CAR_Public/051125.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, November 25, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 234

                            Headlines

ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Reaches Settlement For MD, NY Investor Suits
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: MD Court Mulls ERISA Fraud Lawsuit Dismissal
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: TN Injury Suit Still Pending, Mediation Fails
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Ontario Residents File Toxic-Tort Litigation
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: CA Court Dismisses Electricity Antitrust Suit

AMERCO: AZ Court Mulls Consolidated Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
ASPEN TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches $5.6M Settlement in MA Investor Suit
CANADA: AFN Chief Applauds Settlement of Residential School Case
CANADA: Group to Boost Legal Process For Recycling Fee Lawsuit
CONIFER SPECIALTIES: Recalls Mixes For Undeclared Sulfur Dioxide

HUMANA INC.: Final RICO Suit Fairness Hearing Set March 6,2006
INTERCHANGE LITIGATION: MDL Panel Assigns Case to E.D. NY Judge
INTERNATIONAL PLAYTHINGS: Recalls 6T Vehicles For Choking Hazard
JEFFERSON-PILOT: Court Mulls Appeal of Suit Certification Denial
JEFFERSON-PILOT: Shareholders Launch Lawsuit v. Lincoln Merger

LOUISVILLE LEADER: Recalls 3T Trestle Ladders Due to Injury Risk
MOHAWK INSTITUTE: Government Settles Residential School Lawsuit
NEW YORK: Appeals Court Dismisses Austrian Jewish Victims' Suit
NEW YORK: Cops Launch Suit Over Continued Racial Discrimination
OHIO: Steubenville Attorney Launches Suit Over Traffic Cameras

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP: Trial Starts Soon in Heartland Suit
SALOMON SMITH: BellSouth Workers' Suit Goes Back to State Court
SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA: Faces Suits Over Cisco Systems Acquisition
SONY BMG: TX Attorney General Files Suit Over Illegal Spyware
WYETH: Court Nixes Appeal of Approval of Fen-Phen Pact Amendment

WYETH: AR Court Refuses Certification For PREMPRO Litigation
WYETH: Litigation Pending Due To Cough/Cold Products With PPA
WYETH: Continues To Face Average Wholesale Pricing Litigation
WYETH: Continues To Face PREMARIN Antitrust Fraud Litigation

                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Industries Defends 7 Suits in AL Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fresenius Reserves US$115Mil for Settlement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rolls-Royce Slapped With GBP150,000 Claim
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: US Lawyers to Tackle South African Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MD Court Reverses Verdict in Scapa's Favor

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Ministry to Hasten Alimta Evaluation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Govt. Expects Hardie Deal in Two Weeks
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Lawyers Seek to Move Trial From Mont.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maremont Corp.'s Claims Decrease to 61,700
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler's UK Firms Face 276 Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NY Man Charged for Illegal Asbestos Removal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MS Man Charged in Improper Removal Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JPY70B Slated for Aid to Japanese Victims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IL Electrician Files FELA Suit v. Railroad
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Senate Sets US$140B Hearing for January `06

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Victims Still Awaiting Court's Decision
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WVU Reaches Settlement With 5,600 Employees
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Risks $86B Loss if Deal Not Reached
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Most SA Mine Workers Sick With Asbestosis
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EA Probe Launched in Former Bakery Location

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MP Urges Housing Groups to Check for Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Botched Removal Endangers Cyprus Workers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Developer Pays US$10M to 18 Oregon Families
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aearo Settles US$1.6 Mil in Claims for 2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Fails to Post Provision for Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FL Court Remands Suit Against Union Carbide
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CT Court Allows Injunctive Claim v. Crane
ASBESTOS ALERT: MS Lot Owner, Firm Hit With Two US$47,150 Fines
ASBESTOS ALERT: CA Jury Grants US$1.9M Damages to Retired Worker


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BAYOU MANAGEMENT: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Suit in CT
GREAT WOLF: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in WI
GREAT WOLF: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. WI
HELEN OF TROY: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX
IMERGENT INC.: Labaton Sucharow Provides Updates on Litigation

INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: Glancy Binkow Sets Lead Plaintiff Cut-Off
TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Glancy Binkow Sets Plaintiff Cut-Off
UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in NY
UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in NY

                          *********

ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Reaches Settlement For MD, NY Investor Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy, Inc. reached an agreement in principle to
settle the consolidated securities class action and the
shareholder derivative lawsuits filed against it in New York and
Maryland courts.

From October 2002 through December 2002, plaintiffs claiming to
represent purchasers of the Company's securities filed 14
putative class action lawsuits against the Company and several
of its former senior managers in United States District Courts
for the Southern District of New York and the District of
Maryland.  The complaints alleged that the Company and senior
management violated federal securities laws when the Company
purchased Merrill Lynch's energy marketing and trading business
with the knowledge that the business was built on illegal wash
or round-trip trades with Enron, which the complaints alleged
artificially inflated trading revenue, volume and growth.  The
complaints asserted that the Company's fortunes fell when
Enron's collapse exposed what plaintiffs claim were illegal
trades in the energy markets. All of the securities cases were
transferred to the District of Maryland and consolidated.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 3, 2004 that
alleged that the defendants violated federal securities laws by
failing to disclose weaknesses in Merrill Lynch's energy
marketing and trading business, as well as other internal
control and accounting deficiencies. The amended complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and equitable relief.

In June 2003, a shareholder derivative action was filed against
the Company's Board of Directors and several former senior
managers in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the
County of New York. The suit alleges that the Board and former
senior management breached fiduciary duties to the Company that
have exposed it to the securities class action lawsuits. The New
York state court derivative action has been stayed pending the
commencement of discovery in the securities cases.  On April 8,
2005, a second shareholder derivative action was filed against
the Company's Board of Directors and several former senior
managers and former directors. The action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland and consolidated
with the securities class actions pending in that court. The
Maryland derivative action contains allegations similar to the
New York state court derivative action.

The Company has reached agreements in principle to settle the
consolidated securities class action as well as the related
shareholder derivative actions. The proposed settlements remain
subject to a number of conditions, including the negotiation of
final settlement documents and court approval following notice
to shareholders and class members. Under the proposed settlement
in the consolidated securities class action, the action will be
dismissed with prejudice in exchange for a cash payment of
$15.05 million, which will be made by the Company's insurance
carrier. Pursuant to the proposed settlement of the shareholder
derivative actions, those actions will be dismissed with
prejudice in exchange for a cash payment of $450,000, which will
be made by the Company's insurance carrier, and its agreement to
adopt certain corporate governance changes.  

The suit is styled "In re: v. Allegheny Energy, Inc., Securities
Litigation, case no. 1:03-md-01518-AMD," filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland, under Judge
Andre M. Davis.  Representing the Company is William J. Snipes,
Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, 125 Broad St., New York, NY 10004-
2498, Phone: 12125584000, Fax: 12125583588, E-mail:
snipesw@sullcrom.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Fred Taylor Isquith, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and
         Herz LLP, 270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         12125454600, Fax: 12125454653

     (2) Steven G. Schulman, Milberg Weiss Bershad and Schulman
         LLP, One Pennsylvania Plz 49th Fl., New York, NY 10119-
         0165, Phone: 12125945300, Fax: 12128681229, E-mail:
         sschulman@milbergweiss.com

     (3) Mark C. Gardy, Abbey Gardy LLP, 212 E 39th St., New
         York, NY 10016, Phone: 12128893700

     (4) Deborah R. Gross, Law Office of Bernard M Gross PC
         John Wanamaker Bldg Ste 450, Juniper and Market Sts,
         Philadelphia, PA 19107, Phone: 12155613600, Fax:
         12155613000, E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com  

     (5) John Bucher Isbister, Tydings and Rosenberg LLP, 100 E
         Pratt St 26th Fl, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone:
         14107529714, Fax: 14107275460, E-mail:
         jisbister@tydingslaw.com


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: MD Court Mulls ERISA Fraud Lawsuit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland
has yet to rule on Allegheny Energy, Inc.'s motion seeking the
dismissal of the consolidated class action filed against it,
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA).

In February and March 2003, two putative class action lawsuits
were filed, alleging that the company and a senior manager
violated ERISA by:

     (1) failing to provide complete and accurate information to
         plan beneficiaries regarding the energy trading
         business, among other things;

     (2) failing to diversify plan assets;

     (3) failing to monitor investment alternatives;

     (4) failing to avoid conflicts of interest and

     (5) violating fiduciary duties.

The ERISA cases were consolidated in the District of Maryland.
On April 26, 2004, the plaintiffs in the ERISA cases filed an
amended complaint, adding a number of current and former
directors of the Company as defendants and clarifying the nature
of their claims.  On June 25, 2004, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs have opposed
the motion and it remains outstanding.

The suit is styled "Keesecker v. Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al.,
case no. 1:03-cv-00843-AMD," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland, under Judge Andre M. Davis.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Thomas J. Hart of Slevin and Hart
PC, 1625 Massachusetts Ave NW Ste 450, Washington, DC 20036,
Phone: 12027978700, Fax: 12022348231, E-mail:
tjh@slevinhart.com.  Representing the Company are:


     (i) Christa D Haas, Groom Law Group Chtd, 1701 Pennsylvania
         Ave NW, Washington, DC 20006, Phone: 12028570620, Fax:
         12024594503, E-mail: cdh@groom.com

    (ii) Gabrielle S Moses, Venable Baetjer and Howard LLP, Two
         Hopkins Plz Ste 1800, Baltimore, MD 21201, Phone:
         14102447400, Fax: 14102447742, E-mail:
         gsmoses@venable.com

   (iii) Bradley P Smith and William J. Snipes, Sullivan and
         Cromwell LLP, 125 Broad St, New York, NY 10004-2498,
         Phone: 12125581660, Fax: 12125583588, E-mail:
         smithbr@sullcrom.com or snipesw@sullcrom.com


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: TN Injury Suit Still Pending, Mediation Fails
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy Supply Gleason Generating Facility, LLC, a
subsidiary of Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC (AE Supply)
entered mediation, but failed to reach a settlement for the
lawsuit filed against it in the Circuit Court for Weakley
County, Tennessee, by residents living in the vicinity of the
generation facility in Gleason, Tennessee.

The original suit was filed on September 16, 2002.  AE Supply
purchased the generation facility in 2001. The plaintiffs are
asserting claims based on trespass and/or nuisance, claiming
personal injury and property damage as a result of noise from
the generation facility.  They seek a restraining order with
respect to the operation of the plant and damages of $200
million. A mediation session was held on June 17, 2004, but the
parties did not reach settlement. AE has undertaken property
purchases and other mitigation measures.


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Ontario Residents File Toxic-Tort Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy Supply Company LLC faces a toxic-tort,
purported class action filed in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice on behalf of all persons residing in Ontario within the
past six years (and/or their family members or heirs).  The suit
also names as defendants its regulated subsidiary Monongahela
Power Company and its unregulated subsidiary Allegheny
Generating Company, along with 18 other companies with coal-
fired generating plants.

The suit alleges that the defendants negligently failed to
prevent their plants from emitting air pollutants in such a
manner as to cause death and multiple adverse health effects, as
well as economic damages, to the plaintiff class.  The
plaintiffs seek damages in the approximate amount of Canadian
$49.1 billion (approximately US $41.6 billion, assuming an
exchange rate of 1.18 Canadian dollars per US dollar), along
with continuing damages in the amount of Canadian $4.1 billion
per year and punitive damages of Canadian $1.0 billion
(approximately US $3.5 billion and US $850 million,
respectively, assuming an exchange rate of 1.18 Canadian dollars
per US dollar) along with such other relief as the court deems
just.


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: CA Court Dismisses Electricity Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for the County of San Francisco
dismissed with prejudice the class action filed against
Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC and more than two dozen
other named defendant power suppliers.

Eight related putative class action lawsuits were filed against
and served on the defendants in various California superior
courts during 2002. These class action suits were removed from
state court and transferred to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California. Seven of the suits were
commenced by consumers of wholesale electricity in California.  
The eighth, Millar v. Allegheny Energy Supply Co., et al., was
filed on behalf of California consumers and taxpayers.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the Company and
the other defendant power suppliers violated California's
antitrust statute and the California unfair business practices
statutes by manipulating the California electricity market. The
suits also challenge the validity of various long-term power
contracts with the State of California, including the CDWR
contract.

On August 25, 2003, the U.S. District Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the seven consumer class actions
with prejudice. On February 25, 2005, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's
judgment dismissing the seven class actions with prejudice.  he
District Court separately granted plaintiffs' motion to remand
in the eighth action, Millar, on July 9, 2003.   On December 18,
2003, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in California
state court, solely on behalf of consumers, naming certain
additional defendants, including The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
("Goldman Sachs"). The case was removed to federal court based
on the amended complaint.  On January 11, 2005, the federal
district court remanded the case back to the state court in San
Francisco.

On May 6, 2005, the defendants in the Millar action filed a
series of demurrers seeking to have the action dismissed. On
September 7, 2005, the state court ruled that the plaintiff's
complaint would be dismissed without leave to amend. On October
7, 2005, the state court entered judgment dismissing the
complaint without leave to amend. Plaintiffs have agreed not to
appeal the state court's judgment.

The suit is styled "James M. Millar, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general
public v. Allegheny Energy, et al., Case No. 04-CV-901," pending
in the Superior Court of San Francisco, California.  Lawyers for
the plaintiffs are Steve W Berman of Hagens and Berman, 1301
Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: (206)623-
0594 or (206)623-7292; and Kevin P Roddy of Hagens Berman, 700
South Flower Street, Suite 2940, Los Angeles, CA 90017-4101,
Phone: (213)330-7150 or (213)330-7152


AMERCO: AZ Court Mulls Consolidated Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona has
yet to rule on AMERCO's motion to dismiss a consolidated
putative class action filed against it, entitled "In Re AMERCO
Securities Litigation, United States District Court, Case No.
CV-N-03-0050-ECR (RAM)."

The action alleges claims for violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 there under, section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and sections 11,
12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The action alleges
that AMERCO engaged in transactions with SAC entities that
falsely improved AMERCO's financial statements and that AMERCO
failed to disclose the transactions properly.  

Several suits were initially filed in the United Sates District
Court, District of Nevada, namely:

     (1) Article Four Trust v. AMERCO, et al., District of
         Nevada, United States District Court, Case No. CV-N-03-
         0050-DWH-VPC

     (2) Mates v. AMERCO, et al., United States District Court,
         District of Nevada, Case No. CV-N-0 3-0107

     (3) Klug v. AMERCO, et al., United States District Court of
         Nevada, Case No. CV-S-03-0380

     (4) Holdings v. AMERCO, et al., United States District
         Court, District of Nevada, Case No. CV-N-03-0199

The suit is styled "In Re AMERCO Securities Litigation, United
States District Court, Case No. CV-N-03-0050-ECR (RAM)," filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.  
The Company is represented by Laurence Joseph De Respino, U-Haul
International Inc, 2721 N Central Ave, Ste 1100, Phoenix, AZ
85012, Phone: 602-263-6977, Fax: 602-271-7717, E-mail:
larry_de_respino@uhaul.com; and
Melvin R. Goldman and Lawrence R. Katzin, Morrison & Foerster
LLP, 425 Market St, San Francisco, CA 94105-2482, Phone:
415-268-7311, Fax: 415-268-7522, E-mail: mgoldman@mofo.com or
lkatzin@mofo.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are Jeffrey
Philip Campisi, Christine Marie Fox, Frederick S. Fox, and
Lawrence D. King, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, 805 Third Ave,
22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-687-9180, Fax:
212-687-7714, E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com,
cfox@kaplanfox.com, ffox@kaplanfox.com, lking@kaplanfox.com; and
Andrew S Friedman, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, 2901
N Central Ave, Ste 1000, Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311, Phone:
602-776-5903, Fax: 602-274-1199, e-mail: afriedman@bffb.com.  


ASPEN TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches $5.6M Settlement in MA Investor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aspen Technologies Inc. (Nasdaq: AZPN) stated in a recent a
federal filing that it plans to settle an investor class action
lawsuit for $5.6 million, The Boston Business Journal reports.

According to a document filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, the proposed settlement still requires
approval from members of the class and from Judge Joseph Tauro.
That document also stated that Cambridge-based AspenTech is not
acknowledging any liability wrongdoing with the announced
settlement and expects the funding will be covered by its
insurance coverage.

A year ago AspenTech replaced former chief executive David
McQuillin after an internal audit revealed the company had
overstated revenue on several deals. At that time, two class
action suits were already filed in Boston federal court, wherein
investors claimed that the company misrepresented its financial
results for fiscal years 2000 through 2004. Previously the
company contended that the suit lacked merit and that it would
defend itself in court. In February 2005 a judge consolidated
the cases into one and appointed as lead plaintiffs the City of
Roseville Employees' Retirement System in Michigan, and the
Operating Engineers and Construction Industry and Miscellaneous
Pension Fund.

The suit is styled, "Aspen Technology, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-12375-JLT," filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland under Judge
Joseph L. Tauro. Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Mario Alba, Jr. of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
         & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road, Suite 406,
         Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-
         1173;

     (2) Theodore M. Hess-Mahan and Thomas G. Shapiro of Shapiro
         Haber & Urmy, LLP, 53 State St., Boston, MA 02108,
         Phone: 617-439-3939, Fax: 617-439-0134, E-mail:
         ted@shulaw.com and tshapiro@shulaw.com;

     (3) Richard Maniskas and Marc A. Topaz of Schiffrin &
         Barroway, Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706;

     (4) David Pastor of Gilman and Pastor, LLP, 60 State St.,
         37th Floor, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-742-9700, Fax:
         617-742-9701, E-mail: dpastor@gilmanpastor.com;

     (5) David A. Rosenfeld and Samuel H. Rudman of Cauley,
         Geller, Bowman, Coates & Rudman, LLP, 200 Broadhollow
         Rd., Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-369-
         7100.

Representing the Defendant/s are:

     (i) Kevin B. Currid, Nicholas C. Theodorou and Brandon F.
         White of Foley Hoag, LLP, 155 Seaport Boulevard,
         Seaport World Trade Center West, Boston, MA 02210,
         Phone: 617-832-1200, 617-832-1163 and 617-832-1170,
         Fax: 617-832-7000, E-mail: kcurrid@foleyhoag.com,
         ntheodor@foleyhoag.com and bfwhite@foleyhoag.com;

    (ii) Thomas J. Dougherty of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
         Flom, LLP, One Beacon St., Boston, MA 02108, Phone:
         617-573-4800, Fax: 617-573-4822, E-mail:
         dougherty@skadden.com;

   (iii) John A.D. Gilmore of Piper Rudnick, LLP, One
         International Place, 21st Floor, 100 Oliver St.,
         Boston, MA 02110-2600, Phone: 617-406-6000, Fax: 617-
         406-6100, E-mail: john.gilmore@piperrudnick.com.


CANADA: AFN Chief Applauds Settlement of Residential School Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Assembly of First Nations National Chief Phil Fontaine stated
that the recent announcement by the federal government regarding
the former students of the Mohawk Institute Residential School
represents a major victory and vindication for all residential
school survivors and their families.

"This is the largest and most comprehensive settlement package
in Canadian history," said National Chief Fontaine. "Today marks
the first step towards closure on a terrible, tragic legacy for
the thousands of First Nations individuals who suffered
physical, sexual, or psychological abuse."

The National Chief, on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations,
and the Hon. Frank Iacobucci, on behalf of the Government of
Canada, signed an historic and unprecedented Agreement in
Principle, which was then approved by Cabinet on November 21st.
This agreement meets the overall standard that the AFN has been
seeking - that it be demonstrably fair and just to the
survivors, and that it would lead and contribute to
reconciliation, respect, and recognition.

Less than six months ago, on May 30, the AFN and the federal
Cabinet signed a Political Accord that recognized the need for
reconciliation and healing. Today's settlement is based in part
on the AFN's Report on Canada's Dispute Resolution Plan to
Compensate for Abuses in Indian Residential Schools released
last November 2004. This includes a national apology; an
improved compensation process for victims of sexual and physical
abuse, a lump sum payment for former students; and a Truth and
Reconciliation Commission with both national and regional
processes. The Aboriginal Healing Foundation will receive
additional funding for another five years.

The Agreement in Principle also calls for an expedited process
to resolve the claims of the elderly. Survivors currently
involved in class action lawsuits also qualify for all of the
benefits of the settlement package, including compensation.
Residential schools survivors, lawyers involved in class action
cases and the churches endorsed the AFN's report and approach.

"While no amount of money will ever heal the emotional scars,
this settlement package will contribute to the journey on the
path to healing -- not only for all residential school
survivors, but for their children and grandchildren. For they
too, have suffered and witnessed the affects of this abuse,"
said the National Chief. "It is also crucial to have dealt with
this legacy of the past before moving ahead into historic
discussions about our future at the First Minister Meeting."

The Assembly of First Nations is the national organization
representing First Nations citizens in Canada.

For more details, contact Nancy Pine, Communications Advisor,
Office of the National Chief, Phone: (613) 241-6789 ext. 243 or
[Cell] (613) 298-6382; Bryan Hendry, Health and Social
Communications Officer, Phone: (613) 241-6789, ext. 229 or
[Cell] (613) 293-6106; Don Kelly, AFN Communications Director,
Phone: (613) 241-6789 ext. 320 or [Cell] (613) 292-2787; and Ian
McLeod, AFN Bilingual Communications Officer, Phone:
(613) 241-6789 ext. 336 or [Cell] (613) 859-4335.


CANADA: Group to Boost Legal Process For Recycling Fee Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Consumers' Association of Canada is taking steps to speed up
the court process in a class action lawsuit that was filed
almost a year ago against bottle recyclers in British Columbia,
CKNW News reports.

In the class action claim, styled "The Consumers' Association of
Canada and Bruce Cran v. Coca-Cola Bottling Ltd. et al.," that
was filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, plaintiffs
are suing over 30 defendants, consisting of beverage
manufacturers, retailers and Encorp Pacific (Canada), the
government-approved steward of British Columbia's container
deposit program, alleging the unauthorized use by the defendants
of container deposits collected from consumers and the
imposition of an unlawful container recycling fee on consumers,
an earlier Class Action Reporter story (September 23, 2005)
reports.  

The relief sought by the plaintiffs includes a declaration that
C$70 million in container deposits were unlawfully converted by
the defendants and are held on constructive trust for consumers
and the repayment of C$60 million collected as container
recycling fees, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(September 23, 2005) reports.

Bruce Cran, president of the Consumers' Association of Canada
told CKNW News that attorneys for both sides would go back to
court in a few weeks. He explains, "During the 12 months just
past, we've had all sorts of complications that they've thrown
in our way. We're now seeking to have this brought on early and
we are seeking a judgment of our own at that time."

In addition Mr. Cran also told CKNW News that the association is
seeking more than C$130 million in damages. The three-day trial
is slated to start January 17th.


CONIFER SPECIALTIES: Recalls Mixes For Undeclared Sulfur Dioxide
----------------------------------------------------------------
Conifer Specialties, Inc., PO Box 177 Medina, Washington is
recalling 8016 units of "Canterbury Naturals All Natural
Cinnamon Raisin Quick Bread Mix" because it contains undeclared
Sulfur Dioxide. People who have severe sensitivity to Sulfur
Dioxide run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume this product.

The recalled "Canterbury Naturals Cinnamon Raisin Quick Bread
Mix" was distributed throughout the United States and sold via
retail stores, mail order and direct delivery.

The product is packaged in a carton containing one 16-ounce
packet of bread mix, one two-ounce packet of raisins and one
quarter-ounce packet of cinnamon under the brand of Canterbury
Naturals. The product name is All Natural Cinnamon Raisin Quick
Bread Mix and has a drawing of a "grape bunch" underneath the
name. The following lot codes, which can be located on the
bottom of the carton, will be involved in the recall: 6174 1,
6196 1, 6277 1 and 7104 1.

At the time of this release no illnesses have been reported to
Conifer, Specialties, Inc. or its distributors.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the Golden
Raisins containing Sulfur Dioxide were distributed in packaging
that did not reveal the presence of Sulfur Dioxide. Subsequent
investigation indicates the problem was caused by a breakdown in
the company's product development regarding ingredient
classification.

If you have purchased this product please destroy the contents
of the carton immediately, retaining the carton for proof of
purchase, and contact Conifer Specialties, Inc. by phone at
1.800.588.9160 for replacement or reimbursement.


HUMANA INC.: Final RICO Suit Fairness Hearing Set March 6,2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
class action filed against Humana, Inc. and other health
management companies, styled "In re Managed Care Litigation," is
set for March 6,2006 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

From 1999 to 2005, the Company was involved in several purported
class action lawsuits that were part of a wave of generally
similar actions targeting the health care payer industry and
particularly managed care companies.  These included a lawsuit
against the Company and originally nine of its competitors that
purported to be brought on behalf of physicians who treated its
members from January 1, 1990, forward.

On October 17, 2005, the Company and representatives of over
700,000 physicians and several state medical societies reached
an agreement to settle the lawsuit by payment of $40 million for
the physicians and an amount up to $18 million for the
plaintiffs' attorneys, subject to approval by the Court.  The
Settlement Agreement recognizes that the Company has undertaken
certain initiatives to facilitate relationships with and
payments to physicians and provides for additional initiatives
over its four-year term.  The Court preliminarily approved the
Settlement Agreement on October 19, 2005, and set a Settlement
Hearing for March 6, 2006.

Four other defendants, Aetna Inc., Cigna Corporation, Health
Net, Inc. and The Prudential Insurance Company of America
previously entered into settlement agreements which have been
approved by the Court. Wellpoint, Inc. (formerly WellPoint
Health Networks, Inc. and Anthem, Inc.) announced a settlement
agreement on July 11, 2005.

The suit is styled "In Re Humana Inc. Managed Care Litigation,
MDL 1334," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, under Judge
Federico Moreno.  The suit names as defendants Humana, Inc.,
Aetna, Inc., Aetna-USHC, Inc., Cigna, Health Net, Inc., Human
Health Plan, Inc., Pacificare Health Systems, Inc., Prudential
Insurance Company of America, United Health Group, United Health
Care and Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc.  Cigna and Aetna have
entered settlements with the plaintiffs.  Lead Plaintiffs'
Attorneys are Barry Meadow of Podhurst, Orseck, et al., Harley
Tropin of Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton and Archie Lamb.


INTERCHANGE LITIGATION: MDL Panel Assigns Case to E.D. NY Judge
---------------------------------------------------------------
A seven-judge panel overseeing a recent multidistrict litigation
(MDL) hearing organized 14 different lawsuits concerning
interchange fees and other complaints against the card
Associations and their member banks into one group, The Green
Sheet reports.

In addition, the same panel also decided that the cases would go
before Judge John Gleeson in U.S. District Court in the Eastern
District of New York. The hearing was about the haring of
arguments from plaintiffs and defendants to determine how and
where the many similar cases would be heard.

The judges based their decision on the fact that "Judge Gleeson
is already familiar with the operation of the credit card
networks," wrote D. Lowell Jensen, the panel's Chairman. Judge
Gleeson specifically presided over the landmark seven-year class
action antitrust lawsuit concerning debit card fees that Wal-
Mart Stores Inc. and millions of other retailers brought against
Visa U.S.A. and MasterCard International.

In the months before a trial was scheduled to begin, the judge
declined numerous requests from the Associations to throw out
the case. Ultimately, Visa and MasterCard settled with the
merchants before the trial even started.

In response to the recent MDL ruling, a MasterCard spokeswoman
told The Green Sheet, "We were not surprised that the cases were
consolidated with Judge Gleeson given that he has knowledge of
the industry and issues raised in the complaints." However, she
added, "We believe that the lawsuits are without merit." For its
part, Visa said in a statement that it "will vigorously defend
interchange and our rules" but believes the grouping "will allow
the cases to be managed in a more efficient and effective
manner."

The combined cases do not all involve interchange fees. Some are
actually concerned with litigation challenging the card
Associations' no-surcharge rule, which prevents merchants from
surcharging credit- and debit card-paying customers in order to
recoup fees associated with accepting cards as payment.

However, the plaintiffs in the no-surcharge cases do not believe
that the two issues should be combined pointing out that the
fact-finding sessions for each issue will produce different
results.

The MDL panel disagreed with Judge Jensen writing, "All actions
share factual questions arising out of allegations that the
imposition of a no-surcharge rule and/or the establishment of
the interchange fee causes the merchant discount fee to be set
at supracompetitive levels in violation of federal antitrust
laws."


INTERNATIONAL PLAYTHINGS: Recalls 6T Vehicles For Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), International Playthings Inc., of Parsippany, New Jersey
is voluntarily recalling about 6,000 units of Flexitoys Monster-
Size Vehicles.

According to the company, small parts can detach, which pose a
choking hazard to young children.

The recalled Flexitoys Monster-Size vehicles are plastic toys
that measure approximately 5 1/2-inches in length. Models
included in the recall are: dump truck (model 9000-1), race car
(model 9000-2), tractor (model 9000-3), SUV (model 9000-4), fire
truck (model 9000-5) and digger truck (model 9000-6). The name
and model numbers are stamped on the underside of the plastic
vehicles.

Manufactured in China, the toys were sold at specialty toy
stores nationwide from May 2005 through September 2005 for about
$4.

Remedy: Consumers should contact International Playthings for
information on how to return the product to receive a free
replacement item of similar value.  Consumer Contact: For
additional information, contact International Playthings at
(800) 445-8357 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.intplay.com.Media Contact: Sue Tice at  
(973) 316-2500 Ext. 232 or E-mail: sue.tice@intplay.com.


JEFFERSON-PILOT: Court Mulls Appeal of Suit Certification Denial
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to
rule on plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal of the denial of class
certification for a lawsuit filed against Jefferson-Pilot Life
Insurance Company, as successor to Pilot Life Insurance Company,
styled "Thorn v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company."

The suit, filed September 11, 2000 in the United States District
Court in Columbia, South Carolina, alleges that Pilot Life and
its successors decades ago unfairly discriminated in the sale of
certain small face amount life insurance policies and that these
policies were unreasonably priced. The suit alleges fraudulent
inducement, constructive fraud, and negligence in the marketing
of these policies.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages, costs and equitable relief.

On December 2, 2004, the court issued an order denying Thorn's
motion to certify a class. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
has agreed to hear Plaintiff's interlocutory appeal.


JEFFERSON-PILOT: Shareholders Launch Lawsuit v. Lincoln Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson-Pilot Corporation and most of the individual members
of its Board of Directors faces a proposed shareholder class
action suit for damages relating to its proposed merger with
Lincoln National Corporation.

The suit alleges a breach of fiduciary duty in entering the
proposed merger.  Management believes its actions have been
properly authorized and are in accordance with state law and
intends to vigorously defend the claims asserted, the Company
said in a regulatory filing.  


LOUISVILLE LEADER: Recalls 3T Trestle Ladders Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Louisville Ladder Inc., of Louisville, Kentucky is
voluntarily recalling about 3,000 units of Multi-Purpose, Step-
to-Straight, Combination, Manhole and Extension Trestle Ladders.

The rung on the ladders could break near the side rail causing
the user to fall. Louisville Ladder has received two reports of
rungs breaking. No injuries have been reported.

The recalled ladders are Type 1A industrial ladders with
fiberglass rails and round aluminum rungs, and include the 14
model numbers listed on the chart with manufacture dates and
date codes from November 2004 through March 2005. The model
number and the manufacture date code for all models except the
FA1012 and FA1016 model ladder are located on the model
number/notice label on the side rail of the ladders. The date
code for the model FA1012 and FA1016 ladder is located on the
metal wrap-around adjacent to the hinges.

Manufactured in Mexico, the ladders were sold at industrial
supply stores and home centers nationwide from November 2004
through June 2005 for between $75 and $235.

Remedy: Consumers should stop using the ladder immediately and
contact Louisville Ladder for instructions on receiving a free
inspection and replacement ladder if necessary.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Louisville
Ladder at (800) 660-4356 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.louisvilleladder.com.


MOHAWK INSTITUTE: Government Settles Residential School Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action brought by the former students of the Mohawk
Institute Residential School, a native residential school in
Brantford, Ontario, and their families, was settled by way of a
national Agreement in Principle between the Government of
Canada, the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), legal counsel for
Indian Residential School survivors and various religious
entities.

Amongst other things, the Agreement provides for a compensatory
Common Experience Payment, for loss of language and culture, to
every former Mohawk student who attended a residential school in
Canada alive as of October 5, 1996, consisting of a $10,000.00
lump sum and $3,000.00 extra for each school year or part
thereof after their first year of attendance.

Russell Raikes, the lawyer who commenced the class action on
behalf of former Mohawk students, said, "This marks the end of
an almost decade long battle to secure justice for survivors and
their families".

As stated by Kirk Baert, co-counsel with Mr. Raikes, "This
settlement means that survivors and their families will no
longer have to struggle through complicated, lengthy and
expensive court proceedings in order to obtain redress of this
historical wrong".

Former Mohawk students commenced a claim in October 1998 against
the Government of Canada, the Diocese of Huron and the New
England Company. The students sought to recover damages for the
harm inflicted on them as a result of them attending the School.

The School was located in Brantford, Ontario, near the Six
Nations Reserve. The School was opened in 1828 as a residential
school for First Nations' children. It was founded by the New
England Company, a charitable organization, with the mission of
teaching the Christian religion and the English language to the
native peoples of North America.

The New England Company ran the School until 1922, when it
leased the School to the Federal Government. Under the lease,
Canada agreed to continue the School as an educational
institution for native children and agreed to continue to train
them in the teachings and doctrines of the Church of England.
The School closed in 1969.

The class action covers the years of 1922 to 1969. During that
time, there were 150 to 180 students at the School each year,
ranging in age from 4 to 18 and split roughly equally between
boys and girls. All were native children, that is, Indians
within the meaning of the Indian Act. In all, approximately
1,500 native children attended the School during those years.

The plaintiffs claimed that the School was run in a way that was
designed to create an atmosphere of fear, intimidation and
brutality. Physical discipline was frequent and excessive. Food,
housing and clothing were inadequate. Staff members were
unskilled and improperly supervised. Students were cut off from
their families. They were forbidden to speak their native
languages or to practice their native customs.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice and Divisional Court of
Ontario both refused to allow the case to proceed as a class
action. In December 2004, the Ontario Court of Appeal, Ontario's
highest court, decided that the courts below erred in refusing
to allow the case to proceed, and ordered that it should be
certified as a class action and permitted to proceed to trial.
The court certified claims for breach of fiduciary duty,
negligence and breach of aboriginal rights. The court found that
dealing with all of the facts and issues raised in the case
should be dealt with in one trial because it would result in a
substantial saving of time and expense. The court also found
that access to justice would be greatly enhanced by a class
action. The evidence before the court was that many of the
former students are aging, very poor, and in some cases, still
extremely emotionally troubled by their experiences at the
School.

The Supreme Court of Canada denied the defendants' request for
leave to appeal to the nation's highest court in May 2005. On
May 30, 2005, the Honourable Frank Iacobucci, former justice of
the Supreme Court of Canada, was appointed lead negotiator on
behalf of the Government of Canada.

As a result of negotiations between the Government of Canada,
the AFN, legal counsel for the survivors and various religious
entities, the Agreement was reached on November 20, 2005. In
addition to providing for the lump sum Payment, the Agreement
also establishes an Individual Assessment Process ("IAP")
whereby survivors of residential schools may apply for
additional compensation, over and above the lump sum Payment to
compensate individuals for sexual and physical assaults
perpetrated upon them during their time at a residential school.
The IAP will improve the current Dispute Resolution System
instituted by the Government of Canada in 2004 which has been
the subject of much criticism.

The Agreement also dedicates $60 million to a Truth and
Reconciliation Commission designed to complete a historical
record of the Indian residential school legacy and promote
awareness and public education of Canadians concerning the
residential schools system and its lasting impact on survivors
and their families. The parties expect to seek approval of the
Agreement from the provincial Superior Courts across Canada in
May and June 2006.

The law firms of Cohen Highley LLP and Koskie Minsky LLP
represent the plaintiffs. Both firms are widely acknowledged as
leading Canadian class action law firms.

For more details, contact Russell M. Raikes of Cohen Highley,
LLP, Phone: (519) 672-9330, E-mail: rraikes@cohenhighley.com;
and Kirk M. Baert of Koskie Minsky, LLP, Phone: (416) 595-2117,
E-mail: kbaert@koskieminsky.com.


NEW YORK: Appeals Court Dismisses Austrian Jewish Victims' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deferring to U.S. foreign policy interests, the 2nd U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals dismissed a class action lawsuit by Austrian
Jewish victims of the Nazi regime in a ruling that may clear the
way for payouts from a 2001 settlement fund, The Associated
Press reports.

In a 2-1 ruling, the federal appeals court stated that it was
"particularly mindful" of the federal government's statement
that dismissing the case would advance its relations with
Austria, Israel and Western, Central and Eastern European
nations. According to the appeals court, the lawsuit was the
final case holding up implementation of an agreement with
Austria that established a fund to compensate Austrian Jews
whose property was confiscated during the Nazi era and World War
II. Essentially, distributions from the Austrian compensation
fund, which included $150 million to cover certain property
claims, were contingent on dismissal of the case.

The appeals court noted in its ruling that the U.S. government
had engaged in international negotiations for more than 50 years
to settle Nazi-era claims but intensified efforts in 2000,  
resulting in a 2001 agreement with Austria to establish the
fund. In court papers the government noted that the compensation
fund was the best alternative to "years of litigation whose
outcome would be uncertain at best, and which would last beyond
the expected life span of the large majority of survivors,"
according to the appeals court.

The plaintiffs in the case, which include present and former
nationals of Austria and their heirs and successors who suffered
from Nazi persecution between 1938 and 1945, brought the lawsuit
in October 2000 against the Republic of Austria and an
organization through which Austria owns, operates and controls
commercial enterprises. Austria asked for dismissal of the
lawsuit on the grounds of sovereign immunity.

Stanley M. Chesley, a Cincinnati lawyer who represents the World
Jewish Restitution Organization and the Jewish Claims
Conference, called the ruling "a clear green light to go
forward." He told The Associated Press that though that it was
unclear when payments could begin to victims who submit claims.

In his dissenting vote, Circuit Judge Chester J. Straub called
the ruling "unwarranted and troubling." He said that it
effectively allows the U.S. executive branch to decide "on an ad
hoc basis, when cases can and cannot be brought against a
foreign sovereign." Judge Straub further states that the ruling
might have the effect of "a strikingly broad doctrine mandating
dismissal" whenever the executive branch decides that an issue
presented to the court intrudes on foreign policy interests.


NEW YORK: Cops Launch Suit Over Continued Racial Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
A group of nine Black and Hispanic New York Police Department
(NYPD) traffic officers initiated a federal suit that alleges
continued and severe discrimination on the job, The Epoch Times
reports.

Known as the "Traffic Nine," the officers, who recently received
sums ranging from $38, 000 to $68,000 as part of a settlement of
a class action lawsuit decided in 2003, claim that they
experience daily harassment from their supervisors, various
disciplinary actions, and unsavory assignments all as a sort of
"payback" for going public about the racial discrimination that
they claim permeates the NYPD.

Norman Seigel, a human rights lawyer and head counsel for the
nine, told reporters at a press conference on November 21,
"These types of allegations of discrimination at the NYPD have
been a constant throughout my 20 plus years as an attorney here
in New York, both when I worked at the ACLU and now in private
practice." He further said that all of these officers have been
placed on "performance monitoring" by their supervisors, a
rating that along with the humiliation of being singled out as
incompetent, bars the officers from promotion. Steve Heiman, co-
counsel for the suit pointed out at the press conference,
"Performance monitoring is the worst thing that could happen to
your career outside of a criminal charge."

Unfortunately, the harassment did not stop there, according to
Officer Bowser, one of the nine and a 15-year veteran on the
force. He claims that his mental heath was questioned for filing
a discrimination complaint. He specifically explains, "I was
informed that I would eventually be brought up on charges and
terminated. She [my superior officer] also suggested that I was
somehow mentally disturbed."

When asked whether the officers' lives are endangered by direct
discrimination, or even by the effects of a general atmosphere
of mistrust that discrimination can breed, Anthony Moranda of
the National Latino Officers' Association was quick to reply,
"Yes, it endangers their lives. They are given the worst, and
often most dangerous assignments." He added that the officers,
when out on dangerous assignments, often couldn't rely on the
necessary back up. Mr. Morandaa also pointed out that racial
divisions create the undesirable situation in which, "You
network within your own to protect yourself."

Officer Bowser and the others claim that their main motivation
for bringing the suit is not the abuse that they are forced to
endure, but a wish to see the NYPD truly reformed and for the
issue of racial inequality be dealt with from the top down.

Mr. Seigel pointed out that this suit differs from the previous
class action suit in that it names high-level people within the
NYPD, in an effort to hold the leadership accountable. He is
confident that the suit will be more effective than the last
because the public is now aware of the problem, contending that
the public will want to know why the city has been forced to pay
out $17 million in taxpayer dollars to officers victimized by an
institutionalized discrimination. He said at the press
conference, "500 officers received $17 million under the LOA
lawsuit. The mayor cannot close his eyes to what's going on at
the NYPD."


OHIO: Steubenville Attorney Launches Suit Over Traffic Cameras
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Gary Stern initiated a class action lawsuit over the
controversial traffic cameras that were installed throughout the
city of Steubenville, Ohio, NEWS9 reports.

The Steubenville-based lawyer filed the suit on behalf of his
wife, who recently received two speeding tickets. Mr. Stern
claims that the cameras are unconstitutional for a number of
reasons among those are that motorists don't have the right to
appeal.  The traffic cameras read the speed of cars driving by,
and if you are in excess of the speed limit, you are mailed an
$85 ticket, according to court documents.


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP: Trial Starts Soon in Heartland Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The first trial stemming from the troubles of Heartland Advisors
Inc. is set to start in a Wisconsin federal court, with
investors in two of the firm's defunct mutual funds seeking to
recover damages from their auditor, The Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel reports.

Heartland though is not on trial, rather a jury in the class
action suit will be asked to decide whether accounting firm
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, is liable for some of the
investors' losses, and if so, how much. Heartland left the case
in July 2002, when it settled its liability for $14 million. IN
addition, Interactive Data Corporation, which helped Heartland
price some of the bonds in the funds, agreed to pay $1 million
to settle its part in the case.

In theory, Pricewaterhouse could be liable for as much as $65
million more, as the Securities and Exchange Commission has put
the total losses in the matter at $80 million. Heartland
officials though disputes that figure, contending that it should
be less. Attorneys for the firm even say it is unlikely a sum so
large that could be assessed against the accounting firm in any
event.

Milwaukee lawyer Dennis L. Fisher told The Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel, a $65 million verdict "would be at the higher end."
Mr. Fisher, who represented Heartland in that matter, still
represents the company and other defendants in a case the SEC
has brought following the funds' problems.

After deduction of attorney's fees and costs, any money
recovered from Pricewaterhouse would be distributed among 10,000
to 11,000 investors in the old Heartland High-Yield Municipal
Bond Fund and Short Duration High-Yield Municipal Fund. But, for
Pricewaterhouse to be liable at all, a jury must first have to
find that it did not follow proper procedure when it audited the
two Heartland mutual funds in 1997, '98 and '99, according to
Ms. Fisher.

Spokesman David Nestor of the accounting firm's headquarters in
New York City told The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "We are
prepared to go to trial on Monday, and we are confident our
position will prevail." Unless a last-minute settlement is
reached, the Pricewaterhouse case will go to trial before U.S.
District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller in Milwaukee. It is expected to
take at least two weeks.

The case started after a sharp fall in the value of the two
funds in October 2000. At that time, assets in the High-Yield
Municipal Bond fund were marked down by 69% and those in the
Short Duration fund 44%.

The suit is styled, "White v. Heartland High-Yield, et al, Case
No. 2:00-cv-01388-JPS, filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin under Judge J. P.
Stadtmueller. Representing the Plaintiff/s are, C. Oliver Burt,
III of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, Esperante
Bldg., 222 Lakeview Ave. - Ste. 900, West Palm Beach, FL 33401,
Phone: 561-835-9400; and Thomas A. Doyle of Saunders & Doyle
20 S. Clark St. - Ste. 1720, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone:
312-551-0051, Fax: 312-551-4467. Representing the Defendant/s
are, Timothy A. Duffy of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, 200 E. Randolph
Dr. - 60th Fl., Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: 312-861-2445, Fax:
312-861-2200, E-mail: tduffy@kirkland.com.


SALOMON SMITH: BellSouth Workers' Suit Goes Back to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Former BellSouth Corporation employees suing Salomon Smith
Barney, Inc. 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."

According 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.

The suit is styled, "MCPHATTER, et al v. SWEITZER, et al, Case
No. 1:05-cv-00027-FWB," filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina under Judge
Frank W. Bullock, Jr. Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Robert
Neal Hunter, Jr. and Robert G. McIver of HUNTER HIGGINS MILES
ELAM & BENJAMIN, PLLC, P.O. Box 20570, GREENSBORO, NC 27420-
0570, Phone: 336-273-1600, Fax: 336-274-4650 and Tracy Pride
Stoneman, 301 SNOWCREST, WESTCLIFFE, CO 81252, Phone: 718-783-
0303. Representing the Defendant/s are, George C. Covington and
john H. Culver, III, of KENNEDY COVINGTON LOBDELL & HICKMAN,
L.L.P., 214 N. TRYON ST., HEARST TOWER, 47TH FL., CHARLOTTE, NC
28202, Phone: 704-331-7400, Fax: 704-353-3153, E-mail:
jculver@kennedycovington.com.


SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA: Faces Suits Over Cisco Systems Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. (NYSE: SFA) reports that it received
two purported class action lawsuits related to its acquisition
by Cisco Systems, Inc. The complaints, which name both
Scientific-Atlanta and its directors as defendants, were brought
in Georgia state court and generally allege that the company's
directors and officers breached fiduciary duties owed to our
shareholders in connection with the merger. The company believes
that the complaints are without merit and intends to defend the
actions vigorously.

The board of directors of Scientific-Atlanta engaged in a
thorough and deliberative process to obtain the best transaction
at the highest price available for its shareholders, culminating
in the definitive merger agreement with Cisco, which was
announced on November 18. As previously announced, Cisco is
acquiring Scientific-Atlanta for $43 per share in cash in
exchange for each share of Scientific-Atlanta, for an aggregate
purchase price of approximately $6.9 billion.

The company will file a preliminary proxy statement with the SEC
which will detail the process executed by its board of
directors, including the receipt of fairness opinions from three
nationally recognized financial advisors.

For more details, contact Tom Robey, Investor Relations of
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., Phone: +1-770-236-4608, Fax:
+1-770-236-4775, E-mail: tom.robey@sciatl.com, Web site:
http://www.scientificatlanta.com.


SONY BMG: TX Attorney General Files Suit Over Illegal Spyware
-------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott sued SONY BMG Music
Entertainment as the first state in the nation to bring legal
action against SONY for illegal spyware. The suit is also the
first filed under the state's spyware law of 2005. It alleges
the company surreptitiously installed the spyware on millions of
compact music discs (CDs) that consumers inserted into their
computers when they play the CDs, which can compromise the
systems.

The Attorney General's lawsuit alleges the New York-based
company violated a new Texas law protecting consumers from the
hidden spyware. The company accomplished this by using new
technology on certain music CDs to install files onto consumers'
computers that hide other files installed by SONY. This secret
"cloaking" component is installed without the knowledge of
consumers and can cause their computers to become vulnerable to
computer viruses and other forms of attack.

"SONY has engaged in a technological version of cloak and dagger
deceit against consumers by hiding secret files on their
computers," said Attorney General Abbott. "Consumers who
purchased a SONY CD thought they were buying music. Instead,
they received spyware that can damage a computer, subject it to
viruses and expose the consumer to possible identity crime."

SONY insists on its Web site that it has recalled all affected
CDs. However, Attorney General's investigators were able to
purchase numerous titles at Austin retail stores as recently as
Sunday evening.

According to SONY's Web site, the company recently distributed
millions of CDs across the nation on 52 CDs by various artists.
These CDs contained embedded files used for copy protection - or
XCP technology. The files prompt consumers to enter into a user
agreement to install SONY's audio player. By opting into the
agreement, which Sony represents is the only way a consumer can
listen to these CDs on a computer, the consumer is unaware that
SONY secretly installs files into the computer's Microsoft
Windows folders. Consumers are unable to detect and remove these
files.

SONY BMG claims on its Web site that this XCP technology merely
prevents unlimited copying, is otherwise passive and does not
gather personal information about a computer user. However, the
Attorney General's investigation into this technology revealed
that it remains hidden and active at all times after
installation, even when SONY's media player is inactive,
prompting concerns about its true purpose.

The Attorney General's lawsuit also alleges that a phantom file
is installed to conceal the XCP files from the user, thus making
it difficult for the user to remove the files from his or her
computer.

Moreover, recent news accounts allege that newly created viruses
that exploit this phantom file have been spreading. A user
unfamiliar with installation - and removal - of this technology
may be vulnerable to new security risks and possibly identity
theft.

Because of alleged violations of the Consumer Protection Against
Computer Spyware Act of 2005, the Attorney General is seeking
civil penalties of $100,000 for each violation of the law,
attorneys' fees and investigative costs.


WYETH: Court Nixes Appeal of Approval of Fen-Phen Pact Amendment
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the
objections to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania's ruling approving the amendment of the
nationwide settlement of the litigation filed against Wyeth
relating to the diet drugs PONDIMIN (which in combination with
phentermine, a product that was not manufactured, distributed or
sold by the Company, was commonly referred to as "fen-phen") or
REDUX, which the Company estimated were used in the United
States, prior to their 1997 voluntary market withdrawal, by
approximately 5.8 million people.  

These actions allege, among other things, that the use of REDUX
and/or PONDIMIN, independently or in combination with
phentermine, caused certain serious conditions, including
valvular heart disease and primary pulmonary hypertension
("PPH").

On October 7, 1999, the Company announced a nationwide class
action settlement (the "settlement") to resolve litigation
brought against the Company regarding the use of the diet drugs
REDUX or PONDIMIN.  The settlement covered all claims arising
out of the use of REDUX or PONDIMIN, except for PPH claims, and
was open to all REDUX or PONDIMIN users in the United States.  

As originally designed, the settlement was comprised of two
settlement funds.  Fund A (with a value at the time of
settlement of $1 billion plus $200.0 million for legal fees) was
created to cover refunds, medical screening costs, additional
medical services and cash payments, education and research
costs, and administration costs.  Fund A has been fully funded
by contributions by the Company.  Fund B (which was to be funded
by the Company on an as-needed basis up to a total of $2.55
billion) would compensate claimants with significant heart valve
disease.  Any funds remaining in Fund A after all Fund A
obligations were met were to be added to Fund B to be available
to pay Fund B injury claims.  

In December 2002, following a joint motion by the Company and
plaintiffs' counsel, the Court approved an amendment to the
settlement agreement which provided for the merger of Funds A
and B into a combined Settlement Fund which now will cover all
expenses and injury claims in connection with the settlement.  
The merger of the two funds took place in January 2003.  
Payments in connection with the nationwide settlement were
$822.7 million in 2002.  There were no payments made in 2003.  
Payments in connection with the nationwide settlement were $26.4
million in 2004.  Payments may continue, if necessary, until
2018.

On August 26, 2004, U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle III, the
federal judge overseeing the settlement, granted a motion for
preliminary approval of the proposed Seventh Amendment to the
settlement.  If approved by the District Court and upheld on any
appeals that might be taken, the proposed Seventh Amendment
would include the following key terms:

     (1) The amendment would create a new Supplemental Fund, to
         be administered by a Fund Administrator who will be
         appointed by the District Court and who will process
         most pending Level I and Level II matrix claims (as
         defined below);

     (2) After District Court approval, the Company would make
         initial payments of up to $50.0 million to facilitate
         the establishment of the Supplemental Fund and to begin
         reviewing claims. Following approval by the District
         Court and any Appellate Courts, the Company would make
         an initial payment of $400.0 million to enable the
         Supplemental Fund to begin paying claims. The timing of
         additional payments would be dictated by the rate of
         review and payment of claims by the Fund Administrator.
         The Company would ultimately deposit a total of $1.275
         billion, net of certain credits, into the Supplemental
         Fund;

     (3) All participating matrix Level I and Level II claimants
         who qualify under the Seventh Amendment, who pass the
         Settlement Fund's medical review and who otherwise
         satisfy the requirements of the settlement ("Category
         One" class members) would receive a pro rata share of
         the $1.275 billion Supplemental Fund, after deduction
         of certain expenses and other amounts from the
         Supplemental Fund. The pro rata amount would vary
         depending upon the number of claimants who pass medical
         review, the nature of their claims, their age and other
         factors. A participating Category One class member who
         does not qualify for a payment after such medical
         review would be paid $2,000 from the Supplemental Fund;

     (4) Participating class members who might in the future
         have been eligible to file Level I and Level II matrix
         claims ("Category Two" class members) would be eligible
         to receive a $2,000 payment from the Trust; such
         payments would be funded by the Company apart from its
         other funding obligations under the nationwide
         settlement;

     (5) If the participants in the Seventh Amendment have heart
         valve surgery or other more serious medical conditions
         on Levels III through V of the nationwide settlement
         matrix by the earlier of 15 years from the date of
         their last diet drug ingestion or by December 31, 2011,
         they would remain eligible to submit claims to the
         existing Trust and be paid the current matrix amounts
         if they qualify for such payments under terms modified
         by the Seventh Amendment. In the event the existing
         Trust is unable to pay those claims, the Company would
         guarantee payment; and

     (6) All class members who participate in the Seventh
         Amendment would give up any further opt out rights as
         well as the right to challenge the terms of and the
         binding effect of the nationwide settlement. Approval
         of the Seventh Amendment also would preclude any
         lawsuits by the Trust or the Company to recover any
         amounts previously paid to class members by the Trust,
         as well as terminate the Claims Integrity Program
         (discussed below) as to all claimants who do not opt
         out of the Seventh Amendment.

Pursuant to the terms of the proposed Seventh Amendment, the
Company retained the right to withdraw from the Seventh
Amendment if participation by class members was inadequate or
for any other reason.  Less than 5% of the class members who
would be affected by the proposed Seventh Amendment
(approximately 1,900 of the Category One class members and
approximately 5,100 of the Category Two class members) elected
to opt out of the Seventh Amendment and remain bound by the
current settlement terms.  

On January 10, 2005, the Company announced that it would not
exercise its right to withdraw from the proposed Seventh
Amendment.  The terms of the Seventh Amendment were thereupon
reviewed by the District Court at a fairness hearing, which took
place on January 18-19, 2005.  On March 15, 2005, Judge Bartle
approved the proposed Seventh Amendment as "fair, adequate and
reasonable."  Three appeals from Judge Bartle's decision were
filed by April 14, 2005, the deadline for such appeals. Two of
those appeals were withdrawn by the appellants who brought them.  
On November 1, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit dismissed the appeal of the remaining appellant
and remanded the appellant's claim to the District Court for the
limited purpose of submitting the claim for re-auditing under
the terms of the original settlement agreement. If the appellant
does not seek review from the United States Supreme Court, the
proposed Seventh Amendment would become effective in early 2006.

There can be no assurance that the proposed Seventh Amendment
will be upheld on appeal. If it is upheld on appeal, only the
claims of those class members who opted out of the Seventh
Amendment will be processed under the terms of the existing
settlement agreement and under the procedures that have been
adopted by the Settlement Trust and the District Court. Less
than 5% of the class members who would be affected by the
proposed Seventh Amendment (approximately 1,900 of the Category
One class members and approximately 5,100 of the Category Two
class members) elected to opt out of the Seventh Amendment and
to remain bound by the current settlement terms. Should the
proposed Seventh Amendment not be upheld on appeal, all of the
pending and future matrix claims would be processed under the
terms of the existing settlement agreement.  


WYETH: AR Court Refuses Certification For PREMPRO Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas refused to grant class certification to the
multidistrict litigation filed against Wyeth, relating to the
effects of its hormone therapy product PREMPRO.

In July 2002, the hormone therapy ("HT") subset of the Women's
Health Initiative ("WHI") study, involving women who received a
combination of conjugated estrogens and medroxyprogesterone
acetate (PREMPRO), was stopped early (after the patients were
followed in the study for an average of 5.2 years) because,
according to the predefined stopping rule, certain increased
risks exceeded the specified long-term benefits.  Additional
analyses of data from the HT subset of the WHI study were
released during 2003, and further analyses of WHI data may be
released in the future.

In early March 2004, the National Institutes of Health ("NIH")
announced preliminary findings from the estrogen-only arm of the
WHI study and that it had decided to stop the study because they
believed that the results would not likely change during the
period until completion of the study in 2005 and the increased
risk of stroke seen in the treatment arm could not be justified
by what could be learned in an additional year of treatment.  
NIH concluded that estrogen alone does not appear to affect
(either increase or decrease) coronary heart disease and did not
increase the risk of breast cancer.  In addition, NIH found an
association with a decrease in the risk of hip fracture.  This
increased risk of stroke was similar to the increase seen in the
HT subset of the WHI study.  NIH also stated that analysis of
preliminary data from the separate Women's Health Initiative
Memory Study ("WHIMS") showed an increased risk of probable
dementia and/or mild cognitive impairment in women age 65 and
older when data from both the PREMARIN and PREMPRO arm were
pooled.  The study also reported a trend towards increased risk
of possible dementia in women treated with PREMARIN alone.  
WHIMS data published in The Journal of American Medical
Association (JAMA) in June 2004 and in a separate report
published in JAMA at the same time indicated that HT did not
improve cognitive impairment and may adversely affect it in some
women.  

The Company is currently defending eight state putative court
medical monitoring class action lawsuits relating to PREMPRO,
styled:

     (1) Albertson, et al.  v. Wyeth, No. 002944, Ct. Comm.
         Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., PA;

     (2) Balita, et al v. Wyeth, No. ATL-L-2138-04, Sup. Ct.,
         Atlantic Cty., NJ;

     (3) Gottlieb, et al. v. Wyeth, No. 02-18165CA 27, Cir. Ct.,
         11th Jud. Cir., Dade Cty., FL;

     (4) Katzman, et al. v. Wyeth, No. L-1285-03, Sup. Ct.,
         Morris Cty., NJ;

     (5) Luikart, et al. v. Wyeth, No. 04-C-127, Cir. Ct.,
         Putnam Cty., WV;

     (6) Phillips, et al. v. Wyeth, No. CV-03-005, Cir. Ct.,
         Jefferson Cty., AL;

     (7) Tiedemann, et al. v. Wyeth, No. 110063/04, Supreme Ct.,
         NY; and

     (8) Vitanza, et al. v. Wyeth,  No. ATL-L-2093-04, Superior
         Ct., Atlantic Cty., NJ

The plaintiffs in these cases seek to represent statewide
classes of women who have ingested the drug and seek purchase
price refunds and medical monitoring expenses on their behalf.  
Plaintiffs in the Albertson, Gottlieb, Luikart, Phillips and
Tiedemann cases are seeking this relief on behalf of putative
classes of Pennsylvania, Florida, West Virginia, Alabama and New
York, users of PREMPRO, respectively.  The Balita, Katzman and
Vitanza cases all seek this relief on behalf of New Jersey
PREMPRO users.  

On February 1, 2005, in the Gottlieb case, the Florida Circuit
Court certified a statewide medical monitoring class of
asymptomatic PREMPRO users who have used the product for longer
than six months.  The Company plans to appeal this decision.  A
class certification hearing in the Albertson matter took place
on January 10-13, 2005 in the Pennsylvania Court of Common
Pleas, Philadelphia County.  That case is now under
consideration.  A class action hearing in the New Jersey cases,
Katzman, Balita and Vitanza, will likely not take place until
mid-2005.  The remaining cases remain inactive.

Two putative medical monitoring class actions have now been
dismissed.  These suits are styled "Gallo, et al. v. Wyeth, No.
02857, Ct. Comm. Pleas, Phil. Cty., PA" and "Lewers, et al. v.
Wyeth, No. 02C 4970, U.S.D.C., N.D. Ill."  The Company is also
defending two putative personal injury class actions.  The
plaintiff in Michael, et al. v. Wyeth, No. 2:04-0435, U.S.D.C.,
S.D., WV, seeks to represent a nationwide class of PREMPRO users
who have suffered injuries from the product.  The plaintiff in
Barker, et al. v. Wyeth, No. 04-C-1932, Cir. Ct., Kanawha Cty.,
WV, seeks to represent a class of West Virginia users who have
suffered personal injuries.  Both of these cases have been
transferred to the federal multidistrict litigation ("MDL")
proceedings in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Finally, the federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
has ordered that all federal PREMPRO cases be transferred for
coordinated pretrial proceedings to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, before United States
District Judge William R. Wilson, Jr.  Plaintiffs have filed a
Master Class Action Complaint in the JPMDL.  That complaint
seeks to represent PREMPRO users seeking to collect damages for
purchase price refunds and medical monitoring costs.  The
complaint seeks to certify a consumer fraud subclass of PREMPRO
users in 29 states, an unfair competition subclass of users in
29 states and a medical monitoring subclass purportedly covering
PREMPRO users in 24 states.  The states allegedly involved are
not consistent between each subclass.  This JPMDL Master Class
Action Complaint subsumes all of the other putative class action
complaints except those discussed above.  A class certification
hearing was held June 1-3, 2005 before United States District
Judge William Wilson of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas, who has been assigned to conduct
all coordinated pretrial proceedings in the federal litigation.
The JPMDL plaintiffs sought to represent "PREMPRO" users in a
class action to recover damages for purchase price refunds and
medical monitoring costs. The Master Class Action Complaint
sought to certify a consumer fraud subclass of PREMPRO users in
29 states; an unfair competition subclass of users in 24 states
and a medical monitoring subclass purportedly covering PREMPRO
users in 24 states. The states allegedly involved were not
consistent between each subclass. Following the hearing, Judge
Wilson denied class certification of all the proposed classes.
No appeal has been filed.  Plaintiffs have announced their
intention to file single state class certification motions
before Judge Wilson seeking statewide medical monitoring classes
in West Virginia, Illinois and California.

Also, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas has denied
plaintiffs' motion for certification of a statewide medical
monitoring class of asymptomatic PREMPRO users in "Albertson, et
al. v. Wyeth, No. 002944, Ct. Comm. Pleas, Phil. Cty., PA."  
Plaintiffs have appealed the decision.  

As of September 30, 2005, the Company was a defendant in
approximately 170 pending lawsuits (excluding those lawsuits
that have been settled in principle pursuant to the settlement
process described above) in which the plaintiff alleges a claim
of PPH, alone or with other alleged injuries. In approximately
55 additional lawsuits pleaded as valvular regurgitation cases,
plaintiffs' attorneys participating in the settlement process
described above have now advised the Company that the plaintiffs
will allege a claim of PPH. Almost all of these claimants must
meet the definition of PPH set forth in the national settlement
agreement in order to pursue their claims outside of the
national settlement (payment of such claims, by settlement or
judgment, would be made by the Company and not by the Trust).
Approximately 45 of these 225 cases appear to be eligible
to pursue a PPH lawsuit under the terms of the national
settlement. In approximately 60 of these 225 cases, the Company
has filed or expects to file motions under the terms of the
national settlement to preclude plaintiffs from proceeding with
their PPH claims. For the balance of these cases, the Company
currently has insufficient medical information to assess whether
or not the plaintiffs meet the definition of PPH under the
national settlement.  The Company is aware of approximately 5
additional claims which are not currently the subject of a
lawsuit but which appear to meet the settlement's PPH
definition. During the course of settlement discussions, certain
plaintiffs' attorneys have informed the Company that they
represent additional individuals who claim to have PPH, but the
Company is unable to evaluate whether any such additional
purported cases of PPH would meet the national settlement
agreement's definition of PPH.

In addition to the pending class actions, the Company is
defending approximately 3,935 actions in various courts for
personal injuries including claims for breast cancer, stroke,
ovarian cancer and heart disease. Together, these cases assert
claims on behalf of approximately 6,045 women allegedly injured
by PREMPRO or PREMARIN.


WYETH: Litigation Pending Due To Cough/Cold Products With PPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wyeth continues to face litigation relating to its DIMETAPP and
ROBITUSSIN cough/cold products, containing the ingredient
phenylpropanolamine (PPA).

In November 2000, the Company withdrew DIMETAPP and ROBITUSSIN
cough/cold products from the market, at the request of the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA).  The FDA's request followed the
reports of a study that raised a possible association between
PPA-containing products and the risk of hemorrhagic stroke.  
Effective November 6, 2000, the Company announced that it would
no longer ship products containing PPA to its retailers.  

The Company is currently a named defendant in approximately 300
lawsuits on behalf of a total of approximately 475 plaintiffs.  
The Company had been served with the following two putative
economic loss class actions relating to pediatric use of cough
syrups containing the active ingredient dextromethorphan, styled
"Thompson v. Wyeth, Inc., et al., No. 5 0247, Super. Ct.,
Essex Cty., MA;" and "Yescavage v. Wyeth, Inc., et al., No.
05-CA-000736, Circ. Court, Lee Cty., FL."  Both of those cases
were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

In every instance to date in which class certification has been
decided in a PPA case, certification has been denied.  Twenty-
six Wyeth cases are currently scheduled for trial in 2005 and
five Wyeth cases are currently scheduled for trial in 2006.


WYETH: Continues To Face Average Wholesale Pricing Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wyeth continues to face ten lawsuits in which plaintiffs allege
that the Company and other defendant pharmaceutical companies
artificially inflated the Average Wholesale Price ("AWP") of
their drugs.

AWP is the basis for determining the Medicare reimbursement rate
and the co-payment amount. It is also usually the basis for
determining Medicaid reimbursement rates under state Medicaid
plans. The overstatement of AWP allegedly results in overpayment
by, among others, Medicare and Medicare beneficiaries and by
state Medicaid plans.  Plaintiffs involved in these lawsuits
allege that this "scheme" is fraudulent, violates the Sherman
Antitrust Act and constitutes a civil conspiracy under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

Two of these lawsuits are private class actions filed on behalf
of Medicare beneficiaries who make co-payments, as well as
private health plans and the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) plans that purchase drugs based on AWP - "Swanston
v. TAP Pharmaceuticals Products, Inc., et al. No. CV2002-
004988," filed in the Superior Court for Maricopa County,
Arizona and "International Union of Operating Engineers, et al.
v. Astra Zeneca PLC, et al., No. 03-3226 JEI," filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.  
Two other previously pending cases making similar claims against
the Company, "Thompson v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al., No.
C02-4450MJJ," filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California and "Turner v. Abbott
Laboratories, Inc., et al., No. 412357," filed in the Superior
Court for San Francisco County, California; have now been
dismissed. No activity is occurring in the International Union
suit. In the Swanston case, the court has denied defendants'
motion to dismiss and directed the parties to begin fact
discovery.

In addition to the two suits described above, the Company is
currently a defendant in six government entity lawsuits claiming
injuries on behalf of both the government entity and its
citizens, allegedly due to Medicaid reimbursement fraud.  These
cases are as follows:

     (1) State of California v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. et
         al., No. BC 287198 A, filed in the Superior Court, Los
         Angeles County, California;

     (2) County of Suffolk v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.
         No. CV03-229, filed in the United States District Court
         for the Eastern District of New York;

     (3) County of Rockland v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.
         No. CV03-7055, filed in the United States District
         Court for the Southern District of New York;

     (4) County of Westchester v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
         al. No. CV03-6178, filed in the United States District
         Court for the Southern District of New York;

     (5) County of Nassau v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.,
         No. CV 04 5126, filed in the United States District
         Court for the Eastern District of New York; and

     (6) City of New York v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.,
         No. 04 CV 6054 (BSJ) filed in the United States
         District Court for the Southern District of New York.

All six of these actions have been removed to federal court and
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts where they are pending under the caption: "In re:
Pharmaceutical Industry AWP Litigation, MDL-1456." The New York
City and various New York county cases make identical claims
based on the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act, the Social Security Act, the New York
Social Services Law and the New York General Business Law. They
seek recovery for damages suffered as a result of alleged
overcharging for prescription medication paid for by Medicaid.
By stipulation, no activity is occurring in these matters
pending the court's resolution of defendants' motion to dismiss
in the County of Suffolk matter.

The MDL judge has dismissed certain counts of the Complaint and
directed plaintiff to make more definitive allegations against
numerous defendants (including Wyeth) against whom they had
previously made only conclusory allegations. The motion to
dismiss remains pending and will likely be decided in the first
half of 2005.

The Company is also a defendant in two recently filed AWP
matters pending in state courts:

     (1) "State of Alabama v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.,
         No. CV 2005-219," filed in the Circuit Court of
         Montgomery County, Alabama

     (2) "The People of Illinois v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.,
         et al., No. 05CH0274," filed in the Circuit Court of
         Cook County, Illinois

     (3) State of Mississippi v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
         al., No. C2005-2021, Chancery Ct., Hinds Cty., MS - the
         Mississippi Attorney General has alleged that the
         defendants provided false and inflated AWP, Wholesale
         Acquisition Cost (WAC) and/or Direct Price information
         for their drugs to various nationally known drug
         industry reporting services. The suit seeks damages and
         injunctive relief.  

In the State of Alabama case, the plaintiff alleges that
defendants provided false and inflated AWP, Wholesale
Acquisition Cost ("WAC") and/or Direct Price information for
their drugs to various nationally known drug industry reporting
services. In The People of Illinois case, the Attorney General
brought the lawsuit on behalf of the State for itself and on
behalf of its citizens, to recover damages and injunctive relief
under similar theories. Both of these cases are in their
earliest stages, with no answers yet having been filed.


WYETH: Continues To Face PREMARIN Antitrust Fraud Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Wyeth faces litigation alleging violations of the Sherman
Antitrust Law, in its marketing of its PREMARIN hormone therapy
drug.

In September 2000, Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Duramed"),
which markets a hormone therapy drug called CENESTIN, filed a
complaint against the Company, styled "Duramed Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, Inc., No. C-1-00-735," in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.  The
suit alleges that the Company violated the antitrust laws
through the use of exclusive contracts and "disguised exclusive
contracts" with managed care organizations and pharmacy benefit
managers concerning PREMARIN.

Duramed, which has since been acquired by Barr Laboratories,
Inc., also alleged that the Company monopolized the hormone
therapy market in violation of the antitrust laws through the
use of such exclusive contracts.  The Company and Barr settled
this litigation in June 2003 and the action has since been
dismissed with prejudice.

Following the filing of the Duramed case, several purported
class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of "end-payors"
(defined as the last persons and entities in the chain of
distribution) and direct purchasers in federal district courts
in Ohio and New Jersey, and California state courts. These
plaintiffs allege that the Company's alleged anticompetitive
exclusive contracts with managed care organizations and pharmacy
benefit managers concerning PREMARIN allowed the Company to
charge higher prices for PREMARIN than the Company would have
charged in the absence of the alleged anticompetitive exclusive
agreements.  The complaints seek injunctive relief, damages and
disgorgement of profits.  Due to certain consolidations, six
actions are presently pending against the Company.

A lawsuit with a certified class consisting of direct
purchasers, styled "J.B.D.L. Corp. v. Wyeth-Ayerst
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Civ. A. No. C-1-01-704," and a lawsuit
with a certified class consisting of indirect purchasers, styled
"Ferrell v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Inc., Civ. A. No. C-1-01-
447," are filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.  Additionally, two direct purchasers
of PREMARIN during the relevant time period (CVS Meridian, Inc.
and Rite Aid Corporation) have opted out of the federal direct-
purchaser class action and have filed a separate action, styled
"CVS Meridian, Inc. et al. v. Wyeth, Civil A. No. C-1-03-781,
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.  The J.B.D.L. and CVS Meridian actions are
scheduled for trial in August 2005. The Company has filed a
motion for summary judgment in the J.B.D.L. and CVS Meridian
actions. The court granted the motion for summary judgment.  
Plaintiffs in both actions filed notices of appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit
has consolidated the appeals and has set a briefing schedule.

Various actions brought by indirect purchasers in both Federal
District Court in Ohio and in State Courts in both California
and Vermont remain pending. In the Vermont action, styled "Deyo
v. Wyeth, No. 735-12-04 (Vt. Sup. Ct.)," the Company has
answered the complaint and moved for a stay pending resolution
of the previously-filed class action currently proceeding in
Federal Court in Ohio, styled "Ferrell v. Wyeth-Ayerst
Laboratories, Inc., Civ. A. No. C-1-01-447, U.S.D.C., S.D. Oh."  


Moreover, one certified class of indirect purchasers and one
putative class of indirect purchasers are pending in California
state courts, styled "Blevins v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Inc.
et al., Case No. 324380, Cal. Sup. Ct., San Francisco Cty.,
Cal.;" "Sullivan v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Inc., Case No.
GIC796997, Cal. Sup. Ct., San Diego Cty., Cal.," respectively.
Also, a purported class action was recently filed in Vermont
Superior Court on behalf of all Vermont end-payors, which raises
substantially the same allegations as the Ferrell indirect-
purchaser action, styled "Deyo v. Wyeth, No. 735-12-04 (Vt. Sup.
Ct.)."


                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Industries Defends 7 Suits in AL Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries Inc (NYSE: KT) states that it has recently been
named as a defendant in seven lawsuits filed in Alabama State
Court by a total of about 62 individual plaintiffs with over 100
defendants named in each case, according to the Company's 10-Q
report to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In all cases, the claimants allege that they were exposed to
asbestos while working at a former US Steel plant in Alabama,
which resulted in their contracting lung cancer, mesothelioma,
asbestosis, or other illness. They claim that they were exposed
to asbestos-containing products in the plant that were made by
each defendant. In five of the cases, the plaintiffs assert
wrongful death claims. The Company's liability cannot yet be
determined.

Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) has tendered over 1,900 pending
cases in Michigan, New Jersey, Illinois, Nevada, Mississippi,
Wyoming, Louisiana, Georgia, Massachusetts and California to
Katy for defense and indemnification. Regarding one case,
Sterling has demanded that Katy indemnify it for a US$200,000
settlement. Sterling bases its tender of the complaints on the
provisions contained in a 1993 Purchase Agreement between the
parties whereby Sterling purchased the LaBour Pump business and
other assets from the Company.

The tendered complaints all purport to state claims against
Sterling and its subsidiaries. The Company and its current
subsidiaries are not named as defendants. The plaintiffs in the
cases allege that they were exposed to asbestos and products
containing asbestos in the course of their employment.

Each complaint names as defendants many manufacturers of
products containing asbestos, apparently because plaintiffs came
into contact with a variety of different products in the course
of their employment. They claim that LaBour Pump or Sterling may
have manufactured some of those products.

With respect to many of the tendered complaints, including the
one settled by Sterling for US$200,000, the Company has taken
the position that Sterling has waived its right to indemnity by
failing to timely request it as required under the 1993 Purchase
Agreement. With respect to the balance of the tendered
complaints, the Company has elected not to assume the defense of
Sterling in these matters.

LaBour Pump Company, the Company's former subsidiary, has been
named as a defendant in over 300 similar cases, which were also
tendered by Sterling, in New Jersey. The Company has elected to
defend these cases, many of which have been dismissed or settled
for nominal sums.

Since its 1967 founding, Middlebury, CT-based Katy Industries
Inc. has sold everything from shrimp to shoes. Now, it
manufactures maintenance products like cleaning supplies,
abrasives, and stains. Katy also makes electric-corded products
through its Woods Industries business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fresenius Reserves US$115Mil for Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In 2003, Fresenius Medical Care AG (NYSE: FMS) reached an
agreement with the asbestos creditors' committees and WR Grace &
Co in the Grace Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Proceedings to settle all
fraudulent conveyance and tax claims related to the Company that
arise out of the Grace Proceedings.

Approved by the US District Court, the planned settlement is
subject to confirmation of a final Plan of Reorganization of
Grace that meets the requirements of the settlement agreement or
is otherwise satisfactory to the Company.

At December 31, 2004, the Company's provision for special
charges for legal matters was US$122 million, including a
provision for payment of US$115 million pursuant to the
settlement agreement.

If the proposed settlement with the asbestos creditors'
committees and Grace is not confirmed in such a final POR, the
claims could be reinstated. If reinstated and the merger is
deemed to be a fraudulent transfer and if material damages are
proved by the plaintiffs and the Company is not able to collect,
in whole or in part, on the indemnity from any of its
indemnitors, a judgment could have a material adverse effect on
its business, financial condition and results of operations.

Bad Homburg, Germany-based Fresenius Medical Care AG is one of
the largest dialysis providers in the world. Its staff treats
nearly 120,000 patients at its 1,560 dialysis clinics worldwide
and the company also provides outpatient services at nearly
1,200 US clinics. Fresenius AG owns about half of Fresenius
Medical Care.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rolls-Royce Slapped With GBP150,000 Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Edwards, a pensioner dying of asbestos-related mesothelioma
launches a GBP150,000 compensation claim against his former
employer Rolls-Royce PLC (OTC: RYCEY), the Lancashire Evening
Telegraph reports.

Mr. Edwards' solicitor, Paul Webber of Leeds-based Irwin
Mitchell Solicitors, issued a writ in London's High Court
claiming Mr. Edwards was exposed to asbestos when he worked as a
boiler fireman between September 1953 and December 1982 at the
Company's Barrnoldswick engineering plant. It further states
that the Company was negligent and in breach of its statutory
duty in protecting its worker from the killer fiber.

The claim includes compensation for personal injury, the pain
and suffering and loss of amenity, which is to be more than
GBP100,000 but not more than GBP150,000.

Rolls-Royce communications manager Gary Atkins said, "We can
confirm that Mr. Edwards worked for Rolls-Royce between the
specified dates and that we are in receipt of the recent claim.
It would be inappropriate and not beneficial to either ourselves
or Mr. Edwards to comment further at this stage."

A specialist in aerospace and marine engineering, London, UK-
based Rolls-Royce PLC employs around 20,000 people all over the
UK and 800 at its Barnoldswick site. Rolls-Royce's aerospace
business makes commercial and military gas turbine engines for
military, airline, and corporate aircraft customers worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: US Lawyers to Tackle South African Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
SimmonsCooper LLC, a US law firm specializing in personal injury
litigation, seeks to represent asbestos exposure victims in
South Africa, allAfrica.com reports.

Jeff Cooper, a partner for the law firm, said that he was aware
of the history of asbestos litigation in South Africa and while
the firm had been involved in cases in the US, the problem was
more severe in South Africa. He added that in the US, the firm
was able to dig through corporate documents to identify
companies that had hidden the dangers of asbestos in their
products or had not made the dangers public.

South Africa's Environmental Affairs and Tourism Department is
currently taking steps to ban asbestos use in South Africa.

Asbestos exposure can cause asbestosis or mesothelioma, a rare
form of cancer. It has been the subject of a number of South
African court actions over the past few years as it was
extensively mined in the Northern Cape. Miners and their
families living close to the mines have contracted the disease
but there are victims in other industries as well.

In the 1990s, South Africans who were employed by British group
Cape PLC sued the Company, in which local mining house Gencor
once held a stake, but it took years to wring out a payment.
Cape plc eventually settled for about ZAR100 million.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MD Court Reverses Verdict in Scapa's Favor
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Special Appeals in Maryland reversed a US$3 million
verdict won by Carl Saville, a former paper mill worker who
claimed his lung cancer developed from asbestos exposure at
Scapa Dryer Fabrics Inc.'s plant in western Maryland, the
Associated Press reports.

The Court ruled that Scapa should have been granted a motion to
delay the 2003 trial to prepare its defense. The case was
remanded to Baltimore City Circuit Court for a new trial.

Scapa made dryer felts, which are fabric attached to machine
conveyor belts, that Mr. Saville cleaned and maintained at the
Luke, Maryland mill from 1964 to 1978. According to an
unreported opinion, of the hundreds of dryer felts used at the
mill during Mr. Saville's employment, only two were asbestos-
containing felts made by Scapa.

Doctors diagnosed Mr. Saville with lung cancer and mesothelioma
in 2001 or 2002. In June 2002, Mr. Saville filed suit against 32
defendants.

Named as a defendant only six months before trial, Scapa was
denied the opportunity to locate and review materials that might
have established a key element of its defense, retired Judge
Raymond G. Thieme wrote.

The Court erred in denying Scapa's motion to sever itself from
the case, which involved two other plaintiffs and multiple
defendants.

Scapa Dryer Fabrics Inc is a subsidiary of Blackburn, UK-based
Scapa Group PLC (London: SCPA). Scapa Group makes technical
adhesive tapes and films used by the automotive, aerospace,
graphic arts, sports, electronics, industrial assembly, and
medical markets. The Group has sold most of its non-core
operations to focus on tapes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Ministry to Hasten Alimta Evaluation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare in Japan intends to
shorten the evaluation period of Alimta, a drug effective for
asbestos-related mesothelioma, the Kyodo News reports.

The Ministry cited that, under its priority review system for
drug evaluation, it would shorten the review period for the
drug, also known as Pemetrexed, to one year. The Ministry added
that the average time to review a new drug is two years.

Eli Lilly Japan KK, the Japanese arm of US pharmaceutical
company Eli Lilly and Company (NYSE: LLY), is testing Alimta and
claims the drug is the only drug in the world approved for
mesothelioma's treatment. The Company is expected to submit to
the Ministry an import approval application for the drug in
2006.

The Company said that it began testing in February 2005 and
completed Phase I trials, in which the dosage was determined,
adding it began Phase II trials in late October 2005, in which
they are confirming the effect and safety of the drug.

The Company reported that Phase I trial results indicated that
tumors in three out of 13 mesothelioma patients who took the
drug shrank, but that another patient died of pneumonia.

The Company said the results indicate no direct causal
association between the pneumonia development and Alimta, but
said the drug may be associated with the deterioration of
pneumonia symptoms. The results also indicated side effects such
as infection, bone marrow suppression and vomiting.

Alimta is approved in about 60 countries, including the United
States and in Europe.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Govt. Expects Hardie Deal in Two Weeks
---------------------------------------------------------------
The NSW Government granted James Hardie Industries NV two weeks
to finalize its AUD1.7 billion asbestos compensation deal before
it brings in legislation to make the Company pay, The Sydney
Morning Herald reports.

Premier Morris Iemma said, "The Government would prefer to be in
a position to introduce legislation to implement the signed
final agreement, and there would seem to be no reason why the
agreement could not be finalized over the next week. If a final
agreement is not signed, the necessary legislation designed to
re-establish access to compensation for victims has been drafted
and settled with the benefit of senior counsel's advice."

Last December, Hardie promised to compensate those who fell ill
from exposure to its asbestos products, regardless of its legal
liability to do so. A six-month special commission of inquiry
followed, which found that the funds Hardie set aside in 2001
were likely to run out 40 years early, leaving thousands of
Australians uncompensated.

Trade unions and asbestos victims' support groups are preparing
a campaign of bans and public pressure. On the eve of National
Asbestos Awareness Week, the Australian Council of Trade Unions
secretary Greg Combet said that time had run out for Hardie to
sign a binding deal.

Hardie spokesman James Rickards said the Company had sent a
twelfth version of the agreement to the Government's
negotiators. "We want to get this deal done as quickly as
possible but there's no way I can say it will happen this week
or next week, because it all depends on what the Government
thinks of draft 12."

David Jackson, the head of the 2004 inquiry, said special
legislation would "probably face constitutional challenges."
Even if they could be overcome, it would be hard to enforce the
legislation in the Netherlands, where Hardie has been
incorporated since 2001, or in the US, where most of its
business operations are based.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Lawyers Seek to Move Trial From Mont.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citing potential jurors' bias as reason, lawyers for WR Grace &
Co argue for the Company's trial to be moved away from Montana,
The Billings Gazette reports.

The Company's lawyers petitioned US District Judge Donald W.
Molloy to transfer the case, stating that a jury pool in Boise,
Minneapolis, Denver, Salt Lake City, or Seattle would be less
prejudiced. Judge Molloy will determine whether the jury pool is
spoiled enough to warrant a change of venue at a December 1
hearing in Missoula Federal Court.

To counter the petition, prosecuting attorneys state that the
"defendants face an extremely heavy burden to show that this
case presents extreme circumstances in which the court must
apply the rarely applicable presumption of juror prejudice."

Prosecutors accuse Grace's attorneys of leaning on "skewed"
evidence gathered from a June 2005 survey, which found that of
2,008 Montana residents eligible for jury service, more than
half were already convinced Grace was guilty.

Seven of the Company's current and former employees are to face
trial on September 11, 2006 in Missoula and are charged with
conspiracy, Clean Air Act violations and other criminal charges.
All seven defendants have pleaded not guilty to all charges.

An indictment unsealed in February 2005 asserted that the
Company and its top executives knew their vermiculite mine in
Libby was releasing dangerous cancer-causing asbestos into the
air and conspired to hide the hazards from workers and area
residents.

In the indictment, former manager Alan Stringer is accused of
obstructing efforts by the US Environmental Protection Agency to
investigate the contamination beginning in 1999, when national
reports first linked asbestos from the mine to the deaths and
illnesses of nearby residents.

The indictment further states that, while suppressing studies
spelling out the dangers of its product, Grace officials
supplied vermiculite to a junior high school for use on its
running track and lied about it during the EPA's investigation.
The document also cites instances in which Grace officials lied
about having provided vermiculite insulation to locals for their
homes, as well as for use at a nearby ice rink.

Mr. Stringer faces a maximum penalty of 70 years in prison,
while Jack Wolter, former vice president and general manager of
the mine's Construction Products Division, and Robert Bettacchi,
a senior vice president, each face maximum prison terms of 55
years.

The Company could face a fine of up to US$280 million, twice the
amount of mining profits earned during its years of operation.

The indictment notes that the death rate in Libby from
asbestosis is 40 to 80 times as high as elsewhere in Montana and
the United States. Mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer, has been
found in at least 20 of Libby's 8,000 residents and the
surrounding area and about 1,200 of the Libby's residents have
been identified as having asbestos-related diseases.

Of that group, 70% never worked at the mine.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maremont Corp.'s Claims Decrease to 61,700
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a SEC regulatory filing, automobile parts manufacturer
ArvinMeritor Inc. (NYSE: ARM) states that its 1986-acquired
subsidiary Maremont Corporation, together with many other
companies, defends about 61,700 asbestos-related claims, as
opposed to 69,600 claims in June 30, 2005, and 74,000 claims in
September 30, 2004.

The decrease in pending claims since September 30, 2004 is
primarily due to the settlement of 8,500 claims in one
jurisdiction.

Although Maremont, which made asbestos-containing friction
products from 1953 through 1977, has been named in these cases,
very few allege actual injury and, in the cases where actual
injury has been alleged, very few claimants have established
that a Maremont product caused their injuries.

Prior to February 2001, Maremont participated in the Center for
Claims Resolution and shared with other CCR members in the
payments of defense and indemnity costs for asbestos-related
claims. The CCR handled the resolution and processing of
asbestos claims on behalf of its members until February 2001,
when it was reorganized and discontinued negotiating shared
settlements. Since then, Maremont has handled asbestos-related
claims through its own defense counsel and has taken a more
aggressive defensive approach that involves examining the merits
of each asbestos-related claim.

As of September 30, 2005, Maremont had established reserves of
US$54 million relating to these potential asbestos-related
liabilities and corresponding asbestos-related recoveries of
US$35 million. In fiscal year 2005, ArvinMeritor received US$12
million associated with the settlement of certain insurance
policies.

Troy, MI-based ArvinMeritor Inc. makes commercial vehicle
components as well as for light vehicles. ArvinMeritor has plans
to divest its light vehicle aftermarket products business that
makes mufflers, filters, and shock absorbers. DaimlerChrysler
and General Motors account for 16% and 12% of sales
respectively.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler's UK Firms Face 276 Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd declared in its latest SEC filing that some
of the Company's UK subsidiaries have received asbestos-related
claims alleging personal injury stemming from workplace
exposure. The Company notes 699 received claims, of which 276
remain open as of September 30, 2005.

The Company has recorded an estimated liability to resolve
pending and future forecasted claims through yearend 2019 of
about US$40.0 million as of September 30, 2005 and a
corresponding asset for probable insurance recoveries in the
same amount.

As of September 30, 2005, the Company's balance sheet includes
as an asset an aggregate of about US$323.3 million in actual and
probable insurance recoveries relating to a liability for
pending and expected future asbestos claims through yearend
2019, of which about US$24.0 million is recorded in accounts and
notes receivable and about US$299.3 million is recorded as
asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable.

Under an interim funding agreement in place with a number of the
Company's insurers from 1993 through June 12, 2001 covering
claims against certain of its subsidiaries asserted prior to
June 13, 2001, insurers paid a substantial portion of our costs
incurred prior to 2002, and a smaller portion of the costs
incurred in connection with resolving asbestos claims during
2002 and 2003. The interim funding agreement was terminated in
2003.

On February 13, 2001, litigation was commenced against the
Company's subsidiaries by certain insurers that were parties to
the interim funding agreement seeking to recover from other
insurers amounts previously paid by them under the interim
funding agreement and to adjudicate their rights and
responsibilities under the subsidiaries' insurance policies.

As of September 30, 2005, about US$165.2 million of the
Company's asbestos insurance asset was contested by its
subsidiaries' insurers in this litigation. The Company has had
to cover a substantial portion of its settlement payments and
defense costs out of its working capital, as a result of the
termination of the interim funding agreement.

Clinton, NJ-based Foster Wheeler Ltd (NASDAQ: FWLT) is an
international engineering, construction, and energy specialist
and builds business process and power generating facilities. The
Company operates through two business groups. The Engineering &
Construction group designs and builds facilities for the oil and
gas, chemical, pharmaceutical, and other industrial markets.
Secondly, Foster Wheeler's Power Products & Services unit makes
steam-generating units and related equipment for power and
industrial plants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NY Man Charged for Illegal Asbestos Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The US Attorney's Office in Syracuse served James Taylor, a
former supervisor of an asbestos removal firm, with an
indictment for violating the federal Clean Air Act, the
Associated Press reports.

If found guilty, the 30-year-old Mr. Taylor faces a maximum of
five years in prison and a US$250,000 on each of the seven
counts of conspiracy related to asbestos removals at Richfield
Springs Central School in Otsego County and the State University
of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry in St.
Lawrence County.

The indictment stated Mr. Taylor did not properly handle the
asbestos and falsified air monitoring results. According to the
US Environmental Protection Agency, there is no safe asbestos
exposure level.

Mr. Taylor worked at the now-defunct AVALA Contracting Company
Inc. in Utica.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MS Man Charged in Improper Removal Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts District Court indicted plumber John Sheedy
for allegedly violating the Massachusetts Clean Air Act and the
Labor and Industries Act, by which he improperly removed
asbestos from a rental property in Chicopee, according to
Attorney General Tom Reilly and Department of Environmental
Protection Commissioner Robert Golledge, Jr.

In March 2004, 48-year-old Mr. Sheedy was hired by the landlord
of 49 Beverly Street in Chicopee to perform asbestos removal.
Once he began work, tenants became concerned about the way
asbestos was being removed and contacted authorities.

Mr. Sheedy allegedly failed to contain the asbestos according to
regulations. An investigation revealed pieces of asbestos
insulation scattered around the basement and backyard of the
home.

Assistant Attorney General Douglas Rice of AG Reilly's Criminal
Bureau is prosecuting the case, which was investigated by Bob
Shultz of MassDEP and Environmental Police Officers assigned to
AG Reilly's office for the Environmental Strike Force.

Asbestos abatement must be conducted in accordance with strict
regulations set by MassDEP to prevent the release of asbestos
fibers into the air.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JPY70B Slated for Aid to Japanese Victims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sources say the Japanese Government, in a planned special
measures law, will provide about JPY70 billion for medical costs
and other expenses of asbestos victims and their families
affected between fiscal 1970 and 2010, The Asahi Shimbun
reports.

The sources further stated until fiscal 2006, 80% of the
proposed compensation would be covered by the Central
Government, while prefectural governments, including Tokyo, will
cover the remaining 20%. For the period between fiscal 2007 and
2010, the Government will require private companies that have
used asbestos to pay the total amount of compensation.

According to the November 18, 2005 Class Action Reporter
edition, the Central Government will include about JPY30 billion
in a supplementary budget bill to be submitted to the regular
Diet session next year.

The special measures law will cover people who died of or
developed mesothelioma, lung cancer and other diseases caused by
asbestos and did not receive compensation for industrial
accidents. Most of them are expected to be residents living near
asbestos-related factories and family members of workers at such
facilities.

The Government had planned to require each company that used
asbestos to allocate a certain compensation amount, estimated on
the basis of the number of asbestos cases covered by workers
accident insurance at the companies. However, the Ministry of
Health, Labor and Welfare and other Government arms said it
would be unfair if companies were forced to pay based only on
the number of past cases.

The Government is considering several alternatives, including
imposing a heavier burden on asbestos manufacturers and
requiring construction, automobile, shipbuilding and other
industries that used asbestos to provide funds to compensate
victims.

Officials of the Environment Ministry and other entities
estimate a maximum 20,000 people will be covered.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IL Electrician Files FELA Suit v. Railroad
---------------------------------------------------------------
A former employee of Illinois Central Railroad files a Federal
Employee Liability Act lawsuit in Madison County Circuit Court
seeking damages in excess of US$200,000 for injuries allegedly
received while working for the Railroad, The Madison St. Clair
Record reports.

While working as an electrician from 1950 through 1980, Arthur
Layton claims he was required to work with or around asbestos,
diesel exhaust, environmental tobacco smoke, toxic dusts,
solvents, gases and welding and cutting fumes which caused him
to suffer permanent injuries to his lungs.

Mr. Layton also claims the Railroad required him to work on or
near defective locomotives contaminated with asbestos, silica,
tobacco smoke and diesel exhaust but did not provide him with
locomotives that were in proper and safe conditions.

Mr. Layton further claims to suffer from respiratory illness and
disease, which causes great pain and disability, mental anguish,
extreme nervousness over the prospects of developing cancer.

William Gavin of Belleville and Bruce Halstead of Houston
represent Mr. Layton.

Circuit Judge Don Weber handles the case, which Mr. Layton filed
on November 14, 2005.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Senate Sets US$140B Hearing for January `06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican,
declares that the creation of a US$140 billion trust fund to
compensate asbestos-exposure victims will be the GOP-controlled
Senate's top priority in 2006, the Associated Press reports.

Under the proposed bill, a US$140 billion trust fund would
compensate people sickened by exposure to asbestos, a fibrous
mineral commonly used in construction until the mid 1970s. In
exchange for the fund, asbestos victims would give up their
right to sue.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada called the bill a
mistake saying, "This bill is not acceptable in its current
form. It's not even close."

For years, lawmakers and interested groups have argued over the
size of the fund, which firms would be required to contribute to
it, how sick people would have to be to qualify and how long it
would take to empty the fund.

Pulling the bill in different directions are manufacturers,
insurers, labor groups, trial lawyers and groups representing
people with asbestos-related illnesses.

In a speech to the US Chamber of Commerce, Senate Judiciary
Committee chairman Arlen Specter, a PA Republican, said more
than 80 companies have declared bankruptcy because of asbestos-
related lawsuits. He added, "Of all of the items which could
provide an economic stimulus to the US economy, I think asbestos
reform would be the most important."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Victims Still Awaiting Court's Decision
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hundreds of British residents suffering from asbestos-related
pleural plaques wait for another three weeks to know if they are
still eligible for compensation.

Pleural plaques, which are caused by asbestos dust
contamination, are areas of benign thick scar tissue that form
in the chest lining and diaphragm.  Over time, it can lead to
serious respiratory problems and, occasionally, to terminal
cancer.

Until recently, if the contamination was related to employer's
negligence, sufferers have been able to claim compensation from
insurers.

However, in a cross appeal at the London Court of Appeal,
insurers have been urging that compensation should be paid only
to those who have additional medical problems to pleural
plaques.

Roger Maddocks, legal expert on industrial diseases and a
partner of the claimants' lawyers Irwin Mitchell, said, "The
availability of compensation in respect of this condition is a
basic human right." He added there was usually a gap of more
than 20 years between asbestos exposure and the development of
pleural plaques.

Mr. Maddocks said there were potentially thousands of people who
could develop the condition, particularly in the Northeast,
where many were exposed to asbestos while working in heavy
industries, such as shipbuilding.

A spokeswoman for Norwich Union, one of the companies cross
appealing said her firm was simply seeking clarity from the
court over whether compensation should be paid if there were no
additional problems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WVU Reaches Settlement With 5,600 Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a class action lawsuit, West Virginia University reaches a
settlement with 5,600 former and current employees who may have
been exposed to asbestos, the Associated Press reports.

A part of the proposed settlement will entail WVU to institute
and pay for a medical surveillance program to be conducted for
20 years. The University also agreed to pay US$1 million to
cover potential claims and legal fees.

Current and former employees who meet certain guidelines qualify
for monitoring. Included are those who worked at least two years
in the Coliseum, Law Center, Creative Arts Center, Health
Sciences and Allen-Percival Halls.

In 2000, employees sued WVU and sought medical monitoring for
potential asbestos-related health problems as a result of
working in university buildings containing asbestos insulation.
The workers, including professors, custodians, secretaries and
other staff, alleged that asbestos in campus buildings put them
at an increased risk of cancer.

"WVU maintains that all standard, recognized practices for
asbestos removal have been followed over the years, and that the
general population of employees, through routine monitoring of
buildings and air samplings, remain safe from any harmful
effects of asbestos-containing materials," the University said.

Kanawha County Circuit Judge Tod Kaufman will conduct a hearing
on December 22nd in Charleston before the settlement becomes
final.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Risks $86B Loss if Deal Not Reached
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Canadian construction union leader said that James Hardie
Industries NV could lose AUD86 billion worth of construction
work in the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics if the Company does
not immediately settle with its asbestos victims by the end of
the week, The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

Wayne Peppard, head of a construction union organization in the
province of British Columbia where the 2010 Games will be held,
has met the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union to
discuss the issue and says he will take a resolution back to his
trades council.

The move would block James Hardie from construction projects in
the lead-up to the Games. Mr. Peppard said he would use his
affiliations with US building unions to raise the issue in
Washington.

James Hardie has until the end of the week to sign a voluntary
asbestos compensation arrangement or else the NSW Government
will introduce laws to force the Company to compensate its
victims. Company representatives said progress is still being
made in negotiations on the principal deed.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Most SA Mine Workers Sick With Asbestosis
--------------------------------------------------------------
At least 75% of South African people who have worked in asbestos
mines are affected by asbestosis, SABC News reports.

The findings were revealed a health symposium hosted by Wits
University in Johannesburg.

Mining companies neglected the health of their employees, says
Richard Spoor, an attorney dealing with compensation for
asbestos-related lung disease victims.

Mr. Spoor says they knew all along that they were exposing the
workers and the surrounding communities to dangerous asbestos
fiber levels.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EA Probe Launched in Former Bakery Location
----------------------------------------------------------------
The UK Environment Agency investigates the disposal of 1,000
tons of asbestos-laden rubble yards from the site of the
demolished Rathbones bakery in Carlisle, The Cumberland News
reports.

Demolition firm Thompsons of Prudhoe is in the middle of the
inquest after it dumped the rubble on the land recently acquired
by city entrepreneur Cliff Spooner.

Mr. Spooner, managing director of home improvement firm Window
World, had struck a deal with Thompsons as he needed rubble for
landscaping purposes. He said he had been looking for additional
rubble to level off the land near the bakery.

"The Environment Agency was fully engaged in the demolition
process but neither they, nor the fire service, made me aware
that there was any asbestos on the site. So I was shocked to
have the EA report that asbestos had been discovered after
Thompsons had left the rubble there," Mr. Spooner said.

Mr. Spooner said that the asbestos found on the site was low
grade, and not dangerous. He intends to develop the land into
industrial units.

Meanwhile, Carlisle City Council has been handed back the
Rathbones land from the receivers, but said future plans for the
site had not been decided.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MP Urges Housing Groups to Check for Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
West Cumbria MP Jamie Reed calls for all homes in the Copeland
borough to be inspected for asbestos following its discovery at
homes in Frizington, the Press Association Reports.

Mr. Reed's call comes after he met with apprehensive villagers
who say they are afraid for their families' health after
asbestos was found in a former Home Housing property in Moor
Place.

Surveys are currently conducted at 79 homes in Moor Place,
Griffin Close and Priory Close, where the properties date back
to the late 1960s and early 1970s when asbestos was not a banned
material and was widely used in housing developments.

Mr. Reed has given his support to residents concerned about
asbestos presence in their homes and urged Home Housing to share
the findings of the investigations with all property owners and
tenants who may be affected.

Home Housing said that the results of the surveys will not be
available for a week, and that all tenants and owner-occupiers
would be informed of the results and any proposed action that
would be taken.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Botched Removal Endangers Cyprus Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cyprus' Public Works Department jeopardized the health of
Government employees working near the old Finance Ministry
building by failing to inform the proper authorities to take the
required safety procedures in dismantling the building's
asbestos roof, according to the Labor Inspection Department.

Labor Inspection Officer Themistocles Kyriacou suggested that
the Public Works Department supervisor responsible for the
removal should be served with punitive measures.

Mr. Kyriacou said that it was within his department's legal
capacity to "decide upon taking punitive measures against the
director of the department of Public Works," although he said he
hoped the Public Works Dept. would conduct an investigation into
the matter.

Construction workers began dismantling the asbestos roof of the
old Finance Ministry building without the Public Works
Department informing either the Labor Inspection Department or
the Asylum Department employees, who were in the adjacent
building at the time of the dismantling.

Upon receiving a call from the Asylum Department, Mr. Kyriacou
then visited the building, where he confirmed that work had been
done by the Public Works Department without their permission.

Government agencies and private individuals must send a `method
statement' to the Labor Inspections Department before removing
an asbestos roof because of the carcinogenic particles that can
be released during the removal.

The statement, which must include the method by which the
demolition will be done and the protective measures to be taken,
must then be approved before any work can be done.

While there is a proper dismantling procedure for asbestos
roofs, Cyprus still has no place for proper asbestos disposal.
Environmental Services, the agency responsible, has yet to find
a way of properly disposing asbestos.

For now, asbestos is placed in containers and stored somewhere
outside Nicosia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Developer Pays US$10M to 18 Oregon Families
----------------------------------------------------------------
MBK Partnership, a developer who built a subdivision over an old
asbestos dump in Oregon, concedes to pay US$10.0 million to
settle lawsuits filed by 18 families, The Associated Press
reports.

The families will recover more than 85% of the costs of leaving
their homes, which were originally sold for between US$200,000
and US$700,000.

In the May 6, 2005 Class Action Reporter, county commissioners,
Oregon Rep. Greg Walden, and the US Environmental Protection
Agency temporarily relocated as many as 27 families with homes
in asbestos-contaminated Klamath Falls subdivision. The largest
ever taken by the EPA in the Pacific Northwest, the relocation
allowed testing to be done during the June 10 to September 10,
2005 period.

The 52-acre subdivision was built on the site of a barracks
constructed for US Marines returning from World War II. The soil
became contaminated with asbestos when the buildings were
demolished. The families learned of the situation only three
years ago.

Tom Lindley, who represented many of the families, said the EPA,
which moved 17 of the families from the site at government
expense, will get an additional US$2.5 million from the
defendants and their insurance carriers to do a full
investigation of the contaminated site and determine what the
cleanup should be.

Mr. Lindley added that under the deal, the property's developers
and the homeowners would be protected from any claims that might
otherwise be brought under Federal or State Superfund laws.

Attorneys for the families and MBK put the deal together with
help from US Magistrate Thomas Coffin and US Bankruptcy Judge
Frank Alley III.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aearo Settles US$1.6 Mil in Claims for 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aearo Technologies Inc. defends lawsuits brought by plaintiffs
alleging that they suffer from respiratory medical conditions,
such as asbestosis or silicosis, relating to exposure to
asbestos and silica, and that such conditions result, in part,
from the use of respirators that, allegedly, were negligently
designed or manufactured.

In addition to manufacturers and distributors of respirators,
the defendants include manufacturers, distributors and
installers of sand used in sand blasting, asbestos and asbestos-
containing products.

During fiscal 2005, the Company paid a total of US$1.6 million
for settlement, administrative and defense costs resulting in
the settlement of 4,325 silica and asbestos claims that were
settled between October 1, 2002 and September 30, 2004 involving
both claims in which the Company was named as a defendant.

The Asset Transfer Agreement entered into on June 13, 1995 by
the Company and Aearo Corporation, on the one hand, and Cabot
Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries, on the other hand,
covers many of these claims. Aearo Corp has elected to pay the
annual fee and intends to continue to do so. Under the terms of
the merger agreement with AC Safety Acquisition Corp, Aearo
Corporation agreed to make the annual payment to Cabot for a
minimum of seven years from April 7, 2004.

During fiscal 2005 the Company paid a total of US$0.7 million
for administrative and defense costs involving both claims in
which the Company was named as a defendant and additional
claims. In fiscal 2005, the Company paid US$0.3 million to
settle about 4,449 claims, involving a still being determined
ratio of claims in which the Company was named as a defendant.

As of September 30, 2004, the number of open claims where the
Company defends in silica and asbestos related matters was
11,002 and 4,261, respectively. For the six months ended March
31, 2005, the increases in number of claims where the Company
was named as a defendant in silica and asbestos related matters
was 106 and 1,200 respectively.

The 1,200 new asbestos claims include 1,148 claims that allege
exposure from clothing, which the Company never manufactured. No
claims were settled where the Company was named as a defendant
in silica and asbestos related matters during the six months
ended March 31, 2005. As of March 31, 2005, the number of open
claims where the Company was named as a defendant in silica and
asbestos related matters was 11,108 and 5,461, respectively.

Indianapolis, IN-based Aearo Technologies Inc (NYSE: AER
Proposed) makes and sells personal protection equipment in more
than 70 countries under brand names such as AOSafety, E-A-R,
Peltor, and SafeWaze. Its products include earplugs, goggles,
face shields, respirators, hard hats, safety clothing, first-aid
kits, and communication headsets.

On April 7, 2004, the Company acquired Aearo Corporation and its
subsidiaries for about US$409.3 million through a merger of AC
Safety Acquisition Corp, a Delaware corporation and wholly owned
subsidiary of Aearo Technologies Inc, with and into Aearo
Corporation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Fails to Post Provision for Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
In its latest regulatory filing to the Securities and Exchange
Commission, James Hardie Industries NV reports that it has not
established a provision for asbestos-related liabilities as of
September 30, 2005, because at this time such liabilities do not
fall within the relevant accounting definitions of being
probable and estimable.

Hardie is continuing to work towards completing a Principal Deed
with the NSW Government to establish and fund voluntarily a
special purpose fund to provide compensation on a long-term
basis for proven asbestos-related claims against Amaba, Amaca,
ABN 60 and Asbestos Mines, which were former Hardie subsidiaries
in Australia.

When Hardie entered into an agreement with the Australian
Council of Trade Unions, UnionsNSW, and the NSW Government in
December 2004, it specified, as part of that agreement, that tax
deductibility of payments to the special purpose fund was a
condition precedent to a binding agreement.

This recognized that all parties to the Heads of Agreement, a
representative of the asbestos claimants and Hardie agreed that
tax deductibility of the payments is a critical factor regarding
affordability of the proposed voluntary funding arrangements.
The Company continues to discuss tax deductibility of the
payments with the Australian Taxation Office and the Federal
Treasury.

In its ANZ Fibre Cement business, the Company does not expect
improvement in the short-term to the weak housing construction
and renovation markets in Australia, but growth in primary
demand for fiber cement and further market share gains are
expected. Some product bans and boycotts remain and may not
subside until final agreement is reached on the Company's
voluntary long-term asbestos compensation funding proposal.

Sydney, Australia-based James Hardie Industries NV (NYSE: JHX)
is a pioneer in cellulose-reinforced fiber cement. The Company
also makes fiber-reinforced concrete pipe through its Hardie
Pipe business and roofing through Artisan Roofing. Its largest
segment, USA Fiber Cement, has made substantial inroads into the
US siding market where it is now one of the largest siding
manufacturers. In 2004, Hardie expanded its fiber cement
business to Europe.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FL Court Remands Suit Against Union Carbide
----------------------------------------------------------------
The untimely filing of Union Carbide's motion to dismiss
prompted the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida on
November 16, 2005 to reverse and remand the asbestos-related
suit brought by Gerald Sr. and Patricia Bosarge.

The Bosarges filed a complaint for asbestos-related injuries
allegedly sustained by Gerald Bosarge against 53 different
defendants, eight of which are appelless in this action. Union
Carbide Corporation moved to dismiss the Bosarges' claim based
on forum non conveniens. The Circuit Court for the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit of Broward County granted the motion to dismiss
the case without prejudice.

The forum non conveniens doctrine is employed when the court
chosen by the plaintiff poses undue hardship for the witnesses
or on the defendants, who must petition the court to transfer
the case to a more convenient court.

In the trial court's order of August 9, 2004 in granting the
dismissal, the court stated that there is insignificant
connection between the case and Broward County, Florida. In
addition, the court held that the case could be reinstated in
Alabama without undue prejudice or inconvenience.

Judge Fred Hazouri of the Fourth District Court of Appeal agreed
with the Bosarges' argument that Union Carbide's motion to
dismiss was untimely filed since the law requires that it should
have been submitted not later than 60 days after the complaint
was served on the Company.

The complaint in this case was filed on July 28, 2003, and was
served upon Union Carbide on December 4, 2003. The Company filed
its motion on May 21, 2004, more than six months after service
of process.

David A. Jagolinzer and James L. Ferraro of Ferraro &
Associates, P.A., Miami, represented the Bosarges.

Nathan M. Thompson and Evelyn M. Fletcher of Hawkins & Parnell,
LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, stood for appellees Bayer Cropscience,
Inc., Dana Corp., Dow Chemical Co., Ericsson Inc., Flowserve
Corp., Maremont Corp., Union Carbide Corp., and Zurn Indus.,
Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CT Court Allows Injunctive Claim v. Crane
--------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut Superior Court Judge Taggart D. Adams on October 19,
2005 denied Crane Co.'s motion to dismiss Count V of the
complaint brought against it by five insurance companies.

With this action, the insurers intend to determine the rights
and obligations of Crane and the insurers under the coverage
policies for its asbestos liabilities.

In "Century Indemnity Co. et al. v. Crane Co. et al.," the
plaintiffs allege that Crane Co. remains interested in a global
settlement of all present and future asbestos claims. These
insurers have consistently opposed this plan, judging that this
would result in payments to asbestos claimants "far in excess of
the true value of such claims." In addition, they allege that
the proposed settlement was reached in violation of their
contractual rights to participate in discussions and approve
settlements.

In October 2004, Crane announced the asbestos settlement. The
Company indicated that the plan would involve a filing for
bankruptcy and that Crane intends to seek funding of the
settlement from all of its insurers. However, in January 2005,
Crane announced it was withdrawing from the settlement in light
of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
which overturned a prepackaged bankruptcy plan similar to what
Crane had planned to file as part of its asbestos settlement.

The plaintiffs believe that Crane still harbors hopes that
settlement talks will be revived. The plaintiffs further claim
that they will be irreparably harmed if Crane enters into
settlement discussions without allowing the plaintiffs the
opportunity to participate in such discussions.

In February 2005, the Superior Court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for temporary injunction. The Court found there was a
failure to show a lack of irreparable harm or an inadequate
remedy at law.

Crane moved to dismiss Count V, seeking injunctive relief, for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending that the
plaintiffs' request is unripe.  Crane contended that the global
asbestos settlement has fallen apart and has been withdrawn, and
that there is "no evidence of it being resurrected."  Crane also
pointed out that the earlier decision of Judge Nadeau in this
case presents a showing that plaintiffs cannot succeed on their
injunction claim.

Judge Adams held that these arguments do not overcome the fact
that not more than a year ago Crane, without notice to the
plaintiffs, entered into a settlement agreement with asbestos
claimants and that agreement was in effect when the plaintiffs
first submitted their application for injunctive relief to this
court. While the circumstances may have altered since, Crane
adopted a plan of action which only months ago may very well
have provided a base for injunctive relief.  With this kind of
track record the court is unable to hold that the claim for
injunctive relief is not ripe or that the plaintiffs are not
able to show the necessary harm for such relief.

In addition, the Court admitted that the defendants might be
able to prove that a claim for injunctive relief is unripe after
discovery. If so, the Court did not discount the possibility of
a summary judgment. In the meantime, the injunctive claim may be
litigated along with the other claims presented by the
plaintiffs.


ASBESTOS ALERT: MS Lot Owner, Firm Hit With Two US$47,150 Fines
---------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts' Department of Environmental Protection charged a
property owner and a Sutton-based construction firm with two
separate US$47,150 fines for violating asbestos regulations at a
July 2004 demolition project in 1080 South Street.

According to a press release, DEP first heeded the project's
flaws when one of its inspectors saw employees of construction
firm Ranger Inc demolishing an asbestos-laden house at the site
without using any emission-prevention methods.

The press release further stated the investigation showed that
Ranger Inc failed to notify DEP of the project, did not remove
asbestos-riddled materials from the site before demolition, did
not properly seal the work area, and did not observe proper
asbestos removal.

Martin Suuberg, director of DEP's Central Regional Office in
Worcester, criticized the firm's owner Ronald P. Anger and the
property's owner Wayne J. Amico, who is appealing the fine
asserting the DEP claims are unjustified.

Mr. Anger said he is doing the same although the legal fees are
taxing his business' operations.

Mr. Anger said his firm discovered the asbestos midway through
demolition but he had assumed that the South Street building had
already been checked for asbestos because a demolition permit
had been issued. He added he has never met Mr. Amico, and was
hired for the task shortly before its execution through a
general contractor.

Mr. Suuberg said, "Failure to identify and remove asbestos
materials prior to demolition is extremely serious and
ultimately a costly oversight that potentially exposes workers,
tenants and the general public to a known carcinogen. As this
case illustrates, noncompliance of this magnitude inevitably
results in significant penalty."


ASBESTOS ALERT: CA Jury Grants US$1.9M Damages to Retired Worker
----------------------------------------------------------------
For developing peritoneal mesothelioma from his prior workplace
asbestos exposure, a San Francisco jury awarded over US$1.9
million to Genaro Garcia, a retired sheet metal worker.

Caused by asbestos exposure, peritoneal mesothelioma is an
aggressive form of cancer that first attacks the membranes
lining the stomach.

Experts testified that the 71-year-old Mr. Garcia was exposed to
hazardous asbestos levels, and that each exposure was a
substantial factor that contributed to his risk of developing
asbestos-related disease.

Throughout his 48-year career, 71-year-old Mr. Garcia worked
with Duro Dyne Corporation's asbestos-containing sheet metal
products but was never advised to wear any form of respiratory
protection.

Mr. Garcia learned that he had peritoneal mesothelioma in late
2002. After over two years of treatment with chemotherapy, his
cancer is currently in a temporary state of remission.

Duro Dyne was charged with US$325,369 for past and future
medical expenses, US$530,250 for lost earning capacity, and
US$1.05 million in non-economic damages. Non-economic damages
included US$300,000 to Mr. Garcia's wife, Delia, for loss of
consortium.

After the verdict, Gilbert Purcell, Mr. Garcia's attorney, said,
"We are grateful that the jury rejected the defense claims that
chrysotile asbestos does not cause all mesothelioma, including
peritoneal, and that Mr. Garcia is somehow cured of this
terrible and entirely preventable disease. Only in a courtroom
would you hear such things."


COMPANY PROFILE

Duro Dyne Corporation
81 Spence Street
Bay Shore, NY 11706
Phone: 631-249-9000
Fax: 631-249-8346
Toll Free: 1-800-899-3876
http://www.durodyne.com/

Description:
Duro Dyne Corporation used to manufacture and distribute
asbestos-containing flex HVAC duct connectors and duct sealer
used for sheet metal duct connections.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BAYOU MANAGEMENT: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Suit in CT
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Berger & Montague, P.C., filed the first class
action suit concerning the recent collapse of the family of
hedge funds managed by Bayou Management LLC of Stamford,
Connecticut.

The lawsuit names as defendants Bayou Super Fund, LLC, Bayou No
Leverage Fund, LLC, Bayou Affiliates Fund, LLC, Bayou Accredited
Fund, LLC, Bayou Offshore Fund, LLC, Bayou Fund, LLC, and other
Bayou-related persons and entities; Bayou's principals, Samuel
Israel, III and Daniel E. Marino; Bayou's banker, Citibank,
N.A.; and hedge fund consultants Hennessee Group LLC, its
principals E. Lee Hennessee and Charles J. Gradante, and
Sterling Stamos Capital Management, L.P. The lawsuit is filed on
behalf of persons who, during the Class Period December 31, 1996
through August 25, 2005, invested funds or maintained
investments in the Bayou Hedge Funds, and suffered damages.

Plaintiffs allege that the Bayou Hedge Funds have, almost since
their inception in or about 1996, essentially operated as a
massive financial sham and Ponzi scheme in which defendants
Israel, Marino and others fraudulently lured Class member
investors to invest approximately $450 million in the Bayou
Hedge Funds, and then unlawfully pilfered and squandered
hundreds of millions of those investment proceeds. Defendant
Citibank, N.A. is alleged to have facilitated the scheme by
allowing defendant Israel to transfer at least some $120 million
of the Class member fiduciary funds Bayou had under management
to one or more of his own personal bank accounts in Germany and
elsewhere. Defendants Hennessee Group LLC, its managing
principals.

E. Lee Hennessee and Charles J. Gradante, and Sterling Stamos
Capital Management, L.P. are alleged to have facilitated the
fraud by failing to conduct proper due diligence of the Bayou
Hedge Funds prior to recommending those investments to
investors, and by failing to properly monitor those investments.
Since the truth about the Bayou fraud was revealed, beginning
August 25, 2005, Mr. Israel and Mr. Marino pled guilty to
multiple criminal charges, and the Bayou Hedge Funds have
collapsed. This case is pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut, Civil Action No. 3:05-cv-
01762-JBA.

The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. consists of some 65
attorneys concentrating in complex civil litigation, including
the representation of institutional and other investors in
securities and other investor protection litigation. Among the
Firm's many successful representations, Berger & Montague has
represented shareholders in securities cases involving Sunbeam,
Rite Aid, Waste Management, Drexel Burnham Lambert and numerous
other well-known companies. The Connecticut law firm of Koskoff
Koskoff & Bieder, P.C. is also serving as plaintiffs' counsel in
the Bayou class action.

For more details, contact Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq., Lawrence J.
Lederer, Esq. or Lane L. Vines, Esq. of Berger & Montague, P.C.,
1622 Locust St., Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 800-424-6690 or
215-875-3000, Fax: 215-875-4604.


GREAT WOLF: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in WI
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., filed a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin on behalf of all persons who
acquired the publicly traded securities of Great Wolf Resorts,
Inc. (NYSE:WOLF) ("Great Wolf" or the "Company") between
December 14, 2004 and July 28, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Also included are all those who purchased the common
stock of Great Wolf pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
Initial Public Offering ("IPO") on or about December 14, 2004.

The Complaint alleges defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false statements in
connection with the Company's 2004 IPO. According to the
complaint, 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 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.

On July 28, 2005, investors learned the true magnitude of the
Company's earnings shortfall and its cause -- the alleged
unreliability of defendants' EBITDA projections. Analysts
concluded that defendants were fully aware of the true magnitude
of the earnings miss when they were out marketing to clients at
the end of June, but failed to publicly disclose the materiality
of the problem. On this news, the price of the Company's stock
plunged $6.12 to $13.65.

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


GREAT WOLF: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. WI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, initiated
a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased the common stock of Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. ("Great
Wolf" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: WOLF) pursuant or traceable to
the Company's Initial Public Offering ("IPO") of common stock on
December 14, 2004, and on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Great Wolf securities between
December 14, 2004 and July 28, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action, case no. 05-C-0687-C, is pending before the
Honorable Barbara B. Crabb in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Wisconsin against defendants Great
Wolf, and certain of the Company's officers and directors.
According to the complaint, defendants violated sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, and 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 Great Wolf is an owner, operator and
developer of family resorts in the United States that feature
indoor waterparks and other family-oriented entertainment
activities. According to the Complaint, the Company filed a
registration statement and prospectus with the SEC in connection
with the Company's IPO that contained materially false and
misleading statements about Great Wolf's financial condition and
business prospects. Moreover, during the Class Period, the
Company reported strong results and issued positive guidance in
press releases and SEC filings that defendants knew, or
recklessly disregarded, were materially false and misleading.
Unbeknownst to investors, during the Class Period, the Company
was suffering from a host of adverse conditions resulting from,
in part, its failure to implement an adequate system of internal
controls to, among other things, properly account for the
Company's revenue and operating expenses. Defendants were
motivated to conceal these material problems to complete the
Company's IPO and to file a registration statement with the SEC
that enabled Company insiders, including certain defendants, to
sell their personally-held shares of Great Wolf stock to the
public.

On July 28, 2005, the last day of the Class Period, the Company
issued a press release announcing disappointing second quarter
2005 adjusted Earnings Before Interest Taxes Depreciation and
Amortization ("EBITDA") of $3.3 million, significantly lower
than defendants' previously issued guidance of $7.0 million. The
Company attributed the results to various factors, including "a
slower than expected start to the summer season in the Midwest;
competitive pressures at its Sandusky, Ohio resort; and a
slower-than-expected occupancy ramp up at the company's
Sheboygan, Wis. property." In addition, defendant John Emery,
CEO and a director of Great Wolf, stated that certain "internal
factors" negatively impacted the Company's second quarter
results, including "the timing and flow of operational
information to provide accurate forecasts and the lack of
visibility of our customer booking patterns." The Company
lowered its guidance for the third and fourth quarter of 2005,
and the full year 2005. For full year 2005, the Company reduced
its guidance to adjusted EBITDA of $34 million to $40 million,
from its previous guidance of $47 million to $50 million. In
reaction to this news, the price of Great Wolf common stock fell
$6.12 per share, or nearly 31%, from its closing price of $19.77
on July 27, 2005, to close at $13.65 on July 28, 2005.

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


HELEN OF TROY: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud 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
Western District of Texas on behalf of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Helen of
Troy, Ltd. (Nasdaq:HELE) ("Helen of Troy" or the "Company")
between October 12, 2004, and October 10, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint alleges Defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false statements.
Specifically, 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
October 11, 2005, Helen of Troy 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.

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


IMERGENT INC.: Labaton Sucharow Provides Updates on Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP, ("Labaton Sucharow") updates
investors with respect to class action lawsuit against iMergent,
Inc. ("iMergent" or the "Company") (AMEX:IIG).

By Order issued by United States District Judge Dee Benson for
the District of Utah, Central Division, on August 22, 2005,
Labaton Sucharow was appointed Lead Counsel for the class of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly
traded securities of iMergent between November 30, 2004 and
February 25, 2005 (2:05cv000204, In re iMergent Securities
Litigation), pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"). As is common in securities fraud
class actions, Labaton Sucharow has received court approval to
file a consolidated amended class action complaint containing
all new developments with respect to iMergent, on or before
Monday November 28, 2005 (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The
amended complaint will allege a class period of November 20,
2001 through October 24, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period")
and contain all allegations against iMergent, its officers and
directors, and its auditors under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

Labaton Sucharow also intends to file a motion to consolidate
with the iMergent securities litigation the case referred to in
the press release of November 21, 2005, issued by the law firm
of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP ("Kirby McInerney"). Labaton
Sucharow's motion will request that the Court preclude any
further lead plaintiff litigation in this matter, contrary to
the press releases issued by Kirby McInerney. Accordingly,
Labaton Sucharow intends to represent all persons or entities
that purchased iMergent securities between November 20, 2001 and
October 24, 2005, inclusive.

For more details, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. of Labaton
Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP, Phone: (800) 321-0476, Web site:
http://www.labaton.com.


INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: Glancy Binkow Sets Lead Plaintiff Cut-Off
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, representing
shareholders of Interlink Electronics Inc., set a January 17,
2006, deadline to file motions for appointment as lead plaintiff
in the shareholder lawsuit. All persons and institutions who
purchased securities of Interlink Electronics Inc. ("Interlink"
or the "Company") (Nasdaq: LINKE) between April 24, 2003 and
November 1, 2005 (the "Class Period"), may move the Court not
later than January 17, 2006, to serve as lead plaintiff,
however, you must meet certain legal requirements.

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

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

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy or Michael Goldberg,
Esq. of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars,
Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or
(888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com.  


TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Glancy Binkow Sets Plaintiff Cut-Off
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, which is
representing shareholders of Tempur-Pedic International Inc.
announces that there are 13 days remaining to move to be a lead
plaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit. All persons and
institutions who purchased securities of Tempur-Pedic
International, Inc. ("Tempur-Pedic" or the "Company") (NYSE:TPX)
between April 22, 2005 and September 19, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), may move the Court not later than December 6,
2005, to serve as lead plaintiff; however, you must meet certain
legal requirements.

The Complaint, which was filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas, charges Tempur-Pedic
and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations
of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims
that defendants' material omissions and dissemination of
materially false and misleading statements concerning Tempur-
Pedic's financial performance and prospects caused the Company's
stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages
on investors. Tempur-Pedic designs and sells "visco-elastic"
mattresses which are made of foam-like material that contours to
the shape of an object, and are marketed as more comfortable and
orthopedically superior to traditional innerspring mattresses.
Although Tempur-Pedic had been unchallenged in its niche and
grew its business rapidly, defendants allayed growing investor
concerns by reiterating aggressive sales and earnings guidance
for 2005, even after the Company had begun to experience a
slowdown, and by misrepresenting that Tempur-Pedic's business
was not suffering from the effects of competition. The Complaint
alleges defendants' Class Period representations were materially
false and misleading when made because they failed to disclose
that:

     (1) demand for Tempur-Pedic's products was slowing as
         competitors were gaining a foothold in the visco-
         elastic market;

     (2) defendants' repeated express assurances that the
         competition was not having a materially negative impact
         on the Company, even in response to express concerns
         raised by analysts, were untrue and provided false
         comfort to investors while inflating the price of
         Tempur-Pedic stock so insiders could sell their shares;
         and

     (3) in light of increasing competition that was already
         having a noticeable effect on the Company's business,
         defendants' guidance, reiterated on July 21, 2005,
         lacked any reasonable basis.

On September 19, 2005, Tempur-Pedic issued lower guidance for
2005, which it attributed to a number of factors, including
competition that it had said was not and would not have a
negative impact -- or at least not a large enough impact to
lower its 2005 guidance reiterated less than a month before this
announcement. In response to this announcement, the price of
Tempur-Pedic common stock plummeted, falling 28.5% in one day,
from $16.38 per share on July 19, 2005, to $11.70 per share on
July 20, 2005, on unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy or Michael Goldberg,
Esq. of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars,
Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or
(888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com.


UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, initiated
a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Universal American Financial Corporation ("Universal
American" or the "Company") (NasdaqNM: UHCO) between February
16, 2005 and October 28, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action, numbered 05 CV 9883, is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York before the
Honorable John F. Keenan, against defendants Universal American,
Richard A. Barasch (CEO), Robert A. Waegelein (CFO), and Gary W.
Bryant (COO).

The complaint alleges that Universal American is a specialty
health and life insurance holding company that provides a broad
array of health insurance and managed care products and services
to the growing senior population. The Company's principal health
insurance products for the senior market are Medicare Supplement
and Medicare Advantage.

The complaint further alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued or caused to be issued materially false and
misleading statements that deceived the investing public as to
Universal America's financial performance and financial
condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's medical loss ratio. The medical loss ratio is a very
closely watched metric that is an expression of the relation of
the cost of health care provided to premium income. An increase
in the medical loss ratio means higher expenses relative to
premium income, which in turn indicates that the Company is
growing less profitable. The Company stated that the
profitability of its Medicare Advantage business depended, to a
significant degree, on the Company's ability to predict and
effectively manage costs related to the provision of healthcare
services. State regulations required that the Company monitor
its medical loss ratio and the Company claimed to have systems
in place that enabled it to do so. Defendants further stated
that they were reversing a negative trend in the medical loss
ratio.

The truth was revealed on October 28, 2005, when defendants
issue a release that announced a 22% year-over-year decline in
net income resulting from higher medical care costs and
expenses. On this news, the Company's share price dropped
precipitously, by $7.50 per share, or 33%, in regular trading on
the Nasdaq National Market ("NASDAQ") exchange, to close at
below $15.00 per share. During the Class Period, the Company and
Company insiders sold Universal American shares for proceeds in
excess of $200 million.

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


UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., filed a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
acquired the publicly traded securities of Universal American
Financial Corp (Nasdaq:UHCO) ("Universal American" or the
"Company") between February 16, 2005 and October 28, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Also included are all those who
purchased in the secondary offering on or around June 16, 2005.

The Complaint alleges defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false statements
concerning the Company's medical loss ratio. The medical loss
ratio is an expression of the relation of the cost of health
care provided to premium income. An increase in the medical loss
ratio means higher expenses relative to premium income, which in
turn indicates that the Company is growing less profitable. The
Company stated that the profitability of its Medicare Advantage
business depended, to a significant degree, on the Company's
ability to predict and effectively manage costs related to the
provision of healthcare services. State regulations required
that the Company monitor its medical loss ratio and the Company
claimed to have systems in place that enabled it to do so.
Defendants further stated that they were reversing a negative
trend in the medical loss ratio.

On October 28, 2005, defendants announced a 22% year-over-year
decline in net income resulting from higher medical care costs
and expenses. On this news, the Company's share price dropped
$7.50 to close at below $15.00 per share. During the Class
Period, the Company and Company insiders sold Universal American
shares for proceeds in excess of $200 million.

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



                            *********


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  * * *