CAR_Public/051215.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, December 15, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 248


                            Headlines

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: New Employee Wardrobing Suit Filed in OR
AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES: Final Fairness Hearing Set April 24,2006
ALAMOSA PCS: Final Fairness Hearing Set April 24,2006 in S.D. NY
ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: CO Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
AUSTRALIA: Court Rules V. Nauru Landowners in Trust Fund Case

BROADVISION INC.: Plaintiffs Withdraw 4 Securities Suits in CA
CENTRA SOFTWARE: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
CHICAGO TRANSIT: Statman Harris Files Suit in IL Over $1.75 Fare
DIRECTV: To Pay $5.335 Mil To Settle Do Not Call Act Violations
ESPEED INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidates Securities Suit in NY

GATEWAY INC.: Consumers File CA Suit Over Faulty Plasma TV Sets
GEORGIA: City of Rome Sues Online Travel Sites Over Hotel Taxes
HEINZ FROZEN: Recalls Frozen Pot Roast For Undeclared Allergen
HOMESTORE.COM: Finalizing Settlement of CA Securities Fraud Suit
HOMESTORE.COM: Settlement Proceeds To Be Distributed This Month

ILLINOIS: Coal City Village Council OK's Settlement of Fees Case
ILLINOIS: Two Counties Fare Better in ATRA's Judicial Ranking
JAMDAT MOBILE: Shareholder Files CA Suit Over Firm's Sale to EA
JUPITERMEDIA CORPORATION: CA Online Gambling Suit Still Pending
KANSAS: More Plaintiffs Join Race Bias Suit V. Turner District

KIDS II INC.: Recalls Baby! Door Jumpers Due to Injury Hazard
MICHIGAN: Judge Denies Certification For Suit V. Saginaw County
MIVA INC.: Seeks Dismissal of Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in AR Court
MIVA INC.: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuits
NEOFORMA INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement

NEOFORMA INC.: Investors Launch Suit V. Global Healthcare Merger
NETRATINGS INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
NEW YORK: Welfare Groups Face Suit for Abuse of Benefits System
NEXTEL PARTNERS: Continues To Face Fraud Suit V. Sprint Merger
NEXTEL PARTNERS: NY Final Fairness Hearing Set April 24, 2006

NEXTEL PARTNERS: High Court Nixes Review of MD Suit Affirmation
NEXTEL PARTNERS: High Court Nixes Review, OKs Lawsuit Settlement
O'MELVENY & MYERS: Firm to Admit 14 New Partners in Feb. 2006
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Final Fairness Hearing Set April 2006 in NY
OREGON: Hawkins County Commissioners Question Proposed Jail Deal

REDBACK NETWORKS: CA Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit
REDBACK NETWORKS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement
RUBIO'S RESTAURANT: Continues To Face Overtime Wage Suits in CA
RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: CA Customers Launch Suit Over Lobster Menu
SARA LEE: Recalls Biscuit Products Due to Listeria Contamination

SELECTICA INC.: Final Fairness Hearing Set April 24, 2006
SINA CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit
STAMPS.COM: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement
STONEPATH GROUP: PA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
UNITED PARCEL: Continues To Face Employee CA Overtime Wage Suit

WILLIAM LYON: DE Court Dismisses Consolidated Shareholder Suit

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

DIEBOLD INC.: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in OH
EVCI COLLEGES: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NY
MIKOHN GAMING: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in WI
MIKOHN GAMING: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NV


                          *********


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: New Employee Wardrobing Suit Filed in OR
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Seattle law firm launched a class action lawsuit in Oregon
against Abercrombie & Fitch Co., claiming that the upscale
retailer forced employees to buy and wear its clothes, without
reimbursement, causing employees' paychecks to dip below minimum
wage, The OregonLive.com reports.

Filed specifically in Multnomah County Circuit Court, the suit
names one former employee, Will Rankin, who worked in an Oregon
store but now lives in Seattle. The case, open to employees who
worked between December 9, 1999, and December 9, 2005, alleges
that Abercrombie broke state minimum wage laws and seeks
reimbursement for the employees' clothing purchases.

Anne-Marie E. Sargent, a partner with Connor & Chung told The
OregonLive.com, that the case would probably gain thousands of
class members. Her Seattle firm recently settled a similar case
for 6,500 former Abercrombie employees in Washington.

Abercrombie & Fitch, the predominately mall-based retailer that
also operates Hollister Co. and Ruehl, could not be reached for
comment regarding the suit. The retailer has four Abercrombie &
Fitch stores in the Portland area, along with three Hollister
Co. stores and one Abercrombie Kids.

Such lawsuits are not new for the teen-focused Abercrombie, or
for several other large retailers nationwide. The explosion of
lawsuits over some retailers' requirements that their employees
wear new lines began in 2002, when California's labor department
announced a $2.2 million settlement with Abercrombie that
affected 11,000 employees. More suits soon followed against the
New Albany, Ohio-based retailer, along with employee class
action suits against The Limited Brands, which operates Express
and Victoria's Secret, J. Jill Group Inc., Chico's FAS Inc., and
The Gap, which also operates Old Navy and Banana Republic.

In the present case, Ms. Sargent told The OregonLive.com that
former and current Abercrombie employees reported that even
though the retailer took action against such practices in 2003,
the pressure to buy and wear each season's new line continued.
Mr. Rankin, the class representative in Oregon, was a manager
who said he participated in conference calls with higher-ups in
which directions were given to cut hours to employees who did
not wear Abercrombie clothes, according to her.

Ms. Sargent also told The OregonLive.com, "For some years, they
set out the specific clothes they wanted kids to buy, maybe with
options of different colors, such as this polo, this crewneck
top and these chino jeans. One of the clients had a maroon top
that went on sale, but she had to buy a new one because they
couldn't wear stuff that was on sale."

Initially, the case was filed in July 2003, and accepted class
members who worked as far back as 2000. The company settled for
about $850,000, but only paid out $210,000 to those former
employees who filed claims, according to Ms. Sargent. Entry-
level workers, who typically work shorter and fewer shifts,
received $65 for every three months they worked for Abercrombie.
Managers, who work more days, received $110 for every three
months they worked for the retailer.


AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES: Final Fairness Hearing Set April 24,2006
-------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action field against Akamai Technologies, Inc.,
certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters of
its October 28, 1999 initial public offering of common stock is
set for April 24,2006 in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

Between July 2, 2001 and November 7, 2001, purported class
action lawsuits seeking monetary damages were filed on behalf of
persons who purchased the Company's common stock during
different time periods, all beginning on October 28, 1999 and
ending on various dates.  The complaints are similar and allege
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act
primarily based on the allegation that the underwriters received
undisclosed compensation in connection with the Company's
initial public offering.

On April 19, 2002, a single consolidated amended complaint was
filed, reiterating in one pleading the allegations contained in
the previously filed separate actions.  The consolidated amended
complaint defines the alleged class period as October 28, 1999
through December 6, 2000. A Special Litigation Committee of the
Company's Board of Directors authorized management to negotiate
a settlement of the pending claims substantially consistent with
a Memorandum of Understanding that was negotiated among class
plaintiffs, all issuer defendants and their insurers.  The
parties negotiated a settlement which is subject to approval by
the Court.  On February 15, 2005, the Court issued an Opinion
and Order preliminarily approving the settlement, provided that
the defendants and plaintiffs agree to a modification narrowing
the scope of the bar order set forth in the original settlement
agreement.  On August 31, 2005, the Court preliminarily approved
the modifications to the settlement and scheduled a hearing on
April 24, 2006 to consider whether to grant final approval.

The suit is styled "In Re Akamai Networks, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "IN RE
INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira
N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


ALAMOSA PCS: Final Fairness Hearing Set April 24,2006 in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the consolidated securities class
action filed against Alamosa PC Holdings, Inc., styled "In re
Alamosa PCS Holdings Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, docket No. 01 Civ. 11235," arising out of its
initial public offering (IPO), is set for April 24,2006 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  Various underwriters of the IPO also are named as
defendants in the suit.

The action against us is one of more than 300 related class
actions which have been consolidated and are pending in the same
court.  The complainants seek to recover damages and allege,
among other things, that the registration statement and
prospectus filed with the SEC for purposes of the IPO were false
and misleading because they failed to disclose that the
underwriters allegedly:

     (1) solicited and received commissions from certain
         investors in exchange for allocating to them shares of
         common stock in connection with the IPO, and

     (2) entered into agreements with their customers to
         allocate such stock to those customers in exchange for
         the customers agreeing to purchase additional Company
         shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

On February 19, 2003, the Court granted motions by the Company
and 115 other issuers to dismiss the claims under Rule 10b-5 of
the Exchange Act which had been asserted against them. The Court
denied the motions by the Company and virtually all of the other
issuers to dismiss the claims asserted against them under
Section 11 of the Securities Act.  On October 13, 2004, the
Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in
cases against six of the issuers (not including the Company),
and stated that the order of certification gave "strong
guidance, if not dispositive effect" in the cases involving all
other issuers. The underwriter defendants petitioned the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to hear the appeal of
the certification on an interlocutory basis, and on June 30,
2005, the Second Circuit granted their request. The Second
Circuit has ordered the appeal to be scheduled and briefed in
the normal course.

The issuers in the IPO cases, including the Company, have
reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle
the claims asserted by the plaintiffs against them. Under the
terms of the proposed settlement, the insurance carriers for the
issuers will pay the plaintiffs the difference between $1
billion and all amounts which the plaintiffs recover from the
underwriter defendants by way of settlement or judgment.
Accordingly, no payment on behalf of the issuers under the
proposed settlement will be made by the issuers themselves. The
claims against the issuers will be dismissed, and the issuers
and their officers and directors will receive releases from the
plaintiffs. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the
issuers will also assign to plaintiffs certain claims which they
may have against the underwriters arising out of the Company's
IPO, and the issuers will also agree not to assert certain other
claims which they may have against the underwriters, without
plaintiffs' consent. The proposed settlement is subject to
agreement among the parties on final settlement documents and
the approval of the court.  The court has issued a decision and
order which preliminarily approves the settlement as to the
issuers.

On August 31, 2005, the court set a date for a final approval
hearing of April 24, 2006, and approved providing notice to all
class members. The court ordered that notice to the class be
mailed beginning on November 15, 2005, and to be completed no
later than January 15, 2006. Any class member who wishes to be
excluded from the settlement must give notice by March 24, 2006.
Objections to the proposed settlement must be filed with the
court by March 24, 2006. The court has scheduled a hearing to
determine the fairness of the settlement for April 24, 2006.

The suit is styled "In re Alamosa PCS Holdings Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, docket No. 01 Civ. 11235,"
related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: CO Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
dismissed the consolidated securities class action filed against
Allos Therapeutics, Inc. and one of its officers.

An amended complaint was filed in August 2004.  The lawsuit is
brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's securities during the period from April 23, 2003 to
April 29, 2004, and is seeking unspecified damages relating to
the issuance of allegedly false and misleading statements
regarding EFAPROXYN during this period and subsequent declines
in the Company's stock price.  On October 12, 2004, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice.  That motion
remains pending.

On October 20, 2005, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and entered judgment in the Company's favor.  The
plaintiff was given until November 19, 2005 to file any notice
of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit.


AUSTRALIA: Court Rules V. Nauru Landowners in Trust Fund Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Government of Nauru was vindicated by a favorable ruling
from the Federal Court of Australia in a class action brought
against it by Nauru landowners, The PacificBeat/Radio Australia
reports.

In his ruling, Justice Ray Finkelstein stated that the Federal
Court of Australia lacks the jurisdiction to hear the
landowners' case, which requires adjudication by the courts in
Nauru. The issue of jurisdiction needed to be resolved before a
class action brought by landowners can be heard.  In their class
action, the landowners wanted to sue the Nauru Phosphate
Royalties Trust for money they claim they are owed from interest
earned from funds held by the Trust.


BROADVISION INC.: Plaintiffs Withdraw 4 Securities Suits in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in four pending shareholder class actions filed
against BroadVision, Inc. (Nasdaq: BVSN) and its directors
agreed to dismiss their complaints without prejudice.

The court approved the dismissals on December 9, 2005. All four
complaints were related to the previously announced merger
agreement with Vector Capital, which was terminated in November.
No payments of any kind were made or will be made by the Company
or its directors to obtain the dismissal of the four complaints.

"We are pleased that each of the plaintiffs has agreed to
dismiss the complaints, and that we are now able to redirect our
resources to more productive activities," said Pehong Chen, CEO
of BroadVision.

The four class actions, each filed by an alleged holder of
shares of the Company's common stock in California Superior
Court for the county of San Mateo are captioned:

     (1) Gary Goberville, et al., vs. Pehong Chen, et al., Civ
         448490;

     (2) Cookie Schwartz, et al., vs. BroadVision, Inc., et al,
         Civ 448516;

     (3) Leon Kotovich, et al., vs. BroadVision, Inc., et al,
         Civ 448518; and

     (4) Anthony Noblett, et al., vs. BroadVision, Inc., et al,
         Civ 448519.

Each claim names the Company and its directors as defendants,
and each alleges that the director defendants violated their
fiduciary duties to stockholders by, among other things, failing
to maximize the Company's value and ignoring, or failing to
adequately protect against, certain purported conflicts of
interest. Each complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive
relief and damages in an unspecified amount, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (September 22, 2005) reports.


CENTRA SOFTWARE: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against Centra
Software, Inc., certain of its officers and directors and the
managing underwriters of its initial public offering.

The plaintiffs filed an initial complaint on December 6, 2001
and purported to serve us on or about March 18, 2002.  The
original complaint has been superseded by an amended complaint
filed in April 2002. The action, captioned "in re Centra
Software, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
No. 01 CV 10988," which is being coordinated with an action
captioned "in re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
No. 21 MC 92," is purportedly brought on behalf of the class of
persons who purchased the Company's common stock between
February 3, 2000 and December 6, 2000.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that, in
connection with the Company's initial public offering in
February 2000, the underwriters received undisclosed commissions
from certain investors in exchange for allocating shares to them
and also agreed to allocate shares to certain customers in
exchange for the agreement of those customers to purchase
additional shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices.
The complaint asserts that the Company's registration statement
and prospectus for the offering were materially false and
misleading due to their failure to disclose these alleged
arrangements. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified
amount against us and the named individuals.

The Company joined in motions with the underwriter defendants to
dismiss the above-reference action on July 3 and July 15, 2002,
respectively.  On October 9, 2002, the plaintiffs dismissed,
without prejudice, the claims against the Company's officers and
directors in the above-referenced action. On February 19, 2003,
the court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss as to
the other defendants and the Company.  On June 7, 2003, the
plaintiffs announced a proposed settlement with all issuers,
including the Company. On June 25, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a
motion with the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York requesting preliminary approval of the
settlement.  The court has given preliminary approval of the
settlement.  The Company plans to participate in this
settlement, which has been negotiated, and will be fully funded
directly to the plaintiffs, by its insurers.

The suit is styled "in re Centra Software, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, No. 01 CV 10988," related to "In
re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File
No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


CHICAGO TRANSIT: Statman Harris Files Suit in IL Over $1.75 Fare
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Statman, Harris, Siegel & Eyrich, LLC, initiated
a class action on behalf of holders of the Chicago Transit
Authority's Chicago Card and Chicago Card Plus against the
Chicago Transit Authority ("CTA") for wrongful charges.

The Complaint alleges that the CTA has deceptively and
wrongfully charged thousands of holders of the Chicago Card and
the Chicago Card Plus the sum of $1.75 for rides on CTA buses
which were advertised as the $1.00 rush shuttle fare.

For more details, contact Scott Frost, Esq. of Statman, Harris,
Siegel & Eyrich, LLC, Phone: (312) 263-1070, E-mail:
sfrost@shsechicago.com.



DIRECTV: To Pay $5.335 Mil To Settle Do Not Call Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Satellite television provider DIRECTV will pay $5,335,000 to
settle FTC charges that, since October 2003, DIRECTV and
companies it hired to promote DIRECTV programming have been
violating the Do Not Call (DNC) provisions of the Commission's
Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). This is the largest civil
penalty the FTC has ever announced in a case enforcing any
consumer protection law.

At the Commission's request, the U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ) filed the complaint and stipulated settlements in Federal
District Court in Los Angeles. The complaint names as defendants
DIRECTV, five firms that telemarketed on its behalf, and six
principals of those telemarketing firms. Settlements with
DIRECTV and two of the telemarketing firms and their principals
were filed along with the complaint.

"This multimillion dollar penalty drives home a simple point:
Sellers are on the hook for calls placed on their behalf," said
Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras. "The Do Not Call Rule applies to
all players in the marketing chain, including retailers and
their telemarketers."

The complaint alleges that telemarketers calling on behalf of
DIRECTV contacted consumers on the National DNC Registry. In
addition, the complaint alleges that one of the telemarketers -
Global Satellite, directly or through another entity - abandoned
calls to consumers by failing to put a live sales representative
on the line within two seconds after the called consumer
completes his or her greeting, as required under the law.

Finally, the complaint alleges that DIRECTV provided substantial
assistance and support to Global Satellite, even though it knew
or consciously avoided knowing, that Global Satellite was
violating the TSR.

The FTC announced proposed stipulated final orders with DIRECTV
and two telemarketers, Communications Concepts and its principal
and American Communications of the Triad and its principal.
The first order requires DIRECTV to pay $5,335,000 in civil
penalties. The proposed settlement agreement also prohibits
DIRECTV, whether acting directly or through its authorized
telemarketers, from violating the TSR. The proposed settlement
tracks the relevant Telemarketing Sales Rule provisions,
prohibiting calls to consumers on the DNC Registry, calls to
consumers who asked not to receive calls on behalf of a
particular seller, and abandoned calls.

The proposed settlement also requires DIRECTV to terminate any
marketer of its products who DIRECTV knows or should know is
making cold calls to consumers without express, written
authorization from DIRECTV. The proposed settlement also
prohibits DIRECTV from assisting and facilitating any
telemarketer it knows or consciously avoids knowing is violating
the Telemarketing Sales Rule. Finally, the proposed settlement
imposes extensive monitoring requirements on DIRECTV mandating
that the company oversee those marketers selling its goods or
services.

The orders against Communication Concepts and American
Communications require the companies to pay civil penalties of
$25,000 and $50,000, respectively and bar both companies and
their principals from future violations of the TSR and its
component DNC Rule. The orders contain judgments of $205,000
against Communications Concepts and $746,300 against American
Communications, both which have been suspended based on those
companies' inability to pay.

The proposed settlements announced today, if adopted by the
court, would settle the Commission's complaint and end its
litigation against the following five defendants: DIRECTV, Inc.;
Communication Concepts, LLC, also doing business as (dba) Rogers
Group; Jim Turner, individually and as an officer of
Communication Concepts; American Communications of the Triad;
and Michael Gibson, individually and as an officer of American
Communications of the Triad.

Litigation continues with the following seven defendants:
D.R.D., Inc., also dba Power Direct; Daniel R. Delfino,
individually and as an officer of D.R.D.; Nomrah Records, also
dba Direct Activation; Mark Harmon, individually and as an
officer of Nomrah Records; Global
Satellite, LLC., also dba Mavcomm; William King, individually
and as an officer of Global Satellite; and Michael Gleason,
individually and as an officer of Global Satellite.

The Commission vote approving the complaint against DIRECTV and
the five corporate defendants and their principals was 4-0, as
was the vote to approve the stipulated final orders against
DIRECTV and the two corporate defendants and their principals.
The complaint and stipulated final orders were filed by the DOJ
on the FTC's behalf on December 12, 2005, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Western Division.

NOTE: Stipulated final judgments are for settlement purposes
only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the
defendants of a law violation. Stipulated judgments have the
force of law when signed by the judge.

Copies of the complaint and three consent orders in settlement
of the court action are available from the FTC's Web site at
http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's Consumer Response
Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent
fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the
marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot,
stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish
(bilingual counselors are available to take complaints), or to
get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-
free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form
at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing,
identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer
Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of
civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and
abroad.  For more details, contact Mitchell J. Katz, Office of
Public Affairs, Phone: 202-326-2161 or contact Allen W. Hile or
Lois Greisman, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Phone:
202-326-3122 or 202-326-3404 or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/12/directv.htm.


ESPEED INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidates Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated the securities class action
complaints against eSpeed, Inc., Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. and
certain affiliated entities, as well as two of the Company's
executive officers, Howard Lutnick and Lee Amaitis, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
securities from August 12, 2003, to July 1, 2004.

Several suits were initially filed, alleging that the Company
made "material false positive statements during the class
period" and violated certain provisions of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and certain rules and
regulations thereunder.

On April 8, 2005, the district court consolidated the purported
class action complaints and subsequently the court appointed
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. The Company received the
consolidated and amended complaint ("Amended Complaint") on
September 27, 2005. The Amended Complaint names as defendants
the Company; three officers, Howard Lutnick, Lee Amaitis, and
Joseph Noviello; and one former officer, Jeffrey Chertoff. In
the Amended Complaint, plaintiffs allege violations of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants,
and allege violations of Section 20(a) against the individual
defendants.

The suit is styled, In Re eSpeed, Inc. Securities Litigation, 05
Civ. 2091, which is pending the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, before the Honorable Shira
Scheindlin. Laurence Paskowitz of Paskowitz & Associates
represented the Adib group. Samuel Rudman of Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robin acted as plaintiffs' counsel. Lionel
Glancy of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg in Los Angeles acted as
plaintiffs' counsel. Eric Belfi of Murray, Frank & Sailer acted
as plaintiffs' counsel. Dennis Orr and Joseph De Simone of
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw's New York office represented eSpeed.


GATEWAY INC.: Consumers File CA Suit Over Faulty Plasma TV Sets
---------------------------------------------------------------
A nationwide class action lawsuit was initiated against Gateway,
Inc. (NYSE: GTW) by a group of consumers in the United States
District Court for Southern District of California, alleging the
computer giant violated the California Consumer's Legal Remedies
Act ("CLRA") as well as the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
through its manufacturing, distribution and sales of GTW Series
Plasma Television sets.

Gateway, which introduced its line of plasma televisions in
2002, claimed they had "exceptional value and brilliant picture
quality." The complaint alleges, however, that consumers
experienced a total failure of their television sets within a
short time after purchase. It is believed that Gateway's plasma
televisions contain defective parts caused by a design or
manufacture defect, which renders the television sets completely
inoperable. Consumers complained that the televisions emitted
"popping sounds" and produced a "burning odor." Local television
repair shops notified complaining consumers that their only
recourse would be to request repairs from Gateway. Despite
attempts by consumers to work with Gateway, replacements parts
were unavailable and the televisions could not be repaired. The
televisions varied in price from $3,000 to $7,000.

"This is a serious matter," said Anas Akel, counsel on behalf of
the consumers. "It seems that Gateway's poor customer service
and forcing consumers to jump through hoops before honoring its
warranties will now be addressed by the courts. A number of
consumers purchased expensive plasma televisions that Gateway
advertised as setting 'new standards for quality and value.' Yet
within months these sets failed and complaints to Gateway fell
on deaf ears."

Consumers are seeking to prevent Gateway from the continued sale
of defective units as well as a number of other remedies that
have been requested in the lawsuit.

For more details, contact Pamela C. Chalk of Handal &
Associates, Phone: (619) 544-6400, E-mail pchalk@handal-law.com,
Web site: http://www.handal-litigation.com.


GEORGIA: City of Rome Sues Online Travel Sites Over Hotel Taxes
---------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Rome, Georgia sued online travel Web sites including
Hotels.com and Cheap Tickets Inc. claiming that the companies do
not pay the proper amount of taxes for hotel room rentals, The
Associated Press reports.

Cartersville and Hart County are also named in the November 18
class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Rome. The
city's suit seeks class action status because it claims that
possibly more than 100 cities and counties in Georgia are
affected. According to the lawsuit, "Defendants are charging and
collecting excise taxes from consumers that are not being
remitted to (the cities and counties)."

The suit says that the travel sites buy room rentals from hotels
at a discounted rate and then mark them up for resale to
customers. Customers pay the Web site operators a tax based on
the full rental price, however, the local governments allege in
the lawsuit that online travel sites remit taxes based on the
discount rate paid to the local hotel and keep the difference.

Recently, similar lawsuits were filed across the country. Pitt
County, North Carolina was the latest with the launching of a
class action lawsuit against online hotel booking companies. In
January, Los Angeles sued Priceline, Expedia and other sites
over the lost hotel room tax issue.

The Pitt County suit claims that online booking agents are
improperly pocketing the difference as income, and it seeks
payment of the difference, interest and penalties. The suit is
also seeking a declaratory judgment that the practice is
illegal, deceptive and unlawful. In addition, it seeks a ruling
on which room rate should be used to determine the tax that is
owed the county, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(December 14, 2005) reports.

The Los Angeles suit claims that the Web sites contract with
hotels for rooms at negotiated discounted rates and then mark up
their inventory of rooms to sell them to the public. It further
claims that they charge and collect taxes from occupants based
on the marked-up rates, but only pay taxes to cities based on
the lower, negotiated rates. The city of Los Angeles, which has
a room tax of 14 percent, also said in the lawsuit that the Web
sites often charge more money in fees and taxes than the
appropriate occupancy tax rate, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (January 5, 2005) reports.

Bob Brinson, attorney for the city of Rome, who is involved in
the lawsuit, told The Associated Press, "This kind of claim
doesn't lend itself to a big nationwide lawsuit. These are state
and local taxes."

In Rome, hotels must pay a 6 percent excise tax in addition to
the standard 6 percent sales tax. The amount the city is seeking
to recover from the online booking sites was not disclosed. Mr.
Brinson told The Associated Press, "Were going to have to
develop the facts and compute the amount that's at issue. We
think it's going to be several millions of dollars (statewide)."

Mr. Brinson pointed out that the defendants would reply to the
complaint within six weeks, and the pretrial discovery process
could last through next summer. A trial could be possible next
fall, he adds.

The suit is styled, "City of Rome, Georgia et al v. Hotels.Com,
L. P. et al, Case No. 4:05-cv-00249-HLM," filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
under Judge Harold L. Murphy. Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) David G. Archer of Office of David G. Archer, P.O. Box
         1024, 336 South Tennessee St., Cartersville, GA 30120,
         Phone: 770-386-1116, E-mail: dgapc@bellsouth.net;

     (2) Robert Maddox Brinson and Jesse Anderson Davis of
         Brinson Askew Berry Siegler Richardson & Davis, P.O.
         Box 5513, 615 West First St., Omberg House, Rome, GA
         30162-5513, Phone: 706-291-8853, E-mail:
         bbrinson@brinson-askew.com and
         adavis@brinson-askew.com;

     (3) John W. Crongeyer and Bryan Anthony Vroon of Vroon &
         Crongeyer, 1230 Peachtree St., Suite 2450, Atlanta, GA
         30309, Phone: 404-607-6710, Fax: 404-607-6711, E-mail:
         jcrongeyer@vclawfirm.com and bvroon@vclawfirm.com;

     (4) David William Davenport and Robert Claiborne Lamar of
         Lamar Archer & Cofrin, 50 Hurt Plaza, 900 The Hurt
         Building, Atlanta, GA 30303, Phone: 404-577-1777, E-
         mail: dwdavenport@laclaw.net and rclamar@laclaw.net;
         and

     (5) Walter James Gordon of Office of Walter James Gordon,
         P.O. Box 870, 101 East Howell St., Hartwell, GA 30643,
         Phone: 404-376-5418, E-mail: wgordon@hartcom.net.


HEINZ FROZEN: Recalls Frozen Pot Roast For Undeclared Allergen
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heinz Frozen Foods, a Pocatello, Idaho, establishment, is
voluntarily recalling approximately 325 pounds of frozen pot
roast dinners due to an undeclared allergen (dried whole eggs),
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service announced.

The package indicates that the product is beef pot roast,
however, inside the package is meat loaf with mashed potatoes
and gravy. The product contains dried whole eggs, a known
allergen, which is not declared on the label.

Subject to recall are 16-ounce packages of "BOSTON MARKET Home
Style Meals Beef Pot Roast, Gravy & Beef with Vegetables and
Mashed Potatoes." Each package bears the following code: "Best
by 08/28/2007 PC5H29M EST 18205."

The frozen dinners were produced on August 29, 2005 and were
sold in retail stores in Tennessee and Kentucky. This product is
not produced for any Boston Market restaurant and no other
Boston Market product is affected.

FSIS has had no reports of illness due to consumption of this
product. Anyone concerned about an allergic reaction should
contact a physician.  Media with questions about the recall
should contact company Senior Manager for Marketing and Public
Relations Robin Teets at (412) 237-3562. Consumers with
questions about the recall should call (800) 488-0050.
Consumers with food safety questions can call the toll-free USDA
Meat and Poultry Hotline at (888) 674-6854. The hotline is
available in English and Spanish and can presently be reached
24-hours-a-day.


HOMESTORE.COM: Finalizing Settlement of CA Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Homestore.com, Inc. is finalizing the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and two of
its former employees of its American Online Division in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

Beginning in December 2001, numerous separate complaints
purporting to be class actions were filed in various
jurisdictions alleging that the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors violated certain
provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
complaints contain varying allegations, including that the
Company made materially false and misleading statements with
respect to the Company's 2000 and 2001 financial results
included in the Company's filings with the SEC, analysts'
reports, press releases and media reports. The complaints sought
an unspecified amount of damages.

In March 2002, the California State Teachers’ Retirement
System was named lead plaintiff and the complaints were
consolidated in the United States District Court, Central
District of California. In November 2002, the Plaintiff filed a
first amended consolidated class action complaint naming the
Company, certain of its current officers, directors and
employees, certain of the Company's former officers, directors
and employees, and various other parties, including, among
others, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as defendants. The amended
complaint made various allegations, including that the Company
violated federal securities laws, and sought an unspecified
amount of damages.

On November 15, 2002, the California State Teachers' Retirement
System (CaLSTERS) filed an amended consolidated complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's stock.
Plaintiff alleges that the Company engaged in a scheme to
defraud its shareholders in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act.  The Company and two former employees of its
America Online division were named as defendants in the amended
consolidated complaint because of their alleged participation in
the scheme through certain advertising transactions entered into
with the Company.

Motions to dismiss filed by the Company and the two former
employees were granted on March 7, 2003, and a final judgment of
dismissal was entered on March 8, 2004.  On April 7, 2004,
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals; that appeal was fully briefed as of January 10, 2005.

On August 12, 2003, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with the Plaintiff to resolve all outstanding claims
against the Company in the suit.  On May 14, 2004, the District
Court entered final judgment and an order of dismissal with
prejudice of the suit as to the Company. The final judgment
includes a bar order providing for the maximum protection to
which the Company is entitled under the law with respect to all
future claims, whether under federal, state or common law. On
June 10, 2004, an objector to the settlement filed a notice of
appeal. The Company and Plaintiff reached a settlement with the
objector and the objector filed a dismissal of the appeal on
March 4, 2005.  The final fairness hearing for the settlement is
set for January 9,2006.

As part of the settlement, the Company agreed to pay $13.0
million in cash and issue 20 million new shares of its common
stock valued at $50.6 million as of August 12, 2003. In
accordance with an order entered by the District court in May
2004, the $13.0 million and the 20.0 million shares were issued
to plaintiff's counsel to be held in trust pending distribution
to the members of the class. In July 2005, the cash was
distributed and in August 2005, the shares were distributed to
the class and Plaintiff's counsel in accordance with the
judgment, except for the members of the class whose dismissal as
defendants in the Securities Class Action is pending appeal.  In
addition, the Company has adopted certain corporate governance
principles, including requirements for independent directors and
special committees, the agreement to appoint a new shareholder-
nominated director, prohibition on the future use of stock
options for director compensation, minimum stock retention by
officers after exercise of future stock option grants, and
elimination of the classification of the Board of Directors such
that beginning with the 2008 annual stockholders meeting, all
directors will be elected at each annual meeting for a term of
one year. The Company will also divide equally with the class
any future net proceeds from insurance with respect to the
litigation after provision for legal expenses incurred by the
Company. Members of the class who participated in the settlement
have released and discharged all claims against the Company.

The Company is aware that several persons, who purportedly
acquired the Company's shares during the class period during
January 1, 2000 through December 21, 2002, representing
approximately 1% of its outstanding shares, have elected to be
excluded from the settlement, and some of those persons have
filed litigation against the Company.

The suit is styled "T. Jeffrey Simpson, et al v. Homestore.Com,
Inc., et al., case no. 2:01-cv-11115-RSWL-CW," filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, under Judge Ronald S.W. Lew.  Representing the
defendants are:

     (1) George Borden, F. Whitten Peters, Ana C. Reyes and Ryan
         T. Scarborough of Williams & Connolly, 725 12th St NW
         Washington, DC 20005-5901, Phone: 202-434-5000, E-mail:
         gborden@wc.com or areyes@wc.com

     (2) Thad Alan Davis and John B. Quinn of Quinn Emanuel
         Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, 865 S Figueroa St, 10th Fl
         Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Phone: 213-624-7707

Representing the plaintiffs are Peter E. Borkon, Joseph W.
Cotchett, Robert B. Hutchinson, Mark Cotton Molumphy, and Bruce
L. Simon of Cotchett Pitre Simon & McCarthy, San Francisco
Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Rd Ste 200 Burlingame, CA
94010 Phone: 650-697-6000 E-mail: bsimon@cpsmlaw.com,
swilliams@cpsmlaw.com


HOMESTORE.COM: Settlement Proceeds To Be Distributed This Month
---------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of the proceeds of the settlement of the overtime
wage class action filed against Homestore.com, Inc. is expected
to take place this month.

In September 2004, Elizabeth Hathaway filed the suit in Los
Angeles Superior Court on behalf of herself and all current and
former account executives employed by the Company, alleging that
the Company misclassified account executives as exempt from
overtime wage requirements in violation of California law. Ms.
Hathaway sought back wages, interest and attorneys' fees.

On March 11, 2005, Ms. Hathaway and the Company reached a
settlement for an additional $1.4 million.  The court granted
final approval of the settlement on October 6, 2005. Settlement
funds for settling class members were transferred to a trust on
October 11, 2005, and distribution of the settlement proceeds is
scheduled to take place in December 2005.


ILLINOIS: Coal City Village Council OK's Settlement of Fees Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coal City Village Council approved the court ordered payment of
$17,830 in a class action lawsuit that challenged
constitutionality of an Illinois statute for collection of
telecommunication infrastructure maintenance fees.

The suit was filed nearly a decade ago, village attorney Robert
Russo noted. The court ruled the statute was unconstitutional.
Coal City was one of 400 or so municipalities that had collected
the fees. Coal City ceased the collection in 2001.  Like other
municipalities in Illinois, Coal City opted to settle the
lawsuit, which sought reimbursement of $1.3 million in fees
collected from wireless phone customers under the authority of a
1997 state law, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November
28, 2005) reports.

The law in question is known as the Municipal Telecommunications
Infrastructure Maintenance Fee Act. Under it municipalities are
authorized to charge an infrastructure maintenance fee to land-
based and wireless providers for the use of the municipality's
right-of-way in serving their respective customers, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (November 28, 2005) reports.

Both PrimeCo Personal Communications and U.S. Cellular
Corporation challenged the act's constitutionality. Later on as
the case went through the legal system, a Circuit Court judge
ruled the act unconstitutional with respect to wireless
providers. The Illinois Supreme Court backed that ruling, but it
said that it was constitutional as applied to land-based
companies. Municipalities appealed the circuit court judge's
November 2004 ruling last February, however, representatives for
both parties worked out the settlement, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (November 28, 2005) reports.


ILLINOIS: Two Counties Fare Better in ATRA's Judicial Ranking
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two Metro East counties in the state of Illinois are faring
better in a legal group's latest ranking of what it calls
"judicial hellholes," The Associated Press reports.

Despite that the Chicago area isn't as lucky though. The
Washington-based American Tort Reform Association recently
released its yearly listing of jurisdictions it deems worst for
lawsuit defendants.

For the past two years, Madison County had held the top spot
with St. Clair County coming in at a close second last year. In
the latest rankings, however, Madison County is fourth, while
St. Clair County fifth.

Cook County makes its debut in the rankings, in second. The
group says that's because of the amount of asbestos litigation
and class action lawsuits underway in the Chicago area, among
other things. Texas' Rio Grande Valley and Gulf Coast regions
are now atop the latest rankings.

Back in December 2004, ATRA released its third annual "Judicial
Hellholes(R)" report, a ranking of the worst courts in the
United States, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (December
17, 2004) reports.

As a result of what happens in the Hellhole courts, every
consumer pays through a higher "tort tax" and compromised access
to affordable healthcare. In addition to identifying Judicial
Hellholes, places where "Equal Justice Under Law" does not
exist, the report also showcases the remarkable turnaround that
has occurred in Mississippi, home to several of the worst
Judicial Hellholes, including Jefferson County. Jefferson County
stands in sharp contrast to Madison County, Illinois, the worst
jurisdiction in this year's report -- for the second year in a
row, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (December 17, 2004)
reports.

"The report tells an amazing story about the redemption of
Mississippi justice," said Sherman Joyce, President of the
American Tort Reform Association (ATRA). "Mississippi has
managed to pull itself out of the negative spotlight through the
resolve of the voters and elected officials in the executive,
legislative and judicial branches. Mississippi is a stark
contrast to Madison County, Illinois, where problems have only
gotten worse," an earlier Class Action Reporter story (December
17, 2004) reports.

According to the report, the abusive and unfair practices
endemic to Madison County have infected neighboring St. Clair
County, where the number of class action lawsuits filed in the
past two years has increased by an astounding 1100%. This is the
first year that St. Clair County has been named a Judicial
Hellhole. It is now #2 on the report's list, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (December 17, 2004) reports.

"Judicial Hellholes are courtrooms throughout the United States
where the law is not applied evenhandedly to all litigants,"
said ATRA General Counsel Victor Schwartz. "Litigation tourists,
guided by their personal injury lawyer agents file lawsuits in
Judicial Hellholes because they know they will receive a large
reward, a favorable precedent, or both. Defendants declare good
reason to fear when sued in Judicial Hellholes," an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (December 17, 2004) reports.

Other report highlights include:

     (1) Illinois' #1 Madison and #2 St. Clair Counties, where a
         lawsuit-driven healthcare crisis will have forced 161
         physicians to leave the region by the end of the year.

     (2) Hellhole #3 Hampton County, South Carolina, where 67%
         of cases filed in 2002 were filed by residents from
         other counties and other states.

     (3) Hellhole #4 West Virginia, where the state's Supreme
         Court ruled that a safety director fired for on-the-job
         cocaine use could not be terminated, even though the
         employee lied about his cocaine use and "dishonesty"
         was grounds for dismissal within the employee's
         contract.

     (6) Hellhole #5 Jefferson County, Texas, where a judge
         upheld a $1 billion award in a healthcare lawsuit -- a
         blatant deviation from established Texas law; the judge
         also refused to admit critical evidence that the
         defendant might not have been responsible for the
         plaintiff's harm.

The report also chronicles abuses in other jurisdictions,
including: #6 Orleans Parish, Louisiana; #7 South Florida; #8
Philadelphia; and #9 Los Angeles. "Dishonorable mentions"
include Oklahoma, the Utah Supreme Court, the District of
Columbia and New Mexico's Appellate Courts, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (December 17, 2004) reports.


JAMDAT MOBILE: Shareholder Files CA Suit Over Firm's Sale to EA
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Jamdat Mobile Inc. shareholder initiated a lawsuit in a
California court to stop the Company's sale to video game
publishing giant Electronic Arts Inc., (EA) charging that
Jamdat's directors did not attempt to get the "highest price
reasonably available," Reuters reports.

Last week, the Company, which is the biggest provider of games
and other content to mobile phones and wireless devices,
announced it had agreed to be acquired by Electronic Arts for
$680 million. A spokesman for Jamdat was not immediately
available for comment regarding the case.

Meanwhile, several financial analysts called Electronic Arts'
offer for the wireless game company richly valued. In
particular, Piper Jaffray analyst Anthony Gikas told Reuters
that Electronic Arts' proposed price was $200 million too high.

In a proposed class action filed in Los Angeles Superior Court,
Jamdat shareholder Elliott Fox alleges, "the proposed
acquisition is the product of a hopelessly flawed process that
was designed to ensure the sale of Jamdat to one buying group,
and one buying group only, on terms preferential to Electronic
Arts." He is asking the court to declare the acquisition
agreement unlawful and unenforceable.


JUPITERMEDIA CORPORATION: CA Online Gambling Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jupitermedia Corporation continues to face a consumer class
action filed in the Superior Court for the State of California,
San Francisco County, due to gambling-related advertisements
found on its websites.

On August 3, 2004, Mario Cisneros and Michael Voight filed the
suit on behalf of themselves and all others situated and/or the
general public against the Company and twelve co-defendant
companies that operate Internet search engines. Cisneros et al.
allege that defendants posting of paid advertising providing
links to Internet gambling Web sites constitutes unfair
competition and unlawful business acts and practices under
California law.  Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive
relief, disgorgement of profits and restitution.

On September 3, 2004, the Company blocked all advertisements
from being published on its Web properties from third-party
search engines for the gambling-related terms specified in the
Complaint.  Moreover, the Company asserted in a disclosure to
the Securities and Exchange Commission that it does not accept
advertisements for gambling-related Web sites directly from
companies that operate them.  The Company has demanded
contractual indemnity from two companies that supplied
advertisements that are the subject matter of the lawsuit.
Neither of these two companies, however, has stated a final
position as whether it will provide indemnity.

The suit is styled "Mario Cisneros et al, v. Yahoo! Inc., et al,
case no. CGC-04-433518," filed in the California Superior Court
in San Francisco County, under Judge Richard A. Kramer.
Representing the plaintiffs are Kathrein R. Reed and Ira P.
Rothken.  Lawyers for the Company are David T. Biderman, Robert
Harvey Binzel, Janet L. Cullum, Charles H. Dick, Jr., Albert
Gidari, Richard Jay Idell, Matthew P. Kanny, David H. Kramer,
Thomas P. Laffey, Ryan M. Malone, Laurence F. Pulgram, John C.
Rawls, David O. Stewart.


KANSAS: More Plaintiffs Join Race Bias Suit V. Turner District
--------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney representing a 16-year-old student who was suspended
for speaking in Spanish at a Kansas school says that two other
parents have told him their children were sent home for the same
infraction, The Associated Press reports.

The father of Zachariah Rubio filed a federal lawsuit against
the Turner Unified School District, the principal of Endeavor
Alternative School, and six teachers, claiming his son's civil
rights were violated when he was suspended on November 28, 2005
for speaking Spanish in a school hallway. Chuck N. Chionuma, the
young Rubio's attorney told The Associated Press that two other
families told him their children also were suspended from the
school for speaking Spanish. He adds that the case has "strong
potential" to become part of a class action discrimination suit.

School district lawyer Greg Goheen told The Associated Press
that he had no reason to believe any other Spanish-speaking
students were reprimanded, and that the district had handled the
incident appropriately. With regards to the lawsuit, Mr. Goheen
pointed out to The Associated Press, "We don't think there's any
merit to the lawsuit and quite frankly, we think it's frivolous.
We don't have a policy prohibiting students from speaking
Spanish in the school district."

The district recently issued a statement saying that it had
reinstated Mr. Rubio, apologized to his family and that it
"takes great pride in the cultural diversity of its students,
staff and community and does not prohibit students from speaking
in any language other than English."

Twenty-seven states have passed English-only laws, but none has
the authority to decide what students can speak in a school
hallway, according to Tim Schultz, spokesman for U.S. English
Inc., a group that lobbies for official English law.

The incident comes as schools in Kansas are wrestling with how
to accommodate an increasingly diverse student population.
Endeavor Alternative School is in an area in Kansas City,
Kansas, where about 20 percent of the population is Hispanic,
according to U.S. Census figures. Mr. Rubio enrolled there for
his junior year after he missed a few weeks of school on a
family trip to Veracruz, the Mexican Gulf Coast state where his
father grew up. He recounted that after he started at Endeavor
in September, where according to him he could make up lost
credits that he couldn't have received at his previous high
school, he found Hispanic students there often were sent to the
office for speaking Spanish.

On November 28, Mr. Rubio was on a bathroom break from science
class when a friend asked him, in Spanish, to borrow a dollar.
Mr. Rubio said he responded, "No hay problema," which is Spanish
for "no problem." A teacher overheard the exchange and sent him
to the principal for speaking Spanish.

It was the second time that day he was disciplined for using
that language, according to Mr. Chionuma. He told The Associated
Press, "When she said she was sending me to the office, she
pushed the intercom in front of everybody, and said 'I'm sending
Zach up to speak Spanish to you.'"

Principal Jennifer Watts later told the boy she was suspending
him for speaking Spanish. The discipline referral says he was
suspended for a day and a half for disobeying "a reasonable
request (not to speak Spanish at school)." The principal wrote,
"This is not the first time we have ask Zach and others not to
speak Spanish at school."

The district says that Superintendent Bobby Allen reversed the
decision and reinstated Mr. Rubio within hours of the incident.
However, the Rubios say he was not reinstated until the next
afternoon, and that they didn't receive the district's official
apology until at least a week later.

Community groups in Kansas City have formed a support network
for the Rubio family. Mr. Chionuma told The Associated Press,
"This goes to the heart of peoples' understanding and feeling
about being treated equal or not. When juxtaposed with a history
of discrimination, it presents a very raw picture that people
aren't willing to tolerate anymore."

The district calls Mr. Rubio's experience an "isolated
incident." Mr. Goheen told The Associated Press that the
district would respond to the lawsuit in coming weeks.

"We're obviously finding out that this was more than one
incident," David Hinojosa, a staff attorney with MALDEF, a
national nonprofit group that is now researching the case told
The Associated Press. He adds, "It has the potential to set
national precedent if the district is unwilling to settle."

The suit is styled, "Rubio v. Turner Unified School District 202
et al, Case No. 2:05-cv-02522-CM-DJW," filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Kansas, under Judge
Carlos Murguia with referral to Judge David J. Waxse.
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Chuck N. Chionuma, Lyra L.
Johnson and Margaret L. Pemberton of Chionuma & Associates,
P.C., 1100 Bryant Building, 1102 Grand Ave., Kansas City, MO
64106, Phone: 816-421-5544, Fax: 816-421-5353, E-mail:
chuck@chionuma.com, LJohnson@chionuma.com and
mlpemberton@everestkc.net.


KIDS II INC.: Recalls Baby! Door Jumpers Due to Injury Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Kids II Inc., of Alpharetta, Georgia, is voluntarily
recalling about 14,000 units of Bounce Bounce Baby! Door
Jumpers.

According to the Company, the plastic clamp that attaches the
jumper seat to a doorframe can break, which can cause the unit
and child to fall to the floor. This poses an injury hazard to
young children. Kids II has received nine reports of the clamp
breaking with three reports of injuries, including a bruised
forehead, chin and foot.

The Bounce Bounce Baby! Door Jumper has model number 6753
written on a white warning label on the seat. The jumper has a
blue canvas seat with a sun, star and bee design print, blue
straps, and a blue plastic clamp that attaches to an interior
door frame. The name "Kids II" is printed on the plastic housing
that contains the clamp. Model 67531 Door Jumpers that have a
metal clamp are not included in this recall.

Manufactured in China, the products were sold at discount
department and juvenile specialty stores nationwide from January
2005 through November 2005 for about $20.

Remedy: Consumers should stop using the product immediately and
contact Kids II for information on receiving a free replacement.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Kids II
toll-free at (877) 325-7056 between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET
Monday through Friday, or log on to http://www.kidsii.com.


MICHIGAN: Judge Denies Certification For Suit V. Saginaw County
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge David Lawson denied a motion for class
action status in a lawsuit over naked detention practices at the
Saginaw County Jail, The Saginaw News reports.

Plaintiffs are suing for damages after Judge Lawson ruled last
winter that the county's conduct was unconstitutional, which
prompted an FBI probe that began in April. Originally, the suit
had claimed that inmates suffered mistreatment at the hands of
jail workers who forced uncooperative pre-arraignment detainees
to remove their clothes and submit to solitary confinement. If
the inmates refused, deputies took their clothing off for them,
according to court documents, an earlier Class Action story
(March 28, 2005) reports.

Since the suit's filing and the various delays, plaintiffs
represented by plaintiffs' attorney Christopher Pianto and his
colleagues have also leveled more claims, including physical and
sexual abuse, all of which Saginaw County Sheriff Charles L.
Brown has repeatedly denied.   Sheriff Brown defended the policy
as an effort to balance inmate safety with privacy rights. But
he pointed out that the practice was discontinued in 2001 or
2002, a claim that the plaintiffs' lawyers and the ACLU dispute.
Mr. Pianto even stated that he has heard from former detainees
who say it happened in 2003 and possibly 2004, an earlier Class
Action story (April 13, 2005) reports.

The detainees, their lawyers, along with the American Civil
Liberties Union of Michigan, had asked Judge Lawson in Bay City
for class action certification.

However, in his 21-page opinion, the judge said the plaintiffs'
definition of a proposed affected class was too broad and the
number of plaintiffs too small.

The county has acknowledged it routinely held some detainees
naked from 1996 through 2001 as a suicide-prevention measure. In
January, Judge Lawson ruled the practice unconstitutional but
did not rule on the question of damages. The ACLU had claimed
the practice affected many more people than the 22 who have sued
and continued well beyond 2001.

Judge Lawson's ruling on November 21 means that individual
damages must be determined for each of the 22. Still to be
decided is whether there will be one trial or separate trials
for each of the plaintiffs. Settlement and mediation also remain
options, according to lawyers.

The Michigan ACLU wants Judge Lawson to order 16 changes at the
jail, including ending the use of isolation cells, new training
for jail guards and an outside monitor to oversee a
"comprehensive" policy shift. Karry Moss, executive director of
the Michigan ACLU, told The Saginaw News, "We still think we can
bring about some significant changes by litigating."

Commenting on the latest decision, county attorney James E. Tamm
told The Saginaw News that Judge Lawson's ruling was good news,
but not unexpected.


MIVA INC.: Seeks Dismissal of Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in AR Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miva, Inc. (formerly Findwhat.com, Inc.) asked the United States
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas to dismiss
the putative class filed against it and others in is sector,
alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and civil
conspiracy.

Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, LLC, U.S. Citizens for Fair
Credit Card Terms, Inc., Savings 4 Merchants, Inc., and Max
Caulfield d/b/a Caulfield Investigations, filed the suit in
Miller County Circuit Court in Arkansas on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, against eleven search
engines, web publishers, or performance marketing companies as
defendants, including the Company.  The plaintiffs' claims are
predicated on the allegation that the plaintiffs have been
charged for clicks on their advertisements that were not made by
bona fide customers. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a
putative class of individuals that "were overcharged for (pay
per click) advertising," and seeks monetary damages,
restitution, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, and other
remedies.

The Company was served in March 2005, and the case was removed
by certain of our co-defendants to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division,
on March 31, 2005. Two plaintiffs - Savings 4 Merchants and U.S.
Citizens for Fair Credit Card Terms, Inc. - voluntarily
dismissed themselves from the case, without prejudice, on April
4, 2005.

An Order remanding the case was entered on July 11, 2005, and
the case is stayed while that Order is on appeal to the Eighth
Circuit. The Company has not assessed the validity of the claims
or the amount of potential damages beyond those facts necessary
to file its Motion to Dismiss.  On October 7, 2005, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Ark. R. Civ.
Proc. 12(b)(6) for failure to state claims upon which relief may
be granted.  On October 14, 2005, the Company timely filed a
motion to dismiss pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(2) for
lack of personal jurisdiction.  On October 17, 2005, the court
entered a scheduling order in the case.  The order governs
discovery and briefing in the case through resolution of class
certification issues.  The court will hold a hearing on the
Company's 12(b)(2) motion on March 3, 2006, and a hearing on its
12(b)(6) motion on August 16, 2006.  Plaintiffs' petition for
class certification will be heard on July 14, 2006.

The suit is styled "Lane's Gifts LLC, et al v. Yahoo! Inc., et
al., case no. 4:05-cv-04027-HFB," filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, under Judge
Harry F. Barnes.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John C. Goodson, Keil & Goodson, P.O. Box 618,
         Texarkana, AR 75504, Phone: (870) 772-4113, Fax: (870)
         773-2967, E-mail: jcgoodson@kglawfirm.com

     (2) Stephen F. Malouf, Law Offices of Stephen F. Malouf,
         P.C., 3506 Cedar Springs Road, Dallas, TX 75219, Phone:
         (214) 969-7373

     (3) James M. Pratt, Jr., P.A., 144 Washington NW, Post
         Office Box 938, Camden, AR 71701, Phone: 870-836-7328,
         Fax: 870-837-2405, E-mail: jamiepratt@cablelynx.com

Representing the Company are L. Wren Autrey and Ned A. Stewart,
Autrey Autrey & Stewart, 501 East Sixth St., P.O. Box 960,
Texarkana, AR 75504, Phone: 870-773-5684, Fax: 870-773-2900, E-
mail: lwautrey@cs.com; and Richard Hays. Rick Holcomb and David
J. Stewart, Alston & Bird, One Atlantic Center, 1201 West
Peachtree St., Atlanta, GA 30309-3424, Phone: (404) 881-7000


MIVA INC.: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Miva, Inc. (formerly Findwhat.com, Inc.) asked the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida to dismiss the
consolidated the securities class actions filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors.

Beginning on May 6, 2005, five putative securities fraud class
action lawsuits were filed, alleging that the Company and the
individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the individual defendants also
violated Section 20(a) of the Act as "control persons" of
MIVA. Plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf of a
class of our investors who purchased Company stock between
January 5, 2004 and May 4, 2005.

Plaintiffs allege generally that, during the putative class
period, the Company made misleading statements and omitted
material information regarding the goodwill associated with a
recent acquisition and certain material weaknesses in its
internal controls. Plaintiffs assert that the Company and the
individual defendants made these misstatements and omissions in
order to keep its stock price high to allow certain individual
defendants to sell stock at an artificially inflated price.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief.

On June 13 and July 7, 2005, the Company and the other
defendants moved to dismiss each of these complaints for failure
to comply with the mandatory pleading requirements of the Reform
Act and also served answers to the complaints. In response to
the motions to dismiss, Plaintiffs requested leave to file a
consolidated amended complaint. On July 27, 2005, the Court
consolidated all of the outstanding lawsuits under the case
style "In re MIVA, Inc. Securities Litigation," selected lead
plaintiff and lead counsel for the consolidated cases, and
granted Plaintiffs leave to file a consolidated amended
complaint, which is due on or before August 16, 2005.  The
Company and the other defendants moved to dismiss the complaint
on September 8, 2005.

The suit is styled "Zucco Partners, LLC v. Findwhat.com et al.,
case no. 2:05-cv-00201-JES-DNF," filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, under Judge
John E. Steele.  Representing the plaintiffs are Chris A. Barker
of Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., 300 W. Platt St., Suite 150,
Tampa, FL 33606, Phone: 813/489-1001, Fax: 813/489-1008, E-mail:
cbarker@barkerrodemsandcook.com; and Christopher S. Polaszek of
Milberg, Weiss, Bershad & Schulman LLP, 5200 Town Center Circle,
Suite 600, Tower One, Boca Raton, FL 33486-1018, Phone:
561-361-5000, Fax: 561-367-8400, E-mail:
cpolaszek@milbergweiss.com.  Representing the Company is Joseph
G. Foster, Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, P.A., 5801 Pelican
Bay Blvd., Suite 300, Naples, FL 34108, Phone: 239/593-2900,
Fax: 239/593-2990, E-mail: jfoster@porterwright.com.


NEOFORMA INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Neoforma,
Inc., its chairman and chief executive officer, Robert Zollars,
its former chief financial officer, Frederick Ruegsegger and the
underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO) - Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Bear Stearns and FleetBoston
Robertson Stephens.

The suits were filed on behalf of those who purchased shares of
the Company's common stock from January 24, 2000 to December 6,
2000. These actions have since been consolidated, and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed in the Southern
District of New York on April 24, 2002.  The amended complaint
alleges that the underwriters solicited and received
"undisclosed compensation" from investors in exchange for
allocations of stock in the Company's IPO, and that some
investors in the IPO allegedly agreed with the underwriters to
buy additional shares in the aftermarket to artificially inflate
the price of Company stock.

The Company, Mr. Zollars and Mr. Ruegsegger are named in the
suits pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, for allegedly failing to disclose
in the IPO registration statement and prospectus that the
underwriters had entered into the arrangements described above.
The complaints seek unspecified damages.

Approximately 300 other issuers and their underwriters have had
similar suits filed against them, all of which are included in a
single coordinated proceeding in the Southern District of New
York. On July 1, 2002, the underwriter defendants moved to
dismiss all of the IPO allocation litigation complaints against
them, including the action involving the Company. On July 15,
2002, the Company, along with the other non-underwriter
defendants in the coordinated cases, also moved to dismiss the
litigation.  Those motions were fully briefed on September 13
and September 27, 2002, respectively, and in February 2003, the
Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss.  On October 9,
2002, all of the individual defendants, including Mr. Zollars
and Mr. Ruegsegger, were dismissed from the action without
prejudice. On June 30, 2003, the Company's board of directors
approved a proposed settlement for this matter, which is part of
a larger global settlement between the issuers and plaintiffs.
The acceptance of the settlement by the plaintiffs is contingent
on a number of factors, including the percentage of issuers who
approve the proposed settlement.

The Company has agreed to undertake other responsibilities under
the proposed settlement, including agreeing to assign away, not
assert, or release certain potential claims it may have against
its underwriters. Any direct financial impact of the proposed
settlement is expected to be borne by its insurers. On February
15, 2005, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving the
proposed settlement and scheduling a hearing to determine
whether to finally approve the settlement.

The suit is styled "In re Neoforma, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 1:01-cv-09798-SAS," related to "In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS),"
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


NEOFORMA INC.: Investors Launch Suit V. Global Healthcare Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Neoforma, Inc. and its directors face two class actions filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County, to enjoin its proposed merger with Global
Healthcare Exchange (GHX).  The suits also name as defendants
VHA, Inc. and Universal HealthSystem Consortium (UHC).

On November 7, 2005, Robert Carlson filed a suit, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, requesting,
among other things, to enjoin the proposed merger transaction
with GHX, as well as class action status for the action, an
order for the individual defendants to carry out their fiduciary
duties, and an accounting for damages suffered and to be
suffered.  Xiang J. Thao also filed a similar suit on the same
date, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated.


NETRATINGS INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval for the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against NetRatings,
Inc. and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of
purchasers of its common stock alleging violations of federal
securities laws.  The case is now "designated as In re
NetRatings, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,"
related to "In re Initial Public Offerings Securities
Litigation."

The case is brought purportedly on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's common stock from December 8, 1999
through December 6, 2000. The complaint names as defendants
NetRatings; two of the Company's former directors; and
investment banking firms that served as underwriters for its
initial public offering in December 1999.  The Plaintiffs
electronically served an amended complaint on or about April 19,
2002.

The amended complaint alleges violations of Section 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the prospectus
incorporated in the registration statement for the offering
failed to disclose, among other things, that:

     (1) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive
         and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in
         exchange for which the underwriters allocated to those
         investors material portions of the shares of the
         Company's stock sold in the initial public offering,
         and

     (2) the underwriters had entered into agreements with
         customers whereby the underwriters agreed to allocate
         shares of the Company's stock sold in the initial
         public offering to those customers in exchange for
         which the customers agreed to purchase additional
         shares of the stock in the aftermarket at pre-
         determined prices.

The amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports
were issued following the IPO. No specific damages are claimed.

The Company is aware that similar allegations have been made in
lawsuits relating to more than 300 other initial public
offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000.  Those cases, including
the Company's case, have been consolidated for pretrial purposes
before the Honorable Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. On July 15,
2002, the Company (as well as the other issuer defendants) filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint.  The motions were heard on
November 1, 2002.  In February 2003, the judge granted the
motion to dismiss certain of the claims against the Company and
the two individual defendants and denied the motion to dismiss
certain other claims against the Company and the two individual
defendants.

In July 2004, the Company and the individual defendants accepted
a settlement proposal made to all of the issuer defendants.
Under the terms of the settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss
and release all claims against participating defendants in
exchange for a contingent payment guaranty by the insurance
companies collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in
all related cases, and the assignment or surrender to the
plaintiffs of certain claims the issuer defendants may have
against the underwriters.  Under the guaranty, the insurers will
be required to pay the amount, if any, by which $1 billion
exceeds the aggregate amount ultimately collected by the
plaintiffs from the underwriter defendants in all the cases.
The settlement is subject to approval of the Court, which cannot
be assured.

The suit is styled "In re NetRatings, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 1:01-cv-09798-SAS," related to
"In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92
(SAS)," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


NEW YORK: Welfare Groups Face Suit for Abuse of Benefits System
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed in Manhattan Federal Court by the Domestic
Violence Project of the Legal Aid Society alleges that flaws in
computer programming, training and supervision at city and state
welfare agencies deprive hundreds of legal immigrant women and
children who are victims of abuse of food stamps and other
benefits, The Associated Press reports.

The class action lawsuit was brought on behalf of 13 plaintiffs
and requested that Judge Jed Rakoff hear oral arguments,
according to spokeswoman Pat Bath. The plaintiffs, most
identified only by their initials, represent women with children
who arrived in New York after obtaining visas to join a husband
after years of separation, with the relationship later turning
abusive. The abuse in the court papers is documented in orders
of protection, police reports and letters from domestic violence
shelters.

M.K.B., a 33-year-old woman from Jamaica, typifies the dark and
desperate stories of most of the women named in the suit. M.K.B.
arrived in Manhattan in 2004 to join her husband, who had lived
legally in the United States since 1998. According to the
lawsuit, soon after arriving with her three young children,
M.K.B.'s husband became "physically, verbally and economically
abusive toward them." It goes on to allege that on one occasion
the husband was threatening, "to kill his then-pregnant wife
with an ice pick." The suit adds, "He also tormented his
daughter ... once leaving a large kitchen knife under her
pillow," and another time threatening to feed rat poison to the
children.

Currently, the children and their mother live in a homeless
shelter, receiving medical and public assistance only for her
"citizen child" with the rest of the family having been rejected
because of their "immigration status."

Defendants in the suit are, the city Human Resources Department,
the state Health Department, and the state Office of Temporary
and Disability Assistance. Asked for comment regarding the
allegations, Kim Volean, a spokeswoman for the state Health
Department, told The Associated Press, "We can't comment pending
review of court papers." The Office of Temporary and Disability
Assistance had obtained the papers recently and were in the
process of reviewing them, according to spokesman Michael Hayes.
Meanwhile, HRD told The Associated Press that it would have a
statement later on.

Essentially, the lawsuit claims that the agencies failed to
correct systemic problems, such as a pull-down computer form
filled out by caseworkers for non-citizens applying for aid that
omits a "battered qualified alien" category. The women therefore
are automatically rejected. The suit also claims that all of the
victims are eligible for both Medicaid and public assistance,
and in many cases also for federal Food Stamps, but are denied
assistance "because of deep-seated flaws" in the agencies'
computer programming, training and supervision.

In addition, the suit also says battered, legal immigrants are
systemically denied benefits because caseworkers do not
understand the immigrant eligibility rules and wrongly believe
that they are ineligible if they do not have Social Security and
alien numbers.


NEXTEL PARTNERS: Continues To Face Fraud Suit V. Sprint Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nextel Partners, Inc. continues to face three class actions
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
relating to the Company's proposed merger with Sprint
Corporation.  The suits also names as defendants:

     (1) Nextel WIP Corporation,

     (2) Nextel Communications, Inc.,

     (3) Sprint Corporation, and

     (4) several of the members of the Company's board of
         directors

The suits are styled:

     (i) Dolores Carter v. Nextel WIP Corp., et al.

    (ii) Donald Fragnoli v. Nextel WIP Corp., et al, Civil
         Action No. 955-N

   (iii) Selena Mintz v. John Chapple, et al, Civil Action No.
         1065-N

In all three lawsuits, the plaintiffs seek declaratory and
injunctive relief declaring that the announced merger
transaction between Sprint Corporation and Nextel is an event
that triggers the put right set forth in the Company's restated
certificate of incorporation and directing the defendants to
take all necessary measures to give effect to the rights of the
Company's Class A common stockholders arising therefrom.

The Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission that the allegations in the lawsuits to the effect
that the Nextel Partners defendants may take action, or fail to
take action, that harms the interests of our public stockholders
are without merit.  The Company believes that the Sprint-Nextel
merger transaction, if successfully closed, will trigger the put
rights set forth in its restated certificate of incorporation.


NEXTEL PARTNERS: NY Final Fairness Hearing Set April 24, 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Nextel Partners, Inc., two
of its executive officers and four of the underwriters involved
in its initial public offering is set for April 24,2006 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York captioned "Keifer v. Nextel Partners, Inc., et al., No. 01
CV 10945."

The Suit was filed on behalf of all persons who acquired the
Company's common stock between February 22, 2000 and December 6,
2000 and initially named as defendants the Company, John
Chapple, its president, chief executive officer and chairman of
the board, John D. Thompson, its chief financial officer and
treasurer until August 2003, and the following underwriters of
its initial public offering:

     (1) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (2) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation (predecessor of
         Credit Suisse First Boston LLC),

     (3) Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and

     (4) Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Incorporated.

Mr. Chapple and Mr. Thompson have been dismissed from the
lawsuit without prejudice.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants violated the Securities Act and the Exchange Act by
issuing a registration statement and offering circular that were
false and misleading in that they failed to disclose that:

     (i) the defendant underwriters allegedly had solicited and
         received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
         certain investors who purchased the Company's common
         stock issued in connection with its initial public
         offering; and

    (ii) the defendant underwriters allegedly allocated shares
         of the Company's common stock issued in connection with
         its initial public offering to investors who allegedly
         agreed to purchase additional shares of the Company's
         common stock at pre-arranged prices.

The complaint seeks rescissionary and/or compensatory damages.
The plaintiffs and the issuing company defendants, including the
Company, have reached a settlement of the issues in the lawsuit.
The proposed settlement, which is not material to the Company,
is subject to a number of contingencies, including negotiation
of a settlement agreement and its approval by the Court. In June
2004, an agreement of settlement was submitted to the Court for
preliminary approval.  On August 31, 2005, the court issued a
preliminary order further approving the modifications to the
settlement and certifying the settlement classes. The court also
appointed the Notice Administrator for the settlement and
ordered that notice of the settlement be distributed to all
settlement class members beginning on November 15, 2005 and
completed by January 15, 2006.  The settlement fairness hearing
has been set for April 26, 2006.

Following the hearing, if the court determines that the
settlement is fair to the class members, the settlement will be
approved. There can be no assurance that this proposed
settlement would be approved and implemented in its current
form, or at all. The settlement would provide, among other
things, a release of the Company and of the individual
defendants for the conduct alleged to be wrongful in the amended
complaint.  The Company would agree to undertake other
responsibilities under the partial settlement, including
agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain
potential claims.

The suit is styled "Keifer v. Nextel Partners, Inc., et al., No.
01 CV 10945," related to "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms
in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


NEXTEL PARTNERS: High Court Nixes Review of MD Suit Affirmation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court denied defendants' petition for
writ of certiorari concerning a lower appeals court decision
reversing the remand to state court and dismissal of the class
action filed against Nextel Partners, Inc. and several other
wireless carriers and manufacturers of wireless telephones in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
captioned "Riedy Gimpelson vs. Nokia, Inc., et al, Civil Action
No. 2001-CV-3893."

Reidy Gimpelson filed the suit on June 8, 2001 in the Superior
Court of Fulton County, Georgia, alleging that the defendants,
among other things, manufactured and distributed wireless
telephones that cause adverse health effects. The plaintiffs
seek compensatory damages, reimbursement for certain costs
including reasonable legal fees, punitive damages and injunctive
relief.  The defendants timely removed the case to Federal court
and this case and related cases were consolidated in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland.

The district court denied plaintiffs' motion to remand the
consolidated cases back to their respective state courts, and on
March 5, 2003, the court granted the defendants' consolidated
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims.  The plaintiffs
appealed the district court's remand and dismissal decisions to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On
March 16, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's remand and
dismissal decisions.  The Fourth Circuit's Order remanded the
Gimpelson case to the State Court of Fulton County, State of
Georgia.  On April 16, 2005, the Fourth Circuit denied a motion
to reconsider its March 16, 2005 decision.  Certain of the
defendants petitioned for certiorari to the United States
Supreme Court. On October 31, 2005, the United States Supreme
Court denied the certiorari petition without opinion.

The suit is styled "In re Wireless Telephone Radio Frequency
Emissions Products Liability Litigation, case no. 1:01-md-01421-
CCB," filed in the United States District Court in Maryland,
under Judge Catherine C. Blake.   Representing the plaintiffs is
Mayer Morganroth, Morganroth and Morganroth PLLC, 3000 Town Cntr
Ste 1500, Southfield, MI 48075, Phone: 1-248-355-3084, Fax: 1-
248-355-3017, E-mail: jgurfinkel@morganrothlaw.com.
Representing the Company is Kenneth L. Thompson and Michael E.
Yaggy, DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP, 6225 Smith Ave,
Baltimore, MD 21209-3600, Phone: 1-410-580-3000, Fax:
1-410-580-3001, E-mail: kenneth.thompson@dlapiper.com,
michael.yaggy@dlapiper.com; Anthony Michael Conti, Conti and
Fenn LLC, 36 S Charles St Ste 2501, Baltimore, MD 21201, Phone:
1-410-837-6999, Fax: 1-410-510-1647, E-mail: tony@contifenn.com.


NEXTEL PARTNERS: High Court Nixes Review, OKs Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court refused a petition for a writ of
certiorari filed by an objector to the settlement of the amended
class action filed against Nextel Partners, Inc., Nextel
Communications, Inc. and Nextel West Corporation, and other
Nextel Companies, after the United States Eighth Circuit Court
of Appeals affirmed the settlement.

Several suits were initially filed, namely:

     (1) Rolando Prado v. Nextel Communications, et al, Civil
         Action No. C-695-03-B, filed on April 1, 2003, in the
         93rd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas;

     (2) Steve Strange v. Nextel Communications, et al, Civil
         Action No. 01-002520-03, filed May 2, 2003, in the
         Circuit Court of Shelby County for the Thirtieth
         Judicial District at Memphis, Tennessee;

     (3) Christopher Freeman and Susan and Joseph Martelli v.
         Nextel South Corp., et al, Civil Action No. 03-CA1065,
         filed on May 3, 2003, in the Circuit Court of the
         Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County, Florida
         against Nextel Partners Operating Corporation d/b/a
         Nextel Partners and Nextel South Corporation d/b/a
         Nextel Communications;

     (4) Nick's Auto Sales, Inc. v. Nextel West, Inc., et al,
         Civil Action No. BC298695, filed on July 9, 2003 in Los
         Angeles Superior Court, California against the Company,
         Nextel Communications, Nextel West, Inc., Nextel of
         California, Inc. and Nextel Operations, Inc;

     (5) Andrea Lewis and Trish Zruna v. Nextel Communications,
         Inc., et al, Civil Action No. CV-03-907, filed on
         August 7, 2003, in the Circuit Court of Jefferson
         County, Alabama against the Company and Nextel
         Communications, Inc.

On October 3, 2003, an amended complaint for a purported class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Missouri.  The amended complaint named
the Company and Nextel Communications, Inc. as defendants;
Nextel Partners was substituted for the previous defendant,
Nextel West Corporation.  The lawsuit is captioned "Joseph
Blando v. Nextel West Corp., et al, Civil Action No. 02-0921."
All of these complaints allege that the Company, in conjunction
with the other defendants, misrepresented certain cost-recovery
line-item fees as government taxes. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin
such practices and seek a refund of monies paid by the class
based on the alleged misrepresentations. Plaintiffs also seek
attorneys' fees, costs and, in some cases, punitive damages.

On October 9, 2003, the court in the Blando Case entered an
order granting preliminary approval of a nationwide class action
settlement that encompasses most of the claims involved in these
cases.  On April 20, 2004, the court approved the settlement.
On May 27, 2004, various objectors and class members appealed to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.  On
February 1, 2005, the appellate court affirmed the settlement.
On February 15, 2005, one of the objectors petitioned for a
rehearing.

On March 11, 2005, the Eighth Circuit denied the petition for
rehearing and rehearing en banc.  On March 17, 2005, one of the
objectors filed a motion to stay the mandate for 90 days. The
Eighth Circuit denied that motion on April 1, 2005. On June 2,
2005, that objector filed with the United States Supreme Court a
petition for writ of certiorari.   On October 3, 2005, the
Supreme Court denied the objector's writ of certiorari, which
constitutes a "final order" resolving all appeals in these cost
recovery fee cases. Accordingly, in accordance with the terms of
the settlement, we will begin distributing settlement benefits
within 90 days from October 3, 2005.

The suit is styled "Blando et al v. Nextel Retail Stores, Inc.,
case no. 4:02-cv-00921-FJG," filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri, under Judge Fernando
J. Gaitan, Jr.  Representing the Company is Harvey M.
Tettlebaum, Husch & Eppenberger, LLC, 235 East High Street,
P. O. Box 1251, Jefferson City, MO 65102, Phone: 573/635-9118,
Fax: (573) 634-7854, E-mail: Harvey.Tettlebaum@Husch.com.
Representing the plaintiffs are Matthew A. Clement and Timothy
M. Van Ronzelen of Cook, Vetter, Doerhoff & Landwehr, P.C., 231
Madison Street, Jefferson City, MO 65101,Phone: (573) 635-7977,
Fax: (573) 635-7414, E-mail: mclement@cvdl.net or
tvanronzelen@cvdl.net; and Stephen M. Gorny, Edward D.
Robertson,Jr. of Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson & Obetz, 11150
Overbrook Road, Suite 200, Leawood, KS 66211, Phone: (913)266-
2300, Fax: (913)266-2366, E-mail: steve@bflawfirm.com or
chiprob@earthlink.net.


O'MELVENY & MYERS: Firm to Admit 14 New Partners in Feb. 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------
On February 1, 2006, 14 new partners will be admitted to
O'Melveny & Myers LLP. The new partners are listed below:

     (1) Benjamin G. Bradshaw is a member of the Adversarial
         Department's Antitrust/Competition practice and is
         resident in our Washington, DC office. Ben received his
         law degree in 1996 from the University of Southern
         California, where he was Executive Articles Editor of
         the University of Southern California Law Review. He
         clerked for the Honorable Tena Campbell of the U.S.
         District Court for the District of Utah. Ben joined
         O'Melveny & Myers in 1998 and has extensive experience
         in complex antitrust litigation, as well as antitrust
         counseling, agency investigations, and merger reviews.

     (2) Christopher D. Brearton is a member of the Transactions
         Department's Entertainment & Media practice and is
         resident in our Century City office. Chris received his
         law degree from the University of Virginia in 1998,
         where he was a member of the Order of the Coif. He
         joined O'Melveny & Myers in 1998. Chris primarily
         advises motion picture studios, independent producers,
         television networks, financial institutions, and sports
         organizations. The spectrum of advice ranges from the
         creation of joint ventures and strategic and financial
         alliances to complex commercial licensing,
         distribution, and finance arrangements to industry-
         specific mergers and acquisitions.

     (3) Michael C. CamuAņez is a member of the Adversarial
         Department's Global Enforcement & Criminal Defense
         practice and is resident in our Los Angeles office.
         Before attending law school, Michael spent four years
         in various public policy roles in the administrations
         of both President George H.W. Bush and President
         Clinton. Michael received his law degree, with honors,
         from Stanford Law School in 1998. He joined O'Melveny &
         Myers in 1998 and has since developed a broad-based
         practice that includes complex commercial litigation
         and white collar and regulatory defense.

     (4) C. Brophy Christensen is a member of the Transactions
         Department's Capital Markets practice and is resident
         in our San Francisco office. Brophy received his law
         degree in 1997 from the University of California, Los
         Angeles, where he was a member of the Order of the
         Coif. He joined O'Melveny & Myers in 1997 and has
         focused his practice on securities and general
         corporate and business law. Brophy represents issuers,
         investors and institutions in entity formation, private
         placements, public offerings and other capital markets
         transactions. He also represents buyers, sellers, and
         financial advisors in connection with merger and
         acquisition transactions.

     (5) David J. D'Urso is a member of the Transactions
         Department and is resident in our New York office.
         David received his law degree in 1996 from Case Western
         Reserve University. He joined O'Sullivan in 1997 and
         then O'Melveny & Myers. David's practice includes the
         representation of private equity sponsors, venture
         capital investors, and their portfolio companies in a
         wide variety of transactions, including leveraged
         acquisitions, growth equity investments, and corporate
         financings.

     (6) Brad J. Finkelstein is a member of the Transactions
         Department and is resident in our New York office. Brad
         received his law degree in 1997 from Columbia Law
         School, where he was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar and a
         member of the Columbia Business Law Review. Brad joined
         O'Sullivan in 1999 and then O'Melveny & Myers. His
         practice focuses on debt and equity financings and
         financial restructurings. Brad frequently represents
         private equity funds and their portfolio companies in
         debt and equity financings for leveraged buyouts and
         recapitalizations, including senior secured debt,
         private mezzanine debt, and mezzanine preferred stock
         financings.

     (7) Michael C. Keats is a member of the Adversarial
         Department's Securities Litigation practice and is
         resident in our New York office. Michael received his
         law degree magna cum laude in 1995 from Boston
         University School of Law, where he was Editor of the
         Boston University Law Review. Michael clerked for the
         Honorable Bruce M. Selya of the U.S. Court of Appeals
         for the First Circuit. He joined O'Melveny & Myers in
         2002 and is an experienced securities litigator with a
         unique blend of complex civil litigation and white-
         collar criminal defense experience. He routinely
         handles securities class actions, derivative lawsuits,
         hostile takeover litigation, lender liability actions,
         bankruptcy litigation, professional liability actions,
         criminal proceedings, and SEC investigations.

     (8) Jessica Davidson Miller is a member of the Adversarial
         Department's Class Action Defense practice and is
         resident in our Washington, DC office. Jessica received
         her law degree magna cum laude in 1996 from Georgetown
         University, where she was a member of the Order of the
         Coif and the recipient of the Georgetown Metropolitan
         Club Award for Academic Excellence. Before joining the
         Firm in 2000, Jessica worked at the Federal Trade
         Commission as a staff attorney in the Office of General
         Counsel, focusing on appellate litigation. She has
         broad experience in the defense of purported class
         actions and other complex litigation with a focus on
         multidistrict litigation proceedings, as well as
         appellate litigation and legislative matters.

     (9) Scott T. Nonaka is a member of the Adversarial
         Department's International practice and is resident in
         our San Francisco office. Scott received his law degree
         cum laude in 1991 from Harvard University and clerked
         for the Honorable David G. Larimer of the District
         Court for the Western District of New York. Before
         joining the Firm in 2002, Scott was an Assistant U.S.
         Attorney in San Francisco. His practice focuses
         primarily on the litigation and arbitration of a broad
         range of complex international commercial disputes in
         federal and state courts and he has served as counsel
         in arbitrations before the International Chamber of
         Commerce.

    (10) Francois Renard is a member of the Adversarial
         Department's Antitrust/Competition practice and is
         resident in our Brussels office. Francois received his
         law degree magna cum laude from the University of
         Brussels in 1995. He was a clerk in the Legal Affairs
         Division of the World Trade Organization in 1999 and
         joined O'Melveny & Myers in 2004, when the Firm
         established a Brussels office. His primary area of
         practice is international trade law, EU and national
         competition law, as well as EU general law. Francois
         assists clients in antidumping and trade sanctions
         proceedings and provides advice on various
         international trade matters, including rules of origin
         and WTO-related matters.

    (11) Barbara A. Stettner is a member of the Adversarial
         Department's SEC practice and is resident in our
         Washington, DC office. Barbara received an LL.M. from
         the London School of Economics in 1995 and her law
         degree from Pepperdine University in 1994. Before
         joining O'Melveny & Myers in 2003, Barbara worked in
         the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's Division
         of Market Regulation. Her practice focuses on advising
         U.S. and non-U.S. financial institutions on their
         regulatory and compliance obligations under the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment
         Advisers Act of 1940.

    (12) Sabrina H. Strong is a member of the Adversarial
         Department's Class Action Defense practice and is
         resident in our Los Angeles office. Sabrina received
         her law degree from New York University in 1998, where
         she was a member of the Moot Court Board. She joined
         O'Melveny & Myers in 1999. Sabrina's practice focuses
         on commercial civil litigation in both federal and
         state courts, and she has worked on a number of high-
         profile, multi-plaintiff, and class action cases for
         public and private sector clients.

    (13) Christine M. Tam is a member of the Transactions
         Department's M&A/Private Equity practice and is
         resident in our Los Angeles office. Christine received
         her law degree in 1996 from Columbia Law School, where
         she was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar. Christine joined
         O'Melveny & Myers in 1996. Her practice focuses on
         corporate matters, including public and private company
         mergers and acquisitions, securities offerings and
         financings. Christine has represented clients in a wide
         range of industries, including energy, REIT, life
         sciences, and entertainment.

    (14) Andor D. Terner is a member of the Transactions
         Department's Corporate practice and is resident in our
         Newport Beach office. Andy received his law degree in
         1997 from Stanford University, where he was a member of
         the Order of the Coif. He joined O'Melveny & Myers in
         1997. Andy is a corporate lawyer with a practice focus
         on mergers and acquisitions, public offerings, venture
         capital transactions and general corporate governance
         and securities law matters. He represents a broad range
         of public and private clients in a variety of
         industries, including education, life sciences,
         manufacturing and software.

Arthur B. Culvahouse, Jr., the Firm's Chair, said, "O'Melveny &
Myers today is a strong contender for the best clients, for the
best work, and for the best talent. This year's new partner
class represents the bi-coastal and international scope of our
Firm, as well as a broad cross-section of our practices."

"Each of these individuals has demonstrated the exceptional
talent and personal qualities required of an O'Melveny & Myers
partner as embodied in the Firm's values of excellence,
leadership and citizenship, as well as the capacity to be
leaders in our Firm and in the legal profession. We all take
great pride in welcoming them to our partnership."

O'Melveny & Myers LLP is a values-driven law firm guided by the
principles of excellence, leadership, and citizenship. With the
breadth, depth, and foresight to serve clients competing in a
global economy, our attorneys devise innovative approaches to
resolve problems and achieve business goals. Established in
1885, the firm maintains 13 offices around the world, with more
than 900 attorneys. O'Melveny & Myers capabilities span
virtually every area of legal practice, including
Antitrust/Competition; Appellate; Aviation; Capital Markets;
Class Action Defense; Corporate; Entertainment and Media;
Finance and Restructuring; Global Enforcement and Criminal
Defense; Healthcare; Insurance and Mass Torts; Intellectual
Property and Technology; Labor and Employment; Mergers and
Acquisitions; Private Equity; Project Development and Real
Estate; SEC; Securities Litigation; Strategic Counseling; Tax;
and Trial and Litigation.

For more detail, contact Peter M. Columbus or Erika Tucker of
O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Phone: 212.326.2180 or 213.430.7792, Web
site: http://www.omm.com.


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Final Fairness Hearing Set April 2006 in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Openwave Systems, Inc.,
five of its present or former officers and several investment
banking firms that served as underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering and secondary public offering is set for
April 24,2006 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The suit is styled "In re Openwave Systems, Inc. (sic) Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9744 (SAS)
(S.D.N.Y.), related to In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS).  The suit is brought purportedly on
behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock
from June 11, 1999 through December 6, 2000.

Three of the individual defendants were dismissed without
prejudice, subject to an agreement extending the statute of
limitations, through September 30, 2003.  The complaint alleges
liability as under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, on the grounds that the registration statement for the
offerings did not disclose that:

     (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers
         to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for
         excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and

     (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to
         purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
         predetermined prices.

The amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports
were issued.  No specific damages are claimed.  Similar
allegations were made in over 300 lawsuits challenging public
offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000, and the cases were
consolidated for pretrial purposes.

The Company has accepted a settlement proposal presented to all
issuer defendants.  Plaintiffs will dismiss and release all
claims against the Openwave Defendants, in exchange for a
contingent payment by the insurance companies responsible for
insuring the issuers, and for the assignment or surrender of
control of certain claims the Company may have against the
underwriters.  The Openwave Defendants will not be required to
make any cash payment in the settlement, unless the pro rata
amount paid by the insurers in the settlement exceeds the amount
of insurance coverage, a circumstance which the Company does not
believe will occur.  The settlement will require final approval
of the Court, which cannot be assured, after class members are
given the opportunity to object to the settlement or opt out of
the settlement. The Court has scheduled a hearing for April 24,
2006 to consider whether final approval should be granted.

The suit is styled "In re Openwave Systems, Inc. (sic) Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9744 (SAS)
(S.D.N.Y.)," related to "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


OREGON: Hawkins County Commissioners Question Proposed Jail Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
With one commissioner saying a proposed settlement to a federal
lawsuit makes it sound like the Hawkins County in Oregon is
"turning the jail into a Holiday Inn," the county's Budget
Committee declined to endorse the proposal, The Rogersville
Review reports.

Committee members voted to schedule a closed door meeting with
County Attorney Jim Phillips prior to the December 19 County
Commission meeting to address concerns and answer questions
about the terms of the agreement. The proposed settlement is on
the agenda for the December 19 commission meeting.

If approved by the commission and a federal judge, the private
settlement agreement would resolve the federal class action
lawsuit filed last December by plaintiffs Sherry Arnold and
Donnie Brooks, who claimed that conditions at the jail,
including overcrowding, resulted in an "inhumane" environment
and violated the civil rights of inmates.

Commissioners Virgil Mallett and Kenneth Long both said they had
several questions about provisions ranging from the fact the
county is required to provide inmates items ranging from
personal hygiene items to a stipulation an automatic dishwasher
would be installed in the jail. According to Mr. Mallet, "The
way this thing reads it sounds to me like we are turning the
jail into a Holiday Inn." He also suggested the stipulation that
the county purchase a dishwasher was a waste of money, in light
of the potential labor force housed in the jail. Mr. Mallet
pointed out, "In my opinion there are a lot of people down there
with two good hands and they should be doing something with
their time and that could include washing dishes."

Budget Committee Chairman Claude Parrott questioned whether the
county would be able to keep up with the provisions of the
agreement if all parties and the judge approve it. He inquired,
"There are a lot of things in here the county is agreeing to and
I just want to make sure the department can comply with all
these stipulations or if that is going to be a problem?"

Sheriff Warren Rimer and Lieutenant Glenda Davis noted the
county is already complying with the most of the provisions and
will have others, such as designating a Jail Administrator to
oversee the operation of the jail, in place soon. The sheriff
said the only area he could see a problem with is a stipulation
the county try to segregate inmates who face misdemeanor
criminal charges and inmates who face felony charges. He
explains, "We may have some difficulty trying to keep the
inmates separate with the limited space we have to work with but
we will try to do the best we can." In addition, Mr. Rimer also
suggested that any specific questions about the lawsuit and the
settlement should be addressed in the session with Mr. Phillips.

The settlement resolution notes all attorneys involved in the
case have reviewed the document, along with county officials. It
states, "As a result, and at the request of insurance counsel
representing Hawkins County, said settlement is hereby presented
for approval, it being deemed in the best interest of Hawkins
County to so approve same," an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (December 13, 2005) reports.

After the county commissioners approve the agreement, the
federal court must then approve it. Once the judge approves, the
plaintiffs will agree to have their case dismissed, with both
parties accepting the terms of the settlement as a binding
contract, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (December 13,
2005) reports.

The wording of the agreement states it will eliminate the need
for "judicial intervention or oversight regarding the
constitutionality of conditions" at the jail, with the court
only becoming involved if the county failed to live up to the
contractual obligations, and the lawsuit was then re-filed. In
the original lawsuit the plaintiffs sought an injunction to
restrict overcrowding, a formal plan to address alleged
constitutional violations cited in the suit as well as
unspecified damages and attorneys fees. The settlement agreement
would require the county, or county's insurance carrier, to pay
$15,000 for attorneys' fees as well as $2,000 this year and
$2,000 for "compliance monitoring costs" for this year and 2006.
However, no compensatory or punitive damages are involved and no
fines would be levied if the county exceeds a certain jail
capacity, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (December 13,
2005) reports.

The wording of the settlement notes the county purchased the
former Kmart site on Highway 11W and is planning the
construction of a 220-bed jail that will be designed and built
to comply with federal constitutional standards and standards of
the Tennessee Corrections Institute. The agreement also includes
a jail project timeline that calls for demolition work at the
Kmart site to be completed by April 21, 2006, the construction
bidding process to be completed by May 18, 2006 and construction
at the site to begin by June 5, 2006 and be "substantially
completed by mid-2007," an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(December 13, 2005) reports.

Other provisions that the county must comply with include:

     (1) providing hot and cold running water to sinks in the
         inmate housing areas;

     (2) providing functioning toilets and making certain
         inmates have access to the toilets;

     (3) repairing holes in the walls of the area housing female
         inmates and providing adequate lighting in the cell
         block;

     (4) having all air vents cleaned and the heating and
         cooling system "in proper working order," with a
         stipulation a repair person will be called within a day
         if the system malfunctions;

     (5) hiring a dietitian to plan and approve inmate meals;

     (6) having clean jail uniforms available for each inmate;

     (7) maintaining a jail staff of 15 full-time jailers and a
         part-time jailer who oversees the exercise yard; and

     (8) allowing volunteer ministers to conduct religious
         services in the jail.

The settlement also requires the county to implement a new
system of classifying inmates, with greater emphasis on
segregating individuals charged with misdemeanors and felonies.
It notes that under the current circumstances the county will be
limited in the ability to separate the different classifications
an earlier Class Action Reporter story (December 13, 2005)
reports.

In addition, under the terms of the agreement inmates will be
provided with cleaning supplies on a daily basis to clean each
cellblock and could be eligible to receive personal hygiene
supplies, such as soap, shampoo, toothpaste at no cost if they
are considered indigent. The county would also be required to
"post and enforce" inmate disciplinary rules where inmates can
see them, require jail personnel to file disciplinary reports of
incidents involving inmates and, in cases involving a physical
assault or injury, refer the incident to the District Attorney
General's office for possible criminal prosecution, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (December 13, 2005) reports.

Finally, under the terms of the agreement the county will also
provide the attorneys for the plaintiffs with population counts,
quarterly progress reports and will allow quarterly access to
the jail to evaluate compliance with all terms and provisions,
an earlier Class Action Reporter story (December 13, 2005)
reports.

The suit styled, "Arnold et al v. Hawkins County, TN et al, Case
No. 2:04-cv-00427," filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee, under Judge J. Ronnie
Greer with referral Judge Dennis H. Inman. Representing the
Plaintiff/s are, John E. Eldridge of Eldridge, Irvine & Gaines,
PLLC, P.O. Box 84, Knoxville, TN 37901-0084, Phone:
865-523-7731, Fax: 865-523-0341, E-mail: johneldrid@aol.com; and
Jonathan M. Holcomb, Holcomb Law Office, P.O. Box 1658,
Morristown, TN 37816, Phone: 423-581-9797, E-mail:
holcomblawoffice@charter.net. Representing the Defendant/s are,
Thomas J. Garland, Jr. and Jeffrey M. Ward of Milligan &
Coleman, P.O. Box 1060, Greeneville, TN 37744-1060, Phone:
423-639-6811, Fax: 423-639-2078, E-mail:
tgarland.milligancoleman@adelphia.net and
jward.milligancoleman@adelphia.net.


REDBACK NETWORKS: CA Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California heard Redback Networks, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
second amended class action filed against certain of its
officers and directors, styled "In re Redback Networks, Inc.
Securities Litigation, case number 03-05642."

On December 15, 2003, the first of several putative class action
complaints, "Robert W. Baker, Jr., et al. v. Joel M. Arnold, et
al., No. C-03-5642 JF," was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.  At least ten
nearly identical complaints have been filed in the same court.
Several of the Company's current and former officers and
directors are named as defendants in these complaints, but the
Company is not named as a defendant.

The complaints are filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock from April 12, 2000 through October 10,
2003 and purport to allege violations of the federal securities
laws in connection with the alleged failure to timely disclose
information allegedly relating to certain transactions between
the Company and Qwest Communications International, Inc.  The
complaints sought damages in an unspecified amount.

On August 24, 2004, the Court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated complaint asserting claims on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's common stock from April 12, 2000 through
October 10, 2003 against 16 of the Company's current or former
officers and directors for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws.  The consolidated complaint sought damages in
an unspecified amount.

On January 21, 2005, the Court entered an order dismissing the
consolidated complaint without leave to amend with regard to
five of the Redback-related defendants and with leave to amend
with regard to the remaining 11 Redback-related defendants.  On
March 29, 2005, lead plaintiff filed a first amended
consolidated complaint asserting claims on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's common stock from November 27, 1999 through
October 10, 2003 against 11 of the Company's current or former
officers and directors for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws.  On May 6, 2005, lead plaintiff filed a revised
first amended consolidated complaint to add and change its
allegations regarding loss causation. On May 25, 2005, the Court
granted lead plaintiff's motion to reconsider the dismissal
regarding one of the Redback-related defendants. The current
complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. On June 10,
2005, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second revised
first amended consolidated complaint.  The argument of that
motion to dismiss was held on August 10, 2005.

The suit is styled "In re Redback Networks, Inc. Securities
Litigation, docket number 03-05642," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, under
Judge Jeremy Fogel.  Lead counsel for the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., 1201 N. Market Street, Suite
         2100, Wilmington, DE, 19801, Phone: 302.622.7000, Fax:
         302.622.7100, E-mail: info@gelaw.com

     (2) Anderlini, Finkelstein, Emerick & Smoot, 400 S. El
         Camino Real, San Mateo, CA, 94402, Phone: 650-348-010,
         Fax: 650-348-096, E-mail: Info@Afelaw.com


REDBACK NETWORKS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Redback
Networks, Inc. and certain of its former officers and directors.

The lawsuit asserts, among other claims, violations of the
federal securities laws relating to how the Company's
underwriters of its initial public offering allegedly allocated
IPO shares to the underwriters' customers.

In March 2002, the court entered an order approving the joint
request of the plaintiffs and Company to dismiss the claims
without prejudice.  On April 20, 2002, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint against the Company
and certain of its former officers and directors, as well as
certain underwriters involved in the Company's initial public
offering.

Similar complaints were filed concerning more than 300 other
IPOs.  All of these cases have been consolidated as "In re
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92."  On July 15,
2002, the issuers filed an omnibus motion to dismiss for failure
to comply with applicable pleading standards.  On October 8,
2002, the court entered an Order of Dismissal as to the
individual defendants in the Company's IPO litigation, without
prejudice, subject to a tolling agreement.  On February 19,
2003, the court denied the motion to dismiss the claims against
the Company.

Settlement discussions on behalf of the named defendants
resulted in a final settlement memorandum of understanding with
the plaintiffs in the case and Company's insurance carriers,
which has been submitted to the court.  The underwriters are not
parties to the proposed settlement.  As of June 30, 2003, the
Company has tentatively agreed to this settlement, provided that
substantially all of the other defendants agree to the
memorandum of understanding. As of July 31, 2003, over 250
issuers, constituting a majority of the issuer defendants, had
tentatively approved the settlement.  The settlement is still
subject to a number of conditions, including approval of the
court.

The suit is styled "In Re Redback Networks, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 6090," filed in relation
to "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master
File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


RUBIO'S RESTAURANT: Continues To Face Overtime Wage Suits in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rubio's Restaurants, Inc. continues to face several overtime
wage suits filed by its former employees in Orange County,
California Superior Court.

A former employee, who worked in the position of general
manager, filed the first suit.  A second similar class action
complaint was filed in the same court on December 21, 2001, on
behalf of another former employee who worked in the positions of
general manager and assistant manager.  On May 16, 2002, these
two cases were consolidated into one action.

These cases currently involve the issue of whether employees and
former employees in the general and assistant manager positions
who worked in the California units during specified time periods
were misclassified as exempt and deprived of overtime pay. In
addition to unpaid overtime, the claimants in these cases seek
to recover waiting time penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and
other types of relief.


RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: CA Customers Launch Suit Over Lobster Menu
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rubio's Restaurants, Inc. faces a class action filed on June 28,
2005 in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
on behalf of consumers who claim that the Company
inappropriately named some of its lobster menu items.

Consumer lawyer Ray E. Gallo filed the suit, alleging that the
Company's "lobster burrito" is really a "langostino burrito." A
langostino is a small crayfish-or-shrimp-like creature caught
mainly off the coast of Chile, and are commonly called Red or
Yellow Prawns, an earlier Class Action Reporter Story (July
1,2005) states.  The claimants in this case are seeking damages
in an unspecified amount to reimburse them for purchases of
lobster menu items.


SARA LEE: Recalls Biscuit Products Due to Listeria Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Lee Food & Beverage is voluntarily recalling select
cheeseburger and chicken biscuit products sold under the Jimmy
Dean, Rudy's Farm and State Fair brands.

The company immediately took this precaution after it was
notified by its cheese supplier that one of the supplier's
cheese products could potentially contain Listeria
monocytogenes, an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headaches, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection may cause miscarriages and
stillbirth among pregnant women.

As a precautionary measure, the company is recalling 40,572
pounds of product. The company is working closely with the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration in undertaking this voluntary
recall.

The products being recalled are:

     (1) Jimmy Dean Mini 24 Cheeseburger Beef Patties with Real
         American Cheese on a Bun. The 38.4-ounce packages are
         marked with a production code of 05294, 05314 or 05321.

     (2) Rudy's Farm Country Style 16 Chicken Biscuits. The 24-
         ounce packages are marked with a production code of
         05326 (frozen) or the use-by date of January 21, 2006
         (refrigerated).

     (3) State Fair Cheeseburgers Beef Patties with Cheese on a
         Bun. The 9.6-ounce packages are marked with a
         production code of 05326.

The Rudy's Farm products do not contain cheese but were
manufactured on the same line as the Jimmy Dean and State Fair
cheeseburger products.

This recall does not apply to any other Jimmy Dean, Rudy's Farm
or State Fair brand product -- with or without cheese.

The products were distributed to grocery stores across the
United States, Puerto Rico and Bermuda. Consumers who may have
questions or concerns can call the company's toll-free consumer
information line at (800) 925-3326 or reference the toll-free
consumer information line provided on the product packages.
Consumers may also throw out products involved in the recall or
return products to grocery retailers where they were purchased.


SELECTICA INC.: Final Fairness Hearing Set April 24, 2006
---------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the consolidated securities class
action filed against Selectica, Inc., certain of its officers
and directors and Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation (CSFB),
as underwriters of the Company's March 13,2005 initial public
offering (IPO) is set for April 24,2006 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Between June 5, 2001 and June 22, 2001, four securities class
action complaints were filed.  On August 9, 2001, these actions
were consolidated before a single judge along with cases brought
against numerous other issuers, their officers and directors and
their underwriters, that make similar allegations involving the
allocation of shares in the IPOs of those issuers.  The
consolidation was for purposes of pretrial motions and discovery
only.  On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint asserting essentially the same claims as the
original complaints.

The amended complaint alleges that the officer and director
defendants, CSFB and thje Company violated federal securities
laws by making material false and misleading statements in the
prospectus incorporated in the Company's registration statement
on Form S-1 filed with the SEC in March 2000 in connection with
the Company's IPO.  Specifically, the complaint alleges, among
other things, that CSFB solicited and received excessive and
undisclosed commissions from several investors in exchange for
which CSFB allocated to those investors material portions of the
restricted number of shares of common stock issued in the
Company's IPO.  The complaint further alleges that CSFB entered
into agreements with its customers in which it agreed to
allocate the common stock sold in the Company's IPO to certain
customers in exchange for which such customers agreed to
purchase additional shares of the Company's common stock in the
after-market at pre-determined prices.  The complaint also
alleges that the underwriters offered to provide positive market
analyst coverage for the Company's after the IPO, which had the
effect of manipulating the market for the Company's stock.

On July 15, 2002, the Company and the officer and director
defendants, along with other issuers and their related officer
and director defendants, filed a joint motion to dismiss based
on common issues.  Opposition and reply papers were filed and
the Court heard oral argument.  Prior to the ruling on the
motion to dismiss, on October 8, 2002, the individual officers
and directors entered into a stipulation of dismissal and
tolling agreement with plaintiffs. As part of that agreement,
plaintiffs dismissed the case without prejudice against the
individual defendants. The Court ordered the dismissal of the
officers and directors without prejudice on October 9, 2002. The
Court rendered its decision on the motion to dismiss on
February 19, 2003, denying dismissal of the Company.

On June 25, 2003, a Special Committee of the Board of Directors
of the Company approved a Memorandum of Understanding (the
"MOU") reflecting a settlement in which the plaintiffs agreed to
dismiss the case against the Company with prejudice in return
for the assignment by the Company of certain claims that the
Company might have against its underwriters. The same offer of
settlement was made to all the issuer defendants involved in the
litigation. No payment to the plaintiffs by the Company is
required under the MOU. After further negotiations, the
essential terms of the MOU were formalized in a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement, which has been executed on behalf of
the Company. The settling parties presented the proposed
Settlement papers to the Court on June 14, 2004 and filed formal
motions seeking preliminary approval on June 25, 2004.  The
underwriter defendants, who are not parties to the proposed
Settlement, filed a brief objecting to its terms on July 14,
2004.

On February 15, 2005, the Court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement conditioned on the agreement of the parties to
narrow one of a number of the provisions intended to protect the
issuers against possible future claims by the underwriters.  The
Company re-approved the Settlement with the proposed
modifications that were outlined by the Court in its February
15, 2005 Order granting preliminary approval.  Approval of any
settlement involves a three-step process in the district court -
a preliminary approval, determination of the appropriate notice
of the settlement to be provided to the settlement class, and
a final fairness hearing.  On August 31, 2005, the court entered
a preliminary order approving, with only minor modifications,
the modified proposed settlement agreement. The court ordered
that the mailing of the notices of pendency and proposed
settlement of the class actions should begin on November 15,
2005 and continue on a rolling basis through January 15, 2006.
The court also set Monday, April 24, 2006 as the date for the
final fairness hearing. The deadline for class members to
request exclusion from the settlement classes is Friday, March
24, 2006.

In the meantime, the plaintiffs and underwriters have continued
to litigate the consolidated action. The litigation is
proceeding through the class certification phase by focusing on
six cases chosen by the plaintiffs and underwriters ("focus
cases"). The Company is not a focus case. On October 13, 2004,
the Court certified classes in each of the six focus cases. The
underwriter defendants have sought review of that decision.
Along with the other non-focus case issuer defendants, the
Company has not participated in the class certification phase.
The plaintiffs' money damage claims include prejudgment and
post-judgement interest, attorneys' and experts' witness fees
and other costs, as well as other relief to which the plaintiffs
may be entitled should they prevail.

The suit is styled "In Re Selectica, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


SINA CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action
complaints filed against Sina Corporation and certain of its
officers and directors in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, following the Company's
announcement of anticipated financial results for the first
quarter of 2005 ending on March 31, 2005.

The complaints seek unspecified damages on alleged violations of
federal securities laws during the period from October 26, 2004
to February 7, 2005.  The complaints allege violations of the
federal securities laws through the issuance of false or
misleading statements during the class period covered.  More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that the Company was increasingly relying on services
         related to "fortune telling" advertising, like
         horoscopes and astrology, in order to meet its earnings
         forecasts and generate a positive revenue stream;

     (2) that the Chinese government had clamped down on
         "fortune telling" advertising and the resulting
         clampdown on "fortune telling" advertising would have a
         material effect on the Company's revenue stream;

     (3) that China Mobile Communication Corp.'s recent change
         in its billing process for multimedia messaging
         services SINA provides to China Mobile subscribers had
         a material effect on the Company's business; and

     (4) that as a result of the above, the defendants' positive
         statements about the growth and prospectus of SINA were
         lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On July 1, 2005, Judge Naomi Buchwald consolidated the cases
under the caption "In re SINA Corporation Securities Litigation"
and appointed City of Sterling Heights General Employee's
Retirement System, City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire
Retirement System, and Charter Township of Clinton Police and
Fire Retirement System (collectively the "MAPERS Funds Group")
as lead plaintiff. The MAPERS Funds Group filed an amended
consolidated complaint on September 9, 2005.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is "Xianglin
Shi, et al. v. SINA Corporation, et al., case no. 05-CV-2268."
The suits are pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, under Judge Naomi Buchwald.
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (i) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004 Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;

    (ii) Dyer & Shuman, LLP 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
         80218-1417 Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
         mail: info@dyershuman.com

   (iii) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (NY) 1501 Broadway, Suite
         1416, New York, NY, 10036 Phone: (917) 510-000, Fax:
         (646) 366-089, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

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

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

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

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

  (viii) Seeger Weiss LLP 40 Wall Street, The Trump Building ,
         New York, NY, 10005 Phone: 212.584.0700,

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


STAMPS.COM: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Stamps.com, Inc. and
certain of its current and former board members and/or officers
is set for April 24, 2006 in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

11 purported class-action lawsuits were initially filed,
alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Company's
initial public offering and secondary offering of the Company's
common stock.  The lawsuits also name as defendants the
principal underwriters in connection with the Company's initial
and secondary public offerings, including Goldman, Sachs & Co.
(in some of the lawsuits sued as The Goldman Sachs Group Inc.)
and BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.

The lawsuits allege that the underwriters engaged in improper
commission practices and stock price manipulations in connection
with the sale of the Company's common stock. The lawsuits also
allege that the Company and/or certain of its officers or
directors knew of or recklessly disregarded these practices by
the underwriter defendants, and failed to disclose them in its
public filings. Plaintiffs seek damages and statutory
compensation, including prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees), and rescissory
damages.

In April 2002, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint against the Company and certain of its current
and former board members and/or officers.  The consolidated
amended class action complaint includes similar allegations to
those described above and seeks similar relief.  In July 2002,
the Company moved to dismiss the consolidated amended class
action complaint.  In October 2002, pursuant to a stipulation
and tolling agreement with plaintiffs, the Company's current and
former board members and/or officers were dismissed without
prejudice. In February 2003, the court denied the Company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint.  In June 2003 the Company approved a proposed
Memorandum of Understanding among the plaintiffs, issuers and
insurers as to terms for a settlement of the litigation against
us which was further documented in a Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement filed with the court.  The proposed settlement
terms would not require Stamps.com to make any payments.  The
proposed settlement was preliminarily approved by the court in
February 2005, but remains subject to a fairness hearing and
final approval by the court which has not yet occurred.  In
August 2005, the court affirmed its approval for the settlement
and set fairness hearing for April 24,2006.

The suit is styled "In re Stamps.com, Inc. (sic) Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, (S.D.N.Y.)," related to "In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS),"
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


STONEPATH GROUP: PA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania dismissed the consolidated securities class action
filed against Stonepath Group, Inc., styled "In re Stonepath
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civ. Action No. 04-4515."
The suit also names as defendants officers Dennis L. Pelino and
Thomas L. Scully and former officer Bohn Crain.

Eight purported class action complaints were initially filed
between September 24, 2004 and November 19, 2004, and later
consolidated.  The plaintiffs initially sought to represent a
class of purchasers of the Company's shares between May 7, 2003
and September 20, 2004, and allege claims for securities fraud
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. These claims were based upon the allegation that certain
public statements made during the period from May 7, 2003
through August 9, 2004 were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose that the Company's Domestic
Services operations had improperly accounted for accrued
purchased transportation costs.  The plaintiffs sought
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and further
relief as may be determined by the Court.

The Court has consolidated the eight lawsuits into a single
action and the lead plaintiff has filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint seeks to represent a class of purchasers
of the Company's shares between March 29, 2002 and September 20,
2004 based upon public statements made during that period.
The Company and the individual defendants believe that this
action was without merit, have filed a motion to dismiss this
action and intend to vigorously defend against the claims raised
in this action.  On October 27, 2005, the Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint with
leave to file an amended complaint.

The suit is styled, "In re Stonepath Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 2:04-cv-04515-SD," filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
under Judge Stewart Dalzell.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stephanie M. Beige, U. Seth Ottensoser, BERNSTEIN
         LIEBHARD & LIFSHITZ, LLP 10 East 40th Street New York,
         NY 10016 Phone: 212-779-1414

     (2) Deborah R. Gross, Susan R. Gross, LAW OFFICES BERNARD
         M. GROSS, PC 100 Penn Square West, Juniper & Market St.
         John Wanamaker Bldg Suite 450, Philadelphia PA 19107
         Phone: 215-561-3600 Fax: 215-561-3000 E-mail:
         debbie@bernardmgross.com or susang@bernardmgross.com;

     (3) Timothy J. Macfall, LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO 310
         Madison Avenue, 14th Floor, New York NY 10017;

Representing the Company are Kendra Lee Baisinger, Steven E.
Bizar, Thomas P. Manning, Howard D. Scher, BUCHANAN INGERSOLL PC
1835 Market St., 14th Floor, Philadelphia PA 19103 Phone:
215-665-3878 E-mail: baisingerkl@bipc.com, bizarse@bipc.com,
manningtp@bipc.com, scherhd@bipc.com.


UNITED PARCEL: Continues To Face Employee CA Overtime Wage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Services, Inc. continues to face a wage-and-hour
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
District of California, styled "Marlo v. UPS."

Plaintiffs allege that they improperly were denied overtime, and
seek penalties for missed meal and rest periods, and interest
and attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of
1,200 full-time supervisors.

The suit is styled `Michael Marlo v. United Parcel Svc, et al.,
case no. 2:03-cv-04336-DDP-RZ," filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, under
Judge Dean D. Pregerson.  Representing the plaintiffs are John
A. Furutani and Mark C. Peters of Furutani and Peters, 911 East
Colorado Boulevard, Suite 310, Pasadena, CA 91106, Phone:
626-844-2437, E-mail: jafurutani@furutani-peters.com or
mcpeters@furutani-peters.com.   Representing the plaintiffs are
George W. Abele, Jennifer S. Baldocchi, Heather G. Havette,
Robert F. Walker, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker, 515 S Flower
St, 25th Fl, Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228, Phone: 213-683-6000,
Fax: 213-627-0705; and Kirby Collette Wilcox, Paul Hastings
Janofsky & Walker, 55 2nd St, 24th Fl, San Francisco, CA 94105-
3441, Phone: 415-856-7000, Fax: 415-856-7100.


WILLIAM LYON: DE Court Dismisses Consolidated Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in and for New
Castle County dismissed the consolidated lawsuit filed against
William Lyon Homes, challenging the proposal made by General
William Lyon to acquire the outstanding publicly held minority
interest in the Company's common stock for $82 per share in cash
and challenging related actions of the Company and the directors
of the Company.

Five purported class action lawsuits were initially filed on
behalf of the public stockholders of the Company, styled as:

     (1) Eastside Investors, LLP v. William Lyon Homes, et al.,
         Civil Action No. 1301-N, filed on April 27, 2005;

     (2) Donald Lamuth v. William Lyon et al., Civil Action No.
         1304-N, filed April 28,2005;

     (3) Stephen L. Brown v. William Lyon Homes, et al., Civil
         Action No. 1307-N, filed on April 28, 2005;

     (4) Michael Crady v. William Lyon Homes, et al., Civil
         Action No. 1311-N, filed on May 2, 2005; and

     (5) Anthony A. D'Amato v. William Lyon, et al., Civil
         Action No. 1323-N, filed on May 6, 2005

The Delaware Complaints name the Company and the directors of
the Company as defendants. These complaints allege, among other
things, that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties
owed to the plaintiffs in connection with the Proposed
Transaction and other related corporate activities. The
plaintiffs are seeking to enjoin the Proposed Transaction and,
among other things, to obtain damages, attorneys' fees and
expenses related to the litigation.

On May 9, 2005, the Delaware Complaints were consolidated into a
single case entitled "In re: William Lyon Homes Shareholder
Litigation, Civil Action No. 1311-N."  On May 20, 2005, a class
was certified in the Consolidated Delaware Action.  The Company
stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission
that it believes that the remaining Consolidated Delaware Action
described above is without merit, particularly given that
General Lyon withdrew his offer for the Proposed Transaction on
or around June 28, 2005 and announced on July 25, 2005 that he
was ending his efforts at this time to take the Company private.
On November 9, 2005, the Consolidated Delaware Action was
dismissed without prejudice.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

DIEBOLD INC.: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in OH
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, initiated a securities fraud
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio against Diebold Inc. ("Diebold" or the
"Company") (NYSE: DBD) and individual defendants. Presently, the
class is defined in the complaint drafted by Scott + Scott as
those who purchased Diebold securities between October 22, 2003,
and September 21, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). However,
any purchaser of Diebold securities can contact the firm as the
Class Period may change as information is revealed. Diebold
engages in the development, manufacture, sale, and service of
systems, software, and various products used to equip bank
facilities such as automatic teller machines.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated provisions of the
United States securities laws causing artificial inflation of
the Company's stock price. According to the complaint, during
the Class Period, the Company lacked a credible state of
internal controls and corporate compliance and remained unable
to assure the quality and working order of its voting machine
products. It is further alleged that the Company's false and
misleading statements served to conceal the dimensions and scope
of internal problems at the Company, impacting product quality,
strategic planning, forecasting and guidance and culminating in
false representations of astonishingly low and incredibly
inaccurate restructuring charges for the 2005 fiscal year, which
grossly understated the true costs and problems defendants faced
to restructure the Company. The complaint also alleges over $2.7
million of insider trading proceeds obtained by individual
defendants during the Class Period.

Finally, investors learned the truth about the adverse impact of
the Company's alleged defective and deficient inventory-related
controls and systems on Diebold's financial performance. As a
result of defendants' shocking news and disclosures of September
21, 2005, the price of Diebold shares plunged 15.5% on unusually
high volume, falling from $44.37 per share on September 20,
2005, to $37.47 per share on September 21, 2005, for a one-day
drop of $6.90 per share on volume of 6.1 million shares --
nearly eight times the average daily trading volume.

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


EVCI COLLEGES: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased EVCI
Career Colleges Holdings Corporation common stock or other
securities during the period from February 23, 2004 to October
20, 2005 (the "Class Period''). The lawsuit was filed against
EVCI Career Holdings Corporation (NasdaqSC: EVCI), and its top
executives, and alleges fraud involving statements made to
public investors.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, EVCI
omitted and misrepresented material facts concerning the manner
in which its educational business was being run, including facts
concerning the degree of student support it provided, its
admission practices and its graduation rates. EVCI's practices
have led to criticism by the New York State Education
Department, and adverse action which, when revealed, led to
sharp declines in the price of the stock.

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.


FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida (Orlando Division) against FARO Technologies
Inc. (Nasdaq: FARO) and individual defendants. Presently, the
class is defined in the complaint drafted by Scott+Scott as
those who purchased FARO securities between May 6, 2004, and
November 3, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). However, any
purchaser of FARO securities can contact the firm as the class
period may change as information is revealed. FARO engages in
the design, development, marketing, and support of portable,
software-driven, 3D measurement systems for a range of
manufacturing and industrial applications.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated provisions of the
United States securities laws causing artificial inflation of
the Company's stock price. According to the complaint, the
Company repeatedly issued false and misleading quarterly and
annualized financial guidance throughout the Class Period in
knowing or reckless disregard of the deficient and defective
state of one or more of its controls and systems, with an
adverse impact on its inventory accounting, order fulfillment
and financial statements. It is further alleged that even though
defendants quietly placed a resource management system into
operation, defendants continued to conceal their deficient and
defective controls and practices, causing the newly implemented
system to supply false and erroneous information to the
Company's departments and functions, with a continued direct,
adverse impact on order fulfillment and corporate earnings.

Finally, investors learned the truth about the adverse impact of
the Company's alleged defective and deficient inventory-related
controls and systems on FARO's financial performance. As a
result of defendants' shocking news and disclosures following
the close of the markets on November 3, 2005, the price of FARO
stock plummeted $5.88, from its closing price of $22.38 on
November 3, 2005, to finally close on November 7, 2005, at
$16.50, for a two- day loss of 26.38%, on combined volume of
over 5.9 million shares.

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.


MIKOHN GAMING: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in WI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Mikohn
Gaming Corporation (d/b/a Progressive Gaming International
Corporation) (NasdaqNM: PGIC) between February 22, 2005 through
October 19, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Nevada against PGIC, Russel H. McMeekin (CEO)
and Michael A. Sicuro (CFO)

The complaint alleges that PGIC is a supplier of Integrated
Casino Management Systems software and games for the gaming
industry. The complaint further alleges that defendants issued
quarter after quarter of strong financial results, and issued
strong forecasts for future quarters. For example, for the third
quarter of 2005, Defendants assured investors that PGIC would
report earnings per share of between $0.08 and $0.10. This
strong growth projection was crucial to enable Defendants to
close on a highly-anticipated strategic acquisition of a related
gaming company, VirtGame Corporation, which acquisition was
scheduled to close in the second quarter of 2005, and to
complete a secondary offering of common stock announced on
August 31, 2005.

The Complaint alleges that defendants knew that VirtGame
shareholders would vote on the acquisition in September 2005. As
a result, they knew it was vital to the closing of the
acquisition to keep the stock price artificially inflated and to
avoid the disclosure of any adverse information during this
time. Therefore, Defendants engaged in accounting fraud by
failing to comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
("GAAP"). In particular, Defendants failed to disclose the
impact of the Financial Accounting Standards Board's Accounting
Standard ("SFAS") 153 which applies to exchanges of non-monetary
assets. Despite the fact that SFAS 153 was issued in December
2004, and took effect in June 2005, Defendants failed to include
any discussion of the impact of its application in PGIC's public
filings.

On October 20, 2005, Defendants shocked the market by revealing
that because the Company failed to properly account for two non-
monetary transactions in accordance with SFAS 153, the Company
expected to report a loss of $.09 a share rather than a gain of
$.08-$.10, as Defendants had previously represented. According
to Defendants, the accounting treatment had to be changed after
the national office of the Company's auditor, BDO Seidman,
informed the Company that it had to comply with SFAS 153 and
could not recognize the revenues in the third quarter from these
two transactions. In response to this shocking news, the price
of PGIC stock plunged by nearly 30% on unusually large trading
volumes of over 6.6 million shares traded.

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.


MIKOHN GAMING: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NV
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada on behalf of all securities purchasers of
Mikohn Gaming Corporation, d/b/a "Progressive Gaming C" (Nasdaq:
PGIC) ("PGIC" or the "Company") between February 22, 2005 and
October 19, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges PGIC, Russel H. McMeekin, and Michael A.
Sicuro with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the Company violated Statements of Financial
         Accounting Standards ("SFAS") 153 by improperly
         recognizing revenue from two non-monetary transactions;

     (2) that the improper accounting treatment artificially
         inflated the Company's financial results and its stock;

     (3) that the Company's financial results were in violation
         of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP");
         and

     (4) that as consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
         statements about its financial condition and future
         prospects lacked in any reasonable basis.

PGIC engages in the development and marketing of technology-
based products for the gaming industry. During the Class Period
the Company repeatedly issued strong financial results and
issued positive future financial forecasts. The strong results
and positive growth projections enabled the Company to complete
the VirtGame Corporation ("VirtGame") acquisition and a
secondary offering. On October 20, 2005, the Company announced
that it failed to properly account for two non-monetary
transactions in accordance with SFAS 153 and that the Company
expected to report a loss of $.09 per share. On this news,
shares of PGIC fell $3.75 per share, or 28.78 percent, to close,
on October 20, 2005, at $9.28 per share.

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



                            *********


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  * * *