CAR_Public/051205.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, December 5, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 240

                          Headlines

AMERICA ONLINE: Consumers Commence IL Lawsuit V. "Extra Fees"
BOEING CO.: Trial in WA Racial Discrimination Suit to Begin Soon
BOLDT CO.: Settles Racial Discrimination Suit in WI for $175T
CANADA: B.C. High Court Allows Pensioners' Lawsuit To Proceed
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Settles Consumer Fraud Lawsuits in OH, NY

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: High Court Refuses NY Certiorari Petition
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Suits in MDL
CHEMED CORPORATION: IL Court Yet To Approve Lawsuit Settlement
COLUMBUS SOUTHERN: Named As Defendant in Air Pollution Lawsuit
EMERY WORLDWIDE: Laid-Off Workers File WARN Act Violations Suit

GENESIS MICROCHIP: Plaintiffs To Appeal CA Stock Suit Dismissal
HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Continues To Face TCPA Lawsuit in WV
HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Continues To Face CA Unfair Trade Suit
IDEAL DISTRIBUTORS: Recalls 1T Pacifiers Due to Choking Hazard
ILLINOIS: Lawyer's Law License Suspended For Overbilling Clients

ILLINOIS BELL: IL Supreme Court Reverses Ruling in Big Sky Case
KING OF FANS: Recalls 202,000 Heaters Due to Burn, Fall Hazard
LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Lawsuit
MAINE: Settlement Money Delayed in York County Strip Search Suit
NOKIA CORPORATION: Securities Trial to Start on January 13, 2006

NYMEX: Law Firm Demands Documents Related to Proposed Stake Sale
ORTHO-MCNEIL: Parker & Waichman Files Consolidation Motion in NJ
PAYPAL INC.: Agency Warns of E-Mail Scams Touting CA Settlement
PIPER JAFFRAY: Discovery Proceeds in NY IPO Allocation Lawsuit
PIPER JAFFRAY: Discovery Proceeds in NY Fee Antitrust Lawsuit

PIPER JAFFRAY: Discovery Proceeding in NY IPO Fee Antitrust Suit
PREMIUM STANDARD: MO Residents Launch Property Injury Litigation
PROTON ENERGY: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
SOUTH CAROLINA: High Court Hears Arguments in TERI Workers' Suit
SOUTH KOREA: Group Mulls Suit V. Government Over Kimchi Report

ST. JUDE: Court Reverses Certification For MN Silzone Lawsuit
ST. JUDE: Working To Resolve Symmetry Heart Devices Litigation
STRAVINA OPERATING: Recalls Kids' Jewelry For High Lead Content
TEMPUR PEDIC: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in E.D. KY
UNITED KINGDOM: Parents Can Sue Corby Council For Birth Defects

VERIZON WIRELESS: Customer Service Representatives File PA Suit
VISX INC.: CA Court Approves Settlement of Suits V. AMO Merger

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

GREAT WOLF: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in WI
HYDROFLO INC.: Rosen Law Firm Provides Litigation Update
MOTIVE INC.: Dyer & Shuman Sets January Lead Plaintiff Deadline
NAPA COMMUNITY: Law Firms File Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
STONE ENERGY: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in LA

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

                          *********


AMERICA ONLINE: Consumers Commence IL Lawsuit V. "Extra Fees"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ten plaintiffs from across the country launched a class action
lawsuit against America Online (AOL) in St. Clair County Circuit
Court in Illinois, claiming that the Internet giant unlawfully
collects extra fees, The Madison County Record reports.

The suit, which was filed on November 17, names as plaintiffs,
David Wendt of Illinois, Mary Duessent of Bellflower,
California, Andrew Sheldon of Carlsbad, California, Robert and
Wendy Coffey and Patricia Webb of Tennessee, Linda Rubin of West
Virginia, Vince Motley and Tapetha Spencer of Alabama and Terry
Day of New York

According to the suit, "plaintiffs bring this action on behalf
of themselves and a nationwide class of consumers who subscribed
to AOL's Internet service and were assessed charges by AOL for
AOL memberships accounts and goods and services they did not
authorize or consent to pay."

The plaintiffs claimed that Dulles, Virginia-based AOL exploits
its subscribers' confidential billing information to unlawfully
generate additional revenue by charging for additional
membership accounts. In addition, they also allege that AOL has
received hundreds of complaints from members who were charged
extra, but "intentionally and recklessly" refuses to refund or
credit money collected for unauthorized goods and services.

The suit contends that AOL's acts constitute unjust enrichment,
conversion, violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, and
violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. Though only one
plaintiff is a resident of Illinois, the suit pointed out that
venue is proper in St. Clair County since transactions at issue
occurred locally and that AOL does business in St. Clair.

The plaintiffs state that no individual recovery will exceed
$75,000. David Nester of Belleville, Brooks Cutter and Stuart
Talley of Sacramento, California, Daniel Girard and Allison
Ehlert of San Francisco and James Smith of Tuscaloosa, Alabama
are representing them in the case.


BOEING CO.: Trial in WA Racial Discrimination Suit to Begin Soon
----------------------------------------------------------------
After seven years of legal wrangling, a thrown-out settlement
and a change in legal teams, some African-American employees of
Boeing Co. are getting their day in court, The Seattle Times
reports.

Barring a last-minute settlement that lawyers for either side
said was unlikely, a class action lawsuit, filed back in June
1998, that alleges Boeing discriminated against African
Americans in promotions is scheduled to begin jury selection
this week. The trial is slated to start on December 5, 2005.

In January 1999, as part of a high-profile settlement brokered
by the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Boeing agreed to pay $7.3 million to
settle a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of 15,000 African-
American employees. In a settlement with a total value of $15
million, the company, which admitted no wrongdoing, also agreed
to make several changes in promotion and hiring practices, and
in the way it monitors compliance with federal anti-
discrimination laws.  However in April 2003, the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the settlement, agreeing with
objecting class members who said the payout was inadequate and
unfairly distributed, and that the attorney fees of $4 million
were too high.

With new lawyers appointed by the court, the case, known as
Williams v. Boeing, is in federal court in Seattle again. The
case is being presided over by U.S. District Judge Marsha
Pechman, who oversaw the recent $72.5 million settlement in a
gender-bias suit brought on behalf of 17,690 female Boeing
employees.  More than 20,000 current and former female employees
out of a potential pool of 29,000 alleged in that case that
Boeing discriminated against them at Seattle-area plants between
1997 and 2000. Of those claims, nearly 2,400 were thrown out for
filing irregularities, including failure to meet a May 3
deadline. The lawsuit, filed in 2000, alleged a pattern of
sexual discrimination at Boeing, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (November 15, 2005) reports.  

Unlike that sex-discrimination case, in which women alleged
discrimination in hiring, pay and promotion, the question in the
case is now limited to whether Boeing intentionally passed over
African Americans for promotions.

Earlier this year, Judge Pechman rejected in pre-trial rulings,
the plaintiffs' requests to consider pay discrimination. She
essentially reduced class eligibility to the roughly 4,000
salaried employees working at historically Boeing-owned
facilities nationwide since 1994.  Employees excluded from the
class, which included, hourly workers and employees at
facilities acquired through mergers, filed a separate class
action suit this year in Chicago, Illinois, where Boeing's
corporate headquarters are located.

To win the case, plaintiffs' attorneys say it's enough to
convince the jury that Boeing failed to take race out of the
question when considering personnel changes, not that any
individual was specifically denied a promotion. Additionally
though, a key piece of evidence specifically company documents
that came to light during the gender-bias lawsuit and which
Boeing fought hard to suppress will also help in a win for the
plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs' attorneys say that internal audits show Boeing
failed to maintain an adequate applicant tracking system or
monitor promotion decisions as required by federal affirmative-
action guidelines for government contractors. Craig Spiegel,
lead counsel for the plaintiffs, told The Seattle Times,
"Boeing's predominantly white upper management has known for a
long time that there were no policies in place to protect
African Americans from discrimination against the good old boy
network that has long existed throughout the company."

Boeing denies though fostering a hostile work environment, or
any negligence in complying with the anti-discrimination
obligations it faces as a federal contractor. Lead Boeing
attorney Jeffrey Hollingsworth told The Seattle Times, "Internal
company audits are irrelevant because they were conducted in
relation to compliance with affirmative-action guidelines, and
what's alleged here is racial discrimination."

A ruling in a company's favor in an ethnic-bias suit last year
also encourages Boeing's legal team. In that case a federal jury
ruled that the company did not discriminate against 1,850 Asian
American technical workers alleging inequitable pay and
promotion opportunities. According to Mr. Hollingsworth, who
also tried the Asian American case, "The issues in every case
are unique, but many of the underlying allegations relating to
internal studies and negligence - which the jury concluded were
untrue - are the same."

The suit is styled, "Williams, et al v. Boeing Company, et al,
Case No. 2:98-cv-00761-MJP," filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington, under Judge Marsha
J. Pechman. Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Ivy D. Arai, Steve W. Berman, Craig R. Spiegel and
         Jeffrey Todd Sprung of HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO,
         LLP, 1301 5TH AVE., STE. 2900, SEATTLE, WA 98101,
         Phone: 206-623-7292, Fax: 206-623-0594, E-mail:
         ivy@hbsslaw.com, steve@hbsslaw.com, craigs@hbsslaw.com
         and jeff@hbsslaw.com;

     (2) Harish Bharti, 5516 17TH AVE. NW SEATTLE, WA 98107,
         Phone: 206-706-6400, Fax: 706-6401, E-mail:
         bharti@lawyer.com;

     (3) Mark E. Brennan of RINEHART ROBBLEE & HANNAH, 1100
         OLIVE WAY, STE. 1620, SEATTLE, WA 98101, Phone: 206-
         467-6700, Fax: 467-7589, E-mail:
         mbrennan@unionattorneysnw.com;

     (4) Oscar Edward Desper, III and Bruce A. Harrell of
         HARRELL DESPER CONNELL & ROESCH, 1325 4TH AVE., STE.
         600, SEATTLE, WA 98101-2359, Phone: 206-583-0050, Fax:
         583-0051, E-mail: odesper@seattlecounsel.com and
         bharrell@seattlecounsel.com;

     (5) Alan B. Epstein of SPECTOR GADON & ROSEN, 1635 MARKET
         ST., 7TH FL. SEVEN PENN CTR., PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103,
         Phone: 215-241-8888, E-mail: aepstein@lawsgr.com;

     (6) Mary R. Mann of MARY RUTH MANN & ASSOCIATES, 615 2ND
         AVE., SUITE 760 BRODERICK BLDG., SEATTLE, WA 98104-
         2203, Phone: 206-587-2700, E-mail:
         mrmann@mrmannlaw.com; and

     (7) Joseph Marc Sellers, Steven J. Toll and Christine E.
         Webber of COHEN MILSTEIN HAUSFELD & TOLL, 1100 NEW YORK
         AVE. NW WEST TOWER STE. 500, WASHINGTON, DC 20005-3934,
         Phone: 202-408-4600, Fax: 1-202-408-4699, E-mail:
         jsellers@cmht.com, stoll@cmht.com and cwebber@cmht.com.

Representing the Defendant are:

     (i) Barbara Berish Brown of PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY &
         WALKER, 1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. NW STE. 1000,
         WASHINGTON, DC 20004, Phone: 202-508-9500, Fax: 1-202-
         508-9700, E-mail: barbarabrown@paulhastings.com;

    (ii) C. Geoffrey Weirich of PAUL HASTINGS JANOFSKY & WALKER,
         600 PEACHTREE ST. NE STE. 2400, ATLANTA, GA 30308-2222,          
         Phone: 404-815-2400, Fax: 1-404-815-2424, E-mail:
         geoffweirich@paulhastings.com;


   (iii) Boyd A. Byers of FOULSTON & SIEFKIN, 1551 NORTH
         WATERFRONT PARKWAY, STE. 100, WICHITA, KS 67206,
         Phone: 316-291-9716, E-mail: bbyers@foulston.com;

    (iv) Rebecca Shapiro Cohen and Michael Reiss of DAVIS WRIGHT
         TREMAINE, LLP, 1501 4TH AVE., STE. 2600, SEATTLE, WA
         98101-1688, Phone: 206-622-3150, Fax: 628-7699, E-mail:
         rebeccashapirocohen@dwt.com and mikereiss@dwt.com; and

     (v) Jeffrey Alan Hollingsworth of PERKINS COIE, 1201 3RD
         AVE., STE. 4800, SEATTLE, WA 98101-3099, Phone: 206-
         583-8888, Fax: 583-8500, E-mail:
         JHollingsworth@perkinscoie.com.


BOLDT CO.: Settles Racial Discrimination Suit in WI for $175T
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Boldt Co. recently reached a deal that would pay former
workers about $175,000 to settle a hostile work environment
class action complaint brought by the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, The Appleton Post Crescent reports.

The deal ends a lawsuit brought by the EEOC alleging that black
employees at the Riverside Energy Project in Beloit were subject
to racial harassment and that two employees were laid off in
retaliation for complaints about racial harassment. Boldt was
the general contractor on the project. However, the EEOC lawsuit
will continue against a second defendant, Iron City Constructors
Inc., who was the subcontractor on the project.

Boldt spokesman Jim Rossmeissl told Appleton Post Crescent that
the settlement agreement doesn't state that the Appleton,
Wisconsin-based construction firm did anything wrong. In a phone
interview, he told Appleton Post Crescent, "This is an
unfortunate situation that started between one of our
subcontractors and its employee."

The EEOC brought the lawsuit against Boldt and its
subcontractor, Aliquippa, Pennsylvania-based Iron City
Constructors Inc., in June. The agency alleges that the
companies created and maintained a hostile environment for its
black employees at the Riverside work site.

The suit alleged that the companies permitted racist graffiti at
the work site. However, in a statement, Boldt contends that when
EEOC officials visited the job site unannounced, it found no
graffiti nor could it identify any individual who wrote
graffiti.

As part of the settlement, Boldt will pay $45,000 to Giles
Jefferson, who brought the discrimination charge on which the
lawsuit was based, and $130,000 to a class of black employees
subjected to a hostile work environment.

In addition, the settlement will require Boldt to revise and
implement its policies concerning racial harassment and
retaliation, train its employees on these issues and report to
the EEOC any future complaints of racial harassment. "We will be
doing more job site training for both Boldt workers and
subcontractors," according to Mr. Rossmeissl.


CANADA: B.C. High Court Allows Pensioners' Lawsuit To Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
A British Columbia Supreme Court judge in Victoria approved a
class action lawsuit against the Campbell government by 27,000
pensioners who used to work for the B.C. civil service, The CBC
News reports.

The pensioners are seeking to recover more than $90 million in
health-care premiums, which the government stopped paying for
them three years ago. Retired psychiatric nurse Frederick
Bennett launched the legal action after the B.C. Liberal
government stopped paying his Medical Service Plan and extended
health-care premiums.

Noting that many of the pensioners can't afford to lose their
health benefits, Mr. Bennett told CBC News, "This is a promise
made to us by the employer on retirement and it was taken away
from us." He added, "It could come to a point where it's a
choice between filling a prescription and shopping for
groceries."

Mr. Bennett's lawyer, Peter Waldman, told CBC News the B.C.
Supreme Court decision to grant class action certification
allows more than 27,000 Public Service Pension Plan members to
participate in the lawsuit. Mr. Waldmann argues that the
pensioners were required to sign a binding deal when they
retired and the government should have to stick by it too. "So
if it is irrevocable for the person who's retiring, how is it
possible that it's not binding on the government that makes the
promise?"

The government though maintains that the promise to pay
pensioners' benefits was not legally binding. In addition, it
contends that it has to the right to stop paying them if it so
chooses. No date has yet been set for the trial.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Settles Consumer Fraud Lawsuits in OH, NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cellco Partnership reached a settlement for three purported
class actions alleging that Verizon Wireless did not adequately
disclose certain limitations on the Bluetooth technology that
was included in the Motorola V710 handset that has been
available for use on the Verizon Wireless network since August
2004.  The suits are styled:

     (1) Opperman, et al. v. Cellco Partnership, et al., filed
         on December 30, 2004 in the Superior Court of
         California, Los Angeles County;

     (2) Zhao v. Verizon Wireless, Inc., filed on January 7,
         2005 in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga
         County; and

      (3) Kaner, et al. v. Cellco Partnership, filed on January
          20, 2005 as a purported class action arbitration with
          the American Arbitration Association in New York.

The Opperman action is brought on behalf of a purported class of
California residents who purchased the V710 handset; the Zhao
actions are brought on behalf of a purported nationwide class.  
These actions assert claims for violation of state consumer
fraud statutes and claims of common law fraud and unjust
enrichment; they seek compensatory, consequential and exemplary
damages, recovery of attorney's fees, and injunctive relief.

The Company reached a settlement for the suits.  On September 2,
2005, the Los Angeles Superior Court entered an order
preliminarily approving the settlement. A final hearing on the
settlement and on plaintiffs' counsels' fee application is
scheduled for January 17, 2006. If approved, the settlement
would provide claimants who submit a claim form under penalty of
perjury with the option of either:  

     (i) retaining their V710 handset and receiving a $25 bill
         credit;

    (ii) returning their phone and accessories, receiving the
         actual purchase price or $200 if they do not have a
         receipt, and canceling service; or

   (iii) returning their phone and receiving a credit (for $200
         or the actual purchase price) toward a new phone.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: High Court Refuses NY Certiorari Petition
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court denied Cellco Partnership's and
other defendants' petition for a writ of certiorari for the
United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' reversal of the
dismissal of the consolidated class action filed against them
concerning wireless phone use, in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland.

In addition, between April and June 2001, the Company and
various other wireless carriers and various phone manufacturers
became defendants in statewide class actions relating to
wireless phone use, including:

     (1) Farina, et al. v. Nokia Inc., et al., Pennsylvania
         Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, filed April
         19, 2001;

     (2) Gilliam, et al. v. Nokia Inc., et al., New York Supreme
         Court, Bronx County, filed April 23, 2001;

     (3) Pinney, et al. v. Nokia Inc., et al., Maryland Circuit
         Court, Baltimore County, filed April 19, 2001; and

     (4) Gimpelson et al. v. Nokia Inc., et al., Georgia
         Superior Court, Fulton County, filed June 8, 2001

     (5) Naquin v. Nokia, Inc., et al

Plaintiffs in these suits claim that wireless phones are
defective and unreasonably dangerous because the defendants
failed to include a proper warning about alleged adverse health
effects, failed to encourage the use of a headset, and failed to
include a headset with the phone.  

The suits were later consolidated in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland.  The Court of Appeals held
that there was no federal jurisdiction over the "Pinney, Farina,
Gilliam, and Gimpelson" actions (to which the Partnership is a
party) and directed that the actions be remanded to state court.  
The Fourth Circuit also reversed the District Court holding that
the action (to which the Partnership is not a party) is
preempted by federal law. On April 12, 2005, the Fourth Circuit
denied defendants' petition for rehearing en banc.

The Company filed a writ of certiorari with the United States
Supreme Court over the appellate court's decision.  Plaintiffs
agreed to stay all state court proceedings in "Pinney, et al. v.
Nokia Inc., et al.;" "Farina, et al. v. Nokia Inc., et al.;"
"Gilliam, et al. v. Nokia Inc., et al.;" "Gimpelson et al. v.
Nokia Inc., et al.;" and "Brower, et al. v. Motorola, Inc., et
al.," pending resolution of defendants' petition, which sought a
remand to the Fourth Circuit for reconsideration on the issue of
federal question jurisdiction in light of intervening Supreme
Court precedent.

On October 28, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition.  
In addition, on October 28, 2005, the Supreme Court denied a
separate petition for writ of certiorari filed by certain other
defendants in "Naquin, et al. v Nokia, et al."  That separate
petition sought review of the Fourth Circuit's decision
reversing the District Court's dismissal of the action on
preemption grounds.

The suit is styled "In re Wireless Telephone Personal Injury
Litigation, et al, case no. 1:01-md-01421-CCB," filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland under
Judge Catherine C. Blake.  Representing the plaintiffs is Mayer
Morganroth, Morganroth and Morganroth PLLC 3000 Town Cntr Ste
1500 Southfield, MI 48075 Phone: 1-248-355-3084 Fax:
1-248-355-3017, E-mail: jgurfinkel@morganrothlaw.com.  
Representing the Company are:

     (i) Brian Paul Brooks, O Melveny and Myers LLP 1625 I St NW
         Washington, DC 20006, Phone: 1-202-383-5300, Fax: 1-
         202-383-5414, E-mail: bbrooks@omm.com

    (ii) Scott Elder, Laura Owens, Jane Fugate Thorpe, Alston
         and Bird LLP 1201 W Peachtree St One Atlantic Ctr
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3424 Phone: 1-404-881-7000 Fax: 1-
         404-881-7777, E-mail: jthorpe@alston.com

   (iii) M King Hill, III, John Henry Lewin, Jr., Venable LLP
         210 Allegheny Ave PO Box 5517 Towson, MD 21285-5517,
         Phone: 1-410-494-6200, Fax: 1-410-821-0147, E-mail:
         mkhill@venable.com or jhlewin@venable.com  


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Suits in MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York's dismissal of several of the
cases included in the multidistrict litigation filed against
Cellco Partnership, Verizon Wireless, Inc. and other wireless
carriers to state court.

The suit, styled "In re Wireless Telephone Services Antitrust
Litigation," alleges that the defendants conspired to restrain
trade, conspired to monopolize, and entered agreements in
restraint of trade by locking cellular phones, tying the sale of
handsets to service, eliminating alternative sources of handsets
and horizontally dividing the market for handsets.

Several class actions were initially filed, alleging antitrust
violations.  These suits are styled:

     (1) Brook, et al. v. AT& T Cellular Services, Inc., et al.,
         filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
         District of New York on April 5, 2002;

     (2) Millen, et al. v. AT& T Wireless PCS, LLC, et al.,
         filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
         Massachusetts on or about August 3, 2002;

     (3) Truong, et al. v. AT& T Wireless PCS, LLC, filed in the
         U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California on or about September 20, 2002;

     (4) Beeler et al. v. AT& T Cellular Services, Inc., filed
         in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         Illinois on or about September 30, 2002; and

     (5) Morales, et al. v. AT& T Wireless PCS, LLC, et al.,
         filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
         District of Texas on or about September 27, 2002

In addition, on August 17, 2004, a sixth action, styled
"Freeland, et al. v. AT& T Corporation, et al.," was commenced
against Cellco and other carriers.  Freeland has been
coordinated with the five other actions in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The allegations in
Freeland are similar to those in the five prior actions, except
that the Freeland complaint also alleges conspiracy to
monopolize and restrain trade.

Finally, on February 23, 2005, a suit styled "McClain v. Sprint
Corporation, et al.," was commenced against the Company and
other carriers in Tennessee Circuit Court. The McClain complaint
contains allegations similar to those in Freeland, and it
purports to be brought on behalf of Tennessee residents who
purchased wireless service from the defendants.

On August 29, 2005, the court granted defendants' motion for
summary judgment dismissing the Brook, Beeler, Millen, Morales,
Truong cases.  On October 3, 2005, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal. On August 30, 2005, the district court denied
defendants' motion to dismiss the Freeland case as duplicative,
and plaintiffs served their motion for class certification on
October 21, 2005.

On July 29, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(JPMDL) issued a conditional transfer order consolidating
`Maloney v. Sprint Corp, et al. (U.S. District Court, District
of South Carolina)' with the litigation.  On August 15, 2005,
plaintiff filed an opposition to the conditional transfer order
and on August 29, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the
order. On September 20, 2005, defendants filed their opposition
to the motion. On August 29, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to
remand the case to state court, to which defendants replied on
September 16, 2005.  The parties have agreed to a stay of
substantive proceedings pending the ruling on plaintiff's motion
to remand.

The suit is styled "In Re: Wireless Telephone Services Antitrust
Litigation, case no. 1:03-md-01513-DLC," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Denise L. Cote.  Representing the plaintiffs are
Scott A. Bursor, Law Offices of Scott A. Bursor, 500 Seventh
Avenue New York, NY 10018-4213, Phone: (212) 989-9113, Fax:
212-989-9163, E-mail: scott@bursor.com; and Adam R. Gonnelli,
Faruqi & Faruqi, 320 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10017,
Phone: (212) 983-9330.  Representing the Company are John P.
Hunt, Hojoon Hwang and Jerome C. Roth, Munger, Tolles & Olsen
LLP, 33 New Montgomery Street, Ste. 1900 San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 512-4016.


CHEMED CORPORATION: IL Court Yet To Approve Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Third Judicial Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois,
has yet to approve the settlement of the class action filed
against Chemed Corporation, alleging certain Roto-Rooter
plumbing was performed by unlicensed employees.

Customer Robert Harris filed the suit on behalf of a class of
customers in 32 states who allegedly paid for plumbing work
performed by unlicensed employees.  Plaintiff also moved for
partial summary judgment on grounds the licensed apprentice
plumber who installed his faucet did not work under the direct
personal supervision of a licensed master plumber.

On June 19, 2002, the trial judge certified an Illinois-only
plaintiffs class and granted summary judgment for the named
party plaintiff on the issue of liability, finding violation of
the Illinois Plumbing License Act and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act, through Roto-Rooter's representation of the licensed
apprentice as a plumber.  The court has not yet ruled on
certification of a class in the remaining 31 states.

In December 2004, the Company reached a tentative resolution of
this matter with the plaintiff.  This proposed settlement has
not yet been finalized by the parties nor approved by the court.  
Nonetheless, the Company, in anticipation of such approval,
accrued $3.1 million as the anticipated cost of settling this
litigation.


COLUMBUS SOUTHERN: Named As Defendant in Air Pollution Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus Southern Power 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 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.


EMERY WORLDWIDE: Laid-Off Workers File WARN Act Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emery Worldwide Airlines continues to face a class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act (the "WARN Act") in connection with
employee layoffs and ultimate terminations due to the August
2001 grounding of EWA's airline operations and the shutdown of
the airline operations in December 2001.

The court subsequently certified the lawsuit as a class action
on behalf of affected employees laid off between August 11 and
August 15, 2001.  The WARN Act generally requires employers to
give 60-days notice, or 60-days pay and benefits in lieu of
notice, of any shutdown of operations or mass layoff at a site
of employment.  

The suit is styled "Bledsoe, et al v. Emery Worldwide Airl, et
al, case no. 3:02-cv-00069-WHR-SLO," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, under Judge
Walter H. Rice.  Representing the plaintiffs is David Gerard
Torchia, Tobias & Kraus - 1 414 Walnut Street Cincinnati, OH
45202 Phone: 513-241-8137 Fax: 513-241-8137 E-mail:
davet@tktlaw.com.  Representing the Company are Michelle R
Arendt and Thomas H. Barnard, Jr. Ulmer and Berne Penton Media
Building 1300 E. Ninth Street Suite 900 Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: 216-931-6056 Fax: 216-931-6057 E-mail: marendt@ulmer.com;
and Jacqueline Schuster Hobbs, Cinergy Services, Inc. 139 East
Fourth Street 25ATII Cincinnati, OH 45201-0960 Phone:
513-287-1238 Fax: 513-287-2996 E-mail:
Jacqueline.Hobbs@Cinergy.com.


GENESIS MICROCHIP: Plaintiffs To Appeal CA Stock Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to appeal the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California's dismissal of the
securities class action filed against Genesis Microchip, Inc.,
styled "Kuehbeck v. Genesis Microchip et al., Civil Action No.
02-CV-05344."  The suit also names as defendants former Chief
Executive Officer Amnon Fisher, and former Interim Chief
Executive Officer Eric Erdman.  The suit was later amended in
July 2003 to include as defendant Executive Vice President
Anders Frisk.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against the Company and the Individual Defendants,
and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
Individual Defendants. The complaint seeks unspecified damages
on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Company common
stock between April 29, 2002 and June 14, 2002.

In July 2005, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
the case, with prejudice.  Plaintiffs have filed a notice of
appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The suit is styled "Kuehbeck v. Genesis Microchip Inc et al,
case no. 3:02-cv-05344," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge
Jeffrey S. White.  Defendants are represented by Nina F. Locker,
Ignacio E. Salceda and Bahram Seyedin-Noor, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050,
Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail:
nlocker@wsgr.com, isalceda@wsgr.com, bnoor@wsgr.com.  
Representing the plaintiffs are William M. Audet and Ryan M.
Hagan, Alexander Hawes & Audet, LLP, 152 North Third Street,
Suite 600 San Jose, CA 95112, Phone: 408-289-1776, Fax:
408-287-1776, E-mail: waudet@alexanderlaw.com or
rhagan@alexanderlaw.com; and Patricia I. Avery, Kent A. Bronson,
Robert C. Finkel, and Marian P. Rosner, Wolf Popper LLP, 845
Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-759-4600, Fax:
212-486-2093, E-mail: pavery@wolfpopper.com.


HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Continues To Face TCPA Lawsuit in WV
-------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife International, Inc. and certain of its distributors
face a purported class action lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court
of Ohio County in the State of West Virginia, styled "Mey v.
Herbalife International, Inc., et al."

The complaint alleges that certain telemarketing practices of
certain Company distributors violate the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, or TCPA, and seeks to hold the Company
vicariously liable for the practices of its distributors. More
specifically, the plaintiffs' complaint alleges that several of
the Company's distributors used pre-recorded telephone messages
and autodialers to contact prospective customers in violation of
the TCPA's prohibition of such practices.  

The Company's distributors are independent contractors and, if
any such distributors in fact violated the TCPA, they also
violated the Company's policies, which require its distributors
to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, the
Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Continues To Face CA Unfair Trade Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife International, Inc. and certain of its independent
distributors continue to face a class action now pending in the
Los Angeles County Superior Court in California.

On February 17, 2005, a suit styled "Minton v. Herbalife
International, et al.," was filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco.  The suit was served on the
Company on March 14, 2005.  The Company moved to transfer the
case to the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The plaintiff is challenging the marketing practices of certain
Herbalife International independent distributors and the Company
under various state laws prohibiting "endless chain schemes,"
insufficient disclosure in assisted marketing plans, unfair and
deceptive business practices, and fraud and deceit.  The
plaintiff alleges that the Freedom Group system operated by
certain independent distributors of Herbalife International
products places too much emphasis on recruiting and encourages
excessively large purchases of product and promotional materials
by distributors.  The plaintiff also alleges that Freedom Group
pressured distributors to disseminate misleading promotional
materials. The plaintiff asks that the Company be held liable
for the actions of its independent distributors and is seeking
damages and injunctive relief.


IDEAL DISTRIBUTORS: Recalls 1T Pacifiers Due to Choking Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Ideal Distributors Inc., of Chicago, Illinois is
voluntarily recalling about 1,000 units of Cachito Pacifiers.

According to the Company, the nipples can detach from the base,
posing a choking hazard to young children.

The recalled pacifiers are blue, white, yellow or pink plastic
with a yellow nipple and a circular or clove-shaped handle. The
nipples are filled with honey or a sugary substance. The
pacifiers measure about 3-inches long and 1 1/2-inches wide.

Manufactured in Mexico, the products were sold at various
independent Mexican supermarkets and drug stores in the Chicago,
Ill. area from July 2005 through September 2005 for about $1.

Remedy: Consumers should immediately take the recalled pacifiers
away from young children and return them to the store where
purchased for a full refund.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, call Ideal
Distributors collect at (773) 889-2997 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.
CT Monday through Friday, or e-mail the company at
rpena@fhlbc.com.


ILLINOIS: Lawyer's Law License Suspended For Overbilling Clients
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Supreme Court suspended Edward Vrdolyak's law
license for 30 days, The NBC5.com reports.

Mr. Vrdolyak, a former Chicago City alderman, was accused of
overbilling clients he represented in a sexual harassment
lawsuit. The former Cook County Democratic Party chairman, who
agreed to the suspension, allegedly received $412,000 for his
work in a class action lawsuit against Ford Motor Co., but
wrongfully billed clients an additional $150,000. He has since
repaid the money with interest though.


ILLINOIS BELL: IL Supreme Court Reverses Ruling in Big Sky Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Supreme Court reversed a judgment made by former
Madison County Circuit Judge Phillip Kardis that invalidated a
state statute in a class action case against Illinois Bell, The
Madison County Record reports.

Judge Kardis made the decision in a case that challenged the
constitutionality of a public utility rate structure for
telephone companies in "Big Sky Excavating v. Illinois Bell" on
June 4, 2003. Since his judgment involved a state statute, the
appeal was taken directly to the Supreme Court.

In the opinion issued on December 1, 2005, Justice Lloyd
Karmeier wrote, "In undertaking our review, we begin with the
well-settled principle that all statutes are presumed to be
constitutional. The party challenging the constitutionality of a
statute has the burden of rebutting the presumption of validity
and clearly establishing a constitutional violation." He further
wrote, "...The circuit court erred in granting summary judgment
in favor of plaintiffs and against Illinois Bell. The judgment
of the circuit court is therefore reversed, and this cause is
remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent
with our opinion."

On February 6, 1998, Illinois Bell filed a tariff with the
Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) reclassifying many of the
business services it provided to small business customers as
competitive. After Illinois Bell reclassified its services the
company raised rates for which led the ICC to investigate.

The ICC held hearings that determined that Illinois Bell had
wrongfully reclassified many of its small business services as
competitive and that such reclassification resulted in
unwarranted and significant rate increases. The proposed order,
dated March 30, 2001, concluded that Illinois Bell should refund
the price increases it had charged affected customers.

Telephone companies in Illinois are regulated as public
utilities. Before a telephone company can alter the price of its
services, it is required to give 45 days notice to the ICC and
the public. The ICC could then suspend the effectiveness of the
price change for up to 11 months while deciding whether to
approve it.

While the matter was still pending, and before the ICC issued a
final order in the case, the General Assembly enacted Public Act
92-22. That legislation made numerous changes to various
statutes concerning telecommunications and repealed section 13-
803 and added an entirely new section to the law, section 13-
502.5.

To this end, Justice Karmeier wrote, "The sole basis for the
circuit court's judgment is that section 13-502.5 denied
plaintiffs due process of law under article I, section 2, of the
Illinois Constitution. In plaintiffs' view, the legislature had
no right to abate the Commission proceedings and settle the
question of refunds through statutory enactment. The proceeding
abated by section 13-502.5 was a regulatory enforcement matter.
Plaintiffs were not parties to that proceeding and had not
established, definite or ascertainable right to any monetary
relief from Illinois Bell. They merely hoped to get back some of
the money they had paid for telephone service in the event the
Commission ultimately agreed with the hearing examiners,
determined that Illinois Bell had acted improperly, and ordered
it to make refunds to its customers. Such expectations clearly
do not rise to the level of a legitimate claim of entitlement to
benefits under the prior law. Plaintiffs therefore failed to
establish that they had a vested property right necessary to
support their due process claim. In support of the circuit
court's judgment, plaintiffs argue here, as they did in the
court below, that section 13-502.5 cannot pass special
legislation scrutiny because Illinois Bell is the only entity to
benefit from its provisions. This argument is without merit. If
any telecommunications carrier believed that section 13-502.5
afforded Illinois Bell an advantage it was denied, there is no
evidence of it in the record before us. Plaintiffs' arguments
focus instead on the harm consumers would suffer under the new
law. Consumers, however, are not similarly situated to the
telecommunications carriers from which they purchase services.
Accordingly, their harm is not relevant to the question of the
law's discriminatory effect."

Terrance O'Leary of Granite City represents Big Sky, while John
Papa of the Callis Firm in Granite City represents Illinois
Bell. Circuit Court Judge Don Weber is now assigned to the case.


KING OF FANS: Recalls 202,000 Heaters Due to Burn, Fall Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), King of Fans Inc. of Fort Lauderdale, Florida is
voluntarily recalling about 202,000 units of Maxi-HeatT Electric
Oil-Filled Radiator Heaters.

According to the Company, welds in the heating fins can break,
allowing oil to leak. This poses a burn and fall hazard to
consumers. King of Fans Inc. has received 81 reports of
incidents involving leaking oil. Two minor burns were reported,
along with two reports of falls in the oil.

The portable electric radiator-style heaters have seven fins,
one of which has the control panel attached to it. The units are
gray with a black control panel. "Maxi-HeatT" is printed below
the handle indentation on the control panel. The model number
70030 and date codes 0705 and 0805 are printed on the UL label
on the lower right side of the control panel. The following
purchase order numbers are located on the bottom of the radiator
heater's packaging: 56199910, 56199924, 56199961, 57105731,
57105732, 57100092, 57100089, 57100086, 57105685, and 57105686.
Picture of the recalled products:

     (1) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06044.jpg

Manufactured in China, the products were sold at The Home Depot
stores in the Northeast and Midwest from October 2005 through
November 2005 for about $35.

Remedy: Consumers should immediately stop using these heaters
and unplug them. Return the recalled heaters to a Home Depot
store for a full refund.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact King of
Fans toll-free at (866) 443-1291 between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.
Monday through Friday, or visit the company's Web site at
http://www.kingoffans.com.


LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leadis Technology, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it, certain
of its officers and its directors.

On March 2, 2005, a purported securities class action suit was
filed, alleging the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 by making allegedly false
and misleading statements in the company's registration
statement and prospectus filed on June 16, 2004 for the
Company's initial public offering. The complaint seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of a class of purchasers that
acquired shares of the Company's common stock pursuant to the
Company's registration statement and prospectus. The claims
appear to be based on allegations that at the time of the IPO
demand for the company's OLED (color organic light-emitting
diodes) products was already slowing and that the company failed
to disclose that it was engaging in overshipments of its OLED
product.  A similar additional action was filed on March 11,
2005.

On April 20, 2005, the court consolidated the two actions. The
consolidated complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a
class of purchasers that acquired shares of the Company's common
stock pursuant to our registration statement and prospectus. The
claims appear to be based on allegations that at the time of the
IPO demand for the company's OLED (color organic light-emitting
diodes) products was already slowing due to competition from one
of its existing customers and that the company failed to
disclose that it was not well positioned for continued success
as a result of such competition.

The suit is styled "Safron Capital Corporation v. Leadis
Technology, Inc. et al., case no. 3:05-cv-00882-CRB," filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, under Judge Charles R. Breyer.  Representing the
Company are Grant P. Fondo and Laura R. Smith of Cooley Godward
LLP, Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA
94306-2155, Phone: 650 843-5458, Fax: 650 857-0663, E-mail:
gfondo@cooley.com or smithlr@cooley.com.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Patrick J. Coughlin, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman & Robbins LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San
Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415/288-4545, Fax: 415-288-4534, E-
mail: patc@mwbhl.com.


MAINE: Settlement Money Delayed in York County Strip Search Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Men and women who were strip-searched at the York County Jail in
Maine might have to wait a while longer for the $3.3 million
payout from a settlement of a class action lawsuit, The
Portsmouth Herald News.

State officials who learned that more than 20 percent of those
who were strip-searched owe child support or alimony put the
settlement checks on hold because they say that children and
former spouses should get first dibs on the money. Assistant
Attorney General Chris Taub told Portsmouth Herald News, "These
people have unpaid support obligations. Those obligations should
be satisfied first."

David Webbert, an attorney for the class action plaintiffs, told
Portsmouth Herald News that the state order discriminates
against class members who don't owe money. According to him,
that disclosure of the names would violate a court
confidentiality order. He pointed out, "We really want to get
the payments out before the holidays." Both sides were to argue
their cases in federal court next week.

The settlement is a result of a suit filed in 2002, which
contends that the York County Sheriff's Department violated
federal law by requiring all persons brought into the jail for
holding to strip and shower in the presence of a corrections
officer, regardless of the reason for their arrest. The suit was
originally filed by Michele Nilsen of North Andover,
Massachusetts, who alleges that she was subjected to a strip
search after being arrested on charges of driving with a
suspended driver's license, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (April 5, 2005) reports.  

Ms. Nilsen was arrested back in 1999 in Ogunquit on a charge of
driving with a suspended license. She claimed in the suit, filed
in 2002, that the York County Sheriff's Department broke the law
by requiring all people brought to the jail to strip and shower
in front of an officer no matter how minor the charge from 1996
to 2004.

After the suit was filed, York County would later agree to pay
$3.3 million to settle it with a hearing date to review the
fairness of the settlement being set for August 1, 2005. If the
court grants final approval for the settlement, payments will be
sent to class members with the amount depending on how many
claims are submitted by the July 1 deadline. Those who want to
be excluded also may file by that date, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (March 11, 2005) reports.  

In April 2004, a three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals in Boston unanimously affirmed the decision of Judge
D. Brock Hornby of the U.S. District Court in Maine to allow the
class action suit. Judge Hornby in his 2003 ruling had stated
that a suit could be brought against jail and other county
officials on behalf of "all people strip-searched at the York
County Jail after October 14, 1996, under a policy of conducting
the searches without evaluating whether there was reasonable
suspicion to require the search." Eventually class action
lawsuit members were identified through the jail's computerized
booking data, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (April 5,
2005) reports.  

If the state order is upheld, 1,350 class members will have to
wait until after the Department of Health and Human Services
identifies those who owe child support or alimony. Court
documents show that one owes $43,000 in back payments.

The suit is styled, "NILSEN, et al. v. YORK COUNTY, et al, Case
No. 2:02-cv-00212-GZS," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Maine, previously under Judge D. Brock
Hornby, but now under Judge George Z. Singal. Representing the
Plaintiff/s are, Howard Friedman, Jennifer L. Bills, Myong J.
Joun and J. Lizette Richards of THE LAW OFFICE OF HOWARD
FRIEDMAN, 90 CANAL ST., 5TH FLOOR, BOSTON, MA 02114-2022, Phone:
(617) 742-4100, E-mail: hfriedman@civil-rights-law.com and David
G. Webbert of JOHNSON & WEBBERT, LLP, 160 CAPITOL ST., P.O. BOX
79, AUGUSTA, ME 04332, Phone: 207/623-5110, E-mail:
dwebbert@johnsonwebbert.com. Representing the Defendant/s are:

     (1) Peter T. Marchest of WHEELER & AREY, P.A., 27 TEMPLE
         ST., P.O. BOX 376, WATERVILLE, ME 04901, Phone: 873-
         7771, E-mail: pbear@wheelerlegal.com;

     (2) Thomas R. McKeon and Harrison L. Richardson of
         RICHARDSON, WHITMAN, LARGE & BADGER, 465 CONGRESS ST.,
         P.O. BOX 9545, PORTLAND, ME 04112-9545, Phone: (207)
         774-7474, E-mail: tmckeon@rwlb.com and
         hrichardson@rwlb.com; and

     (3) John J. Wall, III of MONAGHAN LEAHY, LLP, P.O. BOX
         7046, DTS, PORTLAND, ME 04112-7046, Phone: 774-3906,
         E-mail: jwall@monaghanleahy.com.


NOKIA CORPORATION: Securities Trial to Start on January 13, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
The court hearing of the class action suit filed against Nokia
OYJ (Nokia Corporation) (NYSE: NOK) will start in New York on
January 13, 2006, The eFinland reports.

Filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Nokia between January 8, 2004 and April 6, 2004, the
complaint charges the company, its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Jorma Ollila, its President, Pekka Ala-Pietila, its
Chief Financial Officer and Vice President, Richard Simonson,
and its Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer,
Matti Alahuhta with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (April 13,
2004) reports.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, defendants issued numerous statements to the
market concerning the Company's financial results, which failed
to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts,
among others:  

     (1) that the Company's market share for its handsets was
         eroding;

     (2) that this was due to its failure to introduce
         attractive handsets (a GSM clamshell model) in key
         middle-markets such as the United States, Asia, and
         Europe;

     (3) that sales of networking equipment were worse than
         expected due to market erosion of Nokia's products;

     (4) that the Company's new reorganization to four operating
         divisions did not energize the Company but rather
         reduced responsiveness to its business problems and
         caused the Company to experience operational
         effectiveness; and

     (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
         reasonable basis for their positive statements about
         the Company and their earnings projections.
    
On April 6, 2004, Nokia announced that its first quarter 2004
net sales would be below guidance. Nokia's net sales for the
first quarter 2004 were estimated to be EUR 6.6 billion,
representing a decline of 2% compared to the first quarter 2003
(vs. guidance of up 3-7%). News of this shocked the market.  
Shares of Nokia on the NYSE fell 18.6%, or $3.94 per share, to
close at $17.21 per share, down nearly 27% from their 52-week
high of $23.52 per share in early March 2004.  Additionally,
shares of Nokia on the Helsinki exchange dropped 17.1% to 14.38
euros ($17.39), an earlier Class Action Reporter story (April
13, 2004) reports.

Plaintiff firms involved in the litigation are:

     (i) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York),
         200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone:
         631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173;

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

   (iii) Glancy and Binkow, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311,
         Los Angelos, CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, Fax:
         info@glancylaw.com;

    (iv) 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;

     (v) 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;

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

   (vii) Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Ave., 8th Floor, New
         York, NY 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail:
         info@whhf.com;

  (viii) Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY), The French Building,
         551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, New York, NY 10126, Phone:
         212-682-3025, Fax: 212.682.3010, E-mail: info@wyca.com;
         and

    (ix) Geller Rudman, PLLC, 197 South Federal Highway, Suite
         200, Boca Raton, FL 33432, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax:
         888.262.3131, E-mail: info@geller-rudman.com.


NYMEX: Law Firm Demands Documents Related to Proposed Stake Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prominent class action law firm Wolf Haldenstein Alder Freeman &
Herz, LLP, slapped the New York Mercantile Exchange (Nymex) with
a demand for documents detailing the exchange's proposed stake
sale to private-equity firm General Atlantic LLC and its plans
to go public next year, The Dow Jones Newswires reports.

Sent as a letter on behalf of longtime seatholder Cataldo
Capozza and received by Nymex last November 29, 2005, the demand
seeks to investigate whether the proposed $135 million sale of a
10% equity stake will offer Nymex members fair value, as well as
examine plans by the exchange to rejigger corporate-governance
rules ahead of an initial public offering. In addition, it will
also probe whether Nymex misrepresented the way it handled bids
in its planned stake sale, according to people close to the
situation. The letter was filed last December 1, 2005 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Mark Rifkin, a partner at Wolf Haldenstein Alder Freeman & Herz,
LLP, the New York-based law firm representing Mr. Capozza told
The Dow Jones Newswires, "Any seatholder has the right to make
these demands" under the state law of Delaware, where Nymex is
incorporated. He added, "They either have to produce the
documents or we have to go to court to get them to produce
them." Nymex has until December 6, 2005 to respond, or Mr.
Capozza can sue the exchange for the documents, according to Mr.
Rifkin.

Capozza, a 20-year Nymex veteran who owns three exchange seats
told The Dow Jones Newswires, "We're going to do what we have to
do to protect the seatholders," adding, "But we don't take it
lightly. It's a long process."

Last month, Nymex signed a definitive agreement to sell a
minority stake to General Atlantic, a $10 billion venture-
capital firm based in Greenwich, Connecticut. The closely held
firm seeks to help prep the nation's largest energy and metals
exchange for a public float in mid-2006.

While Mr. Capozza is acting alone, a growing number of Nymex
seatholders, who own the exchange, have spoken out against the
planned stake sale to General Atlantic. It remained unclear
though whether recent seatholder worries could hurt chances for
finalizing the deal, since a majority of Nymex's 816 members
must approve the transaction. Nymex plans to hold a vote in
January, however a date has yet to be set. Seatholder complaints
range from concerns that Nymex undervalued its 10% stake, to
allegations that exchange officials rigged the bids, deciding on
a winner before all offers were in.

Mr. Capozza's exhaustive letter, which includes nearly 40
requests for Nymex documents and business records, asks for
specific details of exchange board meeting deliberations, board
votes and advice Nymex received from its financial advisers,
which include J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM).

The letter also requests documentation of any agreements inked
between Nymex executives and entities of General Atlantic,
including possible arrangements involving Nymex Vice Chairman
Richard Schaeffer, who backed General Atlantic's bid on the
exchange, and former Nymex Chairman Vincent Viola. Nymex has
made no disclosure of any such agreements in its SEC filings.


ORTHO-MCNEIL: Parker & Waichman Files Consolidation Motion in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Parker & Waichman, LLP, filed a motion before
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation requesting
consolidation of pharmaceutical liability lawsuits involving the
Ortho Evra transdermal birth control patch. The motion, which
was filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. No. 1407, and Rule 7.2 of the
Rules of Procedure for the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, requests the transfer of all related actions to the
District of New Jersey for consolidated pre-trial proceedings.
The motion was filed on behalf of Lydia M. Lilly, the plaintiff
in Lydia M. Lilly v. Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al.
(Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-04313 (D. New Jersey). Ortho Evra is
manufactured by Ortho McNeil, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson
(NYSE:JNJ), which is based in New Jersey. Ortho Evra has been
associated with potentially fatal side effects including
strokes, pulmonary emboli, blood clots, deep vein thrombosis and
heart attacks.

To date, at least one federal class action and nineteen (19)
individual federal actions, involving a total of twenty-six (26)
injured plaintiffs, have been commenced against Johnson &
Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research &
Development, L.L.C. f/k/a R.W. Johnson Pharmaceutical Research
Institute, and/or Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. These
actions assert substantially similar claims and seek
substantially similar relief. The class action was commenced in
the Eastern District of New York, and individual actions have
been filed in the following: District of New Jersey, Eastern
District of New York, Southern District of New York, Western
District of Pennsylvania, Western District of Texas, Western
District of North Carolina, Southern District of Ohio, Northern
District of Ohio, Western District of Louisiana, District of
Massachusetts, and Western District of Wisconsin.

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

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

Ortho Evra is an adhesive, transdermal birth control patch that
is applied to the skin. The patch is intended to release 150 mcg
of norelgestromin and 20 mcg of ethinyl estradiol into the
bloodstream every 24 hours. It is replaced once a week for three
weeks, and no patch is worn during the fourth week during
menstruation. The regimen is then repeated. Ortho Evra was
approved by the FDA in November 2001. Over 5 million women have
used Ortho Evra since its approval. Ortho Evra continues to be
marketed aggressively to both consumers and physicians.

For more details, contact Jason Mark, Esq. or Melanie H.
Muhlstock, Esq. of Parker & Waichman, LLP, Phone: 1-800-529-
4636, E-mail: info@yourlawyer.com, Web sites:
http://www.orthopatchlawsuit.comor  
http://www.yourlawyer.com/practice/overview.htm?topic=Ortho%20Ev
ra%20Patch.


PAYPAL INC.: Agency Warns of E-Mail Scams Touting CA Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is warning Internet users to
be on the lookout for a new "phishing" scam that urges
recipients to update their credit card and account information
in order to receive funds from a PayPal class action settlement,
The Washington Post reports.

A search in the web site, http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/,
reveals that "phishing" is e-mail fraud where the perpetrator
sends out legitimate-looking e-mails that appear to come from
well-known and trustworthy Web sites in an attempt to gather
personal and financial information from the recipient. A
phishing expedition, like the fishing expedition it's named for,
is a speculative venture: the phisher puts the lure hoping to
fool at least a few of the prey that encounter the bait. Web
sites that are frequently spoofed by phishers include PayPal,
eBay, MSN, Yahoo, BestBuy, and America Online. Phishers use a
number of different social engineering and e-mail spoofing ploys
to try to trick their victims.

According the FBI, the scam e-mail message includes convincing
elements, such as a litigation case number from a United States
District Court in California. It also links to a secure Web site
address where recipients can view a copy of the settlement
agreement and includes a statement that says PayPal will contact
people who do not submit their information by March 31 in order
to forward them a check in the mail.

The class action lawsuit that it mentions is indeed real,
however the e-mail is a scam. The official site for the real
class action settlement can be found at this address:
http://www.settlement4onlinepayments.com/.At the bottom part of  
the link provided the entire text of the "phishing" e-mail
message is printed.

PayPal, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated class
action filed against it in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, alleging that its
restriction of customer accounts and failure to promptly
unrestrict legitimate accounts violates California state
consumer protection laws and is an unfair business practice and
a breach of PayPal's User Agreement, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (March 4, 2005) reports.

One action was initially filed in California state court,
designated as case no. CV-808441.  A similar action was also
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California in June 2002 (No.C-02-2777). In March 2002, PayPal
was sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (No.C-02-1227) in a purported class action alleging
that its restrictions of customer accounts and failure to
promptly unrestrict legitimate accounts violates federal and
state consumer protection and unfair business practice laws.  
The two federal court actions were consolidated into a single
case, and the state court action was stayed pending developments
in the federal case, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(March 4, 2005) reports.  

In June 2004, the parties announced that they had reached a
proposed settlement. The settlement received approval from the
federal court on November 2, 2004, but the court's approval
could be appealed. In the settlement, the Company does not
acknowledge that any of the allegations in the case are true.
Under the terms of the settlement, certain PayPal account
holders will be eligible to receive payment from a settlement
fund of $9.25 million, less administrative costs and the amount
awarded to plaintiffs' counsel by the court.  That sum will be
distributed to class members who have submitted timely claims in
accordance with the settlement's plan of allocation, which still
must be approved by the court. The parties expect that a plan of
allocation will be submitted to the court in the first quarter
of 2005, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (March 4, 2005)
reports.  

The suit is styled, "In Re Paypal Litigation, Case No. 5:02-cv-
01227-JF," filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, under Judge Jeremy Fogel with
referral to Judge Patricia V. Trumbull. Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Patricia I. Avery, Wolf Popper LLP, 845 Third Avenue,
         New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-759-4600, Fax: 212-486-
         2093, E-mail: pavery@wolfpopper.com

     (2) A.J. De Bartolomeo, Eric H. Gibbs, Daniel C. Girard,
         Rosemary M. Rivas, Ann Saponara of Girard Gibbs & De
         Bartolomeo, 601 California Street, Suite 1400, San
         Francisco, CA 4108, Phone: 415-981-4800, Fax: 415 981-
         4846, E-mail: ajd@girardgibbs.com,
         girardgibbs@girardgibbs.com, rmr@girardgibbs.com  

     (3) James A.N. Smith, The Davis Law Firm, 625 Market St
         12FL, San Francisco, Ca 94105-3314, Phone: (415)-278-
         1400, E-mail: jsmith@sfdavislaw.com

Representing the Company are David J. Brown, Mikayla Shawn
Connell, David S. Harris, Stephanie Jane Johnson, Molly Moriarty
Lane, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, One Market, Spear Street
Tower, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-442-1222, Fax: 415-
442-1010, E-mail: djbrown@morganlewis.com,
msconnell@morganlewis.com, dsharris@morganlewis.com,
sjjohnson@morganlewis.com, mlane@morganlewis.com


PIPER JAFFRAY: Discovery Proceeds in NY IPO Allocation Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery proceeds in the consolidated securities class action
filed against Piper Jaffray Companies, Inc. and other leading
securities firms in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Many putative class actions were initially filed in 2001 and
2002 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York involving the allocation of securities in certain initial
public offerings.  The court's order, dated August 8, 2001,
transferred all related class action complaints for coordination
and pretrial purposes as "In re Initial Public Offering
Allocation Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92
(SAS)."

These complaints assert claims pursuant to Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
claims are based, in part, upon allegations that between 1998
and 2000, in connection with acting as an underwriter of certain
initial public offerings of technology and Internet-related
companies, the Company obtained excessive compensation by
allocating shares in these initial public offerings to preferred
customers who, in return, purportedly agreed to pay additional
compensation to the Company in the form of excess commissions
that we failed to disclose.  The complaints also allege that the
Company's customers who received favorable allocations of shares
in initial public offerings agreed to purchase additional shares
of the same issuer in the secondary market at pre-determined
prices.  These complaints seek unspecified damages.  The
defendants' motions to dismiss the complaints were filed on July
1, 2002, and oral argument on the motions to dismiss was heard
on November 14, 2002.  The court entered its order largely
denying the motions to dismiss on February 19, 2003.  A status
conference was held with the court on July 11, 2003, for
purposes of establishing a case management plan setting forth
discovery deadlines, selecting focus cases and briefing class
certification.

Seventeen focus cases were selected, including eleven cases for
purposes of merits discovery and six cases for purposes of class
certification.  The Company was named defendants in two of the
merits focus cases and none of the class certification focus
cases.  On October 13, 2004, the court issued an opinion largely
granting plaintiffs' motions for class certification in the six
class certification focus cases.  Defendants filed a petition
seeking leave to appeal the class certification ruling on
October 27, 2004.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
petition on November 8, 2004, and defendants filed their reply
in further support of the petition on November 15, 2004.  The
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted
the defendants' petition on June 30, 2005.  The defendants filed
their brief on October 3, 2005. Plaintiffs' response is
currently due on or before December 5, 2005. Discovery is
proceeding with respect to the remaining eleven focus cases
selected for merits discovery.


PIPER JAFFRAY: Discovery Proceeds in NY Fee Antitrust Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated class action filed
against Piper Jaffray Companies, Inc. and other leading
securities firms in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Several suits were initially filed in 1998.  The court's order,
dated February 11, 1999, consolidated these purported class
actions for all purposes as "In re Public Offering Fee Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 98 CV 7890 (LMM)."  The consolidated
amended complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, treble
damages and injunctive relief.  The consolidated amended
complaint was filed on behalf of purchasers of shares issued in
certain initial public offerings for U.S. companies and alleges
that defendants conspired in offerings of an amount between $20
million and $80 million to fix the underwriters' discount at 7.0
percent of the offering amount in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act. The court dismissed this consolidated action with
prejudice and denied plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint
and include an issuer plaintiff. The court stated that its
decision did not affect any class actions filed on behalf of
issuer plaintiffs.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district
court's decision on December 13, 2002 and remanded the action to
the district court. A motion to dismiss was filed with the
district court on March 26, 2003 seeking dismissal of this
action and the issuer plaintiff action described below in their
entirety, based upon the argument that the determination of
underwriting fees is implicitly immune from the antitrust laws
because of the extensive federal regulation of the securities
markets.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to
dismiss on April 25, 2003.  The underwriter defendants filed a
motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum of law in
further support of their motion to dismiss on June 10, 2003.  
The court denied the motion to dismiss based upon implied
immunity in its memorandum and order dated June 26, 2003. A
supplemental memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss,
applicable only to this action because the purported class
consists of indirect purchasers, was filed on June 24, 2003 and
seeks dismissal based upon the argument that the proposed class
members cannot state claims upon which relief can be granted.
Plaintiffs filed a supplemental memorandum in opposition to
defendants' motion to dismiss on July 9, 2003.  Defendants filed
a reply in further support of the motion to dismiss on July 25,
2003.  The court entered its memorandum and order granting in
part and denying in part the motion to dismiss on February 24,
2004. Plaintiffs' damage claims were dismissed because they were
indirect purchasers. The motion to dismiss was denied with
respect to plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief. We filed
our answer to the consolidated amended complaint on April 22,
2004.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and
supporting memorandum of law on September 16, 2004.  Class
discovery concluded on April 11, 2005.  Defendants filed their
brief in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on May 25, 2005.  Oral argument with respect to
the class certification motion has not yet been scheduled.  
Discovery is proceeding at this time.

Similar purported class actions have also been filed against us
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of issuer plaintiffs asserting substantially similar
antitrust claims based upon allegations that 7.0 percent
underwriters' discounts violate the Sherman Act.  These
purported class actions were consolidated by the district court
as "In re Issuer Plaintiff Initial Public Offering Fee Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 00 CV 7804 (LMM)," on May 23, 2001.  These
complaints also seek unspecified compensatory damages, treble
damages and injunctive relief.  

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on July
6, 2001. The district court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaint on September 30, 2002. Defendants filed a motion
to certify the order for interlocutory appeal on October 15,
2002.  On March 26, 2003, the motion to dismiss based upon
implied immunity was also filed in connection with this action.
The court denied the motion to dismiss on June 26, 2003.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and supporting
memorandum of law on September 16, 2004.  Class discovery
concluded on April 11, 2005.  Defendants filed their brief in
opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification on May
25, 2005.  Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of their motion
for class certification was filed on October 20, 2005. Oral
argument with respect to the class certification motion has not
yet been scheduled.


PIPER JAFFRAY: Discovery Proceeding in NY IPO Fee Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated class action filed
against Piper Jaffray Companies, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of issuer plaintiffs asserting that 7.0 percent underwriters'
discounts violate the Sherman Act.

Several suits were initially filed and later consolidated under
"In re Issuer Plaintiff Initial Public Offering Fee Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 00 CV 7804 (LMM)," on May 23, 2001. These
complaints also seek unspecified compensatory damages, treble
damages and injunctive relief.  Plaintiffs filed a consolidated
class action complaint on July 6, 2001.  

The district court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the
complaint on September 30, 2002. Defendants filed a motion to
certify the order for interlocutory appeal on October 15, 2002.
On March 26, 2003, the motion to dismiss based upon implied
immunity was also filed in connection with this action. The
court denied the motion to dismiss on June 26, 2003. Plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification and supporting memorandum
of law on September 16, 2004. Class discovery concluded on April
11, 2005.  Defendants filed their brief in opposition to
plaintiffs' motion for class certification on May 25, 2005.
Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of their motion for class
certification was filed on October 20, 2005.  Oral argument with
respect to the class certification motion has not yet been
scheduled.


PREMIUM STANDARD: MO Residents Launch Property Injury Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Premium Standard Farms, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court in Kansas City, Missouri, styled
"Daniel Herrold, et al. and Others Similarly Situated v.
ContiGroup Companies, Inc, Premium Standard Farms, Inc., and PSF
Group Holdings, Inc."

The suit was initially filed in the Circuit Court of Jackson
County, Kansas City, Missouri. The action seeks to create a
class of plaintiffs living within 10 miles of the Company's
farms in northern Missouri, including contract grower farms, who
are alleged to have suffered interference with their right to
use and have quiet enjoyment of their respective properties and
are seeking unspecified damages.  The Company later removed this
case to the U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Missouri.

The suit is styled "Herrold et al v. Contigroup Companies, Inc.
et al., case no. 4:04-cv-00618-GAF," filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri, under Judge
Gary A. Fenner.  Representing the plaintiffs are Tammy R.
Dodson, Donnamarie Landsberg, Charles F. Speer of Speer Law
Firm, 104 West 9th Street, Suite 305, Kansas City, MO 64105,
Phone: (816) 472-3560, Fax: (816) 421-2150, E-mail:
tdodson@speerlawfirm.com, dlandsberg@speerlawfirm.com or
cspeer@speerlawfirm.com.  Representing the Company are Mark D.
Anstoetter of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP-Grand, 2555 Grand
Boulevard, Kansas City, MO 64108-2613, Phone: (816) 474-6550,
Fax: 816-421-5547, E-mail: manstoetter@shb.com; and Kirk J.
Goza, Goza & Honnold, LLC, 1100 Main Street, Suite 2630, Kansas
City, MO 64148-2355, Phone: (816) 512-2171, Fax: (816) 512-2172,
E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com.


PROTON ENERGY: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Proton Energy
Systems, Inc., certain of its officers and directors and the
underwriters of its September 28,2000 initial public offering
(IPO).

Between July 3, 2001 and August 29, 2001, four purported class
action lawsuits were filed on behalf of persons who purchased
the Company's common stock from September 28, 2000 through and
including December 6, 2000. The complaints are similar, and
allege that the Company's IPO registration statement and final
prospectus contained material misrepresentations and/or
omissions related, in part, to excessive and undisclosed
commissions allegedly received by the underwriters from
investors to whom the underwriters allegedly allocated shares of
the IPO.

On April 19, 2002, a single Consolidated Amended Complaint was
filed, reiterating in one pleading the allegations contained in
the previously filed separate actions, including the alleged
class period of September 28, 2000 through and including
December 6, 2000.  On July 15, 2002 the Company joined in an
omnibus motion to dismiss the lawsuits filed by all issuer
defendants named in similar actions which challenges the legal
sufficiency of the plaintiffs' claims, including those in the
consolidated amended complaint.  Plaintiffs opposed the motion
and the Court heard oral argument on the motion in November
2002. On February 19, 2003, the Court issued an Opinion and
Order, granting in part and denying in part the motion to
dismiss as to the Company.  In addition, in August 2002, the
plaintiffs agreed to dismiss without prejudice all of the
individual defendants from the consolidated complaint. An order
to that effect was entered by the Court in October 2002.

A special Litigation Committee of the Board of Directors has
authorized the Company to negotiate a settlement of the pending
claims substantially consistent with a Memorandum of
Understanding, which was negotiated among class plaintiffs, all
issuer defendants and their insurers.  The parties negotiated a
settlement which is subject to approval by the Court.  On
February 15, 2005, the Court issued an Opinion and Order
preliminarily approving the settlement, provided that the
defendants and plaintiffs agree to a modification narrowing the
scope of the bar order set forth in the original settlement.  
The parties agreed to a modification narrowing the scope of the
bar order, and on August 31, 2005, the Court issued an order
preliminarily approving the settlement.

The suit is styled "In re Proton Energy Systems, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Sec. Litigation," related to "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92
(SAS)," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300,

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

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.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


SOUTH CAROLINA: High Court Hears Arguments in TERI Workers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The South Carolina Supreme Court recently heard arguments about
a new state law that requires payroll retirement contributions
from state retirees who return to work under a special incentive
program, The Associated Press reports.

The Legislature had ordered those deductions to begin as it
tried to put the state's pension plan on firmer financial
footing. The $50 million in deductions from Teacher and Employee
Retirement Incentive participants and other retirees back on
state payrolls would be linked with higher employer
contributions and other changes. Its aim was to generate money
for retiree cost-of-living increases and address financial
concerns overhanging the pension system.

The contributions were supposed to begin in July, however, four
retirees affected by the new deductions sued to keep the 6.5
percent deductions from coming out of their checks. The Supreme
Court took the case immediately and made it a class action
covering all retirees back on state payrolls and ordered the
state to set aside the contributions. The justices appeared
particularly interested in whether state law creates contracts
or other guarantees with the retirees. The case now affects the
13,400 TERI employees and most of the other 8,600 retirees who
have returned to state jobs.

The workers filed the suit on June 13, 2005, alleging that the
state broke its contract with TERI workers and asking a judge to
temporarily stop the state from deducting the money from their
paychecks. In their suit, the plaintiffs claim that requiring
them to pay into the system but denying the credit for extra
service, which would increase their pension, is like a sudden
pay cut, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (June 28, 2005)
reports.

Under TERI, state employees can retire after 28 years and return
for up to five years without contributing to the retirement
system. The pension benefits of TERI participants are set aside
until they finally retire.

Dropping the 6.5 percent payroll deduction for the retirement
system attracted people to TERI, Cam Lewis, the lead lawyer for
the retirees told the high court. He adds that the program also
amounted to a contract with those workers. Mr. Lewis also told
the court, "The state says if you retire, if you agree to put
your money in the box and get no interest, we will let you work
up to five years. ... And you don't have to pay anything into
the retirement system because your benefits are frozen at that
time."

Justice James E. Moore asked Mr. Lewis whether the Legislature
could change that. Mr. Lewis agreed it could, but only for
people who had not decided to retire and enter the incentive
program. For current TERI participants, "it is a right that the
state can't take away," according to Mr. Lewis. Additionally,
Mr. Lewis pointed out that the state thinks that it is OK to
take "a thousand dollars out of your pocket" and promise to pay
that back during the next 30 years. He argues, "I just don't
think our Constitution allows the government just to reach in
your pocket and take a thousand dollars" and say it will be
given back later.

Meanwhile, Chief Justice Jean Toal focused on the Legislature's
promises. The South Carolina Retirement Systems lawyer and
others have argued that a guaranteed cost-of-living increase
that is included in the Legislation more than covers any income
loss to TERI participants. The chief justice asked Mr. Lewis,
"How 'bout the language that says it's guaranteed. Is this COLA
guaranteed?" To which Mr. Lewis replies, "If they can change us
(TERI retirees), they can change the COLA."

After Mr. Lewis answered her inquiries, Justice Toal proceeded
to tell Bobby Stepp, the lawyer representing the retirement
system that she was concerned that the state was arguing that
the pension system needed money for better benefits "and the
only convenient target for that was this group of TERI people."

Mr. Stepp replied to Justice Toal comments by saying, it was the
Legislature's job under the Constitution to make sure the
benefits are paid and that it had expanded benefits with the
cost-of-living increase.

"That COLA though, I know you talk about it being guaranteed,
but it seems it's not any more guaranteed than anything else" in
the system, according the state's arguments, Justice Toal said.

Justice Moore then asked what requires the General Assembly to
pay the COLA. To which Mr. Stepp replies, "There is nothing that
requires the General Assembly to do it." "So it's not
guaranteed?" Justice Toal asks. In the end, Mr. Stepp conceded
that the 1 percent guaranteed cost-of-living increase in the new
law could be taken away by the Legislature.

Despite hearing arguments it could still take weeks before the
court issues a decision, which could include overturning parts
of the law.


SOUTH KOREA: Group Mulls Suit V. Government Over Kimchi Report
--------------------------------------------------------------
Korea Agriculture Food Trade Association stated that South
Korean kimchi exporters would sue the government to demand
compensation for damages caused by its report on the discovery
of parasite eggs in kimchi, The Korea Times reports.

According to the trade organization, which is representing 18
major kimchi exporters, "The government must take full
responsibility for the backlash from its announcement. We will
file a class action suit against the government."

Back in October, the nation's food regulator announced in that
it had found parasite eggs in some kimchi imported from China.
Since then, consumption of the spicy fermented cabbage
plummeted. The following month, authorities found that some
domestically produced kimchi was also contaminated with parasite
eggs.

Kimchi is a Korean dish made of spicy fermented vegetables.
Imported kimchi from China has become more common at local
restaurants recently.

The exporters called for the government to grant them
compensation, increase government subsidies and provide
emergency financial aid, according to the association. In
addition, the trade association also sent a letter of
recommendation to related government bodies, including the
presidential office and the National Assembly, urging emergency
measures to assist the industry.

In that letter, the association claims, "The Korea Food and Drug
Administration publicized kimchi as a disgusting food to the
entire world, leaving exporters on the verge of bankruptcy." The
letter also asserted, "Kimchi consumption tumbled to less than
50 percent than it was before in Japan. Most companies are
operating at only 20 percent to 30 percent of their normal
capacity. We might have to reduce our workforce."

South Korea's No. 1 kimchi producer Doosan Co. also endorsed the
letter. An official of the company said, "As one of the kimchi
exporters, Doosan signed the letter but has not publicized its
stance on whether it will file a suit over the issue."

The parasite eggs the authorities found in kimchi were mostly
those of roundworm, found in dogs and cats, which do not
normally affect humans. Late last month, ministers from eight
related government offices pledged to streamline food safety
enforcement to improve sanitation standards on kimchi.


ST. JUDE: Court Reverses Certification For MN Silzone Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the
certification of the consolidated federal class action filed
against St. Jude Medical, Inc. in the United States District
Court in Minnesota, in connection to its Silzoner devices, which
it recalled in January 2000, after receiving information from a
clinical study that patients with a Silzoner valve had a small,
but statistically significant, increased incidence of explant
due to paravalvular leak compared to patients in that clinical
study with non-Silzoner heart valves.

Subsequent to the Company's voluntary recall, the Company has
been sued in various jurisdictions by some patients who received
a Silzoner device and, as of April 20, 2005, has cases pending
in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland and
France.  Some of these claims allege bodily injuries as a result
of an explant or other complications, which they attribute to
the Silzoner devices.  Others, who have not had their device
explanted, seek compensation for past and future costs of
special monitoring they allege they need over and above the
medical monitoring all replacement heart valve patients receive.
Some of the lawsuits seeking the cost of monitoring have been
initiated by patients who are asymptomatic and who have no
apparent clinical injury to date.

The Company has settled a number of these Silzoner-related cases
and others have been dismissed. Cases filed in the United States
in federal courts have been consolidated in the federal district
court for the district of Minnesota under Judge John R. Tunheim.
A number of class-action complaints have been consolidated into
one case.  Judge Tunheim ruled against the Company on the issue
of preemption and found that the plaintiffs' causes of action
were not preempted by the U.S. Food and Drug Act. The Company
sought to appeal this ruling, but the appellate court determined
that it would not review the ruling at this point in the
proceedings.

Certain plaintiffs have requested Judge Tunheim to allow some
cases to proceed as class actions. In response to their
requests, Judge Tunheim has issued several rulings concerning
class action certification. Although more detail is set forth in
the orders issued by the court, the result of these rulings is
that Judge Tunheim declined to grant class-action status to
personal injury claims, but granted class-action status for
claimants from seventeen states to proceed with medical
monitoring claims, so long as they do not have a clinical
injury. The court also indicated that a class action could
proceed under Minnesota's Consumer Protection statutes.

The Company requested the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to
review Judge Tunheim's class certification orders. In a
September 2, 2004 order, the appellate court indicated it would
accept the appeal of Judge Tunheim's certification orders. The
issues have now been briefed and the parties are awaiting a date
for oral arguments concerning the appeal.

On October 12, 2005, the Eighth Circuit issued a decision
reversing Judge Tunheim's class certification rulings. More
specifically, the Eighth Circuit ruled that the District Court
erred in certifying a consumer protection class seeking damages
based on Minnesota's consumer protection statutes, and required
the District Court in further proceedings to conduct a thorough
conflicts-of-law analysis as to each plaintiff class member
before applying Minnesota law.  In addition, in its October 12,
2005 opinion, the Eighth Circuit also ruled that the District
Court's certification of a medical monitoring class was an abuse
of discretion and thus reversed Judge Tunheim's certification of
a medical monitoring class involving the products with Silzone
coating.

It is expected that Judge Tunheim will set up a briefing
schedule in the near future for the parties to provide the court
with their analysis concerning next steps in the proceedings,
including the conflicts-of-law issue as it relates to the
various consumer protection statutes throughout the nation.

In addition, as of October 18, 2005, there are 14 individual
Silzone cases pending in various federal courts where plaintiffs
are requesting damages ranging from $10 thousand to $120.5
million and, in some cases, seeking an unspecified amount. These
cases are proceeding in accordance with the orders issued by
Judge Tunheim. Not counting a case in Texas, which has been
dismissed but which remains on appeal, there are also 25
individual state court suits concerning Silzone products pending
as of October 18, 2005, involving 33 patients.  The complaints
in these cases request damages ranging from $50 thousand to $100
thousand and, in some cases, seek an unspecified amount. These
state court cases are proceeding in accordance with the orders
issued by the judges in those matters.

In addition, a lawsuit seeking a class action for all persons
residing in the European Economic Union member jurisdictions who
have had a heart valve replacement and/or repair procedure using
a product with Silzone coating was filed in Minnesota state
court and served upon the Company on February 11, 2004, by two
European citizens who now live in Canada. The complaint seeks
damages in an unspecified amount for the class, and in excess of
$50 thousand for the representative plaintiff individually.  The
complaint also seeks injunctive relief in the form of medical
monitoring. The Company is opposing the plaintiffs' pursuit of
this case on jurisdictional, procedural and substantive grounds.

There are also four class-action cases and one individual case
pending against the Company in Canada. In one such case in
Ontario, the court certified that a class action may proceed
involving Silzone patients. The Company's request for leave to
appeal the rulings on certification was rejected. A second case
seeking class action in Ontario has been stayed pending
resolution of the other Ontario action, and a case seeking class
action in British Columbia is also proceeding but is in its
early stages. A court in the Province of Quebec has certified a
class action, and that matter is proceeding per the orders in
that court. The complaints in these cases each request damages
ranging from the equivalent to $1.3 million to $425 million.

In the United Kingdom, one case involving one plaintiff is
pending as of October 18, 2005. The Particulars of Claim in that
case was served on December 21, 2004. The plaintiff in this case
requests damages equivalent to approximately $350 thousand.

In Ireland, one case involving one plaintiff is pending as of
October 18, 2005. The complaint in this case was served on
December 30, 2004, and seeks an unspecified amount in damages.
In France, one case involving one plaintiff is pending as of
October 18, 2005. It was initiated by way of an Injunctive
Summons to Appear that was served on November 3, 2004, and
requests damages in excess of the equivalent to $3.6 million.


ST. JUDE: Working To Resolve Symmetry Heart Devices Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. is working to resolve litigation filed
against it in the United States which allege that its Symmetry
Bypass System Aortic Connector (Symmetry device) caused bodily
injury or might cause bodily injury.  In addition, a number of
persons have made a claim against the Company involving the
Symmetry device without filing a lawsuit.

The first lawsuit involving the Symmetry device was filed
against the Company on August 5, 2003, and the most recently
initiated case was served upon the Company on March 15, 2005.
Each of the complaints in these cases request damages ranging
from $50 thousand to $100 thousand and, in some cases, seeks an
unspecified amount.

Four of the sixteen cases are seeking class-action status. One
of the cases seeking class-action status has been dismissed, but
the dismissal is being appealed by the plaintiff. In a second
case seeking class action status, a Magistrate Judge has
recommended that the matter not proceed as a class-action, and
the parties are presently awaiting the court to review the
Magistrate's decision. A third case seeking class action status
has been indefinitely stayed by the court, and is presently
inactive. The hearing concerning class certification in the
fourth case seeking class action status is scheduled for May 19,
2005. It appears that the plaintiffs in those cases seeking
class-action status seek or will seek damages for injuries and
monitoring costs.

In a disclosure with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Company said that the Symmetry device was cleared through a
510(K) submission to the FDA, and therefore, is not eligible for
the defense under the doctrine of federal preemption that such
suits are prohibited.  Given the Company's self-insured
retention levels under its product liability insurance policies,
the Company expects that it will be solely responsible for these
lawsuits, including any costs of defense, settlements and
judgments.

As of October 18, 2005, all but six of the cases which allege
that the Symmetry device caused bodily injury or might cause
bodily injury have been resolved. Three of the six unresolved
cases were initiated in the third quarter of 2005.  The
Company's Symmetry device was cleared through a 510(K)
submission to the FDA, and therefore, the Company is unable to
rely on a defense under the doctrine of federal preemption that
such suits are prohibited.  Given the Company's self-insured
retention levels under its product liability insurance policies,
the Company expects that it will be solely responsible for these
lawsuits, including any costs of defense, settlements and
judgments.

Although four cases asserted against the Company involving the
Symmetry device sought class-action status, no class actions
were certified in those cases. In one of those cases, the
request seeking class action was dismissed, and the plaintiff
appealed the dismissal. In another, a Magistrate Judge
recommended that the case not proceed as a class action. In the
third case, the trial judge denied class certification in a July
26, 2005 decision which was not appealed. No motion requesting
the court to certify a class action was ever pursued in the
fourth case. Therefore, as of October 18, 2005, no class actions
have been certified in cases involving the Symmetry device, and
all four cases where class actions were initially sought have
now been resolved, including the case where the original
dismissal was appealed.

The six unresolved cases involving the Symmetry device are
pending in state court in Minnesota and federal court in
Pennsylvania. The first of the unresolved cases involving the
Symmetry device was commenced against the Company on August 3,
2004, and the most recently initiated unresolved case was
commenced against the Company on September 30, 2005. Each of the
complaints in these unresolved cases request damages in excess
of $50 thousand. In addition to this litigation, some persons
have made claims against the Company involving the Symmetry
device without filing a lawsuit, although, as with the lawsuits,
the majority of the claims that the Company has been made aware
of as of October 18, 2005 have been resolved.


STRAVINA OPERATING: Recalls Kids' Jewelry For High Lead Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Stravina Operating Co., LLC, of Chatsworth, Calif., is
voluntarily recalling about 6 million children's metal necklaces
and zipper pulls.

The recalled metal jewelry contains high levels of accessible
lead in the metal and/or the paint, posing a serious risk of
lead poisoning to young children. Lead is toxic if ingested by
children and can cause adverse health effects.

There have been no incidents or injuries reported with the metal
necklaces and zipper pulls.

The recalled necklaces are silver-colored with individual names
painted in variety of colors. The nameplate on the necklace
hangs from a 16-inch black cord. The necklace packages are
marked "Personalized Necklace" and "Stravina". UPC Code 0-35203-
00039-7 is on the necklace package.

The recalled zipper pulls are silver-colored with individual
names that come in various colors. The zipper pull hangs from a
silver-colored metal clip designed to attach to a backpack, a
keyring, and zippers on clothing. Printed on the zipper pull's
packaging is "Personalized Zipper Pull," "Great for Backpacks
and Keyrings too" and "Stravina." UPC Code 0-35203-00038-0 is
written on the package. Pictures of recalled products:

     (1) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06042a.jpg

     (2) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06042b.jpg

The recalled metal necklaces and zipper pulls were sold at
discount, toy, party, grocery and drug stores from March 2002
through September 2005 for between $2 and $4. All of the jewelry
was manufactured in China.

Consumers should immediately take this metal jewelry away from
children and contact Stravina for a free replacement product at
(800) 964-0029 between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday. Consumers can also visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.stravina.com.


TEMPUR PEDIC: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in E.D. KY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tempur-Pedic International Inc. and four of its directors and
officers face several purported class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky (Lexington Division) on behalf of shareholders who
purchased Company stock between April 22, 2005 and September 19,
2005.

The suits assert claims arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suits allege that
certain of the Company's public disclosures regarding its
financial performance between April 22, 2005 and September 19,
2005 were false and/or misleading.  The principal allegation set
forth in the Securities Law Complaints is that the Company did
not disclose the impact of competition on its prospects. The
plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, costs, fees and other
relief within the Court's discretion.


UNITED KINGDOM: Parents Can Sue Corby Council For Birth Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parents of 30 children born with birth defects were given
permission to sue a Midlands council in the United Kingdom,
which they believe is responsible for allowing the toxic
contamination of the area, The Environmental Data Interactive
reports.

The mothers of children born with malformed limbs were recently
given the right to launch a class action against Corby Borough
Council. The defects vary in severity and include webbed,
malformed or missing digits, hands and feet.

Mothers blamed the problem on toxic waste dumps left over from
Northamptonshire's formerly thriving steel industry, claiming
that there was never an adequate cleanup and that exposure to
the contamination during pregnancy led to the defects. Their
claim worked its way through the legal system since early 2002,
after alarm bells started ringing when local hospitals found
themselves dealing with an unusually high incidence of limb
defects. None of the families involved in the case have any
history of congenital abnormalities similar to those displayed
by the children.

Corby used to be at the county's industrial heart and following
the closure of a large British Steel plant in the 1980s the
local council was left in charge of the clean up. Later though,
questions were raised over the management of the operation where
lorries brought toxic waste and dumped it in about a dozen pits
in and around the town. The dumped waste is thought to have been
mainly lead and zinc-based byproducts of steel making. Locals
talk of a sour smell hanging in the air for days around the time
of the dumping.

The case against the council is based upon a report showing the
number of cases of lower limb congenital defects were three
times higher in Corby during the period in question than in the
surrounding area. The council though steadfastly maintained that
it has not behaved improperly and has welcomed the opportunity
to answer the case in court.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers granted the
parents permission to bring a class action against the council
relating to the council's management of the land remediation
project.


VERIZON WIRELESS: Customer Service Representatives File PA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Verizon Wireless, Inc. faces a wage hour class action filed in
United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania
entitled "Michael Weale v. Verizon Wireless, Inc."  

The plaintiff has agreed to amend its complaint to name the
Company as the sole defendant. The plaintiff alleges that the
Company, prior to March 2005, pursued a policy and practice of
forcing its customer service representatives to perform certain
"work inception activities" prior to the start of their shifts
without proper compensation.  The plaintiff brings this action
on behalf of all customer service representatives employed
within Verizon Wireless's call centers throughout the country.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified money damages in the form of
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief.

The suit is styled "WEALE v. VERIZON WIRELESS, INC., case no.
2:05-cv-01165-DWA," filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania, under Judge Donetta W.
Ambrose.  Representing the plaintiffs are R. Bruce Carlson, Gary
F. Lynch, CARLSON LYNCH LTD, P.O. Box 367, 231 Melville Lane,
Sewickley, PA 15143, Phone: (412) 749-1677, E-mail:
bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com or glynch@carlsonlynch.com.  


VISX INC.: CA Court Approves Settlement of Suits V. AMO Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara approved the settlement for two putative class actions
filed against VISX Inc. and its board of directors, styled
"William Kinchy vs. VISX, Incorporated, et al., Case No.
104CV030447" and "Douglas Shearer vs. VISX, Incorporated, et
al., Case No. 104CV030452."

On January 27, 2005, the court ordered the two cases
consolidated under the Kinchy case.  On January 28, 2005,
William Kinchy filed an amended complaint that alleges, among
other things, that the Company's Board of Directors and certain
executive officers breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty
and due care by approving the merger agreement with Advanced
Medical Optics, Inc. (AMO) and the merger contemplated by the
merger agreement without undertaking sufficient efforts to
obtain the best offer possible for stockholders.  The complaint
further alleges that the consideration to be paid in the merger
is unfair and inadequate, and that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties of care, loyalty and candor to the Company's
public stockholders in connection with the merger.  The
complaint seeks an injunction prohibiting the Company from
consummating the merger and rights of rescission against the
merger and any of the terms of the merger agreement, as well as
attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 14, 2005, the Company reached an agreement in principle
with plaintiff's counsel pursuant to which plaintiff will
release the defendants, as well as AMO and certain VISX agents
and affiliates, from all claims that have been brought or could
have been brought under state or federal law arising out of or
relating to the merger. The settlement agreement remains subject
to approval by the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Santa Clara, which is not expected to be obtained
prior to the completion of the merger. Under the agreement in
principle, the Company agreed to make certain additional
disclosures that have been included in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus. In addition, the Company has agreed that
it will not oppose a fee application by plaintiff's counsel of
up to $500,000.  The settlement does not contemplate any changes
to the merger agreement or the merger.

The settlement agreement was approved by the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Santa Clara on October
6, 2005. Under the agreement, the Company agreed to make certain
additional disclosures that were included in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus. In addition, the Company paid fees applied
for by plaintiff's counsel of $500,000.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

GREAT WOLF: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in WI
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. (Nasdaq: WOLF) ("Great
Wolf" or the "Company") between December 14, 2004, and July 28,
2005, including those who purchased stock pursuant to or
traceable to the Company's initial public offering on or about
December 14, 2004 (the "Offering" or the "IPO"), inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The complaint charges Great Wolf, John Emery, James A. Calder,
Bruce D. Neviaser, Elan Blutinger, Randy Churchey, Michael M.
Knetter, Alissa N. Nolan, Howard Silver, and Marc B. Vaccaro
with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act"). More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company lacked an adequate internal system of
         controls necessary to accurately ascertain the
         Company's overall condition;

     (2) that the Company's quarterly and annual guidance based
         on non-GAAP EBITDA and Adjusted Net Income concealed
         the true financial health of the Company; and

     (3) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
         statements with respect to its future prospects and the
         intrinsic value of its business lacked in all
         reasonable basis.

Great Wolf operates as a family entertainment resort company in
the United States. The Company owns, operates, and develops
drive-to family resorts featuring indoor water parks and other
family-oriented entertainment activities. The Company was formed
in May 2004 to succeed to the family entertainment resort
business of its predecessor companies, The Great Lakes
Companies, Inc. and a number of its related entities.

In December 2004, Great Wolf commenced a public offering, with
the intent to acquire, from Great Lakes, its resorts and the
resorts currently under construction, as well as certain resort
development and management operations, in exchange for an
aggregate of 14,033,501 shares of its common stock and $97.6
million. In the IPO, the Company issued 14,000,000 shares of
stock to public investors and planned to use a portion of the
proceeds as partial consideration for the purchase of the
resorts.

Investors purchased Great Wolf's shares pursuant to registration
statements, which contained misleading and exaggerated
statements regarding Great Wolf's future prospects and the
intrinsic value of the Company's business. On June 14, 2005,
Great Wolf revised downward its previously announced financial
guidance while remaining positive about its future prospects.
The warning concealed from investors the actual state of affairs
at Great Wolf. Then, on July 28, 2005, Great Wolf announced that
its results were significantly below the Company's previously
announced guidance. On this news, shares of Great Wolf fell
$6.12 per share, or 30 percent, to close, on July 28, 2005, at
$13.65 per share.

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.


HYDROFLO INC.: Rosen Law Firm Provides Litigation Update
--------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm P.A., which filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of all investors who purchased common stock of HydroFlo,
Inc. (the "Company" or "HydroFlo") (OTC BB: HYRF) during the
period from July 18, 2005 through October 26, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period") announces that since it filed this class
action complaint, the law firm of Dyer & Shuman and others have
issued press releases announcing the HydroFlo class action and
encouraging shareholders to consider their legal options. Be
advised that no other law firms have filed a complaint on behalf
of investors against HydroFlo. In some cases, these other law
firms are posting the complaint drafted by The Rosen Law Firm on
their websites. These press releases issued by law firms who
have not actually filed any complaint appear to be
advertisements designed to solicit clients.

The Rosen Law Firm has been retained to recover investors' stock
losses from HydroFlo and certain of its officers and directors
for alleged violations of the federal securities laws.

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

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

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


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

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

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


NAPA COMMUNITY: Law Firms File Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Friedemann Goldberg LLP and Trevor & Weixel LLP
filed a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons
who owned shares of Napa Community Bank ("NCB") common stock and
who, on or about June 30, 2005, sold their shares to Capitol
Bancorp, Limited ("Capitol") pursuant to a tender offer made by
Capitol (NYSE: CBC), and, in return, received shares of Capitol
common stock. The lawsuit seeks remedies under the Securities
Act of 1933 (the Securities Act"), the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and California statutory and common
law causes of action. A copy of the complaint filed in this
action is available from the Court, or can be requested from
counsel for plaintiffs as identified below.

The action, Civil Action number C-05-04800 MJJ, is pending
before the Honorable Martin J. Jenkins, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, against defendants Capitol and Joseph D.
Reid (Chairman and CEO of Capitol). According to the complaint,
defendants violated sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act,
10(b), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, and
California law by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations and/or omissions to class members in a
registration statement/tender offer filed with the Securities
Exchange Commission as well as in other documents.

The complaint alleges that on or about June 30, 2005, defendant
Capitol completed an offer to exchange shares (the "exchange
offer") of the common stock of NCB, its controlled subsidiary,
for shares of Capitol common stock. In a Form S-4 registration
statement that became or was declared effective, Capitol offered
to purchase all shares of all outstanding NCB common stock not
already owned by Capitol for Capitol's common stock, at a
purchase price of 150% of the claimed book value of NCB shares
as of May 31, 2005. Pursuant to that exchange offer, Capitol
acquired 404,384 shares of NCB common stock from members of the
plaintiff class in exchange for shares of Capitol common stock.
The purported book value of NCB stock on that date was
approximately $10.545 per share; accordingly, the exchange offer
was made for a purchase price of $15.817 per share. That price
was substantially below the fair market value of NCB common
stock as a direct result of the misrepresentations and omissions
of material fact made by the defendants.

For more details, contact Kyle M. Fisher of FRIEDEMANN GOLDBERG,
LLP, 420 Aviation Blvd., Suite 201, Santa Rosa, CA 95403, Phone:
(707) 543-4900, Fax: (707) 543-4910 and George S. Trevor of
TREVOR & WEIXEL, LLP, 300 Tamal Plaza, Suite 180, Corte Madera,
CA 94925, Phone: (415) 924-7147, Fax: (415) 924-7159.


STONE ENERGY: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in LA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Stone Energy
Corporation (NYSE: SGY) between June 17, 2005 and October 6,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


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

The Fidelity mutual funds and their respective symbols are as
follows:

Fidelity Advisor Intl Sm Cap Opp (NASDAQ: FOPBX) (NASDAQ: FOPCX)
(NASDAQ: FOPIX) (NASDAQ: FOPTX)
Fidelity Aggressive Growth (NASDAQ: FDEGX)
Fidelity Aggressive Intl (NASDAQ: FIVFX)
Fidelity Arizona Municipal Income (NASDAQ: FSAZX)
Fidelity Asset Manager (NASDAQ: FASMX)
Fidelity Asset Manager: Aggressive (NASDAQ: FAMRX)
Fidelity Asset Manager: Growth (NASDAQ: FASGX)
Fidelity Asset Manager: Income (NASDAQ: FASIX)
Fidelity Balanced (NASDAQ: FBALX)
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth (NASDAQ: FBGRX)
Fidelity Blue Chip Value Fund (NASDAQ: FBCVX)
Fidelity California Municipal Income (NASDAQ: FCTFX)
Fidelity Canada (NASDAQ: FICDX)
Fidelity Capital & Income (NASDAQ: FAGIX)
Fidelity Capital Appreciation (NASDAQ: FDCAX)
Fidelity China Region (NASDAQ: FHKCX)
Fidelity Congress Street (NASDAQ: CNGRX)
Fidelity Connecticut Municipal Income (NASDAQ: FICNX)
Fidelity Contrafund (NASDAQ: FCNTX)
Fidelity Convertible Securities (NASDAQ: FCVSX)
Fidelity Disciplined Equity (NASDAQ: FDEQX)
Fidelity Discovery Fund (NASDAQ: FDSVX)
Fidelity Diversified International (NASDAQ: FDIVX)
Fidelity Dividend Growth (NASDAQ: FDGFX)
Fidelity Emerging Markets (NASDAQ: FEMKX)
Fidelity Equity-Income (NASDAQ: FEQIX)
Fidelity Equity-Income II (NASDAQ: FEQTX)
Fidelity Europe (NASDAQ: FIEUX)
Fidelity Europe Capital Appreciation (NASDAQ: FECAX)
Fidelity Exchange (NASDAQ: FDLEX)
Fidelity Export & Multinational (NASDAQ: FEXPX)
Fidelity Fifty (NASDAQ: FFTYX)
Fidelity Floating Rate High Income (NASDAQ: FFRHX)
Fidelity Florida Municipal Income (NASDAQ: FFLIX)
Fidelity Focused Stock (NASDAQ: FTQGX)
Fidelity Four-in-One Index (NASDAQ: FFNOX)
Fidelity Freedom 2000 (NASDAQ: FFFBX)
Fidelity Freedom 2005 (NASDAQ: FFFVX)
Fidelity Freedom 2010 (NASDAQ: FFFCX)
Fidelity Freedom 2015 (NASDAQ: FFVFX)
Fidelity Freedom 2020 (NASDAQ: FFFDX)
Fidelity Freedom 2025 (NASDAQ: FFTWX)
Fidelity Freedom 2030 (NASDAQ: FFFEX)
Fidelity Freedom 2035 (NASDAQ: FFTHX)
Fidelity Freedom 2040 (NASDAQ: FFFFX)
Fidelity Freedom Income (NASDAQ: FFFAX)
Fidelity Ginnie Mae (NASDAQ: FGMNX)
Fidelity Global Balanced (NASDAQ: FGBLX)
Fidelity Government Income (NASDAQ: FGOVX)
Fidelity Growth & Income (NASDAQ: FGRIX)
Fidelity Growth & Income II (NASDAQ: FGRTX)
Fidelity Growth Company (NASDAQ: FDGRX)
Fidelity High Income (NASDAQ: SPHIX)
Fidelity Independence (NASDAQ: FDFFX)
Fidelity Inflation-Protected Bond (NASDAQ: FINPX)
Fidelity Instl Short-Interm Govt (NASDAQ: FFXSX)
Fidelity Intermediate Bond (NASDAQ: FTHRX)
Fidelity Intermediate Government (NASDAQ: FSTGX)
Fidelity Intermediate Municipal Income (NASDAQ: FLTMX)
Fidelity International Discovery (NASDAQ: FIGRX)
Fidelity International Small Cap (NASDAQ: FISMX)
Fidelity International Small Cap Opp (NASDAQ: FSCOX)
Fidelity Investment Grade Bond (NASDAQ: FBNDX)
Fidelity Japan (NASDAQ: FJPNX)
Fidelity Japan Smaller Companies (NASDAQ: FJSCX)
Fidelity Large Cap Growth (NASDAQ: FSLGX)
Fidelity Large Cap Stock (NASDAQ: FLCSX)
Fidelity Large Cap Value (NASDAQ: FSLVX)
Fidelity Latin America (NASDAQ: FLATX)
Fidelity Leveraged Company Stock (NASDAQ: FLVCX)
Fidelity Low-Priced Stock (NASDAQ: FLPSX)
Fidelity Magellan (NASDAQ: FMAGX)
Fidelity Maryland Municipal Income (NASDAQ: SMDMX)
Fidelity Massachusetts Municipal Income (NASDAQ: FDMMX)
Fidelity Michigan Municipal Income (NASDAQ: FMHTX)
Fidelity Mid Cap Growth (NASDAQ: FSMGX)
Fidelity Mid Cap Value (NASDAQ: FSMVX)
Fidelity Mid-Cap Stock (NASDAQ: FMCSX)
Fidelity Minnesota Municipal Income (NASDAQ: FIMIX)
Fidelity Mortgage Secs (NASDAQ: FMSFX)
Fidelity Municipal Income (NASDAQ: FHIGX)
Fidelity NASdaq Composite Index (NASDAQ: FNCMX)
Fidelity New Jersey Municipal Income (NASDAQ: FNJHX)
Fidelity New Markets Income (NASDAQ: FNMIX)
Fidelity New Millennium (NASDAQ: FMILX)
Fidelity New York Municipal Income (NASDAQ: FTFMX)
Fidelity Nordic (NASDAQ: FNORX)
Fidelity Ohio Municipal Income (NASDAQ: FOHFX)
Fidelity OTC (NASDAQ: FOCPX)
Fidelity Overseas (NASDAQ: FOSFX)
Fidelity Pacific Basin (NASDAQ: FPBFX)
Fidelity Pennsylvania Municipal Income (NASDAQ: FPXTX)
Fidelity Puritan (NASDAQ: FPURX)
Fidelity Real Estate Income (NASDAQ: FRIFX)
Fidelity Real Estate Investment (NASDAQ: FRESX)
Fidelity Select Air Transportation (NASDAQ: FSAIX)
Fidelity Select Automotive (NASDAQ: FSAVX)
Fidelity Select Banking (NASDAQ: FSRBX)
Fidelity Select Biotechnology (NASDAQ: FBIOX)
Fidelity Select Brokerage & Investmnt (NASDAQ: FSLBX)
Fidelity Select Business Serv&Outsrcg (NASDAQ: FBSOX)
Fidelity Select Chemicals (NASDAQ: FSCHX)
Fidelity Select Computers (NASDAQ: FDCPX)
Fidelity Select Construction&Housing (NASDAQ: FSHOX)
Fidelity Select Consumer Industries (NASDAQ: FSCPX)
Fidelity Select Cyclical Industries (NASDAQ: FCYIX)
Fidelity Select Defense & Aerospace (NASDAQ: FSDAX)
Fidelity Select Developing Comm (NASDAQ: FSDCX)
Fidelity Select Electronics (NASDAQ: FSELX)
Fidelity Select Energy (NASDAQ: FSENX)
Fidelity Select Energy Service (NASDAQ: FSESX)
Fidelity Select Environmental (NASDAQ: FSLEX)
Fidelity Select Financial Services (NASDAQ: FIDSX)
Fidelity Select Food & Agriculture (NASDAQ: FDFAX)
Fidelity Select Gold (NASDAQ: FSAGX)
Fidelity Select Health Care (NASDAQ: FSPHX)
Fidelity Select Home Finance (NASDAQ: FSVLX)
Fidelity Select Industrial Equipment (NASDAQ: FSCGX)
Fidelity Select Industrial Materials (NASDAQ: FSDPX)
Fidelity Select Insurance (NASDAQ: FSPCX)
Fidelity Select Leisure (NASDAQ: FDLSX)
Fidelity Select Medical Delivery (NASDAQ: FSHCX)
Fidelity Select Medical Equip/Systems (NASDAQ: FSMEX)
Fidelity Select Multimedia (NASDAQ: FBMPX)
Fidelity Select Natural Gas (NASDAQ: FSNGX)
Fidelity Select Natural Resources (NASDAQ: FNARX)
Fidelity Select Network & Infrastruct (NASDAQ: FNINX)
Fidelity Select Paper & Forest Prod (NASDAQ: FSPFX)
Fidelity Select Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ: FPHAX)
Fidelity Select Retailing (NASDAQ: FSRPX)
Fidelity Select Software & Comp (NASDAQ: FSCSX)
Fidelity Select Technology (NASDAQ: FSPTX)
Fidelity Select Telecommunications (NASDAQ: FSTCX)
Fidelity Select Transportation (NASDAQ: FSRFX)
Fidelity Select Utilities Growth (NASDAQ: FSUTX)
Fidelity Select Wireless (NASDAQ: FWRLX)
Fidelity Short-Intermediate Muni Income (NASDAQ: FSTFX)
Fidelity Short-Term Bond (NASDAQ: FSHBX)
Fidelity Small Cap Growth (NASDAQ: FCPGX)
Fidelity Small Cap Independence (NASDAQ: FDSCX)
Fidelity Small Cap Retirement (NASDAQ: FSCRX)
Fidelity Small Cap Stock (NASDAQ: FSLCX)
Fidelity Small Cap Value (NASDAQ: FCPVX)
Fidelity Southeast Asia (NASDAQ: FSEAX)
Fidelity Spartan 500 Index (NASDAQ: FSMKX)
Fidelity Spartan Extended Mkt Index (NASDAQ: FSEMX)
Fidelity Spartan Government Income (NASDAQ: SPGVX)
Fidelity Spartan International Index (NASDAQ: FSIIX)
Fidelity Spartan Investment Gr Bond (NASDAQ: FSIBX)
Fidelity Spartan Total Market Index (NASDAQ: FSTMX)
Fidelity Spartan U.S. Equity Index (NASDAQ: FUSEX)
Fidelity Stock Selector (NASDAQ: FDSSX)
Fidelity Strategic Dividend & Income (NASDAQ: FSDIX)
Fidelity Strategic Income (NASDAQ: FSICX)
Fidelity Tax-Free Bond (NASDAQ: FTABX)
Fidelity Tax-Managed Stock (NASDAQ: FTXMX)
Fidelity Total Bond (NASDAQ: FTBFX)
Fidelity Trend (NASDAQ: FTRNX)
Fidelity U.S. Bond Index (NASDAQ: FBIDX)
Fidelity Ultra-Short Bond (NASDAQ: FUSFX)
Fidelity Utilities (NASDAQ: FIUIX)
Fidelity Value (NASDAQ: FDVLX)
Fidelity Value Discovery (NASDAQ: FVDFX)
Fidelity Value Strategies (NASDAQ: FSLSX)
Fidelity Worldwide (NASDAQ: FWWFX)

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

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

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

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

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

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


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *