CAR_Public/051219.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, December 19, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 250

                           Headlines

ADVANTAGE PUBLISHERS: Recalls 41T Books Due to Choking Hazard
AIRGATE PCS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in N.D. GA
ALTRIA GROUP: IL High Court Overturns $10.1B "Lights" Judgment
AUSTRIA: Starts Holocaust Compensation Process, Sends Letters
BEAZER HOMES: NV High Court Overturns Construction Defects Award

CALIFORNIA: FAIR Backs Suit V. Tuition Discounts For Illegals
CALIFORNIA: SF International Airport Settles With Deaf Advocates
CHUBB CORPORATION: Policyholders Sue Over Commission Agreements
CITIZENS INC.: TX Court Yet To Rule on Suit Certification Appeal
CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: Continues To Face PA Securities Lawsuit

CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: Trial in FL Injury Suit Set January 2006
DANIER LEATHER: Ontario Appellate Court Dismisses IPO Lawsuit
DYNAMICS RESEARCH: Employees Launch FLSA Violations in MA Court
EASTMAN KODAK: Securities Fraud Suits Consolidated in W.D. NY
GE CONSUMER: Recalls 6.6T Various Gas Ranges Due to Fire Hazard

ILLINOIS: Towns to Settle Suit Over Fees on Cellular Phone Bills
INDIAN TRUST: Cobell v. Norton Case Still Deadlocked in House
ISRAEL: Former Military Chief Faces War Crimes Suit in DC Court
ITXC CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement
MARQUEE HOLDINGS: Fairness Hearing for MO Suit Settlement Held

MINNESOTA CORN: Charities Get Windfall from Unclaimed Settlement
MON CHONG: Recalls Dried Vegetables Due to Undeclared Sulfites
MORTGAGEIT INC.: Amended Overtime Wage Suit Pending in S.D. NY
NATIONAL PHYSICIANS: Faces TCPA Violations Lawsuit in E.D. NY
NEW CENTURY: IL Court Dismisses Lawsuit For TCPA Violations

NEW CENTURY: CA Court Orders Recovery For Defendants in Lawsuit
NEW CENTURY: Mediation in LA Collective Action Set January 2006
NEW CENTURY: NY Court Nixes Mortgage Fees Suit Dismissal Appeal
NEW CENTURY: Resolves NJ RESPA Lawsuit, Court Orders Dismissal
NEW CENTURY: IL Court Dismisses Suit For Consumer Act Violations

NEW CENTURY: IL Court Dismisses Interest Act Violations Lawsuit
NEW CENTURY: CA Court Dismisses Overtime Law Violations Lawsuit
NEW CENTURY: Plaintiffs Seek Certification for IN FCRA Lawsuit
NEW CENTURY: Asks CA Court To Dismiss FCRA Violations Lawsuit
NEW CENTURY: Customers Commence Loan Fee Fraud Suit in N.D. IN

PUBLIC STORAGE: CA Court Mulls Transfer of Consumer Fraud Suit
PUBLIC STORAGE: FL, CA Employee Overtime Wage Lawsuits Pending
SECOND CHANCE: Chippewa Township Settles Suit Over Faulty Armor
TELLABS INC.: Court Yet To Rule on Appeal of IL Suit Dismissal

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CIPHERGEN BIOSYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in OH
DIEBOLD INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in OH
EVCI CAREER: Stull Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. OH
FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Suit in FL
STONE ENERGY: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in LA

                          *********

ADVANTAGE PUBLISHERS: Recalls 41T Books Due to Choking Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Advantage Publishers Group, of San Diego, California is
voluntarily recalling about 41,000 units of Children's Books.

According to the Company, if the clear plastic container is
removed from the book's back cover or breaks, young children can
access the beads in it. This poses a choking hazard to young
children. Advantage Publishers Group has received one report of
a child accessing beads in the books' clear plastic containers.
No injuries have been reported.

The recalled children's activity books are multi-colored with
holes in the pages to touch a variety of fabrics and to push a
squeaker toy, flaps to lift, and a clear plastic container with
beads. The "Amazing Baby Look and Play" activity book has a
yellow star on the cover. The "Amazing Baby Touch and Play" book
has a brown bear on the cover. The activity books measure about
11-inches by 11-inches, and are for children ages 12 months to
24 months. The recalled "Rattle, Rattle" board book has a
magenta car on the cover. The board book measures about 5 1/2-
inches by 5 -inches, and is intended for children ages 6 months
to 18 months.

Manufactured in Thailand, the books were sold at all national
book chains, discount department stores, wholesalers and
distributors, and membership warehouse clubs nationwide from May
2003 through November 2005 for about $16 for the activity books
and about $6 for the board book.

Remedy: Consumers should immediately take these recalled
activity and board books away from young children and contact
the company for a replacement book

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Advantage
Publishers Group toll-free at (866) 748-3731 anytime or visit
the company's Web site: http://www.advpubgrp.com.


AIRGATE PCS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in N.D. GA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated securities class action
against Airgate PCS, Inc. in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia.  The suit also names as
defendants:

     (1) Thomas M. Dougherty,

     (2) Barbara L. Blackford,

     (3) Alan B. Catherall,

     (4) Credit Suisse First Boston,

     (5) Lehman Brothers,

     (6) UBS Warburg LLC,

     (7) William Blair & Company,

     (8) Thomas Wiesel Partners LLC and

     (9) TD Securities

In May 2002, putative class action complaints were filed,
seeking class certification and alleging that the prospectus
used in connection with the secondary offering of Company stock
by certain former stockholders of iPCS, a former subsidiary of
the Company, on December 18, 2001 contained materially false and
misleading statements and omitted material information necessary
to make the statements in the prospectus not false and
misleading.  The alleged omissions included:

     (i) failure to disclose that in order to complete an
         effective integration of iPCS, drastic changes would
         have to be made to the Company's distribution channels,

    (ii) failure to disclose that the sales force in the
         acquired iPCS markets would require extensive
         restructuring and

   (iii) failure to disclose that the "churn" or "turnover" rate
         for subscribers would increase as a result of an
         increase in the amount of sub-prime credit quality
         subscribers the Company added from its merger with
         iPCS

On July 15, 2002, certain plaintiffs and their counsel filed a
motion seeking appointment as lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.
Subsequently, the court denied this motion without prejudice and
two of the plaintiffs and their counsel filed a renewed motion
seeking appointment as lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.  On
September 12, 2003, the court again denied that motion without
prejudice and on December 2, 2003, certain plaintiffs and their
counsel filed a modified renewed motion seeking appointment as
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.

On August 17, 2004 the court granted the plaintiff's motion.
Pursuant to a consent scheduling order agreed to by the parties,
lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on October 15, 2004.  As did the original complaints
filed in these actions, the Consolidated Complaint alleges that
the Company's registration statement and prospectus relating to
the December 2001 offering misrepresented and/or omitted adverse
facts regarding the anticipated effects of the Company's
acquisition of iPCS.

The Consolidated Complaint also asserts that the registration
statement/prospectus was false and misleading in certain other
respects not previously alleged.  The legal claims asserted in
the Consolidated Complaint remain the same as those in the
original complaints, i.e. the registration statement/prospectus
violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.  In addition, the class that lead plaintiffs seek to
represent remains the same, and the named defendants remain the
same.

Defendants' responses to the Consolidated Complaint were due on
or before December 17, 2004.  In the event that any defendant
moves to dismiss, lead plaintiffs were to serve their opposition
by January 21, 2005, and defendants' reply briefs are due on or
before February 22, 2005.  On December 30, 2004, defendants
filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  The lead
plaintiffs have not yet responded to the motions to dismiss,
which have not yet been ruled upon by the court and remain
pending.

On September 30, 2005, the Court issued an opinion and order
(the "Order") ruling on these motions.  As to the AirGate
Defendants, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims under Section
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and also dismissed the remaining
Section 11 and Section 15 claims as to five of the six alleged
misstatements pled in the Consolidated Complaint, while
declining to dismiss the claims related to allegation (v) above,
concerning the iPCS network build-out. As to the Underwriter
Defendants, the Court granted the motion to dismiss in its
entirety.

The Order permitted plaintiffs to file a further amended
complaint, which plaintiffs did on October 19, 2005.  The Second
Amended Complaint repeats the allegations of the Consolidated
Complaint, and adds certain additional allegations regarding the
Underwriter Defendants and regarding plaintiffs' "allowance for
doubtful accounts" claim. Defendants' responses to the Second
Amended Complaint have not yet been filed.

The suit is styled "In Re: Airgate PCS, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 1:02-cv-01291-JOF," filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
under Judge J. Owen Forrester.

Representing the defendants are:

     (a) David Lewis Balser, McKenna Long & Aldridge, 303
         Peachtree Street, N.E. One Peachtree Center, Suite
         5300, Atlanta, GA 30308-3201, Phone: 404-527-4000, E-
         mail: dbalser@mckennalong.com;

     (b) Howard K. Coates, Jr., Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
         5355 Town Center Road, Suite 900 Boca Raton, FL 33486,
         Mail: 561-361-5000

     (c) David W.T. Daniels, David DeBold, John C. McMillan,
         Eric E. Sneider, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, 1050
         Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-5306,
         Phone: 202-955-8500

     (d) James David Dantzler, Jr., J. Timothy Mast, Troutman
         Sanders LLP, Bank of America Plaza, Suite 5200, 600
         Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30303, Phone: 404-885-
         3314, Fax: 404-962-6799, E-mail:
         david.dantzler@troutmansanders.com or
         tim.mast@troutmansanders.com

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

      *  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

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

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

      *  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

      *  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

      *  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


ALTRIA GROUP: IL High Court Overturns $10.1B "Lights" Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a highly anticipated ruling, the Illinois Supreme Court
reversed a $10.1 billion verdict against Philip Morris USA in a
case in which the largest U.S. cigarette maker was found to have
fooled smokers into thinking "light" cigarettes were healthier
than regular ones, The Financial Times reports.

The class action award, alleging that smokers were misled about
whether such cigarettes were safer, was seen as the most
challenging of three big cases remaining against Altria Group
Inc., the parent company, and may hasten a proposed corporate
break-up.

The ruling points to an improving litigation environment for
corporate America more broadly, as legislation to reform class
action law and a changing mood among judges begins to weaken the
power of plaintiff lawyers. Michael Greve, a class action expert
at the American Enterprise Institute, which advocates reform of
the American litigation system told The Financial Times, "Any
industry that confronts cases under consumer protection statutes
- and that is every industry in America - will breathe a huge
sigh of relief after this ruling."

Analysts told The Financial Times that the nature of the ruling
was a "best-case scenario" for Altria, since it made it harder
to bring similar class actions by smokers of "lights" in other
states. Bonnie Herzog of Citigroup told The Financial Times,
"The lights case has been the biggest hurdle for Altria's board
to break up its company and there is no question that it is now
much closer to this event."

Other than to say it was "gratified" by the court's decision,
Altria declined to comment further on the ruling. However, Louis
Camilleri, its chief executive, recently told analysts he
thought emerging legal "clarity" should pave the way for an
imminent restructuring likely to involve spinning off its Kraft
Foods subsidiary and possibly Philip Morris overseas businesses
too.

The Illinois court's ruling focused on the fact that the Federal
Trade Commission, the federal consumer protection watchdog, had
authorized tobacco companies to describe their products as
"light" or "low tar". The high court found that Illinois state
law precludes such suits when a federal agency has acted in this
way. The unanimous ruling stated, "The FTC could, and did,
specifically authorize all United States tobacco companies to
utilize the words 'low', 'lower', 'reduced' or like qualifying
terms, such as 'light.'"

Legal experts told The Financial Times that the high court's
opinion was written in such a way that review by the U.S.
Supreme Court is extremely unlikely. Additionally, in the words
of two justices who wrote a concurring opinion, the court makes
it clear that it disapproved more generally of such lawsuits, in
which the plaintiffs fail to establish "that they sustained
actual damages."

Although the Illinois court's ruling has no direct impact on
other state courts, the fact the state has long been among the
most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions means a change of heart by
its justices is viewed as significant nationwide. Professor Dick
Daynard of the Tobacco Control Resource Centre at Northeastern
University law school told The Financial Times, "One would be
foolish to bring a tobacco class action in Illinois or most
other kinds of consumer class actions in Illinois," says "The
court clearly is sending out signals that we don't like these
things."

The initial billion-dollar judgment in the class action case was
handed down against the cigarette maker by a trial court judge
in March 2003. The Supreme Court then took the unusual step of
bypassing the appellate court and hearing the case on appeal
directly from the trial court. Arguments were heard in November
2004 and investors and analysts have been awaiting a ruling ever
since, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (December 14,
2005) reports.

The case in question is known as Sharon Price and Michael Fruth
v. Philip Morris USA Inc. Madison County Circuit Court Judge
Nicholas Byron's $10.1 billion judgment in the case stated that
Philip Morris USA violated the provisions of Illinois' Consumer
Fraud Act, when it described Cambridge Lights and Marlboro
Lights as having "lowered tar and nicotine" content, which,
among other statements, had the effect of deceiving 1.1 million
Illinois smokers into believing that the "lights" were safer
than the more full-flavored regular cigarettes, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (April 21, 2003) reports.

The record-setting award spotlighted southern Illinois'
reputation for plaintiff-friendly rulings. Business groups and
other critics say downstate civil courts, especially in Madison
County, are too generous with verdicts against deep-pocketed
defendants, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (December 16,
2005) reports.

State governments all over America will be watching the Philip
Morris verdict, with an eye on their own budgets. This is due to
the fact that in 1998 forty-six states entered into a settlement
under which the tobacco industry agreed to pay $206 billion over
25 years to cover the states' smoking-related health costs. Most
states have come to rely on these annual payments. In theory,
these payments could be sharply reduced if Philip Morris, the
biggest money-provider in the settlement, goes bankrupt because
of a private suit, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(December 16, 2005) reports.

The suit is styled "Sharon Price and Michael Fruth, et al. v.
Philip Morris Incorporated, No. 00-L-112," now appealed before
the Illinois Supreme Court, on direct appeal from the Circuit
Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois.
Judge Nicholas Byron is the Presiding Judge in the case.  Class
Counsel is Stephen Tillery of Korein Tillery, Mail: #10
Executive Woods Court, Belleville, IL 62226, Phone:
(618) 277-1180, Fax: (618) 222-6939 E-mail:
contact@koreintillery.com.

Lawyers for the Company are:

     (1) James R. Thompson, George C. Lombardi, Jeffrey M.
         Wagner, Julie A. Bauer and Stuart Altschuler of Winston
         & Strawn LLP, 35 West Wacker Drive, Chicago IL 60601-
         9703, Phone: 312-558-5600

     (2) Michele Odorizzi, Joel D. Bertocchi, Michael K. Forde
         of MAYER, BROWN, ROWE & MAW LLP, 190 South LaSalle
         Street, Chicago, IL 60603-3441, Phone: 312-782-0600

     (3) Larry Hepler, Beth A. Bauer of BURROUGHS, HEPLER,
         BROOM, MacDONALD, HEBRANK & TRUE, LLP, 103 West
         Vandalia Street, Suite 300, Post Office Box 510,
         Edwardsville, IL 62025-0510 Phone: 618-656-0184

     (4) Kevin M. Forde, KEVIN M. FORDE, Ltd., 111 West
         Washington Street, Suite 1100, Chicago, IL 60602 Phone:
         312-641-1441


AUSTRIA: Starts Holocaust Compensation Process, Sends Letters
-------------------------------------------------------------
Austria recently began the process of compensating Holocaust
victims robbed under the Nazis by mailing notifications to the
first survivors eligible for payments, The Associated Press
reports.

The General Settlement Fund (GSF), which was created by Austria
in 2001 to compensate those stripped of businesses, property,
bank accounts and insurance policies under the Third Reich,
mailed the letters to 100 of the 19,300 survivors who have
applied. The general secretary of the fund, Hannah Lessing, told
The Associated Press that the letters say how much the victims
will receive, along with a form they must sign and return
promising not to sue Austria or Austrian companies that
benefited from the taken property

In addition, Ms. Lessing told The Associated Press, "This is the
first step in payment. Now the first payments can be made in the
next 10 days."

Andreas Kohl, Austria's parliament speaker and chairman of the
fund's board, told The Associated Press that he was determined
to see the first payments go out before year's end, and he
pledged to devote three hours on signing another 1,300 letters.
Earlier this year, the government and Austrian companies pledged
to pay $210 million to endow the fund once all Holocaust
litigation against Austria was resolved.

Vienna was home to a vibrant Jewish community of some 200,000
before World War II. Currently, it numbers about 7,000. A
spokeswoman for the community, Erika Jakubovits, told The
Associated Press that the group was "very satisfied" that the
first payments would soon be made.

Previously, the payments were delayed due to pending legal
action in the United States. That hurdle was cleared recently
due to two events: a New York court's decision essentially
dismissed class action lawsuits against Austrian businesses and
a ruling last month by a New York appellate court.

The December 7, 2005, ruling by the U.S. District Court in New
York paved the way for final compensation payments to Holocaust
survivors from Austria. It was greeted with relief by survivor
organizations and the Conference on Jewish Material Claims
Against Germany, parties to a settlement negotiated with the
Austrian government, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(December 13, 2005) reports.

Gideon Taylor, Claims Conference executive vice president told
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency that the resulting legal closure
means payments are imminent. Neither the Austrian government nor
businesses would agree to payments without insurance against
future lawsuits. Mr. Taylor further told The Jewish Telegraphic
Agency in a telephone interview, "This fund has been tied up in
legal knots in courts in the U.S., and this had deprived many
Austrian Holocaust survivors and their heirs of the symbolic
payments." He emphasizes though, "like most restitution
payments, this is not an issue of money." Mr. Taylor also
pointed out, "The amounts are small, but the property losses
were large. This is about symbolism. People are frustrated that
what was supposed to be a symbolic gesture turned into a legal
argument," an earlier Class Action Reporter story (December 13,
2005) reports.

All in all, Austrian restitution funds totaled about $500
million. However, the component from the $210 million GSF for
Austrian Jews created in January 2001 through negotiations with
the Claims Conference was held up until December 7. By that
date, Judge Shirley Wohl Kram of the Southern District of New
York dismissed the cases brought against the government and
industry of Austria by some Jews of Austrian background, and by
some heirs, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (December 13,
2005) reports.

Judge Kram threw out the suits after the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals, which had dismissed remaining Holocaust-related
lawsuits against Austria, ordered her on November 23 to resolve
the cases within 60 days. The Appeals Court called GSF a
preferable method of ensuring payments to victims of Nazism, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (December 13, 2005) reports.

In a 2-1 ruling, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New
York dismissed parts of a class action lawsuit by Austrian
Jewish victims of the Nazi regime in a ruling that may clear the
way for payouts from a settlement fund. Deferring to U.S.
foreign policy interests, the federal appeals court stated in
its ruling that it was "particularly mindful" of the federal
government's statement that dismissing the case would advance
its relations with Austria, Israel and Western, Central and
Eastern European nations. According to the court, the lawsuit
was the final case holding up implementation of an agreement
with Austria that established a fund to compensate Austrian Jews
whose property was confiscated during the Nazi era and World War
II. Essentially, distributions from the Austrian compensation
fund, which included $150 million to cover certain property
claims, were contingent on dismissal of the case, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (November 24, 2005) reports.

The plaintiffs in the case, which include present and former
nationals of Austria and their heirs and successors who suffered
from Nazi persecution between 1938 and 1945, brought the lawsuit
in October 2000 against the Republic of Austria and an
organization through which Austria owns, operates and controls
commercial enterprises. Austria asked for dismissal of the
lawsuit on the grounds of sovereign immunity, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (November 24, 2005) reports.

That lawsuit was the final case holding up implementation of an
agreement with Austria that established a fund to compensate
Austrian Jews whose property was confiscated during the Nazi era
and World War II, according to the appeals court. Distributions
from the Austrian compensation fund, which included $150 million
to cover certain property claims, were contingent on dismissal
of the case, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November
28, 2005) reports.

In 2002, Austrian officials signed an agreement with Ariel
Muzicant, the leader of Austria's Jews to compensate his
community for property stolen and destroyed during Nazi rule.
Under the deal, reached after months of negotiations, Austria's
nine provinces are to pay a total of $17 million (18.2 million
euros) in five yearly installments to the Jewish community, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 17, 2002) reports.

The federal government has come to terms with Austrian Jews and
their survivors on compensation. After signing the deal at a
meeting of governors in the Upper Austria city of Gmunden, some
110 miles west of Vienna, Josef Puehringer, the governor of
Upper Austria, said the deal settled an obligation to the
country's Jews.

We "have fulfilled our moral obligations," according to Mr.
Puehringer. "With this agreement, an important chapter has been
closed."

Local leaders also said that the first installment would be paid
only after two wartime-related class actions pending in the
United States against the Austrian government are withdrawn, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 17, 2002) reports.


BEAZER HOMES: NV High Court Overturns Construction Defects Award
----------------------------------------------------------------
A multimillion-dollar construction defects award was recently
overturned by a unanimous Nevada Supreme Court decision, which
held that the case was improperly given class action status by a
lower court judge, The Las Vegas Sun reports.

The ruling, which favors Beazer Homes Holding Corporation, went
against homeowners who sued the company after finding cracks in
foundations, walls and driveways at their North Las Vegas
properties allegedly caused by expansive soil conditions. In the
ruling, Justice Jim Hardesty wrote, "Because single-family
residence constructional defect litigation often raises diverse,
individualized claims and defenses, we conclude that, generally,
the requirements for class action certification cannot be met."

In arguments before the Supreme Court, a Beazer attorney
contends that a defect lawsuit involving The Villages at Craig
Ranch homes should never have been made a class action case, and
that a $7.3 million jury verdict should be overturned. With
interest, costs and attorneys fees, the total value of the case
is about $15.6 million.

However, attorneys for 200 Craig Ranch Village homeowners
countered that class action status was appropriate since the
damages suffered were predominantly related to concrete pads
that did not conform to the subdivision's soil conditions. The
homeowners had sought nearly $25 million.

Plaintiffs' attorneys are seeking nearly $25 million in damages
caused by the soil, including completely replacing the slabs in
more than 50 homes and the consequent displacement of those
residents. The homeowners claim they were not told about
expansive soil conditions at the site of the development, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 19, 2002) reports.

Robert Carlson, defense attorney, countered that while Beazer
Homes recognizes that there are problems with some of the homes
at Craig Ranch, the damage is not as extensive as the lawsuit
implies. Mr. Carlson noted that Beazer estimates the total cost
of repairs to be about $2.9 million, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (November 19, 2002) reports.

The case involving Atlanta-based Beazer, which built the homes
between 1994 and 1999, resulted in one of the longest and
largest construction defect trials in Nevada history. The trial
that began in 2002 lasted three months.

With the Supreme Court ruling though new trials on all issues in
the case will now be necessary. Beazer attorneys have said a
retrial of each case would be best for both the court system and
the individuals with claims.

In the trial that ended in February 2003, a 12-person jury,
awarded $7.8 million in home construction defect damages to some
200 homeowners at Craig Ranch Village, a North Las Vegas
residential development constructed by Beazer. Attorneys for the
homeowners were requesting $23.7 million to repair cracks in
foundations, walls and driveways allegedly caused by expansive
soil conditions. However, Beazer Homes contended that it would
cost only $3.4 million to fix the homes. Less than 10 homes had
serious damage. About 50 homes were classified into three
categories of damages, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(February 13, 2003) reports.

In addition to awarding damages, the jury cleared Beazer of any
violations of implied or expressed warranties and found
contributing negligence by both the class action members and
Beazer. Seven percent contributory negligence was allocated to
the homeowners and 93 percent to the builder. After that Judge
Allan Earl, the presiding judge in the case said that the jurors
performed their duties well, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (February 13, 2003) reports.


CALIFORNIA: FAIR Backs Suit V. Tuition Discounts For Illegals
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) expressed
support for some 60,000 U.S. citizens who are seeking damages
resulting from California's illegal and discriminatory tuition
policies at state-run colleges and universities in a landmark
class action lawsuit, The PHXNews reports.

According to Dan Stein, president of FAIR, "The in-state tuition
policy in California was implemented in brazen disregard for the
law. Under the California policy, illegal aliens have greater
rights and privileges than American citizens."

The California legislature granted in-state tuition benefits to
illegal aliens attending schools in the California State and
community college systems. The Board of Regents adopted a
similar policy for students attending the state's ten top tier
University of California institutions. In a clear indication
that they knew the policy was illegal, the regents sought and
were granted immunity from the legislature, before implementing
their policy.

Mr. Stein pointed out, "In this California case, there are some
60,000 individuals who are being directly discriminated against,
to the tune of many thousands of dollars each, by an overtly
illegal policy of the state." He goes on to state, "We believe
the facts in this case are clear and the damage to these
students is incontrovertible. Congress was very clear about what
they had in mind when they approved 8 U.S.C., Section 1623, of
the 1996 Immigration Act. We believe the students will prevail
and this case will set a precedent that sends a clear message to
states that enacting policies favoring illegal aliens over
American citizens is illegal."

Out-of-state college students initiated the lawsuit challenging
the law that lets some illegal immigrants who graduate from
California high schools to pay lower in-state fees at the
state's public colleges and universities. That 2002 law
essentially allows students who attend at least three years of
high school in California to qualify for the same in-state fee
break given California citizens, regardless of their immigration
status. The lower fee levels can save students thousands of
dollars a year. For example, out-of-state students pay nearly
$24,000 a year to attend the University of California, about
$17,000 more than California residents, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (December 16, 2005) reports.

Filed in Yolo County, California, the suit, which challenges the
law that allows undocumented students to qualify for lower in-
state tuition rates, was brought on behalf of 42 plaintiffs,
including two children of a former San Diego congressman.
Plaintiffs' attorneys say that the discriminatory policy affects
60,000 out-of-state students who pay higher fees than in-state
illegal immigrants and will be seeking damages, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (December 16, 2005) reports.

At issue is a federal law the plaintiffs claim specifically bars
states from offering benefits to illegal immigrants without also
making them available to U.S. citizens. California is one of
nine states with such laws. A lawsuit filed in federal court in
Kansas challenging that state's law was dismissed, but is being
appealed, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (December 16,
2005) reports.

To qualify for the in-state rate, students must have attended a
California high school for at least three years, must graduate
from a California high school and must sign an affidavit
declaring that they will seek to become legal residents as soon
as it is feasible, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(December 16, 2005) reports.

The suit filing was triggered when former Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-
San Diego, discovered that his children would have to pay more
than $2,000 to attend community college after attending private
school in Virginia. Asked for comment by The Associated Press,
former Assemblyman Marco Firebaugh, D-South Gate, who wrote the
California law, did not return a phone call to his Los Angeles
office, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (December 16,
2005) reports.


CALIFORNIA: SF International Airport Settles With Deaf Advocates
----------------------------------------------------------------
As part of a settlement in a class action lawsuit filed by
disability-advocacy groups more than three years ago, San
Francisco International Airport will bolster its communications
equipment for deaf travelers and pay monetary damages, The San
Francisco Examiner reports.

Under the agreement, the airport will add 80 visual paging
monitors to its domestic and international terminals and boost
its number of text telephones. The monitors, which the airport
already has 46, enable deaf and hard-of-hearing passengers to
access information from the public address system.

In addition, the airport also agreed to award $40,000 in
combined monetary damages, including $20,000 to the Deaf
Counseling, Advocacy and Referral Agency, $8,000 to the
California Center for Law and the Deaf and $12,000 to Colin
Piotrowski, a deaf San Leandro man who was one of the case's
original plaintiffs.

Commenting on the agreement, Mr. Piotrowski said in a news
release, "With these new changes, SFO is going to be one of the
best airports in the country for people who are deaf."

The concessions resolve a federal lawsuit filed in April 2002,
alleging the airport violated state law and the Americans with
Disabilities Act by failing to provide deaf and hard of hearing
travelers full access to airport information. The Disability
Rights Advocates and the California Center for the Deaf filed
the suit in the United States District for the Northern District
of California.

Accusing the airport of failing to provide adequate access to
deaf and hard-of-hearing travelers, the suit, seeks class action
status. Additionally, the suit also accuses the airport, which
is owned and operated by the city and county of San Francisco,
of failing to inform deaf passengers when they are to board,
wrongly bumping them from flights and failing to notify them of
gate changes, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (April 18,
2002) reports.

The suit is styled, "Deaf Counseling, Advocacy and Referral
Agency et al v. San Francisco Airport Commission et al, Case No.
3:02-cv-01844," filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Northern California, under Judge Maria-Elena
James. Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Melissa W. Kasnitz and
Kevin Martin Knestrick of Disability Rights Advocates, 2001
Center St., 3rd Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704, Phone: 510-665-8644,
Fax: 510-665-8511, E-mail: mkasnitz@dralegal.org and
kknestrick@dralegal.org; and J. Kendrick Kresse of California
Center for Law and the Deaf, 14895 East 14th St., Suite 220, San
Leandro, CA 94578, Phone: 510-483-0922, Fax: 510-483-0967, E-
mail: Ken.Kresse@deaflaw.org. Representing the Defendants is
Ellen Shapiro, SF City Attorney's Office, 1390 Market St., 6th
Floor, San Francisco, CA 94114, Phone: 415-554-3879, E-mail:
ellen_shapiro@sfgov.org.


CHUBB CORPORATION: Policyholders Sue Over Commission Agreements
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Company and several of its subsidiaries continue to face
class actions in various federal and state courts, related to
the use of contingent commission agreements.  The suits also
name as defendants several brokers and insurers.

One suit is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of the Company's alleged
policyholders, or persons who purchased insurance through the
broker defendants.  The suit asserts claims under the Sherman
Act and state law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"), arising from the unlawful use of
contingent commission agreements.  The complaint seeks treble
damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees.

The Company also has been named in two purported class actions
in state court relating to allegations of unlawful use of
contingent commission arrangements.  The first was filed in
Seminole County, Florida.  The second, filed on May 17, 2005,
was filed in Essex County, Massachusetts.  In both actions, the
plaintiffs generally allege that the Company and the other non-
affiliated defendants unlawfully used contingent commission
agreements.  The actions seek unspecified damages and attorneys'
fees.


CITIZENS INC.: TX Court Yet To Rule on Suit Certification Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Texas has yet to rule on Citizens, Inc.'s
appeal of a lower court decision affirming in part class
certification for a lawsuit filed against it, styled "Delia
Bolanos Andrade, et al v. Citizens Insurance Company of America,
Citizens, Inc., Negocios Savoy, S.A., Harold E. Riley, and Mark
A. Oliver, Case Number 99-09099."

The suit was filed in Travis County, Texas district court.  The
suit alleges that life insurance policies offered or sold to
certain non-U.S. residents by Citizens Insurance Company of
America (CICA) are actually "securities" that were offered or
sold in Texas by unregistered dealers in violation of the
registration provisions of the Texas securities laws. The suit
seeks class action status naming as a class all non-U.S.
residents who purchased insurance policies or made premium
payments since August 1996 and assigned policy dividends to an
overseas trust for the purchase of the Company's Class A common
stock.  The remedy sought is rescission of the insurance premium
payments.

In July 31,2002, the court granted class certification to the
suit.  On April 24, 2003, the Court of Appeals for the Third
District of Texas affirmed the ruling in part and modified it in
part.  The Supreme Court of Texas granted the Company's Petition
for Review and heard oral arguments on the case on October 21,
2004.  The Company believes the Plaintiffs' claim under the
Texas Securities Act is not valid and the class defined is not
appropriate for class certification and does not meet the legal
requirements for class action treatment under Texas law.

Recent decisions from the Texas Supreme Court indicate a more
defense-oriented approach to class certification cases,
especially in class action cases encompassing claimants from
more than one state or jurisdiction. Although a decision is not
expected until sometime in 2005, the Company expects the Supreme
Court of Texas will ultimately rule in the Company's favor,
decertify the class and remand the matter to district court for
further action. During the time of the Company's appeal to the
Texas Supreme Court, there are no further district court
proceedings in the case.


CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: Continues To Face PA Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Constar International, Inc. continues to face a consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, styled "In re
Constar International, Inc. Securities Litigation (Master File
No. 03-CV-05020)" after the court refused to dismiss it.  The
suit also names as defendants certain of its present and former
directors, Crown Holdings, Inc., as well as various underwriters
of its initial public offering.

This action consolidates previous lawsuits, namely "Parkside
Capital LLC v. Constar International Inc. et al. (Civil Action
No. 03-5020)," filed on September 5, 2003 and "Walter Frejek v.
Constar International Inc. et al. (Civil Action No. 03-5166),"
filed on September 15, 2003. The consolidated and amended
complaint, filed June 17, 2004, generally alleges that the
registration statement and prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering of its common stock on November 14, 2002
contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions.
Plaintiffs claim that defendants in these lawsuits violated
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiffs
seek class action certification and an award of damages and
litigation costs and expenses.

Under the Company's charter documents, an agreement with Crown
and an underwriting agreement with Crown and the underwriters,
the Company has incurred certain indemnification and
contribution obligations to the other defendants with respect to
this lawsuit. The court denied the Company's motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted on
June 7, 2005 and the Company's answer was filed on August 8,
2005.

The suit is styled "In re Constar International Inc. Securities
Litigation (Master File No. 03-CV-05020," filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernard M. Gross, 1500 Walnut Street, Suite 600,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215.561.3600, Fax:
         215.561.3000, E-mail: bmgross@BernardMGross.com

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

     (3) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102 Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com

     (4) Fruchter & Twersky, 60 East 42 Street, New York, NY,
         10021, Phone: 212.687.6655,

     (5) Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego,
         CA), 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San
         Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800.449.4900, E-mail:
         support@milberg.com

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


CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: Trial in FL Injury Suit Set January 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the litigation filed against Constar International,
Inc. in the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida is set for
January 2006.

The Company's former and current employees of its Orlando,
Florida facility filed the suit, seeking unspecified monetary
damages and alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to
off-gasses from polyvinyl chloride (PVC) during the manufacture
of plastic bottles from 1980 to 1987.  PVC suppliers and a
manufacturer of the manufacturing equipment used to process the
PVC are also defendants.  The litigation is currently in the
discovery stage.

On May 5, 2005, the court denied the Company's motion for
summary judgment, which had been brought as to one of the
plaintiffs.  A trial with respect to this plaintiff is scheduled
to commence in January 2006.


DANIER LEATHER: Ontario Appellate Court Dismisses IPO Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Danier Leather Inc. (TSX: DL.SV) reports that the Ontario Court
of Appeal allowed its appeal from the May 2004 judgment of the
Superior Court of Justice (Ontario) in the matter of a class
action concerning the Company's initial public offering ("IPO")
in 1998.

In its unanimous decision, a panel of the Court of Appeal
allowed the appeal on three separate grounds, set aside the
trial decision and dismissed the class action.  The decision
stated that the Danier Leather, a leading integrated designer,
manufacturer, and retailer of high-quality leather and suede
clothing and accessories, had met its statutory disclosure
obligations during the IPO process. It noted that the Company's
achievement of its financial forecast was a relevant
consideration. And it stated that greater deference should have
been accorded the business judgment of the Company's senior
management, judgment that turned out to be correct.

Edwin Hawken, Chairman of the Board of Danier Leather Inc.,
said, "We're delighted with this decision of Ontario's highest
Court. It vindicates the conduct of the Company, its directors
and its senior officers during the IPO process."

Jeffrey Wortsman, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Danier Leather Inc., noted, "I'm pleased with the decision of
the Court of Appeal. The Company can continue to focus its
attention on the business, on meeting the needs of our
customers, and on creating value for our shareholders."

For more details, contact Investor Relations Contact: Danier
Leather Inc. Jeffrey Wortsman President and Chief Executive
Officer, Phone: (416) 762-8175 ext. 302, Fax: (416) 762-7408, E-
mail: leather@danier.com; and Danier Leather Inc. Bryan Tatoff
Senior Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer, Phone:
(416) 762-8175 ext. 328, Fax: (416) 762-6072, E-mail:
bryan@danier.com.


DYNAMICS RESEARCH: Employees Launch FLSA Violations in MA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dynamics Research Corporation faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and certain
provisions of Massachusetts General Laws.

The Company believes that its practices comply with the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Massachusetts General Laws.  The Company
has moved to have the complaint removed from Federal Court and
addressed in accordance with the company's mandatory Dispute
Resolution Program for the arbitration of workplace complaints,
the Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.


EASTMAN KODAK: Securities Fraud Suits Consolidated in W.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class actions filed against Eastman Kodak Co. and
two of its current executives have been consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Western District of New
York.

Several suits were initially filed, alleging claims under the
Securities Exchange Act on behalf of a proposed class of persons
who purchased securities of the Company between April 23, 2003
and September 25, 2003, inclusive.  The substance of the
Complaints is that various press releases and other public
statements made by the Company during the proposed class period
allegedly misrepresented the Company's financial condition and
omitted material information regarding, among other things, the
state of the Company's film and paper business.

The cases have been consolidated in the Western District of New
York and the lead plaintiffs are John Dudek and the Alaska
Electrical Pension Fund.

The first identified suit in the litigation is styled "Herbert
T. King, et al. v. Eastman Kodak Company, et al.," filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-753-2796,

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

     (3) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San
         Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101,
         Phone: 206.749.5544, Fax: 206.749.9978, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com

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

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


GE CONSUMER: Recalls 6.6T Various Gas Ranges Due to Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), GE Consumer & Industrial, of Louisville, Kentucky is
voluntarily recalling about 6,600 units of GE Monogramr 36-inch
and 48-inch Professional Gas Ranges.

According to the Company, these ranges were manufactured with a
design flaw that can cause an electrical arc between the wiring
and adjacent gas supply tubes at two locations in the control
housing of the range, posing a fire hazard. GE has received
reports of six incidents of fire in the control area of these
ranges. No injuries or property damage have been reported.

The recalled GE Monogram built-in ranges include models
ZDP48N6RH1SS, ZDP48L6RH1SS, ZDP48N4GH1SS, ZDP48L4GH1SS,
ZDP48N6DH1SS, ZDP48L6DH1SS, ZDP36N4DH1SS, and ZDP36L4DH1SS. The
recalled ranges have serial numbers starting with DG, FG, GG,
HG, LG, MG, RG, SG, TG, VG, ZG, AH, DH, FH, GH, HH, LH, MH, RH,
SH. To find the model and serial number, look underneath the top
ledge (also called the "bull nose"), above the range controls.
They were manufactured from February 1, 2004 to October 1, 2005.

Manufactured in the U.S.A., the gas ranges were sold by
homebuilders and by appliance stores nationwide from February
2004 through November 2005 for between $4,000 and $6,000.

Customers who have purchased one of these recalled ranges should
contact GE to schedule a free, in-home repair. Until the repair
is completed, consumers should stop using the griddle on the 36-
inch and 48-inch models, and the left front burner on the 48-
inch models. The large oven and all other burners can be used.

Consumer Contact: Consumers should call the Recall Hotline at
(866) 696-7583 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday and between 8 a.m. and 2 p.m. ET on Saturdays to see if
their range is included in this recall, and to arrange for a
free service call. Information on the recall is also included in
the Recall Information page at http://GEAppliances.com.Firm's
Media Contact: All media calls should be referred to Kim
Freeman, GE Consumer & Industrial global public relations
manager, at (502) 452-7819 or kim_freeman@ge.com.


ILLINOIS: Towns to Settle Suit Over Fees on Cellular Phone Bills
----------------------------------------------------------------
Winnetka and most of its North Shore neighbors in the state of
Illinois are among nearly 400 municipalities statewide that will
pay out more than $16 million to settle a class action lawsuit
over the legality of a local fee on cellular telephone bills,
The Pioneer Press Online reports.

Under terms of the settlement, which was approved by Cook County
Circuit Court, the communities will repay 70 percent of the
money that they collected in a 1 percent fee on local cell phone
bills from January 1, 1998, to February 8, 2002. The fee was
created under a 1997 state law that the Illinois Supreme Court
eventually ruled unconstitutional.

Villages say they are closing the books on money that has been
in question for years. In addition, they are also avoiding the
possibility of a much larger payout for money collected on
landlines.

Since it was considered too difficult to link rebates to past
customers, most of the money will go into public funds for 911
centers and grants to hospitals for emergency services for poor
people. The plaintiffs named in the lawsuit will receive a
nominal settlement, while the attorneys will get up to one-third
of the settlement.

Albert Rigoni, Skokie Village Manager told The Pioneer Press
Online, "The municipalities were always facing the fact that the
Illinois Supreme Court had declared the cellular tax
unconstitutional, so that was sort of the death knell of that
whole piece of the lawsuit. Nobody liked to give that money
back, but as they say, the cards were not in our favor." Mr.
Skokie was appointed to lead the defense for the municipalities
in the case.

Also under the settlement terms, the villages are required to
make an 85-percent payback for fees collected from PrimeCo
customers. That company, which is now U.S. Cellular, had more
precise records of amounts collected, according to Mr. Rigoni.

Villages are supposed to pay the money by December 19, although
they have the option to seek an extension to early next year.
Most North Shore towns are settling the bill this month, mostly
with money set aside in recent years. Skokie itself will pay
about $270,000, although it will also receive $60,000 to offset
its costs in leading the defense. Wilmette's tab is $122,826.

Tim Frenzer, Wilmette village attorney, told The Pioneer Press
Online, "We ended up escrowing essentially 80 percent of what we
need to pay under the judgments. It doesn't affect our operating
budget. If the land line (fees) would have been overturned, that
would have been a lot of money. You would have been talking half
a million probably."

Mr. Frenzer explains that the villages ended up on the hook for
the settlement because of a political decision to call the
surcharge a fee instead of a tax. Fees are supposed to be tied
to costs of using the public right-of-way, and the court found
that cellular companies for the most part don't impose on public
land. The state fixed that language in a 2002 law, and the money
Wilmette has collected on bills since that time is unaffected by
the lawsuit settlement.

In the coming week, Glencoe will issue checks for a total of
$50,299, about half of what was set aside for the lawsuit,
according to Finance Director David Clark. Winnetka's share of
the settlement was similar, at $54,514, and had been anticipated
in the budget. Ed McKee, Winnetka's finance director told The
Pioneer Press Online, "It's not going to cause any budgetary
problems."


INDIAN TRUST: Cobell v. Norton Case Still Deadlocked in House
-------------------------------------------------------------
The House Resources Committee heard comments from both the
Department of Interior and from plaintiffs in the Cobell v.
Norton case on a bill designed to settle the lengthy and
expensive trust fund litigation, however neither side offered
any new information that would move them off their deadlocked
positions, The Indian Country Today reports.

Eloise Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet tribe of Montana and
lead plaintiff in the case, told the House committee that even
though the case could yield her side more than $176 billion, she
was willing to have it settled for $27.5 billion. According to
her, because of the Interior Department's poor record keeping
over the past 118 years, the government has no idea how much of
the trust fund it has paid out. Ms. Cobell also said that the
"discounted" $27.5 billion settlement figure assumes 80 percent
of the fund has been paid out, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (December 14, 2005) reports.

"Large crimes incur large consequences," Ms. Cobell told the
committee. She also said a legislative settlement would be in
the best interest of everyone involved, including the taxpayers
who have footed the government's $100 million legal and
accounting fees to date and the Native Americans who hope to be
reimbursed during their lifetimes. Ms. Cobell added that she
hoped the House bill would put and end to the Interior
Department's "foot-dragging" in the case. There have been
previous attempts by Congress to settle the case in both 2000
and 2002, but neither yielded any result, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (December 14, 2005) reports.

James Cason, associate deputy secretary of the Interior told the
committee that his department claims that there is very little
discrepancy in the accounting pointing out that some funds are
owed to lease holders, others owed to the government. He also
told the committee, "It is clear the plaintiff's public claim
that $176 billion is owed is inflated, to say the least." The
hearing was one of many that will be held to complete work on
House Bill 4322, or the Indian Trust Reform Act of 2005. Mr.
Cason contends, "The $27.5 billion figure is based on evidence
that does not support it." He adds, "There are errors, but not
many of them. We asked four of the five largest accounting firms
if there was any systemic errors or evidence of fraud and the
answers were 'No.'"

According to Mr. Cason's testimony, the accounting did not take
place for any time period prior to 1994. The federal court
opinion required the accounting to be conducted from 1887
forward. "We are trying not to speculate on what happened in
older time periods. The accounting is limited in older time
periods and what information we have now shows there is no
significant problem," according to him. "We are trying not to
speculate on the error rate of older periods," he said.

Ms. Cobell informed the committee that the government and the
plaintiffs agreed with the $13 billion figure that went into the
trust and with the compounded interest the $176 billion figure
was arrived at by the plaintiffs. According to her, "By failing
to acknowledge problems, they continue the century-old
tradition. They don't know how much was paid. There [we]re so
many records destroyed they know it is impossible to come up
with an accounting. That's why the $27.5 billion is a bargain.
Don't waste money on what we regard as highly questioned
accounting."

The government has spent $100 million in litigation and an equal
amount in accounting and the documentation of current records
and the cost will only continue to rise as the litigation
continues.

The funds in question belong to the Individual Indian Money
(IIM) account holders and are not an entitlement of program
funding. It represents money owed to the landowners for lease
and royalty payments.

"The department [of Interior] knows it can't do an accurate
accounting and recent decisions made in the appellate court do
not allow for the historic accounting," according to Ms. Cobell.

Any errors are not a matter of any malfeasance or nonfeasance,
Ms. Cason said in response to a question from Rep. Dale Kildee,
D-Michigan. He explains that the problems are a causal effect of
statutory history because Congress never included instructions
about accounting before 1994. "There are no clear directions of
what the expectations are; that's one of the fundamental flaws,"
he said.

The government defines IIM account holders as individuals who
had an account open on the date after the 1994 Trust Reform Act.
A major problem faced by Interior is the fractionation of land.
Fractionation means at times a parcel of land can be owned by up
to 1,000 individuals, which makes account reconciliation a
difficult task.

The issue is further complicated by animosity from both sides
and 100 years of administering a fiduciary trust by the federal
government, according to Mr. Cason. That animosity has widened
the gap between the two sides and made a reasonable settlement
difficult at best. He pointed out though that the department has
not personalized the issues involved and that it tries to be
open and forthright about the situation.

"I'm looking for a positive statement, there is a lot of anger
on this issue, I am very angry about this. I don't want you to
explain to me why people aren't angry, I want you to explain to
me what you can do to get off center on this," said Rep. Jay
Inslee, D-Washington.

Mr. Cason told the committee that the department had been an
active participant in a variety of efforts to find solutions,
and that the solutions have not been successful because of
differences in what is fair and reasonable. He said, "There are
reasons for people to be angry on both sides of the fence. I try
to be dispassionate and will do and continue to do and work with
the committee to find a common ground. I suggest the plaintiffs
have the same effort."

The plaintiffs regard the role of Interior and of the Justice
Department as not a good-faith effort. "Indian country worked to
resolve this case," Ms. Cobell said, referring to the Indian
Land Working Group that submitted a list of 50 principles and
the $27.5 billion settlement figure.

The House Resource Committee hearing was to help complete the
proposed legislation that committee members offer as a work in
progress. Both sides agree legislative action would be
acceptable, but when it comes to the money figure the government
is opposed and when future administration of the settlement
funds are left in the hands of the treasury, the plaintiffs are
angered.

The U.S. Treasury is named as a defendant in the Cobell case.
The plaintiffs want any funds to be distributed and managed by
the courts, considered neutral territory. However, from comments
made by senators and congressmen, it could be assumed that the
courts will not be administering any of the funds, should there
be any.

Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, R-California, chairman of the
House Committee on Resources and sponsor of the settlement bill,
said the dollar figure submitted by both sides is an educated
guess. Ms. Cobell claims that the government uses figures from
$10 billion to $40 billion. At $27.5 million, the plaintiffs are
somewhere in the middle. "You don't know how much was paid out,
because they don't know how much was paid out," Rep. Pombo said.
In the end, Ms. Cobell said she wants to see every dollar
accounted for. Despite the outcome of the hearing, committee
members agreed that the lawsuit and dispute has gone on too
long.

Over the summer, Senators John McCain, R-Arizona, and Byron
Dorgan, D-North Dakota, leaders of the Senate Committee on
Indian Affairs, co-authored the latest bill to settle the case.
The recent committee hearing considered the House version of the
bill.

The case involves 500,000 Native Americans who are asking the
Interior Department to account for the billions of dollars in
their ancestors' land and natural resource assets the federal
government has held in trust since 1887. The issue of how to
determine what is owed the Indians has gone back and forth from
U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth to the appeals court
repeatedly during the almost 10 years since. Filed in 1996 by
Blackfeet Indian Elouise Cobell, the case styled, Cobell v.
Norton, became the longest and largest class action suit brought
against the government, involves royalties for farming, grazing,
mining, logging and other economic activities on tribal lands.
The suit dates back to the 1880s, when the government, trying to
break up reservations, "allotted" some Indian lands, giving 40
to 160 acres to some individual Native Americans. Back then the
government leased the lands for oil, gas, timber, grazing and
coal, and collected the fees to put into trust funds for Indians
and their survivors, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(December 14, 2005) reports.

The suit is styled "Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al., on her own
behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. GALE
NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al., case no. 96-1285
(RCL)," filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, under Judge Royce C. Lamberth.
Representing the defendants are Robert E. Kirschman, Jr. and
Sandra Peavler Spooner of the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 1100 L
Street, NW Suite 10008, Washington, DC 20005, Phone:
(202) 616-0328, E-mail: robert.kirschman@usdoj.gov or
sandra.spooner@usdoj.gov. Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mark Kester Brown, 607 14th Street, NW Washington, DC
         20005-2000, Phone: (775) 542-4938, Fax: 202-318-2372,
         E-mail: mkesterbrown@attglobal.net

     (2) Dennis M. Gingold, 607 14th Street, NW 9th Floor,
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 824-1448, Fax: 202-
         318-2372, E-mail: dennismgingold@aol.com

     (3) Richard A. Guest and Keith M. Harper, NATIVE AMERICAN
         RIGHTS FUND, 1712 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-
         2976, Phone: (202) 785-4166, Fax: 202-822-0068, E-mail:
         richardg@narf.org or harper@narf.org

     (4) Elliott H. Levitas, KILPATRICK STOCKTON, LLP, 607 14th
         Street, NW Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202)
         508-5800, Fax: 202-508-5858, E-mail:
         elevitas@kilpatrickstockton.com.


ISRAEL: Former Military Chief Faces War Crimes Suit in DC Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The former Chief of Staff of Israel's military was charged in a
U.S. federal court with war crimes and crimes against humanity,
The Free Speech Radio News reports.

The class action lawsuit was filed against retired General Moshe
Ya'alon in a D.C. federal court in connection to the hundreds of
civilian deaths and injuries resulting from the 1996 shelling of
the United Nations compound in Qana, south Lebanon. Over 100
civilians who had sought shelter from Israeli shelling were
killed in the attack, and hundreds others were wounded,
including U.N. personnel.

The suit was filed on behalf of the sole survivor of a 10-member
family, among others. According to the complaint, as head of
Israeli army Intelligence, Gen. Ya'alon participated in the
decision to shell the clearly marked U.N. compound at Qana and
commanded responsibility for the attack.

The suit follows a complaint filed recently against Avi Dichter,
Israel's former intelligence chief, for his role in the decision
to drop a one-ton bomb on a crowded residential neighborhood in
Gaza City in July of 2002. Fifteen Palestinians were killed and
hundreds more injured in that attack.

Brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights, the suit
against Mr. Dichter seeks unspecified damages for what it calls
a "targeted assassination" in which the Israeli Air Force
dropped a 2,205-pound bomb on an apartment building in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory. According to the suit, the
bombing killed Saleh Mustafa Shehadeh, purportedly a leader of
Hamas, on an upper floor of the building, partially destroyed
nine other buildings and damaged 21 more. Eight of the 15 killed
were children, and another 150 people were injured. The
plaintiffs seek to hold Mr. Dichter responsible under customary
international law and the Torture Victim Protection Act. They
pointed out that the court would have jurisdiction for human
rights violations and war crimes under the U.S. Alien Tort
Claims Act, a law that has been used by Holocaust survivors and
relatives of people killed or tortured under despotic regimes
from South America to the Philippines. Additionally, the lawsuit
says that the bombing occurred as part of a series of targeted
attacks on suspected terrorists that has killed 327 people and
at least 174 non-targeted bystanders, including at least 47
children, since September 2000. It claims that Mr. Dichter had
"developed, implemented and escalated the practice of targeted
killings," an earlier Class Action Reporter story (December 12,
2005) reports.

The suit is styled, "BELHAS et al v. YA'ALON, Case No. 1:05-cv-
02167-PLF," filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, under Judge Paul L. Friedman. Representing
the Plaintiff/s are, James R. Klimaski of KLIMASKI & ASSOCIATES,
PC, 1819 L. Street NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20036-3830,
Phone: (202) 296-5600, Fax: (202) 296-5601, E-mail:
klimaski@klimaskilaw.com.


ITXC CORPORATION: 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 ITXC
Corporation and certain of its former officers and directors.

Several purported shareholder class action lawsuits were
initially commenced in 2001, alleging, among other things, that,
in connection with the Company's public offerings of securities,
its prospectus did not disclose certain alleged practices
involving its underwriters and their customers. These actions
seek compensatory and other damages, and costs and expenses
associated with the litigation. No discovery has taken place
with respect to the Company and the other issuer defendants.

The Company is one of hundreds of companies named in
substantially identical lawsuits.  All of these cases have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes before Judge Scheindlin in
the Southern District of New York, who refused to dismiss the
cases in an opinion issued in February 2003.  All of the
individual defendants who had been named as defendants in the
Company's case have now been dismissed from the proceeding
without prejudice, pursuant to a stipulation with the
plaintiffs. Neither the individual defendants nor the Company
nor its insurers paid any consideration for these dismissals.

The issuer defendants, their insurance carriers and the
plaintiffs have negotiated a settlement pursuant to which the
insurance carriers would fund any monetary consideration.  This
settlement was approved by the court on February 15, 2005 on a
preliminary basis. Under the terms of the proposed settlement,
the Company would be dismissed from the litigation with
prejudice and should neither have future liability to plaintiffs
nor any significant expenses in connection with the litigation,
except for a limited obligation to cooperate in discovery in the
plaintiffs' continuing cases against the underwriters.

The suit is styled "In Re ITXC Corporation Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "IN re IPO
Securities Litigation, 21-MC-92 (Sas)," 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


MARQUEE HOLDINGS: Fairness Hearing for MO Suit Settlement Held
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri held a fairness
hearing on December 2,2005 for the settlement of the litigation
filed against Marquee Holdings, Inc., its directors, Apollo
Management and AMC Entertainment, Inc., relating to the
Company's merger with Apollo.

On July 22, 2004, two lawsuits purporting to be class actions
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
one naming the Company, the Company's directors, Apollo
Management and certain entities affiliated with Apollo as
defendants and the other naming the Company, the Company's
directors, Apollo Management and Holdings as defendants. Those
actions were consolidated on August 17, 2004. The plaintiffs in
the consolidated action filed an amended complaint in the
Chancery Court on October 22, 2004 and moved for expedited
proceedings on October 29, 2004.

On July 23, 2004, three more lawsuits purporting to be class
actions were filed in the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
Missouri, each naming the Company and the Company's directors as
defendants. These lawsuits were consolidated on September 27,
2004. The plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed an amended
complaint in the Circuit Court of Jackson County on October 29,
2004. The Company filed a motion to stay the case in deference
to the prior-filed Delaware action and separate motion to
dismiss the case in the alternative on November 1, 2004.

In both the Delaware action and the Missouri action, the
plaintiffs generally allege that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the Merger, that
the transaction is unfair to the minority stockholders of the
Company, that the merger consideration is inadequate and that
the defendants pursued their own interests at the expense of the
stockholders.  The lawsuits seek, among other things, to recover
unspecified damages and costs and to enjoin or rescind the
Merger and related transactions.

On November 23, 2004, the parties in this litigation entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding providing for the settlement
of both the Missouri action and the Delaware action.  Pursuant
to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, the parties
agreed, among other things, that:

     (1) the Company would waive Section 6.4(a)(C) of the merger
         agreement to permit the Company to provide non-public
         information to potential interested parties in response
         to any bona fide unsolicited written acquisition
         proposals by such parties (which it did),

     (2) the Company would make certain disclosures requested by
         the plaintiff in the proxy statement and the related
         Schedule 13E-3 in connection with the special meeting
         to approve the Merger (which it did) and

     (3) the Company would pay, on behalf of the defendants,
         fees and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel of
         approximately $1.7 million (which such amounts the
         Company has accrued but believes are covered by its
         existing directors and officers insurance policy).

In reaching this settlement, the Company confirmed to the
plaintiffs that Lazard and Goldman Sachs had each been provided
with financial information included in the Company's earnings
press release, issued on the same date as the announcement of
the merger agreement. The Memorandum of Understanding also
provided for the dismissal of the Missouri action and the
Delaware action with prejudice and release of all related claims
against the Company, the other defendants and their respective
affiliates.


MINNESOTA CORN: Charities Get Windfall from Unclaimed Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks to Brown County District Court and a Minneapolis law firm
that represented farmers who once invested in Minnesota Corn
Products, a charity or foundation could end up receiving a check
for $13,500, The Associated Press reports.

The money comes from the settlement of a class action lawsuit
against former MCP executives that totaled $5.75 million. The
money was originally split among thousands of farmers, however
not all those who were entitled to it could be tracked down.

Minneapolis attorney Robert C. Moilanen told The Associated
Press that his firm attempted to locate people who were due to
benefit from the settlement, but some moved or did not cash
their settlement checks. Because of that Mr. Moilanen asked
Brown County District Court Judge John Rodenberg to donate the
leftover settlement money to a regional organization.

The class action lawsuit, filed by the farmers, claimed that
former MCP executives misled shareholders when they sold the
business to Archer Daniels Midland in 2002. The suit further
claimed that the farmer-shareholders were not provided full
details of how eight executives would personally benefit from
the $615 million sale of their ethanol and corn syrup business
to ADM, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (April 14, 2005)
reports.

MCP was on the verge of bankruptcy in 1997, when ADM invested
$120 million for a 30 percent, nonvoting interest in the
company. After that, MCP enjoyed considerable success with its
corn-processing operations in Minnesota and Nebraska, but later
on September 2002 ADM acquired the company, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (February 11, 2005) reports.

The settlement was reached this summer after Judge Rodenberg
dismissed the civil suit alleging that MCP executives misled the
co-operative's investors when they sold the company to Archer
Daniels. It states that the defendants, including former CEO L.
Daniel Thompson, "strenuously deny any fault, wrongdoing or
liability," they specifically denied breaching any fiduciary
duties and said the sale was in the shareholders' best interest.

Mr. Moilanen suggested as possible recipients Southern Minnesota
Regional Legal Services, which offers legal services free of
charge to eligible people; the Southwest State University
Foundation; the University of Minnesota Extension Service or
Minnesota Public Radio, which airs some agricultural
programming. The judge said he would make a decision in a few
days.


MON CHONG: Recalls Dried Vegetables Due to Undeclared Sulfites
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mon Chong Loong Trading Corporation of Maspeth, NY is recalling
all of its Hong Kong Supermarket Brand Dried Vegetable, because
they contain undeclared sulfites. People who have severe
sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-
threatening reactions if they consume these products.

The Hong Kong Supermarket Brand Dried Vegetable is packaged in
uncoded, sealed plastic 12 oz. bags, with labeling in Chinese
and English. It is a product of china. The product was
distributed in the New York metropolitan area through retail
stores.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by the New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by food laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of sulfites in the product, which were not
declared on the label. The consumption of 10 milligrams of
sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit severe
reactions in some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in
certain sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or
more of sulfites. Analysis of the Hong Kong Supermarket Brand
Dried Vegetable revealed it contained 327 milligrams per
serving.

Consumers who have purchased Hong Kong Supermarket Brand Dried
Vegetable are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a
full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at
718-417-1668.


MORTGAGEIT INC.: Amended Overtime Wage Suit Pending in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
MortgageIT, Inc. continues to face an amended class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The suit also names as defendant IPI Skyscraper
Mortgage, which was, at the time, a subsidiary of, and has now
been merged with and into, the Company.

The case was filed by four former loan officers of a Company
branch in Newburgh, New York, and seeks to recover allegedly
unpaid minimum wage and overtime under both federal and New York
labor laws. The case was filed as a putative class action; a
motion for certification of a class under New York law and for
collective action under federal law was filed on March 11, 2005.

The suit is styled "Lacon v. Mortgage It, Inc. et al, case no.
1:04-cv-07847-VM-GWG," filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Victor
Marrero.  Representing the plaintiffs is Dan Charles Getman, Law
Office of Dan Getman, 9 Paradies Lane, New Paltz, NY 12561
Phone: 845-255-9370 Fax: 845-255-8649 E-mail:
dgetman@getmanlaw.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Andrew G. Celli, Kathleen Rosenfield, Emery Celli
         Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP 545 Madison Avenue New York,
         NY 10022 Phone: 212-763-5000 Fax: 212-763-5001 E-mail:
         acelli@ecbalaw.com or krosenfeld@ecbalaw.com

     (2) Sally D. Garr and Alyssa T. Senzel, Patton Boggs LLP
         (DC) 2550 M Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20037 Phone:
         202 457 6525 Fax: 202-457-6315 E-mail:
         sgarr@pattonboggs.com or asenzel@pattonboggs.com


NATIONAL PHYSICIANS: Faces TCPA Violations Lawsuit in E.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
National Physicians Datasource LLC faces a class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA).  The suit is styled "Ari Weitzner, M.D., P.C. et al.
v. National Physicians Datasource LLC."

Dr. Ari Weitzner filed the suit on May 24, 2005 as a class
action, alleging that faxes allegedly sent by the Company, which
publishes "The Little Blue Book," were sent in violation of the
TCPA.

The suit is styled `Weitzner v. National Physicians Datasource
LLC, case no. 1:05-cv-02531-CBA-SMG," filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge
Carol B. Amon.  Representing the Company is Richard A. Johnston
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, 399 Park Avenue, New
York, NY 10022, Phone: 212 230-8800, Fax: 212 230-8888.
Representing the plaintiffs is Todd C. Bank, Law Office of Todd
C. Bank, 119-40 Union Pike, Fourth Floor, Kew Gardens, NY 11415,
Phone: 718-520-7125, E-mail: TBLaw101@aol.com.


NEW CENTURY: IL Court Dismisses Lawsuit For TCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for Cook County, Illinois approved the
settlement of the class action filed against New Century
Mortgage Corporation, alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, and the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act, or ICFA.

Paul Bernstein filed the suit in April 2002, seeking damages for
receiving unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile
machines.  The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 1,
2003 and, on September 18, 2003, the judge granted the Company's
motion to dismiss with respect to the ICFA count and permitted
the plaintiff to re-plead on an individual, not consolidated,
basis.  On September 30, 2003, the plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification and second amended complaint.  The court has
consolidated similar cases into three groups.

The Company sought and obtained an order permitting it to join
other defendants in this consolidated action and filed a motion
to dismiss the second amended complaint. Oral argument on the
Company's consolidated motion was heard on March 30, 2004. The
judge dismissed the ICFA count. At the class certification
hearing on August 10, 2004, the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification was withdrawn pursuant to a settlement between the
parties.

Pursuant to the settlement, the plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint seeking a nationwide class. The parties executed the
written settlement agreement that the judge approved on April 5,
2005. This case was dismissed by an order dated October 27,
2005.


NEW CENTURY: CA Court Orders Recovery For Defendants in Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for Alameda County ordered recovery of costs
for all New Century entities named in a class action filed in
September 2002, alleging violations of the state's consumer
fraud laws.  The suit named as defendants New Century Mortgage
Corporation, New Century TRS Holdings, Inc., U.S. Bancorp, Loan
Management Services, Inc., and certain individuals affiliated
with Loan Management Services.

In September 2002, Robert E. Overman and Martin Lemp filed the
class action complaint in the Superior Court for Alameda County,
California, alleging violations of the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, Unfair, Unlawful and Deceptive Business and
Advertising Practices in violation of Business & Professions
Code Sections 17200 and 17500, Fraud-Misrepresentation and
Concealment and Constructive Trust/Breach of Fiduciary Duty and
damages including restitution, compensatory and punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in July 2003 and, in
September 2003, the judge granted New Century TRS's and the
Company's demurrer challenging their claims in part. The
Consumers Legal Remedies Act claim was dismissed and the
plaintiffs withdrew the Constructive Trust/Breach of Fiduciary
Duty claim.  New Century TRS and the Company filed their answer
to the plaintiffs' amended complaint in September 2003.  New
Century TRS and the Company then filed a Section 128.7 sanctions
motion seeking dismissal of the case.

On December 8, 2003, the court granted the motion for sanctions
against the plaintiffs for filing a first amended complaint with
allegations against New Century TRS and the Company that were
devoid of evidentiary support and ordered all those claims
stricken without prejudice.  On January 27, 2004, the court
entered a judgment of dismissal without prejudice in favor of
New Century TRS and the Company.  The plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal on February 20, 2004 from the judgment entered in New
Century TRS and the Company's favor and the order granting New
Century TRS and the Company's motion for sanctions.  The
plaintiffs also filed a motion with the appellate court to
consolidate this appeal with three additional appeals they have
sought in similar cases against other lenders.  On May 28, 2004,
the court denied the motion.  The plaintiffs/appellants filed
their opening brief in July 2004.  The appeal has now been fully
briefed. New Century TRS and the Company filed a request for
oral argument on January 13, 2005.  On June 10, 2005, the Court
of Appeals dismissed plaintiff's appeal for lack of appellate
jurisdiction.  On August 10, 2005, the court entered an order
holding that the New Century Entities should recover their
costs.


NEW CENTURY: Mediation in LA Collective Action Set January 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mediation for the collective action filed against New Century
Financial Corporation, alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) is set for January 2006 in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.

In April 2003, two former, short-term employees, Kimberly A.
England and Gregory M. Foshee, filed a complaint seeking class
action status against the Company, Worth Funding Incorporated
(now known as New Century Credit Corporation), and The Anyloan
Company.  The action was removed on May 12, 2003 from the 19th
Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of
Louisiana to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana in response to the Company's, Worth's and Anyloan's
Petition for Removal.  The complaint alleges failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the FLSA.

The plaintiffs filed an additional action in Louisiana state
court (19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge)
on September 18, 2003, adding James Gray as a plaintiff and
seeking unpaid wages under state law, with no class claims. This
second action was removed on October 3, 2003 to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, and was
ordered consolidated with the first action.

In April 2004, the U.S. District Court unilaterally de-
consolidated the James Gray individual action. In September
2003, the plaintiffs also filed a motion to dismiss their claims
in Louisiana to enable them to join in a subsequently filed case
in Minnesota entitled "Klas vs. New Century Financial
Corporation, et al. New Century, Worth and Anyloan" opposed the
motion and the court agreed with their position and refused to
dismiss the plaintiffs' case, as it was filed first.  The Klas
case has now been consolidated with this case and discovery is
proceeding.

The Company, Worth and Anyloan filed a motion to dismiss Worth
and Anyloan as defendants. The court granted the motion to
dismiss in April 2004. On June 28, 2004, the Company filed a
motion to reject conditional certification of a collective
action and oral argument was heard on February 15, 2005.
Plaintiffs have dismissed with prejudice forty individual
plaintiffs from the action.  The Company's motion to reject the
class was granted on June 30, 2005. The plaintiffs had 30 days
to file individual actions against New Century TRS and the
Comapny, and 426 actions were filed.  The parties agreed to
mediate and mediation is set for January 2006.

The suit is styled "England v. New Century Financial Corporation
et al., case no. 3:05-cv-00490-FJP-SCR," filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana,
under Judge Frank J. Polozola.  Representing the plaintiffs are
Stanley P. Baudin, Christopher L. Coffin and Patrick Wayne
Pendley, Pendley Law Firm, P.O. Drawer 71, 24110 Eden St.,
Plaquemine, LA 70764-0071, Phone: 225-687-6396, Fax:
225-687-6398, E-mail: sbaudin@pendleylawfirm.com,
ccoffin@pendleylawfirm.com or pwpendley@pendleylawfirm.com.


NEW CENTURY: NY Court Nixes Mortgage Fees Suit Dismissal Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New
York located in Brooklyn, New York refused plaintiffs' motion
seeking to appeal its ruling upholding the dismissal of the
class action filed against New Century Mortgage Corporation,
alleging breach of fiduciary duties and fraud.

Plaintiff Elaine Lum filed the suit in the State Court in
Suffolk County, New York in December 2003, alleging that certain
payments the Company makes to mortgage brokers, sometimes
referred to as yield spread premiums, interfered with the
contractual relationship between Ms. Lum and her broker.  The
complaint also sought damages related thereto for fraud,
wrongful inducement/breach of fiduciary duty, violation of
deceptive acts and practices, unjust enrichment and commercial
bribing.  The complaint seeks class certification for similarly
situated borrowers in the State of New York.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on January 30, 2004. The
judge granted the motion and dismissed all claims on March 23,
2004.  On April 12, 2004, the plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal, seeking review of the court's order granting the motion
to dismiss. The appeal has been fully briefed and the Company
awaits a ruling.  On July 20, 2005, the Appellate Division of
the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Brooklyn,
New York, affirmed the order granting the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff/appellant filed a motion with
the appellate division for reargument and/or for leave to appeal
to the Court of Appeals, which the Court denied in October 2005.


NEW CENTURY: Resolves NJ RESPA Lawsuit, Court Orders Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
New Century Mortgage Corporation and New Century TRS Holdings,
Inc. resolved the class action filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey against them,
alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act, or RESPA, the Truth-in-lending Act, or TILA and the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and unjust enrichment.

Joseph and Emma Warburton filed the suit in June 2004.  The suit
also alleges certain other violations against defendants
unrelated to New Century TRS and the Company, including Foxtons,
Inc., Foxtons North America, Foxtons Realtor and Foxtons
Financial, Inc., referred to collectively as Foxtons, and
Worldwide Financial Resources, Inc.  The plaintiffs allege,
among other things, that Foxtons, acting as their broker,
charged fees and received a yield spread premium without
disclosing the same to them until the time of closing.  The
class is defined as all persons in the state of New Jersey who
have purchased, or sought to purchase, a home listed for sale by
Foxtons and who have paid a prequalification application fee, or
who have received and accepted an offer from Foxtons for a fixed
interest rate mortgage loan that Foxtons failed to deliver as
promised and who have suffered damages as a result.  The
complaint seeks to enjoin the wrongful conduct alleged, recovery
of actual and statutory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 28, 2004, New Century TRS and the Company filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. On June
13, 2005, the court entered an order dismissing the federal
claims (RESPA & TILA). On July 13, 2005, plaintiffs filed a
motion for leave to file their first amended complaint in state
court.  The parties have agreed to resolve this matter and the
resolution will not have a material impact on the Company's
financial position. This case has been dismissed by order of
October 21, 2005.

The suit is styled "WARBURTON et al v. FOXTONS, INC. et al.,
case no. 1:04-cv-02474-FLW-AMD," filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, under Judge Freda
L. Wolfson.  Representing the Company is Jannett D. Pateiro,
REED SMITH, LLP, 136 Main Street, Princeton NJ 08540, Phone:
(609) 524-2040, E-mail: jpateiro@reedsmith.com.  Representing
the plaintiffs are Nicole M. Acchione, Donna Siegel Moffa,
TRUJILLO RODRIGUEZ & RICHARDS, LLP, 8 Kings Highway West,
Haddonfield, NJ 08033, Phone: (856) 795-9002, E-mail:
nicolem@trrlaw.com or donna@trrlaw.com.


NEW CENTURY: IL Court Dismisses Suit For Consumer Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois dismissed the class
action filed against New Century Mortgage Corporation, alleging
violations of the Illinois Interest Act.

In November 2004, Nancy Doherty, Krysti Lyn Randall, Robert
Elibasich and Alice Elibasich filed a class action complaint
against the Company, two of its employees and Nations Title
Agency of Illinois.  The complaint alleges that defendants
violated Section 4.1a of the Illinois Interest Act by charging
more than 3 points on a loan with an interest rate of 8% or
higher.  The complaint also alleges that defendants engaged in
unfair acts and practices, in purported violation of Section 2
of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA) by charging plaintiffs
and others points in excess of the number permitted by the
Illinois Interest Act and seeks restitution for such alleged
overpayments.  Individual plaintiff, Doherty, also alleges
violation of Section 2 of ICFA, and asserts a claim for unjust
enrichment by failing to refund excess recording fees to
Doherty.  The complaint seeks recovery of statutory,
compensatory and punitive damages, restitution and attorneys'
fees and costs.

The Company filed a motion to stay the case pending a final
decision in the precedential case styled "U.S. Bank v. Clark,"
pending in the Illinois Supreme Court. The court granted the
motion to stay on January 20, 2005.  Oral argument occurred in
the Clark case on May 11, 2005.  On July 5, 2005 the court
granted the motion to consolidate this case with the Brown case.
On September 22, 2005 the Illinois Supreme Court issued its
opinion, reversing the Appellate Court ruling in the Clark case.
On October 21, 2005, the Court dismissed this case with
prejudice.

The suit is styled "Doherty v. New Century Mortgage, et al.,
case no. 2004-CH-19237," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Chancery Division, under Judge Martin S.
Agran.  Representing the plaintiffs are EDELMAN COMBS &
LATTURNER, 120 S LASALLE 18FL, CHICAGO IL, 60603, Phone:
(312) 739-4200.  Representing the Company is WARDELL LAURIE
ARDEN, 100 N LASALLE #600, CHICAGO IL, 60602, Phone: (312) 630-
9744


NEW CENTURY: IL Court Dismisses Interest Act Violations Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois dismissed the class
action filed against New Century Mortgage and loan originator
Residential Loan Centers of America, Inc., alleging violations
of the Illinois Interest Act.

In February 2005, Judy Brown filed the suit, alleging that that
the defendants violated Section 4.1(a) of the Illinois Interest
Act by charging more than 3% in charges on a loan with an
interest rate of 8% or higher and violated the same provision by
collecting payments on the loan.  The proposed class is defined
as all persons who entered into loans secured by their real
property in Illinois with an interest rate of 8% or more and
"charges" in excess of 3% of the principal, and for which one or
more of the defendants knowingly contracted and/or received
and/or are currently receiving payments.  The complaint seeks an
award of damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs
and other relief.

On July 5, 2005, the Company's motion to consolidate with
Doherty was granted. On September 22, 2005, the Illinois Supreme
Court issued its opinion, reversing the Appellate Court ruling
in the "U.S. Bank vs. Clark" case.  On October 21, 2005, the
Court dismissed this case with prejudice.

The suit is styled "Judy Brown v. New Century Mortgage, et al.,
case no. 2005-L-001701" filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County Illinois, Chancery Division, under Judge Anthony L.
Young.  Representing the plaintiffs is MEITES AND FRACKMAN, 208
S LASALLE #1410, CHICAGO IL, 60604, Phone: (312) 263-0272.
Representing the Company is WARDELL LAURIE ARDEN, 100 N LASALLE
#600, CHICAGO IL, 60602, Phone: (312) 630-9744.


NEW CENTURY: CA Court Dismisses Overtime Law Violations Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against New Century
Mortgage Corporation in the Superior Court of Orange County,
California, alleging violations of the state's labor laws.

In March 2005, Daniel J. Rubio, a former employee of the Company
filed the suit, alleging failure to pay overtime wages, failure
to provide meal and rest periods, and that the Company engaged
in unfair business practices in violation of the California
Labor Code. The complaint seeks recovery of unpaid wages,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company was served on March 22, 2005.  The Company filed a
motion to strike and demurrer to the complaint in May 2005. On
July 8, 2005, the court overruled the demurrer and granted the
motion to strike.  The amended complaint was filed in July 2005
and New Century Mortgage filed its answer in August 2005.


NEW CENTURY: Plaintiffs Seek Certification for IN FCRA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Indiana, Hammond Division to grant class certification for the
lawsuit filed against New Century Mortgage Corporation, alleging
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, or FCRA.

Perrie Bonner and Darrell Bruce filed the suit in April 2005,
claiming that the defendants accessed consumer credit reports
without authorization because the prescreened offers of credit
did not qualify as firm offers of credit.  The proposed class
consists of all persons in Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin who
received the prescreened offers from April 20, 2003 to May 10,
2005.

The Company and Home 123 filed their answer to the complaint on
June 30, 2005. In September 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification and the Company and Home123's response is
due in November 2005. On November 1, 2005, the Company and
Home123 filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The suit is styled "Bonner et al v. Home123 Corporation et al,
case no. 2:05-cv-00146-PPS-APR," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, under Judge
Philip P Simon.  Representing the plaintiffs are Daniel A
Edelman, Jeremy P. Monteiro, Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin
LLC, 120 S LaSalle Street Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone:
312-739-4200, Fax: 312-419-0379, E-mail: CourtECL@aol.com or
jmonteiro@edcombs.com.  Representing the Company are Victoria R
Collado PHV, Lucia Nale PHV, Diane R. Sabol PHV, Mayer Brown
Rowe and Maw LLP, 71 S Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone:
312-782-0600, Fax: 312-701-7711, E-mail:
vcollado@mayerbrownrowe.com, lnale@mayerbrownrowe.com,
drsabol@mayerbrownrowe.com.


NEW CENTURY: Asks CA Court To Dismiss FCRA Violations Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
New Century Mortgage Corporation, New Century TRS Holdings, Inc.
and Home123 Corporation asked the United States District Court
for the Central District of California to dismiss a class action
filed against them, alleging violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA).

In July 2005, Pamela Phillips filed the suit, claiming that New
Century TRS, New Century Mortgage and Home123 accessed consumer
credit reports without authorization because the prescreened
offers of credit did not qualify as firm offers of credit. The
case also alleges that certain disclosures were not made in a
clear and conspicuous manner. The complaint seeks damages of not
more than $1,000 for each alleged violation, declaratory relief,
injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The suit is styled "Pamela Phillips v. New Century Financial
Corporation et al., case no. 8:05-cv-00692-DOC-RNB," filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, under Judge David O. Carter.  Representing the
Company are Daniel Alberstone, David Bryan Dreyfus, Bruce A.
Friedman, Pauline A. Massih, Alschuler Grossman Stein and Kahan,
Water Garden - North Tower, 1620 26th Street, 4th Floor, Santa
Monica, CA 90404-4060, Phone: 310-907-1000, Fax: 310-907-2000.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Douglas Bowdoin, 255 South Orange Avenue, Suite 800
         Orlando, FL 32801, Phone: 407-422-0025, E-mail:
         ctassi@bowdoinlaw.com

     (2) Kathleen Clark Knight, Terry Smiljanich, James Hoyer
         Newcomer & Smiljanich, 1 Urban Centre, 4830 W Kennedy
         Blvd, Ste 550, Tampa, FL 33609, Phone: 813-286-4100, E-
         mail: kknight@jameshoyer.com or
         tsmiljanich@jameshoyer.com

     (3) Nicholas A Siciliano or David Edward Weeks, Masry &
         Vititoe, 5707 Corsa Ave, 2nd Fl, Westlake Village, CA
          91362-0903, Phone: 818-991-8900


NEW CENTURY: Customers Commence Loan Fee Fraud Suit in N.D. IN
--------------------------------------------------------------
New Century Mortgage Corporation faces a class action lawsuit
filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District Of Indiana.
The plaintiffs allege that the Company violated the Indiana High
Cost Loan Act by allegedly making loans with fees greater than
permitted by law unless certain disclosures are made.

Patricia and Stephen Jeppesen filed the suit in October 2005 on
behalf of all persons who obtained a mortgage loan from the
Company after January 1, 2005 on their principal residence in
Indiana.  A second claim in the complaint alleges that the
Company improperly charged a document preparation fee. The class
also consists of all persons in Indiana who paid a document
preparation fee to the Company in the six years prior to the
filing of the complaint. The complaint seeks statutory damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, restitution and other relief.

The suit is styled "Jeppesen et al v. New Century Mortgage
Corporation et al., case no. 2:05-cv-00372-RL-PRC," filed in the
United States District court for the Northern District of
Indiana, under Judge Rudy Lozano.  Representing the plaintiffs
are Daniel A. Edelman and Heather A. Piccirilli, Edelman Combs
Latturner & Goodwin LLC, 120 S LaSalle Street Suite 1800,
Chicago, IL 60603, phone: 312-739-4200, Fax: 312-419-0379, E-
mail: CourtECL@aol.com or hpiccirilli@edcombs.com.  Representing
the Company are Richard E Gottlieb and Arthur F. Radke, Dykema
Gossett Rooks Pitts PLLC, 10 South Wacker Drive Suite 2300
Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: 312-627-2196, Fax: 312-627-2302, E-
mail: rgottlieb@dykema.com or aradke@dykema.com.


PUBLIC STORAGE: CA Court Mulls Transfer of Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for Orange County has yet to rule
on Public Storage, Inc.'s motion to remove the class action
filed against it in the California Superior Court for Orange
County, styled "Serrao v. Public Storage, Inc.," to federal
court.

The plaintiff in this case filed a suit against the Company on
behalf of a putative class of renters who rented self-storage
units from the Company.  Plaintiff alleges that the Company
misrepresented the size of its storage units, has brought claims
under California statutory and common law relating to consumer
protection, fraud, unfair competition, and negligent
misrepresentation.  The suit seeks monetary damages,
restitution, and declaratory and injunctive relief.

On November 3, 2003, the court granted the Company's motion to
strike the plaintiff's nationwide class allegations and to limit
any putative class to California residents only.  In August
2005, the Company filed a motion to remove the case to federal
court.


PUBLIC STORAGE: FL, CA Employee Overtime Wage Lawsuits Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Public Storage, Inc. continues to faces two class actions filed
in the California and Florida courts, alleging violations of the
states' wage lawsuits.  The suits are:

     (1) Brinkley et al v. Public Storage, Inc., (filed April
         2005 in the Superior Court of California - Los Angeles
         County)

     (2) Inhan et al v. Public Storage, Inc. (filed May 2005 in
         the United States District Court - Southern District of
         Florida)

The Brinkley plaintiffs are suing the Company on behalf of a
purported class of California property managers who claim that
they were not compensated for all the hours they worked.  The
Brinkley suit is based upon California wage and hour laws.

The Inhan plaintiffs are suing the Company in Florida on behalf
of a purported class of property managers who claim they were
not compensated for all hours worked.  The Inhan suit is based
upon the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

The maximum potential liability cannot be estimated, but would
be increased if a class or classes are certified or, in
California, if claims are permitted to be brought on behalf of
others under the California Unfair Business Practices Act.


SECOND CHANCE: Chippewa Township Settles Suit Over Faulty Armor
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several months after joining a federal class action lawsuit
against Second Chance Body Armor Inc., which allegedly sold
defective bullet-resistant vests to the agencies, Chippewa
Township officials recently agreed to a settlement, The Beaver
County Times reports.

Chippewa Township police were given two settlement options to
replace the 12 defective protective vests the department bought
from Second Chance. The Michigan-based Company was accused of
manufacturing and selling defective vests to law enforcement
agencies. The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection
and sold all assets recently.

Township solicitor George A. Verlihay told The Beaver County
Times that Zylon, the material used to make the protective
vests, degrades in heat. He adds that police officers have been
injured and killed as a result of the defect, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (August 2, 2005) reports.

The federal suit named the Japan-based company Toyobo, supplier
of the protective material. The Japan-based company agreed to
contribute $29 million to settle the lawsuit, according to
documents posted at http://www.zylonvestclassaction.com.

Chippewa agreed to take an $8,884 voucher, rather than $8,040 in
cash, to replace the vests for $6,468 through Armor Holdings of
Jacksonville, Florida, a manufacturer and distributor of
security products selected exclusively as part of the
settlement. The police department will be able to use the
voucher surplus for additional equipment.

Mr. Verlihay told The Beaver County Times that Chippewa could
have decided to opt out of the class action and pursue its own
lawsuit, though he recommended against it. If Toyobo settles on
more favorable terms with any other party, according to him, the
company would have to provide the same settlement for those
named in the federal suit. "Nobody knows for sure how many
claimants there are out there," according to Mr. Verlihay, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (August 2, 2005) reports.

Mr. Verlihay pointed out that purchasers can accept a 50 percent
settlement reimbursement from Toyobo or use the equivalent
amount from the settlement fund to buy replacements from Armor
Holdings Inc. at discounts of 50 percent to 60 percent, with
measurement charges waived, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (August 2, 2005) reports.


TELLABS INC.: Court Yet To Rule on Appeal of IL Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to
decide on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of a consolidated
class action filed against Tellabs, Inc., Michael Birck and
Richard Notebaert, its former chief executive officer, president
and director, and certain of its other officers and directors.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court of the
Northern District of Illinois, alleging that during the class
period (December 11, 2000-June 19, 2001) the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by making materially false and
misleading statements, including, among other things, allegedly
providing revenue forecasts that were false and misleading,
misrepresenting demand for the Company's products, and reporting
overstated revenues for the fourth quarter 2000 in the Company's
financial statements.  Further, certain of the individual
defendants were alleged to have violated the federal securities
laws by trading the Company's securities while allegedly in
possession of material, non-public information about the Company
pertaining to these matters.

On January 17, 2003, the Company and the other named defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint in its entirety.  On May 19, 2003, the Court granted
the motion and dismissed all counts of the consolidated amended
complaint, while affording plaintiffs an opportunity to replead.
On July 11, 2003, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
class action complaint against the Company, Mr. Birck and Mr.
Notebaert, and many (although not all) of the other previously
named individual defendants, re-alleging claims similar to those
contained in the previously dismissed consolidated amended class
action complaint.  The Company filed a second motion to dismiss
on August 22, 2003, seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all
claims alleged in the second consolidated amended class action
complaint.  On February 19, 2004, the Court issued an order
granting that motion and dismissed the action with prejudice.
On March 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to
the United States Federal Court of Appeal for the Seventh
Circuit appealing the dismissal. The appeal was fully briefed,
oral argument was heard on January 21, 2005 and the parties are
awaiting a decision.

The suit is styled "Johnson, et al v. Tellabs Inc, et al., case
no. 1:02-cv-04356," filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Amy J. St.
Eve.  Representing the Company is David F. Graham, Sidley Austin
Brown & Wood LLP, 10 South Dearborn Street, Bank One Plaza,
Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 853-7000.  Representing the
Company is Steven G. Schulman, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY 10119-
0165, Phone: (212)594-5300.



                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CIPHERGEN BIOSYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in OH
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Ciphergen Biosystems, Inc.
(NasdaqNM: CIPHE) and certain of its officers and directors, on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the publicly
traded common stock of Ciphergen between August 8, 2005 and
November 16, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 by publicly issuing a series of false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's financial condition, thus
causing Ciphergen's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels. The complaint alleges that on November 16, 2005,
Ciphergen disclosed, inter alia, that its Audit Committee had
determined that the Company's previously reported results for
the quarter-ended June 30, 2005 should no longer be relied upon
and would need to be restated because revenue was recognized on
certain transactions "in a manner inconsistent with the
Company's revenue recognition policy." Indeed, the Company
indicated that the restatement would reduce previously reported
revenues for such quarter by $503,000 or 7% and result in an
increase in the Company's previously reported net loss for such
quarter by $301,000 or 3%. The Company also advised that the
Audit Committee's investigation was not yet complete and that it
was also "reviewing the appropriateness of revenue recognition
in connection with certain transactions that took place in the
fourth quarter of fiscal 2004 and in fiscal 2005." On November
17, 2005, as a result of these disclosures, the complaint
alleges that the price of Ciphergen common stock declined from a
prior day close of $1.73 to close at $1.36 per share, a decline
of approximately 21%, on unusually heavy volume.

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.


DIEBOLD INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio against Diebold Inc. (NYSE: DBD) and individual
defendants who purchased Diebold securities between October 22,
2003, and September 21, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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 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.


EVCI CAREER: Stull Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody 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 the
common stock of EVCI Career Colleges Holdings Corporation
("EVCI" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EVCI) during the period
November 14, 2003 through and including October 19, 2005 (the
"Class Period"), against EVCI and certain individual defendants.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between November 14, 2003 and
October 19, 2005, thereby artificially inflating the price of
EVCI common stock. Specifically, 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 Tzivia Brody of Stull, Stull & Brody,
6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 1-800-337-4983,
Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com.


FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of FARO
Technologies Inc. ("FARO" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FARO)
between May 6, 2004 and November 3, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit was filed against FARO and certain
officers and directors ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
FARO repeatedly issued false and misleading quarterly and
annualized financial guidance during the Class Period in
reckless disregard of the Company's deficient internal control
systems. The complaint alleges that FARO represented itself as
having implemented lean manufacturing principles that had
brought about numerous operating and efficiency improvements in
its production capacity. However, theses statements were
materially false and misleading because the Company's internal
inventory and accounting controls were defective during the
class period.

On November 3, 2005, investors learned the truth regarding the
adverse impact of the Company's deficient control systems and
poor financial performance. After the market closed, the Company
disclosed that it had incurred $1.6 million in inventory costing
and consumption variances due to processing problems related to
the implementation of a new ERP system. As a result of this
disclosure, FARO stock fell $5.88 per share to close at $16.50
per share on November 7, 2005.

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


STONE ENERGY: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in LA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana, on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Stone Energy Corporation
("Stone Energy" or the "Company") (NYSE:SGY) between June 17,
2005, through October 6, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and press releases during the Class Period.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented
the following adverse facts that:

     (1) Stone Energy was materially overstating its financial
         results by overvaluing its oil reserves through
         improper and aggressive reserve methodologies;

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

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

On October 6, 2005, Stone Energy issued a press release
announcing that it intends to take a significant reserve write-
down, among other things. On this news, the price of Stone
Energy stock fell $7.93 per share, or almost 14%, to close at
$48.14 per share. Then, on November 8, 2005, Stone Energy issued
a press release announcing that it will restate its financial
statements for the periods from 2001 to 2004 and for the first
six months of 2005. As a result of this disclosure, Stone Energy
initiated an internal investigation into its reserve practices.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman or Andrew Abramowitz
of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., Phone: (888) 844-5862, E-
mail: classaction@srk-law.com, Web site: http://www.srk-law.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  * * *