CAR_Public/051208.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, December 8, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 243

                            Headlines

ADVANCEPCS: NJ Court Yet To Rule on ERISA Suit Summary Judgment
ADVANCEPCS: AZ Court Yet To Rule on ERISA Suit Dismissal Appeal
AMERICAN EQUITY: Wins Final Approval For Strube Suit Settlement  
BMO NESBITT: FMF Capital Investors Launches Suit Over $197M IPO
CALIFORNIA: Dr. Phil McGraw Defends Self in Diet Pills Lawsuit

CAREMARK INC.: Dismissed From ERISA Violations Suit in TN Court
CAREMARK RX: AL Court Consolidates Appeal Issues in 2 Lawsuits
CAREMARK RX: Discovery Proceeds in IL Antitrust Violations Suit
CAREMARK RX: Appeals AL Court's Refusal To Alter Suit Dismissal
CAREMARKPCS: PA Court Nixes Appeal of Antitrust Suit Arbitration

CASSELS BROCK: Investors File Lawsuit in Ontario Superior Court
CHICAGO DIAMONDS: IL Attorney General Sues Over "Typosquatting"
CONSTELLATION POWER: CA Court Dismisses Unfair Trade Lawsuit
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Continues To Face Mercury Injury Lawsuits
CONSTELLATION POWER: Canadians Launch Personal Injury Litigation

COUNTER TOPS: FL Attorney General Launches Fraud Suit V. Owners
DETROIT EDISON: Named in Canadian Environmental, Injury Lawsuit
DVA RENAL: Continues To Face Wage Law Violations Lawsuit in CA
DVA RENAL: Continues To Face Medicare Fraud Lawsuit in W.D. LA
FARMERS INSURANCE: Judge to Hear Pending Motions in Edwards Case

FESTIVA RESORTS: Attorney General Files Suit Over Sales Tactics
FRIEDMAN'S INC.: SEC Files Settled Action For NY Fraud Charges
INTEGRATED SERVICES: SEC Files TX Suit Over Pump and Dump Scheme
MERCK & CO.: Firms Seek Chinese Clients For Planned Vioxx Suit
MORPHCORP LLC: Attorney General Files Consumer Protection Suit

NEOPHARM INC.: Discovery Proceeds in IL Securities Fraud Lawsuit
NEW VISION: SEC Files Investment Adviser, Stock Fraud Suit in NC   
OM GROUP: OH Court Grants Final Approval To Lawsuit Settlement
SANDISK CORPORATION: Court Mulls Investor Suit Dismissal Appeal
SANDISK CORPORATION: Continues To Face Consumer Fraud Suit in CA

SAWTEK INC.: FL Court Dismisses Securities Violations Lawsuit
SILICON IMAGE: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
SOUTHERN COPPER: Faces Consolidated Suit V. Minera Mexico Merger
SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC: Named in Canadian Plant Emission Lawsuit
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Consumers Fraud Suits Over Lawnmowers Pending

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Lawsuit Dismissal
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Permax Injury Litigation in OK
VARIAGENICS INC.: Working To Settle Securities Suit in S.D. NY
WASHINGTON GROUP: Named in Hurricane Katrina Lawsuit in LA Court
WISCONSIN: Attorney General to Sue V. FDA Over "Plan B" Delays

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

CIPHERGEN BIOSYSTEMS: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in CA
GREAT WOLF: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. WI
HELEN OF TROY: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX
HYDROFLO INC.: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in NC
STONE ENERGY: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in LA


                            *********


ADVANCEPCS: NJ Court Yet To Rule on ERISA Suit Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
has yet to rule on AdvancePCS' motion seeking grant summary
judgment for the class action filed against it, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA).

In March 1998, PCS Health Systems, Inc., a subsidiary of PCS
Holding Corporation, which was acquired by Advance Paradigm (now
known as AdvancePCS) in October 2000, was served with a
purported class action lawsuit filed by Ed Mulder.  The lawsuit
alleges that PCS Health Systems, Inc. acts as a fiduciary, as
that term is defined in ERISA, and has breached certain
purported fiduciary duties under ERISA.  The plaintiff is
seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages in an unspecified
amount.  The plaintiff purported to represent a nation-wide
class consisting of all members of all ERISA plans for which PCS
Health Systems, Inc. provided PBM services during the class
period.

The Company opposed certification of this class, and in July
2003 the court entered an order certifying a more limited class
comprised only of members of those ERISA plans for which PCS
Health Systems, Inc. provided services under its contract with a
single HMO for a limited time period.  Discovery in this lawsuit
is proceeding.


ADVANCEPCS: AZ Court Yet To Rule on ERISA Suit Dismissal Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court of Arizona has yet to rule on
plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the consolidated class
action filed against AdvancePCS (now doing business as
CaremarkPCS) in the United States District Court of Arizona.

In April 2002, the Company was served with a purported class
action filed by Tommie Glanton on behalf of the plaintiff's
health plan and a putative class of self-funded health plans.  
In March 2003, AdvancePCS was served with a complaint filed by
Tara Mackner in which the plaintiff, a purported participant in
a self-funded health plan customer of AdvancePCS, sought to
bring action on behalf of that plan.  Each of the lawsuits
sought unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief.  

Because the previously filed Glanton case purported to be
brought as a class action on behalf of self-funded plans, the
court consolidated the Mackner case and the Glanton case.  In
November 2003, the court dismissed and terminated both the
Glanton and Mackner cases on the pleadings, finding that the
plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the actions under Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).  

The plaintiffs have appealed the District Court's dismissal of
these cases to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  The plaintiffs and AdvancePCS have filed their briefs
in the appeal, and the United States Department of Labor has
filed an amicus brief.


AMERICAN EQUITY: Wins Final Approval For Strube Suit Settlement  
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and
Affiliates (a.k.a. "Skadden, Arps", "Skadden", or "SASM&F") won
final approval on behalf of American Equity Investment Life
Insurance Company from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th
Circuit of a nationwide class action settlement and received a
permanent injunction against the primary objector in the case.

The final approval of the settlement in Strube v. American
Equity Investment Life Insurance Company, brings both the
federal nationwide class action and the national class action
filed by the objector in Kentucky state court to a simultaneous
and successful conclusion.

The settlement, which received overwhelming approval from the
class, settles and releases claims relating to the marketing and
sale of equity indexed annuities and covers approximately 23,000
American Equity policyholders nationwide.

Previously, American Equity of West Des Moines, Iowa, along with
Creative Marketing International Corporation, of Shawnee, Kansas
were slapped with a class action suit in Orange County Circuit
Court in Florida, accusing them of tricking senior citizens into
buying annuities that wouldn't mature until beyond their life
expectancies, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (October 2,
2001) reports.

According to the complaint, 73-year-old Charles Strube, of
Windemere, was persuaded by an American Equity agent to cash in
more than $800,000 of his annuity contracts in order to purchase
so-called "risk-free" annuities. Fine print disclosed, however,
that the annuities wouldn't vest until Mr. Strube was 95, and he
was subjected to penalties and forfeitures for cashing in his
old policies, the lawsuit said, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (October 2, 2001) reports.

Additionally, the complaint claims that American Equity and
Creative Marketing purposefully designed their product to be
deceptively similar to the popular "variable annuity," but
crafted it in such a way to avoid compliance with the
requirements of federal securities laws, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (October 2, 2001) reports.


BMO NESBITT: FMF Capital Investors Launches Suit Over $197M IPO
---------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. law firm filed a class action against BMO Nesbitt Burns
Inc. on behalf of investors in FMF Capital Group Ltd., a failed
income trust that went public nine months ago, The Globe and
Mail reports.

Filed in a Michigan court, the suit accuses Bank of Montreal's
investment banking unit and a U.S. subsidiary, Harris Nesbitt
Corporation of conspiring with FMF management to perpetrate a
fraud during the marketing of the $197-million initial public
offering.  

Back in March, FMF is a U.S. mortgage company that was spun into
a trust and listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Investors were
promised an initial yield of 11 per cent, however, FMF shocked
the market last month when it said it would suspend
distributions. BMO Nesbitt was the lead underwriter.  Three FMF
executives, who held just over 90 per cent of the company, sold
the majority of their stake in the IPO. Chief executive officer
Robert Pilcowitz, chief financial officer Howard Morof and chief
operating officer Edan King are named as defendants.  Five other
Bay Street firms namely, National Bank Financial Inc., TD
Securities Inc., Canaccord Capital Corporation, Blackmont
Capital Inc. and Sprott Securities Inc. were also named as
defendants. All were part of FMF's underwriting syndicate.

Eli Karp, an associate in the Toronto office of Juroviesky and
Ricci LLP, which filed the civil case, told The Globe and Mail
that despite its TSX listing, FMF has no assets or offices in
Canada, "which is why we're going after them in the U.S." He
also told The Globe and Mail, "The Michigan executives took
their money out . . . they sold their business to the Canadian
public and walked away."

One of the key accusations is that FMF covered up key risks in
its business, including the fact that the company could be stuck
with mortgages it didn't want, and that BMO failed to properly
investigate it before it agreed to handle the deal.  FMF's
business model was to lend money to borrowers with lower credit
scores then turn around and sell the loans to investors at a
profit, usually within about a month. But in November, FMF said
several institutions had walked away from the mortgage market
and the company was forced to buy back mortgages it had already
sold because the borrowers had quickly defaulted on them.

The lawsuit charges that FMF buried those risks through its
accounting, which failed to make an estimate for losses for bad
loans the company was on the hook for. It specifically alleges,
"Executive management did not, and have never planned to have
enough money in their reserve to cover their repurchase
liability." It adds, "In BMO's role as lead underwriter and in
the course of its so-called 'due diligence,' it failed to
identify the type of blatant misstatements and half-truths
promulgated by executive management that perverted the financial
statements and condition of the issuer."


CALIFORNIA: Dr. Phil McGraw Defends Self in Diet Pills Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Phil McGraw stated that he had "no expertise" in making the
diet pills he endorsed, according to court filings in a lawsuit
alleging the TV psychologist made false statements about the
products, The New York Daily News reports.

Citing e-mail printouts that are included in Los Angeles
Superior Court filings, The New York Daily News reports that Mr.
McGraw is also insisting on "the STRONGEST of disclaimers" in
the products' advertisements before putting his name on the now
discontinued Shape Up! diet campaign.

Henry Rossbacher, who filed the lawsuit against McGraw in 2004
on behalf of three unhappy customers told The New York Daily
News, "This fleshes out our position that Dr. Phil was in charge
. he was rewriting the commercials."

Dr. McGraw, the TV show host and author of The Ultimate Weight
Solution: The 7 Keys to Weight Loss Freedom, has denied the
allegations. Dr. McGraw wrote the e-mails to express concerns
with the ad campaign for the diet products.  The suit, which was
filed last year in California Superior Court, alleges that Dr.
McGraw defrauded fans with his yearlong venture into the diet
supplement business. Court records show that "Shape Up!" shakes,
bars and multivitamins made by Irving, Texas-based CSA
Nutraceuticals were sold in supermarkets, Target, Wal-Mart and
elsewhere. The plan called for 22 pills daily at $120 a month.
The "Shape Up!" campaign stated that the supplements reduced
cravings for carbohydrates and helped dieters change their
behavior to take control of their weight, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (October 5, 2005) reports.  Plaintiffs in
the lawsuit are seeking class action status to include thousands
of potential plaintiffs. A judge could rule on that request
early next year.

The suit also alleges that Dr. McGraw made false and misleading
assertions about the supplements, including claims that the
products would cause weight loss by promoting metabolism of fat
and reducing carbohydrate cravings and appetite swings. Thus,
the plaintiffs are claiming in their suit that they lost money,
not weight and they want their money back as well as damages.  
The pill's label states that it "contains scientifically
researched levels of ingredients that can help you change your
behavior to take control of your weight," an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (October 5, 2005) reports.  

Mr. McGraw jumped into the lucrative weight-loss market in mid-
2003 with a campaign that included advice books, a prime time
special with Katie Couric on obesity and dieting, and his "Shape
Up! with Dr. Phil McGraw" products. After a Federal Trade
Commission investigation into false-advertising concerns was
initiated, CSA Nutraceuticals agreed to stop making the
supplements early last year, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (October 5, 2005) reports.


CAREMARK INC.: Dismissed From ERISA Violations Suit in TN Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee dismissed Caremark, Inc. from the private class action
filed against it and Caremark Rx, Inc. on behalf of the John
Morrell Employee Benefits Plan.

Robert Moeckel filed the suit, which alleges that the defendants
act as a fiduciary as that term is defined in the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and that Caremark Rx and
Caremark have breached certain purported fiduciary duties under
ERISA.  The suit seeks unspecified monetary damages and
injunctive relief.

The Company and Caremark Rx filed motions seeking the complete
dismissal of this action on various grounds.  In August 2005,
the court dismissed Mr. Moeckel's action as against Caremark RX,
but otherwise denied Caremark, Inc.'s motion.


CAREMARK RX: AL Court Consolidates Appeal Issues in 2 Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama consolidated the
issues raised in the appellate proceedings of two class actions
filed against Caremark Rx, styled "McArthur v. Caremark Rx, et
al." and "Lauriello v. Caremark Rx, et al."

In October 2003, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit filed by John Lauriello in the Circuit Court of
Jefferson County, Alabama.  The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a
purported class of persons who were participants in the 1999
settlement of then pending securities class action and
derivative lawsuits against the Company and others.  Also named
as defendants are several insurance companies that had provided
coverage to Caremark Rx up to the time of the settlement. The
lawsuit seeks, among other things, to recover approximately $3.2
billion in compensatory damages plus unspecified punitive
damages, pre-judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees from
the defendants for their alleged intentional, reckless and/or
negligent misrepresentation and suppression of material facts
relating to the amount of insurance coverage that was available
to pay any settlement or judgment arising out of the claims that
were resolved by the 1999 settlement.  Alternatively, the
lawsuit seeks to re-open the judgment approving the 1999
settlement.  

After the court overruled the defendants' joint motion to
dismiss in July 2004, the defendants filed their answers, which,
among other things, denied all of the material allegations of
the complaint. The parties then filed pleadings setting out
their respective positions as to how this case should proceed.  
In January 2005, the court signed an order on class
certification that, among other things, held that this case will
proceed as a class action and set out a schedule for challenging
the adequacy of John Lauriello to serve as class representative,
as well as the appointment of Mr. Lauriello's lawyers to act as
class counsel. The defendants have filed papers with the Alabama
Supreme Court seeking immediate appellate review of the trial
court's order, and requested that the Supreme Court stay the
proceedings in the trial court pending appellate review.  The
Alabama Supreme Court has consolidated the issues raised by the
parties to the appeal in Lauriello with those raised by the
parties to the appellate proceedings involving the McArthur
plaintiffs, which are discussed in the paragraph below.

In November 2003, a second putative class action lawsuit was
filed by Frank McArthur in the Circuit Court of Jefferson
County, Alabama arising out of the same 1999 settlement of then
pending securities class action and derivative lawsuits against
Caremark Rx and others. This lawsuit also was filed on behalf of
a purported class of persons who were participants in the 1999
settlement, and named as defendants Caremark Rx, several
insurance companies that had provided coverage to Caremark Rx up
to the time of the settlement, and a number of lawyers and law
firms involved in negotiating and securing the approval of the
1999 settlement.  The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to
recover approximately $3.2 billion in compensatory damages plus
unspecified punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, costs and
attorneys' fees from the defendants for their alleged
intentional, reckless and/or negligent misrepresentation and
suppression of material facts relating to the amount of
insurance coverage that was available to pay any settlement or
judgment arising out of the claims that were resolved by the
1999 settlement.

In December 2003, John Lauriello, the plaintiff in the lawsuit
described above, filed a motion to intervene and a motion to
dismiss, abate or stay this lawsuit on the grounds that it was a
duplicative, later-filed, class action complaint.  In January
2004, the Company and the other defendants filed their own
motion to dismiss, abate or stay the lawsuit as a later-filed
class action that is substantially similar to the Lauriello
lawsuit. The defendants' motion to stay was granted by the
court, and the lawsuit was transferred to an Administrative
Docket where it will be reviewed every ninety (90) days. In
February 2005, the plaintiffs in the stayed McArthur case filed
motions in the Lauriello case seeking to intervene in that
litigation and asking for the right to challenge the adequacy of
John Lauriello as class representative and his lawyers as class
counsel. The court denied the McArthur plaintiffs' motion to
intervene. The McArthur plaintiffs have appealed the trial
court's order, and asked the Alabama Supreme Court to stay
proceedings in the trial court pending their appeal.


CAREMARK RX: Discovery Proceeds in IL Antitrust Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Initial discovery is proceeding in the class action filed
against Caremark Rx, Inc., Caremark, Inc. and AdvancePCS (now
known as CaremarkPCS) and two pharmacy benefit manager
competitors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. and C& C,
Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc., two independent
pharmacies filed the suit originally in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, which
asserted two claims under a single count purportedly arising
under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The court granted a motion filed by Caremark Rx and Caremark to
transfer venue to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois pursuant to the terms of the
pharmacy services agreements between Caremark and the
plaintiffs.  The court also granted a motion filed by AdvancePCS
to compel arbitration of any claims between it and the
plaintiffs pursuant to the pharmacy services agreements it has
with the plaintiffs. The parties are in the process of selecting
an arbitration panel. The case against Caremark Rx and Caremark
is in the initial stages of discovery.  The plaintiffs are
seeking three times actual monetary damages and injunctive
relief enjoining the alleged antitrust violations.

The suit is styled "N Jackson Pharm Inc, et al v. Caremark RX
Inc, et al, case no. 1:04-cv-05674," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under
Judge Milton I. Shadur.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) W. Michael Atchison, Victor E. Grimm, Anthony C.
         Harlon, Starnes & Atchison, P.O. Box 598512,
         Birmingham, AL, 35259-8512, Phone: (205) 868-6000

     (2) Erik F. Dyhrkopp, Michael Edward Martinez, Scott M.
         Mendel, Paula W. Render, Michael Sennett, Bell, Boyd &
         Lloyd LLC, 70 West Madison Street, Suite 3300, Chicago,
         IL 60602-4207, Phone: (312) 372-1121

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (i) Andrew C. Allen, Russell J. Drake, Othni Lathram, Joe
         R. Whatley, Whatley, Drake, LLC, 2323 2nd Avenue North,
         P.O. Box 10647, Birmingham, AL 35202-0647, Phone: (205)
         328-9576

    (ii) Christopher W. Cantrell, A. David Fawal, Archie J.
         Lamb, Law Offices of Archie Lamb, LLC, 2017-2nd Avenue
         North #200, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: (205)324-4644

   (iii) Kathleen Currie Chavez, Chavez Law Firm, 1245 Executive
         Place, Suite F-100, Geneva, IL 60134, Phone: (630)232-
         4480

    (iv) Gregory C. Cook, Balch & Bingham, Post Office Box 306,
         Birmingham, AL 35201-0306, Phone: (205) 251-8100

     (v) Robert M. Foote, Craig S. Mielke, Foote, Meyers,
         Mielke, Flowers & Solano, 416 South Second Street,
         Geneva, IL 60134, Phone: (630) 232-6333

    (vi) Gail A McQuilkin, Harley S. Tropin, Kozyak Tropin &
         Throckmorton PA, 2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th Floor, Coral
         Gables, FL 33134, Phone: 305-372-1800, Fax: 305-372-
         3508

  (viii) Nicholas B Roth, Eyster Key Tubb Weaver & Roth
         P.O. Box 1607, Decatur, AL 35602, Phone: (256)353-6761

    (ix) Edward K. Wood, Jr., Law Offices of Edward Kirk Wood
         P.O. Box 382434, Birmingham, AL 35238, Phone: (205)612-
         0243


CAREMARK RX: Appeals AL Court's Refusal To Alter Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama's denial of their motion to alter
or amend its dismissal ruling for the class action filed against
Caremark Rx, Inc. and Caremark, Inc.

Roland Bickley originally filed the suit in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, on behalf
of the Georgia Pacific Corporation Life, Health and Accident
Plan, alleging that the defendants each act as a fiduciary as
that term is defined in the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) and that the defendants have breached certain
purported fiduciary duties under ERISA. In August 2002, this
case was ordered transferred to the United States District
Court, Northern District of Alabama.

The Company was subsequently served in May 2002 with a virtually
identical lawsuit, containing the same types of allegations,
which was filed by Mary Dolan, on behalf of Wells Fargo Health
Plan, and also filed in the United States District Court,
Central District of California. In December 2002, this case was
also ordered transferred to the United States District Court,
Northern District of Alabama.  Both of these lawsuits were
amended to name the Company as a defendant, and Caremark Rx was
dismissed from the second case filed.

The defendants, as applicable, filed motions seeking the
complete dismissal of both of these actions on various grounds.
In December 2004, the court presiding over the Bickley matter
entered an order dismissing that casein its entirety with
prejudice, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing, had
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that Caremark
was not a fiduciary under ERISA as to the plaintiff.  In January
2005, Mr. Bickley filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the court's
order seeking only to limit the bases upon which the Court
dismissed the case, which was denied by the court in February
2005.  Mr. Bickley has subsequently appealed the dismissal of
his action to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit, where it is now pending, and the United States
Department of Labor has filed an amicus brief.  The Dolan motion
to dismiss remains pending before the court.

The suit is styled "Bickley v. Caremark RX, Inc., et al, case
no. 2:02-cv-02197-VEH," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama, under Judge Virginia
Emerson Hopkins.


CAREMARKPCS: PA Court Nixes Appeal of Antitrust Suit Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied plaintiffs' appeal of its decision
compelling arbitration in the class action filed against
CaremarkPCS (formerly known as AdvancePCS).

Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc., d/b/a Burns Pharmacy
and Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co., d/b/a Parkway Drugs #4,
purportedly on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, and the Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National
Community Pharmacists Association, filed the suit, which alleges
antitrust violations under Section 1 of the Sherman Act arising
from the Company's establishment of network rates for retail
pharmacies.  The plaintiffs seek for themselves and the
purported class three times actual monetary damages and
injunctive relief enjoining the alleged antitrust violations.
The court granted a motion filed by the Company to compel
arbitration of any claims between it and the plaintiffs pursuant
to the pharmacy services agreements it has with the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the court's decision
or to have the decision certified for an immediate appeal, which
motion was denied.


CASSELS BROCK: Investors File Lawsuit in Ontario Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A group of investors who claim they were defrauded in an
investment scheme filed a notice of action in Ontario Superior
Court, naming Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP and a former
managing partner of the firm, Gregory Jack Peebles, as
defendants in the statement of claim, The Law Times repots.

The $150-million suit, Willock v. Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP,
brought under the Class Proceedings Act and filed on November
29, is the third to be filed against the firm and Mr. Peebles
this year. Robert Hryniak, Robert Cranston, Frontline
Investments Ltd., and Tropos Capital Inc. are also named in the
statement of claim.

The latest claim alleges that Mr. Hryniak and Mr. Peebles with
assistance from Mr. Cranston, invited class members to
participate in a fraudulent investment scheme through Frontline
Investments. They were then allegedly instructed to "deposit
their funds either into the account of Cassels Brock or directly
into a bank account identified by the conspirators," according
to the claim.

The plaintiffs claim Mr. Peebles "was authorized to act on
behalf and did act on behalf of the firm throughout his dealings
with the plaintiffs and the other class members." Mr. Peebles
resigned from Cassels Brock in August 2004.

The current managing partner of Cassels Brock, Mark Young, told
The Law Times that the firm had not yet been served with notice
of action, but after searching, he found a copy of the statement
of claim on the plaintiffs' lawyer's web site. He then told The
Law Times, "This particular claim I think is absolutely without
merit. Mr. Willock was represented by his own counsel so to
suggest that he would rely on representations he alleges our
partner made is, I think, is quite outrageous. My former
partner, Mr. Peebles, has said that he made no such
representations. And finally, Mr. Willock, if he made an
investment, and I don't know that he did, was not a client of
our firm, may not have made an investment and if he did make an
investment it didn't find its way to our firm through any kind
of subscription agreement or documentation that we're aware of.
Nor did any of his monies ever find their way through our law
firm's trust accounts."

Mr. Young further told The Law Times, "As for the issue of a
class action, I don't believe that there's any merit whatsoever
to this being a proper subject for a class action. I think,
quite frankly, it's being used as a means to sensationalize this
claim. The damages number that's suggested is quite
unbelievable."


CHICAGO DIAMONDS: IL Attorney General Sues Over "Typosquatting"
---------------------------------------------------------------
With the online holiday shopping season in full swing, Illinois
Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed a lawsuit against a Chicago
area jewelry store that unfairly took business away from its
competitors and deceived online shoppers by using copycat Web
addresses to redirect consumers from their intended Internet
destinations.

Perpetrating a scheme known as "typosquatting," a Chicago
jewelry store targeted consumers seeking to do business with its
competitors by registering several Web addresses that mimic and
are almost identical to the Web addresses of other local jewelry
stores. If an online shopper accidentally misspelled or mistyped
another Chicago jewelry store's Web address, there was a good
chance the consumer would be redirected to http://www.diamonds-
chicago.com, Ms. Madigan's lawsuit alleges.

Ms. Madigan's lawsuit, filed in Cook County Circuit Court, names
as defendants Chicago Diamonds, Inc., doing business as Diamonds
Chicago, and the company's president, Michael Kelly. It charges
the defendants with violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Illinois Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

"This lawsuit will help to ensure that holiday shoppers looking
to buy a gem online won't find themselves on a counterfeit Web
site," Ms. Madigan said. "Chicago Diamonds is clearly trying to
take advantage of consumers' desire to shop online. While there
are always new schemes using technology to perpetrate fraud, my
office will continue to protect consumers."

The fraudulent practice of "typosquatting" occurs when a
business registers a domain name, or Web address, similar that
of its competitor to increase traffic on its own Web site and
away from the Web site of its competitor. In the case, Ms.
Madigan alleges Chicago Diamonds usually only added or
subtracted a single letter from the legitimate domain names of
its competitors.

Ms. Madigan said her office's Consumer Protection Division
received complaints from 10 Chicago-area jewelry stores alleging
copycat Web addresses had been created to divert traffic away
from their Web sites to the Chicago Diamonds site. For example,
La Ron Jewelers in Chicago claimed that Chicago Diamonds created
a copycat Web address to redirect traffic to
http://www.diamonds-chicago.comby deleting one letter from the  
actual La Ron Jewelers Web address,
http://www.laronjewelers.com.  

Ms. Madigan's lawsuit asks the court to prohibit the defendants
from continuing their deceptive practices and further violating
Illinois' consumer protection laws. The lawsuit also seeks a
civil penalty of $50,000 and additional penalties of $50,000 for
each violation found to have been committed with the intent to
defraud. Finally, Ms. Madigan's lawsuit asks the court to order
the defendants to transfer the registration of all relevant
domain names to the affected competitors and pay restitution to
consumers. Assistant Attorney General Adam Sokol is handling the
case for Ms. Madigan's Consumer Protection Division.

For more details, contact Melissa Merz, Phone: 312-814-3118 or
877-844-5461, E-mail: mmerz@atg.state.il.us.


CONSTELLATION POWER: CA Court Dismisses Unfair Trade Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco
dismissed the class action filed against Constellation Power
Source, Inc., styled "James M. Millar v. Allegheny Energy
Supply, Constellation Power Source, Inc., High Desert Power
Project, LLC, et al."  The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC

     (2) Alliance Colton LLC

     (3) Calpeak Power-Border LLC

     (4) Calpeak Power - El Cajon LLC

     (5) Calpeak Power - Enterprise LLC

     (6) Calpeak Power-Midway LLC

     (7) Calpeak Power - Mission LLC

     (8) Calpeak Power - Panoche LLC

     (9) Calpeak Power - Vaca Dixon LLC

    (10) Calpine Energy Services, L.P.

    (11) Clearwood Electric Company LLC

    (12) Constellation Power Source

    (13) Coral Power LLC

    (14) Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc.

    (15) El Paso Merchant Energy

    (16) Fresno Cogeneration Partners

    (17) Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

    (18) GWF Energy LLC

    (19) High Desert Power Project, LLC

    (20) Imperial Valley Resource Recovery Company, LLC

    (21) Mirant American Energy Marketing LP
  
    (22) Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc.

    (23) Pacificorp Power Marketing, Inc.

    (24) PG&E Energy Trading

    (25) Pinnacle West Capital Corporation

    (26) Sempra Energy Resources

    (27) Soledad Energy LLC

    (28) Sunrise Power Company LLC

    (29) Wellhead Power Panoche, LLC

    (30) Wellhead Power Gates, LLC

    (31) Whitewater Energy Corporation

    (32) Williams Energy Marketing and Trading Co.

The complaint is a putative class action on behalf of California
electricity consumers and alleges that the defendant power
suppliers, including Constellation Energy Commodities Group,
Inc. and High Desert, violated California's Unfair Competition
Law in connection with certain long-term power contracts that
the defendants negotiated with the California Department of
Water Resources in 2001 and 2002.  Notwithstanding the amended
long-term power contracts and the releases and settlement
agreements negotiated at the time of such amendments, the
plaintiff seeks to have the Court certify the case as a class
action and to order the repayment of any monies that were
acquired by the defendants under the long-term contracts or the
amended long-term contracts by means of unfair competition in
violation of California law.

The Company asked the court to dismiss the suit based on the
Court's lack of jurisdiction over the claims in question.  The
Court recently granted the motion.  No appeal will be filed;
therefore, the action is resolved.

The suit is styled "James M. Millar, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general
public v. Allegheny Energy, et al., Case No. 04-CV-901," pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, under Judge Robert H. Whaley.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are Steve W Berman of Hagens and
Berman, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone:
(206)623-0594 or (206)623-7292; and Kevin P Roddy of Hagens
Berman, 700 South Flower Street, Suite 2940, Los Angeles, CA
90017-4101, Phone: (213)330-7150 or (213)330-7152


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Continues To Face Mercury Injury Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Group, INc. and Baltimore Gas & Electric
Company (BGE) continues to face lawsuits filed against them,
alleging mercury poisoning from several sources, including coal
plants formerly owned by BGE.

Beginning in September 2002, numerous suits were filed, alleging
mercury poisoning from several sources, including coal plants
formerly owned by BGE and now owned by a subsidiary of the
Company.  In addition to BGE and the Company, approximately 11
other defendants, consisting of pharmaceutical companies,
manufacturers of vaccines and manufacturers of Thimerosal have
been sued. Approximately 11 other defendants, consisting of
pharmaceutical companies, manufacturers of vaccines, and
manufacturers of Thimerosal have been sued. Approximately 70
cases, involving claims related to approximately 132 children,
have been filed to date, with each claimant seeking $20 million
in compensatory damages, plus punitive damages, from the
Company.

In a ruling applicable to all but several of the cases, the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City dismissed with prejudice all
claims against BGE and the Company and entered into a stay of
the proceedings as they relate to other defendants. Plaintiffs
may attempt to pursue appeals of the rulings in favor of BGE and
the Company once the cases are finally concluded as to all
defendants.


CONSTELLATION POWER: Canadians Launch Personal Injury Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Power Source Generation, Inc. faces a class action
filed in the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada,
styled "Christopher M. Robinson, et. al. v. Ontario Power
Generation Inc., et. al."  

Three individuals filed the suit, which also named as defendants
21 other companies.  The complaint alleges claims on behalf of
residents of Ontario, Canada that have allegedly suffered
adverse health effects as a result of emissions of sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter from
approximately 60 different coal-fired power plants operating in
Ontario, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West
Virginia.  The Company is named as a defendant as a result of
its ownership interests in two coal-fired power plants located
in Pennsylvania. The complaint requests past damages of
approximately CDN$50 billion plus future annual damages of
approximately CDN$4 billion until trial.


COUNTER TOPS: FL Attorney General Launches Fraud Suit V. Owners
---------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist's office sued two Palm
Beach County men for unfair and deceptive trade practices
stemming from allegations that their cabinet and countertop
business took customers' deposits but failed to provide the
requested items. William Deese and Harold Bernstein owned and
operated Counter Tops & Cabinets Direct, Inc., which sold
kitchen and bathroom counter tops and cabinets. The complaint
alleges that the two men never delivered the promised services,
and affidavits from consumers reflect that victims were cheated
out of more than $175,000 in deposits.

The Attorney General's Office launched an investigation into the
company in August after receiving numerous complaints from
consumers. The investigation revealed that Mr. Deese, 45, and
Mr. Bernstein, 65, routinely accepted down payments ranging
anywhere from $300 to $19,000 and assured their customers that
installation would be completed in six to eight weeks. Many of
the consumers who complained to the Attorney General's office
had waited more than seven months and never received their
cabinets or counter tops.

"These individuals apparently decided to live the high life with
other people's money, but their joyride is coming to an end,"
said Mr. Crist. "People paid for cabinets and counter tops, not
empty promises."

Mr. Deese and Mr. Bernstein allegedly continued to accept
deposits from consumers even though their credit with suppliers
had been cut off, making them unable to complete prior service
orders or begin work on new jobs. The Attorney General's
complaint alleges that as new deposits were accepted, Mr. Deese
and Mr. Bernstein cashed the checks and used the money for
personal purchases, including a Bentley automobile and a house.

Typical of those victimized by Mr. Deese and Mr. Bernstein were
Lake Worth residents Dave and Kathy Gwynn, who ordered cabinets
from the men in May and paid more than $6,000 as a deposit. They
were told they would receive their cabinets and counter tops in
six to eight weeks, but that delivery never arrived. After
several unsuccessful attempts to get the company to honor their
contract, the Gwynns contacted the Attorney General's Office and
filed their complaint.

Mr. Deese and Mr. Bernstein are being sued under Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, which allows a penalty
of $10,000 per violation, or $15,000 if the victim is a senior
citizen or disabled adult. The lawsuit also calls for an
injunction to be entered against Mr. Deese and Mr. Bernstein,
preventing them from conducting any business dealing with
counter tops and cabinets, home improvements and the acceptance
of advance deposits.

Mr. Deese and Mr. Bernstein are currently in custody in Palm
Beach County on related charges. They were arrested by
Greenacres police on November 15 on organized fraud and grand
theft charges, also stemming from their fraudulent business
practices.

A copy of the Attorney General's civil complaint is available
at: http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/MRAY-
6JPKF6/$file/CounterTops_Complaint.pdf.


DETROIT EDISON: Named in Canadian Environmental, Injury Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Detroit Edison Company was named as one of approximately 21
defendant utility companies in a class action lawsuit filed in
the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada.  The
plaintiffs, a class comprised of current and prior residents
living in Ontario (and their respective family members and/or
heirs), claim that the defendants emitted and continue to emit
pollutants that have harmed the plaintiffs.

As a result, the plaintiffs are seeking damages of approximately
CDN$49.1 billion for alleged negligence, approximately CDN$4.1
billion per year until the defendants cease emitting pollutants,
punitive and exemplary damages of CDN$1 billion, and such other
relief as the court deems appropriate.


DVA RENAL: Continues To Face Wage Law Violations Lawsuit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
DVA Renal Healthcare (formerly known as Gambro Healthcare)
continues to face a class action filed in the Superior Court of
California, alleging violations of the state's labor laws.

One of the Company's former employees that worked for its
California acute services program filed the suit, which alleges,
among other things, that the Company failed to provide overtime
wages, defined rest periods and meal periods, or compensation in
lieu of such provisions and failed to comply with certain other
California labor code requirements.


DVA RENAL: Continues To Face Medicare Fraud Lawsuit in W.D. LA
--------------------------------------------------------------
DVA Renal Healthcare, Inc. (formerly known as Gambro Healthcare)
continues to face a class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, on behalf
of itself and all entities that paid any of the defendants for
health care goods and services from on or about January 1991
through at least December 2004.

Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana filed the suit on August
8,2005, alleging, among other things, damages resulting from
facts and circumstances underlying Gambro Healthcare's December
2004 settlement agreement with the Department of Justice and
certain agencies of the United States Government.

On December 1, 2004, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with the Department of Justice and certain agencies of
the United States government relating to the Department of
Justice's investigation of Gambro Healthcare's Medicare and
Medicaid billing practices and its relationships with physicians
and pharmaceutical manufacturers.

In connection with the settlement agreement, the Company,
without admitting liability, made a one-time payment of
approximately $310 million and entered into a corporate
integrity agreement with HHS. The corporate integrity agreement
applies to all of its centers and requires, among other things,
that the Company implement additional training, engage an
independent review organization to conduct an annual review of
certain of its reimbursement claims, and submit to the OIG an
annual report with respect to its compliance activities.

The suit is styled "Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Co v.
Gambro A B et al, case no. 6:05-cv-01450-TLM-CMH," filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana, under Judge Tucker L Melancon.  Representing the
plaintiffs is G William Jarman of Kean Miller et al (Baton
Rouge) P O Box 3513, Baton Rouge, LA 70821, Phone: 225-387-0999,
Fax: 225-388-9133.  Representing the Company is Greg Murphy of
Morain & Murphy, 6555 Perkins Rd Ste 200, Baton Rouge, LA 70808,
Phone: 225-767-7151, Fax; 225-767-8995


FARMERS INSURANCE: Judge to Hear Pending Motions in Edwards Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron will hear all
pending motions in a four-year-old class action case against
Farmers Insurance on December 16, 2005, The Madison County
Record reports.

Filed in February 2001 by Georgia Edwards, the suit alleges that
Farmers Insurance shortchanges customers who total their
vehicles. In addition, Ms. Edwards claims that Farmers uses CCC
Information Services' software to defraud its customers and
avoid paying the actual cash value of a totaled vehicle.

The Lakin Law Firm of Wood River represents Ms. Edwards, while
Burroughs, Hepler and Broom of Edwardsville represent Farmers.
Originally, Chicago, Illinois-based CCC, which sells software
that insurance companies use to track claims and set valuations,
was named as a defendant, but was dropped from the lawsuit in
March 2002.  

Farmers Insurance was founded in 1928 as an automobile insurance
provider. Since then, it has grown to become the nation's third
largest writer of automobile and home insurance. Based in Los
Angeles, California, Farmers employs more than 18,000 people in
41 states and serves some 15 million customers.  The motions
Byron will hear deal with Ms. Edwards wanting to amend her
complaint for the fourth time. Farmers filed a motion objecting
to Mr. Edwards filing a fourth amended complaint.


FESTIVA RESORTS: Attorney General Files Suit Over Sales Tactics
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alleging high-pressure and misleading sales tactics, Missouri
Attorney General Jay Nixon is suing Festiva Resorts L.L.C.,
which sells timeshares at the Cabins at Green Mountain, located
in Branson.

In a suit filed in Taney County Circuit Court, Mr. Nixon says
Festiva violated Missouri consumer protection laws by misleading
customers into buying timeshares. The lawsuit alleges Festiva
lured consumers by falsely promising to:

     (1) Help them sell other timeshares they owned.

     (2) Help them rent out timeshares they bought from Festiva.

     (3) Help them get good deals on condo rentals in attractive
         locations.

     (4) Help them get good deals on vacation packages.

     (5) Give refunds to those dissatisfied with their purchase.

Mr. Nixon also says Festiva didn't give consumers enough time to
make decisions, creating a sense of urgency and a high-pressure
sales environment.

"Consumers buy vacation property because they want a place to
relax. For these consumers, Festiva delivered anything but
that," Mr. Nixon said. "Branson is one of the nation's most
popular tourist destinations, and I want to keep it that way.
This kind of lawsuit is intended to punish those who give
Branson a bad name and put other abusers on notice that we're
watching them."

In the lawsuit, Mr. Nixon is asking the court to order Festiva
to refund more than $200,000 to consumers who were misled into
buying timeshares from the company. The lawsuit also seeks
preliminary and permanent injunctions, fines of up to $1,000 per
violation of the law and reimbursement to the state for its
investigative and legal costs.

For more details, visit,
http://www.ago.state.mo.us/newsreleases/2005/112805b.htm.  


FRIEDMAN'S INC.: SEC Files Settled Action For NY Fraud Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a settled
enforcement action in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York charging Friedman's Inc.
(Friedman's) with securities fraud and violating related books
and records provisions of the securities laws.
    
The Complaint alleges that from at least fiscal year-ended
2001 through September 2003, at the direction of Friedman's'
former senior management, Friedman's systematically inflated
earnings to meet Wall Street's expectations, while concealing
the fact that a growing percentage of its credit accounts
receivable were likely not collectible. The Commission alleges   
that Friedman's made material misrepresentations concerning its
credit program and its write-off policy, and systematically
under-reserved for bad debts using various non-GAAP accounting
practices.  The Complaint further alleges that from at least
fiscal year-ended 2001 through September 2003, Friedman's used
certain "one-off" actions to manipulate its earnings and improve
the appearance of its balance sheet, including, among others:

     (1) prematurely recognizing as a reduction in its cost of
         sales merchandise discounts that Friedman's received
         from its suppliers;  

     (2) failing to account  properly for the sale of
         receivables that  Friedman's had written off; and

     (3) using certain related party transactions to capitalize
         expenses that Friedman's should have recognized
         immediately.
          
The complaint charges Friedman's with violating Section 17 (a)
of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b), 13(a) and
13(b)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-
5, 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder.
     
Friedman's, which filed for bankruptcy on January 14, 2005, has
agreed to settle the Commission's charges by consenting to a
permanent injunction against future violations of the antifraud,
reporting, books and records and internal control provisions of
the federal securities laws.  In its settlement of the Justice
Department's parallel investigation, Friedman's has agreed to
pay $2 million to the United States Postal Inspection Service's
Consumer Fraud Fund and will make certain reforms to its
corporate governance and financial accounting controls.
     
The Commission expresses its appreciation to the United States
Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York and the
United States Postal Inspection Service for their assistance in
the investigation of this matter.

The suit is styled, SEC v. Friedman's Inc., Civil Action No. 05
Civ. 5516 (J. W.) E.D.N.Y.] (LR-19477).


INTEGRATED SERVICES: SEC Files TX Suit Over Pump and Dump Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil lawsuit in
Texas federal court against Integrated Services Group, Inc.
(ISVG), its de facto chief executive, James L. Rowton, and the
company's outside securities counsel, David M. Loev. Houston-
based ISVG is a non-reporting public company whose common stock
trades on the Pink Sheets and is purportedly in the business of
providing global positioning system and navigational
technologies for commercial transportation application. The SEC
sued ISVG and Mr. Rowton for violating the antifraud and
securities registration provisions of federal securities laws,
and Mr. Loev for violating the securities registration
provisions.
          
Mr. Loev has agreed to settle the SEC's suit by consenting to
the entry of an order permanently enjoining him from violating
the securities registration provisions, ordering him to disgorge
$25,785.50, plus interest, and imposing a $25,000 civil penalty.   
The order also prohibits Mr. Loev from, issuing any legal
opinions that the securities of any issuer are exempt from the
securities registration provisions of the federal securities
laws pursuant to Rule 504 of Regulation D, and accepting
securities of any issuer whose securities are quoted on the Pink
Sheets in consideration for legal or consulting services
rendered.
     
The SEC's complaint alleges that during 2003, ISVG and Mr.
Rowton engaged in a "pump and dump" scheme in which millions of
unregistered ISVG shares were sold into an inflated market
created by a series of false and misleading press releases,
promotional "fax blasts" and spam email. According to the
complaint, these promotional materials contained unfounded
revenue projections and materially false and misleading
information regarding purported acquisitions of, and agreements
with, third parties, and the company's status as a reporting
company with the Commission. It is alleged that ISVG and Mr.
Rowton realized over $70,000 in unjust profits from the scheme.
     
The SEC's complaint alleges that ISVG and Mr. Rowton violated
Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933
(Securities Act) and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Mr. Loev is charged with
violating Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act.  In
addition to the settled order against Loev, the SEC is seeking a
permanent injunction against ISVG and Mr. Rowton and
disgorgement, prejudgment interest, a civil money penalty and a
penny stock bar against Rowton.  

The suit is styled, SEC v. Integrated Services Group Inc., et
al., U.S.D.C/S.D. Texas, Houston Division, Case No. 4:05-cv-
04071]  (LR-19476).


MERCK & CO.: Firms Seek Chinese Clients For Planned Vioxx Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two Chinese along with three American law firms are soliciting
Chinese patients as clients who have had cardiac side effects
after taking Vioxx, an arthritis painkiller, The Shanghai Daily
reports.

The firms ultimate goal us to files a class action lawsuit
against the drug's manufacturer, Whitehouse Station, New Jersey-
based Merck & Co.

Merck has been bombarded with lawsuits around the world since it
pulled the $2.5 billion-a-year seller Vioxx from the market in
September 30, 2004 after an internal study found it doubled
patients' risks of heart attacks and strokes if taken for 18
months or longer. More than 20 million people took the drug
worldwide before its withdrawal, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (October 4, 2005) reports.

Vioxx is the trade name for rofecoxib, which is part of the
class of drugs called NSAIDs. It was touted as a pain and
inflammation reliever that did not cause ulcers or
gastrointestinal bleeding, a side effect of many such
medications. Merck previously said that it tested Vioxx on
nearly 10,000 patients during clinical trials and pulled the
drug as soon as the danger of its prolonged use became clear, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 13, 2005) reports.

According to Beijing's Limin Law Firm, Merck & Co. has received
about 500 complaints from 1,100 sufferers, some of them grouped
together, in 2004. They claimed the drug caused health injuries,
such as cardiovascular ailments and gastric problems.

In August, Texas Superior Court accepted the appeal from Carol
Ernst, who sought and received $253 million compensation for her
husband's sudden death due to the side effects of Vioxx. Merck
says it will appeal that ruling. Although it was ordered to pay
$253 million the amount was subsequently cut to $26 million
because of state capping rules.

In that case a Texas jury awarded damages totaling more than
$253 million to Mrs. Ernst after they found Merck guilty of
liability, negligence and malice over the sale of Vioxx. Mrs.
Ernst had sought compensation for the death of her husband
Robert, allegedly of arrhythmia, in 2001. Mr. Ernst, a produce
manager at a Wal-Mart near Fort Worth, who ran marathons and
worked as a personal trainer, took Vioxx for eight months to
alleviate pain in his hands until he died in his sleep. Mrs.
Ernst's lawsuit alleges that Merck & Co. knew of the dangers of
using Vioxx years before it recalled the drug. But, the Company
allegedly ignored those concerns in favor of aggressive
marketing for a multibillion-dollar seller, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (July 27, 2005) reports.

Chinese lawyers told The Shanghai Daily that the case is a model
for further lawsuits. In addition, they pointed out that they
were encouraged by the class action approach, supporting the
rights of perceived victims against perceived violators.

The Limin law firm put a notice on its Website over the weekend
seeking Chinese patients, who have taken Vioxx and suffered side
effects. According to the site, qualified plaintiffs are
arthritis patients who have developed cardiovascular diseases
after using the drug over a period of time.


MORPHCORP LLC: Attorney General Files Consumer Protection Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers' office filed a consumer
protection lawsuit in Arapahoe County District Court against
Morphcorp LLC, a Parker, Colorado company, as well as the
company's president and general manager, Maxwell MacMaster, for
alleged deceptive advertising and sales of "Family Yearbooks."

"Deceptive advertising will not be tolerated in Colorado," Mr.
Suthers said. "This lawsuit alleges that Morphcorp used
deceptive advertising and marketing tactics to sell thousands of
`Family Yearbooks' to unsuspecting consumers in Colorado and
throughout the country."

The lawsuit alleges that Morphcorp marketed the "Family
Yearbook" as a product of genealogical research that was unique
to the consumer's family history. Yet, as the lawsuit alleges,
Morphcorp does not conduct any genealogical research specific to
the family before printing the Yearbook. In fact, much of the
same information, including "family jokes and recipes" and
family pictures appear in each Yearbook regardless of the
surname for which it was created.

The lawsuit alleges that MacMaster offered the Yearbooks through
direct-mail advertising, which included various false and
misleading statements. Among those was a claim by MacMaster and
his then-wife that they shared the same last name of the
consumer to whom the flyer was sent. The lawsuit also alleges
that Morphcorp engaged in improper pricing practices by falsely
advertising that the Yearbook was available at a "special pre-
publication price" for a limited period of time, when in fact
nearly all of the Yearbooks sold were at the "special pre-
publication price." In most cases, that price was $44.85,
including charges for shipping and handling.

Attorney General Suthers' lawsuit seeks a court order providing
refunds to purchasers, civil penalties of up to $2,000 for each
violation of the Consumer Protection Act, and attorney fees and
costs. The lawsuit also seeks an injunction preventing
defendants from engaging in any future false and deceptive
advertising of their merchandise.

Consumers with complaints regarding Morphcorp or the "Family
Yearbook" may call the Colorado Consumer Line toll-free
1-800-222-4444 (in Colorado) or 1-800-332-2071 (out of state) or
may download a complaint form from:
http://www.ago.state.co.us/consline/complaint.pdf.


NEOPHARM INC.: Discovery Proceeds in IL Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class
action filed against Neopharm, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.  

The suit alleges various violations of the federal securities
laws in connection with the Company's public statements during
the period from October 31,2001 through April 19, 2002 as they
relate to the Company's LEP drug.  The original lawsuits also
named as individual defendants:

     (1) John N. Kapoor, Chairman of the Company,

     (2) James M. Hussey, President and CEO, and

     (3) Dr.Imran Ahmad, current Chief Scientific Officer and
         Senior Vice President of Research and Development

On November 4, 2002, the Company moved to have the complaint
dismissed.  The Company's motion to dismiss was granted in part
and denied in part in February 2003.  Dr. Kapoor was dismissed
from the lawsuit at that time.  In November 2004, the plaintiffs
filed a motion to amend and a motion for summary adjudication.  
The motion to amend seeks to again make Dr. Kapoor a defendant,
and realleges that certain pre-class period statements are
actionable. The Company opposed both motions.  No trial date has
been set and discovery is ongoing.

The suit is styled "Carson et al v. Neopharm Inc., et al, case
no. 1:02-cv-02976," filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Joan Humphrey
Lefkow.  Representing the Company are Eric Belfi of Murray,
Frank & Sailer LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, #801 New York, NY 10016,
Phone: (212) 682-1818; and Joel P Laitman, Schoengold and Sporn,
P.C., 19 Fulton Street, Suite 406, New York, NY 10038, Phone:
(212) 964-0046.  Representing the company is Leann Pedersen
Pope, Burke, Warren, MacKay & Serritella, P.C., 330 North Wabash
Avenue, 22nd Floor Chicago, IL 60611-3607, Phone: (312) 840-7000
Email: lpope@burkelaw.com.


NEW VISION: SEC Files Investment Adviser, Stock Fraud Suit in NC   
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed an enforcement
action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina charging Vincent A. Lenarcic, Jr. and New Vision
Investment Funds, LLC (New Vision) with securities and
investment adviser fraud in connection with the sale of
securities held by Fundamental Growth Investors, LP
(Fundamental). Fundamental is a hedge fund for which New Vision
and Mr. Lenarcic served as investment advisers. The complaint
alleges that Mr. Lenarcic and New Vision funneled proceeds of
the securities sales to New Vision and QMA Investment
Management, LLC (QMA), an investment adviser registered with the
Commission. Mr. Lenarcic managed and controlled QMA.
     
The complaint alleges that from June 2000 to December 2003, Mr.
Lenarcic of Charlotte, NC, and New Vision, a limited liability
company located in Charlotte, misappropriated at least $807,000
by selling securities in Fundamental's account and funneling the
proceeds to QMA and New Vision. The complaint further alleges
that the funds were misappropriated and spent in a manner
contrary to the representations made to Fundamental's investors
in Fundamental's offering materials.

The complaint also alleges that Mr. Lenarcic and New Vision, in
violation of their fiduciary duties to their advisory clients,
misled, and failed to disclose their actions to the Fundamental
investors, and that they thereby violated Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and
(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
     
The complaint seeks permanent injunctive relief, an accounting,
disgorgement plus prejudgment interest and civil penalties from
Mr. Lenarcic and New Vision and seeks disgorgement of the
misappropriated funds plus prejudgment interest from QMA, which
is named as a relief defendant.

The suit is styled, SEC v. Vincent A. Lenarcic, Jr. and New
Vision Investment Funds, LLC, Defendants, and QMA Investment
Management, LLC, Relief Defendant, Civil Action File No. 3:05-
CV-487-H (W.D.N.C.)] (LR-19478).


OM GROUP: OH Court Grants Final Approval To Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division granted final approval to the settlement
for the consolidated securities class action filed against OM
Group, Inc.

In November 2002, the Company received notice that two
shareholder class action lawsuits, styled "Sheth v. OM Group,
Inc., et al., case no. 1:02CV2163, and "Rischitelli v. OM Group,
Inc., et al., case No. 1:02CV2189," were filed against the
Company related to a decline in the Company's stock price after
its third quarter 2002 earnings announcement.  The lawsuits
allege virtually identical claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5
against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman, its former Chief Financial Officer and the members of
the Board of Directors. Plaintiffs seek damages in an
unspecified amount to compensate persons who purchased the
Company's stock at various dates between November 2001 and
October 2002 at allegedly inflated market prices.  In July 2004,
these class action lawsuits were amended to include 1999 through
2001 and to add the Company's independent auditors, Ernst &
Young LLP, as a defendant.  

In November 2002, the Company also received notice that
shareholder derivative lawsuit, styled "Cropper, et al. v. Lee
R. Brodeur, et al. case No. 1-03-0021," was filed in the same
court against the members of the Company's Board of Directors.
Derivative plaintiffs allege the directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company in connection with a decline in
the Company's stock price after its third quarter 2002 earnings
announcement by failing to institute sufficient financial
controls to ensure that the Company and its employees complied
with generally accepted accounting principles by writing down
the value of the Company's cobalt inventory on or before
December 31, 2001.  Derivative plaintiffs seek a number of
changes to the Company's accounting, financial and management
structures and unspecified damages from the directors to
compensate the Company for costs incurred in, among other
things, defending the aforementioned securities lawsuits.  In
July 2004, the derivative plaintiffs amended these lawsuits to
include conduct allegedly related to the Company's decision to
restate its earnings for the period 1999-2003.

The Company has been engaged in mediation sessions with the
plaintiffs regarding the shareholder class action and
shareholder derivative lawsuits. The Company anticipates these
lawsuits will be resolved during 2005. The Company and the lead
plaintiff of the shareholder class action lawsuits have entered
into an "Agreement to Settle Class Action" (Agreement) dated
March 7, 2005, which is an agreement in principle that outlines
the general terms of a proposed settlement of these lawsuits
subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and execution
of a definitive agreement.

Based on the Agreement and the Company's consideration of the
shareholder derivative lawsuits described above, the Company has
reserved $84.5 million at December 31, 2003 for the settlement
of these cases, which is proposed to be payable $76.0 million in
cash and $8.5 million in common stock. Insurance proceeds are
expected to be available for contribution to the resolution of
the cases but the Company does not expect these lawsuits to be
resolved within the limits of applicable insurance.  

The Company and lead plaintiff of these lawsuits have entered
into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated June 6,
2005, which Agreement was preliminary approved on June 24, 2005
by the United States District Court hearing the case.  The court
granted final approval on September 8, 2005.  The settlement is
to be payable $74 million in cash and $8.5 million in common
stock of the Company.

The consolidated suit is styled "In Re: OM Group Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 02-CV-02163," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, under Judge
Donald C. Nugent.  Representing the plaintiffs are Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New York, NY), 1285 Avenue of
the Americas, 33rd Floor, New York, NY, 10019 Phone:
212.554.1400, Fax: 212.554.1444, E-mail: blbg@blbglaw.com; and
Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli Co. L.P.A.,
Cleveland, OH, Phone: 216.621.8484, E-mail:
cmjani@climacolaw.com.


SANDISK CORPORATION: Court Mulls Investor Suit Dismissal Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to
decide on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the securities
class action filed against Sandisk Corporation, in its role as a
shareholder and director of Tower Semiconductor, Ltd.

The suit was originally filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of United
States holders of ordinary shares of Tower as of the close of
business on April 1, 2002.  The suit, captioned "Philippe de
Vries, Julia Frances Dunbar De Vries Trust, et al., v. Tower
Semiconductor Ltd., et al., Civil Case No. 03 CV 4999," was
filed against Tower and certain of its shareholders and
directors, including the Company and Eli Harari, the Company's
President and CEO and a Tower board member.

The suit asserts claims arising under Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
14a-9 promulgated there under. The lawsuit alleges that Tower
and certain of its directors made false and misleading
statements in a proxy solicitation to Tower shareholders
regarding a proposed amendment to a contract between Tower and
certain of its shareholders, including the Company.  The
plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and attorneys' and
experts' fees and expenses.

On August 19, 2004, the judge granted the Company and the other
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety with
prejudice.  On September 29, 2004, plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  
The appeal will likely be decided sometime in 2005.

The suit is styled "De Vries, et al v. Tower Semiconductor, et
al., case no. 1:03-cv-04999-KMW," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Kimba M. Wood.  Representing the Company are Jeffrey S.
Abraham and Lawrence Donald Levit of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky
LLP, One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910, New York, NY 10119, Phone:
(212)-279-5050, Fax: (212)-279-3655, E-mail: llevit@aftlaw.com.  
Representing the Company is Daniel Lucas Cantor and Michael R.
Patrick of O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Seven Times Square, New York,
NY 10036, Phone: 212-326-2000, Fax: 212-326-2061, E-mail:
dcantor@omm.com.


SANDISK CORPORATION: Continues To Face Consumer Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandisk Corporation and a number of other manufacturers of
flash memory products face a consumer class action in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the City and
County of San Francisco captioned Willem Vroegh et al. v. Dane
Electric Corp. USA, et al.

The suit alleges false advertising, unfair business practices,
breach of contract, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation and
violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedy Act.  The
lawsuit purports to be on behalf of a class of purchasers of
flash memory products and claims that the defendants overstated
the size of the memory storage capabilities of such products.  
The lawsuit seeks restitution, injunction and damages in an
unspecified amount.


SAWTEK INC.: FL Court Dismisses Securities Violations Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida dismissed the consolidated securities class action filed
against Sawtek, Inc., certain of its current and former officers
and Triquint Semiconductor, Inc., its parent company.

In February 2003, several nearly identical putative civil class
action lawsuits were filed. The cases were consolidated into one
action, and an amended complaint was filed in this action on
July 21, 2003.  The amended class action complaint is
purportedly filed on behalf of purchasers of Company stock
between January 2000 and May 24, 2001, and alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act, as well as Securities and Exchange Commission Rule
10b-5, by making false and misleading statements and/or
omissions to inflate the Company's stock price and conceal the
downward trend in revenues disclosed in the Company's May 23,
2001 press release.  The complaint does not specify the amount
of monetary damages sought.

The Company and the individual defendants filed their motion to
dismiss on September 3, 2003, and briefing on the motion was
completed on November 19, 2003. The court heard oral argument on
November 21, 2003, and issued an order partially denying the
motion to dismiss on December 19, 2003.  Specifically, the court
found that the complaint was not barred by the statute of
limitations, but reserved ruling on the other aspects of the
motion to dismiss.  Because the statute of limitations issue is
a novel question of law, the court stayed the proceedings in
this case to allow the defendants to file an interlocutory
appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  The defendants
duly filed for interlocutory appeal on January 22, 2004.
Because the Court of Appeals has been considering the identical
issue in another matter, the appeal process has been stayed,
pending the Court of Appeals' decision in the other matter.

On June 1, 2005, the Eleventh Circuit issued a memorandum
decision in the unrelated case that raised the similar statute
of limitations issue.  The Court of Appeals held that factual
issues were raised, which precluded resolution of the statute of
limitations issues at this time.  The Court of Appeals remanded
that case to the lower court for the purpose of making factual
findings. The Sawtek appeal process with respect to the statute
of limitations remains stayed pending remand of this unrelated
case.

On June 3, 2005, the defendants requested the United States
District Court to lift its stay of the proceedings in the Sawtek
case, and to proceed to rule on the remaining issues raised in
the motion to dismiss the complaint.  The District Court has
allowed the parties to file supplemental briefing on or before
August 19, 2005, and scheduled a hearing for August 25, 2005 to
hear re-argument on the balance of the motion to dismiss the
complaint.  On October 6, 2005, the court dismissed the
complaint with prejudice.

The suit is styled "IN re Sawtek, Inc. Securities Litigation,
case no. 6:03cv294," filed in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida under Judge Gregory A.
Presnell.  Representing the plaintiffs are Cauley Geller, Bowman
Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton, FL), One Boca Place, 2255
Glades Road, Suite 421A, Boca Raton, FL, 33431, Phone:
561.750.3000, Fax: 561.750.3364; and Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP,
3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706,
Fax: 610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.  Representing
the Company are:

     (1) Douglas A. Clark, Gregory A. Harris, Lyle Roberts,
         Cheryl Foung, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 1955
         Freedom Dr, Suite 1500, Reston, VA 20190, USA, Phone:
         703/ 734-3100

     (2) Tracy Ann Marshall, John Michael Brennan of
         Grayrobinson, PA, 301 E Pine St, Suite 1400, PO Box
         3068, Orlando, FL 32802-3068, USA, Phone: 407/ 843-8880
         Ext:5616, Fax: 407/ 244-5690, E-mail:
         Tmarshal@gray-Robinson.com or
         Jbrennan@gray-Robinson.com  

     (3) Kurtis T. Bauerle of Harris, Harris, Bauerle & Sharma,
         PA, The Park Building, 250 S Orange Ave, Suite 100,
         Orlando, FL 32801, USA, Phone: 407/ 843-0404, Fax: 407-
         843-0444, E-mail: Kurt@hhbslaw.com


SILICON IMAGE: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Silicon Image, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California to dismiss the amended
securities class action filed against it on behalf of purchasers
of the company's common stock from October 19,2004 to January
24,2005.

According to a press release dated February 1, 2005, a class
action lawsuit was initially filed on behalf of all persons who
purchased, converted, exchanged, or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Silicon Image, Inc., against defendants Silicon
Image and certain officers and directors of the Company.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
thereunder, thereby artificially inflating the price of Silicon
Image securities. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company gave fourth quarter guidance on October 19, 2004 and has
since undergone a time of undisclosed executive uncertainty, and
distractions which were not disclosed while insiders sold
Company stock.  Plaintiffs allege that:

     (i) on November 11, 2004, the Company appointed Steven Laub
         as Chief Executive Officer and President;

    (ii) the Company failed to disclose material adverse facts,
         including fundamental disputes between Steven Laub and
         others at Silicon Image regarding Mr. Laub's relative
         role and responsibility which resulted in substantial
         distractions from achieving guidance;

   (iii) 281,742 shares were sold by insiders at Silicon Image
         who were in a position to know of the material adverse
         information of the fundamental disputes and resulting
         distractions; and

    (iv) the SEC commenced a formal investigation into trading
         in Silicon Image shares on January 25, 2005.

Further, on or around January 25, 2005, the Company issued two
press releases. One release, entitled "Silicon Image Announces
Appointment of Steve Tirado as Chief Executive Officer Replacing
Steven Laub," announced the resignation of its Chief Executive
Officer and President, Steven Laub, and appointment of
Christopher Paisley as the Company's new Chairman of the Board
of Directors. The second press release, entitled "Silicon Image
Reports Fourth Quarter 2004 Financials," stated that the
Company's revenue in the fourth quarter decreased by 4% in
comparison to the third quarter. The price of the Company stock
has declined by 15% since January 24, 2005.

On April 27, 2005, the Court issued an order appointing lead
plaintiffs and approving the selection of lead counsel.  On July
27, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint.
The amended complaint no longer names Mr. Gargus as an
individual defendant, but adds David Lee as an individual
defendant. In accordance with the court's scheduling order, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 26, 2005,
which motion is scheduled to be heard on January 13, 2006.

The suit is styled "Landon Curry, et al. v. Silicon Image, Inc.,
et al., case no. 05-CV-00456," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, under
Judge Maxine M. Chesney.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation
are:

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

    (ii) Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP, 500 Fifth Avenue, New
         York, NY, 10110, Phone: 212.608.1900, Fax:
         212.719.4677, E-mail: info@lshllp.com


SOUTHERN COPPER: Faces Consolidated Suit V. Minera Mexico Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Copper Corporation and Minera Mexico S.A. de C.V. face
a consolidated class action derivative lawsuit filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery (New Castle County) late in December
2004 and early January 2005 relating to the merger transaction
between the two parties.

On January 31, 2005, the three actions, styled "Lemon Bay, LLP
v. Americas Mining Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 961-N,"
"Therault Trust v. Luis Palomino Bonilla, et al., and Southern
Copper Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 969-N," and "James
Sousa v. Southern Copper Corporation, et al., Civil Action No.
978-N" were consolidated into one action titled, "In re Southern
Copper Corporation Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Consol.
C.A. No. 961-N" and the complaint filed in Lemon Bay was
designated as the operative complaint in the consolidated
lawsuit.  The consolidated action purports to be brought on
behalf of the Company's common stockholders.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Transaction is the result of breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Company's directors and is not entirely fair to the Company and
its minority stockholders. The consolidated complaint seeks,
among other things, a preliminarily and permanent injunction to
enjoin the Transaction, the award of damages to the class, the
award of damages to the Company and such other relief that the
court deems equitable, including interest, attorneys' and
experts' fees and costs.


SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC: Named in Canadian Plant Emission Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Southwestern Electric 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 nitrogen oxide, sulfur
dioxide 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.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Consumers Fraud Suits Over Lawnmowers Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tecumseh Products, Inc. continues to face a class action,
alleging that the horsepower labels on the products the
plaintiffs purchased were inaccurate. The plaintiffs seek
certification of a class of all persons in the United States
who, beginning January 1, 1995 through the present, purchased a
lawnmower containing a two stroke or four stroke gas combustible
engine up to 20 horsepower that was manufactured by defendants.  
The complaint seeks an injunction, compensatory and punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees.

No orders have been entered in the case, and there has been
limited discovery. The Company intends to vigorously defend this
case, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Lawsuit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California has yet to rule on plaintiffs' appeal of the
dismissal of the consolidated securities class action filed
against Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of its current
and former executive officers.

Since July 25, 2002, multiple class actions have been filed
against the Company and some of its current and former executive
officers alleging that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and misleading
financial results to the market during different class periods
ranging from May 3, 2001 to July 10, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of the Company's stock.  The lawsuits
generally claim that the Company issued false and misleading
statements regarding its earnings prospects and sales figures
(based upon "channel stuffing" allegations), its operations in
Russia, the marketing of Efudex, and the earnings and sales of
its Photonics division. The plaintiffs generally seek to recover
compensatory damages, including interest.

On June 24, 2004, the court dismissed the Second Amended
Complaint as to the channel stuffing claim.  The plaintiffs then
stipulated to a dismissal of all the claims against the Company.
The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit seeking review of
the dismissal of the claims against the Company.  The plaintiffs
filed their opening brief in the Ninth Circuit on February 7,
2005. Although a schedule for deciding the appeal has not yet
been set by the court, the Company expects a ruling on this
matter by late fall 2005.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Permax Injury Litigation in OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals faces two lawsuits filed in Oklahoma,
alleging that the use of Permax, a drug for the treatment of
Parkinson's Disease marketed and sold by Amarin Pharmaceuticals
Inc., the shares of which were purchased by the Company in
February 2004, caused valvular heart disease.

The first suit was filed in the District Court of Tulsa County,
Oklahoma on February 15, 2005, captioned "Jerry G. Miller and
Karren M. Miller v. Eli Lilly and Company, Elan Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Amarin Corporation
PLC, Amarin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Reasor's, Inc., Reasor's LLC
and Athena Neurosciences, Inc., Case No. CJ-2004-6757."  On
February 23, 2005, the Company was served in a case captioned
"Jimmy Ruth Carson v. Eli Lilly and Company, Elan
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Case No., 05CV106" filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.

The Company has also received from time to time and other claims
alleging that the use of Permax caused congestive heart failure
and other coronary-related damage, including a letter from an
attorney purporting to represent five persons with such claims,
but no litigation has yet been filed.  Some of the claims
related to valvular heart disease have been settled by the
Company


VARIAGENICS INC.: Working To Settle Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Variagenics, Inc. is continuing to negotiate a settlement for
the consolidated securities class action filed against it,
certain of its officers and underwriters in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On December 6, 2001, a complaint was filed on behalf of persons
purchasing the Company's stock between July 21, 2000 and
December 6, 2000.  The suit alleges violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleges that, in connection with the Company's
July 21, 2000 initial public offering, or IPO, the defendants
failed to disclose additional and excessive commissions
purportedly solicited by and paid to the underwriter defendants
in exchange for allocating shares of the Company's stock to
preferred customers and alleged agreements among the underwriter
defendants and preferred customers tying the allocation of IPO
shares to agreements to make additional aftermarket purchases at
predetermined prices.  Plaintiffs claim that the failure to
disclose these alleged arrangements made the Company's
registration statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC in July
2000 and the prospectus, a part of the registration statement,
materially false and misleading. Plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages.

On April 19, 2002, an amended complaint was filed which makes
essentially the same allegations.  On July 15, 2002, Variagenics
and the individuals filed a motion to dismiss.  On July 16,
2003, the Company's Board of Directors approved a settlement
proposal initiated by the plaintiffs.  The final terms of the
settlement are still being negotiated.  It is possible that the
parties may not reach agreement on the final settlement
documents or that the Federal District Court may not approve the
settlement in whole or part.

The suit is styled "Variagenics, Inc IPO, et al v. Variagenics,
Inc., et al., case no. 1:01-cv-10999-SAS," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  Representing the plaintiffs
are Stanley D Bernstein of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP,
10 East 40th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 779-1414,
Fax: (212) 779-3218, E-mail: bernstein@bernlieb.com; and Melvyn
I. Weiss, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC), One
Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212 594 5300,
Fax: 212 868 1229, E-mail: mweiss@milberg.com.


WASHINGTON GROUP: Named in Hurricane Katrina Lawsuit in LA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Group International, Inc. was named as a defendant in
the complaint filed in the Civil District Court for the Parish
of Orleans in Louisiana, styled "Vodanovich v. Boh Bros.
Construction Co., LLC, et al., Case No. 05-11669."

The litigation purports to be a class action on behalf of all
residents, domiciliaries, and property owners of the Parishes of
Orleans and Jefferson in the State of Louisiana who sustained
damages arising out of the breach and failure of levies and
floodwalls in the city of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane
Katrina.

The Company is one of twelve companies named as defendants in
the litigation.  The only claim asserted against the Company is
that it was contracted to clear abandoned industrial sites near
the Industrial Canal in New Orleans and that it is negligent in
that "it is believed that the use of heavy vehicles and/or other
heavy construction equipment along the Industrial Canal between
the floodwall and the canal damaged the levy and/or floodwall
and caused and/or contributed (to) the above-mentioned breach in
the levy and/or floodwall."


WISCONSIN: Attorney General to Sue V. FDA Over "Plan B" Delays
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager announced that she
is seeking the authority to file a lawsuit against the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) for its delays in approving an
emergency contraceptive pill known as "Plan B," as an over-the-
counter drug which has been pending at the federal agency since
2003.

"The citizens of Wisconsin who are being harmed by this
politically motivated delay deserve answers, and they deserve
action," Ms. Lautenschlager said.  "The negative effects of
withholding approval of this drug over political -- not
scientific or other legitimately accepted grounds -- are far
reaching, hurting not only victims of rape who might be in need
of emergency contraception, but the greater community health,
the economy and the fundamental right to justice."

Ms. Lautenschlager has been a long-time advocate of
contraceptive equity and reproductive rights, issuing landmark
opinions on the subject as Attorney General (see
http://www.doj.state.wi.us).

As a first step in the process of taking legal action,
Lautenschlager wrote to Governor Jim Doyle today (a copy of the
letter follows below), requesting that he, along with the
Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS), assist the
Department of Justice (DOJ) in investigating the FDA's refusal
to make a decision over the marketing status of "Plan B."

For more details, contact Kelly Kennedy, Phone: 608/266-7876,
Web site: http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/nr120105_PL.asp.



                 New Securities Fraud Cases


CIPHERGEN BIOSYSTEMS: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Ciphergen Biosystems, Inc. (NASDAQ: CIPHE) between August 8,
2005 and November 16, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against defendant Ciphergen
Biosystems, Inc. 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.


GREAT WOLF: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. WI
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased the common stock of Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. (Nasdaq:
WOLF) pursuant or traceable to the Company's Initial Public
Offering ("IPO") of common stock on December 14, 2004, and on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Great Wolf securities between December 14, 2004 and
July 28, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act")
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending against defendants Great Wolf, and certain
of the Company's officers and directors. According to the
complaint, defendants violated sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act, and sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that Great Wolf is an owner, operator and
developer of family resorts in the United States that feature
indoor waterparks and other family-oriented entertainment
activities. According to the Complaint, the Company filed a
registration statement and prospectus with the SEC in connection
with the Company's IPO that contained materially false and
misleading statements about Great Wolf's financial condition and
business prospects. Moreover, during the Class Period, the
Company reported strong results and issued positive guidance in
press releases and SEC filings that defendants knew, or
recklessly disregarded, were materially false and misleading.
Unbeknownst to investors, during the Class Period, the Company
was suffering from a host of adverse conditions resulting from,
in part, its failure to implement an adequate system of internal
controls to, among other things, properly account for the
Company's revenue and operating expenses. Defendants were
motivated to conceal these material problems to complete the
Company's IPO and to file a registration statement with the SEC
that enabled Company insiders, including certain defendants, to
sell their personally-held shares of Great Wolf stock to the
public.

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

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


HELEN OF TROY: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas, El Paso Division on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Helen of Troy,
Ltd. (NASDAQ: HELE) between October 12, 2004, through October
10, 2005

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

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

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


HYDROFLO INC.: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina, Eastern Division on behalf of all investors who
purchased common stock of HydroFlo, Inc. (OTC BB:HYRF.OB) during
the period from July 18, 2005 through October 26, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

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.

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


STONE ENERGY: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in LA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana on behalf of purchasers of Stone Energy
Corporation (NYSE: SGY) common stock during the period between
June 17, 2005 and October 6, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Stone Energy and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The Company engages in the acquisition, exploration,
development, operation, and production of oil and gas in the
Gulf of Mexico, various basins of the Rocky Mountains, and
Williston basin oil of North Dakota and Montana. The Complaint
alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants issued
numerous positive statements and filed quarterly reports with
the SEC, which described the Company's increasing financial
performance. These statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented
the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that Stone Energy was materially overstating its
         financial results by overvaluing its oil reserves
         through improper and aggressive reserve methodologies.
         As detailed herein, Stone Energy has now launched an
         internal investigation into its reserve practices and
         admitted that it overstated its oil reserves and that
         it will be restating its financial statements for 2001
         to 2004 and for the first six months of 2005;

     (2) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition; and

     (3) that as a result of the foregoing, the values of the
         Company's proven reserves, assets and future net cash
         flows were materially overstated at all relevant times.

On October 6, 2005, Stone Energy shocked the market when it
issued a press release announcing that it intends to take a
significant reserve write-down, among other things. In response
to this announcement, the price of Stone Energy common stock
fell $7.93 per share or almost 14% to close at $48.14 per share,
on unusually heavy trading volume. Then, on November 8, 2005,
Stone Energy issued a press release announcing that it will
restate its financial statements for the periods from 2001 to
2004 and for the first six months of 2005.

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




                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *