CAR_Public/051201.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, December 1, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 238

                            Headlines

ADAMS GOLF: Mediation in Securities Fraud Suit Proceeding in DE
AEP TEXAS: Faces Injury Suit Over Ontario Coal Plant Emissions
AMERICAN INVESTORS: CA Court Holds Fairness Hearing For Lawsuit
AMERUS GROUP: Faces Consolidated Insurance Fraud Suit in E.D. PA
AXT INC.: CA Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit

BLUE BIRD: Recalls School Buses Due to FMVSS Noncompliance
CHEVY CHASE: Couple Launches Deceptive Practices Lawsuit in WI
CHOICEPOINT INC.: IL Court Approves Consumer Lawsuit Settlement
CHOICEPOINT INC.: FL Court Mulls Motion To Re-open Privacy Suit
CITGO PETROLEUM: Court Sustains Appeal of $6M TX Suit Settlement

CITGO PETROLEUM: Seeks Summary Judgment in NY MTBE Injury Suits
COOPER TIRE: Recalls 4,080 S/T2 Tires Due to Crash Hazard
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Arbitrator OKs FL Student Suit Arbitration
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Plaintiffs File Amended CA Securities Suit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Medical Student Files Education Code Suit

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: CA Court Compels Arbitration in Fraud Suit
COVENTRY HEALTH: High Court Nixes Review of Certification Ruling
ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Court Mulls Suit Certification Denial
ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Court Hears Discovery Motions in Suit
GOLD FIELDS: Trial in OK Lead Mills Injury Litigation Postponed

GOLD FIELDS: Continues To Face Quapaw Tribes Trespass Suit in OK
HENNESSEE GROUP: Clients Launch Suit Over Bayou Collapse in CT
IDX SYSTEMS: Shareholders Commence VT Lawsuit Against GE Merger
INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Expects Consolidation of NC Fraud Suits
JAKKS PACIFIC: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY

JIM RAY NISSAN: Car Dealership Faces Consumer Fraud Litigation
KMART CORPORATION: Workers, Retirees to Share $11.75M Settlement
LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Suit in OR
MACATAWA BANK: Suits V. Trade Partners Viaticals Still Pending
NEW YORK: Lady Sues State, Counties For Denied Medicaid Benefits

PIONEER NATURAL: KS Court Yet To Rule in Royalty Owners Lawsuit
PORTER-CABLE: Recalls 196T Circular Saws Due to Injury Hazard
RADIAN GUARANTY: PA Court Grants Consumer Suit Summary Judgment
SONY BMG: Finkelstein Thompson Files DC Suit Over DRM Software
STATE FARM: Attorney in Gridley Case Expected Dismissal Ruling

UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Shareholder File Securities Fraud Suit in NY
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI: Rowing Team Files Discrimination Suit
VIGNETTE CORPORATION: Final Fairness Hearing Set April 25,2006
WASHINGTON: Judge Rules That DSHS Wrongfully Reduced Food Stamps
WD 40: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment Ruling in CA Lawsuit


                    New Securities Fraud Cases

FIRST BANCORP: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
GREAT WOLF: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in WI
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in IN
MOTIVE INC.: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. TX
UNIVERSAL CORPORATION: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in NY

                           *********


ADAMS GOLF: Mediation in Securities Fraud Suit Proceeding in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mediation in the consolidated securities class action filed
against Adams Golf, Inc. began on November 1, 2005 in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware.

Beginning in June 1999, the first of seven class action lawsuits
was filed against the Company, certain of its current and former
officers and directors, and the three underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering (IPO) in the United States
District Court of the District of Delaware.  The complaints
alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the
Company's IPO.

In particular, the complaints alleged that the Company's
prospectus, which became effective July 9, 1998, was materially
false and misleading in at least two areas.  Plaintiffs alleged
that the prospectus failed to disclose that unauthorized
distribution of the Company's products (gray market sales)
threatened the Company's long-term profits.  Plaintiffs also
alleged that the prospectus failed to disclose that the golf
equipment industry suffered from an oversupply of inventory at
the retail level, which had an adverse impact on the Company's

On May 17, 2000, these cases were consolidated into one amended
complaint, and a lead plaintiff was appointed.  The plaintiffs
were seeking unspecified amounts of compensatory damages,
interest and costs, including legal fees.  On December 10, 2001,
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
dismissed the consolidated, amended complaint.  Plaintiffs
appealed.  On August 25, 2004, the appellate court affirmed the
dismissal of plaintiffs' claims relating to oversupply of retail
inventory, while reversing the dismissal of the claims relating
to the impact of gray market sales and remanding those claims
for further proceedings.  This case entered discovery.


AEP TEXAS: Faces Injury Suit Over Ontario Coal Plant Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------
AEP Texas North Co. was named as one of 21 defendants in a
lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario,
Canada. The defendants are alleged to own or operate coal-fired
electric generating stations in various states that, through
negligence in design, management, maintenance and operation,
have emitted NOx, SO2 and particulate matter that have harmed
the residents of Ontario.

The lawsuit seeks class action designation and damages of
approximately $50 billion, with continuing damages of $4 billion
annually. The lawsuit also seeks $1 billion in punitive damages.


AMERICAN INVESTORS: CA Court Holds Fairness Hearing For Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California State Court held a final fairness hearing for the
settlement of a class action filed against American Investors
Life Insurance Company, styled "Cheves v. American Investors
Life Insurance Company, Family First Advanced Estate Planning
and Family First Insurance Services et al."

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of insurance products
and relates to the use of purportedly inappropriate sales
techniques and products for the senior citizen market.  The suit
alleges, among other things, that the defendants engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law, claims related to the suitability
of the products for, and the manner in which they were sold to,
the senior citizen market, pretext sales and other violations of
state insurance laws. The plaintiffs seek civil penalties,
restitution, injunctive relief, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and other relief and damages.

On September 23, 2005, the general terms of a settlement of a
statewide class action were preliminarily approved by the trial
court and a hearing on the final approval was held in November
2005.


AMERUS GROUP: Faces Consolidated Insurance Fraud Suit in E.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amerus Group Co. and certain of its subsidiaries face a
consolidated nationwide class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
on behalf of certain purchasers of insurance products who were
over the age of 65 at the time of purchase.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants used improper
practices in selling annuities to senior citizens because
annuity payments allegedly begin only after the annuitant's
actuarial life expectancy and the plaintiffs seek class
certification, injunctive and equitable relief, a variety of
damages, including punitive damages, and attorneys fees.


AXT INC.: CA Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted AXT Inc.'s motion to dismiss the securities
class action lawsuit filed against it, alleging violations of
federal securities laws.

The first suit was styled "City of Harper Woods Employees
Retirement System v. AXT,Inc. et al., No.C 04 4362 MJJ."  The
Court consolidated the case with a subsequent related case and
appointed a lead plaintiff.  On April 5, 2005, the lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint, captioned as "Morgan
v. AXT,Inc. et al., No.C 04 4362 MJJ."   The lawsuit complaint
names the Company and its chief technology officer, as
defendants, and is brought on behalf of a class of all
purchasers of Company securities from February 6, 2001 through
April 27, 2004. The complaint alleges that the Company announced
financial results during this period that were false and
misleading.  No specific amount of damages is claimed.

On September 23, 2005, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint, with leave to amend. However, due to the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the company cannot
accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the litigation, it
stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The suit is styled "Thomas O. Morgan, et al. v. AXT, Inc et al.,
case no. 3:04-cv-04362-MJJ," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge
Martin J. Jenkins.  Representing the Company are David Banie and
David Priebe of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP, 2000
University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA 94303, Phone: 650-833-
2000, Fax: 650-833-2001, E-mail: david.banie@dlapiper.com,
david.priebe@dlapiper.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are
Peter A. Binkow and Lionel Z. Glancy of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg
LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
Phone: (310) 201-9150, Fax: (310) 201-9160, E-mail:
info@glancylaw.com; and Elizabeth P. Lin, Milberg Weiss Bershad
& Schulman LLP, 355 South Grand Ave., Suite 4170, Los Angeles,
CA 90071, Phone: 213/617-1200, Fax: (213) 617-1975 and E-mail:
elin@milbergweiss.com.


BLUE BIRD: Recalls School Buses Due to FMVSS Noncompliance
----------------------------------------------------------
Blue Bird Body Company in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 9 units of 2006 BLUE BIRD /
MICRO BIRD buses due to crash hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number:
05V535000.

According to the ODI, certain 2006 Blue Bird Microbird school
buses equipped with a wheelchair lift manufactured from July 1
and November 14, 2005, have a shift interlock system that was
not installed during production, which fails to conform to
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 403,
"Platform Lift Systems For Motor vehicles," and 202, "Platform
Lift Installation in Motor Vehicles."

As a remedy, Blue Bird will notify owners and repair the busses
by installing the required shift interlock system free of
charge. The recall is expected to begin on December 7, 2005.

For more details, contact Blue Bird, Phone: 478-822-2242 OR the
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web
site: http://www.safecar.gov.


CHEVY CHASE: Couple Launches Deceptive Practices Lawsuit in WI
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan and Susan Andrews filed a lawsuit seeking class action
status filed in U.S. District Court in Milwaukee against Chevy
Chase Bank, alleging that their lender, violated the federal
Truth-In-Lending Act by misleading borrowers into thinking they
were getting rates lower than those actually charged, The AZ
Central.com reports.

Kevin Demet, an attorney representing the Andrews told The AZ
Central.com that there are "deceptive disclosures." The suit,
which was filed last April 20, 2005, revolves around so-called
option ARMs, an adjustable-rate mortgage that carries an
introductory rate of as low as 1 percent and gives borrowers
multiple payment choices. These choices typically include a
minimum payment, which is set at the start of each year, an
interest-only payment and the standard payment on a 15-year or
30-year mortgage.

Many borrowers have been attracted to option ARMs by the low
introductory rate, which is used to set the minimum payment for
the first year. However that teaser rate is in effect for only a
short period, typically one to three months. After that, the
rate on the loan can jump above 5 percent or 6 percent and
continue to rise as short-term interest rates move higher.
Option ARMs are considered particularly risky because borrowers
who elect to make the minimum payment can see their loan balance
grow, also known as negative amortization.

Some borrowers say they weren't clearly informed of these
features. Mrs. Andrews, a registered nurse, and her husband,
Bryan, a carpenter, refinanced their $191,000 mortgage into an
option ARM last year after receiving a promotional mailing
offering a mortgage with a 1.95 percent rate. She told AZ
Central.com, "We have four children, three who are college age.
We thought this would decrease our monthly debt."

Ms. Andrews also told AZ Central.com that she thought the 1.95
percent rate on the loan was fixed for five years. However, two
months after obtaining the mortgage, the couple received a
statement showing that their interest rate had jumped to 4.375
percent. Since then, the rate has climbed above 7 percent and
the couple's loan balance has grown by about $2,000, even though
they've made extra payments toward the principal.

Robert D. Broeksmit, president and chief executive of Chevy
Chase Bank's mortgage lending unit, declined to comment on the
specifics of the pending lawsuit. In a written statement, he
says that the company offers option ARMs "only to affluent
borrowers who use its various payment features to manage their
cash flow intelligently." He says the bank makes "every effort
to ensure that all of our customers understand the loan product
they choose." This includes providing a "one page, large print,
plain English flyer, which the borrower signs, which clearly
states that the loan has a monthly adjustable interest rate,"
according to him.

The suit is styled, "Andrews et al v. Chevy Chase Bank FSB, Case
No. 2:05-cv-00454-LA," filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, under Judge Lynn Adelman.
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Donal M. Demet and Kevin J.
Demet of Demet & Demet, SC, 815 N. Cass St., Milwaukee, WI
53202, Phone: 414-291-0800, Fax: 414-291-9560, E-mail:
ddemet@demetlaw.com and KDemet@Sprintmail.com. Representing the
Defendant/s are: Michael J. Aprahamian of Foley & Lardner, LLP,
777 E. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53202-5300, Phone:
414-297-5516, Fax: 414-297-4900, E-mail: maprahamian@foley.com
and David J. Cynamon of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP,
2300 N. St. NW Washington, DC 20037, Phone: 202-663-8492.


CHOICEPOINT INC.: IL Court Approves Consumer Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Williamson
County, Illinois approved the settlement for the class action
filed against ChoicePoint, Inc., alleging that it violated the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act by selling
information that it received from insurance agent customers
through underwriting inquiries as leads (names of individuals
seeking insurance) for automobile and homeowner's insurance to
those same insurance agent customers as well as their
competitors.  The complaint seeks certification as a class
action, compensatory damages, attorney's fees and costs and
injunctive and other relief.

Though the Company denies any and all charges of wrongdoing or
liability alleged by the plaintiffs, the Company believes that
it is in the best interest of the Company, the shareholders, and
the Company's customers to settle this matter, the Company said
in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Therefore, the Company entered a Settlement Agreement in this
action, which will be filed with and is subject to Court
approval after a fairness hearing.

The Court approved the settlement after a fairness hearing held
on October 17, 2005. Upon expiration of the period for appeal,
and pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the
Company will establish a cash fund for the benefit of qualifying
class members, the payouts from which could total up to
$7,000,000. The Company shall also fund redeemable certificates
of value to qualifying class members that may be used to obtain
certain direct marketing services. The aggregate value of the
redeemable certificates available to qualifying class members
could total as much as $7,000,000. The Company will also pay
$500,000 in cy pres funds, up to $2,950,000 toward plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, settlement administration
costs, and an aggregate sum of $10,000 to the named plaintiffs.


CHOICEPOINT INC.: FL Court Mulls Motion To Re-open Privacy Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida has yet to rule on plaintiffs' motion to re-open a class
action filed against ChoicePoint, Inc., styled "Fresco, et al.
v. Automotive Directions Inc., et al."

The suit alleges that the Company has obtained, disclosed and
used information obtained from the Florida Department of Highway
Safety and Motor Vehicles (Florida DHSMV) in violation of the
federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA).  The plaintiffs
seek to represent classes of individuals whose personal
information from Florida DHSMV records has been obtained,
disclosed and used for marketing purposes or other allegedly
impermissible uses by the Company without the express written
consent of the individual.

A number of the Company's competitors have also been sued in the
same or similar litigation in Florida. This complaint seeks
certification as a class action, compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive and other relief.  The
Company has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and has joined
in a motion for judgment on the pleadings.  On March 8, 2005,
the Court administratively closed the Fresco action until the
11th Circuit rules on a dispositive DPPA issue in another case.
On March 16, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a motion to re-open the
case, which the Company and the other defendants opposed. The
motion was heard on July 21, 2005 and has been taken under
advisement by the court.


CITGO PETROLEUM: Court Sustains Appeal of $6M TX Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas Court of Appeals sustained CITGO Petroleum
Corporation's appeal of a Texas Superior Court's $6 million
award to 3,000 residents near the north side refineries in
Corpus Christi, Texas, who filed a class action, alleging that
the refineries were liable for air and ground contamination, as
well as damage to the residents' properties.

In a December 1,2003 story, the Class Action Reporter stated
that the Company was the last remaining company to reach
agreement with the plaintiffs, in a lawsuit that has involved
buyouts of residences in the refinery area.   Judge Nanette
Hasette approved the $5 million out-of-court settlement, which
meant thousands of dollars for some and a few cents for others.
Judge Hasette also approved $700,000 separately for plaintiffs'
lawyers.  Attorneys for both the company and residents said the
money would not be distributed until all possible appeals have
been exhausted.

In October 2005, the Texas Court of Appeals sustained the
Company's appeal of the trial court's order and remanded the
case to the trial court.


CITGO PETROLEUM: Seeks Summary Judgment in NY MTBE Injury Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
CITGO Petroleum Corporation asked the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York to grant summary
judgment in their favor in the multidistrict litigation filed
against it and other major oil companies, alleging contamination
of contamination of private and public water supplies by methyl
tertiary butyl ether ("MTBE"), a gasoline additive.

Several federal and state lawsuits were filed against the
defendants, alleging that MTBE renders the water not potable. In
addition to compensatory and punitive damages, plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief to abate the contamination.  The Company's
MTBE litigation can be divided into two categories -- pre and
post-September 30, 2003 litigation. Of the pre-September 30,
2003 cases, the Company has settled the two pending cases in
Madison County, Illinois state court.

The other remaining pre-September 30, 2003 case has been removed
to federal court in Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") 1358. The
post-September 30, 2003 cases were filed after new federal
legislation was proposed that would have precluded plaintiffs
from filing lawsuits based on the theory that gasoline with MTBE
is a defective product. These approximately 72 cases, the
majority of which were filed by municipal authorities, were
removed to federal court and at the defendants' request
consolidated in MDL 1358.

On March 16, 2004, the judge in MDL 1358 denied the plaintiffs'
motion to remand the cases to state court. Two plaintiffs have
appealed the denial of the remand to state court to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Appeals Court
denied the defendants' motion for summary affirmance of the
denial of the remand order and the appeal will proceed. In an
April 20, 2005 ruling, the judge refused to dismiss most of the
plaintiffs' causes of action. In doing so, the judge held that
the plaintiffs might be able to prove liability under a
commingled product market share liability theory because the
plaintiffs could not identify the particular defendants which
had manufactured the gasoline that caused the alleged
contamination to drinking water supplies. Defendants have filed
a motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' claims on the
grounds that they are pre-empted by federal law. Resolution of
that motion is not expected this year

The suit is styled "In Re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MTBE")
Products Liability Litigation, case no. 1:00-cv-01898-SAS,"
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.
Representing the defendants is Peter John Sacripanti of
McDermott Will & Emory, 50 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY
10020, Phone: (212) 547-5400.  Representing the plaintiffs is
Morris A. Ratner of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,
L.L.P., 780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
(212) 355-9500.


COOPER TIRE: Recalls 4,080 S/T2 Tires Due to Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 4,080 units
of COOPER / WEATHER-MASTER S/T2 tires due to crash hazard. NHTSA
CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05T018000.

According to the ODI, on certain COOPER TIRE WEATHER-MASTER
S/T2, SIZE 215/65R16, manufactured between February 13 and June
4, 2005, there is improper depth of the stud pin hold. A
properly inserted metal stud pin, overtime, could penetrate into
the carcass and cause a gradual reduction in inflation of the
tire. The loss of air could cause the tire to run under-inflated
and result in early failure. Loss of air might result in loss of
steering control with vehicle crash the potential occurrence.

As remedy, Cooper Tire will notify owners and replace the tires
free of charge.

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


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Arbitrator OKs FL Student Suit Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
An arbitrator ruled in favor of Corinthian Colleges, Inc.'s
motion to compel arbitration in the class action filed against
it in Florida State Court, styled "Travis v. Rhodes Colleges,
Inc., Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and Florida Metropolitan
University."

Similar suits are also pending against the Company, styled:

     (1) Jennifer Baker et al. v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and
         Florida Metropolitan University, Inc.

     (2) Alan Alvarez, et al. v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc.,
         Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and Florida Metropolitan
         University, Inc.

     (3) Satz v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc., Corinthian Colleges,
         Inc. and Florida Metropolitan University.

The Baker complaint names nine plaintiffs while the Alvarez
first amended and supplemental complaint names ninety-nine
plaintiffs. Additionally, the court in the Alvarez case recently
granted the plaintiffs motion to add an additional seven
plaintiffs to the first amended and supplemental complaint.
The named plaintiffs in these lawsuits are current and former
students in the Company's Florida Metropolitan University (FMU)
campuses in Florida and online.  The plaintiffs allege that FMU
concealed the fact that it is not accredited by the Commission
on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
(SACS) and that FMU credits are not transferable to other
institutions.  Plaintiffs seek certification of the lawsuits as
a class action and recovery of compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act for themselves and all similarly situated people.
The Alvarez plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of themselves
under common law and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

The arbitrator in the Satz case found for the Company on all
counts in a July 5, 2005 award on the Company's motion to
dismiss. The arbitrator also found that Mr. Satz breached his
agreement with FMU by filing in court rather than seeking
arbitration and is therefore responsible to pay FMU's damages
associated with compelling the action to arbitration. Mr. Satz
filed a motion for reconsideration, which the arbitrator
recently denied.  The Company has filed motions to compel
arbitration in Baker and Alvarez, and the Travis court recently
compelled that case to arbitration.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Plaintiffs File Amended CA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated securities
class action against Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and certain of
its current and former executive officers, David Moore, Dennis
Beal, Paul St. Pierre and Anthony Digiovanni, in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
after the court dismissed a prior securities suit against the
defendants.

Since July 8, 2004, various putative class action lawsuits were
filed by certain alleged purchasers of the Company's common
stock on behalf of all persons who acquired shares of the
Company's common stock during a specified class period from
August 27, 2003 through either June 23, 2004 or July 30, 2004,
depending on the complaint.

The complaints allege that, in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the SEC, the defendants made certain material
misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain material facts
about the condition of the Company's business and prospects
during the putative class period, causing the respective
plaintiffs to purchase the Company's common stock at
artificially inflated prices.  The plaintiffs further claim that
Messrs. Moore, Beal, St. Pierre and Digiovanni are liable under
Section 20(a) of the Act.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified
amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as other
relief.

On November 5, 2004, a lead plaintiff was chosen and these cases
are now consolidated into one action.  A consolidated and
amended complaint was filed in February 2005.  On September 6,
2005, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, without
prejudice.  On October 3, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a
second consolidated amended complaint.

The consolidated suit is styled "Conway Investment Club v.
Corinthian Colleges Inc et al., case no. 2:04-cv-05025-R-CW,"
filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, under Judge Manuel L. Real.  The
plaintiff firms in the litigation are:

     (1) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (Main office, Philadelphia),
         3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone: 215.963.0600, Fax:
         215.963.0838, E-mail: info@barrack.com

     (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (Los
         Angeles), 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles,
         CA, 90071, Phone: 213.617.9007, Fax: 213.617.9185, E-
         mail: info@lerachlaw.com

     (3) Lim, Ruger & Kim, LLP, 1055 West Seventh Street, Suite
         2800, Los Angeles, CA, 90017, Phone: 213-955-9500, Fax:
         213-955-9511, E-mail: info@lrklawyers.com

     (4) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (Los Angeles), 355
         South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA, 90071,
         Phone: 213.617.9007, Fax: 213.617.9185, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com

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

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


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Medical Student Files Education Code Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. continues to face a putative class
action demand in arbitration entitled "Michelle Sanchez v.
Corinthian Colleges, Inc.," in California Superior Court.

A former diagnostic medical sonography student from the
Company's Bryman College campus in West Los Angeles is alleging
violations of the California education code and of California's
Business and Professions Code Section17200. The Company believes
the demand is without merit and intends to fight these
allegations, the Company said in a regulatory filing.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: CA Court Compels Arbitration in Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court approved Corinthian Colleges,
Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration for the lawsuit filed
against it, styled "Nancy Tsai v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et
al."

Twenty-four current or former medical assisting students from
the Company's National Institute of Technology campus in Long
Beach, California filed the suit, alleging fraud in the
inducement, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of California
Business and Professions Code Section17200, regarding alleged
misrepresentations about the eligibility of such students to
take the Certified Medical Assistant examination. The complaint
does not seek certification as a class action.

The Company has filed demands in arbitration against each of the
individual plaintiffs for breach of their contractual obligation
to arbitrate rather than litigate disputes with the Company and
has prevailed on its motion with the California Superior Court
to compel the plaintiffs to binding arbitration.


COVENTRY HEALTH: High Court Nixes Review of Certification Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court refused to review a lower court
ruling overturning class certification as to plaintiffs' state
law claims in the multi-district litigation (MDL) filed against
Coventry Health Care, Inc. and other health management
organizations in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, Multi-District
Litigation, styled "In re: Managed Care Litigation, MDL No.
1334."

This lawsuit was filed by a group of physicians as a class
action against the company and nine other companies in the
managed care industry. The plaintiffs have alleged violations of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),
conspiracy to violate RICO and aiding and abetting a scheme to
violate RICO. In addition to these federal law claims, the
complaint includes state law claims for breach of contract,
violations of various state prompt payment laws and equitable
claims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit.

The trial court has dismissed several of the state law claims
and ordered that all physicians who have an arbitration
provision in their provider contracts must submit their direct
RICO claims and all of their remaining state law claims to
arbitration. As a consequence of this ruling, all the plaintiffs
who have arbitration provisions voluntarily dismissed all of
their claims that are subject to arbitration. The trial court
however has ordered that the plaintiffs' claims of conspiracy to
violate RICO and aiding and abetting violations of RICO are not
subject to arbitration. The defendants' appeal to the 11th
Circuit challenging the trial court's arbitration decision was
denied.

The trial court has certified various subclasses of plaintiffs.
The defendants filed an appeal of that certification order to
the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals has
overturned the class certification order as to the plaintiffs'
state law claims but affirmed the certification with respect to
the plaintiffs' federal law claims. The U.S. Supreme Court has
denied the defendants' petition to review the 11th Circuit's
class certification decision. Four defendants have entered into
settlement agreements with the plaintiffs which have received
final approval from the trial court. Three other defendants have
recently settled with the plaintiffs and the trial court has
given its preliminary approval of those settlements. Three
defendants remain, including the Company.

This MDL lawsuit has triggered the filing of copycat class
action complaints by other health care providers such as
chiropractors, podiatrists, acupuncturists and other licensed
health care professionals. Each of these actions has been
transferred to the MDL and has been designated as "tag-along"
actions. The court has entered an order that stays all
proceedings in the tag-along actions until all pre-trial
proceedings in the MDL action have been concluded.


ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Court Mulls Suit Certification Denial
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles has
yet to rule on plaintiffs' appeal of the denial of class
certification for the lawsuit filed against Echostar
Communications Corporation, relating to the use of terms such as
"crystal clear digital video," "CD-quality audio," and "on-
screen program guide," and with respect to the number of
channels available in various of its programming packages.

David Pritikin and Consumer Advocates, a nonprofit
unincorporated association, filed the suit in 1999, alleging
breach of express warranty and violation of the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq.,
and the California Business & Professions Code Sections 17500 &
17200.

A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
the Company's motion for summary judgment was held during 2002.
At the hearing, the Court issued a preliminary ruling denying
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  However, before
issuing a final ruling on class certification, the Court granted
the Company's motion for summary judgment with respect to all of
the plaintiffs' claims. Subsequently, the Company filed a motion
for attorneys' fees which was denied by the Court. The
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's granting of
the Company's motion for summary judgment and the Company cross-
appealed the Court's ruling on its motion for attorneys' fees.

During December 2003, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part; and
reversed in part, the lower court's decision granting summary
judgment in the Company's favor.  Specifically, the Court found
there were triable issues of fact whether the Company may have
violated the alleged consumer statutes "with representations
concerning the number of channels and the program schedule."
However, the Court found no triable issue of fact as to whether
the representations "crystal clear digital video" or "CD quality
audio" constituted a cause of action. Moreover, the Court
affirmed that the "reasonable consumer" standard was applicable
to each of the alleged consumer statutes.  Plaintiff argued the
standard should be the "least sophisticated" consumer. The Court
also affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiffs' breach of warranty
claim. Plaintiff filed a Petition for Review with the California
Supreme Court and the Company responded.

During March 2004, the California Supreme Court denied
Plaintiff's Petition for Review. Therefore, the action has been
remanded to the trial court pursuant to the instructions of the
Court of Appeals. Hearings on class certification were conducted
on December 21, 2004 and on February 7, 2005. The Court denied
Plaintiff's motion for class certification on February 10, 2005.
The Plaintiff has appealed this decision.


ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Court Hears Discovery Motions in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Arapahoe County District Court in the State of Colorado is
hearing discovery motions in the consumer class action filed
against Echostar Communications Corporation on behalf of its
satellite hardware retailers.

During October 2000, two separate lawsuits were filed by
retailers in the Arapahoe County District Court in the State of
Colorado and the United States District Court for the District
of Colorado, respectively, by Air Communication & Satellite,
Inc. and John DeJong, et al. on behalf of themselves and a class
of persons similarly situated.  The plaintiffs are attempting to
certify nationwide classes on behalf of certain of the Company's
satellite hardware retailers.  The plaintiffs are requesting the
Courts to declare certain provisions of, and changes to, alleged
agreements between the Company and the retailers invalid and
unenforceable, and to award damages for lost incentives and
payments, charge backs, and other compensation.

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
stayed the Federal Court action to allow the parties to pursue a
comprehensive adjudication of their dispute in the Arapahoe
County State Court.  John DeJong, d/b/a Nexwave, and Joseph
Kelley, d/b/a Keltronics, subsequently intervened in the
Arapahoe County Court action as plaintiffs and proposed class
representatives.

The Company has filed a motion for summary judgment on all
counts and against all plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a motion
for additional time to conduct discovery to enable them to
respond to our motion. The Court granted a limited discovery
period which ended November 15, 2004. The Court is hearing
discovery related motions and has set a briefing schedule for
the motion for summary judgment to begin 30 days after the
ruling on those motions. A trial date has not been set.


GOLD FIELDS: Trial in OK Lead Mills Injury Litigation Postponed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the personal injury litigation filed against Gold
Fields Mining Corporation related to its lead mills operations
in Picher, Oklahoma has been postponed.  Trial was originally
set for November 2005 and January 2006.

The Company and three other companies are defendants in two
class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma, styled "Betty Jean Cole, et al.
v. Asarco Inc., et al." and "Darlene Evans, et al. v. Asarco
Inc., et al."  The plaintiffs have asserted nuisance and
trespass claims predicated on allegations of intentional lead
exposure by the defendants and are seeking compensatory damages
for diminution of property value, punitive damages and the
implementation of medical monitoring and relocation programs for
the affected individuals. A predecessor of the Company formerly
operated two lead mills near Picher, Oklahoma prior to the 1950s
and mined, in accordance with lease agreements and permits,
approximately 1.7% of the total amount of the ore mined in the
county.  The Company has agreed to indemnify one of the other
defendants, which is a former subsidiary of the Company.

The Company is also a defendant, along with other companies, in
five individual lawsuits arising out of the same lead mill
operations. In July 2004, two lawsuits were filed, one in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma and
one in Ottawa County, Oklahoma (subsequently removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma), on behalf
of 48 individuals against Gold Fields and three other companies,
styled "Billy Holder, et al. v. Asarco Inc., et al."  Plaintiffs
in these actions are seeking compensatory and punitive damages
for alleged personal injuries from lead exposure. The trials for
five of the individual plaintiffs was set for November 2005.  A
second trial for seven individuals was initially set for January
2006.


GOLD FIELDS: Continues To Face Quapaw Tribes Trespass Suit in OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gold Fields Mining Corporation continues to face a class action
filed on behalf of the Quapaw Indian tribe and certain Quapaw
owners of interests in land in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Oklahoma.  The suit also names as
defendants five other companies.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages
based on public and private nuisance, trespass, strict
liability, natural resource damage claims under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) and claims under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act.

The Company has denied liability to the plaintiffs, has filed
counterclaims against the plaintiffs seeking indemnification and
contribution and has filed a third-party complaint against the
United States, owners of interests in chat and real property in
the Picher area.

The suit is styled "Cole, et al v. Asarco Incorporated, et al,
case no. 4:03-cv-00327-JOE-PJC," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, under
Judge James O. Ellison.  Representing the plaintiffs are Tammy
R. Dodson, Donnamarie Antoinette Landsberg of Speer Law Firm PA,
104 W 9th St, Ste 305, Kansas City, MO 64105, Phone: 816-472-
3560, Fax: 816-421-2150, E-mail: tdodson@speerlawfirm.com; and
Tony Wayne Edwards, Stipe Law Firm (McAlester), P O BOX 1369,
MCALESTER, OK 74501-1369, Phone: 918-423-0421, Fax: 918-423-
0266, E-mail: twedwards@stipelaw.com.  Representing the Company
are:

     (1) Stacy L. Acord, Robert Joseph Joyce, Archer Scott
         McDaniel, Chris A. Paul, Joyce Paul & McDaniel PC, 1717
         S Boulder, Ste 200, Tulsa, OK 74119, Phone: 918-599-
         0700, Fax: 918-732-5370, E-mail: sacord@jpm-law.com,
         rjoyce@jpm-law.com, Smcdaniel@jpm-law.com,
         cpaul@jpm-law.com;

     (2) Mark Douglas Anstoetter, Stanley D. Davis, John K.
         Sherk, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP (Kansas City), 2555
         GRAND BLVD, KANSAS CITY, MO 64108-2613, Phone: 816-474-
         6550, Fax: 816-421-5547, E-mail: manstoetter@shb.com or
         sddavis@shb.com


HENNESSEE GROUP: Clients Launch Suit Over Bayou Collapse in CT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Disgruntled clients are claiming that hedge fund advisers
Hennessee Group and Met owner Fred Wilpon's SterlingStamos
Capital Management L.P. duped them into investing in the
scandal-scarred Bayou Management hedge fund, The New York Post
reports.

The claims, part of a class action suit filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut, argue
that Hennessee and SterlingStamos solicited capital but failed
to do basic due diligence on Bayou.

The suit concerns the recent collapse of the family of hedge
funds managed by Bayou Management LLC of Stamford, Connecticut.
It lawsuit names as defendants Bayou Super Fund, LLC, Bayou No
Leverage Fund, LLC, Bayou Affiliates Fund, LLC, Bayou Accredited
Fund, LLC, Bayou Offshore Fund, LLC, Bayou Fund, LLC, and other
Bayou-related persons and entities; Bayou's principals, Samuel
Israel, III and Daniel E. Marino; Bayou's banker, Citibank,
N.A.; and hedge fund consultants Hennessee Group LLC, its
principals E. Lee Hennessee and Charles J. Gradante, and
SterlingStamos Capital Management, L.P. The suit was filed on
behalf of persons who, during the Class Period December 31, 1996
through August 25, 2005, invested funds or maintained
investments in the Bayou Hedge Funds, and suffered damages, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 24, 2005) reports.

Plaintiffs allege that the Bayou Hedge Funds have, almost since
their inception in or about 1996, essentially operated as a
massive financial sham and Ponzi scheme in which defendants
Israel, Marino and others fraudulently lured Class member
investors to invest approximately $450 million in the Bayou
Hedge Funds, and then unlawfully pilfered and squandered
hundreds of millions of those investment proceeds. Defendant
Citibank, N.A. is alleged to have facilitated the scheme by
allowing defendant Israel to transfer at least some $120 million
of the Class member fiduciary funds Bayou had under management
to one or more of his own personal bank accounts in Germany and
elsewhere. Defendants Hennessee Group LLC, its managing
principals E. Lee Hennessee and Charles J. Gradante, and
Sterling Stamos Capital Management, L.P. are alleged to have
facilitated the fraud by failing to conduct proper due diligence
of the Bayou Hedge Funds prior to recommending those investments
to investors, and by failing to properly monitor those
investments. Since the time that the truth about the Bayou fraud
began to be revealed beginning August 25, 2005, defendants
Israel and Marino have pleaded guilty to multiple criminal
charges, and the Bayou Hedge Funds have collapsed, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (November 24, 2005) reports.

The suit is styled, "Broad-Bussel Family LP et al v. Bayou Group
LLC et al, Case No. 3:05-cv-01762-JBA," filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut, under
Judge Janet Bond Arterton. Representing the Plaintiff/s is
William M. Bloss of Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, P.C., 350
Fairfield Ave., Bridgeport, CT 06604, Phone: 203-336-4421, Fax:
203-368-3244, E-mail: bbloss@koskoff.com.


IDX SYSTEMS: Shareholders Commence VT Lawsuit Against GE Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
IDX Systems Corporation, its Board and certain of its officers
face a shareholder class action lawsuit filed on October 24,
2005 in Vermont Superior Court entitled "Stanley v. IDX Systems
Corporation, et al. (case no. 1192-05-CnC)."

The lawsuit challenges the price of and the process leading to
the Company's announced merger with General Electric Company
(GE) and a wholly owned subsidiary of GE.  The complaint seeks
to enjoin the consummation of the proposed merger with GE, as
well as compensatory damages, among other relief. The
defendants' answer to the complaint is due on November 17, 2005.


INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Expects Consolidation of NC Fraud Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. expects the class actions filed
against it in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, alleging violations of federal
securities laws, to be consolidated.

Mirco Investors, LLC filed the first suit in February 2005 on
behalf of itself and all other similarly situated investors
against the Company and certain of its senior officers. The
complaint alleges violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5, and focuses on statements that are
claimed to be false and misleading regarding a Phase 3 clinical
trial of the Company's dry eye product candidate, diquafosol
tetrasodium. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of Company securities during
the period from June 2, 2004 through February 8, 2005.

Four additional proposed stockholder class actions have been
filed in the same court, making substantially the same
allegations against the same parties as defendants and seeking
certifications of the same class of purchasers.  It is possible
that additional complaints may be filed in the future.  The
Company expects that these individual lawsuits will be
consolidated into a single civil action, the Company stated in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


JAKKS PACIFIC: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jakks Pacific, Inc. faces a consolidated securities class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleging violations of federal securities
laws.

Several suits were initially filed against the Company, namely:

     (1) Garcia v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action No.
         04-8807 (filed on November 5, 2004),

     (2) Jonco Investors, LLC v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al.,
         Civil Action No. 04-9021 (filed on November 16, 2004),

     (3) Kahn v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action No.
         04-8910 (filed on November 10, 2004),

     (4) Quantum Equities L.L.C. v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al.,
         Civil Action No. 04-8877 (filed on November 9, 2004),
         and

     (5) Irvine v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action
         No. 04-9078 (filed on November 16, 2004)

The complaints allege that defendants issued positive statements
concerning increasing sales of its World Wrestling Entertainment
(WWE) licensed products which were false and misleading because
the WWE licenses had allegedly been obtained through a pattern
of commercial bribery, its relationship with the WWE was being
negatively impacted by the WWE's contentions and there was an
increased risk that the WWE would either seek modification or
nullification of the licensing agreements with the Company.
Plaintiffs also allege that the Company misleadingly failed to
disclose the alleged fact that the WWE licenses were obtained
through an unlawful bribery scheme.

The plaintiffs are purchasers of the Company's common stock, who
purchased from as early as October 26, 1999 to as late as
October 19, 2004.  The suits seek compensatory and other damages
in an undisclosed amount, alleging violations of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by each of the defendants (namely the
Company and Messrs. Friedman, Berman and Bennett), and
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by Messrs.
Friedman, Berman and Bennett.  On January 25, 2005, the Court
consolidated the Class Actions under the caption "In re JAKKS
Pacific, Inc. Shareholders Class Action Litigation, Civil Action
No. 04-8807."

The suit is styled "In re JAKKS Pacific, Inc. Shareholders Class
Action Litigation, Civil Action No. 04-8807," filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, under Judge Kenneth M. Karas.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

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

     (2) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., Esquire at 261
         Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046 Phone:
         215.886.1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net

     (3) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., 261 Old York
         Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046 Phone:
         215.886.1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net

     (4) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         (Melville) 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY,
         11747 Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com

     (5) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119
         Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com

     (6) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr,
         New York, NY, 10016 Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com

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

     (8) Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY,
         10022-6689 Ave Phone: 877.370.7703, Fax: 212.486.2093,
         E-mail: IRRep@wolfpopper.com

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


JIM RAY NISSAN: Car Dealership Faces Consumer Fraud Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two Fort Smith, Arkansas attorneys initiated a lawsuit against
the Jim Ray Nissan car dealership, accusing it of misleading
customers, TheHometownChannel.com reports.

According to the attorneys, 40 people joined the class action
claim, alleging that they were victimized by the car dealership.
Lawyers said that employees at the dealership lied to customers
in order to get them to purchase cars.

Officials at Jim Ray Nissan though told TheHometownChannel.com
that the suit is an attack on the dealership's reputation. A
spokesman with the dealership specifically told
TheHometownChannel.com, "It's unfortunate that a lawyer, who has
filed his own personal lawsuit against the dealership, has found
a few dissatisfied customers to impugn Jim Ray Nissan's
reputation."


KMART CORPORATION: Workers, Retirees to Share $11.75M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 150,000 employees and retirees of the former Kmart
Corporation would share $11.75 million in a proposed settlement
of a lawsuit against ex-company officials over the investment of
pension funds in Kmart's now-worthless stock, The Associated
Press reports.

The deal involves those who participated in Kmart pensions from
March 15, 1999, to March 6, 2003. According to court documents,
the people involved lost between $28 million and $300 million.

In recently filed court papers, Glen Connor, a Birmingham,
Alabama attorney for one retiree who filed a class action
lawsuit said, "The settlement is fair, reasonable and in the
best interest of the class and should, therefore, be approved."
The papers are specifically asking Detroit U.S. District Judge
Avern Cohn to approve the deal.

Mr. Connor's client, Quincie Rankin, is a former employee of
Kmart in Fairfield, Alabama. His client filed the suit against
ex-Kmart Chief Executive Charles Conaway and other former
executives and board members in March 2002. The suit alleges
that the company officials invested Kmart pension money in Kmart
stock after the company filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
protection on January 22, 2002. Furthermore, it alleges that the
officials failed to exercise proper care for the pension money.

The settlement would be paid from proceeds of a $25 million
insurance policy from National Union Fire Insurance Co.,
according to the Detroit Free Press.

Kmart emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2003 as
Kmart Holding Corporation. In March, the Troy-based company
combined with Sears, Roebuck and Co. to form Sears Holdings. The
new company is based in Hoffman Estates, Illinois.

The suit is styled, "Rankin v. Rots, et al, Case No. 2:02-cv-
71045-AC," filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, under Judge Avern Cohn.
Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Glen M. Connor of Whatley Drake, P.O. Box 10647,
         Birmingham, AL 35202-0647, Phone: 205-328-9576, E-mail:
         gconnor@whatleydrake.com;

     (2) Donald R. Bachand, III of Garratt & Bachand, 74 W. Long
         Lake Road, Suite 200, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304,
         Phone: 248-645-1450, Fax: 248-645-1450;

     (3) Mary Ellen Gurewitz and I. Mark Steckloff of Sachs
         Waldman (Detroit), 1000 Farmer St., Detroit, MI 48226,
         Phone: 313-965-3463 and 313-965-3464, Fax: 313-965-
         0268; and

     (4) Cara J. Heflin of Howard & Howard (Ann Arbor), 101 N.
         Main St., Suite 430, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1475, Phone:
         734-222-1097, E-mail: CHeflin@Howardandhoward.com.

Representing the Defendant/s are:

     (i) Mark B. Blocker, Walter C. Carlson, Erin E. Kelly and
         Scott R. Lassar of Sidley, Austin, 10 S. Dearborn St.,
         Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: 312-853-7000, Fax: 312-853-
         7734;

    (ii) Daniel P. Colling of Miller, Canfield, (Detroit), 150
         W. Jefferson Ave., Suite 2500, Detroit, MI 48226-4415,
         Phone: 313-496-7646, E-mail:
         colling@millercanfield.com;

   (iii) Walter B. Connolly, Jr. of Connolly, Rodgers, 615
         Griswold, Suite 700, Detroit, MI 48226, Phone: 313-963-
         8255, E-mail: connollylaw@hotmail.com;

    (iv) Lisa B. Deutsch, Seth C. Farber and Robert C. Myers of
         Dewey Ballantine, 1301 Avenue of the Americas, New
         York, NY 10019-6092, Phone: 212-259-8000, Fax: 212-259-
         6763;

     (v) Robert N. Eccles of O'Melveny & Myers, 555 13th St.,
         N.W. Suite 500 W. Washington, DC 20004-1109, Phone:
         202-383-5363, Fax:  202-383-5363; and

    (vi) Todd R. Mendel and Sharon M. Woods of Barris Sott, 211
         W. Fort St., Suite 1500, Detroit, MI 48226-3281, Phone:
         313-965-9725, E-mail: tmendel@bsdd.com and
         swoods@bsdd.com.


LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Suit in OR
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lattice Semiconductor Corporation, its Chief Executive Officer
Cyrus Y. Tsui, and its President Stephen A. Skaggs continue to
face a consolidated amended securities class action filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Oregon.

Several complaints were filed on behalf of a putative class of
investors who purchased the Company's stock between April 22,
2003 and April 19, 2004.  They generally allege violations of
federal securities laws arising out of the Company's previously
announced restatement of financial results for the first,
second, and third quarters of 2003.

Consistent with the usual procedures for cases of this kind,
these cases were amended and consolidated into a single action.
In the amended and consolidated complaint filed January 27,
2005, the Company's former President and its former Controller
were added as defendants.

In September and October 2004, two shareholder derivative
complaints were filed, purportedly on behalf of the Company, in
the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of
Washington, against all of its current directors, certain former
directors, and certain executive officers.  The derivative
plaintiffs make allegations substantially similar to those in
the putative class action complaints, as well as allegations of
breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement,
waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment.

The suit is styled "Autumn Partners, LLC v. Lattice
Semiconductor Corporation et al., case no. 6:04-cv-01255-AA,"
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Oregon, under Judge Ann L. Aiken.  Representing the plaintiffs
are Tamara J. Driscoll, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins, LLP 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2260, Seattle, WA 98101,
Phone: (206) 749-5544, Fax: (206) 749-9978, E-mail:
tdriscoll@lerachlaw.com; and Dennis J. Herman, William S.
Lerach, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLC, 100
Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone:
(415) 288-4545, Fax: (415) 288-4534, E-mail:
dennish@lerachlaw.com.  Representing the Company is Lois O.
Rosenbaum, Timothy W. Snyder, Stoel Rives, LLP, 900 S.W. Fifth
Avenue, Suite 2600, Portland, OR 97204, Phone: (503) 294-9293,
Fax: (503) 294-9113, E-mail: lorosenbaum@stoel.com or
twsnider@stoel.com.


MACATAWA BANK: Suits V. Trade Partners Viaticals Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Macatawa Bank Corporation continues to face several class
actions related to its acquisition of Trade Partners, Inc. of
the former Grand Bank, which is involved in purchasing and
selling interests in viaticals which are interests in life
insurance policies of the terminally ill or elderly.

A lawsuit was filed in April 2003 by John and Kathryn Brand in
Oklahoma state court against Grand Bank, the Company, Trade
Partners and certain individuals and entities associated with
Trade Partners. The complaint seeks damages for the asserted
breach of certain escrow agreements for which Grand Bank served
as custodian and escrow agent. The Company and Grand Bank have
answered this complaint, denying the material allegations and
raising certain affirmative defenses.  The trial court had
entered an order in February 2005 staying this case, but the
stay order was reversed on appeal in May 2005. No trial date has
yet been set.

In May 2003, a purported class action complaint was filed by
Forrest W. Jenkins and Russell S. Vail against the Company and
against LaSalle Bank Corporation in the United States District
Court for the District of Western Michigan. The purported class
included investors who invested in limited liability companies
formed by Trade Partners. On November 6, 2003, the court
permitted the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to expand the
purported class to include all individuals who invested in Trade
Partners viatical investments.  The class has not been
certified. The court had stayed this action to avoid
interference with the process of the receivership proceedings,
but the stay was lifted in July 2005.  The plaintiffs allege
that Grand Bank breached certain escrow agreements, breached its
fiduciary duties, acted negligently or grossly negligently with
respect to the plaintiff's investments and violated the Michigan
Uniform Securities Act. The amended complaint seeks
certification of the action as a class action, unspecified
damages and other relief.

In late July 2005 counsel to the Trade Partners Receiver filed
another purported class action on behalf of Kelly Priest and
certain trusts controlled by Gary Towle and his wife, making
substantially the same allegations as in the Jenkins complaint
but on behalf of a class which is asserted to comprise all
investors who are holders of allowed claims in the Trade
Partners receivership.


NEW YORK: Lady Sues State, Counties For Denied Medicaid Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
A severely disabled 55-year-old woman alleges in a federal
lawsuit that the State of New York and some counties violated
her civil rights by threatening to cut off her Medicaid benefits
and putting her day-to-day care in jeopardy simply because she
moved from Nassau to Suffolk, The Newsday.com reports.

Represented by attorney Peter Vollmer of Jericho, Mary Luberto
the lead plaintiff in the class action suit, suffered a brain
aneurysm in 2002. After emerging from a two-month-long coma she
had to learn to walk, talk and swallow again. Ms. Luberto, a
former legal secretary, is also battling breast cancer. Without
continuous coverage, she risks losing the funding for the 24-
hour aides who feed and bathe her, as well as for medications
for cancer treatment.

According to the complaint's supporting documents, while
recuperating at her sister's Nassau home in 2003 and with her
private insurance and personal savings dwindling, she applied
for the federal health insurance plan for the poor and waited
four months for it to take effect. In October, she moved to
Suffolk to live near another sister, but Nassau social service
officials told her that her health insurance would be terminated
the next day and that she would have to reapply for the same
benefits in Suffolk. She has difficulty walking and reapplying
would require an in-person interview, more paperwork and a
waiting period. Initially, Suffolk also did not allow the case
transfer and encouraged her to reapply.

Filed in Central Islip, the suit is believed to be among the
first of its kind in New York. If successful, according to
experts, it could have far-reaching effects for thousands of
Medicaid recipients across the state. The lawsuit names New
York's Department of Health and Office of Temporary and
Disability Assistance as well as Nassau and Suffolk's
departments of social services.

The suit comes as delays in the processing of Medicaid
applications are saturating both counties. According to county
officials, there are about 7,000 new applicants a month island
wide with a wait time ranging from one to two months. The
federal government has ordered that in-state moves by recipients
be "seamless," according to a federal directive issued to the
state in 2001. In a 2002 letter by the federal Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees Medicaid, state
health officials were told a state cannot "require persons to
reapply ... solely based on a move to a new county."

The state never implemented the plan to allow files to be
transferred, according to Mr. Vollmer of Jericho and officials
familiar with the case.

The bureaucratic maze has frustrated Ms. Luberto's family. Ms.
Luberto's sister Fran Talia of Merrick told Newsday.com, "How
can you do that to someone who needs the help who can't do it on
her own? She doesn't have capability to apply on her own. She
couldn't do it the first time." Ms. Luberto's other sister,
Glenda Buther of Islip, told Newsday.com that she hopes her
sister's case will help others facing bureaucratic hurdles. She
said, "If she could be an example to help other people, that's a
great thing. There are a lot of people out there who need help
and need something to be done."

Mr. Vollmer agreed saying, "We would see this all the time." He
also told Newsday.com, "The fact they cross county line
shouldn't be a basis for terminating Medicaid."

The suit is styled, "Luberto v. Novello, et al., Case No. 2:05-
cv-05421-LDW-JO," filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, under Judge Leonard D. Wexler
with referral to Judge James Orenstein. Representing the
Plaintiff/s is Peter Vollmer of Vollmer & Tanck, 350 Jericho
Turnpike, Suite 206, Jericho, NY 11753, Phone: 516-870-0335,
Fax: 516-938-9367, E-mail: pvollmer96@aol.com.


PIONEER NATURAL: KS Court Yet To Rule in Royalty Owners Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 26th Judicial District Court of Stevens County, Kansas has
yet to enter a judgment in the class action filed against
Pioneer Natural Resources Company by two classes of royalty
owners, one for each of its gathering systems connected to its
Satanta gas plant.

The case was relatively inactive for several years.  In early
2000, the plaintiffs amended their pleadings and it now contains
two material claims.  First, the plaintiffs assert that they
were improperly charged expenses (primarily field compression),
which are a "cost of production," and for which the plaintiffs,
as royalty owners, are not responsible.  Second, the plaintiffs
claim they are entitled to 100 percent of the value of the
helium extracted at PNR's Satanta gas plant.

If the plaintiffs were to prevail on the above two claims in
their entirety, it is possible that PNR's liability (both for
periods covered by the lawsuit and from the last date covered by
the lawsuit to the present because the deductions continue to be
taken and the plaintiffs continue to be paid for a royalty share
of the helium) could reach $67.0 million, plus prejudgment
interest, the Company stated in a regulatory filing.  However,
PNR believes it has valid defenses to the plaintiffs' claims,
has paid the plaintiffs properly under their respective oil and
gas leases and other agreements, and intends to vigorously
defend itself.

The factual evidence in the case was presented to the 26th
Judicial District Court without a jury in December 2001. Oral
arguments were heard by the court in April 2002, and although
the court has not yet entered a judgment or findings, it could
do so at any time.


PORTER-CABLE: Recalls 196T Circular Saws Due to Injury Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Porter-Cable, of Jackson, Tennessee is voluntarily
recalling about 196,000 units of Porter-Cabler 7-inch MAG-SawT
Circular Saws.

According to the company, the lower guard on these saws could
stick in the open position, posing a risk of severe lacerations
to consumers.

The recall involves Porter-Cabler 7-inch MAG-SawT Circular Saws
with model numbers 324MAG (serial numbers 10001through 108962),
325MAG (serial numbers 10001through 014712), 423MAG (serial
numbers 10001through 100371), and 424MAG (serial numbers
10001through 012690). The model and serial numbers are located
on a label on the top of the saws. Units marked with a "T" at
the location shown below have been inspected and are not
affected by this recall. "Porter-Cabler" is written on the side
of these saws.

Manufactured in the United States, the saws were sold at all
major home center and hardware stores nationwide from March 2004
through November 2005 for between $130 and $160, depending on
the model.

Remedy: Consumers should stop using the circular saws
immediately and contact Porter-Cable for the location of the
nearest service center to receive a free inspection and repair,
if necessary.

Consumer Contact: Call Porter-Cable toll-free at (800) 949-7930
between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the
Porter-Cable Web site: http://www.porter-cable.com.


RADIAN GUARANTY: PA Court Grants Consumer Suit Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted Radian Guaranty Inc.'s motion for summary
judgment in the class action filed against it on behalf of a
nationwide class of consumers who allegedly were required to pay
for private mortgage insurance provided by the Company and whose
loans allegedly were insured at more than the Company's "best
available rate," based upon credit information obtained by the
Company.,

Whitney Whitfield and Celeste Whitfield filed the suit in
January 2004, alleging that the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
requires a notice to borrowers of such "adverse action" and that
the Company violated FCRA by failing to give such notice. The
action sought statutory damages, actual damages, or both, for
the people in the class, and attorneys' fees, as well as
declaratory and injunctive relief. The action also alleged that
the failure to give notice to borrowers in the circumstances
alleged is a violation of state law applicable to sales
practices and sought declaratory and injunctive relief for this
alleged violation.

On September 6, 2005, the federal district court heard oral
arguments on the Company's motion for summary judgment, and on
October 21, 2005, the court granted the motion.  The court held
that mortgage insurance transactions between mortgage lenders
and mortgage insurers are not consumer credit actions and are
not subject to the notice requirements of FCRA. This ruling may,
and likely will, be appealed.

The suit is styled, "Whitfield et al v. Radian Guaranty, Inc.,
Case No. 2:04-cv-00111-JS," filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under Judge juan
R. Sanchez. Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Douglas Bowdin of Douglas Bowdin, PA, Suite 800 Citrus
         Center, 255 S. Orange Ave., Orlando, FL 32801, Phone:
         407-422-0025, E-mail: dbowdoin@bowdoinlaw.com;

     (2) Joseph C. Kohn of Kohn Swift & Graf, PC, One South
         Broad St., Ste. 2100, Philadelphia, PA 19107, Phone:
         215-238-1700, Fax: 215-238-1968; and

     (3) W. Christian Hoyer, Kathleen Clark Knight and Terry A.
         Smiljanich of James Hoyer Newcomer & Smiljanich, PA,
         4830 W. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 550, Tampa, FL 33609,
         Phone: 813-286-4100, E-mail: kknight@jameshoyer.com and
         tsmiljanich@jameshoyer.com.

Representing the Defendants are: Dionna K. Litvin and David
Smith of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP, 1600 Market St.,
Ste. 3600, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-751-2190, Fax:
215-972-7409, E-mail: dlitvin@schnader.com and
dsmith@schnader.com.

For more details, contact Mona Zeehandelaar of Radian Guaranty
Inc., Phone: +1-215-231-1674, E-mail:
mona.zeehandelaar@radian.biz, Web site: http://www.radian.bizor
Radian Corporate Communications, Phone: +1-888-NEWS-520, E-mail:
media@radian.biz.


SONY BMG: Finkelstein Thompson Files DC Suit Over DRM Software
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran filed a lawsuit
against Sony BMG Entertainment, LLC ("Sony") in connection with
its use of so-called Digital Rights Management software on their
music CDs. This suit was filed by a resident of the District of
Columbia on behalf of the general public of the District.

Sony has encoded over 24 million CDs, sold worldwide, with
"spyware" programs that act as copyright protection software.
The software programs include MediaMax, created by SunnComm
Technologies, and Extended Copy Protection ("XCP"), created by
First4Internet. Through its use of these technologies on CDs,
Sony has created an anti-burning scheme that permanently and
irreversibly alters the core Windows operating system. These
alterations to a computer can later be used by "hackers" -- or
Sony itself -- to take control of the user's computer without
the user's knowledge or consent. While Sony has consistently
stated that the software will not be used to collect personal
information, the software is also used to transmit data about
users to Sony through the Internet, thereby allowing Sony to
track users' listening habits.

The lawsuit was filed in the District of Columbia Superior Court
under a provision in the District of Columbia's Consumer
Protection and Procedures Act that allows a resident to act as a
"private attorney general" and to seek relief on behalf of the
general public. The suit alleges that Sony deceptively installed
software on users' computers, compromised the security of users'
computers and that Sony's purported attempts to curb the damage
caused by its spyware programs have created even greater
security risks for Sony's consumers.

By surreptitiously encoding its CDs with XCP and MediaMax
software for the purported purpose of securing its intellectual
property, Sony has endangered the security of personal
information for computer users throughout the District of
Columbia. To date, nearly 5 million copies of the XCP encoded
CDs, and nearly 20 million of the MediaMax encoded CDs, have
been sold. District of Columbia residents have played these
disks on their personal computers and thus have had their
systems unwittingly compromised. To date, several viruses have
been reported that exploit the weakness that was created by the
surreptitious installation of the spyware on their computers.
Consumers are at risk from these and future viruses that will
destroy software and steal personal information.

Sony initially stated that it planned to have all major new
releases encoded with Digital Rights Management software and
copy protected in 2006. Due to the current public backlash, and
news of the virus piggy-backing on the XCP technology embedded
by their CDs, Sony has since opted to "halt" or "suspend" the
production of new CDs bearing the XCP technology. Nevertheless,
Sony has refused to widely publicize its recall program to reach
millions of XCP-infected customers, has failed to recall the
MediaMax-infected CDs, has failed to compensate users whose
computers were affected and has not eliminated the outrageous
terms found in its End User Licensing Agreement (EULA). Sony is
also facing at least six class action lawsuits nationwide and an
action by the Texas Attorney General.

For more details, contact Karen J. Marcus of Finkelstein,
Thompson & Loughran, Phone: +1-202-337-8000.


STATE FARM: Attorney in Gridley Case Expected Dismissal Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney John Aldock of Washington, who argued for dismissal of
a Madison County class action suit against State Farm Insurance
on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, says he expected the
court's decision to dismiss the suit, The Madison County Record
reports.

Mr. Aldock told The Madison County Record in an interview on the
Court's November 17 decision in Gridley vs. State Farm, "I
thought that the Illinois Supreme Court would get it right."
Three years ago, Mr. Aldock wrote a brief in which the Chamber,
as a friend of the court, argued that Madison County judges had
harmed the state by allowing residents of other states to sue in
their courts.

Louisiana resident Christopher Gridley sued State Farm in
Madison County in 2000. State Farm moved for transfer to
Louisiana, and Circuit Judge Phillip Kardis denied the motion.
Later, State Farm took the case to the Supreme Court, which
ruled in State Farm's favor.

The Illinois Supreme Court actually dismissed the suit, which
involves automobile titles, that was being heard in the state.
In it's ruling the court stated that there was no legitimate
reason to hash out a Louisiana dispute in an Edwardsville
courtroom. The ruling was hailed by business groups as a major
victory against "venue shopping," the practice of filing
national class action suits in targeted jurisdictions like
Madison County. It was described as a jab at the county's court
system, which has a national reputation for being friendly to
plaintiffs, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 21,
2005) reports.

According to court records, Mr. Gridley bought a 1998 Volvo S70
from a Louisiana auction in November 1999. The title did not
reveal that the car had been involved in an accident months
earlier. Mr. Gridley sued State Farm, which had allegedly
obtained a "clean title" that obscured the car's damage history,
an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 21, 2005)
reports.

Even though Mr. Gridley is a Louisiana resident and the alleged
fraud happened in Louisiana, the suit was filed in Madison
County, Illinois. The intent was to have it certified as a
national class action suit, with at least one Illinois resident
to be included among the "class" - that is, the group of people
allegedly harmed by State Farm's business practices, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (November 21, 2005) reports.

State Farm argued that there was no legitimate reason to file
the case in Madison County, and that it should be heard in
either Louisiana or in Bloomington, Illinois, where the company
is based. However, a Madison County court denied that motion and
allowed the case could stay in Edwardsville. The Supreme Court's
recent ruling though overturns the circuit court decision and at
the same time expels the case from the Illinois civil court
system, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 21,
2005) reports.

Illinois law does allow class action suits to be filed in
jurisdictions with only minor connections to the case, a
controversial standard that some in the Legislature are trying
to change. However, in a 14-page decision without dissent, the
state's high court ruled that the Mr. Gridley suit didn't even
meet that standard. In an opinion by Justice Robert Thomas, the
court ruled, "We find that the circuit court abused its
discretion in denying State Farm's motion" to move the case out
of Madison County. Judge Thomas further wrote, "Louisiana has an
interest in deciding this matter locally. In contrast, Illinois
courts have an interest in not being burdened with applying
foreign law in the absence of strong policy reasons and a strong
connection to the case," an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(November 21, 2005) reports.

John Hoffman of the Belleville law firm Korein Tillery, who is
representing Mr. Gridley, defended the concept of filing suits
in venues perceived as friendly. He pointed out, "I don't like
the term 'venue shopping' . . . but as an attorney, part of my
job is to file (cases) in a forum that I believe increases my
client's chances for victory." Mr. Hoffman noted that the
alternative courts suggested by State Farm included Bloomington,
the company's national corporate headquarters. "If you ask me,
that's '(venue) shopping'," Mr. Hoffman says of the suggested
alternative, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November
21, 2005) reports.

The Supreme Court's ruling in effect throws the case out of
Illinois, leaving plaintiffs with the option of filing in
Louisiana, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 21,
2005) reports.

According to Mr. Aldock, "We thought that when the Supreme Court
looked at what was going on in the lower courts, they would not
be happy and they would take action." He told The Madison County
Record, "The case was sitting there for years. It may have sat
there longer than any case ever. Who knows?"

In that long ago brief, Mr. Aldock declared that the Chamber
"believes that the courts of Madison County, Illinois, are
allowing this state's judicial process to be abused by out-of-
state claimants, resulting in a litigation industry that is
damaging this state's reputation and business climate." He also
wrote in brief that neither the circuit court of Madison County
nor the Fifth District Appellate Court treated the doctrine of
forum non-conveniens seriously.

In addition, Mr. Aldock described Madison County as "an
exceptionally pro-plaintiff forum, which offers substantially
better chances of success and higher verdicts than litigation in
a plaintiff's home forum." He called it "a place where frivolous
lawsuits, aided by receptive trial and intermediate appellate
courts, result in a massive transfer of wealth largely unrelated
to the merit of the underlying claims."

In an argument that the Supreme Court would adopt almost word
for word, Mr. Aldock wrote that Mr. Gridley was a resident of
Louisiana, alleging a wrong in Louisiana over a car he
registered in Louisiana, with witnesses and evidence almost
entirely in Louisiana.

Mr. Aldock's brief also criticized a Fifth District order
remanding the case to Judge Kardis for further discovery,
calling it abusive. Mr. Aldock, who practices at Goodwin
Procter, the firm, which continues to represent the Chamber of
Commerce, specifically wrote, "The irony of this result is
arresting: the very need for extensive discovery in order to
determine whether there is any thread, however, gossamer,
between the lawsuit and the State of Illinois is itself powerful
evidence that the forum is not convenient, and that the lawsuit
belongs in Louisiana."


UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Shareholder File Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Universal American Financial Corporation (NASDAQ: UHCO) faces a
purported class action entitled Robert Kemp vs. Universal
American Financial Corporation, Richard A. Barasch, Robert A.
Waegelein and Gary W. Bryant was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No.
05 CV 9883). The complaint alleges violations of securities laws
in connection with, among other things, statements made by
Universal American regarding its Medicare Supplement loss ratio.
The complaint seeks damages in an amount to be determined.

In a press release, Universal American stated that it reviewed
the allegations contained in the complaint and believes that
they are without merit. Universal American intends to do all it
can to fight the complaint, but also noted that several
additional law firms have announced the commencement of actions
on behalf of shareholders that are believed to be similar in
substance.

The suit is styled, "Kemp v. Universal American Financial
Corporation et al, Case No. 1:05-cv-09883-JFK," filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York under Judge John F. Keenan. Representing the Plaintiff are,
Steven G. Schulman and Peter Edward Seidman of Milberg Weiss
Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY
10119, Phone: 212-946-9356 and (212) 613-5625, Fax: 212-273-4406
and (212) 868-1229, E-mail: sschulman@milbergweiss.com and
pseidman@milberg.com.


UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI: Rowing Team Files Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The women's rowing team of the University of Cincinnati filed a
lawsuit seeking class action status in U.S. District Court
against their alma mater claiming that the team's Title IX
Gender Equity rights were violated.

The Education Amendments of 1972, which Title IX is a part of,
prohibits gender discrimination in educational programs that
receive federal assistance. Filed on behalf of 12 team members,
the suit accuses the university of denying the team equal
opportunity in the provision of facilities, supplies, equipment,
coaching and scholarships. Robert Newman, the attorney
representing the team told The Cincinnati Post, "The University
treats the rowing team like a bunch of orphans."

The suit alleges that despite a $1 million grant donated by a UC
board member in 2000 - the year the women's rowing team was
recognized as a varsity sport - the team of about 65 women uses
a trailer with no plumbing, electricity or restrooms on Panama
Street in the Cincinnati neighborhood of California to store its
equipment. The team's vessels are protected only by a chain link
fence, which has allowed vandals to drill holes in three of the
hulls, according to Mr. Newman.

Meanwhile, according to the suit, the university has spent $11
million for a men's baseball stadium and several million dollars
to renovate the men's football stadium. Mr. Newman told The
Cincinnati Post, "It's like night and day."

University spokesman Greg Hand referred all questions about the
suit to the school's attorney, Mitchell McCrate. Despite the
referral, Mr. McCrate told The Cincinnati Post, "Essentially we
think we have done nothing wrong. The attorney had spoken to me
about the boathouse. The other claims are totally new. We are
continuing our efforts to find a spot for this (a new
boathouse). You understand this is not building a location on
campus. We have to acquire the property."

On the scholarship issues and allegations of unfair spending on
facilities, Mr. McCrate told The Cincinnati Post, "I just saw
these allegations, so I am not in a place to respond. In terms
of title IX (of the 1972 Education Amendment, the federal law
that prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs that
receive federal assistance), we are in good shape as far as
scholarships."

In addition to what they say are unequal facilities, the team
members say that they have had no certified trainer to attend
away events or conditioning and practice, a violation of NCAA
regulations and athletic department policy.

Additionally, the suit also alleges that from an athlete-to-
coach ratio, no team has as low a ratio as the women's rowing
team. And in terms of scholarships, UC spent nearly $2.9 million
on men's sports and just over $1.9 million for women's sports in
the 2003-2004 academic year, according to the suit.

The percentage of available scholarships for women is 40 percent
and 60 percent for men, the suit says, while the student body is
made up of 48.3 percent women and 51.7 percent men. The suit
contends, "The denial of facilities, equipment, and proper
coaching staff by the University of Cincinnati has rendered the
rowing team less competitive on the water and has disabled the
team in recruiting competitive rowers to come to the University
of Cincinnati."

Aside from asking Cincinnati-based U.S. District Court Judge
Michael H. Watson, who will preside over the case, to grant
class action status on behalf of all members of the rowing team,
the suit is also seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

The suit is styled, "Jessica et al v. University Of Cincinnati,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00764-MHW, filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, under Judge Michael H.
Watson. Representing the Plaintiff/s is Robert Brand Newman of
Newman & Meeks Co. LPA, 617 Vine St., Suite 1401, Cincinnati, OH
45202, Phone: 513/639-7000, E-mail:
robertnewman@newman-meeks.com.


VIGNETTE CORPORATION: Final Fairness Hearing Set April 25,2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
The final fairness hearing for the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Vignette
Corporation and certain of its current and former officers and
directors is set for April 25,2006 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

On October 26, 2001, a class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors, styled "Leon Leybovich v. Vignette Corporation, et
al.," seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class
that purchased the Company's common stock between February 18,
1999 and December 6, 2000.  Also named as defendants were four
underwriters involved in the Company's initial public offering
of Vignette stock in February 1999 and the Company's secondary
public offering of Vignette stock in December 1999:

     (1) Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Inc.,

     (2) Hambrecht & Quist, LLC,

     (3) Dain Rauscher Wessels and

     (4) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc.

A Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now the operative
complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002. The complaint alleges
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on, among other
things, claims that the four underwriters awarded material
portions of the shares in the Company's initial and secondary
public offerings to certain customers in exchange for excessive
commissions. The plaintiff also asserts that the underwriters
engaged in "tie-in arrangements" whereby certain customers were
allocated shares of Company stock sold in its initial and
secondary public offerings in exchange for an agreement to
purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined
prices.

With respect to the Company, the complaint alleges that the
Company and its officers and directors failed to disclose the
existence of these purported excessive commissions and tie-in
arrangements in the prospectus and registration statement for
the Company's initial public offering and the prospectus and
registration statement for the Company's secondary public
offering.  The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies. On
October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed the Individual Defendants
from the case without prejudice based upon Stipulations of
Dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and the Individual Defendants.
On February 19, 2003, the Court denied a motion to dismiss the
complaint against the Company. On October 13, 2004, the Court
certified a class in six of the other nearly identical actions
and noted that the decision is intended to provide strong
guidance to all parties regarding class certification in the
remaining cases.  Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a
class in the Company's case.

The Company has approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements which set forth the terms of a settlement between the
Company, the Individual Defendants, the plaintiff class and the
vast majority of the other issuer defendants.  Among other
provisions, the settlement provides for a release of the Company
and the Individual Defendants for the conduct alleged in the
action to be wrongful. The Company would agree to undertake
certain responsibilities, including agreeing to assign away, not
assert, or release certain potential claims the Company may have
against its underwriters. The settlement agreement also provides
a guaranteed recovery of $1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases
relating to all of the approximately 300 issuers. To the extent
that the underwriter defendants settle all of the cases for at
least $1 billion, no payment will be required under the issuers'
settlement agreement. To the extent that the underwriter
defendants settle for less than $1 billion, the issuers are
required to make up the difference. It is anticipated that any
potential financial obligation of the Company to plaintiffs
pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement and related
agreements will be covered by existing insurance. The Company
currently is not aware of any material limitations on the
expected recovery of any potential financial obligation to
plaintiffs from its insurance carriers.  Its carriers are
solvent, and the company is not aware of any uncertainties as to
the legal sufficiency of an insurance claim with respect to any
recovery by plaintiffs.

Therefore, the Company does not expect that the settlement will
involve any payment by the Company. Even if material limitations
on the expected recovery of any potential financial obligation
to the plaintiffs from the Company's insurance carriers should
arise, the Company's maximum financial obligation to plaintiffs
pursuant to the settlement agreement is less than $3.4 million.
The settlement agreement has been submitted to the Court for
approval. Approval by the Court cannot be assured.

On February 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion. Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that
the issuer defendants and the plaintiffs must submit a revised
settlement agreement which provides for a mutual bar of all
contribution claims by the settling and non-settling parties and
does not bar the parties from pursuing other claims.  In August
2005, the court affirmed its order approving the settlement and
set final fairness hearing for April 26,2005.


WASHINGTON: Judge Rules That DSHS Wrongfully Reduced Food Stamps
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Thurston County judge ruled that the Washington's Department
of Social and Health Services wrongfully reduced food stamps for
thousands of elderly or disabled people over a four-month period
earlier this year, The Associated Press reports.

In a November 18 ruling, Judge Paula Casey stated that the
agency must restore $2.7 million in benefits that were withheld
from 39,000 people in the Washington State Combined Application
Program (WASHCAP). Created in 2001, the program was designed to
make it more convenient for disadvantaged, single, elderly and
disabled people living on federal income assistance to apply for
food stamps. The application process was streamlined, and
recipients weren't required to reapply as often, making it
easier for them to stay in the program.

In 2004, DSHS changed the way benefits were calculated, meaning
that on average recipients statewide lost about $17 per month.
However, in some cases, WASHCAP clients were getting $50 less
per month than what was possible in the basic food stamps
program. In addition, the agency also kept those who would
benefit in the basic program from switching, which was
previously allowed. DSHS officials argued that they were forced
to make the changes to meet a federal deadline to avoid losing
funding.

Judge Casey though disagreed writing that, "there was nothing in
the administrative record for judicial review showing that the
Department faced a federal deadline for state receipt of federal
funds that required immediate adoption of these two emergency
rules."

Back in February, a class action lawsuit was filed in Thurston
County Superior Court challenging DSHS's use of the state's
emergency rule provisions, which allowed the agency to
temporarily bypass holding a public hearing. Two women, Dawn
DeLong of Pacific County and Martha Chamberlain of King County,
were named specifically as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, but it
included about 273 Thurston County residents who receive
benefits from the program.

The suit contends that DSHS made people worse off financially
than if they had stayed in the state's Basic Food Program. It
also challenges the benefit reductions that were made across the
board. In addition, the suit also argues that WASHCAP clients
were not properly notified in time to give them a chance to
switch programs before the changes went into effect in January.
While DSHS sent out letters, they were not clear to many clients
about what was happening. The lawsuit seeks back pay for
benefits not doled out since the rule changes, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (March 24, 2005) reports.

Joe Christy, an assistant attorney general who represented DSHS,
told The Olympian that the changes were forced because of a
disagreement over funding with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, which administers food stamps. The federal
government requires that "waiver" programs such as WASHCAP stay
"cost-neutral." The program was actually costing an extra
$600,000 to $1 million a month.

The emergency rules took effect in January and were in place
until April, when DSHS made them permanent after having public
hearings. The judge's decision though does not affect people who
enrolled in WASHCAP after that time.

Attorneys for the agency told The Olympian that they hadn't
decided on whether they would appeal. But, if the state doesn't
appeal, those affected will have a 30-day window to apply for
Basic Food stamps. Also, those who tried to opt out between
January and April will be eligible for the difference in
benefits that they would have received.


WD 40: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment Ruling in CA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeals dismissed the two class actions
filed against WD 40 Co. in the San Diego Superior Court in
California, arising out of the use of the automatic toilet bowl
cleaners the Company sold under the brand names 2000 Flushes and
X-14.

On September 4, 2003, a legal action was filed against the
Company in San Diego County, California. On September 23, 2003,
a separate legal action was filed against the Company in San
Diego County on similar grounds.   On March 25, 2005, the trial
court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment in both
actions.

A motion to set aside the judgment was filed on May 12, 2005.
On September 27, 2005, the California Court of Appeal dismissed,
as untimely, an appeal filed by the plaintiffs. As of the filing
of this report, the deadline for filing an appeal to the
California Supreme Court has passed.  The judgment dismissing
both of the San Diego actions is now final.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


FIRST BANCORP: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all securities
purchasers of First BanCorp (NYSE: FBP) ("First BanCorp" or the
"Company") has been extended 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
         Corp. and R&G Financial Corp.) 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
Corp. and R&G Financial Corp.) 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 Corp.
and R&G Financial Corp.). 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: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in WI
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin against Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. (Nasdaq:
WOLF).

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 December 14, 2004 through July 28, 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.


GUIDANT CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in IN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins,
LLP, initiated a class actions in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of
purchasers of Guidant Corporation ("Guidant") (NYSE:GDT)
publicly traded securities during the period between December
15, 2004 and November 4, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaints charge Guidant and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Guidant and its subsidiaries provide therapeutic medical
solutions for customers, patients and healthcare systems
worldwide.

On December 15, 2004, defendants announced that Guidant had been
sold to Johnson & Johnson ("J&J") for approximately $25 billion
in cash and J&J stock, within an imputed value of approximately
$76 per share. Meanwhile, according to the complaints,
throughout the fall of 2004 and spring of 2005, defendants
continued concealing from investors, regulators, and,
ostensibly, J&J, the truth about the known defects in Guidant's
defibrillators and pacemakers, including:

     (1) that they had discovered a design flaw in
         defibrillators manufactured prior to April 2002;

     (2) that despite knowledge of the design flaw, they
         continued to sell these defective defibrillators to
         maintain Guidant's revenue stream;

     (3) that at the time of the proposed merger with J&J, many
         defibrillators and pacemakers had failed or
         malfunctioned;

     (4) that as a result of these manufacturing defects,
         revenues from Guidant's defibrillator and pacemaker
         business would be negatively impacted going forward;
         and

     (5) more importantly, that Guidant would likely be exposed
         to substantial litigation risks as more reports of
         failed defibrillators and pacemakers surfaced,
         significantly decreasing the price J&J would be willing
         to pay for Guidant.

Finally, on November 2, 2005, citing issues surrounding
Guidant's defibrillators and the investigation initiated by the
U.S. Attorney's Office as constituting "material adverse
effects" that delimited its duty to perform on the merger
agreement, J&J announced it was not required to complete the
acquisition of Guidant, signaling it would not. On November 4,
2005, when J&J's 48-hour deadline in which to complete the
transaction expired, shares of Guidant fell to $57.52, a drop of
more than $14 per share from the December 15, 2004 merger
announcement date, erasing over $4.5 billion in market
capitalization. Thereafter, on November 15, 2005, defendants
agreed to sell Guidant to J&J for $21.5 billion, or $4 billion
less than the price announced at the start of the Class Period.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, Phone:
800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058, E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web
site: http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/guidantcorp/.


MOTIVE INC.: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas,
on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of Motive, Inc. ("Motive" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:MOTV) between April 21, 2005 and October 26,
2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed
against Motive, Scott L. Harmon and Paul M. Baker
("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
the Company failed to disclose or misrepresented that the
Company had improperly recognized $5.2 million in revenue from a
licensing agreement, which inflated revenues, that the Company's
financials were not presented in accordance with Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and the Company lacked
the necessary personnel and controls to issue accurate financial
statements.

On October 4, 2005, Motive announced that it expected core
revenue to be in a range of $15.5 million to $17.5 million,
compared to revenue of $23 million for the same period in the
prior year. Shares reacted negatively to the news, dropping
$2.25 per share, or 35.9%, to $4.01 per share. Then, on October
27, 2005, Motive issued a press release announcing financial
results for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, as well as its
decision to restate its financial results for the quarters ended
March 31, 2005 and June 30, 2005. In reaction to this
announcement, Motive shares took an additional hit, falling from
$4.12 per share to $3.66 per share, a decline of approximately
11.2% on heavy volume.

For more details, contact Brian D. Penny of The Law Firm of
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-753-2796, E-mail:
info@gsk-law.com.


UNIVERSAL CORPORATION: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all persons who acquired the publicly
traded securities of Universal American Financial Corporation
("Universal American" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: UHCO) between
February 16, 2005 and October 28, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Also included are all those who purchased in the
secondary offering on or around June 16, 2005.

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

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

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. 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, Web site:
http://www.ssbny.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  * * *