CAR_Public/051130.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

         Wednesday, November 30, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 237


                                      Headlines


BRITISH PETROLEUM: DAG Launches Racial Discrimination Suit in DC
CALIFORNIA: Judge Dismisses $100M Lawsuit Over 2003 Cedar Fire
CANADA: 3 Inuit Organizations Hail $2B Residential Schools Pact
GNC CORPORATION: Continues To Face Suits V. Pro-Hormone Products
GNC CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For Consumer Fraud Lawsuits

INTERNATIONAL TRUCK: Recalls 147 Vehicles Due to Crash Hazard
KINDER MORGAN: Settles Individual Claims in TX Gas Litigation
LAFAYETTE UTILITIES: LA Judge Nixes Customers' Overcharging Suit
LOUISIANA: Katrina Victims' Asked Judge To Keep Hotel Program
MACK TRUCKS: Recalls 4,482 2004-06 Trucks Due to Fire Hazard


MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit
MOLEX INC.: Shareholders Commence Securities Fraud Litigation
NETGEAR INC.: Settles CA Suit Over Wi-Fi Data Speeds for $700T
PARK N FLY: Inks Settlement For Dec. 2004 Airport Parking Suit
PATINA OIL: To Ask CO Court To Review Gas Lawsuit Certification

ROYAL AHOLD: Agrees to Settle MD Securities Litigation for $1.1B
SANUS SYSTEMS: Recalls 14T Wall-Mounting Units For Injury Hazard
WHEELED COACH: Recalls 110 2004-06 Vehicles Due to Crash Hazard


         Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                 New Securities Fraud Cases


BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Fraud Suit in TX
FIRST BANCORP: Schiffrin & Barroway Extends Suit's Class Period
GREAT WOLF: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. WI
HELEN OF TROY: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX
INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: Federman & Sherwood Files Suit in C.D. CA

INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: Charles J. Piven Files CA Securities Suit
LIPMAN ELECTRONIC: Firm Reminds Parties of Plaintiff Deadline
MOTIVE INC.: Dyer & Shuman Sets January Lead Plaintiff Deadline
MOTIVE INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Extends Suit's Class Period
TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Suit in KY


TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Suit in KY
TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Suit in KY
UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in NY
UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in NY

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



                           *********



BRITISH PETROLEUM: DAG Launches Racial Discrimination Suit in DC
----------------------------------------------------------------
A racial discrimination lawsuit was commenced in the United States against
the United Kingdom's largest oil company, British Petroleum (BP).

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Washington, D.C. based, DAG Petroleum
Companies, a company owned and operated by African-Americans, cites multiple
violations of the Civil Rights Act. The suit seeks both monetary damages and
a mandate that BP be required to implement and follow meaningful diversity
policies, treat African-Americans equally with whites and train their
employees in fair contracting practices.

The claim arises following a speech by BP Group Chief Executive Officer Lord
John Browne in which he admitted that BP has a history of engaging in
racially discriminatory practices. Mr. Browne stated that during his tenure
with BP he had personally heard the following racially derogatory statements
as explanations for why minorities, including African-Americans,
have not received equal treatment by BP:

    (1) "We don't want to be politically correct."

    (2) The investors would think we'd got religion if we started talking
about diversity."

    (3) "Promotion wouldn't be in their own best interests."

    (4) "Ok, let's appoint one and see how they get on."

    (5) "They're not qualified..."

    (6) "We can't relax our performance standards."

    (7) "We need a common culture."

    (8) "Our people won't tolerate quotas."

Mr. Browne also stated these remarks are the "corrosive litany of prejudice
and discrimination. And of course it has been very
effective."

DAG's complaint goes on to state that despite Mr. Browne's speech, and while
under his continuous leadership, BP has failed
to remedy the discriminatory practices Browne described. These include,
despite its having over 14,000 stations in the United
States, a substantial portion of which are located in predominantly
African-American communities, since Browne's speech in 1999, BP has not
entered into any automotive fuel distributorship agreement with any
African-Americans. In 1999 it had zero, and six years later it continues to
have zero. Also, since the speech BP has not increased the number of
African-Americans within its management ranks.

The complaint alleges that although DAG had the support of Washington, D.C.
Mayor Anthony Williams and Virginia Governor Mark Warner, knew of DAG's
interest, experience and financial capability to distribute petroleum
products to BP's 181 stations in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area,
because DAG is owned and operated by African-Americans, BP entered into a
bogus bidding process through which it funneled the distributor rights to
two white-owned companies.

"The world's third largest publicly traded oil company has one of the worst
records when it comes to diversity in its
employment and supplier and distribution chain. Out of the thousands of
stations they operate there is not one African-
American distributor, not one. The record speaks for itself," stated Billy
Martin, DAG's chief counsel.

DAG reports it is in the process of gathering other African-Americans who
have experienced racial discrimination by BP in
order to mount a class action lawsuit on behalf of all African Americans.
This includes establishing a toll free number, which
is 877-258-4507.

For more details, contact Judy Smith of Impact Strategies, Phone:
202-347-1952, E-mail: jsmith@impactstrategiesllc.com.


CALIFORNIA: Judge Dismisses $100M Lawsuit Over 2003 Cedar Fire
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a big blow to some Cedar fire victims, San Diego Superior Court Judge
Lillian Y. Lim dismissed the $100 million civil
lawsuit from victims of the deadly blaze against the county and state, The
North County Times reports.

In her ruling, Judge Lim said that the fire victims were unable to overcome
legal immunities that the law gives to government agencies to protect them
from being sued. In addition, the judge also found that the plaintiffs tried
to expand their legal arguments beyond the scope of claims they made when
they first notified the county and the state in 2004 that they planned to
sue over damages left in the wake of the Cedar fire.

Judge Lim's ruling may bring to an end the lawsuit, since she did not leave
open any door for the plaintiffs to amend and re-
file it.

Chicago-based attorney Mark Grotefeld, who represented the plaintiffs, could
not be reached for comment on Judge Lim's
ruling or to say whether or not he plans to appeal. In the past, Mr.
Grotefeld stated that he also plans to file suit against the
federal government because the fire began on federal forestlands.

In the lawsuit at hand, the fifteen plaintiffs, who were also seeking class
action status for other Cedar fire victims, sued
both San Diego County and the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection for negligence.

The suit claimed that the county and the state did not properly control or
manage the brush on the rural federal land where the
fire began. In addition, it also claimed that both the county and the state
failed to dispatch emergency workers quickly
enough once the blaze began, and that 911 operators gave false assurances
that help was on the way in the early stages of the
fire, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (September 26, 2005) reports.

Attorney Nathan Northrup, who represented San Diego County in the suit,
called Judge Lim's ruling "a relief." Since the suit
was the last remaining legal claim against the county for Cedar fire-related
damages, Judge Lim's ruling leaves the county in
the clear for financial liability for Cedar fire damage. The deadline has
also passed for anyone to file a new suit against
the county and the state.

Deputy Attorney General Michael Cayaban, who represented the state's
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection in the suit, could not be reached
for comment Monday evening.

The $100 million lawsuit was tossed partially because it is mired in a
technicality that became insurmountable for the
plaintiffs. During the yearlong course of the lawsuit, the plaintiffs
expanded their arguments to say that the county and
the state were negligent for not properly managing the brush and vegetation
on the federal forestlands.

Since the plaintiffs didn't make that particular argument in the original
claim they filed with the state and county, Judge Lim
said the law prevents the plaintiffs from including that argument now. And,
thus the judge ruled that even if the plaintiffs could have overcome that
technical hurdle, the fact remains that the fire began on federal land ----
land that the county and the state do not control, and have no say in how
the federal government manages, dry vegetation.

Moreover, Judge Lim found that the law allows for the government to be
protected from lawsuits dealing with damages arising from incidents when
government land is undeveloped and in its natural state.

Set as a signal fire by a lost hunter on October 25, 2003, and fueled by dry
vegetation and hot Santa Ana winds, the Cedar fire left at least 14 people
dead and destroyed more than 2,200 homes. The blaze, which began in the
Cleveland National Forest, burned a swath from Ramona to Interstate 8 and
became the largest wildfire in state history, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (September 26, 2005) reports.

Judge Lim's decision to toss the suit comes about a week and a half after
the hunter who set the Cedar fire to signal for help
was sentenced in federal court. Sergio Martinez, who pleaded guilty to
setting the fire, received a punishment of five years'
probation, six months confinement in a halfway house, $9,000 in restitution
and 960 hours of community service.


CANADA: 3 Inuit Organizations Hail $2B Residential Schools Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three of Canada's regional Inuit organizations hailed the $2 billion
comprehensive settlement for victims of physical and
sexual abuse at aboriginal residential schools associated with the federal
government, Nunatsiaq News reports.

Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan announced the settlement at a press
conference last week.  The deal is partly based on a report by the Assembly
of First Nations in the fall of 2004, which wanted to find ways to fix the
federal government's ailing
dispute resolution plan for residential school survivors.  Many of the
provisions contained in this week's deal, including the
shape of the monetary package, are similar to recommendations first made by
the AFN in 2004.  The deal includes the following elements:

    (1) every eligible residential school survivor who applies will get a
payment of $10,000, plus $3,000 for each
        year spent at a residential school;

    (2) a fast-track process for former students over age 65, who may apply
for an immediate payment of $8,000;

    (3) a $60-million "truth and reconciliation" process;

    (4) $10 million for a commemoration program;

    (5) another five years of funding, totaling $125 million, for the
Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

    (6) survivors already involved in class action claims will qualify for
compensation;

    (7) those who take compensation under the agreement - except for those
who suffered sexual abuse or serious
        physical abuse - release the government from all further liability.

The deal benefits about 86,000 aboriginal people in Canada, including at
least 3,000 Inuit.  Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the
Inuvialuit Regional Council, and the Makivik Corp. said this week that they
support the agreement, which offers compensation
to all Inuit, M,tis and First Nations survivors of residential schools
associated with the federal government, Nunatsiaq News
reports.

Many of Canada's residential schools for aboriginal people were run on
behalf of the federal government by churches, but the
deal also benefits those who attended schools run directly by the federal
government. That includes federal schools in the
Arctic, and their attached hostels and residences.


GNC CORPORATION: Continues To Face Suits V. Pro-Hormone Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Nutrition Companies, Inc. and various manufacturers of products
containing pro-hormones, including androstenedione, continues to face five
substantially identical suits filed in the state courts of the States of
Florida, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Illinois.  The suits are
styled:

    (1) Brown v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc., Case No. 02-14221-AB,
Florida Circuit Court for the 15th
        Judicial Circuit Court, Palm Beach County;

    (2) Rodriguez v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc., Index No. 02/126277,
New York Supreme Court, County of New
        York, Commercial Division;

    (3) Abrams v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc., Docket No. L-3789-02,
New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer County;

    (4) Toth v. Bodyonics, Ltd., Case No. 003886, Pennsylvania Court of
Common Pleas, Philadelphia County; and

    (5) Pio v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc., Case No. 2-CH-14122,
Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County

On March 20, 2004, a similar lawsuit was filed in California (Guzman v.
General Nutrition Companies, Inc., Case No. 04-
00283).

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants distributed or published periodicals
that contain advertisements claiming that the various pro-hormone products
promote muscle growth.  The complaints allege that the Company knew the
advertisements and label claims promoting muscle growth were false, but
nonetheless continued to sell the products to consumers.  Plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, attorney's fees and the costs of
suit.  All of the products involved in the cases are third-party products.
The Company has tendered these cases to the various manufacturers for
defense and indemnification.


GNC CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For Consumer Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Corporation reached a settlement for five class action lawsuits filed
against it in the state courts of Alabama, California, Illinois and Texas
with respect to claims that the labeling, packaging and advertising with
respect to a third-party product sold by the Company were misleading and
deceptive.

The Company denies any wrongdoing and is pursuing indemnification claims
against the manufacturer.  As a result of mediation, the parties have agreed
in principle to a settlement of the lawsuits, which is currently in the
process of being finalized. Once finalized, the settlement will be subject
to court approval.

Pursuant to the settlement, a notice to the class will be published in a
one-time mass advertising media publication. Each
person that purchased the third-party product and is part of the class will
receive a cash reimbursement equal to the retail
price paid, net of sales tax, upon presentation to the Company of a cash
register receipt as proof of purchase or, if a receipt
is not available, return of the actual product. If a person purchased the
product, but does not have a cash register receipt
or the product itself, such a person may submit a signed affidavit and will
then be entitled to receive one or more coupons. The number of coupons will
be based on the total amount of purchases of the product subject to a
maximum of five coupons
per purchaser. Each coupon will have a cash value of $10.00 valid toward any
purchase of $25.00 or more at a GNC store. The coupons will not be
redeemable by any GNC Gold Card member during Gold Card Week and will not be
redeemable for products subject to any other price discount.  The coupons
are to be redeemed at point of sale and are not mail-in rebates. They will
be redeemable for a 90-day period after the settlement is final.  The
Company will issue a maximum of 5 million certificates with a combined face
value of $50.0 million. Based on its experience with coupons, the Company
believes that the redemption rate will be approximately 1%, the Company
stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission. In
addition to the cash reimbursements and coupons, as part of the settlement
GNC will be required to pay legal fees of $1.0 million.


INTERNATIONAL TRUCK: Recalls 147 Vehicles Due to Crash Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
International Truck & Engine Corporation in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 147 units of 2006
IC / RECB and 2006 IC / RESB vehicles due to crash hazard.

According to the ODI, certain of 2006 IC RESB (PB305) AND RECB (PC305)
school and commercial buses manufactured from July 20 to October 17, 2005
have a primary and secondary air tanks that were reversed at the tank, which
fails to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, "Air
Brake Systems." If the primary air circuit is damages, the brakes will not
apply when the brake pedal is depressed, potentially causing a vehicle crash
without warning and possible resulting in property damage, personal injury,
or death.

As a remedy, IC will notify the owners and inspect and if necessary, repair
the busses free of charge. The recall is expected to begin on November 30,
2005.

For more details, contact International, Phone: 800-448-7825 OR the NHTSA
Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web site:
http://www.safecar.gov.


KINDER MORGAN: Settles Individual Claims in TX Gas Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Processing, L.P., a former wholly-owned Kinder Morgan Inc.
subsidiary settled a plaintiffs' claims in the litigation
filed against it in the 100th Judicial District Court in Carson City, Texas,
styled "Darrell Sargent d/b/a Double D Production
v. Parker & Parsley Gas Processing Co., American Processing, L.P. and Cesell
B. Cheatham, et al., Cause No. 878."

The plaintiff filed a purported class action suit in 1999 and amended its
petition in late 2002 to assert claims on behalf of
over 1,000 producers who process gas through as many as ten gas processing
plants formerly owned by American Processing, L.P. ("American Processing"),
a former wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, in Carson and Gray counties
and other surrounding Texas counties. The plaintiff claims that American
Processing (and subsequently, ONEOK, which purchased American Processing
from the Company in 2000) improperly allocated liquids and gas proceeds to
the producers. In particular, among other claims, the plaintiff challenges
the methods and assumptions used at the plants to allocate liquids and gas
proceeds among the producers and processors. The petition asserts claims for
breach of contract and Natural Resources Code violations relating to the
period from 1994 to the present. The plaintiff alleged generally in the
petition that damages are "not to exceed $200 million" plus attorneys fees,
costs and interest.

The defendants filed a counterclaim for overpayments made to producers.
Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc., formerly known as Parker & Parsley Gas
Processing Company ("Parker & Parsley"), is a co-defendant.  Parker &
Parsley claimed indemnity from American Processing based on its sale of
assets to American Processing on October 4, 1995.  The Company accepted
indemnity and defense subject to a reservation of rights pending resolution
of the suit. The plaintiff also named ONEOK as a defendant.  The Company and
ONEOK are defending the case pursuant to an agreement whereby ONEOK is
responsible for any damages that may be attributable to the period following
ONEOK's acquisition of American Processing from the Company in 2000.

On January 21, 2003, Benson-McCown & Company (Benson-McCown), another
producer who sold gas to American Processing and ONEOK, filed a "Plea in
Intervention" in which it essentially duplicated the plaintiff's claims and
also asserted the right to bring a class action and serve as one of the
class representatives.  Defendants denied Benson-McCown's claim and filed a
counterclaim for overpayments made to Benson-McCown over the years.

On January 14, 2005, Defendants filed a motion to deny class certification.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss
and withdraw their class claims. An Agreed Order Dismissing all class
claims, with prejudice, was entered by the Court on
January 19, 2005.  After the class claims were dismissed with prejudice,
defendants settled the individual claims asserted by
Darrell Sargent.  The sole remaining claims are those asserted by
Benson-McCown, individually, and defendants' counterclaims with respect
thereto.


LAFAYETTE UTILITIES: LA Judge Nixes Customers' Overcharging Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lafayette Utilities System won another victory in court recently when a
judge dismissed a suit brought earlier this year alleging
the municipal utility has been overcharging customers for years,
2theadvocate.com reports.

Two Lafayette residents, Matthew Eastin and Elizabeth Naquin, seeking to
represent all residents as part of a class action,
brought the suit, which alleged that LUS had overcharged the fuel-rate
portion of customer bills.

LUS officials though maintain that each year they have to estimate how much
fuel will cost -- and that more often than not
they've erred in favor of lower prices for customers, not higher.  The suit
was seeking a return to customers the revenue
left over each year for LUS -- revenue the utility uses for such things as
capital projects or new equipment. This revenue is
also being tapped for possible use to help pay off bonds, if needed, for
LUS' new communications business.

However, Fifteenth Judicial District Judge Durwood Conque agreed with LUS'
attorneys' arguments that it wasn't proper to file suit against LUS without
first going to the Lafayette Public Utilities Authority.  The judge
dismissed the case.

The LPUA is made up of the five Lafayette City-Parish councilmen whose
districts contain more than 60 percent of city residents.  The charter
designates the LPUA as the governing authority of LUS. It also says that
customers "may appeal to the authority any proposed rate increases," and
that the LPUA's decision on the matter is final, although subject to appeal
through the courts.

City-Parish Attorney Patrick Ottinger told 2theadvocate.com that Judge
Conque agreed with LUS' argument that the two plaintiffs should have first
appealed the rates to the LPUA. Plaintiff's attorney Stan Baudin though
previously argued that LPUA has no specific procedures laid out for such an
appeal.

In a press statement regarding the ruling, Mr. Ottinger said, "We are
obviously pleased with the ruling. It confirms our
belief that this suit presented issues which must first be brought before
the governing authority of the utilities department. We are confident that
the allegations of the suit have no merit."


LOUISIANA: Katrina Victims' Asked Judge To Keep Hotel Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for Hurricane Katrina victims asked a Louisiana federal court to
keep alive a program that lodges those displaced by the storm in hotels at
government expense, The Associated Press reports.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency originally set a December 1 deadline
for ending the program. However, stung by critics who said that would result
in the eviction of thousands of poor, extended the deadline to December 15
for evacuees
nationwide. FEMA also said 10 states - Alabama, Arkansas, California,
Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada,
Tennessee and Texas - could apply for extensions lasting until January 7,
2006.

That will still be too soon for many, according to Howard Godnick, one of
the attorneys representing close to two dozen
plaintiffs in the case. He told The Associated Press, "They're going to put
them out even if they have yet to provide them with
any of the temporary housing benefits they are to receive."

Mr. Godnick also told The Associated press that attorneys have asked the
federal court based in New Orleans for an order
forcing FEMA to keep the hotel program going.

FEMA spokeswoman Nicol Andrews said that she could not comment on specifics
in the lawsuit. However, she did say that the end of the program would not
necessarily mean eviction for Katrina victims. She told The Associated
Press, "Anyone who is properly registered with FEMA and is eligible to
receive federal assistance will have the tools and the funding they need to
get temporary housing."

FEMA is paying for nearly 50,000 hotel rooms for hurricane victims at an
estimated $3 million a day. The hotel program has
cost the agency at least $300 million since Katrina hit August 29, followed
by Rita on September 24. At its height, FEMA was housing 85,000 families in
hotels.

Mr. Godnick told The Associated Press that his request for an order to keep
the program going is the latest filing in a
lawsuit accusing FEMA of wrongfully denying housing benefits to Hurricane
Katrina victims. There are currently 23 named
plaintiffs, and according to Mr. Godnick, he is seeking class action status
on behalf of all victims who have been denied aid.

That lawsuit, the first filed against FEMA in relation to its response to
Katrina, says that the agency has violated and
continues to violate Federal law by failing to discharge its obligations as
the federal agency chartered to care for victims
of natural disasters. The suit, which was filed in United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, seeks a
court order to require FEMA to make it easier for victims to apply for
temporary housing assistance, to improve the agency's
outreach and accessibility and immediately to provide trailers or other
alternatives to replace shelters, tents and other
makeshift arrangements. The suit also asks the court to force FEMA to
establish application guidelines under which victims can obtain continued
financial assistance beyond a three-month period and receive adjustments
based on family size and other
factors. The plaintiffs also request that the court order FEMA to eliminate
certain rules regarding the use of funds victims
have already received and to cease a policy whereby FEMA makes room for its
housing by evicting and destroying the homes of residents of trailer parks,
an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 14, 2005) reports.


MACK TRUCKS: Recalls 4,482 2004-06 Trucks Due to Fire Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Mack Trucks, Inc. in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 4,482 units of 2004-06 MACK / LE and
2004-06 MACK / MR trucks due to fire hazard.

According to the ODI, on certain heavy-duty trucks, the bolts attaching the
fuel tank mounting brackets to the frame may have
insufficient torque and therefore may result in premature failure of the
fuel tank mounting. If the fuel tank falls, there is the potential for the
tank to ignite, resulting in personal injury, vehicle and property damage.

As a remedy, dealers will inspect and replace the fuel tank bracket mounting
bolts. The recall is expected to begin on
January 3, 2006.

For more details, contact Mack Trucks, Phone: 1-800-528-6586 OR the NHTSA
Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web site:
http://www.safecar.gov.


MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended securities class action against McDonald's
Corporation and certain of its officers and directors
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
styled "Allan Selbst v. McDonald's Corporation, Jack
M. Greenberg, Matthew H. Paull and Michael J. Roberts, case no. Case No.
04C-2422."

Three nearly identical actions were initially filed in the same court,
alleging violation of federal securities laws.  On October 19, 2004, the
lead plaintiff filed its amended and consolidated class action complaint,
alleging, among other things, that the Company and individual defendants
misled investors by issuing false and misleading financial reports and
earnings projections in a series of press releases and other public
statements between December 14, 2001 and January 22, 2003, thereby
overstating the Company's current and anticipated earnings. The amended
complaint seeks class action certification, unspecified compensatory
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 18, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  On September 21, 2005, the Court denied this motion. The lead
plaintiff then filed its First Amended Complaint on October 7, 2005.

The suit is styled `Selbst v. McDonald's Corp, et al., case no.
1:04-cv-02422,' filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Blanche M. Manning.
Representing the Company is Robert J. Kopecky of
Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Chicago), 200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 6100,
Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 861-2000, E-mail:
rkopecky@kirkland.com.  Representing the plaintiffs is Samuel H Rudman,
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road,
#406 Melville, NY 11747, Phone: (631) 367-7100.


MOLEX INC.: Shareholders Commence Securities Fraud Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Molex, Inc. and certain of its officers and employees faces a consolidated
securities class action filed on behalf of a class
of Company stockholders from July 27, 2004 to February 14, 2005, alleging
violations of federal securities laws.

Seven suits were initially filed and later consolidated.  The consolidated
complaint alleges, among other things, that during
the period the named defendants made or caused to be made a series of
materially false or misleading statements about the
Company's business, prospects, operations, and financial statements which
constituted violations of the federal securities laws and rules.  As relief,
the complaint seeks, among other things, declaration that the action be
certified as a proper class action, unspecified compensatory damages
(including interest) and payment of costs and expenses (including fees for
legal counsel and experts).


NETGEAR INC.: Settles CA Suit Over Wi-Fi Data Speeds for $700T
--------------------------------------------------------------
Netgear, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTGR) agreed to settle a class action lawsuit that
accused the company of inflating the data speeds of its Wi-Fi (Wireless
Fidelity) networking devices in advertising materials.

In a November 23 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
Netgear said it has agreed to pay $700,000 to settle a class action lawsuit
initiated in June 2004. A second lawsuit, filed in February, was voluntarily
dismissed in favor of the
2004 lawsuit.

Under terms of the settlement, customers who purchased Netgear wireless
devices between January 1999 and this month will be eligible for a 15
percent discount on the purchase of a new wireless device. The Santa Clara
County Superior Court in
California must still approve the agreement though.


PARK N FLY: Inks Settlement For Dec. 2004 Airport Parking Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian valet parking company Park `N Fly reached a settlement with its
customers who were frozen out last December when car jockeys couldn't find
their vehicles, The Toronto Star reports.

129 customers filed the litigation after they were delayed in getting their
cars from the Company's Airport Road lot near
Pearson International Airport in Toronto, Canada late last December.
According to Star report last year, company employees said the delays were
related to a blizzard that dumped nearly 30 centimeters of snow on the lot,
burying entire rows of vehicles and making it impossible to move cars.

The lawsuit alleged the Company was obliged to store the vehicles in a
secure and identifiable location. They also
alleged the company breached a guarantee posted on its web page at the time
stating: "Upon your return, your car will be ready and waiting for you at
the front door."  However, some waited hours for their cars and others wound
up taking expensive taxi rides home.  The suit had not been certified by the
courts as a class action and the plaintiffs originally asked for $11 million
in damages for their inconvenience.

The class will receive one of two packages from Park 'N Fly: a letter of
apology and a $129 coupon for car detailing or a
voucher for three days of free parking. Others who have yet to come forward
but had problems at the facility between last
December 26 and December 29 are eligible for a one-day parking voucher and
reimbursement for any out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a result of the
delays as long as they come forward before December 31, according to
settlement documents of a class-action lawsuit, The Star reports.

"It was very fair," Douglas Kincaid, one of two plaintiffs representing the
class action, told the Star.

When Mr. Kincaid and his wife flew into Toronto from Ottawa Dec. 27, Park 'N
Fly staff couldn't find the couple's Jetta TDI.
"There was quite a bit of confusion and I couldn't get an answer," he said.
Two-and-a-half hours later, he and his wife
took a cab ride home that Park 'N Fly agreed to pay for.

Mr. Kincaid was called at 4 p.m. the next day and told that his car had been
found. While picking up his car at the Park 'N Fly office, he met Jordan
Solway, the second class action representative.  They got chatting and
decided to band together.
Mr. Kincaid and Mr. Solway, who both lost the use of their vehicles for more
than a day, will each receive $500 in addition
to other compensation.

The company did not return a call for comment, The Star reports.


PATINA OIL: To Ask CO Court To Review Gas Lawsuit Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patina Oil and Gas Corporation intends to ask the District Court for Weld
County, Colorado to review its ruling granting class
certification for the lawsuit filed against it, styled "Jack Holman, et al
v. Patina Oil & Gas Corporation; Case No. 03-CV-
09."

The suit was initially filed in January 2003, alleging that the Company had
improperly deducted certain costs in connection with
its calculation of royalty payments relating to its Colorado operations.  In
May 2004, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint narrowing the class of
potential plaintiffs, and thereafter filed a motion seeking to certify the
narrowed class as described in the amended complaint.   The class
certification motion was heard on September 22, 2005 and granted on October
13, 2005.


ROYAL AHOLD: Agrees to Settle MD Securities Litigation for $1.1B
----------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Ahold N.V. ("Koninklijke Ahold N.V.") ("Ahold") agreed to pay a total
of $1.1 billion to settle all securities law claims
asserted against Ahold and certain other defendants in the securities
litigation pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, according to Gregory W. Smith, General Counsel of Lead Plaintiff,
the Public Employees' Retirement Association ("Colorado PERA").

The settlement resolves all securities law claims against Ahold, and all
other defendants, other than Deloitte & Touche entities.
The settlement is global in nature and is designed to provide a recovery to
all persons who purchased Ahold common stock and/or American Depository
Receipts from July 30, 1999 through February 23, 2003, regardless of where
such persons live or purchased their Ahold shares.

"This settlement is an extraordinary recovery for Ahold shareholders, and a
good result for the Company. We are
extremely pleased that the settlement will provide a recovery for persons in
the United States as well as in Europe and in
other areas outside the United States. The result that we have achieved in
this litigation underscores the importance of having
institutional investors like Colorado PERA lead securities class actions
while working side-by-side with their selected Lead
Counsel, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP. We look forward to presenting the
settlement to the Court for the Court's consideration and approval," said
Gregory W. Smith, Colorado PERA's General Counsel.

Lead Plaintiffs will seek the Court's preliminary approval of the settlement
in January 2006. If the Court grants preliminary
approval, Lead Plaintiffs will disseminate a Court-approved form of notice
to all persons who purchased Ahold common stock and/or American Depository
Receipts from July 30, 1999 through February 23, 2003 (the "Class"),
regardless of where such persons live or purchased their Ahold shares. The
notice documents approved by the Court and sent to class members will
include all documents that must be reviewed and completed by persons who
wish to participate in the settlement. These documents will also be
available at http://www.royalaholdsecuritieslitigation.com,and at Lead
Counsel's website, http://www.entwistle-law.com.

Ahold will fund two-thirds of the $1.1 billon settlement amount upon the
Court's preliminary approval of the settlement, and
Ahold will fund the remaining one-third of the settlement amount within six
months of the Court's final approval of the
settlement. Interest will be earned on the settlement proceeds immediately
upon funding. Lead Plaintiffs anticipate obtaining
the Court's final approval of the settlement approximately one hundred and
twenty (120) days after the Court's preliminary
approval of the settlement. Distributions of the settlement amount will be
made pursuant to a Court-approved plan of
allocation of settlement proceeds. The amount of the settlement fund
available for distribution will exclude fees, costs, and
expenses incurred in prosecuting this litigation. Distributions to members
of the Class will be made approximately 12 months
after the Court's final approval of the settlement.

Colorado PERA and Generic Trading of Philadelphia, LLC are the
Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action,
In re Royal Ahold N.V. Securities & ERISA Litigation, which is pending
before Judge Catherine C. Blake in federal court in Maryland. The settlement
was arrived at after extensive negotiation between the parties under the
supervision of retired United States District Court Judge, Nicholas Politan.

The first securities class action lawsuit against Ahold was filed in
February 2003. On February 24, 2003, Ahold announced
that it had improperly inflated its earnings by approximately $500 million
dollars. Subsequent disclosures revealed that
Ahold's publicly reported earnings for previous years had been overstated by
more than $1 billion and that Ahold's prior
revenues had been overstated by more than $24 billion.

The plaintiff class consists of individuals and institutions that bought
Ahold stock between March 1998 and February 2003,
including Ahold's American depositary receipts. Originally, the Lead
plaintiffs were the Public Employees' Retirement
Association of Colorado and Generic Trading of Philadelphia, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (January 5, 2005) reports.

Following a June 18, 2003 transfer from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, the securities class actions against
Ahold were consolidated before the Honorable Catherine C. Blake in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland on November 4,
2003. Judge Blake also appointed Colorado PERA and Generic Trading of
Philadelphia LLC as Lead Plaintiffs to prosecute the litigation on behalf of
all members of the class.  Also at this time, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP was
appointed as Lead Counsel.

On February 17, 2002, Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended
Securities Class Action Complaint. The Complaint alleged claims against
Ahold and Ahold USA, Inc., Ahold USA Holdings, Inc., U.S. Foodservice, Inc.,
Cees Van der Hoeven, Michiel Meurs, Henny de Ruiter, Cor Boonstra, James L.
Miller, Mark Kaiser, Michael Resnick, Tim Lee, Robert G. Tobin, William J.
Grize, Roland Fahlin, Jan G. Andreae, ABN AMRO Rothschild, Goldman Sachs
International, Merrill Lynch International, ING Bank N.V., Rabo Securities
N.V., and Kempen & Co. N.V. based upon the matters that Ahold first
announced on February 24, 2003.

The Court largely denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the Complaint in
December 2004. Among other things, the Court
rejected Ahold's argument that the Court could not hear the claims of
non-United States investors who purchased their Ahold
shares on securities exchanges located outside the United States. As of this
date, Lead Counsel were reviewing million
pages of documents that the Court ordered Ahold to produce at an early stage
based upon a motion that Lead Plaintiffs filed in December 2003.

Document discovery in the class action has been proceeding since May 2004,
and Lead Plaintiffs have conducted broader discovery since the Court's
December 2004 decision on defendants' motions to dismiss the Complaint. The
Court had ordered a trial of the Class's claims to proceed in May 2007.

The suit is styled, "In re Royal Ahold N.V. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:03-md-01539-CCB," filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland under Judge Catherine C.
Blake. Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

    (1) Andrew J. Entwistle of Entwistle and Cappucci, 299 Park Ave., New
York, NY 1171, Phone: 12128947200, Fax:
        12128947251, E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com;

    (2) Daniel L. Berger of Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann, 1285
Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
        10019, Phone: 12125541406, Fax: 12125541444, E-mail:
dan@blbglaw.com;

    (3) Conor R. Crowley of Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament and
Rubenstein PC, 191 N. Wacker Dr., Ste. 1800,
        Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: 13125212725, Fax: 13125212100, E-mail:
ccrowley@muchshelist.com;

    (4) Seth D. Goldberg of Seth D. Goldberg PC, 5335 Wisconsin Ave. NW Ste.
440, Washington, DC 20015, Phone:
        12022430594, Fax: 12026865517;

    (5) Robert Ira Harwood of Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Ave., Suite
801, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
        12129357400, Fax: 12127533630, E-mail: rharwood@whesq.com;

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

    (7) Andrew J. Levander of Dechert, LLP, 30 Rockefeller Plz., New York,
NY 10112, Phone: 12126983500, Fax:
        12126983599, E-mail: andrew.levander@dechert.com;

    (8) Lester Levy of Wolf, Popper, Ross, Wolf & Jones, 845 Third Ave., New
York, NY 10022

    (9) Christopher Lometti and Frank R Schirripa of Schoengold and Sporn,
PC, 19 Fulton St., Ste. 406, New York, NY
        10038, Phone: 12129640046, Fax: 12122678137;

   (10) Charles J. Piven of Charles J. Piven, PA, The World Trade Center,
401 E. Pratt St., Ste. 2525, Baltimore,
        MD 21202, Phone: 14103320030, Fax: 14106851300, E-mail:
piven@pivenlaw.com;

   (11) Jonathan M. Plasse of Goodkind Labation Rudoff and Sucharow, LLP,
100 Park Ave., New York, NY 10017-5563,
        Phone: 12129070863, Fax: 12128837063

   (12) Ronald B. Rubin of Rubin and Rubin Chtd, One Church St., Ste. 301,
Rockville, MD 20850, Phone: 13016109700,
        Fax: 13016109716, E-mail: rrubin@rrubin.com;

   (13) Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and
Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Rd., Ste.
          406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 16313677100, Fax: 16313671173,
E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com;

   (14) Robert S. Schachter of Zwerling Schachter and Zwerling, LLP, 41
Madison Ave., New York, NY 10010, Phone:
        12122233900, Fax: 12123715969, E-mail: rschachter@zsz.com;

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

   (16) Steven Donald Silverman of Silverman and Thompson, 201 N. Charles
St., 26th Fl., Baltimore, MD 21201, Phone:
        14103852225, Fax: 14105472432, E-mail: ssilverman@mdattorney.com;

   (17) Ralph M. Stone of Shalov Stone and Bonner, LLP, 485 Seventh Ave.,
New York, NY 10018, Phone:
         12122394340; and

   (18) Steven J. Toll of Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll, PLLC, 1100 New
York Ave., NW West Tower, Ste. 500,
        Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 12024084600, Fax: 12024084699, E-mail:
stoll@cmht.com.

Representing the Defendant/s are:

    (i) John Arak Freedman of Arnold and Porter, 555 12th St., NW
Washington, DC 20004-1202, Phone: 12029425000,
        Fax: 12029425999, E-mail: john_freedman@aporter.com;

   (ii) Gerard J Gaeng of Rosenberg Martin Funk and Greenberg, LLP, 25 S.
Charles St., Ste. 2115, Baltimore, MD 21201-
        3305, Phone: 14107276600, Fax: 14107271115, E-mail:
ggaeng@rosenbergmartin.com;

  (iii) Glenn M. Kurtz of White and Case, LLP, 1155 Avenue of the Americas,
New York, NY 10036, Phone:
       12128198200, Fax: 12123548113, E-mail: gkurtz@whitecase.com;

   (iv) Richard A. McGuirk and Carolyn G. Nussbaum of Nixon Peabody, LLP,
Clinton Sq., P.O. Box 31051, Rochester,
        NY 14603, Phone: 15852631000, Fax: 15852631600, E-mail:
rmcguirk@nixonpeabody.com and
        cnussbaum@nixonpeabody.com;

    (v) Charles P. Scheeler of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US, LLP, 6225
Smith Ave., Baltimore, MD 21209-3600,
         Phone: 14105803000, Fax: 14105803001, E-mail:
charles.scheeler@dlapiper.com; and

   (vi) Alexandre de Gramont of Crowell and Moring, LLP, 1001 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW Washington, DC 20004-2595,
        Phone: 12026242500, Fax: 12026285116, E-mail:
adegramont@crowell.com;


SANUS SYSTEMS: Recalls 14T Wall-Mounting Units For Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC),
Sanus Systems, of St. Paul, Minnesota is voluntarily recalling about 14,000
units of VisionMount model VMSA swing-arm television wall-mounting units.

According to the company, an undersized shaft within the wall-mounting unit
can cause the product's main support component to loosen. As a result, the
unit and the television it is supporting can fall from the wall, posing a
risk of injury to consumers. Sanus Systems has received one report of
significant loosening in the product's main support component. No incidents
or injuries relating to unit failure have been reported.

This is a swing arm wall mount for flat panel televisions. The TV wall mount
being recalled is the VisionMount model VMSA. The TV wall mount measures
18.5 inches high and 29 inches wide and is sold in black and silver. There
is no writing on the unit.

Manufactured in United States and China, the products were sold by Audio
Video stores from December 2004 through May 4, 2005 for about $350.

Consumers should contact Sanus Systems immediately to request a free safety
bracket and instructions on how to install the safety device.  Consumer
Contact: Contact Sanus Systems at (800) 359-5520 between 9:30 a.m. and 6
p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or go to the firm's Web site:
http://www.sanus.com.


WHEELED COACH: Recalls 110 2004-06 Vehicles Due to Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wheeled Coach Industries in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 110 units of 2004-06
WHEELED COACH / TYPE II and 2004-2006 WHEELED COACH / TYPE III-SRW vehicles
due to crash hazard.

According to the ODI, certain ambulances built on Ford E350 and Chevrolet
GMT610 Vans fail to conform to the requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 110, "Tire Selection and rims." These ambulances have
the incorrect or missing tire and loading information placards in the
driver's doorjamb. This information will aid in loading the ambulance to
avoid exceeding the gross vehicle weight rating. A misprinted label would
lead to improper vehicle loading specifications or tire inflation, which
could result in a tire failure, increasing the risk of a crash.

As a remedy, owners will provided with new tire information placards and
installation instructions. At the customer's
option, a dealer can perform the installation for them. The recall is
expected to begin on November 29, 2005.

For more details, contact Wheeled Coach, Phone: 1-800-628-8178 OR the NHTSA
Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web site:
http://www.safecar.gov.


       Meetings, Conferences & Seminars



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



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



                New Securities Fraud Cases



BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Fraud Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on
behalf of all securities purchasers of Blockbuster Inc. (NYSE: BBI)
("Blockbuster" or the "Company") who purchased Blockbuster shares 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 charges Blockbuster, National Amusements, Inc., Viacom, Inc.,
John F. Antioco, Richard J. Bressler, Jackie M. Clegg, Philippe P. Dauman,
Michael D. Fricklas, Linda Griego, Mel Karmazin, John L. Muething, Sumner M.
Redstone, and Larry J. Zine with violations under the Securities Act of 1933
(the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"). More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts,
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

    (1) that the Splitoff and payment of the special dividend left
Blockbuster without the financial resources required to
         implement its ambitious strategic plan;

    (2) that the Company, due to outdated equipment and inventory tracking
issues, could not support the "No
        More Late Fees" program, as such could not integrate its in-store
and online operations;

    (3) that the Company was experiencing difficulties launching its
in-store DVD trading program, because it
        lacked adequate internal controls; and

    (4) that the Splitoff was engineered not to benefit Blockbuster but
rather, to allow Viacom to reap
        hundreds of millions of dollars in proceeds from the pre-Exchange
Offer Special Dividend and to reduce the
        public float of Viacom.

On February 10, 2004, Viacom announced that it intended to divest itself of
its majority interest in Blockbuster in what it
characterized as a "tax free Splitoff" (the "Splitoff"). In connection with
the Splitoff, Viacom declared a dividend of $5
per share, payable September 3, 2004, to Blockbuster shareholders of record
at the close of business on August 27,
2004. As the owner of 147,600,352 shares of Blockbuster Class A common
stock, Viacom received a total Blockbuster dividend of $738,001,760. As a
consequence of the dividend, Blockbuster had to incur approximately $900
million of debt, which defendant Jackie M. Antioco, Blockbuster's Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer, publicly declared was not going to harm the
Company.

Following the Splitoff, Blockbuster planned to initiate a new and ambitious
business strategy 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[.]" In executing the new
approach, Blockbuster introduced a series of initiatives including Internet
sales, in-store movie subscription, in-store
game subscription, and eliminated late fees.

On August 9, 2005, Blockbuster announced that total revenues decreased 1.6%
to $1.40 billion for the second quarter of 2005 from $1.42 billion for the
second quarter of 2004. On this news, shares of Blockbuster fell $0.92 per
share, or 11.49 percent, to close at $7.09 per share.

On October 26, 2005, Blockbuster confirmed that the Company had a meeting
with its lender group to discuss modifications to its credit agreement that
would give the Company improved operating flexibility over the term of the
original credit agreement and that as part of the modifications, the Company
would pursue raising additional capital that would be used for working
capital purposes including debt reduction.

For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087,
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web
site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com.


FIRST BANCORP: Schiffrin & Barroway Extends Suit's Class Period
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, extended the Class Period for the
class action lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas on behalf of all securities
purchasers of First BanCorp (NYSE: FBP) ("First
BanCorp" or the "Company"). The firm extended it from October 20, 2003 to
October 24, 2005, to March 31, 2003 to October 24, 2005.

The complaint charges First BanCorp, Angel Alvarez-Perez ("Alvarez-Perez")
and Annie Astor-Carbonell ("Astor-Carbonell") with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. First BanCorp operates as the holding
company for FirstBank Puerto Rico, which provides various financial services
in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and British Virgin Islands. The
complaint alleges that defendants' Class Period representations regarding
First BanCorp's financial statements, business, and prospects were
materially false and misleading when made.

Specifically, the defendants failed to disclose:

    (1) that First BanCorp improperly classified, for accounting purposes,
mortgage transactions with other
        financial institutions (most notably Doral Financial Corporation and
R&G Financial Corporation) as purchases
        rather than loans by the Company and its subsidiaries secured by the
mortgages;

    (2) that the improper methodology used by the Company on these loans
caused the Company to materially inflate
        its financial results;

    (3) that as a consequence of this, the Company's financial statements
were presented in violation of Generally
        Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

    (4) that the Company lacked the necessary personnel and controls to
issue accurate financial reports and
        projections; and

    (5) that as a result of the above, the value of the Company's net income
and financial results were
        materially overstated at all relevant times.

During the Class Period, defendants embarked on a five-year scheme to
inflate the financial results of First BanCorp by
manipulating its accounting on mortgage transactions with other financial
institutions (most notably Doral Financial Corp. and
R&G Financial Corp.). The scheme began to unravel for defendants in 2005. On
August 11, 2005, First BanCorp announced that it was delaying the filing of
its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005. According to First
BanCorp, it indicated that on August 1, 2005, the Audit Committee (the
"Committee") of First BanCorp determined that the Committee should review
the background and accounting for certain purchases of mortgage loans made
by the Company between 2000 and 2005. In reaction to this announcement, the
price of First BanCorp stock fell dramatically, from $22.73 per share on
August 10, 2005 to $21.00 per share on August 11, 2005, a one-day drop of
$1.73 per share, or 7.61 percent, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Following the above disclosure, First BanCorp, on August 25, 2005, after the
market closed, announced that the SEC was
conducting an informal inquiry into the Company's accounting. According to
the Company, the inquiry pertained to, among other things, the accounting
for mortgage loans purchased by the Company from two other financial
institutions (Doral Financial Corporation and R&G Financial Corporation)
during the calendar years 2000 through 2004. In reaction to this
announcement, the price of First BanCorp stock fell dramatically, from
$20.02 per share on August 25, 2005 to $18.23 per share on August 26, 2005,
a one-day drop of $1.79 per share, or 8.94 percent, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

About one month later, on September 30, 2005, First BanCorp, after the
market closed, announced a series of management
changes. According to the Company, defendant Alvarez-Perez had stepped down
as President and Chief Executive Officer and announced that he would retire
effective December 31, 2005, as Chairman of the Board of Directors. In
addition, defendant Astor- Carbonell had resigned from her position as Chief
Financial Officer and as a member of the Board of Directors, and informed
the Company that she would retire on October 31, 2005. In reaction to this
announcement, the price of First BanCorp stock fell dramatically, from
$16.92 per share on September 30, 2005 to $15.56 per share on October 3,
2005, a drop of $1.36 per share, or 8.04 percent, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

Then, on October 21, 2005, after the close of the market, First BanCorp
announced that the SEC had issued a formal order of investigation in its
investigation into the Company. According to First BanCorp, the
investigation, which stemmed out of an
informal inquiry announced by the Company in late August 2005, appeared to
relate to, among other things, transactions in which FirstBank acquired a
substantial number of mortgage loans from other Puerto Rican financial
institutions (Doral Financial Corporation and R&G Financial Corporation). In
reaction to this announcement, the price of First BanCorp stock fell
dramatically, from $15.25 per share on October 21, 2005 to $14.03 per share
on October 24, 2005, a one-day drop of $1.22 per share, or 8 percent, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087,
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web
site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com.


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


LIPMAN ELECTRONIC: Firm Reminds Parties of Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, reminds
investors that the deadline to ask the Court to appoint you as lead
plaintiff for the Class in the class action against Lipman Electronic
Engineering, Ltd. ("Lipman" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:LPMA) is December 12,
2005.

The Pomerantz class action was filed in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of New York, on behalf of
public investors who purchased the common stock of Lipman on the Nasdaq
National Market and/or the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange during the period of
October 4, 2004 through September 27, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Lipman issued public
statements in press releases and to analysts which fraudulently created a
false impression concerning the Company's business operations and prospects
following the acquisition of Dione, Plc ("Dione"), a United Kingdom based
supplier of so- called "smart card" payment systems. Defendants claimed that
the Dione acquisition would add to Lipman's earnings within one year and
"provide important new customer relationships that would add critical mass
to our U.K. presences" when, in fact, at the time of these statements,
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the substantial difficulty the
Company was facing in integrating and exploiting the Dione acquisition.

Less than one year after completing the Dione acquisition, the misleading
nature of defendants' Class Period statements was
revealed on September 28, 2005, in a stunning admission by the Company that
the "weaker than expected performance of Dione" caused the Company to slash
its 2005 earnings estimates, from a previous forecast of $1.39 to $1.42 per
share down to $0.88 to $0.98 per share. The Company also announced that it
had terminated the employment of Dione CEO Shaun Gray and that the Company
anticipated it would take a non-cash impairment charge relating to goodwill
and other intangible assets in 2005. Investor reaction was sharply negative
to the news of the Dione unit's shockingly poor performance causing Lipman's
share price to plunge nearly 22 percent following the disclosure of the
Company's inability to leverage the Dione acquisition to expand Lipman's
European market presence. Additionally during the Class Period, defendants
materially misleading statements and omissions enabled the Company to
complete a secondary offering for 1,973,044 shares at $29.75 per share in
May 2005.

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


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

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

For more details, contact Kip B. Shuman of Dyer & Shuman, LLP, Phone:
1-800-711-6483, E-mail: KShuman@DyerShuman.com, Web site:
http://www.dyershuman.com.


MOTIVE INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Extends Suit's Class Period
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, which initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas on behalf of all securities purchasers of Motive,
Inc., (Nasdaq: MOTV) ("Motive" or the "Company"), extended the Class Period
from April 21, 2005 to October 26, 2005, to June 25, 2004 to October 26,
2005.

The complaint charges Motive, Scott L. Harmon, and Paul M. Baker with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the
Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

    (1) that the Company improperly recognized $5.2 million in revenue from
a licensing agreement, which materially
        inflated its revenue figures;

   (2) the Company's financial statements were presented in violation of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
        ("GAAP"); and

    (3) that the Company lacked the necessary personnel and controls to
issue accurate financial reports and
        projections.

On October 4, 2005, after the close of the market, Motive announced that it
expected core revenue for the third quarter of
2005, which excludes impact from business acquisitions, to be in the range
of $15.5 million to $17.5 million, compared to core revenue of $23 million
for the same period last year. In reaction to this announcement, the price
of Motive stock fell
dramatically, from $6.26 per share on October 4, 2005 to $4.01 per share on
October 5, 2005, a one-day drop of $2.25 per share, or 35.94 percent, on
unusually heavy trading volume. On October 27, 2005, Motive, prior to the
opening of the market, issued a press release announcing financial results
for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, as well as the decision to restate
its financial results for the quarters ended March 31, 2005 and June 30,
2005 and the six-month period ended June 30, 2005. In reaction to this
announcement, the price of Motive stock fell, from $4.12 per share on
October 26, 2005 to $3.66 per share on October 27, 2005, a one-day drop of
$0.46 per share, or 11.17 percent, on unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087,
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web
site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com.


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Universal American Financial Corporation (NASDAQ: UHCO) securities between
February 16, 2005 and October 28, 2005, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, against the company and certain key officers and
directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in
the above action.

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


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

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

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


WELLS FARGO: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC) and certain
of its affiliates, on behalf of those who purchased Van Kampen mutual funds
from Wells Fargo Investments, LLC ("Wells Fargo Investments") or H.D. Vest
Investment Services, LLC ("H.D. Vest") during the period between June 30,
2000 and June 8, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Van Kampen mutual funds and their respective symbols are as follows:


Van Kampen Aggressive Growth (NASDAQ: VAGAX) (NASDAQ: VAGBX)
(NASDAQ: VAGCX) (NASDAQ: VAGDX)
Van Kampen American Value (NASDAQ: MSAVX) (NASDAQ: MGAVX)
(NASDAQ: MSVCX)
Van Kampen CA Insured Tax-Free (NASDAQ: VKCIX) (NASDAQ: VCIBX)
(NASDAQ: VCICX)
Van Kampen Comstock (NASDAQ: ACSTX) (NASDAQ: ACSWX) (NASDAQ:
ACSYX)
(NASDAQ: ACSDX) (NASDAQ: ACSRX)
Van Kampen Corporate Bond (NASDAQ: ACCBX) (NASDAQ: ACCDX)
(NASDAQ: ACCEX)
Van Kampen Emerging Growth (NASDAQ: ACEGX) (NASDAQ: ACEMX)
(NASDAQ: ACEFX)
(NASDAQ: ACEDX) (NASDAQ: ACEEX)
Van Kampen Emerging Markets (NASDAQ: MSRAX) (NASDAQ: MSRBX)
(NASDAQ: MSRCX)
Van Kampen Enterprise (NASDAQ: ACENX) (NASDAQ: ACEOX) (NASDAQ:
ACEPX)
Van Kampen Equity and Income (NASDAQ: ACEIX) (NASDAQ: ACEQX)
(NASDAQ: ACERX) (NASDAQ: ACETX) (NASDAQ: ACESX)
Van Kampen Equity Growth (NASDAQ: VEGAX) (NASDAQ: VEGBX)
(NASDAQ: VEGCX)
Van Kampen Exchange (NASDAQ: ACEHX)
Van Kampen Global Equity Alloc (NASDAQ: MSGAX) (NASDAQ: MSGBX)
(NASDAQ: MSGCX)
Van Kampen Global Franchise (NASDAQ: VGFAX) (NASDAQ: VGFBX)
(NASDAQ: VGFCX)
Van Kampen Global Value Equity (NASDAQ: MGEAX) (NASDAQ: MGEBX)
(NASDAQ: MGECX)
Van Kampen Government Securities (NASDAQ: ACGVX) (NASDAQ: ACGTX)
(NASDAQ: ACGSX)
Van Kampen Growth and Income (NASDAQ: ACGIX) (NASDAQ: ACGJX)
(NASDAQ: ACGKX) (NASDAQ: ACGMX) (NASDAQ: ACGLX)
Van Kampen Harbor (NASDAQ: ACHBX) (NASDAQ: ACHAX) (NASDAQ:
ACHCX) (NASDAQ: ACHIX)
Van Kampen High Yield (NASDAQ: ACHYX) (NASDAQ: ACHZX) (NASDAQ:
ACHWX)
(NASDAQ: ACHVX)
Van Kampen High-Yield Municipal (NASDAQ: ACTHX) (NASDAQ: ACTGX)
(NASDAQ: ACTFX)
Van Kampen Insured Tax-Free Inc (NASDAQ: VKMTX) (NASDAQ: VMTBX)
(NASDAQ: VMTCX)
Van Kampen Interm-Term Muni (NASDAQ: VKLMX) (NASDAQ: VKLBX)
(NASDAQ: VKLCX)
Van Kampen International Advantage (NASDAQ: VKIAX) (NASDAQ:
VKIBX) (NASDAQ: VKICX)
Van Kampen Limited Duration (NASDAQ: ACFMX) (NASDAQ: ACFTX)
(NASDAQ: ACFWX)
Van Kampen Mid Cap Growth (NASDAQ: VGRAX) (NASDAQ: VGRBX)
(NASDAQ: VGRCX)
Van Kampen Municipal Income (NASDAQ: VKMMX) (NASDAQ: VMIBX)
(NASDAQ: VMICX)
Van Kampen NY Tax-Free Income (NASDAQ: VNYAX) (NASDAQ: VBNYX)
(NASDAQ: VNYCX)
Van Kampen PA Tax-Free Income (NASDAQ: VKMPX) (NASDAQ: VKPAX)
(NASDAQ: VKPCX)
Van Kampen Pace (NASDAQ: ACPAX) (NASDAQ: ACPBX) (NASDAQ: ACPCX))
Van Kampen Real Estate Secs (NASDAQ: ACREX) (NASDAQ: ACRBX)
(NASDAQ: ACRCX)
Van Kampen Select Growth (NASDAQ: VSGAX) (NASDAQ: VBSGX)
(NASDAQ: VSGCX)
Van Kampen Senior Loan (NASDAQ: XPRTX) (NASDAQ: XSLCX)
Van Kampen Small Cap Growth (NASDAQ: VASCX) (NASDAQ: VBSCX)
(NASDAQ: VCSCX)
Van Kampen Small Cap Value (NASDAQ: VSCAX) (NASDAQ: VSMBX)
(NASDAQ: VSMCX)
Van Kampen Strategic Municipal Inc (NASDAQ: VKMHX) (NASDAQ:
VKTFX) (NASDAQ: VMHCX)
Van Kampen Technology (NASDAQ: VTFAX) (NASDAQ: VTFBX) (NASDAQ:
VTFCX)
Van Kampen U.S. Mortgage (NASDAQ: VKMGX) (NASDAQ: VUSBX)
(NASDAQ: VUSCX)
Van Kampen Utility (NASDAQ: VKUAX) (NASDAQ: VKUBX) (NASDAQ:
VKUCX)
Van Kampen Value Opportunities (NASDAQ: VVOAX) (NASDAQ: VVOBX)
(NASDAQ: VVOCX) (NASDAQ: VVOIX)

The Wells Fargo Preferred Funds include mutual funds in the following mutual
fund families: Franklin Templeton Investments,
Putnam Investments, MFS Investment Management, Fidelity Investments,
Evergreen Investments, Alliance Bernstein nvestment Research and Management,
Van Kampen Investments, AIM Distributors, Inc., Oppenheimer Funds, Inc.,
Eaton Vance Managed Investments, ING Funds Distributors, LLC, Allianz Global
Investors Distributors, LLC, Federated, The Hartford Mutual Funds, Dreyfus
Service Corporation, Delaware Investments, Pioneer Investment Management,
Inc., Scudder Investments, and Wells Fargo Mutual Funds.

The H.D. Vest Preferred Funds include mutual funds in the following mutual
fund families: Oppenheimer Funds, Putnam
Investments, Scudder Investments, MFS Investment Management, Van Kampen
Investments, Lincoln Financial Distributors, AIM Investments, Phoenix
Investment Partners, John Hancock Funds, Wells Fargo Funds, American Funds,
and Franklin Templeton Investments.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against defendant Wells
Fargo & Company and certain of its affiliated entities. The complaint
alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased and honest
investment advice to their clients. Unbeknownst to
investors, defendants, in clear contravention of their disclosure
obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, failed to
properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to aggressively push
Wells Fargo Investments and H.D. Vest sales
personnel to steer clients into purchasing certain Wells Fargo Funds and
Wells Fargo and H.D. Vest Preferred Funds
(collectively, "Shelf Space Funds") that provided financial incentives and
rewards to Wells Fargo and H.D. Vest and their
personnel based on sales. The complaint alleges that defendants' undisclosed
sales practices created an insurmountable conflict of interest by providing
substantial monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to their clients,
even though such investments were not in the clients' best interest. Wells
Fargo Investments and H.D. Vest's failure to disclose the incentives
constituted violations of federal securities laws.

The action also includes a subclass of persons who held any shares of Wells
Fargo Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally
alleges that the investment advisor subsidiary of Wells Fargo, Wells Fargo
Funds Management, created further undisclosed
material conflicts of interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements
with brokers at Wells Fargo Investments and H.D. Vest to push investors into
Wells Fargo Funds, regardless of whether such investments were in the
investors' best interests. The investment advisors financed these
arrangements by illegally charging excessive and improper fees to the fund
that should
have been invested in the underlying portfolio. In doing so they breached
their fiduciary duties to investors under the
Investment Company Act and state law and decreased shareholders' investment
returns.

The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a Wells Fargo
Financial Plan that held Wells Fargo Funds. The Wells Fargo Financial Plans
include, but are not limited to Full Service Brokerage Accounts, Wells Asset
Management accounts, WellsChoice account, and WellsSelect account.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody of Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th
Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022,
E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com.


                           *********



A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's
edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to
carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on
asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches, collectively
face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                           *********



S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N


Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard
Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Aurora Fatima
Antonio and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2005.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication
in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written
permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be
reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail.
Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of
the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each.  For subscription
information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *