CAR_Public/051124.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, November 24, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 233

                            Headlines

ANTHEM BLUE: OH, KY State Judges Approve Settlement With Doctors
ARIZONA: Fights Request in Arnold V. Sarn Mental Healthcare Suit
COLORADO INTERSTATE: KS Court Mulls Certification For Gas Suit
DELTA ENTERPRISE: Recalls 335 Color Cribs For High Lead Content
EQUIFAX CONSUMER: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. Georgia

EQUIFAX CONSUMER: Plaintiffs Launch Amended Consumer Suit in GA
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Appeals Refusal of AL Suit Dismissal Motion
GLOBAL NET: Spammers Pay $621T Fine For Violating Anti-Spam Laws
GLOBALSTAR SECURITIES: Settlement Hearing Set December 9, 2005
GOETZ WESTERN: Recalls Ham, Beef Due To Staphylococcus Infection

HAIER AMERICA: Recalls 150T Electric Tower Fans For Fire Hazard
INTERNATIONAL PLAYTHINGS: Recalls Toy Cars Due to Choking Hazard
MARTIN'S FAMOUS: Recalls Stuffing Due to Undeclared Ingredients
MASTEC INC.: FL Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: SD Court Orders Legal Fee Recalculation

MONTANA: Billings City Council Discuss Firefighter's Wage Suit
NEW YORK: Cops to Share $17M Deal in Racial Discrimination Suit
OREGON: Retailers to Receive Windfall From Visa/Mastercard Deal
ORTHO-MCNEIL: Parker & Waichman Files Suit Over Ortho Evra Patch
PSS WORLD: Securities Settlement Hearing Set December 20, 2005

ROYAL GROUP: NY Court Dismisses Consolidated Shareholder Suit
SEI INVESTMENTS: Mutual Fund Lawsuit Still Pending In MD Court
SEMCO ENERGY: Seeks Amendment To WV Court Ruling Dismissing Suit
SMITH BARNEY: BellSouth Employees' Suit Goes Back to State Court
SPARK NETWORKS: IL, CA Consumers Sue Over Dating Services Fraud

ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Settles Investors' Suits Over 2004 Merger
USA BEVERAGES: FTC Launches Consumer Fraud Suit V. VoIP Services
WAL-MART STORES: Recalls 7.2T Toy Sets Due to Choking Hazard

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in TX
GREAT WOLF: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. WI
HELEN OF TROY: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX
INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: Federman & Sherwood Files Suit in C.D. CA
UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in NY


                            *********

ANTHEM BLUE: OH, KY State Judges Approve Settlement With Doctors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Court judges one from Ohio and the other from Kentucky gave
final approval to a settlement of a class action lawsuit against
the Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurance company, The
Cincinnati Post reports.

The suit alleged that Anthem along with three other insurance
companies conspired to keep reimbursements to local doctors
below market value. Doctors in a 12-county region of Northern
Kentucky and southern Ohio joined to file the lawsuit. They
claimed that the situation had been ongoing since 1992.

With the settlement's final approval, three of the four
companies named in the suit have actually settled. The companies
that settled are Aetna Health Inc., Humana and now Anthem, while
the case remains pending against the fourth one, United Health
Care of Ohio.

Recently, Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge David P.
Davis traveled to Boone County, where he along with Senior Judge
Stan Billingsley presided over the rare two-judge hearing. Both
agreed to the terms of the settlement with Anthem.  In addition,
the duo also agreed to Anthem's participation in a $2.75 million
escrow account to help determine how the proceeds will be paid
out. That account will also set up a foundation to help recruit
doctors to the region as well as provide funds to give medical
care to those not getting it.

Essentially, Anthem settled the claims against it by agreeing to
raise reimbursements by $160 million over the next three years.
On the other hand, Humana settled the claims against it in
December 2003 by agreeing to raise reimbursements by $100
million from 2004 through 2006. While, the third insurer, Aetna
settled by agreeing to increase their reimbursements to local
doctors by $22.3 million over the next three years.


ARIZONA: Fights Request in Arnold V. Sarn Mental Healthcare Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Arizona acknowledged that is efforts to improve
services fell short in some areas, but the system is getting
better in answer to allegations that the state failed to deliver
on promised improvements in treatment for the seriously mentally
ill, The Associated Press reports.

The state came out with the acknowledgement as it opposes a
request by advocates for the mentally ill for a judge to set a
90-day deadline for the state and a contractor to improve
treatment for thousands of people in Maricopa County. In the
long run, the advocates' request could lead to contempt
proceedings against the state.

At issue in the 25-year-old lawsuit known as Arnold vs. Sarn is
treatment for an estimated 18,000 seriously mentally ill people
in Maricopa County, including about 4,400 considered to be
priority cases.  Judge Karen O'Connor of Maricopa County
Superior Court scheduled a December 1 hearing on the advocates'
request. That request is based on a court-appointed monitor's
findings, which revealed serious shortcomings remaining in
behavioral health services provided in Maricopa County.

Anne Ronan, a lawyer for a public interest law firm representing
the class action plaintiffs told The Associated Press that the
problem is that the state hasn't met June deadlines to fulfill
important commitments it made in a 2004 agreement to improve
services. In a filing, Ms. Ronan along with other advocates
argued that less than a third of those covered by the class
action lawsuit receive work opportunities and other mental-
health services that their treatment professionals have deemed
appropriate.

The state though counters that the plaintiffs are ignoring
"substantial progress" made in improving the mental-health
systems and are instead focusing on "arbitrary and unrealistic"
deadlines "to attempt to micromanage how resources are being
spent."

Though Eddy Broadway, the Department of Health Services deputy
director for behavioral health services, did not respond to a
request for comment, the department did previously acknowledge
that it hasn't met a promised level of services for priority
clients at five large clinics. However, it pointed out it has
made other gains, including new training for staff at those
clinics, establishment of a crisis network and increased housing
opportunities for the seriously mentally ill.


COLORADO INTERSTATE: KS Court Mulls Certification For Gas Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Stevens County, Kansas has yet to rule on
plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification for the second
amended suit filed against Colorado Interstate Gas Company,
certain of its affiliates and other natural gas companies,
styled "Will Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines and Their
Predecessors, et al."

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

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


DELTA ENTERPRISE: Recalls 335 Color Cribs For High Lead Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Delta Enterprise Corp., of New York, New York is
voluntarily recalling about 335 units of Lov's "Europa" Natural
Color Cribs.

According to the company, the cribs paint contains high levels
of lead. Lead poisoning in children is associated with
behavioral problems, learning disabilities, hearing problems and
growth retardation.

The cribs are made of wood and are natural color. Only cribs
that are labeled Lov's Europa with "Style # 4827-2 M.F.G. No.: W
24088 Date: 22 JUN 2004" are included in the recall. The brand,
style and date code are printed on a label attached to the
mattress support platform. Picture of recalled products:

     (1) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06036.jpg

Manufactured in Indonesia, the cribs were sold exclusively at
Toys R Us nationwide from July 2004 through August 2005 for
about $200.

Remedy: Consumers should stop using the recalled crib
immediately and return to retailer where purchased for a credit
or refund.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Delta
Enterprise Corp. toll-free at (877) 660-3777 between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.deltaenterprise.com.


EQUIFAX CONSUMER: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
Equifax Consumer Services, Inc. continues to face a class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, styled "Robbie Hillis v. Equifax
Consumer Services, Inc. and Fair Isaac, Inc."

The suit, filed on November 19,2004, asserts that defendants
have jointly sold the Company's Score Power credit score product
in violation of certain procedural requirements under the Credit
Repair Organizations Act (CROA).  Plaintiff contends that the
Company and Fair Isaac are "credit repair organizations" under
CROA and that the transaction by which he purchased Score Power
was in violation of CROA and fraudulent. Plaintiff seeks
certification of a class on behalf of all individuals who
purchased such services from defendants within the five-year
period prior to the filing of the complaint.  Plaintiff seeks
unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 23, 2005, the District Court denied defendants' partial
motions to dismiss the case and the defendants have answered,
denying all liability or wrongdoing.

The suit is styled "Hillis v. Equifax Consumer Services, Inc. et
al., case no. 1:04-cv-03400-BBM," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, under Judge
Beverly B. Martin.  Representing the Company are Craig Edward
Bertschi, Audra Ann Dial, Cindy Dawn Hanson, Kilpatrick
Stockton, 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800, Atlanta, GA 30309-
4530, Phone: 404-815-6500, E-mail:
cbertschi@kilpatrickstockton.com, adial@kilpatrickstockton.com,
chanson@kilpatrickstockton.com; and Kenneth M. Kliebard and Todd
L. McLawhorn, Howrey, LLP, Suite 3400, 321 North Clark Street,
Chicago, IL 60610, Phone: 312-595-2255, Fax: 312-264-0362, E-
mail: kliebardk@howrey.com or mclawhornt@howrey.com.  The
plaintiffs are represented by:

     (1) Michael Lee McGlamry, Charles Neal Pope, Wade H.
         Tomlinson, Pope McGlamry Kilpatrick Morrison & Norwood,
         925 The Pinnacle, P.O. Box 191625, 3455 Peachtree Road,
         N.E., Atlanta, GA 31119-1625, Phone: 404-523-7706, E-
         mail: efile@pmkm.com

     (2) Arthur R. Miller, Arthur R. Miller, P.C., Areeda Hall
         225, Cambridge, MA 02138, Phone: 617-495-1278

     (3) Michael C. Spencer or Melvyn I. Weiss, Milberg Weiss
         Bershad & Schulman, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th Floor,
         New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212-594-5300


EQUIFAX CONSUMER: Plaintiffs Launch Amended Consumer Suit in GA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a fourth amended class action against Equifax
Consumer Services, Inc. in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia, styled "Steven G. Millett and
Melody J. Millett v. Equifax Information Services, LLC and
Equifax Consumer Services, Inc."

The suit, which was originally filed on June 16, 2004 in the
United States District Court for Kansas, asserts, among other
allegations, that the Company sold Equifax's s Credit Watch
product in violation of certain procedural requirements under
the Credit Repair Organizations Act CROA.  Plaintiffs seek
certification of a class on behalf of all individuals who
purchased the CreditWatch product from Equifax from September 9,
2001 to the present, and unspecified damages, attorney's fees
and costs.

The suit is styled "Millett et al v. Equifax Credit Information
Services, Inc. et al., case no. 1:05-cv-02122-TWT," filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, under Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr.  Representing the
Company is Cindy Dawn Hanson, Kilpatrick Stockton, 1100
Peachtree Street, Suite 2800, Atlanta, GA 30309-4530, Phone:
404-815-6500, E-mail: chanson@kilpatrickstockton.com.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Leslie J. Bryan, Doffermyre Shields Canfield Knowles &
         Devine, 1355 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 1600,
         Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: 404-881-8900, E-mail:
         lbryan@dsckd.com

     (2) Barry R. Grissom, Law Office of Barry R. Grissom,
         Building 7-Suite 220, 7270 West 98th Terrace, Overland
         Park, KS 66212-6166, Phone: 913-341-6616, Fax: 913-341-
         4780

     (3) B. Joyce Yeager, Yeager Law Firm, LLC, Building 7,
         Suite 220, 7270 West 98th Terrace, Overland Park, KS
         66212, Phone: 913-648-6673, Fax: 913-648-6921, E-mail:
         jyeager@joyceyeagerlaw.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Appeals Refusal of AL Suit Dismissal Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals allowed
Equifax Information Services LLC to appeal a lower court ruling
refusing to dismiss the class action filed against the Company,
styled "Nunnally et al. v. Equifax Information Services LLC."

The suit, filed in the United States District Court of the
Northern District of Alabama, alleges that the Company violated
the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to provide a full
disclosure along with its reinvestigation results sent to
consumers that disputed the accuracy of their consumer reports.
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all consumers to which
the Company failed to send a complete disclosure after
completion of reinvestigation. Plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On February 4, 2005, the District Court denied the motion to
dismiss the complaint, but certified the issue for immediate
appeal and stayed the case. The Eleventh Circuit granted the
Company's motion to appeal and the appeal is now pending.

The suit is styled "Nunnally, et al v. Equifax Information, case
no. 1:04-cv-02890-RBP," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama, under Judge Robert B
Propst.  Representing the Company are Cindy D Hanson, J Anthony
Love, Mara McRae, KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP, 1100 Peachtree
Street, Suite 2800, Atlanta, GA 30309-4530, Phone: 1-404-815-
6500, Fax: 1-404-815-6555; and James S. Witcher, III, HAND
ARENDALL LLC, 2001 Park Place North, Birmingham, AL 35203,
Phone: 404-324-4400, E-mail: jwitcher@handarendall.com.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David R. Donaldson, Tammy McClendon Stokes, DONALDSON &
         GUIN LLC, Two North Twentieth Building, 2 North 20th
         Street, Suite 1100, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: 404-
         226-2282, Fax: 404-226-2357, E-mail:
         DavidD@dglawfirm.com, tstokes@dglawfirm.com

     (2) James Donnie Patterson, P O Box 969, Fairhope, AL
         36533-0969, Phone: 1-251-990-5558, Fax: 1-251-990-0626,
         E-mail: jpatterson@alalaw.com

     (3) Earl P. Underwood, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF EARL P UNDERWOOD
         JR, PO Box 969, Fairhope, AL 36533-0969, Phone: 251-
         990-5558, Fax: 251-990-0626, E-mail:
         epunderwood@alalaw.com


GLOBAL NET: Spammers Pay $621T Fine For Violating Anti-Spam Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spammers who sent millions of illegal e-mail messages -
including sexually explicit messages - have paid $621,000 to
settle Federal Trade Commission charges that their practices
violated federal laws. The settlement will bar future violations
and will require the marketers to monitor their affiliates to
assure they are complying with federal laws, as well.

According to the FTC complaint filed in January 2005, the
defendants sold access to sexually explicit Web sites through
spam. Four defendants control a network of corporations that own
and operate the Web sites, payment systems, and servers used to
distribute and sell sexually explicit content. One defendant was
an affiliate hired to market the content from the Web sites.
While the affiliate sent many of the e-mails that allegedly
violated federal law, under the CAN-SPAM Act all of the
defendants are responsible for the e-mails, including the
defendants who paid others to send the e-mails on their behalf.

The FTC charged that the e-mails violated the CAN-SPAM Act and
the FTC's Adult Labeling Rule by failing to include the required
label for sexually explicit content; displaying sexually
explicit content in the e-mail itself; using misleading header
information; using misleading subject lines; failing to include
the required opt-out notice; failing to have a functioning opt-
out mechanism; failing to identify e-mails as advertisements or
solicitations; and failing to provide a valid physical postal
address.

The court entered a default judgment against one defendant,
requiring him to pay $79,018. The remaining defendants settled
the FTC charges. Both the settlement order and default judgment
bar the defendants from violating the CAN-SPAM Act, the Adult
Labeling Rule, and the FTC Act. The orders require that the
defendants include in all commercial e-mail a working opt-out
mechanism, notice that the e-mails are advertisements, and the
physical postal address for the defendants. The defendants also
must label any sexually explicit e-mail and keep sexually
oriented material out of the subject line or the initially
viewable area of any e-mail. The orders also bar them from
sending, or paying others to send, false or misleading
commercial emails, including e-mails with false header
information, false e-mail addresses, or e-mails that
misrepresent that any product, service, or web site is free.

The settlement contains an affiliate monitoring requirement. The
defendants must collect certain required information about an e-
mail campaign, as well as identification information about the
affiliates, before they can begin the campaign. Once the e-mails
are sent, the defendants are required to sample new subscribers
to their Web site to make sure the affiliates are complying with
the settlement order when sending out marketing e-mails. In
addition, the defendants are required to establish a system to
gather, review, and respond to consumer complaints.

The settling defendants are Global Net Solutions, Inc.; Global
Net Ventures, Ltd.; Open Space Enterprises, Inc.; Southlake
Group, Inc.; Wedlake, Ltd.; WTFRC, Inc., doing business as
Reflected Networks, Inc.; Dustin Hamilton; Tobin Banks; Gregory
Hamilton; and Philip Doroff.  The district court judge entered
the default judgment against defendant Paul Rose, an affiliate.

The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the stipulated
order for permanent injunction and monetary judgment was 4-0.
The stipulated order was entered in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada on August 5, 2005. The default judgment
was entered September 8, 2005.

Copies of the stipulated final order are available from the
FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's
Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to
prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in
the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers
spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or
Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints),
or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call
toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint
form at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet,
telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related
complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database
available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement
agencies in the U.S. and abroad.  For more details, contact
Jackie Dizdul, Office of Public Affairs, by Phone: 202-326-2472
or contact Stephen L. Cohen, Bureau of Consumer Protection, by
Phone: 202-326-3222 or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/11/globalnet.htm.


GLOBALSTAR SECURITIES: Settlement Hearing Set December 9, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $20
million settlement in the matter, "In re: Globalstar Securities
Litigation, Case No. 01 Civ. 1748 (PKC)." The case was filed on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's securities during the period December 6, 1999 through
October 27, 2000.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable P. Kevin Castel in
the United Staets Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007,
at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 12C on December 9, 2005.

For more details, contact In re: Globalstar Securities
Litigation c/o Berdon Claims Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9014,
Jericho, NY 11753-8914, Phone: (800) 766-3330, Fax:
(516) 931-0810, Web site: http://www.berdonllp.com/claimsor
Steven J. Toll, Esq. and Andrew N. Friedman of Cohen Milstein
Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC, 1100 New York Ave., N.W. West Tower,
Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 408-4600.


GOETZ WESTERN: Recalls Ham, Beef Due To Staphylococcus Infection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goetz Western Meats, an Everett, Wash., establishment, is
voluntarily recalling approximately 340 pounds of boneless honey
cured hams and smoked beef strips that may contain
Staphylococcus aureus enterotoxin, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced
today.

The following products are subject to recall:

     (1) Various sized vacuum-packed packages of "GOETZ, FULLY
         COOKED, HONEY CURE HAM, WITH NATURAL JUICES." Each
         package bears the code "10-26-05" and the establishment
         number "EST. 6245" inside the USDA seal of inspection.

     (2) Various sized vacuum-packed packages of "GOETZ, WESTERN
         MEAT, GOETZ, SMOKED BEEF STRIPS." Each package bears
         the code "10-28-05" and the establishment number "EST.
         6245" inside the USDA seal of inspection.

The hams and beef strips were produced on Oct. 26 and Oct. 28,
2005. The products were shipped to retail establishments and
institutions in the Everett, Washington, area.

The problem was discovered by FSIS. Common symptoms of ingesting
products with Staphylococcus aureus enterotoxin include nausea,
vomiting, diarrhea and abdominal cramping.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should
contact company owner Jim Horton at (425) 252-1151.

Consumers with food safety questions can call the toll-free USDA
Meat and Poultry Hotline at (888) 674-6854. The hotline is
available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m.
to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food
safety messages are available 24 hours a day.


HAIER AMERICA: Recalls 150T Electric Tower Fans For Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Haier America Trading LLC, of New York, New York and
Metropolitan Electrical Appliance Co. Ltd., of Hong Kong are
voluntarily recalling about 150,000 units of Oscillating
Electric Tower Fans.

According to the companies, the internal electrical arcing in
the fan can cause a fire hazard. Haier has received eight
reports of fires or flames associated with this electric fan,
including minor property damage and one report of minor burns.

The recall involves a Haier oscillating electric tower fan,
model FTM140GG. The gray tower fan has three speed settings and
a 120-minute shut-off timer. "Haier" is printed on a silver
label near the top of the front of the tower. The model number
is printed on the lower back of the fan. No other Haier fans are
included in this recall.

Manufactured in China, the fans were sold at discount department
stores nationwide from February 2004 through November 2005 for
between $20 and $30.

Remedy: Consumers should immediately stop using the tower fan
and call Haier for instructions on how to obtain a $30 coupon
redeemable for the purchase from Haier of any available product.
Consumers who previously received a $10 mail-in rebate will get
a $20 coupon.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Haier
toll-free at (866) 601-8073 anytime or email the firm at
productinfo@haieramerica.com.


INTERNATIONAL PLAYTHINGS: Recalls Toy Cars Due to Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), International Playthings Inc., of Parsippany, New Jersey
is voluntarily recalling about 1,900 units of Viking Chubbies
Toy Cars.

According to the company, the heads on the figures sold with the
cars can detach, posing a choking hazard to young children. No
injuries or incidents have been reported.

The recall involves Viking Chubbies 10-inch toy sedans sold with
two figurines. The multi-colored toys are made of plastic. The
toy figurines measure about 3-inches tall. "Viking Toys,"
"Sweden" and "Made in Thailand" are printed on the bottom of the
car.

Manufactured in Thailand, the toy cars were sold at specialty
toy stores nationwide from June 2005 through August 2005 for
about $14.

Remedy: Consumers should contact International Playthings for
information on returning the product for a free replacement item
of similar value.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact
International Playthings at (800) 445-8347 anytime, or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.intplay.com.Media Contact: Sue Tice
at (973) 316-2500 Ext. 232 or email: sue.tice@intplay.com.


MARTIN'S FAMOUS: Recalls Stuffing Due to Undeclared Ingredients
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martin's Famous Pastry Shoppe Inc. of Chambersburg, PA is
recalling MARTIN'S POTATOBRED SOFT CUBED STUFFING with a sell-by
date of Feb 8 2006, Feb 15 2006, Feb 22 2006, Mar 01 2006, Mar
08 2006, and Mar 15 2006 because it may contain undeclared Wheat
and Dairy product. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to Wheat and/or Dairy run the risk of an allergic
reaction if they consume these products.

MARTIN'S POTATOBRED SOFT CUBED STUFFING was distributed in New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West
Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida by Direct Store Delivery
to Retail Supermarkets/Grocery Stores.

The product can be identified by a 12 oz yellow and red package
with Martin's Famous Dutch Taste Potatobred Soft Cubed Stuffing
on the front of the package. No illnesses have been reported to
date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that product
containing Wheat and Dairy ingredients was distributed in
packaging that did not reveal the presence of Wheat and Dairy.
Subsequent investigation indicates the packaging supplier
printing this information incorrectly caused the problem.

Packages with a sell-by date of March 22 06 and later, and Feb 1
06 and earlier are labeled correctly.

Consumers who have purchased Martin's Potatobred Soft Cubed
Stuffing with a "sell-by" date of Feb 8 2006, Feb 15 2006, Feb
22 2006, Mar 01 2006, Mar 08 2006, and Mar 15 2006, are urged to
return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers
with questions may contact the company at 1-800-548-1200.


MASTEC INC.: FL Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida refused to dismiss the consolidated amended securities
class action filed against MasTec, Inc. and certain of its
officers.

In the second quarter of 2004, purported class action complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida and one was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  These
cases have been consolidated by court order in the Southern
District of Florida.  The complaints allege certain violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, related to current and prior period earnings
reports.

On January 25, 2005, a motion for leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint was filed by Plaintiffs which the Court granted.
Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on February 22,
2005.  Plaintiffs contend that the Company's financial
statements during the purported class period of August 12, 2003
to May 11, 2004 were materially misleading in the following
areas:

     (1) the financials for the third quarter of 2003 were
         allegedly overstated by $5.8 million in revenue from
         unapproved change orders from a variety of the
         Company's projects; and

     (2) the financials for the second quarter of 2003 were
         overstated by some $1.3 million as a result of the
         intentional overstatement of revenue, inventories and
         work in progress at the Company's Canadian subsidiary.

Plaintiffs seek damages, not quantified, for the difference
between the stock price Plaintiffs paid and the stock price
Plaintiffs believe they should have paid, plus interest and
attorney fees. The Company filed a motion to dismiss that was
denied on September 30, 2005.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: SD Court Orders Legal Fee Recalculation
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a 4-1 ruling, the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled that legal
fees for attorneys who handled antitrust lawsuits against
Microsoft Corporation must be recalculated because the fees
awarded by a circuit judge were too high, The Associated Press
reports.

Circuit Judge Lori Wilbur of Pierre awarded lawyers $2.3 million
in legal fees and expenses. However, the Supreme Court pointed
out that the fees must be recalculated using guidelines that
will result in lower payments to many of the attorneys.

The court ruling noted that the case was the first in South
Dakota to deal with some of the issues raised in the dispute,
and the justices commended Judge Wilbur for her effort to
determine a reasonable award without prior Supreme Court rulings
to guide her. The dissenting vote was by Justice Judith
Meierhenry, who said that the circuit judge's decision should
have been upheld because Judge Wilbur did not abuse her
discretion in deciding the case.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court said that out-of-state law
firms that handled cases in a number of states were allowed to
allocate too much of their billing to the South Dakota case. It
noted in its ruling that the hourly rates charged by South
Dakota lawyers also must be recalculated, and there was no
justification for doubling the amount of the legal fees.

Microsoft, which reported earnings of $12.25 billion for the
year ending June 30, agreed nearly two years ago to pay millions
of dollars to settle several South Dakota lawsuits that alleged
it charged too much for its software. However, the company
contended that its opponents in the cases should receive only
about $450,000 or so in legal fees. According to the software
giant, the legal fees awarded in the South Dakota case were
excessive because the lawyers used information from similar
lawsuits in other states to negotiate a settlement nearly
identical to those in the other states.

Thus, on August 31, 2005, the South Dakota Supreme Court will
hear arguments in Microsoft's attempt to throw out the nearly
$2.3 million in legal fees and expenses awarded to the lawyers
who represented consumers in the cases. The software giant
argues that the lawyers should get no more than $389,000 in fees
and about $22,000 in expenses. Additionally, Microsoft contends
that the legal fees were excessive and unreasonable, since
lawyers used information from cases in other states to negotiate
a settlement nearly identical to those from other states. The
company also pointed out that the legal fees are also equal to
about half the total settlement Microsoft will pay to customers
and schools. In its written arguments to the high court,
Microsoft claims, "This was a tagalong action in every sense and
at every stage. It broke no new ground, but merely applied to
South Dakota a template cut by other lawyers in other states,"
an earlier Class Action Reporter story (August 25, 2005)
reports.

However, in a response to Microsoft's allegations that they
merely followed precedents set in cases from other states,
attorneys who won the legal fees countered that the amount
approved by the circuit judge is reasonable and justified by the
work they did in the cases. One attorney even said, "Nothing
could be further from the truth," an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (August 25, 2005) reports.

After a federal court ruling found that Microsoft abused its
power to maintain a monopoly on the Windows operating system,
more than 130 cases were filed around the nation in late 1999
and early 2000 alleging that Microsoft violated antitrust laws
and laws against unfair competition. One South Dakota case was
consolidated with others from around the nation in federal
court, while three were consolidated in state court. In an
agreement that settled the three class action antitrust lawsuits
in South Dakota court along with similar lawsuits in several
other states, Microsoft agreed in October 2003 to give vouchers
to customers who had bought its operating software from March
1996 through December 2002.

Essentially, the company agreed to provide vouchers, each worth
$5 or $12 depending on the product a customer had purchased, to
be used for buying hardware, operating systems, software and
computer gear from various vendors, including Microsoft. Half
the unused vouchers were to be given to schools to help needy
children. In South Dakota, the maximum amount that could be
claimed was $9.3 million, but officials expected only a fraction
of the eligible customers would file claims. Court documents
indicate only an estimated $466,500 would be paid in vouchers to
South Dakota customers, with more than $4.4 million to be given
to schools.

After the settlement, Circuit Judge Lori Wilbur of Pierre
awarded the lawyers who brought the case fees and expenses of
more than $1 million, which she later doubled to more than $2
million. With expenses added, the total award to the lawyers was
nearly $2.3 million. In awarding the fees, Judge Wilbur said
that it was justified by that fact that the lawyers' efforts led
to a substantial success, took nearly five years, involved
contested hearings and appeals, involved a risk because there
was no guarantee of compensation, and involved a lengthy delay
in payment for their services.

Various attorneys from South Dakota and other states were
involved in the case, but two of the lead lawyers were Mark
Moreno of Pierre and Ben Barnow, a Chicago lawyer who took part
in similar lawsuits in a number of states. Court documents filed
by Microsoft indicate Mr. Moreno would be compensated at $600 an
hour, while Mr. Barnow would get $1,000 an hour, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (August 25, 2005) reports.

Microsoft argues that that the fee awards were excessive because
they far surpassed the $150 to $175 an hour typical in central
South Dakota. In addition, the company pointed out that the
award is also excessive because it would amount to five times
the $466,500 in vouchers that customers were expected to claim
or 47 percent of the entire $4.9 million settlement if payments
to schools are included. Attorneys for the software giant even
contend in their written arguments, "The $2.3 million award to
the lawyers threatens to cause the public to think poorly of our
courts and is contrary to public policy," an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (August 25, 2005) reports.

Attorneys who filed the class action lawsuits though argued that
the award of fees and expenses is reasonable because Microsoft
has agreed to large enhancements in legal fees in antitrust
lawsuits settled in other states. The lawyers also argued that
the award is just 27 percent of total benefits received by South
Dakotans if payments to schools and the legal fees themselves
are counted as part of those benefits.  Finally, the attorneys
also pointed out that the hourly fees were proper because of the
complexity of the case, the challenge of establishing
Microsoft's liability and damages, and the fact that Microsoft
paid its own lawyers high fees, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (August 25, 2005) reports.

The Supreme Court noted that without adequate records, Judge
Wilbur did not have sufficient information to justify allocating
20 percent of the attorneys' hours to the South Dakota case. The
justices said that Judge Wilbur should recalculate the fees by
allocating one-eighth of the attorneys' hours to South Dakota.
Chief Justice David Gilbertson wrote for the court, "While we
realize that hours worked by plaintiffs on the South Dakota
litigation may be underrepresented using the one-eighth method,
any error in determining reasonable hours worked should penalize
the party responsible for inaccurately documenting those hours."

In addition, the Supreme Court also ordered Judge Wilbur to
recalculate the hourly rate for South Dakota lawyers who worked
in the case because the attorneys failed to show that their
requested rates were the prevailing South Dakota rates for work
on such cases. It pointed out that reasonable rates for local
attorneys in class action and civil rights lawsuits would have
ranged from $150 to $225 an hour during that time period.
Reasonable rates for lawyers with substantial expertise and
experience in the specialized area involved in the Microsoft
case would range from $250 to $300 an hour, according to
justices.

The justices further stated that Judge Wilbur must set hourly
rates for Mr. Moreno and other South Dakota lawyers within those
reasonable ranges, depending on each lawyer's level of expertise
and number of years in the practice of law. If the record is
unclear about expertise, the rate should be based on the number
of years a lawyer has practiced, according to them.

The Supreme Court upheld the judge's ruling in setting hourly
rates for out-of-state lawyers involved in the South Dakota
case. However, the high court overturned Judge Wilbur's decision
to double the legal fees paid in the case ruling that the risk
undertaken by the lawyers should not be used to enhance the
legal fees because the South Dakota case was filed after the
federal court ruling on the monopoly issue, the language in the
South Dakota lawsuits was substantially borrowed from cases in
other states, and the discovery of evidence was coordinated with
cases in other states.

Judge Gilbertson wrote, "Given the above mentioned factors, it
is not an overstatement to say that the South Dakota suit was a
tag-along action that posed at best moderate risk at the outset.
Therefore, risk is not a factor weighing in favor of a
multiplier." The court also notes that there must be a
reasonable relationship between attorney fees and the amount
recovered as the result of legal work. It pointed out that an
award of more than $2 million would amount to about half the
money Microsoft paid in vouchers to customers and grants to
schools. "A fee award of almost 50 percent of the value
generated by the class action would represent a windfall rather
than a reasonable award of attorney fees," according to Judge
Gilbertson. The Supreme Court further stated in its ruling that
the fees paid in similar cases in other states were at lower
percentages than those awarded in South Dakota.

Finally, the high court ruled that the doubling of legal fees
was not justified because the lawyers did not achieve
exceptional success in the case. The benefit was relatively
modest based on the fact that few people claimed the vouchers
available in the settlement, according to the Supreme Court
ruling.


MONTANA: Billings City Council Discuss Firefighter's Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a recent closed session, the Billings City Council discussed
a wage-claim lawsuit filed by Billings, Montana's firefighters,
The Billings Gazette.

Though after the meeting, Mayor Chuck Tooley refused to comment
specifically on what the council will do next, he did tell The
Billings Gazette that the council asked the city's legal staff
to draft a statement that spells out the council's next step in
the process. Mr. Tooley also told The Billings Gazette that he
hopes to have the statement as soon as possible. "We wanted to
make sure the statement is drafted properly," he adds.

Just recently, District Court Judge G. Todd Baugh ordered the
city to pay the 119 firefighters in the class action lawsuit
$2,994,409 in back pay, in addition to a penalty of $235,000.

After Judge Baugh issued his latest order, interim City
Administrator Tina Volek told The Billings Gazette that the city
would ask Judge Baugh for reconsideration of his decision
because there had been no determination on how much the city
will have to pay in attorney fees. Eventually the City Council
may decide to appeal the case to the Montana Supreme Court.

The lawsuit was brought by individual firefighters, who alleged
that because of their 27-day work schedule, consisting of 24-
hour shifts followed by several days off, they had been working
more than 40 hours a week, but had been paid for only 40 hours.
The case eventually grew into a class action suit filed on
behalf of 119 current and former firefighters to whom the city
reportedly owed money.


NEW YORK: Cops to Share $17M Deal in Racial Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 576 minority cops will soon receive a piece of the
$17 million settlement of a federal class action suit that
charges their NYPD bosses of racial discrimination, The New York
Daily News reports.

Specifically, the police officers will get awards ranging from
$3,500 to $400,000 from the suit that the city settled just over
a year ago. The officers charged that the New York Police
Department created a hostile work environment for black and
Latino cops, especially when it came to disciplinary matters.

Diane Paolicelli, an attorney with the firm that represented
many of the plaintiffs told The New York Daily News, "Cops have
their own disciplinary system. The penalty for black and Latino
cops were disproportionately higher." She also told The New York
Daily News that some cops lost pay while others were given bad
assignments or even fired in the retaliatory climate. According
to her, awards, which varied based on the duration and scale of
discrimination plaintiffs allegedly endured, will be sent out
over the next month.

The city admitted no wrongdoing under the settlement. In a press
statement, Georgia Pestana, a spokeswoman for the city Law
Department wrote, "When this settlement was reached in 2004, the
city allocated up to $20 million as a measure of its good faith
and commitment to resolving old claims stemming from 1996."

Ken Feinberg, who was appointed special master by Judge Lewis
Kaplan to determine who might be eligible for a settlement, told
The New York Daily News that his office sent out letters last
week announcing the distribution of the settlements to those
people who filed a claim.

Ms. Paolicelli Told The New York Daily News that more than 1,200
cops filed claims, but just 576 were able to provide adequate
evidence of discrimination. The suit covers alleged
discrimination from 1996 to 2003.

The suit is styled, "Latino Officers, et al v. The City of New
York, et al, Case No. 1:99-cv-09568-LAK-KNF," filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, under Judge Lewis A. Kaplan with referral to Judge Kevin
Nathaniel Fox. Representing the Defendant/s are: Julie E.
O'Neill of Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel of the City of
N.Y., 100 Church St., Room 2-111, New York, NY 10007 and James
M. Lemonedes, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York
100 Church St., Room 2172, New York, NY 10007, Phone: (212) 788-
0881. Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Catherine E. Anderson of Giskan & Solotaroff, 207 West
         25th St., 4th Floor, New York, NY, Phone: (212) 847-
         8315;

     (2) Joshua H. Epstein of Dreier, L.L.P., 499 Park Ave., New
         York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 328-6100;

     (3) William Goodman and Barbara J. Olshansky of Center For
         Constitutional Rights, 666 Broadway, 7th Floor, New
         York, NY 10012, Phone: (212) 614-6439 and (212) 614-
         6431;

     (4) Barry Lax of The Lax Law Firm, 444 Park Ave., South New
         York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 696-1999;

     (5) Richard A. Levy of Levy, Ratner & Behroozi, P.C., 80
         Eighth Ave., New York, NY 10011, Phone: (212) 627-8100,
         E-mail: jsolis@lrbpc.com;

     (6) Diane M. Paolicelli of Levy, Phillips & Konigsberg,
         L.L.P., 520 Madison Ave., 4th Floor, New York, NY
         10022, Phone: (212) 605-6200;

     (7) Laurie J. McPherson of Shapiro, Forman, Allen, Miller &
         McPherson, L.L.P., 380 Madison Ave., New York, NY
         10017, Phone: (212) 972-4900;

     (8) Steven Glen Mintz and Philip S. Raible of Mintz & Gold,
         LLP, 470 Park Ave. South, 11th Fl., NYC, NY 10016,
         (212) 696-4848, Fax: (212) 696-1231, E-mail:
         mintz@mintzandgold.com;

     (9) Roland Gustaf Riopelle of Sercarz & Riopelle, L.L.P.,
         152 West 57th St., 24th Floor, New York, NY 10019,
         Phone: (212) 586-4900, Fax: (212) 586-1234, E-mail:
         rriopelle@juno.com;

    (10) Robert H. Spergel, 3051 Xavier Place, Oceanside, NY
         11572, Phone: (516) 678-2410; and

    (11) Jason Louis Solotaroff of Giskan & Solotaroff, 207 West
         25th St., New York, NY 10001, Phone: 212-847-8315, Fax:
         212-473-8096, E-mail: jsolotaroff@gslawny.com.


OREGON: Retailers to Receive Windfall From Visa/Mastercard Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In what's being called one of the nation's largest-ever class
action awards, numerous Portland, Oregon retailers stand to
benefit from a windfall courtesy of the settled In re Visa
Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation (United States District
Court, Eastern District of New York, Case No. 96-CV-5238 (JG))
between retailers nationwide and credit providers Visa and
MasterCard, The Portland Business Journal reports.

The suit relates to how the stores process transactions made
with debit cards, which deduct cash from consumers' existing
bank accounts, rather than building up their debt with credit
accounts. The suit charges both MasterCard and Visa USA with
violating U.S. antitrust law by monopolistic and anticompetitive
business practices concerning debit cards.

The suit specifically alleges that Visa and MasterCard violated
antitrust laws by insisting that merchants who accept their
credit cards must also accept their debit cards, and also that
the two card companies charge unfair fees, eventually driving up
costs for consumers. The case was certified as a class action in
February of 2000, included five million merchants in the U.S.
and is said to involve billions of dollars, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (April 30, 2003) reports.

On the eve of trial, the parties agreed to settle with the final
settlement agreements being signed on June 4, 2003 and the
federal judge overseeing the case, Judge John Gleeson, granting
preliminary approval to the deal and the notice plan on June 13,
2003. Objections to the terms of the settlements and plan of
allocation were due last September 5, 2003. A fairness hearing
took place on September 25, 2003, in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York before Judge Gleeson, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (July 24, 2003) reports.

The settlement will bring awards ranging from healthy to
adequate. According to those overseeing the suit, the $3
billion-plus compensation should begin early next year. They say
that the antitrust class award would go to all businesses and
organizations in the United States that accepted Visa and
MasterCard debit and credit cards between October 25, 1992 and
June 21, 2003.

Alongside the $3 billion compensation award, the settlement also
called for the providers to stop requiring merchants that accept
credit cards to also accept certain debit card transactions. The
companies also agreed to lower debit card fees that they charge
merchants for an interim period, by one-third.

New York-based law firm Constantine Cannon, which is overseeing
the settlement's dispensation, sent claim forms to all eligible
retailers earlier this year. In most cases, the claim forms
included estimates indicating how much each participating
retailers can receive.

Jeff Shinder of Constantine Cannon told The Portland Business
Journal that of the 8.1 million retailers that received claim
forms, "hundreds of thousands" have so far responded. Retailers
have until December 28 to file their claims, according to him.
Any unclaimed money left after the deadline will enter a residue
fund to be shared by those who filed for the original settlement
money.

Mr. Shinder told Portland Business Journal that the settlement
amounts, based on a retailer's claims volume, would range from
less than $100 to more than $10 million for a handful of large
nationwide retailers. He also told Portland Business Journal
that retailers could also challenge their settlement amount,
which lawyers determined after analyzing a sampling of each the
retailers' Visa transactions. However, according to Mr. Shinder,
"Not many have challenged their settlement yet, but it's early."

Some of retail's heaviest hitters led the suit, including Wal-
Mart Stores Inc., Sears Roebuck and Co., Circuit City Stores
Inc. and Safeway Inc. Those stores will collect exponentially
more than a business the size of the smaller companies involved
in the case.

The suit is styled, "Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, et al v. Visa USA,
Inc., et al, Case No. 1:96-cv-05238-JG-RLM," filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
under Judge John Gleeson with referral to Roanne L. Mann.
Representing the Plaintiff/s are: Lloyd Constantine, Matthew L.
Cantor, Jeffrey Issac Shinder and Robert L. Begleiter of
Constantine Cannon, P.C., 477 Madison Ave., 11th Floor, New
York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-350-2700, Fax: 212-350-2701, E-mail:
lconstatine@cpny.com, mcantor@cpny.com, jshinder@cpny.com and
rbegleiter@cpny.com. Representing the Defendant/s are: Kevin J.
Arquit of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, 425 Lexington Ave., 29th
Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 455-7680 or -2000, Fax:
(212) 455-2502, E-mail: karquit@stblaw.com and Stephen V. Bomse,
Brian P. Brosnahan and Thomas P. Brown of Heller, Ehrman, White
and McAuliffe, 333 Bush St., Suite 3100, San Francisco, CA
94104-2878, Phone: (415) 772-6000, E-mail: sbomse@hewm.com,
bbrosnahan@hewm.com and tbrown@hewm.com.


ORTHO-MCNEIL: Parker & Waichman Files Suit Over Ortho Evra Patch
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Parker & Waichman, LLP, commenced a lawsuit
against Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc., a division of Johnson
and Johnson Inc. (NYSE:JNJ), on behalf of a 27-year-old woman
who suffered multiple pulmonary emboli after using the Ortho
Evra contraceptive patch for 10 months.

In March 2004, the victim began to experience neck and back pain
coupled with breathing problems. These symptoms intensified, and
the victim was taken to Illini Hospital in Silvas, Illinois on
March 14, 2004. A CT pulmonary angiogram revealed bilateral
pulmonary emboli in the lower lobe segment branches with left
lower lobe infiltrates and effusion. The victim was admitted to
intensive care and was placed on Lovenox and Coumadin therapy.
The plaintiff will likely undergo prolonged treatment with
anticoagulant medications; this treatment may be necessary for
the remainder of her life. The suit was filed on November 21,
2005, in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey in Newark, New Jersey.

On November 10, 2005, Ortho McNeil, in conjunction with the FDA,
issued a warning about the increased risks of blood clots
associated with Ortho Evra. In the new warning, Ortho McNeil
admitted for the first time that women who use the patch will be
exposed to up to 60% more estrogen than they would be exposed to
if they were taking a birth control pill with 35 micrograms of
estrogen. The patch is only intended to deliver 20 micrograms of
estrogen. The FDA's announcement on this warning can be found at
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2005/NEW01262.html.It is
widely understood that increased exposure to estrogen greatly
increases the risk of blood clots, which can cause serious
injury or death.

Pulmonary embolism is a type of thromboembolism that occurs when
an artery in either lung becomes blocked. In most cases, the
blockage is caused by one or more blood clots that travel to the
lungs from another part of the body. Usually these clots migrate
from the legs, but they can also form in the pelvic vein.
Pulmonary thrombosis is potentially fatal or may result in
pulmonary arterial obstruction, pulmonary obstruction, pulmonary
infarction, chronic pulmonary hypertension, dyspenea and
tachypnea. Symptoms may include shortness of breath, difficulty
breathing, anxiety, chest pain, fainting and convulsions.
Treatment may include long term use of anticoagulant medications
and/or surgery. Recent reports have indicated that the risk of
developing blood clots, pulmonary embolism, heart attack and
stroke may be significantly higher with the Ortho Evra patch
than with oral contraceptive use.

It is alleged that Ortho-McNeil was aware of the increased
medical risks associated with Ortho Evra before the drug was
approved and that, once approved, the company failed to
adequately warn patients about these risks. Evidence shows that
the risk of blood clots, heart attack and stroke associated with
Ortho Evra is significantly higher than with oral contraceptive
pills. The incidence of embolisms and thrombotic injuries in
Phase III trials of Ortho Evra was reportedly six times greater
than the incidence of such events in oral contraceptives using
the hormone levonorgestral. The FDA has logged 9,116 reports of
adverse reactions to the patch in a 17-month period, whereas
Ortho Tri-Cyclen, a birth control pill, only generated 1,237
adverse reports in a six year period. During a 12 month period,
44 serious injuries or deaths have been associated with Ortho
Evra, whereas only 17 such reports were linked to the birth
control pill during a similar time period. The pattern is
further magnified when usage rates are considered: Ortho Tri-
Cyclen has six times the number of users as Ortho Evra.

Ortho Evra is an adhesive, transdermal birth control patch that
is worn on the torso. The patch is intended to release 150 mcg
of norelgestromin and 20 mcg of ethinyl estradiol into the
bloodstream per 24 hours. It is replaced once a week for three
weeks, and no patch is worn during the fourth week during
menstruation. The regimen is then repeated. Ortho Evra was
approved by the FDA in November 2001, and over 4 million women
have used Ortho Evra since its approval. Ortho Evra continues to
be marketed aggressively to both consumers and physicians.

For more details, contact Jason Mark, Esq. or Melanie H.
Muhlstock, Esq. of Parker & Waichman, LLP, Phone:
1-800-529-4636, E-mail: info@yourlawyer.com, Web site:
http://www.yourlawyer.com.


PSS WORLD: Securities Settlement Hearing Set December 20, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Jacksonville Division, will hold a fairness hearing for
the proposed settlement in the matter, "Jack Hirsch, et al. v.
PSS World Medical, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:98-cv-502-J-32TEM."
The Case was filed on behalf of all persons, as of March 26,
1998, where shareholders of Physician Sales & Service, Inc.
(NASDAQ: PSSI), now known as PSS World Medical.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Timothy J.
Corrigan on December 20, 2005 at 10:00 a.m., at the United
States Courthouse, Middle District of Florida, 300 North Hogan
St., Courtroom 10B, Jacksonville, FL 32202.

For more details, contact PSS World, Inc. Securities
Litigation Claims Administrator c/o FRG Information Systems
Corporation, P.O. Box 4059, Grand Central Station, New York, NY
10162, Phone: 800-556-9955, Fax: 212-490-5709, E-mail:
claimsadministrator@frginfosys.com, Web site:
http://www.friginfosys.com/pss;Abbey Gardy, LLP, 212 East 39th
Street, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.889.3700, E-mail:
info@abbeygardy.com; and Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Phone:
(800) 797-5499, E-mail: sn06106@aol.com, Web site:
http://www.snlaw.net.


ROYAL GROUP: NY Court Dismisses Consolidated Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Group Technologies Limited (RYG-TSX, RYG-NYSE) reports
that the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York issued an Opinion and Order that grants the motions
of Royal Group and certain of its former directors, officers and
employees to dismiss a consolidated shareholder lawsuit that
sought class action status.

The lawsuit had alleged, among other things, that the defendants
failed to disclose certain related-party transactions in
violation of U.S. securities laws. The lawsuit was dismissed
without prejudice on the grounds that Canadian courts would
provide a more convenient and appropriate forum. The District
Court's ruling is subject to appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals, and the Company has no assurance that it will not be
the subject of further shareholder lawsuits based on similar
allegations in Canadian and U.S. courts.

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

     (v) Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Phone: 273 Montgomery
         Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-
         660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-
         mail: mhenzel182@aol.com.

    (vi) Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Lerach
         Coughlin by Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or by
         E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site:
         http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/royalgroup/.

   (vii) Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. by Phone: (800) 495-1868 or by E-
         mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com.

  (viii) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
         (212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or by E-mail:
         info@murrayfrank.com.


SEI INVESTMENTS: Mutual Fund Lawsuit Still Pending In MD Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments Distribution Co. faces a consolidated amended
class action complaint filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland titled "Stephen Carey v. Pilgrim
Baxter & Associates, LTD, et. al."

This Complaint is purportedly made on behalf of all persons that
purchased or held PBHG mutual funds during the period from
November 1, 1998 to November 13, 2003 and relates generally to
various market timing practices allegedly permitted by the PBHG
Funds.  The suit names as defendants some 36 persons and
entities, including various persons and entities affiliated with
Pilgrim Baxter & Associates, Ltd., various PBHG Funds, various
alleged market timers, various alleged facilitating brokers,
various clearing brokers, various banks that allegedly financed
the market timing activities, various distributors/underwriters
and others.

The Complaint alleges that the Company was the named
distributor/underwriter from November 1998 until July 2001 for
various PBHG funds in which market timing allegedly occurred
during that period.  The Complaint generally alleges that the
prospectus for certain PBHG funds made misstatements and
omissions concerning market timing practices in PBHG funds.

The Complaint alleges that SIDCO violated Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and
Sections 34(b) and 36(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940,
and that SIDCO breached its fiduciary duties, engaged in
constructive fraud and aided and abetted the breach by others of
their fiduciary duties.  The Complaint does not name the Company
or any of its affiliates as a market timer, facilitating or
clearing broker or financier of market timers.  The Complaint
seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages,
disgorgement and restitution.


SEMCO ENERGY: Seeks Amendment To WV Court Ruling Dismissing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
SEMCO Energy Services, Inc., SEMCO Pipeline Company and other
defendants asked the United States District Court for the
District of West Virginia to amend its dismissal of the class
action filed against them, alleging violations of the federal
antitrust law.

In late March 2003, the Company was named in a putative class-
action lawsuit alleging that approximately 30 defendants,
including SEMCO Energy, Inc. and SEMCO Energy Ventures, Inc.,
engaged in practices that violated the Sherman Antitrust Act and
tortiously interfered with the business of the plaintiffs. In
October 2003, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this action in
sthe jurisdiction in which the action was originally filed and
gave the Company notice that it would re-file the complaint in a
different jurisdiction.

In November 2003, the plaintiff filed a separate but similar
lawsuit against SEMCO Energy Services, Inc., a company
subsidiary no longer actively engaged in business and whose
operations were sold in 1999. This lawsuit was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff in July 2004.

A variation of the aforementioned putative class action lawsuit
was filed in July 2004. Neither the Company nor any of its
subsidiaries were named as defendants.  In October 2004,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming, among others,
SEMCO Energy Services, Inc. and SEMCO Pipeline Company, as
additional defendants. The amended lawsuit alleges violations of
the Sherman Antitrust Act, the West Virginia Antitrust Act and
various common law claims.

In July 2005, the court granted a motion to dismiss plaintiff's
claims, in part, dismissing certain price-fixing claims but
allowing proceedings to continue with respect to other claims.
A motion to dismiss this case on other grounds is still pending.
On October 4, 2005, the court granted a motion to dismiss filed
by certain select defendants, including the Company entities, as
to federal antitrust claims arising prior to October 25, 2000.
The defendants have requested that the court amend its dismissal
order to include any state claims arising during the same period
and this motion is still pending.

The suit is styled "Stand Energy Corporation v. Columbia Gas
Transmission Corporation et al." case no. 2:04-cv-00867," filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
West Virginia, under Judge Robert C. Chambers.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Joshua I. Barrett, Rudolph L. DiTrapano, Molly
McGinley Han and Lonnie C. Simmons, DITRAPANO BARRETT & DIPIERO,
604 Virginia Street, E Charleston, WV 25301, Phone: 304/342-
0133, Fax: 304 342-4605; and Robert C. Sanders, LAW OFFICE OF
ROBERT C. SANDERS, 12051 Upper Marlboro Pike, Upper Marlboro, MD
20772-2922, Phone: 301/574-3400, Fax: 301 574-2153.
Representing the Company are Michael S. Becker, James W.
Draughn, Jr., Avery Gardiner, Thomas M. McDermott of KIRKLAND &
ELLIS, Suite 1200, 655 Fifteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC
20005, Phone: 202/879-5000, Fax: 202 879-5200; and John H.
Tinney of THE TINNEY LAW FIRM, P. O. Box 3752, Charleston, WV
25337-3752, phone: 304/720-3310, Fax: 304 720-3315.


SMITH BARNEY: BellSouth Employees' Suit Goes Back to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Former BellSouth Corporation employees suing Smith Barney for
what they say was bad investment advice are coming closer to
their day in court, The Charlotte Observer reports.

Back in 2003, more than 60 former employees of the phone
company, many from the Charlotte, North Carolina sued the
investment giant in Guilford County Superior Court, however, the
case was bumped twice to U.S. District Court at Smith Barney's
request.

In an opinion issued recently though, U.S. District Judge Frank
Bullock Jr. ordered the case back to state court, citing that
Smith Barney's request is "weak." In addition, he also ordered
the firm to pay the plaintiffs' expenses from the move, saying
the shift to federal court "complicated, delayed and increased
the cost of their state court action."

Tracy Pride Stoneman, an attorney representing the BellSouth
employees, told The Charlotte Observer that she hopes to get
class action certification for the lawsuit and schedule a court
date as soon as possible. She also told The Charlotte Observer,
"Clearly, the judge was critical of Smith Barney and its
lawyers. That only bodes well for us."

Citigroup spokeswoman Kim Atwater told The Charlotte Observer
that the "decision was procedural and has nothing to do with the
merits of the case."

Asccording to the suit, BellSouth employees, under their union
or employment contracts, were eligible for retirement benefits
after 30 years of service. The suit alleges Smith Barney
advisers were aware of the benefits and in 1995 started holding
seminars encouraging BellSouth workers to retire. It further
alleges that the defendants told employees they could generate
more take-home pay than when they were working. However, their
investments soured in the market downturn and the retirees say
they are struggling.


SPARK NETWORKS: IL, CA Consumers Sue Over Dating Services Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois upheld summary
judgment in favor of Spark Networks PLC in a class action filed
against it, alleging violations of the state's Dating Referral
Services Act.

On June 21, 2002, Tatyana Fertelmeyster filed a class action
complaint against the Company in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, based on an alleged violation of the Illinois
Dating Referral Services Act.  Another nationwide class action,
styled "Jason Adelman v. MatchNet plc, case no. BC 306167,"
filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court in California, charges
the Company with an alleged violation of California Civil Code
Section 1694 et seq., which regulates businesses that provide
dating services.

In each of these cases, the complaint included allegations that
alleged that the Company was a dating service and, as an alleged
dating service, the Company is required to provide language in
its contracts that allows members to rescind their contracts
within three days, that allows reimbursement of a portion of the
contract price if the member dies during the term of the
contract and/or that allows members to cancel their contracts in
the event of disability or relocation.  Causes of action include
breach of applicable state and/or federal laws, fraudulent and
deceptive business practices, breach of contract and unjust
enrichment.  The plaintiffs are seeking remedies including
declaratory relief, restitution, actual damages although not
quantified, treble damages and/or punitive damages and
attorney's fees and costs.

A similar suit, styled "Huebner v. InterActiveCorp., Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles Case No.
BC 305875," was filed against InterActiveCorp'ss Match.com that
has been ruled related to "Adelman", but the two cases have not
been consolidated.  Adelman and Huebner each seek to certify a
nationwide class action based on their complaints. Because the
cases are class actions, they have been assigned to the Los
Angeles Superior Court Complex Litigation Program.

Because the cases are class actions, they have been assigned to
the Los Angeles Superior Court Complex Litigation Program. The
court has ordered a bifurcation of the liability issue. At an
August 15, 2005 Status Conference, the court set the bifurcated
trial on the issue of liability for March 27, 2006.  On March
25, 2005, the court in "Fertelmeyster" entered its Memorandum
Opinion and Order granting summary judgment in the Company's
favor on the grounds that Ms. Fertelmeyster lacks standing to
seek injunctive relief or restitutionary relief under the
Illinois Dating Services Act, Ms. Fertelmeyster did not suffer
any actual damages, and the Company was not unjustly enriched as
a result of its contract with Ms. Fertelmeyster.  The Memorandum
Opinion "disposes of all matters in controversy" in the
litigation and also provides that the Company is subject to the
Illinois Dating Services Act and, as such, its subscription
agreements violate the act and are void and unenforceable. This
ruling may subject the Company to potential liability for claims
brought by the Illinois Attorney General or customers that have
been injured by its violation of the statute.  Ms. Fertelmeyster
filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Memorandum Opinion
and, on August 26, 2005, the court issued its opinion denying
Ms. Fertelmeyster's Motion for Reconsideration. In the opinion,
the court, among other things:

     (1) decertified the class, eliminating the last remnant of
         the litigation;

     (2) rejected each of the plaintiff's arguments based on the
         arguments and law that the Company provided in its
         opposition;

     (3) stated that the court would not judicially amend the
         Illinois statute to provide for restitution when the
         legislature selected damages as the sole remedy;

     (4) noted that the cases cited by plaintiff in connection
         with plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration actually
         support the court's prior order granting summary
         judgment in the Company's favor; and

     (5) denied plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration in its
         entirety.

In December 2002, the Supreme Court of New York dismissed the
case brought by Ms. Grossman. Although the plaintiff appealed
the decision, in October 2004, the New York Supreme Court,
Appellate Division upheld the lower court's dismissal. In
addition, two Justices wrote concurring opinions stating their
opinion that the Company's services were not covered under the
New York Dating Services Act.

The suit is styled "Fertelmeyster v. Matchnet PLC, case no.
2002-CH-11535," filed in the Circuit Court for Cook County,
Illinois, under Judge Bernetta D. Bush.  Representing plaintiff
Tatyana Fertelmeyster is BLIM & EDELSON LLC, 53 W Jackson #1642,
Chicago IL 60604, Phone: (312) 913-9400.  Representing the
Company is KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, 200 E Randolph Dr., Chicago IL
60601, Phone: (312) 861-2000.


ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Settles Investors' Suits Over 2004 Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
St. Paul Travelers Cos. Inc. (NYSE: STA) agreed in principle to
settle a class action lawsuit related to the April 2004 merger
that formed the company, The Twin Cities Business Journal
reports.

The plaintiffs alleged that insurers The St. Paul Cos. Inc. and
Travelers Property Casualty Corporation violated securities law
by providing false or misleading statements with respect to the
value of certain loss reserves. Though terms of the settlement
were not disclosed, St. Paul Travelers maintains that the amount
is not material to the company and would not affect its
earnings.

The settlement, which is contingent on the negotiation of a
definitive agreement and court approval, also permanently
disposes three putative class action lawsuits brought by
shareholders alleging breach of fiduciary duty in connection
with the merger. The plaintiffs in those lawsuits previously
withdrew their complaints voluntarily without prejudice.


USA BEVERAGES: FTC Launches Consumer Fraud Suit V. VoIP Services
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Costa Rican operation that used Voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP) services, shell corporations, aliases, and shills to con
U.S. consumers into investing in a bogus business opportunity
has been halted by a U.S. District Court at the request of the
Federal Trade Commission. The court has issued a temporary
restraining order barring the false claims, freezing the
defendants' assets, and appointing a receiver, who shut down the
toll-free and U.S. phone lines used to market the scheme.

"With the advent of Internet telephony, the days when consumers
could rely upon a phone number to know where the person they
call is located have come and gone," said Lydia Parnes, Director
of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "You may think you
are calling an established American business, but you are
talking to an overseas scam artist. Consumers should never rely
solely on what they are told or shown by sellers of franchise or
business opportunities, and should always investigate the
opportunity with their own eyes."

The defendants used classified ads and a Web site to advertise
their coffee display rack franchises. They claimed that in
exchange for payments from $18,000 to $85,000, they would
provide customers with what they needed to operate a successful
coffee display rack business, including assistance in finding
profitable locations for the racks. According to the company's
Web site, it was located in Las Cruces, New Mexico and had been
in business since 1994.

According to the FTC's complaint, the scam actually was based in
Costa Rica, but the defendants used VoIP services to obscure the
location of the business and make it appear that they were
operating from New Mexico. The complaint also alleges the
company has been operating for months, not years, as claimed on
the Web site.  The FTC's complaint alleged the defendants made
false claims about earnings potentials, locations available for
the display racks, and company-selected references. The
complaint further alleged the defendants did not make certain
disclosures required in the initial disclosure documents and in
advertising that contained earnings claims.

Representatives selling the franchises for the defendants
claimed that consumers would make no less than $1,055.60 per
week if they operated a 13-display rack venture. The FTC alleged
such claims were false. As part of the sales pitch,
representatives assured consumers that numerous retail locations
were already lined up in their local area - another claim the
FTC alleged was untrue. Representatives referred prospective
buyers to "satisfied purchasers." The references echoed earnings
claims made by the representatives for the company and spoke
highly of the location service. The FTC charged, however, that
often the references were simply shills, paid by the company for
endorsements, using prepaid cell phones to make it appear
purchasers were operating successful coffee display routes
throughout the United States.

The FTC complaint named as defendants USA Beverages, Inc,;
Dilraj Mathauda, also known as "Dan Reynolds;" Sirtaj Mathauda;
Jeff Pearson, also known as "Paul Clayton"; David Mead; and
Silvio Carrano.  The U.S. district court judge granted an ex-
parte temporary restraining order, asset freeze, immediate
access, and the appointment of a receiver. The TRO also
prohibits the defendants from the six law violations alleged in
the FTC's complaint.  The FTC received invaluable assistance in
this matter from the office of the New Mexico Attorney General.

The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the complaint was
4-0. The complaint was filed under seal in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida. The seal was lifted
November 15, 2005.

Copies of the complaint are available from the FTC's Web site at
http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's Consumer Response
Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent
fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the
marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot,
stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish
(bilingual counselors are available to take complaints), or to
get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-
free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form
at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing,
identity theft,and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer
Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of
civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and
abroad.  For more details, contact Jacqueline Dizdul, Office of
Public Affairs, Phone: 202-326-2472 or contact Lisa Hone, Bureau
of Consumer Protection, Phone: 202-326-3207 or visit the
Website: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/11/usabeverage.htm.


WAL-MART STORES: Recalls 7.2T Toy Sets Due to Choking Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Wal-Mart Stores Inc., of Bentonville, Arkansas is
voluntarily recalling about 7,200 units of 10-in-1 Activity
Trunks by Kid Connection.

According to the company, some of the toy sets in these trunks
contain small parts, posing a choking hazard to young children.

The recalled "10-IN-1 Wood Activity Trunk" is a wood box with a
removable lid. The trunk measures about 7-inches wide by 8 -
inches high by 14 -inches long. The toy set provides 10
different activities, including a pounding bench, puzzle,
stacking rings, bead maze/runner, wood alphabet blocks, wood
stacking blocks of various shapes, wood train engine, and
plastic building blocks. One side of the trunk contains an
abacus with five rows of colored beads. The other side of the
trunk contains the shape sorter and pictures of a yellow tiger
and purple bear with building blocks. No writing is on the box.
The red cardboard packaging reads, "kidconnectionr" and "10-IN-1
Wood Activity Trunk."

Manufactured in China, the toys were exclusively sold at Wal-
Mart stores nationwide from July 2005 through September 2005 for
about $15.

Remedy: Consumers should immediately take these toys away from
young children and return the product to Wal-Mart for a full
refund.

Consumer Contact: Call Wal-Mart at (800) 925-6278 between 7 a.m.
and 9 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit Wal-Mart's Web
site: http://www.walmart.comand click on "Product Recalls" for
more information.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in TX
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., filed a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on behalf of all persons who acquired
the publicly traded securities of Blockbuster, Inc. (NYSE:BBI)
pursuant to the Company's exchange offer of Viacom, Inc.
("Viacom") stock for 144 million common shares of Blockbuster
(the "Exchange Offer"), and on behalf of those who purchased
Blockbuster shares in the open market between September 8, 2004
and August 9, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements. It is alleged that Viacom caused Blockbuster to pay
a special dividend of which Viacom was the primary beneficiary.
In order to pay the dividend, Blockbuster was forced to take on
debt in the amount of approximately $1.1 billion. In the
Prospectus issued in connection with Viacom's divestiture of its
Blockbuster shares (the "Prospectus"), defendants stated that
Blockbuster planned to transform itself through a series of
initiatives and that Blockbuster's debt obligations would not
impede its transformation.

Unbeknownst to investors, Blockbuster was wholly unprepared to
build the technological infrastructure required to integrate its
in-store and online sales operations and otherwise execute the
Company's transformation. Moreover, the Company's core in-store
rental operations were not generating sufficient cash flow. On
August 9, 2005, Blockbuster reported:

     (1) a second-quarter net loss of $57.2 million, or $0.31
         per share;

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

     (3) that it was abandoning its 2005 guidance. Blockbuster
         also announced that, on August 8, 2005, it had been
         forced to amend its credit facility to provide for a
         waiver of its leverage ratio covenants.

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa of
Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.


GREAT WOLF: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. WI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, initiated a securities fraud
class action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin (05-C-0687-C) against Great Wolf Resorts
Inc. ("Great Wolf" or the "Company") (NYSE: WOLF). Presently,
the class is defined in the complaint drafted by the Scott firm
as those who purchased Great Wolf securities between December
14, 2004, and July 28, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), but
any purchaser of Great Wolf securities can contact the firm as
class periods can change as information is revealed. Great Wolf
owns, operates, and develops drive-to family resorts featuring
indoor water parks and other family-oriented entertainment
activities. The Company is headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin.

The complaint alleges that defendants' registration statements
issued in connection with the Company's 2004 Initial Public
Offering ("IPO") contained untrue statements of material fact.
According to the complaint, at the root of these issues was the
fact that the Company provided misleading, unreliable and
unpredictable quarterly and annualized guidance based on its
preferred non-GAAP EBITDA measure. Since defendants' EBITDA
number was allegedly unreliable, both the Company's business
prospects and in fact the value of the underlying business was
in doubt to the extent this defective measure was used for
valuation purposes to convince investors to buy the Company's
stock during the IPO. The complaint was filed today alleging
that during the Class Period, Great Wolf and certain individual
defendants violated provisions of the federal securities laws
(Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934).

On July 28, 2005, investors' interests drowned as they learned
the true magnitude of the Company's earnings shortfall and its
cause - the alleged unreliability of defendants' EBITDA
projections. Worse, analysts concluded that defendants were
fully aware of the true magnitude of the earnings miss when they
were out marketing clients at the end of June but failed to
publicly disclose the materiality of the problem at that time.
According to the Associated Press, analysts point to the
company's inability to handle the increased competition, saying
it contributed to other problems, such as a second-quarter
earnings miss and questions about the company's internal
controls. On the news of July 28, 2005, the price of the
Company's stock plunged $6.12 to $13.65, on extremely heavy
volume of 6.0 million shares. The price has continued to decline
since July and today traded at $8.79.

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


HELEN OF TROY: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP announces
that on November 15, 2005 it filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Helen of Troy, Ltd. ("Helen of Troy" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: HELE) between October 12, 2004, through
October 10, 2005.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division, against the
Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Gerald J. Rubin, and its
Chief Financial Officer, Thomas J. Benson. According to the
complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that Defendants engaged in a scheme to
defraud shareholders through the issuance of positive earnings
guidance intended to artificially inflate Company stock for
which their was no legitimate support. Guidance for 2006 was
announced as part of the fiscal third quarter of 2005 results,
the inflation of which mislead the investing public. Immediately
following this increase in the stock price to its class period
high, Defendant Rubin sold almost 400,000 shares at its peak
price of $33.00 per share- netting proceeds of almost $13
million on the improper guidance. On October 11, 2005, the
Company substantially lowered its unattainable guidance for 2006
and reported a year over year decline in revenues during its
second quarter. On this news, the stock lost 21%, falling to
$15.55 per share on a volume of 4.4 million shares - more than
15 times its daily average.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman of Milberg Weiss
Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New
York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: (800) 320-5081, E-mail:
sfeerick@milbergweiss.com, Web site: http://www.milbergweiss.com
and Maya Saxena or Joseph White of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman, LLP, 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 600, Boca Raton,
FL 33486, E-mail: msaxena@milbergweiss.com or
jwhite@milbergweiss.com.


INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: Federman & Sherwood Files Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against Interlink Electronics, Inc.
(Nasdaq: LINKE).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from April 24, 2003 through November 1, 2005.

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


UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Universal American
Financial Corporation (NASDAQ: UHCO) ("Universal American" or
the "Company") between February 16, 2005 and October 28, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Universal American
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Evan J. Smith, Esq. or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esq. of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite
602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 877-LEGAL-90, E-mail:
clients@brodsky-smith.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  * * *