paying partners when no services
are rendered.


FRONT SIGHT: Members Launch RICO Suit in CA V. Company, Founder
---------------------------------------------------------------
Front Sight Firearms Training Institute, a resort-in-the-making
located 30 miles south of Pahrump, Nevada near the Spanish
Trail, faces a class action filed in federal court by at least
three of its members, The Pahrump Valley Times reports.

Filed specifically against founder Ignatius Piazza and Front
Sight Management Incorporated, the suit demands jury trial under
the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)
Act. Stacy James and Michael Schriber of Southern California and
Bill Haag, who maintains a residence in Pahrump, filed the suit
in California, where Front Sight is headquartered.

The 26-page complaint against Front Sight centers on membership
benefits and promises. At the organization's inception in 1998,
memberships were sold to fund construction of shooting ranges.
Free classes for life with memberships that could be willed to
family members were attractive to gun owners who sought
professional training. Additional benefits like home sites were
promised for higher priced memberships.

Certificates to give away to family and friends or sell at
discounted prices have always been part of the allure for
joining the Front Sight First Family membership program. In
fact, it is possible to recoup the full cost of a basic
membership by selling certificates. However, Bill Haag paid
$175,000 for a platinum VIP membership that includes a one-acre
home site and has waited years to build his home on the range on
property that as yet has no road, power, water or sewer service.
Thus he opted to file suit on behalf of any one of the 3,000
students who feel Front Sight has deceived them. "It's time
someone stepped up on behalf of the members," was all Mr. Haag
felt he could say about the court case.

However, Mr. Piazza, the founder and president of Front Sight
Management, had plenty to say about the allegations contained in
the complaint. He told The Pahrump Valley Times, "I have been
keeping my nose to the grindstone and working 12 to 16 hours a
day, six to seven days per week on Front Sight ever since we
broke ground in 1998. I wish the project had moved faster, but
this type of unique resort has never been built before -
anywhere. That presents a number of problems that simply must be
overcome with time."

Speaking about several development deals for the planned
community that he has nixed or that have fallen through in the
past, Mr. Piazza explains, "If we had completed the project a
few years ago on our own, it would never have been as beautiful
or complete as it can be now. The delays have been a blessing in
disguise."


GYMBOREE CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Gymboree Corporation reached an agreement to settle claims
on a California class action wage-and-hour lawsuit, The
Associated Press reports.

As part of the agreement, which is still subject to court
approval, the children's apparel retailer will pay $2.3 million,
payable on a claims-made basis. Although Gymboree does not
expect the settlement to have a material effect on future
earnings, the company lowered fiscal-year earnings projections.

The suit was filed on April 21, 2005 in the Superior Court of
Riverside County, California on behalf of the manager of a
Gymboree store in Temecula, California. It alleges that the
Gymboree failed to pay overtime wages and provide meal breaks,
an earlier Class Action Reporter (May 24, 2005) story reports.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, including interest and
penalties, under the California Labor Code and other statutes.
The complaint also seeks class action status on behalf of the
plaintiff and other managers of Company stores in California. On
May 20, 2005, the Company filed an answer generally denying the
plaintiff's allegations, an earlier Class Action Reporter (May
24, 2005) story reports.


HEALTHTRONICS SURGICAL: Settlement Hearing Set December 1, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division will hold a fairness hearing for the
proposed $2.825 million settlement in the matter, In re:
Healthtronics Surgical Services, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Consolidated Civil Action No. 1:03-CV-2800 (CC). The case was
filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Healthtronics between January 4,
2000 and July 28, 2003.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Clarence Cooper in
the United States Courthouse, 75 Spring St., SW, Atlanta, GA
30303-3361, at 9:30 a.m., on December 1, 2005.

For more details, contact In re: Healthtronics Surgical
Services, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o The Garden City Group,
Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6349, Merrick, NY
11566-9000, Phone: (800) 259-2350; Maya Saxena of Milberg Weiss
Bershad & Schulman LLP, 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 600 Tower
1, Boca Raton, FL 33486, Phone: 561/361-5000, Fax: 15613678400,
E-mail: msaxena@milbergweiss.com; and Lauren S. Antonino, Esq.
of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, Phone: 1-888-873-3999 ext. 6888
or 1-888-873-3999 ext. 6826, E-mail: lantonino@chitwoodlaw.com.



HUB INTERNATIONAL: Continues To Face IL Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hub International, Inc. continues to face a class action filed
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.  The named
plaintiff is a Chicago law firm that obtained its professional
liability insurance through the Company's Chicago hub and claims
that an undisclosed contingent commission was received with
respect to its policy.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Company denied this and the other allegations of the complaint
and said it intended to vigorously defend this case.

The suit is styled "Marren Hogan v. Hub International, Inc., et
al., case no. 2005-CH-01355," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois under Judge Philip L. Bronstein.  Representing
the plaintiff is NISEN & ELLIOTT, 200 W. Adams #2500, Chicago IL
60606, Phone: (312) 346-7800.  Representing the Company is LOWIS
& GELLEN, 200 W. Adams St., #1900 Chicago IL, 60606 Phone:
(312) 364-2500.


HUB INTERNATIONAL: Limited Discovery Proceeds in Insurance Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Limited discovery is proceeding in the consolidated insurance
brokerage fees litigation filed against Hub International, Inc.
and 29 other insurance brokers and insurance companies in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In October 2004, the Company was named as a defendant in a class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court in New
York against 30 different insurance brokers and insurance
companies. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants used the
contingent commission structure to deprive policyholders of
"independent and unbiased brokerage services, as well as free
and open competition in the market for insurance."

In December 2004, the Company was also named as one of multiple
defendants in two identical class actions filed in the United
States District Court in Illinois, with allegations
substantially similar to those in the first case.  In January
2005, the Company was named as one of several defendants in a
third class action filed in the United States District Court in
Illinois, containing allegations substantially similar to those
in the first case and the other Illinois federal class actions.

In the complaints, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that
the defendants were involved in a scheme to manipulate the
market for commercial insurance by steering clients to the
insurer defendants for the purpose of obtaining undisclosed
additional compensation in the form of commissions from insurers
and by engaging in a bid-rigging scheme using false and/or
inflated bids from insurers to clients.  The plaintiffs allege
violations of federal and state antitrust laws, conspiracy and
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) and (d), fraudulent concealment,
misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment
and violation of state unfair and deceptive practices statutes.
The plaintiffs seek monetary relief, including treble damages,
an injunction, costs and other relief, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (April 11,2005) reports.  

On February 17, 2005 the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (JPMDL) transferred the first case as well as three
other class actions in which the Company is not named to the
District of New Jersey.  In August, amended complaints were
filed in the consolidated federal court proceedings pending in
New Jersey (inclusive of the Opticare case and the three federal
class actions previously filed in the State of Illinois) and
styled In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation. The case
has now been divided into two cases, one for employee benefits
and the other for commercial insurance. A handful of allegations
specifically pertaining to the Company have been added, but
remain vague. The judge in these actions has permitted limited
discovery to take place. Further limited discovery is expected
to take place soon.

The OptiCare suit is styled "In Re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation, case no. 2:05-cv-01168-FSH," filed in the United
States District Court in New Jersey, under Judge Faith S.
Hochberg.  Representing the Company is Shawn Patrick Regan,
HUNTON AND WILLIAMS, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 Phone:
212-309-1046.

Representing the plaintiffs are Joseph P. Guglielmo and Edith M.
Kallas, MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN LLP (NYC) One
Pennsylvania Plaza, New York NY 10119 Phone: 212-594-5300; and
Mark C. Rifkin, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP, 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212 545-4600 E-mail:
rifkin@whafh.com.


INFORMATICA CORPORATION: Final Fairness Hearing Set Jan. 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Informatica Corporation,
styled "In re Informatica Corporation Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9922 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.),
related to In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)," is set for January 9,2006 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

Plaintiffs' amended complaint was brought purportedly on behalf
of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock from
April 29, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  It names as defendants
the Company, one of the Company's current officers, and one of
the Company's former officers and several investment banking
firms that served as underwriters of the Company's April 29,
1999 initial public offering and September 28, 2000 follow-on
public offering.

The complaint alleges liability as to all defendants under
Sections 11 and/or 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on
the grounds that the registration statements for the offerings
did not disclose that:

     (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers
         to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for
         excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and

     (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to
         purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
         predetermined prices.

The complaint also alleges that false analyst reports were
issued.  No specific damages are claimed.

Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over
300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000.  The cases were consolidated for
pretrial purposes.  On February 19, 2003, the Court ruled on all
defendants' motions to dismiss.  The Court denied the motions to
dismiss the claims under the Securities Act of 1933.  The Court
denied the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claim against
Informatica and 184 other issuer defendants.  The Court denied
the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims against
the Informatica defendants and 62 other individual defendants.

The Company has decided to accept a settlement proposal
presented to all issuer defendants.  In this settlement,
plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims against the
Informatica defendants, in exchange for a contingent payment by
the insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring
the issuers in all of the IPO cases, and for the assignment or
surrender of control of certain claims the Company may have
against the underwriters.  The Informatica defendants will not
be required to make any cash payments in the settlement, unless
the pro rata amount paid by the insurers in the settlement
exceeds the amount of the insurance coverage, a circumstance
which the Company does not believe will occur.  The settlement
will require approval of the Court, which cannot be assured,
after class members are given the opportunity to object to the
settlement or opt out of the settlement. The Court has set a
hearing date of January 9, 2006 to consider final approval of
the settlement.

The suit is styled "In re Informatica Corp. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," and is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin, under docket number 01 Civ.
9922 (Sas).  The suit is related to In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.).  The
plaintiff firms in this suit are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information on this lawsuit, please visit
http://securities.stanford.edu/1021/INFA01/20020419_r01c_019922.
pdf


INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS: Inks Settlement for DE Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Insight Communications Company, Inc. reached a memorandum of
understanding to settle the consolidated securities class action
filed against it and each of its directors in the Delaware Court
of Chancery.

Between March 7 and March 15, 2005, five purported class action
lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  Three of
the lawsuits also name The Carlyle Group as a defendant.  The
cases were subsequently consolidated under the caption "In Re
Insight Communications Company, Inc. Shareholders Litigation
(Civil Action No. 1154-N)," and on April 11, 2005, a
Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
have breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders of
Insight in connection with a proposal from Sidney R. Knafel,
Michael Willner, together with certain related and other
parties, and The Carlyle Group to acquire all of the
outstanding, publicly-held Class A common stock of the Company.  
The Complaint also alleges that the proposed transaction
violates the Company's Charter and that The Carlyle Group has
aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary duty breaches.  The
Complaint seeks the certification of a class of Company
shareholders; a declaration that the proposed transaction
violates the Company's Charter; an injunction prohibiting the
defendants from proceeding with the proposed transaction;
rescission or other damages in the event the proposed
transaction is consummated; an award of costs and disbursements
including attorneys' fees; and other relief.

On April 15, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary
Injunction seeking an order enjoining the defendants from taking
any steps or acts in furtherance of the proposed transaction,
except in compliance with the duties set forth in "Revlon v.
MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173 (Del. 1976)."  
On April 25, 2005, the Court refused to schedule a hearing on
plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and entered an
order denying that motion, without prejudice to plaintiffs'
ability to re-file the motion, if appropriate, once the special
committee makes a recommendation.

On July 28, 2005, the parties to the action entered into a
memorandum of understanding setting forth the terms of a
proposed settlement of the litigation which, among other things,
provides that the buyers shall proceed with the merger, subject
to the terms and conditions of the merger agreement including
the "majority of the minority" stockholder voting condition, and
under which the defendants admit to no wrongdoing or fault. The
memorandum of understanding contemplates certification of a
plaintiff class consisting of all record and beneficial owners
of the Company's Class A common stock, other than the buyers,
during the period beginning on and including March 6, 2005,
through and including the date of the consummation of the
merger, a dismissal of all claims with prejudice, and a release
in favor of all defendants of any and all claims related to the
merger.  The proposed settlement is subject to a number of
conditions, including consummation of the merger, the
plaintiffs' approval of a definitive settlement agreement and
final court approval of the settlement.


INTERMUNE INC.: CA Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against InterMune,
Inc., its former chief executive officer and former chief
financial officer.

On June 25, 2003, several suits were filed, namely:

     (1) Johnson v. Harkonen and InterMune, Inc., No. C 03-2954-
         MEJ,

     (2) Lombardi v. InterMune, Inc., Harkonen and Surrey-
         Barbari, No. C 03 3068 MJJ

     (3) Mahoney Jr. v. InterMune Inc., Harkonen and Surrey-
         Barbari, No. C 03-3273 SI and

     (4) Adler v. Harkonen and InterMune Inc., No. C 03-3710 MJJ


On November 6, 2003, the various complaints were consolidated
into one case by order of the court, and on November 26, 2003, a
lead plaintiff, Lance A. Johnson, was appointed. A consolidated
complaint titled "In re InterMune Securities Litigation, No. C
03-2954 SI," was filed on January 30, 2004.  The consolidated
amended complaint named the Company, and its former chief
executive officer and its former chief financial officer, as
defendants and alleges that the defendants made certain false
and misleading statements in violation of the federal securities
laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
and Rule 10b-5.  The lead plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's
common stock during the period from January 7, 2003 through June
11, 2003.  

The Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint on April 2, 2004, which was granted in part and
denied in part. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on
August 23, 2004, and the defendant filed in a motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint on October 7, 2004.  

On May 6, 2005 the parties entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement of the litigation pursuant to which the plaintiff
class would receive $10.4 million in exchange for a complete
release of claims set forth in the complaint that arose during
the period August 8, 2002 to June 11, 2003. On June 27, 2005,
the court granted preliminary approval of the Stipulation of
Settlement, ordered that notice be given to the affected
shareholders, and set a date of August 26, 2005 for a hearing on
final approval.  

The suit is styled "Johnson et al v. Harkonen et al., case no.
3:03-cv-02954," filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, under Judge Susan Illston.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Lynda J. Grant of Labaton
Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017,
Phone: 212-907-0700.  Representing the Company are William S.
Freeman and Mary Beth O'Connor of Cooley Godward LLP, Five Palo
Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 9406-2155,
Phone: 650 843-5000, Fax: 650 857-0663, E-mail:
freemanws@cooley.com or mboconnor@cooley.com; and Emilia J.
Mayorga of Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, 100 Spear Street, Suite 1800,
San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415/371-8500, Fax: 415/371-0500,
E-mail: mayorga@kerrwagstaffe.com.  


KENTUCKY: 373 Possible Claimants in Covington Diocese Abuse Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
There are more than 370 potential plaintiffs in a class action
sex abuse lawsuit against the Roman Catholic Diocese of
Covington, but that number may drop before a settlement is
finalized, according to attorneys, The Associated Press reports.

Attorneys told The Associated Press that among the 373
preliminary claims filed by the deadline, some are from people
who previously settled, while others are from people who were
allegedly abused at churches in other dioceses. Bob Steinberg,
an attorney representing the plaintiffs, told The Associated
Press, "For example, we got one from a man who was out of state.
Obviously, he won't be eligible."

The figure was released during recent status conference in the
case in Boone County Circuit Court in Burlington, Kentucky. A
hearing to consider final approval of the settlement is set for
January 9, 2006.

A judge granted approval in July of the proposed class action
settlement between victims of sexual abuse and the Diocese of
Covington. It would compensate victims who were fondled, raped
or sodomized by priests and other church employees.  The amounts
paid out to plaintiffs will depend on the size of the settlement
fund, the number and nature of claims and the severity of each
victim's abuse. The settlement would be among the largest church
sex abuse payouts in the country if the full $120 million were
paid. The Covington Diocese spans 14 counties and has 89,000
parishioners, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November
8, 2005) reports.

Cincinnati-based attorney Stan Chesley filed the class action
lawsuit in Boone County Circuit Court, claiming that 21 priests
and some other workers abused more than 150 victims in the
Diocese of Covington for decades while church officials did
nothing to stop the misconduct. According to the court filings,
from about 1956, information on the sexual abuse of minors by
diocesan priests has been concealed from the public, including
parents of children in schools and parishes where the alleged
perpetrators were assigned, as well as from family members of
employees of the diocese. Specifically, the suit accuses the
diocese, which is just across the Ohio River from Cincinnati, of
a 50-year cover-up of sexual abuse by priests and others, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (February 18, 2003) reports.

Carrie Huff, the attorney for the Diocese of Covington, and Mr.
Chesley, both told The Associated Press that they are optimistic
that a final settlement can be approved in January now that
preliminary claims, or census forms, were already filed. In a
phone interview, Ms. Huff even told The Associated Press that
the census puts the case on course for a final settlement.
"We're hopeful for an amicable solution," she said.

Objections to the settlement are due by December 19, but
according to Mr. Steinberg, "So far, no one has objected." If
the full amount were paid out, the $120 million settlement would
be the largest church sex abuse payout in the country.

Still pending though is a federal lawsuit between the diocese,
the plaintiffs and three insurance companies who are being asked
to pay up to $80 million as part of the settlement. Attorneys
are hopeful that case will settle before January.


MANHATTAN NATIONAL: Continues To Face NM Policyholder Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco, Inc.'s former subsidiary, Manhattan National Life
Insurance Company, continues to face a purported nationwide
class action seeking unspecified damages in the First Judicial
District Court of Santa Fe, New Mexico, styled "Robert Atencio
and Theresa Atencio, for themselves and all other similarly
situated v. Manhattan National Life Insurance Company, an Ohio
corporation, Cause No. D-0101-CV-2000-2817."

The suit alleges among other things fraud by non-disclosure of
additional charges for those policyholders paying via premium
modes other than annual.  Conseco, Inc. retained liability for
this litigation in connection with the sale of Manhattan
National Life in June 2002.


MATCH.COM: Repudiates Baseless Suit Filed by Mathew Evans in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Match.com sought the dismissal of the purported class action
lawsuit filed by Matthew Evans against Match.com on November 10,
2005 in the United States District Court for Los Angeles,
California.

In a statement, the Company said "The lawsuit is based entirely
on fictional accusations, and the woman named in the lawsuit as
a Match.com employee has confirmed in a sworn statement that she
has never been an employee of Match.com, nor was she ever paid
to go on dates with any members or subscribers."

The Company formally demanded that Mr. Evans and his attorneys
voluntarily dismiss this lawsuit as factually baseless. Should
they fail to do so, the Company intends to ask the court to
dismiss the case as soon as possible and seek all available
sanctions and damages from Mr. Evans and his attorneys.

"The suit apparently was filed by Evans and his attorneys on the
basis of no evidence whatsoever and without any investigation of
the facts as required by federal law," said Kristin Kelly,
spokeswoman for Match.com. "We are exposing this suit for what
it is -- a cynical attempt to impugn the good name of Match.com,
at the expense of the millions of quality single people who have
entrusted their emotional futures to us. Rest assured that
Match.com intends to fight back against this totally baseless
attack with all of our resources."


MERIX CORPORATION: Shareholders File Amended OR Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class action lawsuit against Merix Corporation
(NASDAQ: MERX) that was dismissed in September was recently re-
filed, The Business Journal of Portland reports.

The original securities class action lawsuit, (In re Merix
Corporation Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court Case No.
CV 04-826-MO), which was originally filed on June 17, 2004,
named Merix and four of its officers as defendants in a class
action lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws.
Forest Grove-based Merix vigorously defended itself and its
officers with the filing of a motion to dismiss in February
2005. That motion was granted on September 15, 2005, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (September 22, 2005) reports.

According to Merix, the shareholders filed an amended complaint
against the same parties in the original complaint. The amended
complaint now alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making certain alleged inaccurate and
misleading statements in the prospectus used in connection with
the January 2004 public offering. The plaintiff seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of Merix securities in the offering.

The suit is styled, "Central Laborers Pension Fund v. Merix
Corporation et al, Case No. 3:04-cv-00826-MO," filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Oregon, under
Judge Michael W. Mosman. Representing the Plaintiff/s are:
Gregory M. Castaldo, Stuart L. Berman, Darren J. Check, Sean M.
Handler and Andrew L. Zivitz of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Three
Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone:
(610) 667-7706, Fax: (610) 667-7056, E-mail:
sberman@sbclasslaw.com, dcheck@sbclasslaw.com,
shandler@sbclasslaw.com and azivitz@sbclasslaw.com; and Lori G.
Feldman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, 1001 Fourth
Ave., Suite 2550, Seattle, WA 98154, Phone: (206) 839-0730, Fax:
(206) 839-0728, E-mail: lfeldman@milbergweiss.com. Representing
the Defendants are: Richard L. Baum of Perkins Coie, LLP, 1120
NW Couch St., 10th Floor, Portland, OR 97209-4128, Phone:
(503) 727-2021, Fax: (503) 727-2222, E-mail:
baumr@perkinscoie.com; and Joseph E. Bringman, Ronald L.
Berenstain and Douglas W. Greene, III of Perkins Coie, LLP, 1201
Third Ave., Suite 4800, Seattle, WA 98101-3099, Phone:
(206) 359-8501, (206) 359-8477 and (206) 359-8613, Fax:
(206) 359-9000, (206) 359-9477 and (206) 359-9613, E-mail:
jbringman@perkinscoie.com, RBerenstain@perkinscoie.com and
DGreene@perkinscoie.com.


MOLINA HEALTHCARE: New Mexico Unit Faces Pharmacy Fees Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Molina Healthcare, Inc.'s New Mexico health management
organization (HMO) faces a class action lawsuit brought by New
Mexico pharmacies and pharmacists in the Second Judicial
District Court, State of New Mexico, styled "Starko, Inc., et
al. v. NMHSD, et al., No. CV-97-06599."

The lawsuit was originally filed in August 1997 against the New
Mexico Human Services Department (NMHSD).  In February 2001, the
plaintiffs named HMOs participating in the New Mexico Medicaid
program as defendants, including the predecessor of the New
Mexico HMO. Plaintiff asserts that NMHSD and the HMOs failed to
pay pharmacy dispensing fees under an alleged New Mexico
statutory mandate. Discovery has recently commenced.

Under the terms of the stock purchase agreement pursuant to
which the Company acquired Health Care Horizons, Inc., the
parent company to the New Mexico HMO, an indemnification escrow
account was established and funded with $6,000 in order
indemnify the Company's New Mexico HMO against the costs of such
litigation and any eventual liability or settlement costs.
Currently, $4,416 remains in the indemnification escrow fund.


MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Securities Lawsuits Consolidated in CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Molina Healthcare, Inc. faces a consolidated securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  The suit also names as defendants J.
Mario Molina, John C. Molina, and other officers, directors, and
employees.

Beginning on July 27, 2005, a series of securities class action
complaints were filed on behalf of persons who acquired the
Company's common stock between November 3, 2004 and July 20,
2005.  The Federal Actions purport to allege claims against the
Company, for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 arising from the Company's issuance and subsequent
revision of its earnings guidance for the 2005 fiscal year.  The
Federal Actions have been consolidated into a single action,
Case No. CV 05-5460 (SHx), and two motions are currently pending
for appointment as lead plaintiff.


NOVARTIS OPHTHALMICS: Recalls Products Due to Sterility Concerns
----------------------------------------------------------------
Novartis Ophthalmics is voluntarily recalling a total of seven
lots of two products intended for use in the eye. Novartis
Ophthalmics takes its mission of patient care and providing
quality products very seriously, and therefore, believes it is
necessary to take this precautionary action. The recalls are
being conducted with the knowledge of the FDA.

Novartis Ophthalmics is recalling five lots of GenTealr Gel, a
non-prescription drug product used to relieve dryness of the
eye.

The five lots of GenTealr Gel being recalled are: Lot #Z12468,
10 ml, expiration date 01/2006; Lot #Z12912, 3.5 ml, expiration
date 03/2006; Lot #Z12900, 10 ml, expiration date 04/2006; Lot
#Z13161, 10 ml, expiration date 05/2006; and Lot #Z13314, 3.5
ml, expiration date 06/2006. The five lots include about 142,500
tubes that were distributed nationwide from March to November
2004.

The GenTealr Gel recall is being conducted following concerns
regarding sterility of the product made for Novartis by a
contract manufacturer. Additional sterility tests were conducted
on several lots of GenTealr Gel. Test results indicated the
presence of mold in a small number of samples, leading Novartis
to initiate a recall of the five lots. The species of mold that
is suspected is generally not harmful, but has the potential to
cause an eye infection in susceptible people, especially in
those with compromised immune systems.

Novartis Ophthalmics is also recalling two lots of GenTealr
GelDrops. The two lots are Lot #51139, 15 ml, expiration date
07/2007; and Lot #51283, 25 ml, expiration date 07/2007. The two
lots include about 12,000 dropper bottles that were distributed
nationwide in October 2005.

The GenTealr GelDrops lots are being recalled due to a lack of
sterility assurance. While the risk of potential contamination
is believed to be very low, contaminated product could cause
infections in susceptible people, and Novartis initiated the
recall as a precautionary measure. The sterility assurance
issues have been corrected. Only the two distributed GenTealr
GelDrops lots are affected.

Consumers who have purchased GenTealr Gel or GenTealr GelDrops
with any of these lot numbers should contact Novartis
Ophthalmics at 1-866-393-6336.


OLIN CORPORATION: AL Judge Denies Certification For Mercury Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge William Steele denied class action status
for hundreds of residents who sued Olin Corporation over alleged
mercury pollution of their property near the company's plant in
McIntosh, Alabama, The Associated Press reports.

With the federal judge's ruling, those filing suit can proceed
with individual cases. However, the plaintiffs' attorney, Hugh
Lambert of New Orleans, told The Associated Press that he would
appeal the decision. He said that the judge's ruling "just makes
it more complicated."

In an e-mailed statement, Olin officials told the Mobile
Register that the company is "pleased that the court has
confirmed that the claims in this case are not appropriate for
class certification and that only individual claims, if any
exist, can be pursued in court." The letter goes on to state,
"If the individual decides to proceed in a separate case, we
believe Olin will demonstrate that it has acted and continues to
act appropriately and responsibly."

In his ruling Judge Steele cited that three of the four people
named in the case, who were chosen to represent the hundreds of
residents filing suit could not prove that their property was
contaminated by mercury. For that reason, they were disqualified
from representing the others seeking to join the suit.

With regards to the fourth person, Daisy Mae Pressley, Judge
Steele ruled that she had waited too long to file a lawsuit. The
judge though did allow that Ms. Pressley could proceed with two
parts of the claim that fall under a longer statute of
limitations.

Ms. Pressley's lawyers argued that the statute of limitations
should not be applied to their clients because Olin officials
continue to contend publicly that mercury from the plant has not
contaminated the community. However, Judge Steele rejected that
argument writing, "It is the rare defendant who does not deny
wrongdoing prior to and during class action litigation,
especially where millions of dollars may be at stake."

The suit was filed in Mobile, Alabama on August 25, 2003. Olin,
based in Clayton, Missouri used mercury to produce chlorine at
its south Alabama plant for more than 20 years, beginning in the
early 1950s. The use of mercury ended in 1974 and the plant
closed in 1982.

The suit is styled, LaBauve, et al v. Olin Corporation, et al,
Case No. 1:03-cv-00567-WS-B," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, under Judge
William H. Steele with referral to Judge Sonja F. Bivins.
Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Fred D. Gray of Gray, Langford, Sapp, McGowan & Gray,
         P.O. Box 239, Tuskegee, AL 36083, Phone: 205-727-4830,
         E-mail: fgray@glsmgn.com;

     (2) Michael T. Howell, Dennis C. Reich and Michael T.
         Howell of Reich & Binstock, LLP, 4265 San Felipe, Ste.
         1000, Houston, TX 77027, Phone: (713) 622-7271, E-mail:
         mhowell@reichandbinstock.com,
         dreich@reichandbinstock.com and
         mhowell@reichandbinstock.com;

     (3) Hugh P. Lambert and Linda J. Nelson of Lambert and
         Nelson, 701 Magazine St., New Orleans, LA 70130, Phone:
         504-581-1750, E-mail: hlambert@lambertandnelson.com and
         lnelson@lambertandnelson.com; and

     (4) C. Mark Whitehead, III, 610 Baronne St., New Orleans,
         LA 70113, Phone: 504-586-8899, E-mail:
         cmw@whiteheadfirm.com.

Representing the Defendant/s are:

     (i) Marc E. Bradley of 1359 Dauphin St., Mobile, AL 36604,
         Phone: 251-432-2855, Fax: 251-432-2863, E-mail:
         meb@tokhmobile.com;

    (ii) Adam E. Miller, Jerry K. Ronecker and Michael H.
         Wetmore of Husch & Eppenberger, LLC, 190 Carondelet
         Plaza, Suite 600, St. Louis, MO 63105, Phone: (314)
         480-1500, E-mail: adam.miller@husch.com,
         jerry.ronecker@husch.com and Michael.Wetmore@husch.com;

   (iii) John K. Power of Husch & Eppenberger, LLC, 1200 Main
         St., Suite 1700, Kansas City, MO 64105, Phone: (816)
         421-4800, E-mail: John.Power@husch.com; and

    (iv) Edward P. Turner, Jr. and Halron W. Turner of Turner,
         Onderdonk, Kimbrough & Howell, P.O. Box 1389, Chatom,
         AL 36518-1389, Phone: (251) 847-2237, Fax: 2518473115,  
         E-mail: ept@tokh.com and hwt@tokh.com.


OPENTV CORPORATION: Final NY Fairness Hearing Set April 24,2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against OpenTV Corporation,
certain of its officers and directors and certain investment
banks which acted as underwriters for the Company's initial
public offering, is set for April 24,2006 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The consolidated suit, styled "In re OpenTV Corp. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," alleges undisclosed and
improper practices concerning the allocation of our initial
public offering shares, in violation of the federal securities
laws, and seek unspecified damages on behalf of persons who
purchased OpenTV Class A ordinary shares during the period from
November 23, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  The Court has
appointed a lead plaintiff for the consolidated cases.  On April
19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

Other actions have been filed making similar allegations
regarding the initial public offerings of more than 300 other
companies.  All of these lawsuits have been coordinated for
pretrial purposes as "In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation."  Defendants in these cases filed an omnibus motion
to dismiss on common pleading issues.  Oral argument on the
omnibus motion to dismiss was held on November 1, 2002.  All
claims against the Company's officers and directors have been
dismissed without prejudice in this litigation pursuant to the
parties' stipulation approved by the Court on October 9, 2002.  

On February 19, 2003, the Court denied in part and granted in
part the omnibus motion to dismiss filed on behalf of
defendants, including the Company. The Court's Order dismissed
all claims against the Company except for a claim brought under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The Court has given
plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their claims in order to
state a claim.  Plaintiffs have not yet filed an amended
complaint.  Plaintiffs and the issuer defendants, including the
Company, have agreed to a settlement, in which plaintiffs will
dismiss and release their claims in exchange for a guaranteed
recovery to be paid by the insurance carriers of the issuer
defendants and an assignment of certain claims.  
On February 15, 2005, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement contingent on specified modifications.  

On August 31, 2005, the Court entered an order confirming its
preliminary approval of the settlement. A hearing on the
fairness of the settlement to the shareholder class is set for
April 24, 2006.

The suit is styled "In re OpenTV Corporation Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," related to "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 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, Mail: 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


RED ROBIN: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuits in CO
--------------------------------------------------------------
Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado to dismiss a shareholder
class action filed against it, its former chief executive
officer and former chief financial officer.

On August 15, 2005, Andre Andropolis filed the suit on behalf of
himself and all other purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the putative class period of November 8, 2004 through
August 11, 2005.  On September 30, 2005, Mark Baird filed a
similar purported class action complaint in the same court on
behalf of himself and the same class of stockholders as defined
in the Andropolis Complaint.

Both complaints allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and both complaints allege that the defendants caused
the Company's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial statements and business
prospects and by concealing improper self dealing by the
Company's former chief executive officer. These complaints seek
certification of the class, an award of damages to the class and
the payment of attorneys' fees.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the Andropolis
Complaint that is currently pending before the court. Two groups
of plaintiffs and their counsel have applied to the court to be
designated as lead plaintiff and lead counsel under the
applicable federal statutes.  Those applications are pending
before the court. The Company has not been served with the Baird
Complaint. Neither Mr. Baird nor his counsel has applied to the
court to be appointed lead plaintiff or lead counsel.


SONY BMG: EFF Lodges Suit in CA Over Copy Protection Technology
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) initiated a class
action lawsuit against Sony BMG Entertainment, demanding that
the company further address problems related to the
controversial "rootkit"-style copy-protection mechanism that it
shipped on an estimated 24 million music CDs, eWEEK.com reports.  

Filed in Los Angeles County Superior court, the suit alleges
that two different types of rootkit DRM (digital rights
management) software were installed on the computers of
"millions of unsuspecting music customers" when they played
affected CDs on devices running Microsoft Corporation's Windows
operating system. In its filing the EFF claims that though they
laud Sony for taking initial steps to fix issues related to one
form of the rootkit, known as First4Internet XCP, a second
variation of the software, labeled as SunnComm MediaMax, was not
been addressed and affects 20 million of the involved music CDs.

The EFF, which is joined by the law firms of Green Welling, and
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins in the class
action suit, claims that the MediaMax software installs itself
on computers even when users choose not to run the application
and that it does not include any feature for deleting the
program entirely. The lawsuit claims that the rootkit software
transmits information on individual usage habits back to Sony
BMG, including details of what music people listen to, thus
allowing the company to spy on customers and track their habits.

In addition, the EFF claims that when consumers repeatedly
requested an uninstaller for MediaMax they were eventually
provided one, but not before being forced to share even more
personally identifying information. It also contends in its suit
that a program designed to remove the DRM software from affected
machines creates additional security vulnerabilities.

The entertainment giant originally included the DRM software on
its music CDs to protect against piracy of the content on the
discs. However the EFF and numerous industry experts maintain
that the applications secretly degrade device performance, open
security vulnerabilities, and automatically install updates
through an Internet connection to Sony BMG's servers. By some
estimates, the only method of completely deleting the software
is to reformat a computer's entire hard drive.

Aside from seeking a full refund for music CDs that carry the
rootkits, EFF is also asking that Sony BMG reword the licensing
agreement it asks consumers to approve if they choose to install
its DRM applications. The group calls the current agreement
"outrageous" and "anti-consumer" based on the terms of the
license which require consumers to delete digital copies of
content if they declare bankruptcy or in the case that their
houses are robbed.

EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl told eWEEK.com, "We've tried to
work with Sony BMG, and they responded, but they haven't
addressed all of our concerns related to privacy, MediaMax, or
refunding the cost of CDs to consumers." He goes on to say, "Nor
have they publicized the recall program and when you consider
how much effort they undertook in marketing these CDs to people
in the first place, that's not much to ask."

Mr. Opsahl also told eWEEK.com that many people who have
purchased CDs carrying the rootkit software will never know
about it unless Song BMG goes to great lengths to inform the
public. He is hoping that the court system will order the
entertainment company to do just that and refrain from using
similar tactics in the future. He also told eWEEK.com, "It's a
very misguided effort on the part of the company; they want
people to do the right thing and pay for their CDs, and then
they punish people who do that by installing spyware and
damaging their security. Sony BMG is invading people's privacy,
and they need to do more to regain the public's trust and show
that this problem is being solved and won't happen again."

Aside from this case, Sony is also facing other suits related to
the rootkits. One of those suits was filed on November 1, 2005,
in Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles in California.
That suit is asking the court to prevent Sony from selling
additional CDs protected by the anti-piracy software. In
addition, the suit seeks monetary damages for California
consumers who purchased them, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (November 10, 2005) reports.

The suit alleges that Sony's software violates at least three
California statutes, including the "Consumer Legal Remedies
Act," which governs unfair and/or deceptive trade acts; and the
"Consumer Protection against Computer Spyware Act," which
prohibits software that takes control over the user's computer
or misrepresents the user's ability or right to uninstall the
program. It also alleges that Sony's actions violate the
California Unfair Competition law, which allows public
prosecutors and private citizens to file lawsuits to protect
businesses and consumers from unfair business practices, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 10, 2005) reports.  

Attorney Scott Kamber filed the other suit, which could
potentially include consumers in all 50 states, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. It names
Sony and First4Internet, the company that produced the anti-
piracy software (a technology the company dubbed XCP) as
defendants. The suit's two named plaintiffs are, James
Michaelson from Illinois and an Ori Edelstein from New Jersey.
The suit claims, "To date, over 3 million copies of XCP encoded
disks have been sold. It is probable that millions of consumers
have played these discs on their PC's and thus compromised their
systems without knowing it," an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (November 16, 2005) reports.  


VIRBAC CORPORATION: Suit Settlement Hearing Set December 1, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Forth Worth Division will hold a fairness hearing for the
proposed $3.125 million settlement in the matter, Martine
Williams, et al. v. Vibrac Corporation, et al., Civil Action No.
4:03-CV-1461-Y [Consolidated with 4:04-CV-037-Y]. The case was
filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Vibrac Common stock between May 3, 2001 and November
12, 2003.

The hearing will be held on December 1, 2005, at 10:00 a.m.,
before the Honorable Terry R. Means, at the United States
Courthouse, 501 West 10th St., Forth Worth, TX 76102-3673.

For more details, Williams v. Vibrac Corporation Securities
Litigation, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims
Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6339, Merrick, NY 11566-9000,
Phone: (800) 261-2291, Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com
or Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq. or Kay E. Sickles, Esq. of Schiffrin
& Barroway, LLP by Mail: 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA
19087 or by Phone: (610) 667-7706.


WAL-MART STORES: Attorneys Commence Amended Janitors' Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys seeking class action status for illegal immigrants who
worked as Wal-Mart janitors amended their lawsuit to include
newly released information from a federal probe which according
to them shows that the Arkansas-based retailer conspired with
contractors to use cheap undocumented labor, The Associated
Press reports.

The lawsuit seeks overtime pay and other damages from Wal-Mart
Stores Inc. A federal judge in Newark, New Jersey gave the
undocumented Wal-Mart Stores contract workers the right to seek
out colleagues and form a group to collectively sue the company
for unpaid overtime and minimum wage violations last month, but
dismissed an allegation that the world's largest retailer
violated federal racketeering laws.

Filed in U.S. District Court in Newark, the amended complaint
also now seeks to reinstate the conspiracy charge by using
information from an affidavit filed by the Bureau of Immigration
and Customs Enforcement that was unsealed recently at the
request of New York attorney James L. Linsey, who represents
more than 200 former janitors in the civil lawsuit.

The affidavit was part of an investigation of the Arkansas-based
retail giant by federal immigration officials that led to the
2003 raid on 60 Wal-Mart stores in 21 states, and the arrests of
245 illegal workers. In that affidavit, which the bureau
originally filed to secure search warrants for a 2003 raid on
Wal-Mart's headquarters in Bentonville, Arkansas, investigators
said that testimony and taped conversations from 2003 showed two
executives at Wal-Mart headquarters knew that contractors and
subcontractors cleaning its stores in several states employed
illegal immigrants from Eastern Europe and elsewhere, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (November 9, 2005) reports.

Additionally, the amended lawsuit also alleges that the
affidavit and additional information from a former contractor
show that Wal-Mart executives conspired with several contractors
to hire illegal immigrants who were paid $1,500 a month or less
to clean Wal-Mart stores seven days a week with no overtime or
benefits.

Though Wal-Mart did not immediately reply to requests for
comment, it did previously state that there was no incriminating
evidence in the newly released affidavit. It also said that no
company senior official had any direct knowledge that
undocumented workers were working in its stores.

The is suit styled, "ZAVALA, et al v. WAL-MART CORPORATION, et
al, Case No. 2:03-cv-05309-JAG-MCA," filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, under Judge
Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr. with referral to Madeline C. Arleo.
Representing the Plaintiff/s are: JAMES L. LINSEY of COHEN,
WEISS & SIMON, 330 WEST 42ND ST., 25TH FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY
10036, Phone: 212 356-0214, E-mail: jlinsey@cwsny.com.
Representing the Defendant is ROBERT H. BERNSTEIN of REED SMITH,
LLP, ONE RIVERFRONT PLAZA, 1ST FLOOR, NEWARK, NJ 07102-5400,
Phone: (973) 621-3206, Fax: (973) 621-3199, E-mail:
rbernstein@reedsmith.com.


WILLIS GROUP: CA Suit Reactivation Hinges on High Court Decision
----------------------------------------------------------------
The reactivation of a proceeding filed against Willis Group
Holdings, Inc. hinges on a California Supreme Court decision
whether newly passed legislation on compensation arrangements
between insurance companies and its carriers should have
retroactive application.

In August 2004, United Policyholders, an organization purporting
to act in a representative capacity on behalf of the California
general public, filed a proceeding in the Superior Court of the
State of California.  The suit alleges that the compensation
arrangements between the Company and insurance carriers
constitute deceptive trade practices, and it seeks both
injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution.

That action was dismissed in December 2004. The dismissal of the
complaint was based on the retroactive application of newly
passed legislation. The Supreme Court of California is presently
considering whether this newly passed legislation should have
retroactive application.  The court's decision will determine
whether this case will be reactivated.


WILLIS GROUP: Faces Insurance Brokerage Frees Fraud Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Limited faces class actions filed in
various courts, seeking monetary damages and equitable relief
and make allegations regarding the practices and conduct that
has been the subject of the investigation of state attorneys
general and insurance commissioners, including allegations that
the brokers are breaching their duties to their clients by
entering into contingent compensation agreements with either no
disclosure or limited disclosure to clients, of bid rigging,
tying, and of the improper use of affiliated wholesalers.  

Since August 2004, various plaintiffs have filed purported class
actions, in New York, Illinois, California, New Jersey,
Massachusetts, and Florida, under a variety of legal theories,
including state tort, contract, fiduciary duty and statutory
theories, and federal antitrust and Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) theories, and the Company
expects that further suits may be filed.

Other than a federal suit in Illinois that was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff in May 2005, all of the federal
actions have been consolidated into two actions in federal court
in New Jersey. One of the consolidated actions addresses
employee benefits, while the other consolidated action addresses
all other lines of insurance.

In addition to the two federal actions, the Company has also
been named as a defendant in purported class actions in state
courts in Florida and Massachusetts.  Both the consolidated
federal actions and the state actions name various insurance
carriers and insurance brokerage firms, including the Company,
as defendants.  The complaints seek monetary damages and
equitable relief and make allegations regarding the practices
and conduct that has been the subject of the investigation of
state attorneys general and insurance commissioners, including
allegations that the brokers are breaching their duties to their
clients by entering into contingent compensation agreements with
either no disclosure or limited disclosure to clients, of bid
rigging, tying, and of the improper use of affiliated
wholesalers. The complaints also allege the existence of a
conspiracy among the insurance carriers and brokers and the
federal court complaints allege violations of the federal RICO
statute.


WILLIS GROUP: Enters Mediation For Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Ltd. entered mediation for a federal
district court action filed on behalf of an alleged nationwide
class of present and former female officer and officer
equivalent employees, alleging that the Company discriminated
against them on the basis of their gender.  The suit seeks
injunctive relief, money damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

To date the court has denied plaintiffs' motions to certify a
nationwide class or to grant nationwide discovery, but has
certified a class of female officers and officer equivalent
employees based in the Company's Northeast (New York, New Jersey
and Massachusetts) offices.  The company believes that the
purported class consists of approximately 200 women, but it
believes that the class certification is improper.  The Company
filed a petition for an immediate appeal of the class
certification ruling which was denied. Even if the judge's class
certification ruling is ultimately upheld on appeal, the Company
believes that it has valid defenses to the discrimination claims
on the merits.  The parties recently participated in mediation
before a court appointed mediator which has not yet brought
about a settlement.



                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

GENERAL MOTORS: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges MI Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP,
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, against General
Motors Corporation ("General Motors", "GM", or the "Company")
(NYSE:GM), on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
General Motors during the period from April 18, 2001 to November
9, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Also named as
Defendants are G. Richard Wagoner, Jr., Chief Executive Officer
and President from June 1, 2000 until May 2003, John M. Devine,
Chief Financial Officer and Vice Chairman of the Board since
January 2001, and Peter Bible, Chief Accounting Officer. The
class action is seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that Defendants' inflated the Company's
annual results for 2001 - 2004 and quarterly results for 2005.
The complaint further alleges that Defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded that the Company's inflated financial results were
due to improper accounting practices related to booking credits
from suppliers, as well as valuing investments in other
companies, which overstated the Company's revenues, cash flow,
earnings and asset valuations.

On November 9, 2005, GM revealed that its income for fiscal year
2001 had been overstated by as much as $300-400 million -
equivalent to about 50% of the profit it reported at the time -
by "erroneously" booking credits from suppliers. The Company
also revealed that it was conducting an internal review of the
accounting for credits it had received from suppliers during
fiscal years 2001-2005; that, as of September 30, 2005, its
controls and procedures for evaluating assets were materially
flawed.

In response to these revelations, GM's stock price fell $1.12
per share on unusually heavy trading, representing a 4.5%
decline in the stock's value.

The announcement followed on the heels of the Company's October
5, 2005 disclosure that it had overstated by $850 million the
value of its stake in Fuji Heavy (best known as the maker of
Subaru automobiles). The writeoff of this amount increased GM's
quarterly loss to $1.07 billion, nearly four times the loss
previously reported.

For more details, contact Teresa Webb or Carolyn Moskowitz of
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, Phone: Phone:
(888) 476.6529, E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com or
csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com, Web site: http://www.pomlaw.com.


IMERGENT INC.: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Fraud Suit in UT
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Utah on behalf all purchasers who purchased Imergent
Inc. ("Imergent" or the "Company") (AMEX:IIG) common stock
during the period from November 26, 2001 through October 7,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), who still held the stock
as of August 19, 2005.

The action charges Imergent and certain of its senior officers
as well as its former auditor with violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The alleged violations stem from the
dissemination of false and misleading statements, which had the
effect - during the Class Period - of artificially inflating the
price of Imergent's shares.

Investors allege that during the Class Period, the Company
issued false and misleading financial statements that were not
presented in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles ("GAAP") and violated the 1934 Act. Imergent has
since admitted as much and has restated financial results for
fiscal years (ended June 30) 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. On
August 19, 2005, when the Company first publicly admitted to
inaccurate reporting, shares of Imergent fell 12%. Subsequently,
as additional news of accounting review surfaced and the Company
terminated its auditor, shares of Imergent fell below $4 per
share.

For more details, contact Vivian Lee of Kirby McInerney &
Squire, LLP, 830 Third Ave., 10th Floor, New York, NY 10022,
Phone: (212) 317-2300 or (888) 529-4787, E-mail:
vlee@kmslaw.com, Web site: http://www.kmslaw.com.


INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: Brian Felgoise Lodges CA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Interlink
Electronics, Inc. (NASDAQ: LINK) securities between April 24,
2003 and November 1, 2005, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, against the company and certain
key officers and directors. The action charges that defendants
violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more detail, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq., 261 Old York
Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA 19046, Phone: (215) 886-1900, E-
mail: FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net.


INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: Charles J. Piven Files CA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Interlink
Electronics, Inc. (NASDAQ: LINKE) between April 24, 2003 and
November 1, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California against defendant Interlink
Electronics, Inc. and one or more of its executive officers. The
action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

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


MOTIVE INC.: Dyer & Shuman Sets January Lead Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Dyer & Shuman, LLP, is encouraging persons who
purchased the common stock of Motive, Inc. (NASDAQ: MOTV)
between July 11, 2005 and October 26, 2005 ("Class Members") to
contact Kip B. Shuman of Dyer & Shuman, LLP at 1-800-711-6483 or
via email at KShuman@DyerShuman.com, or their counsel of choice,
concerning their rights and interests as potential class members
in the shareholder class action lawsuit recently filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
against Motive, Inc. The lawsuit alleges that Motive, Inc.
violated federal securities laws by issuing material
misrepresentations to the market.

The firm reminds investors that they have until January 2, 2006
to file for lead plaintiff in the case.

For more details, contact Kip B. Shuman of Dyer & Shuman, LLP,
Phone: 1-800-711-6483, E-mail: KShuman@DyerShuman.com, Web site:
http://www.dyershuman.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
Oppenheimer 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 Oppenheimer mutual funds and their respective symbols are as
follows:

Oppenheimer AMT-Free NY Municipal
  (NASDAQ: OPNYX) (NASDAQ: ONYBX) (NASDAQ: ONYCX)
Oppenheimer AMT-Free Municipals
  (NASDAQ: OPTAX) (NASDAQ: OTFBX) (NASDAQ: OMFCX)
Oppenheimer Balanced
  (NASDAQ: OPASX) (NASDAQ: OASBX) (NASDAQ: OASCX) (NASDAQ:
OASNX)
Oppenheimer CA Municipal
  (NASDAQ: OPCAX) (NASDAQ: OCABX) (NASDAQ: OCACX)
Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation
  (NASDAQ: OPTFX) (NASDAQ: OTGBX) (NASDAQ: OTFCX) (NASDAQ:
OTCNX) (NASDAQ: OTCYX)
Oppenheimer Capital Income
  (NASDAQ: OPPEX) (NASDAQ: OPEBX) (NASDAQ: OPECX) (NASDAQ:
OCINX)
Oppenheimer Champion Income
  (NASDAQ: OPCHX) (NASDAQ: OCHBX) (NASDAQ: OCHCX) (NASDAQ:
OCHNX)
Oppenheimer Convertible Securities
  (NASDAQ: RCVAX) (NASDAQ: RCVBX) (NASDAQ: RCVCX) (NASDAQ:
RCVGX) (NASDAQ: RCVNX)
Oppenheimer Core Bond
  (NASDAQ: OPIGX) (NASDAQ: OIGBX) (NASDAQ: OPBCX) (NASDAQ:
OPBNX) (NASDAQ: OPBYX)
Oppenheimer Developing Markets
  (NASDAQ: ODMAX) (NASDAQ: ODVBX) (NASDAQ: ODVCX) (NASDAQ:
ODVNX)
Oppenheimer Disciplined Allocation
  (NASDAQ: CNMTX) (NASDAQ: CDABX) (NASDAQ: CDACX) (NASDAQ:
CDANX)
Oppenheimer Discovery
  (NASDAQ: OPOCX) (NASDAQ: ODIBX) (NASDAQ: ODICX) (NASDAQ:
ODINX) (NASDAQ: ODIYX)
Oppenheimer Emerging Growth
  (NASDAQ: OEGAX) (NASDAQ: OEGBX) (NASDAQ: OEGCX) (NASDAQ:
OEGNX) (NASDAQ: OEGYX)
Oppenheimer Emerging Technologies
  (NASDAQ: OETAX) (NASDAQ: OETBX) (NASDAQ: OETCX) (NASDAQ:
OETNX) (NASDAQ: OETYX)
Oppenheimer Enterprise
  (NASDAQ: OENAX) (NASDAQ: OENBX) (NASDAQ: OENCX) (NASDAQ:
OENNX) (NASDAQ: OENYX)
Oppenheimer Equity
  (NASDAQ: OEQAX) (NASDAQ: OEQBX) (NASDAQ: OEQCX) (NASDAQ:
OEQNX) (NASDAQ: OEQYX)
Oppenheimer Global
  (NASDAQ: OPPAX) (NASDAQ: OGLBX) (NASDAQ: OGLCX) (NASDAQ:
OGLNX) (NASDAQ: OGLYX)
Oppenheimer Global Opportunities
  (NASDAQ: OPGIX) (NASDAQ: OGGIX) (NASDAQ: OGICX) (NASDAQ:
OGINX) (NASDAQ: OGIYX)
Oppenheimer Gold & Special Minerals
  (NASDAQ: OPGSX) (NASDAQ: OGMBX) (NASDAQ: OGMCX) (NASDAQ:
OGMNX)
Oppenheimer Growth
  (NASDAQ: OPPSX) (NASDAQ: OPSBX) (NASDAQ: OGRCX) (NASDAQ:
OGRNX) (NASDAQ: OGRYX)
Oppenheimer High-Yield
  (NASDAQ: OPPHX) (NASDAQ: OHYBX) (NASDAQ: OHYCX) (NASDAQ:
OHYNX) (NASDAQ: OHYYX)
Oppenheimer International Bond
  (NASDAQ: OIBAX) (NASDAQ: OIBBX) (NASDAQ: OIBCX) (NASDAQ:
OIBNX) (NASDAQ: OIBYX)
Oppenheimer International Growth
  (NASDAQ: OIGAX) (NASDAQ: IGRWX) (NASDAQ: OIGCX) (NASDAQ:
OIGNX)
Oppenheimer International Small Co
  (NASDAQ: OSMAX) (NASDAQ: OSMBX) (NASDAQ: OSMCX) (NASDAQ:
OSMNX)
Oppenheimer International Value
  (NASDAQ: OIVAX) (NASDAQ: OIVBX) (NASDAQ: OIVCX)
Oppenheimer Limited Term CA Muni
  (NASDAQ: OLCAX) (NASDAQ: OLCBX) (NASDAQ: OLCCX)
Oppenheimer Limited Term Municipal
  (NASDAQ: OPITX) (NASDAQ: OIMBX) (NASDAQ: OITCX)
Oppenheimer Limited Term NY Municipal
  (NASDAQ: LTNYX) (NASDAQ: LTBBX) (NASDAQ: LTNCX)
Oppenheimer Limited-Term Government
  (NASDAQ: OPGVX) (NASDAQ: OGSBX) (NASDAQ: OLTCX) (NASDAQ:
OLTNX) (NASDAQ: OLTYX)
Oppenheimer Main St Opportunity
  (NASDAQ: OMSOX) (NASDAQ: OMOBX) (NASDAQ: OMSCX) (NASDAQ:
OMSNX) (NASDAQ: OMSYX)
Oppenheimer Main St Small Cap
  (NASDAQ: OPMSX) (NASDAQ: OPMBX) (NASDAQ: OPMCX) (NASDAQ:
OPMNX) (NASDAQ: OPMYX)
Oppenheimer Main Street
  (NASDAQ: MSIGX) (NASDAQ: OMSBX) (NASDAQ: MIGCX) (NASDAQ:
OMGNX) (NASDAQ: MIGYX)
Oppenheimer MidCap
  (NASDAQ: OMDAX) (NASDAQ: OMDBX) (NASDAQ: OMDCX) (NASDAQ:
OMDNX) (NASDAQ: OMDYX)
Oppenheimer NJ Municipal
  (NASDAQ: ONJAX) (NASDAQ: ONJBX) (NASDAQ: ONJCX)
Oppenheimer PA Municipal
  (NASDAQ: OPATX) (NASDAQ: OPABX) (NASDAQ: OPACX)
Oppenheimer Port Series Active Alloc
  (NASDAQ: OAAAX) (NASDAQ: OAABX) (NASDAQ: OAACX) (NASDAQ:
OAANX) (NASDAQ: OAAYX)
Oppenheimer Port Series Agg Inv
  (NASDAQ: OAAIX) (NASDAQ: OBAIX) (NASDAQ: OCAIX) (NASDAQ:
ONAIX) (NASDAQ: OYAIX)
Oppenheimer Port Series Conserv Inv
  (NASDAQ: OACIX) (NASDAQ: OBCIX) (NASDAQ: OCCIX) (NASDAQ:
ONCIX) (NASDAQ: OYCIX)
Oppenheimer Port Series Moderate Inv
  (NASDAQ: OAMIX) (NASDAQ: OBMIX) (NASDAQ: OCMIX) (NASDAQ:
ONMIX) (NASDAQ: OYMIX)
Oppenheimer Principal Prot Main St
  (NASDAQ: OAPPX) (NASDAQ: OBPPX) (NASDAQ: OCPPX) (NASDAQ:
ONPPX)
Oppenheimer Principal Prot Main St II
  (NASDAQ: OAPMX) (NASDAQ: OBPMX) (NASDAQ: OCPMX)
Oppenheimer Principal Prot Main St III
  (NASDAQ: OAPRX) (NASDAQ: OBPRX) (NASDAQ: OCPRX) (NASDAQ:
ONPRX)
Oppenheimer Quest Balanced
  (NASDAQ: QVGIX) (NASDAQ: QGRBX) (NASDAQ: QGRCX) (NASDAQ:
QGRNX) (NASDAQ: QGRYX)
Oppenheimer Quest Capital Value
  (NASDAQ: QCVAX) (NASDAQ: QCVBX) (NASDAQ: QCVCX) (NASDAQ:
QCVNX)
Oppenheimer Quest International Value
  (NASDAQ: QIVAX) (NASDAQ: QIVBX) (NASDAQ: QIVCX) (NASDAQ:
QIVNX)
Oppenheimer Quest Opportunity Value
  (NASDAQ: QVOPX) (NASDAQ: QOPBX) (NASDAQ: QOPCX) (NASDAQ:
QOPNX) (NASDAQ: QOPYX)
Oppenheimer Quest Value
  (NASDAQ: QFVFX) (NASDAQ: QFVBX) (NASDAQ: QFVCX) (NASDAQ:
QFVNX) (NASDAQ: QFVYX)
Oppenheimer Quest Real Asset
  (NASDAQ: QRAAX) (NASDAQ: QRABX) (NASDAQ: QRACX) (NASDAQ:
QRANX) (NASDAQ: QRAYX)
Oppenheimer Real Estate
  (NASDAQ: OREAX) (NASDAQ: OREBX) (NASDAQ: ORECX) (NASDAQ:
ORENX) (NASDAQ: OREYX)
Oppenheimer Rochester National Muni
  (NASDAQ: ORNAX) (NASDAQ: ORNBX) (NASDAQ: ORNCX)
Oppenheimer Select Value
  (NASDAQ: OSVAX) (NASDAQ: OSVBX) (NASDAQ: OSCVX) (NASDAQ:
OSVNX) (NASDAQ: OSVYX)
Oppenheimer Senior Floating Rate
  (NASDAQ: XOSAX) (NASDAQ: XOSBX) (NASDAQ: XOSCX)
Oppenheimer Small & Mid Cap Value
  (NASDAQ: QVSCX) (NASDAQ: QSCBX) (NASDAQ: QSCCX) (NASDAQ:
QSCNX)
Oppenheimer Strat Income
  (NASDAQ: OPSIX) (NASDAQ: OPSGX) (NASDAQ: OSICX) (NASDAQ:
OSINX) (NASDAQ: OSIYX)
Oppenheimer Total Return Bond
  (NASDAQ: OTRAX) (NASDAQ: OTRBX) (NASDAQ: OTRCX) (NASDAQ:
OTRNX)
Oppenheimer U.S. Government
  (NASDAQ: OUSGX) (NASDAQ: UGTBX) (NASDAQ: OUSCX) (NASDAQ:
OUSNX) (NASDAQ: OUSYX)
Oppenheimer Value
  (NASDAQ: CGRWX) (NASDAQ: CGRBX) (NASDAQ: CGRCX) (NASDAQ:
CGRNX) (NASDAQ: CGRYX)
Oppenheimer Rochester Fund Muni
  (NASDAQ: RMUNX) (NASDAQ: RMUBX) (NASDAQ: RMUCX) (NASDAQ:
RMUYX)

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  * * *