CAR_Public/051128.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, November 28, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 235

                            Headlines

ABRASIVE GRAIN: Suit Settlement Hearing Set December 21, 2005
AMERINDO INVESTMENT: SEC Files Amended Suit V. Firm, Principals
ANR PIPELINE: KS Court Mulls Gas Royalties Lawsuit Certification
AUSTRIA: Jewish Community Head Reacts Cautiously to U.S. Ruling
AUSTRIA: Holocaust Victims Must Still Wait Despite U.S. Ruling

BANKBOSTON: Few Customers File Claims in $12.5M Suit Settlement
COMMERCE BANCORP: NJ Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation
CONNECTICUT: Group Launches Suit Over Inadequate School Funding
CONTINENTAL TIRE: Recalls 34,396 Various Tires For Crash Hazard   
DETROIT DIESEL: PA Judge Sends Clayton Act Lawsuits to MI Court

EPDM LITIGATION: Antitrust Settlement Hearing Set June 28, 2005
HILB ROGAL: Continues To Face RICO Violations Suit in NJ Court
HILB ROGAL: Continues To Face Consolidated ERISA Lawsuit in NJ
HILB ROGAL: Continues To Face MA Insurance Fees Antitrust Suit
HILB ROGAL: Plaintiffs File Amended Fraud Lawsuit in E.D. VA

HYUNDAI CARRIBBEAN: Recalls Santa Fe Vehicles For Injury Hazard   
ILLINOIS: Attorneys Vying For Venue in Shell, Exxon MBTE Case
ILLINOIS: Several Municipalities Settle Suit Over 1997 State Law
KATZMAN & KORR: Judge Rejects Settlement With Home, Condo Owners
LAFARGE CANADA: Continues To Face Ontario Homeowners' Lawsuit

LAFARGE NORTH: Faces Third Party Complaint in LA Hurricane Suit
MAZDA NORTH: Recalls 3,982 2006 Vehicles Due to Crash Hazard   
MERRILL LYNCH: Named in REFCO Shareholder, Derivative Lawsuits
METROMEDIA FIBER: Suit Settlement Hearing Set December 22, 2005
MURPHY OIL: Faces LA Suit For Oil Spill Due To Hurricane Katrina

MURPHY OIL: Continues To Face Amended Consolidated Lawsuit in LA
PNC FINANCIAL: PA Court Mulls Motion To Dismiss ERISA Fraud Suit
PNC FINANCIAL: PA Court Mulls Approval for Stock Suit Settlement
TEXAS: FTC Reports High Level of Compliance in Funeral Homes
TEXTRON FINANCIAL: Buyers' Source Financing Suit Pending in OH

UICI: Face Stock Fraud, Derivative Lawsuits V. Blackstone Merger
UICI: TX Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Fraud Litigation
UICI: TX Court Junks Class Claims in Shareholder Derivative Suit
UNOCAL CORPORATION: Settlement Hearing Set December 16, 2005
UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Limited Discovery Proceeds in TN Suit

UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: TN Court Mulls Plaintiff Intervention
UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Pre-Trial Proceedings Ends Dec. 2005
U.S. SMOKELESS: KS Attorney Objects to Settlement in Osborn Case
VISA: LA Businesses Eligible to File Claims in Antitrust Deal

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in N.D. TX
HELEN OF TROY: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX
HYDROFLO INC.: Rosen Law Firm Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NC
REFCO INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
UNITED AMERICAN: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in E.D. MI


                            *********


ABRASIVE GRAIN: Suit Settlement Hearing Set December 21, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of New
York will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in
the matter, "In re: Abrasive Grain Antitrust Litigation, Civil
Action Nos. 95-CV-7574-CJS and 95-CV-7580-CJS." The case was on
behalf of all persons who purchased artificial grain in the
United States directly from Washington Miles Electro Minerals
Corporation, EXOLON-ESK Company or Norton Company during the
period from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1994.

The hearing will be held on December 21, 2005, at 10:00 a.m., in
room 414 at the United States Courthouse, 68 Court St., Buffalo,
NY 14202.

For more details, contact Hugh C. Carlin of Gross, Shuman,
Brizdle & Gilfillan, 600 Lafayette Court, 465 Main St., Buffalo,
NY 14203, Phone: (716) 854-4300, Fax: 716-854-2787, E-mail:
hcarlin@gross-shuman.com or Bruce K. Cohen and Steven J.
Greenfogel of Meredith, Cohen & Greenfogel, P.C., 117 S. 17th
St., Architects Bldg. 22nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone:
(215) 564-5182.


AMERINDO INVESTMENT: SEC Files Amended Suit V. Firm, Principals
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed an amended
complaint against Amerindo Investment Advisors Inc. (Amerindo
US), and its principals Alberto W. Vilar and Gary A. Tanaka. The
amended complaint names the following additional defendants:
Amerindo Advisors UK Limited, a United Kingdom corporation
(Amerindo UK); Amerindo Investment Advisors, Inc., a Panamanian
corporation (Amerindo Panama); Amerindo Management Inc., a
Panamanian corporation (AMI); Amerindo Technology Growth Fund,
Inc., a Panamanian corporation (ATGF); Amerindo Technology
Growth Fund II, Inc., a Panamanian corporation (ATGF II); and
Techno Raquia, S.A., a Panamanian corporation (Techno Raquia).  

The amended complaint alleges that Amerindo US, Amerindo Panama,
Amerindo UK, Vilar, and Tanaka violated Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In addition, the amended
complaint alleges that AMI, Techno Raquia, ATGF and ATGF II
aided and abetted violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The amended complaint further
alleges that Amerindo US, Amerindo Panama and Amerindo UK
violated, and Mr. Vilar, Mr. Tanaka, AMI, ATGF, ATGF II, and
Techno Raquia aided and abetted violations of, Sections 206(1)
and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Finally, the   
amended complaint alleges that Amerindo US violated, and Vilar
and Tanaka aided and abetted violations of, Section 206(4) of
the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-2(a) thereunder.
     
The amended complaint repeats the allegations from the original
complaint that Amerindo US, Mr. Vilar, and Mr. Tanaka defrauded
one client by misappropriating funds she invested in the
Amerindo Venture Fund LP, a limited partnership that was
purportedly being organized to qualify and be operated as a
Small Business Investment Company.
     
Further, the amended complaint alleges that Amerindo US,
Amerindo UK, Amerindo Panama (collectively, Amerindo), AMI,
ATGF, ATGF II, and Techno Raquia defrauded investors in
Guaranteed Fixed Rate Deposit Accounts (GFRDAs). The amended
complaint alleges that Mr. Vilar and Mr. Tanaka solicited
clients to invest funds in GFRDAs, a product in which Amerindo
guaranteed that investors would earn a fixed rate of return and
receive the return of their principal at maturity.  In contrast
to representations that the majority of investors' funds would
be invested in short-term debt instruments, Mr. Vilar, Mr.
Tanaka and Amerindo largely invested in equity securities, such
as emerging technology and biotechnology stocks. Amerindo was
often unable to pay investors their promised returns, or to
return investors' principal at maturity.  Consequently, when
investors sought to redeem their GFRDAs, Amerindo generally
either refused to honor redemption requests, or redeemed the
GFRDAs with other investors' funds, including funds from
unrelated brokerage accounts in the name of AMI or two offshore
hedge funds, ATGF and ATGF II. In addition, the amended
complaint alleges that Mr. Vilar, Mr. Tanaka and Amerindo
defrauded investors in two offshore hedge funds, ATGF and ATGF
II.  According to offering circulars, ATGF and ATGF II planned
to invest in emerging growth companies.  Rather than using
investor funds solely to invest in such companies, however, Mr.
Tanaka directed ATGF and ATGF II to transfer investor funds from
the funds' brokerage accounts to other accounts for Mr. Vilar's
and Mr. Tanaka's own business and personal benefit. The suit is
styled, SEC v. Amerindo Investment Advisors Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 05 Civ. 5231 (LTS) (DFE) SDNY] (LR-19470).


ANR PIPELINE: KS Court Mulls Gas Royalties Lawsuit Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Stevens County, Kansas has yet to rule on
plaintiffs' motion for certification of the fourth amended class
action against ANR Pipeline Co., several of its affiliates and
other natural gas companies.

The suit, styled "Will Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines and Their
Predecessors, et al.," was initially filed in 1999, alleging
that the defendants mismeasured natural gas volumes and heating
content of natural gas on non-federal and non-Native American
lands.  The suit seeks to recover royalties that plaintiffs
contend they should have received had the volume and heating
value of natural gas produced from their properties been
differently measured, analyzed, calculated and reported,
together with prejudgment and postjudgment interest, punitive
damages, treble damages, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses,
and future injunctive relief to require the defendants to adopt
allegedly appropriate gas measurement practices.  No monetary
relief has been specified in this case.

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


AUSTRIA: Jewish Community Head Reacts Cautiously to U.S. Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ariel Muzicant, the leader of Austria's Jewish community reacted
cautiously to a U.S. court ruling that may clear the way for
compensation payments to Holocaust survivors whose property was
confiscated by the Nazis, The New York Newsday reports.

Mr. Muzicant told Austrian state radio that Austria's Jews were
"examining the judgment and considering the consequences." He
also said, "We are urging caution to avoid raising false hopes."

In a 2-1 ruling, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New
York dismissed parts of a class action lawsuit by Austrian
Jewish victims of the Nazi regime in a ruling that may clear the
way for payouts from a settlement fund. Deferring to U.S.
foreign policy interests, the federal appeals court stated in
its ruling 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 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, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (November 24, 2005) reports.

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, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (November 24, 2005) reports.

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, according to the appeals court. Distributions
from the Austrian compensation fund, which included $150 million
to cover certain property claims, were contingent on dismissal
of the case.

Mr. Muzicant also stated in the radio broadcast that the
judgment "does not mean the rejection of all complaints." He
pointed out that Austria's Jews were waiting to see if the
government would begin payments or hold off until lingering
legal questions were resolved. He did not elaborate though.

"We have to analyze it. I don't think we can say today that
there is legal closure," Erika Jakubovits, another official with
Vienna's Jewish community, said of the decision.


AUSTRIA: Holocaust Victims Must Still Wait Despite U.S. Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
The wait continues for Holocaust victims who have fought for
several years for compensation payments, despite a recent U.S.
court ruling, which cleared most of the hurdles standing between
them and disbursements from a 2001 settlement fund, according to
authorities, The Associated Press reports.

In a 2-1 ruling, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New
York dismissed parts of a class action lawsuit filed by Austrian
Jewish victims of the Nazi regime. Deferring to U.S. foreign
policy interests, the federal appeals court stated in its ruling
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 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, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (November 24, 2005) reports.

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, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (November 24, 2005) reports.

Under a 2001 agreement between Austria and the United States,
legal closure must be achieved before the payment process can
begin. Under the agreement, Austrian authorities, banks,
insurance companies, industries, economic chambers and the
state-owned holding company finance the fund, which is worth
$210 million, based on historical exchange rates for 2001. That
amount has not been adjusted to reflect current currency rates.

Georg Schnetzer, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, told The
Associated Press, "There is no legal closure yet, but this is a
big step toward legal closure." He added, "We are confident that
legal closure will come soon, and we are looking forward to
that."

Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel told journalists in Salzburg,
Austria that the nation viewed the court ruling as "a very
positive first step" toward final legal closure, the Austria
Press Agency reported. "We are putting 100 percent of our good
will behind solving the issue as soon as possible," APA quoted
him as saying.

Ariel Muzicant, the head of Vienna's Jewish Community, which is
one of the plaintiffs in the case, told The Associated Press
that his group was working toward removing the remaining
obstacles soon. He specifically said, "The Jewish Community is
behind getting legal closure. We do everything in our power to
get legal closure and to get it fast."

Payments can start within weeks after the district court
dismisses the remainder of the lawsuit and Austrian authorities
have declared that legal closure has been achieved, according to
Hannah Lessing, the head of the compensation fund. She told thE
Associated Press, "We are ready. As soon as there is legal
closure, we can start paying."

Currently the fund has received 19,300 applications for
compensation. Among those applications, the fund has made final
decisions on 2,500, while the rest remain pending.


BANKBOSTON: Few Customers File Claims in $12.5M Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hundreds of thousands of former BankBoston customers are yet to
claim $25 payments that they are entitled to under a $12.5
million class action settlement with Bank of America, The Boston
Globe reports.

Court documents revealed that so far only about 58,000 account
holders filed claims, which is less than 10 percent of the
total. Though the exact size of the class is unknown, it is
estimated to be around 584,000 to 1 million account holders.  If
the number of people filing claims stays at the current level,
it would be a bonanza for three nonprofit groups, namely: City
Year National, Greater Boston Legal Services, and the National
Consumer Law Center.  Under the terms of the settlement, the
$12.5 million would be split between former BankBoston
customers, the attorneys who brought the suit, and the three
nonprofits.  As it stands now, the former BankBoston customers
who filed claims would receive a total of $1.5 million. The
plaintiff attorneys are seeking court approval to recover more
than $3 million for costs and fees. The balance of the funds,
about $8 million if claims remain at the current level, would be
split among the nonprofits.

Settled earlier this year, the lawsuit alleged that former
BankBoston customers in 68 Eastern Massachusetts communities
were notified too late by Fleet Financial Corporation about
merger related changes to their accounts involving fees and
minimum balance requirements.

Fleet agreed to the settlement after an appeals court cleared
the way for a court case against the bank. Bank of America was
forced to pick up the settlement cost after it acquired Fleet
last year.   Under the settlement, anyone who had a BankBoston
checking, savings, money market, or NOW account at one of the
bank's branches in the 68 communities in 2000 would be eligible
to file a claim. People who filed claims are entitled to $25 for
each account.  Bank of America sent claim forms to close to 1
million current account holders who hold the type of accounts
covered by the settlement, but any customers who went to another
bank after Fleet acquired BankBoston would not have received the
forms.

The suit is styled, "Barnes v. Fleet National Bank, et al, Case
No. 1:01-cv-10395-NG," filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Nancy Gertner.
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Alexander H. Burke and Daniel
A. Edelman of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, 120
South LaSalle St., 18th Floor, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone:
312-739-4200, Fax: 312-419-0379, E-mail: aburke@edcombs.com and
courtecl@aol.com; and Yvonne W. Rosmarin of Law Office of Yvonne
W. Rosmarin, 58 Medford St., Arlington, MA 02474, Phone:
781-648-4040, Fax: 781-643-6164, E-mail: YRosmarin@abanet.org.
Representing the Defendants are:

     (1) Jon E. Hayden of FleetBoston Financial Corporation,
         Corporate Law Dept., 100 Federal St., Mail Stop MA DE
         10019C, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-434-2820, Fax:
         617-434-7980, E-mail jon.e.hayden@bankofamerica.com;

     (2) Joseph L. Kociubes and Rheba Rutkowski of Bingham
         McCutchen, LLP, 150 Federal St., Boston, MA 02110.
         Phone: 617-951-8000 and 617-951-8606, Fax: 617-951-8736
         and 617-951-8736, E-mail: joe.kociubes@bingham.com and
         rheba.rutkowski@bingham.com; and

     (3) Alan S. Kaplinsky of Ballard, Spahr, Andrews &
         Ingersoll, 1735 Market St., 51st Floor, Philadelphia,
         PA 19103-7599.

For more details, visit, http://changeintermssettlement.com/.



COMMERCE BANCORP: NJ Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
Camden Division dismissed the consolidated securities class
action filed against Commerce Bancorp, Inc. and certain Company
(or subsidiary) current and former officers and directors.

During July and August 2004, six class action complaints were
filed, and later consolidated in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden Division. As a
result of the consolidation, a single consolidated complaint has
been filed. It alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and
Exchange Commission.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's
securities during various periods. On November 7, 2005, the
consolidated class action compliant against the Company and
certain Company (or subsidiary) current and former officers and
directors was dismissed.

The suit is styled "Galati v. Commerce Bancorp, Inc., et al.,
case no. 1:04-cv-03252-RBK-JBR," filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden Division,
under Judge Robert B. Kugler.  Representing the Company is
Joseph J. DePalma, LITE, DEPALMA, GREENBERG & RIVAS, LLC, Two
Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-5003, Phone:
(973) 623-3000, E-mail: jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com; and Olimpio Lee
Squitieri, SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP, 26 South Maple Avenue, Suite
202, Marlton, NJ 08053, Phone: (856) 797-4611, Fax:
(856) 797-4612, E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com.  Representing the
Company is J. Llewellyn Mathews of BLANK ROME LLP, Woodland
Falls Corporate Park, 210 Lake Drive East, Suite 200, Cherry
Hill, NJ 08002, Phone: (856) 779-3600, E-mail:
mathews@blankrome.com.


CONNECTICUT: Group Launches Suit Over Inadequate School Funding
---------------------------------------------------------------
A school-funding lawsuit in Connecticut aims to increase state
aid to municipalities by as much as $2 billion annually,
creating an instant issue for the 2006 campaign for governor.

The lawsuit claims that there are vast disparities in
opportunities and levels of achievement among Connecticut's
public schools. The long-anticipated legal action is based on
the widespread belief that the General Assembly lacks the will
to tackle a major spending increase without the threat of court
intervention.

Stephen Cassano, executive director of the lead plaintiff, the
Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding told The
Hartford Courant, "It's (suit) the big stick out there." The two
Democratic mayors running for governor, John DeStefano Jr. of
New Haven and Dannel P. Malloy of Stamford, are among the
sponsors of the litigation, which names Republican Gov. M. Jodi
Rell as a defendant. Robert DeCrescenzo, a former East Hartford
mayor and Democratic activist told The Hartford Courant, "It's
going to be a central issue in the gubernatorial campaign."

New Haven and Stamford joined Bloomfield, Bridgeport, Danbury,
East Hartford, Hamden, Hartford, Manchester, Middletown, New
Britain, New London, Norwalk, Plainfield, Putnam and Windham in
underwriting the litigation, along with teachers' unions and
associations of school administrators.

Gov. Rell, who tried to blunt the issue two months ago,
announcing the creation of a commission to review the formula
for computing school aid, the Education Cost Sharing program,
expressed disappointment at the lawsuit. In a press statement,
Gov. Rell said, "I hope that this lawsuit does not become a
distraction to the important work of this commission. The
governor and the General Assembly are in the best position to
address ECS issues, not judges."

A prominent Democrat, Sen. Thomas Gaffey of Meriden, who is co-
chairman of the legislature's education committee, also viewed
the case warily. He told The Hartford Courant that it relies on
a coalition study, which projects a need for millions of dollars
more for successful and relatively wealthy suburbs such as
Glastonbury, Simsbury and South Windsor while shortchanging
struggling school districts such as Bloomfield or Chaplin.

The lawsuit is a class action filed in Superior Court in
Hartford on behalf of 15 children and their families. It asserts
that equal educational opportunity is a right under the state
constitution.

Nekita Carroll-Hall, one of the plaintiffs and the mother of two
children, a kindergartner and second-grader at Bridgeport's
Classical Studies Academy told The Hartford Courant, "I'm very
concerned about the education my children are receiving." The
school, according to her, has classes with as many as 30
students, compared with classes almost half that size in
neighboring Fairfield schools.


CONTINENTAL TIRE: Recalls 34,396 Various Tires For Crash Hazard   
---------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Tire North America, Inc. in cooperation with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about
34,396 units of CONTINENTAL / CONTITRAC BSW, CONTINENTAL /
CONTITRAC TR BSW, CONTINENTAL / CONTITRAC TR OWL and CONTINENTAL
/ GENERAL GRABBER TR BSW tires due to crash hazard. NHTSA
CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05T022000.

According to the ODI, certain Continental Contitrac TR Owl,
Contitrac TR BSW, General Grabber TR BSW, and Contritrac BSW
Tires sold as original equipment on certain ford trucks and sold
as replacement tires. These tires can wear prematurely, which
fails to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.
119, new Pneumatic Tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.
Premature tire Wear can result in tire failure and possibly a
vehicle crash.

As a remedy, continental will notify owners and replace the
tires free of charge. The recall is expected to begin on
December 21, 2005.

For more details, contact Continental, Phone: 704-588-5895 OR
the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153,
Web site: http://www.safecar.gov.


DETROIT DIESEL: PA Judge Sends Clayton Act Lawsuits to MI Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Berle M. Schiller decided that a pair of
class action antitrust suits under the Clayton Act that name 20
defendants must be litigated in a district that is a proper
venue for all of the defendants, The Legal Intelligencer
reports.

In his 20-page opinion in Cumberland Truck Equipment Co. v.
Detroit Diesel Corporation, Judge Schiller found that seven of
the 20 defendants conduct no business in Pennsylvania and
therefore cannot be subjected to the jurisdiction of a
Pennsylvania court. Thus, Judge Schiller transferred the entire
case to the Eastern District of Michigan.

In transferring the case, Judge Schiller rejected the arguments
of a team of plaintiffs' lawyers who said that Pennsylvania is a
proper venue for all of the defendants since the Clayton Act
explicitly allows for nationwide service of process. Instead,
Judge Schiller found that while Congress intended to expand
venue options in antitrust cases, Section 12 of the Clayton Act
"was not intended to provide a forum-shopping plaintiff with an
unfettered choice of venue."

Judge Schiller found that the federal courts have divided into
three schools of thought when analyzing venue issues under the
Clayton Act. He predicted that the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals would adopt an approach that allows the Clayton Act's
venue clause to be supplemented for alien defendants, but not
for domestic defendants.

Attorneys Wayne A. Mack, J. Manly Parks and Bruce Hanson of
Duane Morris filed the suits on behalf of truck dealers who
claim Detroit Diesel Corporation orchestrated an illegal group
boycott and price-fixing scheme after it became a subsidiary of
DaimlerChrysler. The proposed classes consist of hundreds of
International and Volvo truck dealers.

The cases, Cumberland Truck Equipment Co. v. Detroit Diesel and
Diamond International Trucks Inc. v. Detroit Diesel, allege that
Detroit Diesel and its independent distributors engaged in a
group boycott of truck dealers not affiliated with
DaimlerChrysler by terminating those dealers' rights to perform
major warranty repairs on Detroit Diesel engines in trucks that
they had sold. The suits also allege that at the same time
Detroit Diesel and its distributors also agreed to an across-
the-board increase on the prices the terminated dealers paid for
Detroit Diesel parts.

Additionally, the suits allege that the dealers lost their
ability to perform engine-overhaul warranty work on Detroit
Diesel engines in trucks they had sold, and were forced to pay
higher prices for engine parts than truck dealers whose brands
are affiliated with DaimlerChrysler. The group boycotts and
price-fixing schemes were designed to restrict the ability of
International and Volvo truck dealers to compete for engine
repairs and truck sales, according to the suit.

A second motive of the schemes, according to the suit, was to
force International and Volvo to enter into long-term supply
contracts with Detroit Diesel to install its engines in those
manufacturers' new trucks.

Court records show that DaimlerChrysler acquired Detroit Diesel
in October 2000. At the time, DaimlerChrysler also owns three
truck manufacturers namely: Freightliner, Western Star Trucks
and Sterling Trucks. After Detroit Diesel was acquired, Volvo
and International announced that they would no longer install
Detroit Diesel engines in their trucks because it was affiliated
with three of their major competitors.

The suits allege that the plaintiffs namely Volvo and
International dealers had "no control over the decision by these
respective manufacturers to stop purchasing and installing
Detroit Diesel engines." But when Detroit Diesel and its
distributors retaliated, the suits allege, it was the dealers
who suffered. They also allege that Detroit Diesel and its
distributors "entered into a conspiracy to boycott plaintiffs
... and to raise the prices the distributors charged plaintiffs
... for Detroit Diesel parts to noncompetitive levels so as to
eliminate competition between plaintiffs ... and Freightliner,
Western Star and Sterling dealers."

The plaintiffs claim the conspiracy was "orchestrated and
enabled" by Detroit Diesel, and that all of its distributors
agreed that they would "sever their existing business
relationships" with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also claim
they were stripped of the authorization to perform maintenance
on Detroit Diesel engines.

The suits also allege that the distributors jointly agreed not
to extend any discounts to the plaintiffs, and to "substantially
raise" the prices they charged the plaintiffs for Detroit Diesel
parts. The price increases were so steep that it became
"impossible for plaintiffs ... to service their customers,"
according to the suit. After the price increases took effect the
plaintiffs were being charged 35 percent more than competing
Freightliner, Western Star or Sterling dealers for Detroit
Diesel parts, it further states.

The plaintiffs in the Cumberland Truck case are truck dealers
who claim they were terminated or not renewed as Detroit Diesel
dealers. The plaintiffs in Diamond International are dealers who
claim their status was downgraded to truck maintenance dealer.

Although many of the defendants named in the suits filed formal
answers denying the allegations, a handful decided to move for
dismissal on the grounds that they are not subject to the
jurisdiction of a Pennsylvania court.

The plaintiffs lawyers though urged Judge Schiller to reject the
argument, saying the defendants "rely upon the mistaken
proposition of law that the venue clause in Section 12 of the
Clayton Act ... somehow modifies the nationwide service of
process clause of that section." That interpretation, according
to them, "blurs the historical distinction between venue and
personal jurisdiction analyses and effectively nullifies the
nationwide service clause of Section 12 by limiting it to areas
in which service is already authorized."

However, defense lawyers argued that the plaintiffs were asking
Judge Schiller to read the nationwide service provisions in the
Clayton Act too broadly. They argued, "Nationwide service, and
any expanded jurisdiction that accompanies it, cannot apply to a
domestic corporate defendant unless that defendant is somehow
connected to the forum district."

Instead of transferring only the claims against the seven moving
defendants, Judge Schiller decided that, in the interest of
judicial economy, the entire case should be transferred to the
Eastern District of Michigan since it is undisputed that every
defendant did business with Detroit Diesel.


EPDM LITIGATION: Antitrust Settlement Hearing Set June 28, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $3.17 million
settlement by defendant Syndial S.p.A, f/k/a Enichem S.p.A in
the matter, "In re: Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM)
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:03 MD 1542 (PCD)." The case was
filed on on behalf of all individuals or entities (excluding
government entities) who directly purchased EPDM in the United
States or form a facility located in the United States from any
defendant from January 1, 1997 to December 31, 2001.

The Court will hold a fairness hearing on December 13, 2005, at
10:00 a.m. at the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut, Courtroom 1, 141 Church Street, New Heaven, CT.

For more details, contact In re Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer
(EPDM) Antitrust Litigation c/o Gilardi & Co., LLC by Mail: P.O.
Box 808070, Petaluma, CA 94975-8070 or visit their Web site:
http://www.gilardi.com/php/shownotice.php?casetype=C&casename=EP
DM+Antitrust+%28Crompton%29&page_string=All%20claims&script_stri
ng=all.php&casecode=crep1 OR Michael D. Hausfeld of Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. by Mail: 1100 New York
Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, West Tower, Washington, District of
Columbia 20005-3964 Phone: 202-408-4600 or by Fax: 202-408-4699.


HILB ROGAL: Continues To Face RICO Violations Suit in NJ Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. and several other large commercial
insurers face a consolidated securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO)

In August 2004, OptiCare Health Systems Inc. filed a putative
class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Case No. 04-CV-06954) against a number of
the country's largest insurance brokers and several large
commercial insurers.  The Company was named as a defendant in
the Opticare suit in November 2004.  In December 2004, two other
purported class action suits were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
by Stephen Lewis (Case No. 04-C-7847) and Diane Preuss (Case No.
04-C-7853), respectively, against certain insurance brokers,
including the Company, and several large commercial insurers.

On February 17, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (JPMDL) ordered that the Opticare suit, along with
three other purported antitrust class actions filed in New York,
New Jersey and Pennsylvania against industry participants, be
centralized and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.  In addition, by Conditional Transfer
Order dated March 10, 2005, the Panel conditionally transferred
the Lewis and Preuss cases to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.  As a result of the Panel's transfer
orders, the Opticare, Lewis and Preuss cases are proceeding on a
consolidated basis with other purported class action suits
styled as "In re: Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation (MDL
1663)."

On August 1, 2005, the plaintiffs in MDL 1663 filed a First
Consolidated Amended Commercial Class Action Complaint (the
Commercial Complaint) in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey (Civil No. 04-5184) against the
Company and certain other insurance brokers and insurers.  In
the Commercial Complaint, the named plaintiffs purport to
represent a class consisting of all persons who, between August
26, 1994 and the date on which class certification may occur,
engaged the services of any one of the broker defendants or any
of their subsidiaries or affiliates to obtain advice with
respect to the procurement or renewal of insurance and who
entered into or renewed a contract of insurance with one of the
insurer defendants.  The plaintiffs allege in the Commercial
Complaint, among other things:

     (1) that the broker defendants engaged in improper steering
         of clients to the insurer defendants for the purpose of
         obtaining undisclosed additional compensation in the
         form of contingent commissions from insurers;

     (2) that the defendants were engaged in a bid-rigging
         scheme involving the submission of false and/or
         inflated bids from insurers to clients;

     (3) that the broker defendants improperly placed their
         clients' insurance business with insurers through
         related wholesale entities where an intermediary was
         unnecessary for the purpose of generating additional
         commissions from insurers;

     (4) that the broker defendants entered into unlawful tying
         arrangements to obtain reinsurance business from the
         defendant insurers; and

     (5) that the defendants created centralized internal
         departments for the purpose of monitoring, facilitating
         and advancing the collection of contingent commissions,
         payments and other improper fees.

The plaintiffs allege violations of federal and state antitrust
laws, violations of the RICO 18 U.S.C.  1962(c) and (d),
fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding
and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. The
plaintiff seeks monetary relief, including treble damages,
injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution, interest,
attorneys' fees and expenses, costs and other relief.

The OptiCare suit is styled "In Re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation, case no. 2:05-cv-01168-FSH," filed in the United
States District Court in New Jersey, under Judge Faith S.
Hochberg.  Representing the Company is Shawn Patrick Regan,
HUNTON AND WILLIAMS, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 Phone:
212-309-1046.  Representing the plaintiffs are Joseph P.
Guglielmo and Edith M. Kallas, MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN
LLP (NYC) One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York NY 10119 Phone:
212-594-5300; and Mark C. Rifkin, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN
& HERZ LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 Phone:
212-545-4600 E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com.


HILB ROGAL: Continues To Face Consolidated ERISA Lawsuit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. and certain other insurance brokers and
insurers face a consolidated class action in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA).

The suit, styled "In the Employee Benefits Complaint (Civil Nos.
04-5184, et al.)," the named plaintiffs purport to represent two
separate classes consisting of ERISA and non-ERISA plan
employees and employers, respectively, that have acquired
insurance products from the defendants in connection with an
employee benefit plan between August 26, 1994 and the date on
which class certification may occur.  The plaintiffs allege in
the Employee Benefits Complaint, among other things:

     (1) that the broker defendants secretly conspired with the
         insurer defendants to steer plaintiffs and members of
         the classes to the insurer defendants in exchange for
         undisclosed fees, including communication fees,
         enrollment fees, service fees, finders fees and/or
         administrative fees, contingent commissions and other
         payments, including broker bonuses, trips and
         entertainment, from the insurer defendants;

     (2) that the defendants were engaged in a bid-rigging
         scheme involving the submission of false and/or
         inflated bids from insurers to clients;

     (3) that the broker defendants improperly placed their
         clients' insurance business with insurers through
         related wholesale entities where an intermediary was
         unnecessary for the purpose of generating additional
         commissions from insurers; and

     (4) that the defendants entered into unlawful tying
         arrangements under which the broker defendants would
         place primary insurance contracts with insurers on the
         condition that the insurers use the broker defendants
         for placing their reinsurance coverage with reinsurance
         carriers.

The plaintiffs allege violations of federal and state antitrust
laws, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c) and (d), fraudulent
misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.  The plaintiff
seeks monetary relief, including treble and punitive damages,
injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution, interest,
attorneys' fees and expenses, costs and other relief.


HILB ROGAL: Continues To Face MA Insurance Fees Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court in Massachusetts, alleging violations of
federal antitrust law.

In May 2005, Bensley Construction, Inc. filed a putative class
action suit in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts (Case No. ESCV2005-00277) against the Company and
certain large commercial insurers and brokers.  In the amended
complaint, the plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the
broker defendants entered into contingent commission agreements
with the insurer defendants without disclosing the existence
and/or terms of the agreements to clients to whom the defendants
owed a fiduciary duty and that certain of the defendants engaged
in a bid-rigging and customer allocation scheme to maximize
their revenues under the contingent commission agreements.  The
plaintiff alleges breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment,
aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty, breach of
contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages for each member of
the class in an amount not to exceed $74,999 per class member,
costs and other relief.

The defendants removed the case to federal court and filed a
notice to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey pursuant to the Panel order consolidating
similar insurance antitrust suits in New Jersey.


HILB ROGAL: Plaintiffs File Amended Fraud Lawsuit in E.D. VA
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs file an amended securities class action against Hilb
Rogal & Hobbs Co. in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, styled "Iron Workers Local 16
Pension Fund v. Hilb Rogal & Hobbs, et al., Case No. 1:05-CV-
00735-GBL-TCB."  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Andrew L. Rogal,

     (2) Martin L. Vaughan, III,

     (3) Timothy J. Korman,

     (4) Carolyn Jones,

     (5) Robert W. Blanton, Jr. and

     (6) Robert B. Lockhart

Each of the individual defendants is a current or former officer
and/or director of the Company. In the complaint, the plaintiff
alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and
misleading statements to the public in the Company's filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, press releases and
other public statements between February 14, 2002 and May 26,
2005 by failing to disclose that the Company's contingent and
override commissions were designed to allow the Company to steer
its flow of business to those insurance carriers that agreed to
pay it such commissions; that the Company's business practices
were in direct conflict of interest with its customers and were
fraudulent and illegal; and that the Company's financial results
were materially inflated as a result of the recognition of
improper commissions as revenues.

The complaint further alleges that the individual defendants
were able to and did control the content of the Company's public
statements as a result of their positions as officers and/or
directors of the Company. The plaintiff alleges violations by
each of the defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
violations by the individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiff seeks monetary
damages, interest, costs, legal fees and other relief.

In September 2005, the Iron Workers Local 16 Pension Fund was
appointed Lead Plaintiff. In October 2005, Lead Plaintiff filed
an amended putative class action complaint against the Company
and Andrew L. Rogal, Martin L. Vaughan, III, Carolyn Jones and
Robert B. Lockhart. Each of the individual defendants is a
current or former officer and/or director of the Company.

In the amended complaint, the Lead Plaintiff alleges, among
other things, that the defendants made false and misleading
statements to the public in the Company's filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, press releases and other
public statements between August 11, 2000 and May 26, 2005 by
failing to disclose that the Company's contingent and override
commissions were designed to allow the Company to steer its flow
of business to those insurance carriers that agreed to pay it
such commissions; that the Company's business practices were in
direct conflict of interest with its customers and were
fraudulent and illegal; that the Company's business practices
exposed the Company to the risk of legal proceedings,
reputational damage, and other harms; and that the Company's
financial results were materially inflated as a result of the
recognition of improper commissions as revenues.

The amended complaint further alleges that the individual
defendants were able to and did control the content of the
Company's public statements as a result of their positions as
officers and/or directors of the Company. The amended complaint
alleges violations by each of the defendants of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and violations by the individual defendants of
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Lead
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, interest, costs, legal fees
and other relief.

The suit is styled "Iron Workers Local 16 Pension Fund v. Hilb
Rogal & Hobbs Co. et al., case no. 1:05-cv-00735-GBL-TCB," filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, under Judge Gerald Bruce Lee.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Benjamin Joseph Weir of Finkelstein Thompson &
Loughran, 1050 30th St NW, Washington, DC 20007, Phone: (202)
337-8000.


HYUNDAI CARRIBBEAN: Recalls Santa Fe Vehicles For Injury Hazard   
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai Caribbean-Puerto Rico in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 134 units of
2005 HYUNDAI / SANTA FE vehicles due to injury hazard. NHTSA
CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V527000.

According to the ODI, on certain sports utility vehicles
equipped with an occupant classification (OCS) on the right
front seat of the vehicle may classify certain small children
seated on the front edge seat as an adult. The possibility of
misclassification of certain small children as an adult may
allow the right front airbag to deploy in a frontal collision
crash or the side impact airbag to deploy in a side collision
crash resulting in severe injury or even death.

As remedy, dealers will ensure that the vehicle's OCS will
properly classify certain small children when seated on the
front edge of the seat and will disable the right front airbags.
Dealers will reprogram the vehicle's OCS electronic control unit
to provide an increased margin for recognition of certain small
children. The recall is expected to begin on December 6, 2005.

For more details, contact HYUNDAI OF PUERTO RICO, Phone:
1-800-981-0188 OR the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236
or 1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov.


ILLINOIS: Attorneys Vying For Venue in Shell, Exxon MBTE Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Christine Moody of the Korein Tillery law firm claims
in a proposed class action suit that oil companies tricked
Congress into passing dangerous amendments to the Clean Air Act
15 years ago, The Madison County Records reports.

Ms. Moody specifically accuses Shell Oil, Exxon and Mobil of
persuading Congress to adopt a new recipe for gasoline although
the oil companies knew an ingredient would contaminate
groundwater. In a September 28 complaint, the oil companies
"demonstrated their willingness to use any means to place their
economic interest above the health, property and well-being of
the people of the United States."

Shell Oil and Exxon Mobil responded that the plaintiffs sought
to replace national water quality standards with standards of
their own devising.   For the moment the case rests at U.S.
District Court in East St. Louis, but neither side wants it to
remain there. Korein Tillery has moved to remand to Madison
County, where Ms. Moody filed it. For their part, Shell Oil and
Exxon Mobil have moved for transfer to a federal court in New
York.

Ms. Moody has sued the oil companies in the form of a fifth
amended complaint to a four-year-old Madison County suit. She
withdrew the prior plaintiffs and introduced new ones.  Shell
Oil and Exxon Mobil immediately removed the case to federal
court, arguing that new plaintiffs made a new case, thus
requiring federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness
Act that Congress passed in February.

The case concerns methyl tertiary butyl ether, which the
defendants produce at their refineries. Adding it to gasoline
reduces pollution from automobile exhaust. "Unlike oil, which
does not mix with water, MTBE mixes so well with water that it
spreads its toxic plumes faster and farther than other chemical
components contained in gasoline," according to Ms. Moody's
complaint. When it contaminates groundwater, she alleges, ".its
foul taste and odor may render the water virtually unusable and
unfit for human consumption."

Ms. Moody claims no personal injury to the plaintiffs. Instead,
she seeks damages for reduced value of properties, and she wants
defendants to pay to clean up the properties. In addition she
also wants the defendants to pay for bottled water, temporary
filter systems and permanent hookups to public and private water
systems.

In the original suit, Edwardsville residents Frances Misukonis,
Frank Provaznik and Dolores Provaznik named dozens of
defendants. They proposed to represent everyone who owned
property within 3,000 feet of an underground gasoline storage
tank. At its peak, the case involved a proposed national class
action against 55 defendants.  This year the plaintiffs settled
claims against all defendants except Shell Oil and Exxon Mobil.
That settlement shrank the proposed class to owners of
properties near Shell Oil and Exxon Mobil storage tanks, a class
to which both Frances Misukonis and the Provazniks did not
belong.

Ms. Moody amended the complaint, replacing the original
plaintiffs with Howard Graham and Rhea McMannis. Ms. Moody
identified Mr. Graham as a St. Clair County resident and Rhea
McMannis as a Madison County resident. In the suit, she proposes
a plaintiff class for Illinois only. It listed Korein Tillery
and the firm of Baron and Budd, in Dallas, as attorneys for the
plaintiffs.

Shell Oil and Exxon Mobil then filed notice of removal to
federal court through their attorneys, John Galvin of St. Louis
for Shell Oil and Robert Wagner of St. Louis for Exxon Mobil.
Mr. Galvin and Mr. Wagner argued that that Rhea McMannis was a
proposed class representative in another MTBE case, England vs.
Atlantic Richfield. The attorneys noted that the defendants in
removed the case to federal court, which dismissed Rhea McMannis
for lack of standing.

Both attorneys further noted that neither Mr. Graham nor Rhea
McMannis claimed that MTBE contaminated their private wells.
Mr. Galvin and Mr. Wagner thus argued for removal not only under
the new class action law but also under the newer Energy Policy
Act, which specifically authorizes removal of MTBE actions.

Additionally, the attorneys argued that Shell Oil and Exxon
Mobil acted at the direction of Congress and the EPA when they
blended MTBE into gasoline. They pointed out that the Clean Air
Act amendments of 1990 required certain amounts of oxygen in
gasoline and, Congress as well as the EPA understood that
refiners would meet the goal by adding MTBE. Congress required
EPA to balance the need to reduce air pollution against other
environmental impacts, they explain.

After removing the case, Exxon Mobil requested a transfer to
U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin in New York State. So far,
the federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
assigned Judge Scheindlin to about 80 cases, consolidated as "In
Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Litigation."  Plaintiff attorney
Aaron Zigler of Korein Tillery then moved to remand, arguing,
"Defendant's counsel removed this litigation from its proper
forum without any basis in the law." He called removal "abuse of
judicial process and utter disregard for the law of this
Circuit." He also called it "vexatious."

On November 21, Shell Oil and Exxon Mobil filed a joint
memorandum in opposition to plaintiffs' motion to remand,
claiming their "sole" argument is weak. Their attorneys argued
that plaintiffs are relying on the suit's originally named
defendants' decision not to remove in 2001.


ILLINOIS: Several Municipalities Settle Suit Over 1997 State Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glenview and other municipalities in Illinois settled a class
action lawsuit that sought reimbursement of $1.3 million in fees
collected from wireless phone customers under the authority of a
1997 state law, The Pioneer Press Online reports.

The law in question is known as the Municipal Telecommunications
Infrastructure Maintenance Fee Act. Under it municipalities are
authorized to charge an infrastructure maintenance fee to land-
based and wireless providers for the use of the municipality's
right-of-way in serving their respective customers.

Both PrimeCo Personal Communications and U.S. Cellular
Corporation challenged the act's constitutionality. Later on as
the case went through the legal system, a Circuit Court judge
ruled the act unconstitutional with respect to wireless
providers. The Illinois Supreme Court backed that ruling, but it
said that it was constitutional as applied to land-based
companies.

Glenview and 218 other municipalities in February appealed the
circuit court judge's November 2004 ruling, however,
representatives for both parties worked out the settlement that
the Glenview Village Board approved on November 15. Under the
settlement, Glenview and the other municipalities, which
collected the fees from 1998 to 2002, will pay back $1.16
million.

Glenview's portion of the settlement totals $194,200, which will
be drawn from a holding account into which the Village Board
segregated the fees it collected while the litigation proceeded.
It will be up to the Village Board to determine how to use the
$780,000 balance.


KATZMAN & KORR: Judge Rejects Settlement With Home, Condo Owners
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas rejected a proposed
settlement in a class action lawsuit between a Lauderhill law
firm and nearly 1,300 South Florida home and condo owners,
setting a June 5, 2006 trial date instead, The South Florida
Sun-Sentinel reports.

With the ruling, the owners will not, at least for the time
being, get the $30 checks that were part of the proposed
settlement worked out by the law firm Katzman & Korr. The suit
claims that the firm violated state and federal fair debt
collection laws.

The deal was killed due to the about $35,000 originally included
in the payout for 2,500 owners who received allegedly illegal
debt collection letters from the law firm. Only 1,300 of the
2,500 owners joined the lawsuit.

Blane Carneal, the Fort Lauderdale attorney for the four Fort
Lauderdale owners who brought the suit, wanted to divide the
money among the 1,300 giving each about $57 instead of $30. Or,
if the judge preferred, Mr. Carneal agreed to give the extra
money to Broward County Legal Aid or to a state consumer
protection program.

However, the law firm wanted to keep the money. Thus, Mr.
Carneal told the judge, "No funds should go back to the
defendants." Judge Dimitrouleas then asked, "There's no way you
can split the baby?" When they couldn't, the judge nixed the
deal.

Mr. Carneal and attorney O. Randolph Bragg of Chicago brought
the suit two years ago for four owners in the Plaza East
Condominium at 4300 N. Ocean Blvd., Fort Lauderdale. The four
owners named as plaintiffs in the suit are Ramsey Agan, Grace
Agan, Sherry Ann Spies and Nancy J. Bochicchio. The suit argued
that Katzman & Korr violated the federal Fair Debt Collection
Act and Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act with letters
sent between December 2001 and December 2003 demanding payment
of debts allegedly owed their condo association.

The suit began in 2002, when the board of the Plaza East condo
in Fort Lauderdale accused unit owners Ramsey and Grace Agan of
not paying $356.43, part of a special assessment for replacing
concrete balconies. The Agans contended that they owed nothing
and refused to pay. Katzman & Korr promptly filed a lien on
their unit for $1,001.01, which included the initial debt plus
attorneys' fees and costs. The apartment would be foreclosed,
the law firm warned, if the lien weren't paid, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (March 24, 2005) reports.

Angered by the firms tactics, the Agans filed the federal
lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other owners in the condo
and homeowner associations represented by Katzman & Korr whose
homes had liens placed on them. Three years later, according to
the couple's attorney, Mr. Carneal, as part of the negotiations
for the settlement, it was proven that the Agans never owed
anything, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (March 24,
2005) reports.

The $250,000 settlement calls for the four residents of Plaza
East, namely: Ramsey Agan, Grace Agan, Sherry Ann Spies and
Nancy J. Bochicchio to get $5,000 each, while their attorneys,
Mr. Carneal and Mr. Bragg, would get $135,000. Another $20,000
would also be used for expenses. The remaining $75,000 would to
go to the estimated 2,500 members of the class, for about $30
each with owners considered part of the class being notified by
mail, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (June 13, 2005)
reports.


LAFARGE CANADA: Continues To Face Ontario Homeowners' Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
LaFarge Canada, Inc. continues to face a class action filed on
behalf of approximately 215 homeowners regarding defective
concrete foundations, in Ontario Superior Court in Canada.  The
class action is related to a 1992 lawsuit against the Company in
which similar claims were alleged for which the Company paid
Canadian $15.6 million (approximately U.S. $10 million) as its
share of damages.

The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that most of the amounts
paid by the Company in the lawsuit were to be reimbursed by its
insurers, as well as most of the Company's defense expenses and
third party costs it paid in the lawsuit.  In April 2004, the
Ontario Superior Court confirmed the Company's insurance
coverage in the class action.


LAFARGE NORTH: Faces Third Party Complaint in LA Hurricane Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
LaFarge North America, Inc. faces a third party complaint and
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging that the Company and
several other defendants are liable for death, bodily and
personal injury and property and environmental damage to people
and property in and around New Orleans, Louisiana, which they
claim resulted from a barge that allegedly breached the
Industrial Canal levee in New Orleans during or after Hurricane
Katrina.

A group of individuals denominated as the Parfait Family, Ashton
R. O'Dwyer Jr., Wilson Simmons, Procula Simmons, Tammy Amos,
Michael Green, Helen Frank (successor/administratrix for Richard
Frank), and Michelle "Mink" Jones filed the suit on November 3,
2005, in a pending admiralty action brought by Ingram Barge
Company in the.


MAZDA NORTH: Recalls 3,982 2006 Vehicles Due to Crash Hazard   
------------------------------------------------------------
Mazda North American Operations in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 3,982 units
of 2006 MAZDA / B-SERIES and 2006 MAZDA / TRIBUTE vehicles due
to crash hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V525000.

According to the ODI, on certain trucks and sport utility
vehicles, the windshield wiper motor may have been produced
without grease applied to the output shaft gear. After a period
of continuous use on the high-speed setting, lack of grease on
the output shaft gear may cause the gear teeth to distort or
fracture during operation resulting in the loss of wiper
function. Inoperative wipers under inclement weather conditions
could cause a crash due to impaired visibility.

As a remedy, dealers will inspect the wiper motor for the
presence of grease and grease the wiper motor gears if
necessary. The recall is expected to begin during November 30,
2005.

For more details, contact Mazda, Phone: 1-800-222-5500 OR the
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web
site: http://www.safecar.gov.


MERRILL LYNCH: Named in REFCO Shareholder, Derivative Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. is one of more than a dozen defendants
in class actions and derivative actions filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York in
October 2005 related to the sale of securities of Refco Inc.
(Refco), which announced that it was filing for bankruptcy on
October 18, 2005.

These suits allege that the defendants violated federal
securities laws and state laws in connection with the sale of
Refco securities, including the Refco initial public offering in
August 2005.  Merrill Lynch was not one of the three book-
running managers in that offering, but was nevertheless named as
a defendant in connection with its role as an underwriter of
those securities, the Company said in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


METROMEDIA FIBER: Suit Settlement Hearing Set December 22, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $8.75
million settlement in the matter, "In re: Metromedia Fiber
Network, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 01 Civ. 7353
(CLB)." The case was filed on behalf of all persons or entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc. between January 8, 2001 and July
2, 2001.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Charles L.
Brieant, United States District Judge, on December 22, 2005 at
10:00 a.m. at the United States Courthouse, 300 Quarropas St.,
Courtroom 218, White Plains, NY 10601.  

For more details, contact Claims Administrator, In re:
Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o
Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 990, Corte Madera, CA 94976-0990,
Phone: 800-447-7657, E-mail: MFNSettlement@gilardi.com; Deborah
Clark-Weintraub, Esq. of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP,
One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165; and Louis
Gottlieb, Esq. of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP, 100
Park Ave., New York, NY 10017,5563, Phone: 800-321-0476.


MURPHY OIL: Faces LA Suit For Oil Spill Due To Hurricane Katrina
----------------------------------------------------------------
Murphy Oil Corporation faces a consolidated class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana, after a release of crude oil occurred at the
Company's Meraux, Louisiana, refinery as a result of damage to a
crude oil storage tank caused by Hurricane Katrina.

On September 9, 2005, a class action lawsuit was filed seeking
unspecified damages to the class comprised of residents of St.
Bernard Parish caused by a release of crude oil at Murphy Oil
USA, Inc.'s (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Murphy Oil
Corporation) Meraux, Louisiana, refinery as a result of flooding
damage to a crude oil storage tank following Hurricane Katrina.
Since then additional class action lawsuits have been filed in
the same court against Murphy Oil USA, Inc. and/or Murphy Oil
Corporation also seeking unspecified damages related to the
crude oil release.

The Company has engaged experts to assess and test the areas
affected by the crude oil spill. Nearly all the oil that leaked
from the tank has been recovered or has evaporated and the clean
up of public areas is nearly complete. The Company is in the
process of discussing settlements with affected residents and
the clean up of the oil on private property will be done with
the owner's permission. Due to numerous uncertainties
surrounding the ultimate cleanup of the site and the settlement
of the lawsuits, the Company is unable to estimate a potential
range of costs that may be ultimately incurred to remediate the
site and settle with property owners, the Company stated in a
regulatory filing.

Last week, Judge Eldon Fallon ordered the Company to be more
transparent in its settlement talks with victims of the oil
spill, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 17,2005)
states.


MURPHY OIL: Continues To Face Amended Consolidated Lawsuit in LA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Murphy Oil Corporation continues To face a consolidated class
action filed in the St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana court, related
to June 10, 2003 fire that severely damaged the Residual Oil
Supercritical Extraction (ROSE) unit at the Company's Meraux,
Louisiana refinery.

The ROSE unit recovers feedstock from the heavy fuel oil stream
for conversion into gasoline and diesel. Subsequent to the fire,
numerous class action lawsuits have been filed seeking damages
for area residents. All the lawsuits have been administratively
consolidated into a single legal action in St. Bernard Parish,
Louisiana, except for one such action which was filed in federal
court.  Additionally, individual residents of Orleans Parish,
Louisiana, have filed an action in that venue.

On May 5, 2004, plaintiffs in the consolidated action in St.
Bernard Parish amended their petition to include a direct action
against certain of the Company's liability insurers. In
responding to this direct action, one of the Company's insurers,
AEGIS, has raised lack of coverage as a defense.


PNC FINANCIAL: PA Court Mulls Motion To Dismiss ERISA Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania has yet to rule on PNC Financial Services Group,
Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
filed against it, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).  The suit also names as
defendants PNC Bank, N.A., the Company's Pension Plan and its
Pension Committee.

The complaint alleges ERISA violations arising out of the
January 1, 1999 conversion of the Company's Pension Plan from a
traditional defined benefit formula into a "cash balance"
formula, the design and continued operation of the Plan, and
other related matters. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
all current and former employee-participants in and
beneficiaries of the Plan as of December 31, 1998 and
thereafter.  Plaintiffs also seek to represent a subclass of all
current and former employee-participants in and beneficiaries of
the Plan as of December 31, 1998 and thereafter who were or
would have become eligible for an early retirement subsidy under
the former Plan at some time prior to the date of the amended
complaint.  The plaintiffs are seeking damages and equitable
relief available under ERISA, including interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees.

The suit is styled "Register et al v. PNC Financial Services
Group, Inc., et al., case no. 2:04-cv-06097-LDD," filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, under Judge Legrome D. Davis.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Michael S. Tarringer, MILLER FAUCHER AND CAFERTY,
LLP, One Logan Sq., 18th and Cherry Streets, Ste 1700,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-864-2800, E-mail:
mtarringer@millerfaucher.com.  Representing the Company is
William A. Slaughter, BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS AND INGERSOLL, 1735
Market Street, 51st Floor, Philadelphia PA 19103, Phone:
215-665-8500, E-mail: slaughter@ballardspahr.com.


PNC FINANCIAL: PA Court Mulls Approval for Stock Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania has yet to rule on approval for the settlement of
the consolidated securities class action filed against PNC
Financial Services Group, Inc.  Final fairness hearing was held
on August 4,2005.

The settlement relates to certain lawsuits and other claims
related to three 2001 transactions (labeled the "PAGIC
transactions") that gave rise to a financial statement
restatement the Company announced on January 29, 2002 and that
were the subject of a July 2002 consent order between the
Company and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
and a June 2003 Deferred Prosecution Agreement between the
United States Department of Justice and PNC ICLC Corp., one of
its indirect non-bank subsidiaries.

The several putative class action complaints filed during 2002
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania arising out of the PAGIC transactions have been
consolidated in a consolidated class action complaint brought on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July
19, 2001 and July 18, 2002.  The consolidated class action
complaint names the Company, its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its Controller, and
its independent auditors for 2001 as defendants and seeks
unquantified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other
expenses.  The consolidated class action complaint alleges
violations of federal securities laws related to disclosures
regarding the PAGIC transactions and related matters.

In August 2002, the United States Department of Labor began a
formal investigation of the Administrative Committee of the
Company's Incentive Savings Plan ("Plan") in connection with the
Administrative Committee's conduct relating to the Company's
common stock held by the Plan. Both the Administrative Committee
and PNC are cooperating fully with the investigation.  

In June 2003, the Administrative Committee retained Independent
Fiduciary Services, Inc. (IFS) to serve as an independent
fiduciary charged with the exclusive authority and
responsibility to act on behalf of the Plan in connection with
the pending securities litigation referred to above and to
evaluate any legal rights the Plan might have against any
parties relating to the PAGIC transactions.  This authority
includes representing the Plan's interests in connection with
the Restitution Fund set up under the Deferred Prosecution
Agreement. The Department of Labor has communicated with IFS in
connection with the engagement.

On December 17, 2004, the Company entered into a tentative
settlement of the consolidated putative class actions, reflected
in a Memorandum of Understanding between the plaintiffs and the
Company, its former and current executive officers who are
defendants in the lawsuit, and AIG Financial Products
Corporation.  The tentative settlement is subject to completion
of final documentation, court approval and other conditions,
including some that are outside the control of the parties.

The suit is styled "KETTERMAN v. PNC FINANCIAL, et al., case no.
2:05-cv-00629-DSC," filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania, under Judge David S.
Cercone.  Representing the plaintiffs is Gregory G. Paul of
Peirce Law Offices, 707 Grant Street, 2500 Gulf Tower,
Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Phone: (412) 281-7229, Fax:
(412) 281-4229, E-mail: gpaul@peircelaw.com.  Representing the
Company is Mark R. Hornak of Buchanan Ingersoll, 301 Grant
Street, One Oxford Centre, 20th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15219,
Phone: 412-562-8859, E-mail: hornakmr@bipc.com.


TEXAS: FTC Reports High Level of Compliance in Funeral Homes
------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Trade Commission found a high level of compliance in
East Texas with the FTC's Funeral Rule, which protects consumers
from abusive practices in the funeral industry. In a recent
sweep of funeral homes in the Tyler, Texas area, nine of the 10
funeral homes shopped were found to be in compliance with the
rule.

The FTC's Southwest Region office test-shopped the funeral homes
as part of the Commission's ongoing nationwide law enforcement
program. Under the program, FTC test shoppers visit funeral
homes to see if they comply with key requirements of the law,
such as providing consumers with an itemized general price list
that contains mandatory disclosures and an itemized price list
for caskets. The Funeral Rule is designed to ensure that
consumers receive price lists and are told they can purchase
only the goods and services they want or need.

"This is great news for consumers. Most of the homes we visit
now are complying with the law," said Brad Elbein, Director of
the FTC's Southwest Region.

In January 1996, the FTC announced the Funeral Rule Offenders
Program (FROP), a joint effort with the National Funeral
Directors Association (NFDA), to boost compliance with the
Funeral Rule. Under FROP, funeral homes that do not give test
shoppers itemized price lists in a prescribed time and manner
may choose to enter the FROP program rather than face possible
legal action, which could result in an injunction and civil
penalties. If they choose FROP, they make a voluntary payment to
the U.S. Treasury in lieu of civil penalties, and enroll in a
program administered by the NFDA, which includes a review of
price lists, compliance training, and follow-up testing and
certification.

Depending on the severity of the violation, funeral homes may be
given the opportunity to resolve law violations through means
other than through FROP or a formal law enforcement action,
which could result in an injunction and civil penalties. Among
those alternative means of resolving possible violations, a
funeral home may receive a letter notifying the funeral home
that it is not in compliance with the Rule and warning that
future noncompliance could result in a monetary penalty.

In the East Texas sweep, one funeral home agreed to enroll in
FROP, and two funeral homes received compliance letters for
lesser violations.  The Funeral Rule, promulgated by the FTC in
1984, was revised in 1994. One of its key requirements is that,
at the beginning of any discussion of funeral arrangements,
goods, services or prices, consumers must receive an itemized
general price list for use in comparison shopping and other
information, including, for example, the fact that embalming is
not necessarily required by law. The FTC's Rule also makes clear
that consumers do not have to buy a package funeral, but
instead, may pick and choose the goods and services they want.

A free FTC brochure, "Funerals: A Consumer Guide," describes
consumers' rights and legal requirements. A free FTC handbook
for funeral providers, "Complying with the Funeral Rule," is
also available.

Copies of the FTC brochure and other documents pertaining to the
FROP program are available from the FTC's Web site at
http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's Consumer Response  
Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20580 or call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357).  
For more details, contact Frank Dorman, Office of Public Affairs
by Phone: 202-326-2476 or contact David Griggs, FTC's Southwest
Region - Dallas, by Phone: 214-979-9378 or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/11/funeralsweep2.htm.


TEXTRON FINANCIAL: Buyers' Source Financing Suit Pending in OH
--------------------------------------------------------------
Textron Financial Corporation continues to face a class action
filed in the Court of Common Pleas for Knox County, Ohio
relating to the financing of certain land purchases by consumers
through a third party land developer commonly known as "buyer's
source."

In March 2003, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ)
authorized the filing of a civil action against Textron
Financial and its subsidiary, Litchfield Financial Corporation
(Litchfield), and other third parties, arising from the "Buyer's
Source."  In the fourth quarter of 2003, the Company executed a
settlement agreement with DOJ, which required the Company to
offer affected consumers various options, ranging from cash
payments to forgiveness of debt in exchange for return of the
property.  The Florida Attorney General's office also opened a
preliminary investigation into Litchfield's activities relative
to Buyer's Source and, while the Company believes it has good
defenses to any potential claims by the State of Florida, it is
engaged in settlement discussions with Florida.

The suit was commenced against the Company and Litchfield,
certain of their current and former officers, and other third-
parties, related to the Buyer's Source matter.  Among other
claims, the purported class action alleges fraud in the
financing of the third-party land developers and seeks
compensatory damages and punitive damages in excess of $10
million.


UICI: Face Stock Fraud, Derivative Lawsuits V. Blackstone Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
UICI and individual members of its Board of Directors face five
purported class action suits challenging the proposed
acquisition of the Company by a group of private equity firms
led by The Blackstone Group.  The suits are styled:

     (1) Green Meadows Partners L.P. v. UICI, et al., filed on
         September 15, 2005 in the District Court of Dallas
         County, Texas, E-101st Judicial District, Case No. 05-
         09693;

     (2) Ruediger v. UICI, et al., filed on September 28, 2005
         in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, D-95th
         Judicial District, Case No. 05-10033;

     (3) Scott v. UICI, et al., filed on September 30, 2005 in
         the District Court of Oklahoma County, State of
         Oklahoma, Case No. CJ-2005-7731;

     (4) Pepper v. UICI, et al., filed on October 11, 2005 in
         the District Court of Oklahoma County, State of
         Oklahoma, Case No. CJ-2005-7967; and

     (5) Bauer v. William J. Gedwed, et al., filed on October 6,
         2005 in the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas,
         Case No. 236-214443-05

In addition, plaintiffs in a pending shareholder derivative
action, styled "In re UICI Derivative Litigation," pending in
the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 352nd Judicial
District, Lead Cause No. 352-206106-04," have filed an amended
petition asserting similar claims.

The petitions generally challenge the price to be paid in the
proposed transaction and the process leading up to the
transaction. The petitions generally seek unspecified
compensatory monetary damages and injunctive relief to enjoin
the transaction.


UICI: TX Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Fraud Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division has yet to rule on the motion to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against UICI and
certain of its current and former officers and directors.

Four suits were initially filed in May and June 2004, and on
October 18, 2004, the four separate cases were consolidated as a
single action, styled "In re UICI Securities Litigation, Case
No. 3-04-CV-1149-P."  On May 27, 2005, plaintiffs on behalf of
the purported class of similarly situated individuals who
purchased UICI common stock during the period commencing
February 7, 2002 and ending on July 21, 2003, filed a First
Amended Consolidated Complaint alleging among other things that
the Company, Academic Management Services, Inc. (AMS) and the
Company's current chief financial officer, the Company's former
chief executive officer and AMS' former president failed to
disclose all material facts relating to the condition of AMS, in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.


UICI: TX Court Junks Class Claims in Shareholder Derivative Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 352nd Judicial
District severed the class action portion of the litigation
filed against UICI, arising out of its July 2003 announcement of
a shortfall in the type and amount of collateral supporting
securitized student loan financing facilities of Academic
Management Services Corporation (AMS), formerly a wholly owned
subsidiary until its disposition in November 2003.

In June 2004, the Company was named as a nominal defendant in
two shareholder derivative suits.  On April 5, 2005, the Court
appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel and consolidated the two
cases in a single action, styled "In re UICI Derivative
Litigation, Lead Cause No. 352-206106-04."  On July 22, 2005,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated derivative petition, in which
they have alleged that the individual defendants (which include
current and former officers and directors of the Company and
AMS) violated Texas state law by concealing the true condition
of AMS before the July 2003 announcement.

On September 16, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
petition, in which they added class action allegations
challenging the proposed acquisition of the Company by a group
of private equity firms led by The Blackstone Group.  On
November 1, 2005, the Court severed and abated the class action
portion of the litigation, pending disposition of the previously
filed class action suits filed in Texas state court challenging
the proposed acquisition of the Company by a group of private
equity firms led by The Blackstone Group.


UNOCAL CORPORATION: Settlement Hearing Set December 16, 2005
------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement in the matter, Michael Lieb v. Unocal Corporation.
The case was filed on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased, sold or held common stock in Unocal Corporation
during the period of April 4, 2005 to August 10, 2005, including
their successors in interest and transferees.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Emilie H. Elias in
the Superior Court of Los Angeles, Central Civil West
Courthouse, located at 600 South Commonwealth Ave., Los Angeles,
CA, at 10:00 a.m. on December 16, 2005.  

For more details, contact Unocal Corporation, Unocal Stockholder
Services, 2141 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 4000, El Segundo, CA 90245,
Phone: (800) 252-2233; Jeff S. Westerman, Esq. of Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP, 355 South Grand Ave., Suite 4170,
Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: (213) 617-1200; and Jeffery P.
Fink, Esq. of Robbins Umeda & Fink, LLP, 610 West Ash St., Suite
1800, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619) 525-3990.


UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Limited Discovery Proceeds in TN Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Limited document discovery is proceeding in the consolidated
class action filed against UnumProvident Corporation, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA).

On April 29, 2003, the case of "Gee v. UnumProvident
Corporation, et al.," was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of a
putative class of participants and beneficiaries of the
Company's 401(k) Retirement Plan (Plan). On May 16, 2003, a
similar action, styled "Scanlon v. UnumProvident Corp., et al.,"
was filed in the Eastern District of Tennessee.

On October 2, 2003, the court issued an order consolidating
these cases for all purposes.  On January 9, 2004, plaintiffs
filed their consolidated amended complaint against the Company,
several of its Officers and Directors, and several Plan
fiduciaries, purportedly on behalf of a putative class of Plan
participants and beneficiaries during the period since November
17, 1999. Plaintiffs allege that the named defendants violated
the fiduciary provisions of ERISA by making direct and indirect
communications to Plan participants that included material
misrepresentations and omissions regarding investment in
UnumProvident stock. Further, the plaintiffs allege the
defendants failed to take action to protect participants from
losses sustained from investment in the Plan's UnumProvident
Stock Fund. On February 26, 2004, the defendants filed a motion
to dismiss contending that the complaint failed to state a valid
claim under ERISA. On January 13, 2005, the court denied that
motion. The defendants filed an answer to the complaint denying
all material allegations on February 28, 2005. The parties have
engaged in certain limited document discovery in this action on
issues unique to this action that are not raised in the other
actions.

The suit is styled "Gee v. Unumprovident Corp, et al., case no.
1:03-cv-00147," filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee, under Judge Curtis L.
Collier.  Representing the Company is John P. Konvalinka, Grant,
Konvalinka & Harrison, PC, 633 Chestnut Street, Suite 900 One
Republic Centre, Chattanooga, TN 37450, Phone: 423-756-8400,
Fax: 423-756-6518, Email: jkonvalinka@gkhpc.com.   Representing
the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Tony R Dalton, Woolf, McClane, Bright, Allen &
         Carpenter, P O Box 900, Knoxville, TN 37901-0900,
         Phone: 865-215-1000, Fax: 865-215-1001, E-mail:
         daltont@wmbac.com

     (2) Andrew L Berke, Ronald J Berke, Berke, Berke & Berke
         P O Box 4747, Chattanooga, TN 37405-4747, Phone: 423-
         266-5171, Email: andrew@berkeattys.com or
         ronnie@berkeattys.com

     (3) Edward W Ciolko, Joseph H. Meltzer, Katherine
         Bornstein, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, Three Bala Plaza
         East Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Email:
         eciolko@sbclasslaw.com, jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com,
         kbornstein@sbclasslaw.com  



UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: TN Court Mulls Plaintiff Intervention
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee has yet to rule on the motion of plaintiffs in the
class action filed against UnumProvident Corporation, styled
"Jewel, et al. v. UnumProvident Corporation, et al.," to
intervene in a multidistrict proceeding against the Company.

The suit was initially filed on December 11,2003 in the
Worcester County Superior Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  
The Company received service of this matter on March 8, 2004.
Plaintiffs seek to represent all individual long-term disability
policyholders and all participants in group long-term disability
plans which are not covered by the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) who had coverage issued by an insuring
subsidiary and whose claims for long-term disability benefits
were denied, or whose payments of long-term disability benefits
were terminated or suspended, on or after July 1, 1999.  
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants employed various unfair
claim practices and seek declaratory, contractual, and
injunctive relief.

On April 20, 2004, the defendants answered the complaint by
denying generally the allegations and asserting various
defenses. On July 15, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to
certify a plaintiff class. On February 18, 2005, the Court
denied that motion. The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the
Massachusetts Court of Appeals. On April 8, 2005, the Court of
Appeals upheld the trial court's decision.  On July 18, 2005,
the Jewel plaintiffs filed a motion to intervene in the
multidistrict litigation proceeding entitled "Taylor v.
UnumProvident Corp. et al.," currently pending in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. No
ruling has been made on that motion.


UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Pre-Trial Proceedings Ends Dec. 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New York ordered pretrial
proceedings in the class action filed against UnumProvident
Corporation, styled "Jeffrey A. Weiller v. New York Life
Insurance Company, UnumProvident Corporation, and The Paul
Revere Life Insurance Company," to end by December 2005.

This complaint, filed in December 2004, is brought by the
plaintiff on behalf of himself and a purported class alleging
that the Company schemed to improperly deny or terminate
legitimate claims filed under policies issued by several non-
UnumProvident insurers on behalf of whom UnumProvident
administers claims.

On February 18, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
this action.  On June 20, 2005, the plaintiff filed a motion
seeking certification of a putative class. These motions remain
pending.  The court entered a schedule providing for the
completion of all pretrial proceedings in these actions by
December 2005. The parties are in the process of discussing an
amendment to that schedule which will likely extend the period
for pre-trial proceedings.


U.S. SMOKELESS: KS Attorney Objects to Settlement in Osborn Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer labor and employee protection attorney Cydney Rabourn
plans to travel to Liberal, Kansas to object to the proposed
settlement of a tobacco class action lawsuit, The Johnson County
Sun reports.

The suit, Chance and Osborn v. UST et al., alleges that U.S.
Smokeless Tobacco's sales practices monopolized the smokeless
tobacco market in violation of Kansas antitrust and/or consumer
protection laws. UST vehemently denies the allegation.

If Seward County District Court approves a proposed settlement,
injured parties would receive coupons worth about $650 in
discounts for future purchases of Copenhagen, Skoal, Rooster or
Red Seal smokeless tobacco products. About a month ago, Mr.
Rabourn, an attorney at Blake and Unlig in Kansas City, Kansas,
read about the proposed settlement and objected. She told The
Johnson County Sun, "I've never objected to a class action
lawsuit before, but when I saw that this settlement would give
about $60 million in potential coupons to Kansas residents who
have used smokeless tobacco since January 1, 1990, it shocked my
conscience."

Ms. Rabourn filed an objection in the case on behalf of her
client, Dale Lowery, individually, and on behalf of the
Boilermakers Health and Welfare Funds. According to that
objection, "The proposed settlement is grossly unfair,
unreasonable and inadequate. The effect of the settlement is to
... deprive the victims of any real relief and does not correct
for the anti-competitive behavior complained of, ...fail to
properly disgorge ill-gotten gains from defendants...relieve the
defendant of potentially disastrous litigation at relatively
minimal cost and ...provide for attorneys fees in excess of
those ordinarily recognized by the Supreme Court of Kansas."

Ms. Rabourn objects to the settlement for providing coupons for
a product that is proven to be dangerous. In addition, she also
objects that the injured parties are not likely to redeem the
coupon and there is nothing to stop the coupons from getting
into the hands of children. She told The Johnson County Sun, "I
cannot imagine that a judge will look at this proposed
settlement and think this is a good settlement for any consumer
anywhere."

According to Ms. Rabourn, settlements are troubling when coupons
are for a product that some consumers may no longer use because
of health-related concerns. The proposed settlement would
require injured members of the class to buy products from the
defendant not only once, but multiple times, she pointed out.

Ms. Rabourn also told The Johnson County Sun, "Receiving coupons
that require victims to spend more money is a hollow victory,
and is the equivalent of winning a hotdog eating contest only to
be told your prize is a coupon for 50 percent off more hotdogs.
The use of coupons not only serves as a source for capturing
more business, but gives defendants an advantage that other
competitors do not have access to." She also pointed out that
coupon redemption rates offered by class action lawsuits are low
saying, "Low redemption rates allow defendants to keep the
benefits of their anti-competitive behavior. The actual value of
a coupon settlement is typically significantly less than what a
true cash settlement would disgorge from defendants." Defendants
in many coupon settlement cases, according to Ms Rabourn, offer
a cash option worth on average one-third of the coupon's face
value.

Ms. Rabourn's objection calls for U.S. Smokeless Tobacco to
provide a cash settlement and to create a fund that will help
pay health care costs for people injured from smokeless tobacco
use.


VISA: LA Businesses Eligible to File Claims in Antitrust Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., wants to let Louisiana
business owners know that they may be eligible to receive funds
from a private anti-trust settlement involving Visa
Check/MasterMoney. The deadline to file a claim is December 28,
2005.

The Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust litigation is a class
action lawsuit that was filed and litigated in the United States
District Court for the Easter District of New York in Brooklyn,
New York. The class consists of all businesses and organizations
in the United States that accepted Visa and MasterCard debit and
credit cards for payment at any time during the period October
25, 1992 to June 21, 2003. Therefore, if you are a business that
accepted Visa and MasterCard debit and credit cards for payment
between October 25, 1992 to June 21, 2003, you may be eligible
to file a claim. The suit alleged that Visa and MasterCard,
through their "Honor All Cards" policies, forced merchants to
honor particular issuer's debit, as well as credit cards. As
part of the settlement, Visa and MasterCard agreed to pay $3.05
billion into a Settlement Fund that will be used to provide
compensation to Class Members.

Businesses believed to be affected by the settlement should have
received a claim form by September 29, 2005. If you did not
receive a claim form, but believe you may be eligible to submit
a claim, please visit
http://www.inrevisacheckmastermoneyantitrustlitigation.comfor  
more information or call 1-888-641-4437. Businesses that
received a VM1 claim form may have an understated refund amount
because the refund may be based on insufficient data. Therefore,
businesses are encouraged to review and submit their own figures
to ensure an accurate refund.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

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

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

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

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

     (1) a second-quarter net loss of $57.2 million, or $0.31
         per share --- well below Company-guided analyst
         estimates;
    
     (2) negative free cash flow of $118 million compared to
         positive free cash flow of $23 million in the second
         quarter of 2004; and

     (3) that it was abandoning its 2005 guidance.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


HYDROFLO INC.: Rosen Law Firm Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm P.A. filed a class action lawsuit on behalf
of all investors who purchased common stock of HydroFlo, Inc.
(the "Company" or "HydroFlo") (OTC BB: HYRF) during the period
from July 18, 2005 through October 26, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The Rosen Law Firm has been retained to recover
investors' stock losses from HydroFlo and certain of its
officers and directors for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws.

The complaint charges that the defendants violated sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing a series of false
and misleading press releases to the market during the Class
Period. The complaint alleges that HydroFlo issued several
materially false and misleading press releases concerning the
Company's Metals & Arsenic Removal Technology, Inc. (MARTI) and
Advance Water Recycle Inc., (AWRI) wholly owned portfolio
companies. The complaint charges that the defendants
misrepresented the type, terms, amendments, demand, and revenue
projections from certain agreements between MARTI and EYI
Industries and its subsidiaries during the Class Period. In
addition, the complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented
the existence and nature of certain agreements with government
entities involved in the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. As a
result of the Company's materially false and misleading
statements to the market, according to the complaint, the price
of HydroFlo stock was artificially inflated in the Class Period.

The lawsuit, civil action no. 4:05 CV 152-F3, is pending in the
United District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, Eastern Division against defendant HydroFlo and
certain of its officers and directors. The case is assigned to
United States District Judge James C. Fox.

For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. and Phillip Kim,
Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm P.A., Phone: (212) 686-1060 or
1-866-767-3653, Fax: (212) 202-3827, E-mail:
lrosen@rosenlegal.com, Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com.


REFCO INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins,
LLP, initiated a class action commenced on behalf of an
institutional investor in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons and
entities other than defendants who purchased or otherwise
acquired the publicly traded securities of Refco, Inc. ("Refco")
(Pink Sheets:RFXCQ) from August 5, 2004 to October 18, 2005,
including those who purchased the common stock of Refco pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering
("IPO") on or about August 11, 2005, and those who purchased
bonds pursuant to the Company's August 5, 2004 bond offering,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

The complaint charges certain of Refco's officers, directors,
underwriters and its auditor with violations of the federal
securities laws. Refco provides execution and clearing services
for exchange-traded derivatives and brokerage services in the
fixed income and foreign exchange markets in the United States,
Bermuda, and the United Kingdom.

The complaint alleges that in August 2004, Thomas H. Lee
Partners ("Lee Partners") and Phillip R. Bennett ("Bennett")
(Chairman, President and CEO of Refco) recapitalized and
obtained ownership of Refco. To recapitalize Refco, Lee Partners
and Bennett arranged a large exempt-from-registration public
offering of bonds under SEC Rule 144A, by which approximately
$600 million in Refco bonds were offered and sold to
purchaser/reseller investment banks on August 5, 2004 (the "8/04
Bond Offering"), who then re-sold the bonds to institutional
investors who publicly traded the securities. In connection with
the 8/04 Bond Offering, defendants caused to be issued and
distributed a bond offering circular which purportedly contained
the material information required by investors to evaluate
whether Refco bonds were a sound investment (the "8/04 Offering
Circular"). The 8/04 Offering Circular contained Refco's false
financial results for fiscal years 2000-2004. In August 2005,
Refco went public via an initial public offering ("IPO").
According to the complaint, the Prospectus issued in connection
with the IPO was materially false and misleading for several
reasons, including the fact that in a section entitled "Certain
Relationships and Related Transactions," the Prospectus
purported to detail all of the related-party transactions
concerning its business, but failed to disclose a related-party
loan of $430 million to an entity controlled by Bennett. A mere
three months later, on October 10, 2005, Refco announced that
Bennett was being placed on a leave of absence and that the
Company had discovered, purportedly through an internal review,
the receivable of $430 million owed by Bennett to the Company.
The Company also announced that based on the undisclosed
related-party transaction, its prior financial statements should
not be relied upon.

Refco has now admitted that its financial statements as of and
for the periods ended February 28, 2002, February 28, 2003,
February 28, 2004, February 28, 2005 and May 31, 2005 should no
longer be relied upon and will likely be restated. In response
to these announcements, the price of Refco common stock declined
precipitously falling from $28.56 per share to $15.60 per share
on extremely heavy trading volume.

On October 13, 2005, the Company issued a press release
announcing that it had hired advisors and imposed a 15-day
moratorium on all activities, including customer withdrawals, of
Refco Capital Markets, Ltd. In response to this announcement the
price of Refco common stock declined an additional $2.95 per
share to $7.90 per share on extremely heavy trading volume. On
October 17, 2005, Refco announced that the Company and certain
of its subsidiaries had filed for protection under Chapter 11 of
the United States Bankruptcy Code.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/refco/.


UNITED AMERICAN: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in E.D. MI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan on behalf of all persons who purchased the
common stock of United American Healthcare Corporation (Nasdaq:
UAHC) between May 26, 2000, and April 22, 2004, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that United American and certain of
its officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the Company's
improper business and financial relationship with a legislator
having oversight of United American's Healthplan. The Complaint
further alleges that this relationship was in violation of the
Company's contract with Tennessee and has caused the State of
Tennessee to place United American's Healthplan under
administrative supervision. As a result, investors could not
accurately assess the extent to which United American's ongoing
operations, reported revenue, and income were dependent upon the
improper political payments scheme.

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


                            *********


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  * * *