CAR_Public/051220.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, December 20, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 251


                            Headlines

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Antitrust Lawsuits in NJ, PA, NY Courts
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Asks Court To Review Refusal To Dismiss Suit
ARIZONA: Judge Orders More Funding For English Learning Students
BAYER INC.: Canadian High Court Allows Baycol Lawsuit to Proceed

BOEING CO.: Ex-Workers Plan Suit Over Non-Existent SA Job Offers
DELTA AIR: Retired Pilots File Suit Over Pension Contributions
DUKE ENERGY: NY Court Grants Certification To NYMEX Fraud Suit
DUKE ENERGY: Continues To Face Antitrust Fraud Suit in W.D. TN
DUKE ENERGY: CA Court Preliminarily OKs Antitrust Settlement

EDWARD JONES: Pays $2.5M to Clients Over 2002 Settlement Claims
EQUIPMENT FINANCE: NJ Court Certifies Limited Class in Lawsuit
FIRST HORIZON: Trial in MO Home Loan Consumer Suit Set May 2006
FORD MOTOR: Finalizes Settlement Over Defective Intake Manifolds
GENERAL MOTORS: MI Judge Asked to Approved Healthcare Settlement

GUITAR CENTER: Reaches Settlement For CA Retail Workers' Suits
HAWAII: Judge Sides With Substitute Teachers in $25M Wage Suit
HIBERNIA CORPORATION: LA Settlement Hearing Moved To Jan. 2006
IRON CITY: Settles Racial Discrimination Suit in WI for $100T
IRWIN MORTGAGE: AL Court Mulls Broker Fees Suit Summary Judgment

IRWIN MORTGAGE: IN Court Mulls Consumer Lawsuit Summary Judgment
IRWIN UNION: Asks PA Court To Junk Consolidated RICO, RESPA Suit
ISOLAGEN INC.: Shareholders Commence Securities Suits in PA, TX
MASSEY ENERGY: Property Damage Suits Still Pending in WV Court
NEW JERSEY: Resident Files Stolen Bone Suit V. Three Companies

NEW YORK: Judge Temporarily Repeals Brookhaven's Eviction Powers
NORTHWESTERN CORP: SD Judge Denies Motion V. "Poison Pill" Plan
ORTHO-MCNEIL: Parker & Waichman Files Suit Over Ortho Evra Patch
PACIFIC CAPITAL: CA Court Mulls Dismissal of RAL Fraud Lawsuit
PACIFIC CAPITAL: Continues To Face Refund Transfer Lawsuit in CA

PACIFIC CAPITAL: NY Court Mulls Dismissal of RAL Agreement Suit
PFIZER INC.: Faces Suit in Canada Over Depo-Provera Side Effects
TAMPA ELECTRIC: Still Facing FL Suits V. Transmission Structures
TECO ENERGY: Enters Mediation For FL Securities Fraud Lawsuit
TELSTRA: To Face Suit in 2006 Over Investor Share Market Losses

UNIVERSAL HEALTH: NV Court Dismisses Most Claims in RICO Lawsuit
WASHINGTON: Women Sue Health Department Over Rapist Gynecologist
WYOMING: Court Monitor's Report Calls Prison Conditions Better

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

DIEBOLD INC.: Chitwood Harley Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in OH
DIEBOLD INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in OH
DIEBOLD INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in OH
EVCI CAREER: Rosen Law Expands Class Period For NY Stock Suit
MOTIVE INC.: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX


                            *********


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Financial Advisors, Inc. (now known as
Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc.) reached a settlement for
the purported class action complaint filed against it captioned
"In re American Express Financial Advisors Securities Litigation
(the "AEFA Securities Litigation")" in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
action also names as defendants the Company's parent American
Express Company, the Company's former wholly-owned subsidiaries
Ameriprise Financial, Inc. (formerly known as American Express
Financial Corporation, and James M. Cracchiolo in his capacity
as President and CEO of AFI and Chairman and CEO of AFSI.
Certain American Express- and AXP-brand mutual funds are also
named as nominal defendants.

The action is a consolidation of the following actions:

     (1) Naresh Chand v. American Express Company, American
         Express Financial Corporation and American Express
         Financial Advisors, Inc. (filed March 2004);

     (2) Elizabeth Flenner v. American Express Company et al.
         (filed March 2004);

     (3) John B. Perkins v. American Express Company et al.
         (filed March 2004);

     (4) Kathie Kerr v. American Express Company et al. (filed
         April 2004); and

     (5) Leonard D. Caldwell, Gale D. Caldwell and Richard T.
         Allen v. American Express Company et al. (filed April
         2004).

The plaintiffs allege violations of certain federal securities
laws and/or state statutory and common law. The plaintiffs,
among other things, allege that the Company's financial plans
are used as a means to recommend mutual funds that pay
"undisclosed kickbacks" to the Company.  Plaintiffs seek to
represent one class consisting of all AFI clients who purchased
the preferred mutual funds during the class period and another
class comprised of those AFI clients who also purchased
financial plans during the class period.  

On October 21, 2005, the Company, together with the other named
defendants, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
Concerning Settlement Terms ("MOU") to settle the pending
action. Under the terms of the MOU, the named plaintiffs,
American Express and the other defendants agree that the final
stipulation will contain a disclaimer of liability or wrongdoing
consistent with the MOU. The class period covered by the MOU is
March 10, 1999 through and including the date of the stipulation
of the settlement (the "Class Period"). Subject to the terms and
conditions set forth in the MOU, the Company, on behalf of
itself, American Express and all other defendants, will pay
into escrow for the benefit of the class members $100 million
(the "Settlement Fund") within ten (10) business days of
preliminary approval of the settlement by the Court. Reasonable
attorneys' fees will be paid out of the Settlement Fund. In
exchange for the Settlement Fund, American Express and the other
defendants will be granted a release and discharge of all claims
set forth in the plaintiffs' complaint and any other claims or
causes of action that are or could have been alleged or asserted
with respect to conduct giving rise to any or all of those
claims for the Class Period. The MOU, stipulation of settlement
and settlement agreement are contingent upon the satisfaction of
various conditions, including, but not limited to, preliminary
approval by the Court and final approval by the Court after
notice to the class and a hearing.

In addition, two lawsuits making similar allegations (based
solely on state causes of action) to those made in the AEFA
Securities Litigation were filed in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, namely "Beer v. American Express Company and
American Express Financial Advisors" and "You v. American
Express Company and American Express Financial Advisors." The
Company has sought to remove these two actions to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Plaintiffs have sought to remand the cases to state court. The
Court's decision on the remand motion is pending.

The suit is styled "In Re American Express Financial Advisors
Securities Litigation, case no. 1:04-cv-01773-DAB," filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, under Judge Deborah A. Batts.  Representing the plaintiffs
is Michael Robert Reese of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
(NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone:
212-631-8696, Fax: 212-629-0307, E-mail: mreese@milberg.com.  
Representing the Company is Peter Kristian Vigeland of Wilmer,
Cutler & Pickering (NYC), 399 Park Avenue, 30th Floor, New York,
NY 10022, Phone: 212-230-8800, Fax: 212-230-8888, E-mail:
Peter.Vigeland@wilmer.com.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Antitrust Lawsuits in NJ, PA, NY Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. faces
several similar class actions in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and
New York federal courts, alleging violations of federal
antitrust laws.

In August 2005 a purported class action captioned `Performance
Labs Inc. v. American Express Travel Related Services Company,
Inc. ("TRS"), MasterCard International Incorporated, Visa USA,
Inc. et. al.' was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that the
Company's policy prohibiting merchants from imposing
restrictions on the use of American Express cards that are not
imposed equally on other forms of payment violates U.S.
antitrust laws. The suit seeks injunctive relief.  The Company
has moved to dismiss the complaint and that motion is pending.

In addition, the Company has learned that two additional
purported class actions that make allegations similar to those
made in the Performance Labs action have also been filed, namely
"518 Restaurant Corp. v. American Express Travel Related
Services Company, Inc., MasterCard International Incorporated,
Visa USA, Inc. et. al." (filed in August 2005 in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
and "Lepkowski v. American Express Travel Related Services
Company, Inc., MasterCard International Incorporated, Visa USA,
Inc. et. al." (filed in October 2005 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York).

The plaintiffs in such actions seek injunctive relief. At
present, the Company has not been served with the complaints in
either of these actions.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Asks Court To Review Refusal To Dismiss Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company asked the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York to reconsider its ruling
refusing to dismiss the class action filed against it, styled
"Ross, et al. v. American Express Company, American Express
Travel Related Services and American Express Centurion Bank."

The complaint alleges that American Express (AMEX) conspired
with Visa, MasterCard and Diners Club in the setting of foreign
conversion rates and in the inclusion of arbitration clauses in
certain of their cardmember agreements. The basis for these
allegations is the presence of an American Express lawyer at a
seminar where legal issues common to the financial services
industry were discussed. Those meetings were attended by in-
house lawyers of financial institutions including American
Express. The suit seeks injunctive relief and unspecified
damages. The class is defined as "all Visa, MasterCard and
Diners Club general purpose cardholders who used cards issued by
any of the MDL Defendant Banks."  American Express cardholders
are not part of the class.  

In September 2005, the Court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss the action and preliminarily certified an injunction
class of Visa and MasterCard cardholders to determine the
validity of Visa's and MasterCard's cardmember arbitration
clauses.  The Company has filed a motion for reconsideration
with the Court.

The suit is styled "Ross et al v. American Express Company et
al., case no. 1:04-cv-05723-WHP," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge William H. Pauley, III.  Representing the Company is
Jonathan M. Jacobson, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati(NYC)
12 East 49th Street, 30th Flr., New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-
999-5858, Fax: 212-999-5899, E-mail: jjacobson@wsgr.com.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Marc H. Edelson, Hoffman & Edelson, L.L.C., 45 West
         Court Street, Doylestown, PA 18901, Phone: (215) 230-
         8043

     (2) Michael J. Kane, Mager & White & Goldstein, L.L.P.
         165 Township Line Road, Suite 2400, Jenkintown, PA
         19046, Phone: (215) 481-0273

     (3) Linda P. Nussbaum, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,
         P.L.L.C., 150 East 52nd Street, New York, NY 10022,
         phone: (212) 838-7797, E-mail: lnussbaum@cmht.com  

     (4) R. Scott Palmer, Berman, Devalerio, Pease, Tabacco,
         Burt & Pucillo, 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 900, West
         Palm Beach, FL 33401, Phone: (561) 835-9400, Fax: (561)
         835-0322

     (5) Ann D. White, Mager White & Goldstein, LLP, The
         Pavilion, 261 Old York Road, Suite 810, Jenkintown, PA
         19406, Phone: (215) 481-0273


ARIZONA: Judge Orders More Funding For English Learning Students
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a ruling on a 13-year-old education class action lawsuit that
was originally filed in 1992 on behalf of Nogales Unified School
District students and parents, U.S. District Judge Raner C.
Collins ordered the Legislature to improve and adequately fund
Arizona's educational programs for students learning the English
language and set fines that would rise to $2 million a day if
deadlines aren't met, The Associated Press reports.  

Additionally, the federal judge also ruled at a recent hearing
that English-learning students don't have to pass the state's
AIMS (Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards) test to get a
high school diploma until the state adequately funds programs
and students have enough time to prepare for the reading,
writing and math test. The test measures students' mastery of
state curriculum standards in math, reading and writing.

The AIMS graduation requirement begins in 2006 with students
becoming seniors this fall. However, a law passed by the
Legislature this spring is expected to allow small numbers of
students who don't pass the test to still graduate by getting
extra points through good grades on required courses, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (July 27, 2005) reports.

Republican legislative leaders told The Associated Press that
lawmakers will act on the issue early in the 2006 session,
likely using legislation vetoed earlier this year by Democratic
Gov. Janet Napolitano and already reintroduced in the House for
2006 consideration as a starting point. House Speaker Jim
Weiers, R-Phoenix even told The Associated Press, "I think we
can have something to her in the first five days."

Judge Collins ordered fines to start at $500,000 a day beginning
15 days after the January 9 start of the Republican-led
Legislature's 2006 regular session if lawmakers haven't fixed
the programs and increased their funding. The fines would rise
to $1 million a day and $1.5 million at designated points beyond
that until reaching $2 million a day at the end of the session.

Despite his order on fixing the programs and increasing funding,
Judge Collins declined to cut off federal highway funding to the
state, the primary sanction requested by class action
plaintiffs. Previously, Tim Hogan, executive director of Arizona
Center for Law in the Public Interest and attorney to the
plaintiffs in the class action styled, Flores vs. State of
Arizona, told Judge Collins that the case has dragged on for too
many years already, that prior court orders provide enough
guidance and that what is needed now are "powerful and
meaningful sanctions" against the state to prod elected
officials into reaching a consensus. Mr. Hogan suggests cutting
off the state's federal highway dollars, which is the source of
funding for about half of the road and highway work done by the
state and local governments, or imposing a fine of $1 million a
day. "The issue is coercing compliance," according to Mr. Hogan,
an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 3, 2005)
reports.

The judge did decline though the state's request to prescribe in
detail what it should do to satisfy the court, instead only
directing the state to comply with previous court orders that
concluded that the state's programs are inadequately funded,
producing shortcomings is such areas as class size, teacher
training and tutoring.

Judge Collins pointed out that the state had engaged in "foot-
dragging" since the lawsuit was originally filed in 1992 and
since a different federal judge ruled in February 2000 that
Arizona's programs for English-learning students failed to
comply with federal laws that guarantee equal opportunities in
education. That judge and later Judge Collins set several
deadlines for the state to comply. In his ruling, the judge also
wrote, "Thousands of children who have now been impacted by the
state's continued inadequate funding of programs had yet to
begin school when plaintiffs filed this case."

Judge Collins agreed with lawsuit plaintiffs that it'd be unfair
for now to require English-learning students to pass the AIMS
test to get a diploma. On this regard, he wrote in his ruling,
"Until defendants makes the appropriations required for properly
funding ELL programs, the state is requiring something of
(these) students for which the state has failed to provide the
proper foundation."

The state opposed the AIMS motion, saying it would be unfair to
other students to exclude English-learners from the new
accountability requirement. State Superintendent of Public
Instruction Tom Horne told The Associated Press that he would
work to prepare legislation to comply with Judge Collins' order
but also have lawyers for the state ask the 9th Circuit U.S.
Court of Appeals to block implementation of the order.

Mr. Horne explained that exempting ELL students from the AIMS
graduation test undermines accountability in education and that
the state shouldn't be forced to bear the entire cost of the
educational consequences of the federal government's negligence
"in guarding our borders."

Napolitano spokeswoman Jeanine L'Ecuyer told The Associated
Press that the governor had invited Mr. Weiers and Senate
President Ken Bennett, R-Prescott, to meet with her next week to
work on a solution to the issue. The ruling, according to Ms.
L'Ecuyer, "lines up with what she's been saying since the
session ended, that this needs to be resolved."

Senate President Ken Bennett, R-Prescott told The Associated
Press that the bill could be changed to address some concerns,
possibly by providing assurances of funding for school
districts. Mr. Bennett and Mr. Weiers also told The Associated
press that they're willing to meet with Gov. Napolitano, but
that there's little point if she's unwilling to compromise. Mr.
Bennett points out, "If her approach to this is it's her way or
the highway, let the fine be on her shoulders."

Asked for comment on the recent decision, Mr. Hogan told The
Associated Press that the ruling "is going a long way toward
getting this problem resolved." He also said that lawmakers must
enact program changes, which cover districts' actual costs for
English language learning programs.

The suit is styled, "Flores, et al. v. Arizona, State of, et
al., Case No. 4:92-cv-00596-RCC," filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona, under Judge Raner C.
Collins. Representing the Plaintiff/s is Timothy Michael Hogan
of Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, 202 E.
McDowell Rd., Ste. 153, Phoenix, AZ 85004, Phone: 602-258-8850,
Fax: 602-258-8757, E-mail: thogan@aclpi.org. Representing the
Defendant/s are, Lynne Christensen Adams and Jose A. Cardenas of
Lewis & Roca, LLP, 40 N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004-4429,
Phone: 602-262-5372 and 602-262-5790, Fax: 602-734-4015 and
602-734-3852, E-mail: ladams@lrlaw.com and JCARDENAS@LRLAW.COM.


BAYER INC.: Canadian High Court Allows Baycol Lawsuit to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action suit filed by two Manitoba women over Baycol, an
allegedly defective cholesterol-reducing drug, was given the
green light by the Supreme Court of Canada to proceed, The
Brandon Sun reports.

The women are suing Bayer Inc., the maker of the drug, which was
voluntarily removed from the market in August 2001 after 31
deaths were attributed to its use. Five months after its recall,
Bayer confirmed that almost 100 deaths were linked to Baycol. It
is believed that the drug has caused debilitating muscle and
kidney ailments in thousands of people.

The class action suit says the two women continued to experience
muscle pain and loss even after they stopped taking the drug.
Bayer is facing a number of class action suits as a result of
the drug.

The women's claim was approved as a class action suit by a
Manitoba judge after a certification hearing last year. Bayer
appealed that certification to the Supreme Court after a failed
challenge in the Manitoba Court of Appeal. Eventually, it lead
to the Supreme Court's recent decision, which essentially stated
that it wasn't prepared to hear the matter.

Attorney Harvey Pollock, whose firm is representing the women,
told The Brandon Sun that given the lower court ruling they
weren't surprised by the Supreme Court's decision. Mr. Pollock
also told The Brandon Sun that his firm would be putting out
public notices in Manitoba and other provinces by the next year
to see if there are any other people who want to join the
lawsuit.

The class action suit is the first to be filed in Manitoba under
a new law, which sets out the procedures and rules for class
action suits. Previously, class actions were permitted in
Manitoba but were difficult to pursue because there were no
rules and they seldom went to trial.


BOEING CO.: Ex-Workers Plan Suit Over Non-Existent SA Job Offers
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Wichita, Kansas, attorney will file a federal class action
lawsuit on behalf of more than 70 former Boeing Co. Wichita
workers who did not receive jobs with Spirit AeroSystems (SA),
The Wichita Eagle reports.

The suit will claim that the workers, who are all over the age
of 40, did not receive jobs because of their age, Lawrence
Williamson, a lawyer with Shores, Williamson & Ohaebosim told
The Wichita Eagle. The suit will be filed against Boeing and
Onex Corporation, a Canadian investment group, he adds.  

Last June, Boeing sold its Wichita commercial aircraft division
to Onex. Hundreds of Boeing workers did not receive job offers
from the new company, Spirit AeroSystems. Boeing spokesman Tim
Neale told The Wichita Eagle that the company could not comment
on the suit because it has not been filed.  Mr. Williamson told
The Wichita Eagle that about 75 employees are to be named as
plaintiffs in the suit. He also told The Wichita Eagle that he
would wait until the suit is officially filed to say what the
plaintiffs are seeking in damages.


DELTA AIR: Retired Pilots File Suit Over Pension Contributions
--------------------------------------------------------------
A group of retired Delta Air Lines Inc. pilots initiated a class
action lawsuit against the Atlanta-based carrier in an attempt
to force the airline to make contributions to its pension plan
for pilots, Pensions & Investments reports.

According to court papers, the Delta Pilots' Pension
Preservation Organization, with about 2,600 members, filed the
suit in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York, where Delta's Chapter
11 bankruptcy protection case is pending. The filing states that
the group is seeking to "compel Delta to comply with its
obligations to make contributions to its tax-qualified pilot
pension plan."

Delta spokesman Anthony Black told Pensions & Investments in a
recent e-mail that the airline "will respond though the court
process at the appropriate time."

The group of retired pilots filed a motion in Delta's bankruptcy
case in September seeking to force the company to make required
pension plan contributions. However, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge
Prudence Carter Beatty denied that motion in October. The
ruling, which the retired pilot group is appealing, allowed
Delta to forego a $160 million required pension contribution in
October. Delta had just more than $7 billion in defined benefit
pension assets as of September 30, according to data the airline
supplied to Pensions & Investments.


DUKE ENERGY: NY Court Grants Certification To NYMEX Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted class certification to the consolidated suit
filed against Duke Energy Trading and Marketing (DETM) and other
natural gas firms on behalf of entities who bought and sold
natural gas futures and options contracts on the New York
Mercantile Exchange during the years 2000 through 2002.

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated the Commodity
Exchange Act by reporting false and misleading trading
information to trade publications, resulting in monetary losses
to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs seek class action certification,
unspecified damages and other relief.

On September 24, 2004, the court denied a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' claims filed on behalf of DETM and other defendants,
and on September 30, 2005, the court issued an order granting
class certification.


DUKE ENERGY: Continues To Face Antitrust Fraud Suit in W.D. TN
--------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation and its affiliates continue to face a
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee, on behalf of indirect purchasers
of natural gas who allege that they have been harmed by
defendants' manipulation of the natural gas markets by various
means, including providing false information to natural gas
trade publications and unlawfully exchanging information,
resulting in artificially high natural gas prices paid by
plaintiffs in the State of Tennessee.

Four plaintiffs filed the suit on January 28, 2005 in Tennessee
Chancery Court, alleging that defendants violated state
antitrust laws and other laws and seeking unspecified damages
and other relief.  Defendants removed this case to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee in
March 2005.


DUKE ENERGY: CA Court Preliminarily OKs Antitrust Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of San Diego County, California granted
preliminary approval to the settlement of the class action filed
against Duke Energy Corporation involving the purchase of
electricity filed on behalf of ratepayers and other electricity
consumers in California, Washington, Oregon, Utah and Idaho.

This agreement is part of a more comprehensive settlement
involving Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) refunds
and other proceedings related to the western energy markets
during 2000-2001 (the California Settlement).  The class action
portion of the settlement was subject to court approval, but
FERC approved all remaining provisions of the settlement in
December 2004. As part of the California Settlement, the Company
agreed to provide approximately $208 million in cash and credits
to various parties involved in the settlement.  The parties
agreed to forgo all claims relating to refunds or other monetary
damages for sales of electricity during the settlement period
(January 1, 2000 through June 20, 2001), and claims alleging the
Company received unjust or unreasonable rates for the sale of
electricity during the settlement period.  In December 2004, the
Company tendered all of the settlement proceeds except for $7
million relating to the class-action settlements. This remaining
amount, which is fully reserved, will be paid upon court
approval of the class-action settlement.

On July 22, 2005, the Superior Court for San Diego County
entered an order granting preliminary approval of the class-
action settlement and authorizing notice of the proposed
settlements to be sent to the respective class members. A
hearing on final approval of the class-action settlements is
presently scheduled for December 2005.


EDWARD JONES: Pays $2.5M to Clients Over 2002 Settlement Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The investment firm Edward Jones will pay about $2.5 million to
customers for failing to file their claims on time in a class
action lawsuit, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.

U.S. District Judge John Nangle dismissed an effort by suburban
St. Louis-based Edward Jones to file the customers' claims after
a deadline had passed in the class action shareholder lawsuit
against Bank of America. In his December 9 order, the judge
wrote, "Edward Jones admits that the failure to file the claims
resulted from its own negligence. Such behavior does not warrant
an extension of the claims filing deadline."

"We messed up," Edward Jones spokesman John Boul told The St.
Louis Post-Dispatch, adding, "We're trying to do what's right
for the customers." The company will make the payments to
customers who owned 5 million shares of the old NationsBank,
which merged into Bank of America in 1998.

Shareholders alleged in the lawsuit that Bank of America failed
to disclose large financial losses stemming from an investment
in a hedge fund. The bank settled the case for $490 million in
2002 in what is one of the largest shareholder class action
settlements in U.S. history.

Judge Nangle further wrote that he initially set a deadline of
July 15, 2002, for claims to be filed, but later extended the
deadline to May 1, 2004. Edward Jones missed the last deadline,
according to the judge.

About 8,500 Edward Jones customers own the shares involved. Mr.
Boul told The Associated Press that the company filed claims in
the suit in a timely fashion on behalf of three classes of
shareholders, but erred in failing to file on behalf of a
fourth. Mr. Boul also told The Associated Press, "We have
decided to contact the affected clients and pay them the amount
of their claim that they would have received, had they been
included with the rest of the class, plus interest."

Previously, a Missouri federal court granted approval to a
settlement proposed by the Bank of America Corporation to settle
a consolidated class action pending against it and certain of
its present and former officers and directors. The consolidated
suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants failed to
disclose material facts about BankAmerica's losses relating to
D.E. Shaw Securities Group, L.P. (D.E. Shaw) and related
entities until mid-October 1998, in violation of various
provisions of federal and state laws. The amended complaint also
alleges that the proxy statement-prospectus of August 4, 1998
falsely stated that the merger between NationsBank Corporation
(NationsBank) and BankAmerica would be one of equals and alleges
a scheme to have NationsBank gain control over the newly merged
entity. The court has certified classes consisting generally of
persons who were stockholders of NationsBank or BankAmerica on
September 30, 1998, or were entitled to vote on the merger, or
who purchased or acquired securities of the Corporation or its
predecessors between August 4, 1998 and October 13, 1998, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 15, 2002) reports.

In February 2002, the Company reached an agreement, subject to
judicial approval, to settle the class actions. The settlement
provides for payment of $333 million to the NationsBank Classes
and $157 million to the BankAmerica Classes. The Company agreed
to the settlement without admitting liability. The settlement
will be paid from existing litigation reserves and insurance and
is not expected to have a further impact on the Company's
financial results, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(November 15, 2002) reports.


EQUIPMENT FINANCE: NJ Court Certifies Limited Class in Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for Monmouth County, New Jersey certified a
limited class of New Jersey residents in the lawsuit filed
against Equipment Finance (formerly known as Irwin Business
Finance), styled "Exquisite Caterers, LLC et al. v. Popular
Leasing et al."

The plaintiffs seek certification of a class of persons who
leased network computer equipment from NorVergence, whose leases
were assigned to defendants. The complaint alleges that
NorVergence misrepresented the services and equipment provided,
that the lessees were defrauded and the lease agreements should
not be enforced. The action alleges violations of, among other
things, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; the New Jersey
Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act; the FTC
Holder Rule; the FTC Act; and breach of contract and implied
warranties. The plaintiffs seek compensatory, statutory and
punitive damages, and injunctive relief, including rescission of
the leases and cessation of collections.

On June 16, 2005, the judge in the lawsuit denied plaintiffs'
alternative motions for certification of either a nationwide
class or a class of New Jersey residents only. Plaintiffs then
filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying
certification of a class limited to New Jersey residents. At a
hearing on September 14, 2005, the judge granted plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration and certified a class limited to New
Jersey residents.  The Company has fewer than ten lessees who
may qualify as members of the New Jersey class certified in the
lawsuit.


FIRST HORIZON: Trial in MO Home Loan Consumer Suit Set May 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against First Horizon National
Corporation's subsidiary First Horizon Home Loans is set for May
2006 in the Superior Court of Jackson County, Missouri.

The suit was filed in November 2000, and concerns the charging
of certain loan origination fees, including fees permitted by
Kansas law but allegedly restricted or not permitted by Missouri
law, when First Horizon Home Loans or its predecessor, McGuire
Mortgage Company, made certain second-lien mortgage loans.  
Among other relief, plaintiffs seek a refund of fees, a
repayment and forgiveness of loan interest, punitive damages,
and loan rescission.

In response to pre-trial motions, the court has ruled that
Missouri law governs the loan transactions and has certified a
statewide class action; plaintiffs contend the class involves
approximately 4,600 loans, but the exact size is in dispute.  
Discovery is ongoing and additional pre-trial motions are
pending.


FORD MOTOR: Finalizes Settlement Over Defective Intake Manifolds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Co. finalized a settlement that requires the
automaker to pay at least $735 each to sedan owners, who had to
replace an intake manifold, The Cherry Hill Courier Post
reports.

According to attorneys for the plaintiffs, Ford is also
extending warranty coverage on the plastic part to seven years
to cover vehicle owners who haven't replaced the manifold.
Morrow Cater, a spokeswoman for the plaintiffs told The Cherry
Hill Courier Post that the class action lawsuit covered a total
of 1.8 million vehicle owners. Kathleen Vokes, a spokeswoman for
the automaker said that the Company doesn't know how much the
settlement will cost.

The suit alleged that the composite intake manifolds were prone
to premature cracking and failure, which could lead to coolant
leakage and expensive damage to the engine. The intake manifold
routes air to the engine's cylinders where an air-fuel mixture
then ignites to produce the combustion necessary to power the
engine, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (June 24, 2005)
reports.

Under the settlement, which was filed last June in federal court
in Oakland, California, Ford will pay owners at least $735 to
reimburse them for repairs made on faulty manifolds. The
settlement could cost Ford as much as $375 million if every
customer files a claim, according to Richard Dorman, a
plaintiffs' attorney, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(June 21, 2005) reports.

All persons living in the United States who own or lease (or
owned or lease) a Ford, Lincoln, or Mercury between 1996 and
2002 could potentially be included in the settlement. The cars
must be equipped with a 4.6-liter, 2-valve V-8 engine having a
composite air intake manifold as original equipment, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (June 21, 2005) reports. The
affected Ford models include:

CAR AND MODEL YEAR

     (1) Mercury Grand Marquis 1996-2001

     (2) Lincoln Town Car 1996-2001

     (3) Ford Crown Victoria 1996-2001

     (4) Mercury Cougar; Ford Thunderbird and Mustang 1997
         (build date after 6/24/97)

     (5) Ford Mustang 1998-2001 (some vehicles)

     (6) Ford Explorer 2002 (some vehicles)

Additionally, under the settlement, owners who replaced their
intake manifolds within the first seven years of ownership can
take the vehicles to a dealer and obtain reimbursement whether
or not they have a receipt. It stipulated though that the
vehicle must be brought to a dealer by March 16, 2006.

The suit is styled, "Chamberlan et al v. Ford Motor Company,
Case No. 4:03-cv-02628-CW," filed in the United States District
Court for Northern District of California, under Judge Claudia
Wilken with referral to Judge Maria-Elena James. Representing
the Plaintiff/s is Michael Francis Ram of Levy Ram Olson &
Rossi, LLP, 639 Front St., 4th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111-
1913, Phone: 415-433-4949, Fax: 415-433-7311, E-mail:
mfr@lrolaw.com. Representing the Defendant/s are, Brian C.
Anderson of O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, 1625 Eye St., NW Washington,
DC 20006-4001, Phone: 202-383-5309, Fax: 202-383-5414, E-mail:
banderson@omm.com and Troy M. Yoshino of Carroll, Burdick &
McDonough, LLP, 44 Montgomery St., Suite 400, San Francisco, CA
94104, Phone: (415) 989-5900, Fax: (415) 989-0932, E-mail:
tyoshino@cbmlaw.com.


GENERAL MOTORS: MI Judge Asked to Approved Healthcare Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation and the United Auto Workers (UAW)
jointly filed a motion in Michigan federal court that asks a
judge to approve their recent healthcare settlement, which would
curtail benefits for 500,000 retirees, surviving spouses and
dependents, The Detroit Free Press reports.

The request comes in response to a lawsuit filed last October
18, 2005 by the UAW and several retirees, which asks to be
recognized as a class action and challenges GM's assertion that
it has the right to change or terminate retiree benefits
unilaterally. Additionally, GM consents in the court filings to
UAW's petition to be recognized as a class.

Federal labor law gives unions broad powers to represent workers
but is more vague about retirees. Persuading a judge to approve
the deal would recognize the UAW as the retirees' rightful
representative. Previously, the UAW filed a lawsuit to get a
similar settlement with Ford Motor Co. approved.

The suit is styled, "United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America et al v. General
Motors Corporation, Case No. 2:05-cv-73991-RHC-VMM," filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, under Judge Robert H. Cleland with referral to Judge
Virginia M. Morgan. Representing the Plaintiff/s are, William T.
Payne, 1007 Mt. Royal Blvd., Pittsburgh, PA 15223, US, Phone:
412-492-5797, Fax: 412-492-8978, E-mail: wpayne@stargate.net;
and Michael F. Saggau and Daniel W. Sherrick of International
Union, UAW (Detroit), 8000 E. Jefferson Ave., Detroit, MI 48214,
US, Phone: 313-926-5216, Fax: 313-926-5240, E-mail:
msaggau@uaw.net. Representing the Defendant/s are, Richard C.
Godfrey of Kirkland & Ellis (Chicago), 200 E. Randolph Drive,
Suite 6000, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: 312-861-2391; and Francis
S. Jaworski and Edward W. Risko of General Motors Legal Staff,
400 Renaissance Center, P.O. Box 400, Detroit, MI 48265-4000.


GUITAR CENTER: Reaches Settlement For CA Retail Workers' Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Guitar Center, Inc. (Nasdaq: GTRC) reached a preliminary
agreement to settle two purported class action lawsuits, which
alleged, among other things, that the Company improperly
documented and enforced break-time and lunchtime periods for
hourly retail store employees in the State of California.

On October 13, 2004, a putative class action lawsuit entitled
"Carlos Rodriguez v. The Guitar Center, Inc. [sic], Case No.
GC322958," was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court on
behalf of all hourly retail store employees within the State of
California. On December 15, 2004, a putative class action
lawsuit entitled "James McClain et. al. v. Guitar Center Stores,
Inc., Case No. BC326002," was filed in the same court on behalf
of all hourly retail store employees within the State of
California. Among other things, the lawsuits allege that the
Company improperly failed to document and enforce break-time and
lunchtime periods for such employees and seek an unspecified
amount of damages, penalties and attorneys' fees, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (March 31, 2005) reports.  

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, which is subject to
final documentation and court approval, Guitar Center will make
cash payments of up to $3.5 million to fully resolve claims by
eligible class members, including payments to class members and
payments for plaintiff attorneys' fees and the costs of a third-
party administrator. As a result of the proposed settlement, the
Company estimates that it will record a pre-tax charge of $2.5
million to $3.0 million, equivalent to $0.05 to $0.06 cents per
diluted share after-tax, in the fourth quarter of 2005. The
charge is not included in Guitar Center's previous financial
guidance.

Leland P. Smith, Executive Vice President and General Counsel
for Guitar Center, commented, "While the Company denies all
liability or wrongdoing in these cases, we chose to settle these
lawsuits in order to put them behind us and avoid the
distraction and additional, unnecessary legal expenses that we
would otherwise incur."


HAWAII: Judge Sides With Substitute Teachers in $25M Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Karen Ahn ruled that the state of Hawaii failed to
pay millions of dollars to its substitute teachers, The
Associated Press reports.

Essentially, the judge sided with the nearly nine thousand
teachers who filed a class action lawsuit in 2002. The suit
argued that they were shortchanged by the state Department of
Education since 1996.

The suit was filed by Maui substitute teacher David Garner and
by other substitutes against the state and the Department of
Education demanding back pay based on a 1996 state law that
requires schools to pay substitute teachers a daily amount based
on the salary of a teacher with four years of college education.
It sought about $25 million in back pay, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (October 11, 2004) reports.

The 8-year-old law in question is known as Act 89. The law
specifically states that the daily pay rate for substitutes
"shall be based on the annual entry step salary rate established
for a Class II teacher on the most current teacher's salary
schedule," an earlier Class Action Reporter story (October 11,
2004) reports. Currently, substitute teachers are paid $119.80
cents per day. The suit claims that they should get $150 a day.

DOE Superintendent Pat Hamamoto told The Associated Press that
the department is consulting with the state attorney general's
office to decide if it will appeal. If the state does not
appeal, substitute teachers could start receiving restitution in
a few months. However, if an appeal happens, it could be years
before the substitutes get what they believe they are owed.

The teachers claim that the state owes them roughly 30 dollars
for every day they worked between November 1, 2000, and June 30,
2005. Attorney Paul Aston is representing the teachers in the
case. He says the back pay amounts to about $22 million, however
the DOE could not confirm that amount.

Previously, both parties stated that regardless of how the state
judge rules on the case, the verdict would be appealed to the
Hawaii Supreme Court. However, according to the plaintiff's
lawyers, if they prevail, the state will have to pay them even
more money because they will be entitled to interest on the
amount owed. State attorneys countered that substitutes already
earn the correct amount, the same as instructors with four years
of college education or who hold a bachelor's degree, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (October 11, 2004) reports.


HIBERNIA CORPORATION: LA Settlement Hearing Moved To Jan. 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fairness hearing for the settlement of the class action filed
against Hibernia Corporation in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, on behalf of its
shareholders, has been moved to January 17,2006, due to the
effects of Hurricane Katrina.  

The suit also names as defendants each of the members of the
Company's Board of Directors in connection with the proposed
merger of the Company with the Capital One Financial
Corporation.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that
the directors of the Company named in the complaint breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareholder value,
and by creating deterrents to third-party offers (including by
agreeing to pay a termination fee to Capital One in certain
circumstances under the merger agreement).  Among other things,
the complaint seeks class action status, a court order enjoining
Hibernia and its directors from proceeding with or consummating
the merger, or any other business combination with a third
party, a court order rescinding the merger agreement and any of
its terms to the extent already implemented and the payment of
attorneys' and experts' fees.

In June 2005, the Company, Capital One and the putative class
representative signed a memorandum of understanding with respect
to a settlement of the lawsuit.  The memorandum of understanding
provided that the parties would enter into a settlement pursuant
to which Capital One would waive the right to receive $20
million of the $220 million termination fee payable by the
Company under certain circumstances, the Company and Capital One
would agree to make certain additional disclosures in the
preliminary proxy statement/prospectus that was filed with the
SEC in connection with the merger transaction, the plaintiff
agreed on behalf of the class to dismiss with prejudice and
release all of the claims brought in the lawsuit (and any claims
that could have been brought in the lawsuit) and Hibernia agreed
to pay certain legal expenses of the plaintiffs. The agreement
is subject to final approval by the court, a hearing with
respect to which was originally scheduled for late November 2005
and, following hurricane Katrina, has been rescheduled for
January 17, 2006.


IRON CITY: Settles Racial Discrimination Suit in WI for $100T
-------------------------------------------------------------
Iron City Constructors Inc., a contractor for the Appleton-based
Boldt Co., will pay former employees $100,000 to settle a
hostile work environment class action complaint brought by the
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, The Post-Crescent
reports.

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

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

The suit specifically alleged that the companies permitted
racist graffiti at the work site. However, in a statement, Boldt
contends that when EEOC officials visited the job site
unannounced, it found no graffiti nor could it identify any
individual who wrote graffiti, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (December 5, 2005) reports. Last month, Boldt paid
$175,000 to settle its portion of the lawsuit.

As part of the settlement, Iron City will pay $80,000 to Giles
Jefferson, who brought the class action suit after claiming he
was verbally harassed on a daily basis at the work site. When he
complained, Mr. Jefferson was terminated. Another African-
American employee, who was let go from his job because of his
race, will receive $20,000 from Iron City. Additionally, the
settlement also calls for Iron City to implement a policy
prohibiting racial harassment and retaliation and train its
employees on this issue.

When Boldt reached its settlement with the EEOC, spokesman Jim
Rossmeissl said the agreement doesn't state that the company did
anything wrong. "This is an unfortunate situation that started
between one of our subcontractors and its employee," he pointed
out.


IRWIN MORTGAGE: AL Court Mulls Broker Fees Suit Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama has yet to rule on Irwin Mortgage Corporation's
(formerly known as Inland Mortgage Corporation) motion to grant
summary judgment in its favor in the lawsuit filed against it,
styled "Culpepper v. Inland Mortgage Corporation."

The suit alleges that the Company violated the federal Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) relating to the
Company's payment of broker fees to mortgage brokers.  In June
2001, the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld the
district court's certification of a plaintiff class and the case
was remanded for further proceedings in the federal district
court.

In November 2001, by order of the district court, the parties
filed supplemental briefs analyzing the impact of an October 18,
2001 policy statement issued by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) that explicitly disagreed with the
judicial interpretation of RESPA by the Court of Appeals for the
11th Circuit in its ruling upholding class certification in this
case.  In response to a motion from the Company, in March 2002,
the district court granted the Company's motion to stay
proceedings in this case until the 11th Circuit decided the
three other RESPA cases originally argued before it with this
case.

The 11th Circuit subsequently decided all of the RESPA cases
pending in that court. In one of those cases, the 11th Circuit
concluded that the trial court had abused its discretion in
certifying a class action under RESPA.  Further, in that
decision, the 11th Circuit expressly recognized it was, in
effect, overruling its previous decision upholding class
certification in our case.  In March 2003, the Company filed a
motion to decertify the class and the plaintiffs filed a renewed
motion for summary judgment.  On October 2, 2003 the case was
reassigned to another U.S. district court judge.  In response to
an order from the court, the parties met and submitted a joint
status report at the end of October 2003.  On June 14, 2004, at
the court's request, the parties engaged in mediation, which was
unsuccessful.  The court then reassigned this case to a new
judge.  Pursuant to the court's order on March 17, 2005, the
Company filed a motion for summary judgment and updated its
motion to decertify the class; the plaintiffs updated their
motion for summary judgment.

If the class is not decertified and the district court finds
that the Company violated RESPA, the Company could be liable for
damages equal to three times the amount of that portion of
payments made to the mortgage brokers that is ruled unlawful.
Based on notices sent by the plaintiffs to date to potential
class members and additional notices that might be sent in this
case, the Company believes the class is not likely to exceed
32,000 borrowers who meet the class specifications.

The suit is styled Culpepper et al. v. Inland Mortgage
Corporation, case no. 2:96-cv-00917-VEH-HGD Culpepper, filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, under Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David R. Donaldson, David J. Guin, Tammy McClendon
         Stokes, DONALDSON & GUIN LLC, Two North Twentieth
         Building 2 North 20th Street, Suite 1100, Birmingham,
         AL 35203, Phone: 226-2282, Fax: 226-226-2357, E-mail:
         DavidD@dglawfirm.com, davidg@dglawfirm.com,
         tstokes@dglawfirm.com

     (2) Richard S Gordon, Kieron F. Quinn, QUINN GORDON & WOLF,
         40 West Chesapeake Avenue, Suite 408, Baltimore, MD
         21204-4803, Phone: 1-410-825-2300, Fax: 1-410-825-0066

Representing the Company are:

     (i) David S. Hay, Janel E. LaBoda, Alan Hall Maclin, J.
         Patrick McDavitt, Robert J. Pratte, Margaret K. Savage,
         BRIGGS & MORGAN, 2200 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street,
         Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: 1-612-977-8400, Fax: 1-
         612-977-8650

    (ii) Sarah Y. Larson, Alexander J. Marshall III, Cathy S.
         Wright, MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC, AmSouth Harbert
         Plaza, Suite 2400, 1901 6th Avenue North, Birmingham,
         AL 35203-2618, 254-1000, Fax: 254-1999, E-mail:
         slarson@mcglaw.com


IRWIN MORTGAGE: IN Court Mulls Consumer Lawsuit Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Indiana Superior Court for Marion County has yet to rule on
Irwin Mortgage Corporation's motion for summary judgment in the
class action filed against it, styled "Silke v. Irwin Mortgage
Corporation."  The suit, filed in April 2003, alleges that the
Company charged a document preparation fee in violation of
Indiana law for services performed by clerical personnel in
completing legal documents related to mortgage loans.

The Company filed an answer on June 11, 2003 and a motion for
summary judgment on October 27, 2003.  On June 18, 2004, the
court certified a plaintiff class consisting of Indiana
borrowers who were allegedly charged the fee by the Company any
time after April 17, 1997.  This date was later clarified by
stipulation of the parties to be April 14, 1997.  In November
2004, the court heard arguments on the Company's motion for
summary judgment and plaintiffs' motion seeking to send out
class notice.


IRWIN UNION: Asks PA Court To Junk Consolidated RICO, RESPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company asked the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to
dismiss the third amended consolidated class action filed
against it, in connection with loans Irwin Union Bank purchased
from Community Bank of Northern Virginia (Community).

The first suit, styled "Hobson v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust
Company" was filed on July 30, 2004 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.  As amended
on August 30, 2004, the "Hobson" complaint, seeks certification
of both a plaintiffs' and a defendants' class, the plaintiffs'
class to consist of all persons who obtained loans from
Community and whose loans were purchased by Irwin Union Bank.
The suit alleges that defendants violated the Truth-in-Lending
Act (TILA), the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act
(HOEPA), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
On October 12, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
"Hobson" claims as untimely filed and substantively defective.
On March 4, 2005, the court held a hearing on the Company's
motion to dismiss.

The second suit is styled "Kossler v. Community Bank of Northern
Virginia" and was originally filed in July 2002 in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
The Company was added as a defendant in December 2004.  The
complaint seeks certification of a plaintiffs' class and seeks
to void the mortgage loans as illegal contracts. Plaintiffs also
seek recovery against the Company for alleged RESPA violations
and for conversion. On June 23, 2005, the company filed a motion
to dismiss the Kossler action.

The plaintiffs in both suits claim that Community was allegedly
engaged in a lending arrangement involving the use of its
charter by certain third parties who charged high fees that were
not representative of the services rendered and not properly
disclosed as to the amount or recipient of the fees. The loans
in question are allegedly high cost/high interest loans under
Section 32 of HOEPA.  Plaintiffs also allege illegal kickbacks
and fee splitting.

In "Hobson," the plaintiffs allege that the Company was aware of
Community;s alleged arrangement when it purchased the loans and
that it participated in a RICO enterprise and conspiracy related
to the loans.  Because the Company bought the loans from
Community, the "Hobson" plaintiffs are alleging that the Company
has assignee liability under HOEPA.

The Company and Community Bank also face two individual actions,
styled "Chatfield v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company, et al."
and "Ransom v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company, et al.,"
filed on June 9, 2004 in the Circuit Court of Frederick County,
Maryland, involving mortgage loans the Company purchased from
Community.  On July 16, 2004, both of these lawsuits were
removed to the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland. The complaints allege that the plaintiffs did not
receive disclosures required under HOEPA and TILA.  The lawsuits
also allege violations of Maryland law because the plaintiffs
were allegedly charged or contracted for a prepayment penalty
fee.  The Company believes the plaintiffs received the required
disclosures and that Community, a Virginia-chartered bank, was
permitted to charge prepayment fees to Maryland borrowers. Under
the loan purchase agreements between the Company and Community,
the Company has the right to demand repurchase of the mortgage
loans and to seek indemnification from Community for the claims
in these lawsuits.  On September 17, 2004, the Company made a
demand for indemnification and a defense to "Hobson,"
"Chatfield" and "Ransom."  Community denied this request as
premature.

On December 22, 2004, the Company filed a motion with the
Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation requesting a transfer
of "Hobson," "Chatfield" and "Ransom" to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania for
coordinated or consolidated proceedings with the "Kossler"
action.  On April 28, 2005, the JPMDL granted the Company's
motion and consolidated the four cases in the Western District
of Pennsylvania for all pretrial proceedings.

On September 9, 2005, the "Kossler" plaintiffs filed a Third
Amended Class Action Complaint.  On October 21, 2005, the
Company filed a renewed motion seeking to dismiss the "Kossler"
action.  

The consolidated suit is styled "DAVIS, et al v. COMMUNITY BANK
OF NO, et al., case no. 2:02-cv-01201-GLL, (formerly Kossler),"
filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, under Judge Gary L. Lancaster.  
Representing the company is Larry K. Elliott, Cohen & Grigsby,
11 Stanwix Street, 15th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1319, Phone:
(412) 297-4962, E-mail: lelliott@cohenlaw.com.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Eric G. Calhoun, Lawson, Fields, McCue, Lee & Campbell,
         14135 Midway Road, Suite 250, Addison, TX 75001, Phone:
         (972) 490-0808

     (2) R. Bruce Carlson, Caron, McCormick, Gordon & Constants,
         201 Route 17 North, 2nd Floor, Rutherford, NJ 07070,
         Phone: (412) 749-1667, E-mail:
         bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com

     (3) Michael E. McCarthy, 2500 Lawyers Building, Pittsburgh,
         PA 15219, Phone: (412) 281-1288

     (4) R. Hoyt Rowell, III, Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson
         & Poole, P.O. Box 1792, Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465, Phone:
         (843) 216-9471


ISOLAGEN INC.: Shareholders Commence Securities Suits in PA, TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Isolagen, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers
and directors face several class actions filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas and the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

On August 18, 2005, Elliot Liff brought an action styled,
"Elliot Liff v. Isolagen, Inc., Frank M. Delape, Robert J.
Bitterman, Michael Macaluso, Jeffrey W. Tomz, Olga Marko,
William K. Boss, Jr. and Michael Avignon, case no. C.A.
No. H-05-2887," in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.  In this action, the Plaintiff
purports to bring a federal securities fraud class action on
behalf of purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the
Company between March 3, 2004 and August 1, 2005, including
purchasers of Company stock issued in connection with and
traceable to its June 2004 common stock offering.  

The action asserts that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by making certain false
statements and omissions to the investing public regarding the
Company's business operations, management, and intrinsic value
of its publicly traded securities.  The Complaint also alleges
liability against the individual defendants under Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act.  

On September 16, 2005, Ronald Gargiulo brought an action styled,
"Ronald A. Gargiulo v. Isolagen, Inc., Frank M. DeLape, Robert
J. Bitterman, Michael Macaluso, Jeffrey W. Tomz, Olga Marko,
William K. Boss, Jr. and Michael Avignon, case no. C.A. No. 05-
cv-4983," filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This action (and another
subsequently filed action in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania) makes substantially similar allegations against
the defendants.

Four movants have subsequently made applications under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 to be appointed
Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel. Those applications are pending
before the courts.  The Company anticipates that after Lead
Plaintiff and Lead Counsel are selected, an amended consolidated
complaint will be filed and that the Company and the individual
defendants will move to dismiss that complaint.


MASSEY ENERGY: Property Damage Suits Still Pending in WV Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Massey Energy Co. and 12 of its subsidiaries continue to face
litigation, alleged that defendants illegally transported coal
in overloaded trucks, causing damage to state roads, thereby
interfering with plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their
properties and their right to use the public roads.  Plaintiffs
seek injunctive relief and unquantified compensatory and
punitive damages.

An advocacy group representing residents in the Counties of
Boone, Raleigh and Kanawha, West Virginia, and other plaintiffs,
filed 16 suits in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West
Virginia filed the suit in January 2003.  The Supreme Court of
Appeals of West Virginia referred the consolidated lawsuits, and
three similar lawsuits against other coal and transportation
companies not involving the Company's subsidiaries, to the
Circuit Court of Lincoln County, West Virginia, to be handled by
a mass litigation panel.

In March 2004, seven residents of Mingo County, West Virginia,
filed a similar lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Mingo County,
West Virginia, against the Company and three subsidiaries,
raising similar claims and seeking similar relief. The Supreme
Court of Appeals referred this case to the mass litigation panel
also.  The plaintiffs in all five trucking cases have requested
that the cases be further consolidated, the scope of their
claims be expanded statewide, claims be added against land
companies, and class action status be granted.


NEW JERSEY: Resident Files Stolen Bone Suit V. Three Companies
--------------------------------------------------------------  
A New Jersey man on initiated a lawsuit against three companies,
including a subsidiary of Medtronic Inc., that harvest or market
tissue for transplants and a funeral home, The Associated Press
reports.

In the suit, Gary Pieper of Mays Landing, New Jersey, claims
that the bone used when he underwent an operation last year was
taken from a corpse without permission from the family of the
deceased and was not tested for various diseases. Mr. Pieper's
suit names as defendants a Brooklyn, New York funeral home and
three companies involved in obtaining and marketing human tissue
such as skin, bones and eyes for transplants, as well as an
embalmer and the man who ran one of the tissue firms. Among the
companies named is Medtronic's Memphis, Tennessee-based spinal-
implant unit Sofamor Danek Inc.

A Medtronic spokesman would not comment on the lawsuit, but told
The Associated Press that the company was merely a conduit
passing along the bones. Rob Clark pointed out, "We didn't
harvest it, we didn't process it. We would never have knowingly
distributed questionable material."

The other defendants in the case, Biomedical Tissue Services,
Daniel George & Son Funeral Home of Brooklyn and Regeneration
Technologies Inc., of Alachua, Florida, either could not be
reached or did not return messages asking for comment on the
suit.

Mr. Pieper's lawyer, Patrick D'Arcy, told The Associated press
that his firm plans to file 15 to 20 more suits in New Jersey in
coming weeks and has more than 40 other prospective clients
across the nation. He also told The Associated Press that he
plans to ask for class action status for the cases.


NEW YORK: Judge Temporarily Repeals Brookhaven's Eviction Powers
----------------------------------------------------------------
A New York federal judge ordered Brookhaven Town to retool a
housing code enforcement program that immigrant rights advocates
claimed in a class action suit is a systematic campaign to rid
Farmingville of Latino day laborers, The New York Newsday
reports.

U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert in Central Islip issued a
preliminary injunction against the town, blocking it from
obtaining "ex parte" temporary restraining orders against the
tenants, which it used for immediate evictions, unless officials
provide them with prior notice. Essentially, the injunction
means that Brookhaven cannot evict tenants with a few hours'
notice unless the house clearly poses an imminent danger.

Immigrant rights groups called the decision a major victory and
predicted it would disrupt the town's illegal housing crackdown
in Farmingville by stopping them from carrying out many of the
evictions. Cesar Perales of the Manhattan-based Puerto Rican
Legal Defense and Education Fund, which filed the lawsuit, told
Newsday, "Only Latinos were evicted in this campaign that threw
hundreds into the streets. Local governments cannot be allowed
to use housing violations as a pretext to drive day laborers out
of communities."

However, an attorney for Brookhaven told The New York Newsday
that the decision would not affect how the town conducts the
crackdown because it has followed legal guidelines. Jeltje
DeJong, a Smithtown-based attorney, also denied allegations of
discrimination. She told The New York Newsday, "The Town of
Brookhaven certainly wasn't targeting Latinos. The Town of
Brookhaven was targeting houses that were overpopulated, that
had poor sanitation problems." She also notes that some of the
houses had problems such as propane gas barbecues near exposed
electrical wires.

The Puerto Rican group argued that Latinos make up 8 percent of
Brookhaven's population but 100 percent of the evicted tenants.
The group maintains that they do not oppose immediate eviction
of tenants in truly dangerous conditions, but that the town also
has used the campaign to immediately throw tenants out of homes
that pose no imminent danger. They argued that in many cases,
the town waited for months to shut down houses after detecting
the alleged problems, then gave the tenants just a few hours to
leave.

Ms. DeJong told The New York Newsday that state court judges who
agreed with Brookhaven that the houses posed an imminent danger
signed the temporary restraining orders the town obtained.

Judge Seybert's order, which is preliminary, does not end the
case though. More hearings will be held to make a final
determination on the Puerto Rican group's allegations.

The Manhattan-based Puerto Rican group launched the federal
class action suit against Brookhaven Town and Suffolk County,
accusing them of illegally targeting Latinos in a housing
crackdown that already led to the eviction of at least 100
tenants in Farmingville this summer. Filed in federal court in
Brooklyn, the suit states that all the residents in 11 houses
shut down recently were Latinos, although Latinos make up only 8
percent of Brookhaven's population. Additionally, the suit also
alleges that a town-housing inspector used an expletive and a
racial slur against a day laborer during a recent confrontation.
The lawsuit seeks to order the town to give the tenants
sufficient notice to find other housing when carrying out the
evictions, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (September 21,
2005) reports.

Since June, Brookhaven has evicted at least 100 tenants from 11
homes in Farmingville. The conflict peaked on August 10, 2005,
when some tenants evicted from 196 Berkshire Dr. set up tents in
the backyard, where they lived for two months.

Irma Solis, an organizer at the nonprofit Hempstead-based
Workplace Project, testified at a recent hearing that some of
the displaced tenants have been living in tents in the backyard
at 196 Berkshire Dr., since it was shut down on August 10. In an
incident on August 25 in Farmingville, the suit alleges that
town investigator Patrick Campbell yelled an expletive and a
racial slur at a Workplace Project volunteer, and later
threatened to have Ms. Solis arrested after she arrived at the
scene. However, George Hoffman, a spokesman for Brookhaven Town
dismissed the allegation, saying, "I would think that is highly
unlikely any of our employees would do that," an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (September 21, 2005) reports.

The town's crackdown has been cheered by many residents fed up
with overcrowded houses they say are dangerous and destroy the
community's quality of life. Advocates for the immigrants though
contend that they have no place else to live, and that workers
play a key role in the economy by filling jobs in landscaping
and construction.

The suit is styled, "Valdez et al. v. Town of Brookhaven et al.,
Case No. 2:05-cv-04323-JS-ARL," filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge
Joanna Seybert. Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Sandra Del
Valle and Foster S. Maer of Puerto Rican Legal Defense &
Education Fund, 99 Hudson St., 14th Floor, New York, NY 10013,
Phone: 212-739-7504 and 212-219-3360, Fax: 212-431-4276, E-mail:
sandra_delvalle@prldef.org and foster_maer@prldef.org; and Juan
Carlos Gonzalez of Latham & Watkins, LLP, 885 Third Ave., New
York, NY 10022-4834, US, Phone: 212-906-1606, Fax: 212-751-4864,
E-mail: juan.gonzalez@lw.com. Representing the Defendant/s are,
Jeltje DeJong of Devitt Spellman Barrett, 50 Route 111,
Smithtown, NY 11787, Phone: 631-724-8833, Fax: 631-724-8010, E-
mail: J.deJong@devittspellmanlaw.com; and Brian P. Callahan and
Luz Adriana Lopez of Suffolk County Attorneys Office, 100
Veterans Memorial Hwy., POB 6100, Hauppauge, NY 11788-4311,
Phone: 631-853-5665, Fax: 631-853-5306, E-mail:
brian.callahan@suffolkcountyny.gov and
adriana.lopez@suffolkcountyny.gov.


NORTHWESTERN CORP: SD Judge Denies Motion V. "Poison Pill" Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lawrence L. Piersol denied a request by a NorthWestern
Corporation shareholders group to immediately halt actions by
company directors to discourage takeover attempts, The Argus
Leader reports.

The shareholders group, the City of Livonia Employees'
Retirement System, a city-employee pension fund in Michigan
initiated the lawsuit, which seeks class action status, alleging
that Northwestern violated its duty to shareholders by stifling
offers to buy the company. In the suit, Livonia officials claim
that the board acted in its own interest and ignored its
fiduciary duty to shareholders by refusing other possible deals.
The suit stated, "Plaintiff seeks to prevent further harm to
NorthWestern and its public shareholders by compelling (the
board) to fulfill their fiduciary responsibility as directors
and prevent (the board) from ... taking any additional actions
that will (impede) the maximization of shareholders' value," an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (December 6, 2005) reports.
"The actions they have taken are destroying shareholder value,
not creating it," Rick Atwood, Jr., a lawyer for City of Livonia
Employees' Retirement System told The Argus Leader.

Since July, two buyers publicly made offers to purchase the
utility company, which emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protections a year ago. The company provides electricity and
natural gas to about 600,000 customers in South Dakota, Montana
and Nebraska.

Lawyers for the shareholders group asked Judge Lawrence Piersol
to issue a temporary order suspending a stockholder rights plan,
or "poison pill," approved December 5 by the board of directors.
If a person or group buys 15 percent or more of the company's
stock, all other owners are awarded additional shares at a
discounted rate. This dilutes the value of each stock and
prevents parties from obtaining more than half of the shares.
The strategy is commonly used to prevent hostile takeovers.

Mr. Atwood told The Argus Leader that the "poison pill" and any
future defensive measures by the company's board could deter
buyers and potentially harm shareholders. However, Judge Piersol
disagreed and pointed out that the present threat to
shareholders was not strong enough to justify a temporary order.

Commenting on the decision, NorthWestern spokeswoman Claudia
Rapkoch told The Argus Leader, "We are pleased with the court's
ruling as it allows us to move forward with our shareholders'
rights plan." She maintains that the company's board initiated
the plan to allow it to evaluate all strategic alternatives
without undue pressure.

Two companies have publicly expressed interested in buying
NorthWestern. Montana Public Power, a nonprofit corporation
comprised of the cities of Bozeman, Great Falls, Helena and
Missoula, offered $32.50 per share in July. Black Hills
Corporation offered last month to pay $33 to $35 per share.
Shares opened at $31.60 per share Friday on the Nasdaq stock
exchange.

Despite denying plaintiffs' motion, Judge Piersol agreed with
them on the importance of expediting the trial schedule. He
said, "This is a major matter, and the court will make itself
available." Lawyers briefly discussed at the recent hearing,
March 7, 2006, as a possible starting date for a trial.

The suit is styled, "City of Livonia Employees' Retirement
System v. Draper et al, Case No. 4:05-cv-04178-LLP," filed in
the United States District Court for the District of South
Dakota, under Judge Lawrence L. Piersol. Representing the
Plaintiff/s are, Randall J. Baron, Darren J. Robbins and David
T. Wissbroecker of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins, LLP, 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101,
Phone: (619) 231-1058, Fax: 231-7423; and Timothy J. Dougherty
of Dougherty & Dougherty, P.O. Box 1004, Sioux Falls, SD 57101-
1004, Phone: 335-8586. Representing the Defendant/s are,
Filiberto Agusti and Andrew Sloniewsky of Steptoe and Johnson,
LLP, 1330 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20036, US, Phone:
(202) 429-6428 and (202) 429-6759; and Roberto Antonio Lange of
Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, P.O. Box 1030, Sioux Falls,
SD 57101-1030, Phone: 336-2880, Fax: 335-3639, E-mail:
rlange@dehs.com.


ORTHO-MCNEIL: Parker & Waichman Files Suit Over Ortho Evra Patch
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Parker & Waichman, LLP, commenced a lawsuit
against Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc., a division of Johnson
and Johnson Inc. (NYSE:JNJ), on behalf of a 19-year-old woman
who suffered pulmonary embolism and deep venous thrombosis (DVT)
after using the Ortho Evra contraceptive patch for 15 months.

In July 2005, the plaintiff began experiencing a fluttering
feeling in her chest followed by pain and shortness of breath.
On July 7, 2005, the plaintiff was taken to the emergency room
at Campbell Health System in Weatherford, Texas after
experiencing shortness of breath and sharp discomfort in her
mid-chest area. A CT Scan was performed which revealed pulmonary
embolism obstructing nearly all of the right pulmonary artery
and apparent pulmonary infarction in the right lower lobe. A
Doppler venogram was also performed which revealed deep venous
thrombosis (DVT) in the left common femoral and superficial
femoral veins. As a result, the plaintiff was admitted to the
hospital for Heparin and Coumadin (anticoagulant) therapy. The
plaintiff will likely undergo prolonged treatment with these
medications, which may be necessary for the remainder of her
life. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey in Newark, New Jersey.

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

Pulmonary embolism is a type of thromboembolism that occurs when
an artery in either lung becomes blocked. In most cases, the
blockage is caused by one or more blood clots that travel to the
lungs from another part of the body. Usually these clots migrate
from the legs, but they can also form in the pelvic vein.
Pulmonary embolism is potentially fatal or may result in
pulmonary arterial obstruction, pulmonary obstruction, pulmonary
infarction, chronic pulmonary hypertension, dyspenea and
tachypnea. Symptoms may include shortness of breath, difficulty
breathing, anxiety, chest pain, fainting and convulsions.
Treatment may include long term use of anticoagulant medications
and/or surgery. Recent reports have indicated that the risk of
developing blood clots, pulmonary embolism, heart attack and
stroke may be significantly higher with the Ortho Evra patch
than with oral contraceptive use.

Deep venous thrombosis or DVT is a condition where a blood clot
(Thrombus) forms within the deep vein system. The principal
veins affected are those in the calf muscles, lower abdomen,
groin and inner thigh. The thrombus can interfere with
circulation and it may break off and travel through the blood
stream, which can cause pulmonary embolism or stroke. Treatment
may include long term use of anticoagulant medications and/or
surgery. The new warnings from the FDA and Ortho-McNeil indicate
that the risk of developing blood clots may be significantly
higher with the Ortho Evra patch than with oral contraceptives.

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

Ortho Evra is an adhesive, transdermal birth control patch that
is worn on the torso. The patch is intended to release 150 mcg
of norelgestromin and 20 mcg of ethinyl estradiol into the
bloodstream per 24 hours. It is replaced once a week for three
weeks, and no patch is worn during the fourth week during
menstruation. The regimen is then repeated. Ortho Evra was
approved by the FDA in November 2001, and over 4 million women
have used Ortho Evra since its approval. Ortho Evra continues to
be marketed aggressively to both consumers and physicians.

For more details, contact Jason Mark, Esq. or Melanie H.
Muhlstock, Esq. of Parker & Waichman, LLP, Phone:
1-800-529-4636, E-mail: info@yourlawyer.com, Web site:
http://www.yourlawyer.com.


PACIFIC CAPITAL: CA Court Mulls Dismissal of RAL Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court in Santa Barbara, California has yet to rule
on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the class action
against Pacific Capital Bancorp on behalf of persons who entered
into a refund anticipation loan application and agreement (the
"RAL Agreement") with the Company from whose tax refund the
Company deducted a debt owed by the applicant to another RAL
lender.

The lawsuit was filed on March 18, 2003 in the Superior Court in
San Francisco, California as "Canieva Hood and Congress of
California Seniors v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, Pacific
Capital Bank, N.A., and Jackson-Hewitt, Inc."  The Company is a
party to a separate cross-collection agreement with each of the
other RAL lenders by which it agrees to collect sums due to
those other lenders on delinquent RALs by deducting those sums
from tax refunds due to its RAL customers and remitting those
funds to the RAL lender to whom the debt is owed.  This cross-
collection procedure is disclosed in the RAL Agreement with the
RAL customer and is specifically authorized and agreed to by the
customer. The suit was later moved to the Santa Barbara Superior
Court.

The plaintiff does not contest the validity of the debt, but
contends that the cross-collection is illegal and requests
damages on behalf of the class, injunctive relief against the
Company, restitution of sums collected, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees. The Company has filed an answer to the
complaint and has also filed a cross-complaint seeking indemnity
from the other RAL lenders for which the funds were cross-
collected.

The Company filed an answer to the complaint and a cross
complaint for indemnification against the other RAL lenders. On
May 4, 2005, a superior court judge in Santa Barbara granted a
motion filed by the Company and the other RAL lenders, which
resulted in the entry of a judgment in favor of the Company
dismissing the suit.  The plaintiffs have filed an appeal.

The Court has stayed all other proceedings, pending appeal. Ms.
Hood has also filed a separate suit against the Company and
Cendant Corporation on December 18, 2003 in the Ohio Court of
Common Pleas (Montgomery County) and is seeking to certify a
class in the action.  The allegations relate to the same set of
facts as the California action.  The Company filed a motion to
stay or dismiss, which was denied, and subsequently answered the
Complaint, denying any liability.  The case is in its discovery
and pretrial stage. The Company has filed a motion to stay the
action, or in the alternative to add Santa Barbara Bank & Trust
as a third-party defendant, pending a decision in the California
appeal. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the
claims.


PACIFIC CAPITAL: Continues To Face Refund Transfer Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Capital Bancorp continues to face a class action, on
behalf of persons who entered into a refund transfer application
and agreement (the "RT Agreement") with the Company from whose
tax refund the Company deducted a debt owed by the applicant to
another refund anticipation loan (RAL) lender.

The suit was filed on May 13, 2003 in the Superior Court in San
Francisco, California as "Alana Clark, Judith Silverstine, and
David Shelton v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust."  The cross-
collection procedures mentioned in the description above of the
Hood case is also disclosed in the RT Agreement with each RT
customer and is specifically authorized and agreed to by the
customers.  The plaintiffs do not contest the validity of the
debt, but contend that the cross-collection is illegal and
request damages on behalf of the class, injunctive relief
against the Company, restitution of sums collected, punitive
damages and attorneys' fees.

The Company filed a motion for a change in venue from San
Francisco to Santa Barbara.  The plaintiffs' legal counsel
stipulated to the change in venue.  Thereafter, the plaintiffs
have dismissed the complaint without prejudice.  The plaintiffs
have filed a new complaint in San Francisco limited to a single
cause of action alleging a violation of the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act. The Company has filed an answer to the
complaint and has also filed a cross-complaint seeking indemnity
from the other RAL lenders for which the money was cross-
collected.


PACIFIC CAPITAL: NY Court Mulls Dismissal of RAL Agreement Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York
has yet to rule on Pacific Capital Bancorp's motion to dismiss
the amended class action filed against it on behalf of residents
of the State of New York who engaged Jackson Hewitt, Inc (JHI)
to provide tax preparation services and who through JHI entered
into an agreement with the Company to receive a refund
anticipation loan (RAL).  JHI is also a defendant.

The lawsuit was filed on June 18, 2004, as "Myron Benton v.
Jackson Hewitt, Inc. and Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Co."  As
part of the RAL documentation, the customer receives and signs a
disclosure form which discloses that the Company may share a
portion of the federal refund processing fee and finance charge
with JHI.  The plaintiffs allege that the failure of JHI and the
Company to disclose the specific amount of the fee which JHI
receives is unlawful and request damages on behalf of the class,
injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

Following the filing of a motion to dismiss the complaint by the
Company, the plaintiff has filed an amended complaint.  The
amended complaint has added three new causes of action:

     (1) a cause of action for an alleged violation of
         California Business and Professions Code Sections
         17200, and 17500, et seq, as a result of alleged
         deceptive business practices and false advertising;

     (2) a cause of action for an alleged violation of the
         California Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code
         Section 1750, et seq;

     (3) a cause of action for an alleged negligent
         misrepresentation.

The Company has filed a motion for summary judgment. The
plaintiff has filed a motion for partial summary judgment.


PFIZER INC.: Faces Suit in Canada Over Depo-Provera Side Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------
A $700 million Canadian class action lawsuit against Pfizer,
Inc. alleges young women who took the birth control medication
Depo-Provera have developed osteoporosis, The Toronto Star
reports.

The motion for a class action lawsuit, filed recently in
Toronto, also alleges that long-term users were diagnosed with
other bone mass density problems, including long recovery from
fractures, brittle teeth, and hip, spine and jawbone problems.
It also alleges that Pfizer failed to adequately warn physicians
to conduct density tests since the drug was declared safe for
long-term use. None of the allegations though have been proven
in court.

Four representative plaintiffs named include three women from
Ontario, B.C. and Newfoundland who are between the ages 28 and
32. "They are all too young to be developing osteoporosis," Glyn
Hotz, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs, told The Toronto
Star.

Pfizer Canada released a statement saying it plans to vigorously
defend the suit. In the statement it said, "Depo-Provera is an
important treatment option for Canadian physicians and patients
and has been used safely by millions of women around the world
for decades."

Depo-Provera has been available in the Canadian market since
1997 but first carried a warning of possible bone density loss
in the U.S. markets in November 2004. Last June, warnings on
boxes appeared in Canada. Almost 625,000 prescriptions were
written in Canada for Depo-Provera last year.

The suit is the third against Pfizer, Inc. and Pfizer Canada,
Inc. over the drug this year. The drug is administered by
injection every three months. It contains progesterone to stop
the production of eggs.


TAMPA ELECTRIC: Still Facing FL Suits V. Transmission Structures
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tampa Electric Company faces four class actions filed in
Hillsborough County Circuit Court in Florida, in connection with
the location of transmission structures and upgrades to a
substation in certain residential areas by residents in the
areas surrounding the structures and substation.

The plaintiffs were seeking class action status, which was
denied. Three cases (two, Jorrisen and Acosta were consolidated)
are pending before two separate judges and are currently
referred to as the Alvarezcase (substation case) and the Shaw
and Jorrisen cases (pole cases with different lawyers). These
cases involve approximately 200 separate properties. Summary
judgment denying injunctive relief (non-monetary relief) has
been granted in the Alvarez case. The Company has filed new
motions for partial summary judgment on the injunctive relief
claim in both the Shaw and Jorrisen cases, raising issues that
have not yet been before the court. The court denied the motion
in the Jorissen case. The motion in the Shaw case, which has
certain distinctions from the Jorissen case, will was heard on
November.

The Shaw plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to add
punitive damages and the Company's motion to sever each
individual plaintiff's claim to a separate suit were denied. The
court's denial of the company's motion to sever has been
appealed, and the second District Court of Appeal agreed to take
the case. The Shaw plaintiffs have moved to add Mr. and Mrs.
Jorrisen from the other case, and the Jorrisens would then be
dropped from the case originally brought by them. The Shaw and
Jorrisen cases have been transferred to the trial division in
order to get in line for a trial date.  Offers of Judgment for
payment of dollars for each plaintiff in both cases have been
filed in order to protect the Company's interests.


TECO ENERGY: Enters Mediation For FL Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
TECO Energy, Inc. entered mediation for the consolidated amended
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
current and former officers in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida.

A number of securities class action lawsuits were filed in
August, September and October 2004 by purchasers of Company
securities.  These suits, which were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, allege disclosure
violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These
actions were consolidated and remain in the initial pleading
stage.

On February 1, 2005, the Court entered its order appointing the
"TECO Lead Plaintiff Group," comprised of NECA-IBEW Pension Fund
(The Decatur Plan), Monroe County Employees Retirement System,
John Marder and Charles Korpak, as the Lead Plaintiff for the
Class and the law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP as Lead Counsel.

The plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class Action Complaint
for Securities Fraud on May 3, 2005.  The consolidated complaint
maintains the same class period, October 30, 2001 to February 4,
2003, and the same parties as those contained in the original
complaint. The nature of the claims, which relate to the
adequacy of the company's disclosures and financial reporting,
also remains the same. The defendants filed their motion to
dismiss on July 25, 2005, and the plaintiffs have 60 days to
file a response.  The plaintiffs have been granted an extension
to file their response through December 31, 2005, since the
parties have agreed to mediate the claims in mid-December 2005,
in order to eliminate uncertainty and ongoing expense associated
with the litigation.

The suit is styled `In Re: TECO Energy, Inc., Securities
Litigation, case no. 8:04-cv-01948-JDW-EAJ," filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, under
Judge James D. Whittemore.  Representing the plaintiff are:

     (1) Stephen Richard Astley, David D. George, Jack Reise,
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 197
         South Federal Highway - Suite 200, Boca Raton, FL
         33432, Phone: 561/750-3077, Fax: 561/750-3364, E-mail:
         sastley@lerachlaw.com, dgeorge@lerachlaw.com,
         jreise@lerachlaw.com  

     (2) William S. Lerach, Darren J. Robbins, Lerach Coughlin
         Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 401 B St., Suite
         1700, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619/231-1058

     (3) David A. Rosenfeld, Samuel H. Rudman, Lerach Coughlin
         Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 200 Broadhollow Rd.,
         Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631/367-7100,
         Fax: 631/367-1173, E-mail: drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com  

Representing the Company are:

     (i) Diane Knox, Richard A. Rosen of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
         Wharton & Garrison LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas,
         New York, NY 10019-6064, Phone: 212/373-3000

    (ii) Tracy A. Nichols, Holland & Knight LLP, 701 Brickell
         Ave., Suite 3000, P.O. Box 015441, Miami, FL 33131-
         5441, Phone: 305/374-8500, Fax: 305/789-7799, E-mail:
         tracy.nichols@hklaw.com  

   (iii) Steven B. Rosenfeld, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New
         York, NY 10019-6064, Phone: 212/373-3000, Fax: 212-757-
         3990


TELSTRA: To Face Suit in 2006 Over Investor Share Market Losses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aggrieved Telstra shareholders are preparing a class action for
damages against the firm for its alleged failure to disclose a
big drop in future earnings that later resulted in its share
price tumbling, The Australian reports.

According to consultant Joanne Rees, acting for legal firm
Slater & Gordon, the action is planned for the Federal Court
next year. It will cover investor share market losses incurred
after August 11.

On that day, Telstra CEO Sol Trujillo and finance chief John
Stanhope presented the annual financial result to the market at
a briefing attended by market analysts and the media. Later on,
Mr. Trujillo and chairman Donald McGauchie met the Prime
Minister and senior ministers to brief them on Telstra's outlook
using a document titled The Path Forward.

Telstra's stock closed at $5 on August 10, the day before
results were issued. It fell 18c on August 11, the day the
results were released to market. Shares fell a further 24c
between August 11, when analysts received information that the
Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC) found the
rest of the market did not, around the time of the government
briefing and September 7, when Telstra issued an earnings
downgrade. That day, it lost a further 24c to close at $4.34.

Last week, ASIC issued a warning to Telstra, which it
characterized as a "yellow card." In its statement, ASIC said,
"Also of concern was a briefing to analysts following the
release of Telstra's annual results on 11 August, 2005. It is
clear that some information given during that briefing was not
available in Telstra's ASX announcements, either before or after
the briefing."

Despite ASIC's criticism, Telstra contends that it did not
breach its disclosure obligations, while ASIC made clear it did
not intend to take any enforcement action over the issue. There
were widespread downgrades of Telstra's 12-month target share
price by market analysts in the days following the results
briefing.

Ms. Rees told The Australian that the action being prepared
against Telstra was for non-disclosure of a material change in
difference in earnings under section 674 (2) of the Corporations
Act. Telstra also allegedly contravened ASX listing rule 3.1.
She also said, "The people who have contacted us have been
extremely angry that the Government had received confidential
information which was not available and should have been
available to the market."

In addition, Ms. Rees told The Australian, "They thought they
were buying off the bottom of the cycle, and if they had known
what the Government had known, the price (of Telstra shares)
would have been a lot lower. What we are trying to establish is
at what point the board and management knew about the
deteriorating outlook."

According to ASIC, a senior Telstra executive, communications
chief Phil Burgess, gave parts of the briefing to members of the
press. ASIC said, "The briefing was intended only for certain
members of parliament and their staff. The selective release of
that document to others created speculation about its contents
until Telstra released the full document on 7 September, 2005."

While ASIC stopped short of instituting court proceedings
against Telstra, ASIC chairman Jeff Lucy told The Australian,
"We found a set of practices which cannot be regarded as
acceptable for a corporation of the size and significance of
Telstra to the Australian market. I have written to the board of
Telstra summarizing ASIC's findings and outlining our concerns
to serve as a warning to the board and senior management to lift
their game on continuous disclosure."

In response to ASIC's statement, Telstra secretary Douglas
Gration told The Australian, "Telstra was always confident that
its conduct was consistent with our continuous disclosure
obligations. Telstra has a strong record of compliance with the
law in relation to its continuous disclosure practices. Telstra
rejects any suggestion that its continuous disclosure policies
and practices are inadequate or that there is potential risk of
future non-compliance."

Telstra spokesman Rod Bruem also told The Australian, "If I had
a dollar for every time Slater & Gordon has threatened a class
action against Telstra, I would be a wealthy man. In relation to
the federal Government, Telstra has certain duties and
protections under the Telstra Corporation Act."


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: NV Court Dismisses Most Claims in RICO Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Clark County, Nevada dismissed all but one
claims in the class action filed against Universal Health
Services, Inc. and its subsidiary Valley Hospital Medical
Center, Inc., styled "Deborah Louise Poblocki v. Universal
Health Services, Inc., et al., No. 04-A-489927-C."

The plaintiff alleges that the Company overcharged her and other
similarly situated patients who lacked health insurance. The
complaint seeks class action treatment.  The complaint, filed by
plaintiff individually and on behalf of other unnamed class
members, alleges that Valley Hospital Medical Center charged her
"unconscionable rates" because it charged her, an uninsured
outpatient, more than it charged insured patients and more than
the cost of the services provided.  She claims that this alleged
conduct violates state civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) laws as well as other state statutory and
common law.  The company filed a notice of removal to federal
court, and plaintiff filed a motion to remand back to state
court.  The court granted plaintiff's motion to remand and the
case will proceed in Nevada state court.  On July 22, 2005,
plaintiff's counsel, with our consent, filed a first amended
complaint, adding two additional plaintiffs (husband and wife)
alleging similar "facts" and claiming similar federal and state
causes of action.  The Nevada state district court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss with respect to all claims except
plaintiffs' state Unfair Trade Practices Act cause of action. On
October 19, 2005, the parties stipulated to the voluntary
dismissal of plaintiffs' sole remaining claim for relief, and a
consent Judgment of Dismissal was submitted to the district
court on November 2, 2005.  Plaintiffs, through counsel, have
indicated that they intend to appeal the district court's
dismissal.

The suit is styled "Deborah Louise Poblocki v. Universal Health
Services, Inc., et al., No. 04-A-489927-C," filed in the
District Court of Clark County, Nevada under Judge Mark R.
Denton.  Gerald I. Gillock is representing plaintiff Deborah
Poblocki.


WASHINGTON: Women Sue Health Department Over Rapist Gynecologist
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eight women sued the Washington's Health Department, alleging
that officials received complaints about a gynecologist for
years but did not suspend his license until after he had abused
scores of other patients, The Associated Press reports.

Last month, a jury convicted Charles Momah of two counts of rape
and two counts of indecent liberties. He faces up to 23 years in
prison when sentenced next month.

Filed in King County Superior Court, the women's suit seeks
class action status, saying at least 60 and perhaps as many as
500 women were abused by Mr. Momah and his twin, who has been
accused of posing as the doctor. Currently, no criminal charges
though were brought against the brother, who has denied the
allegations.

According to plaintiffs' attorney Harish Bharti, the Health
Department never should have licensed Charles Momah to practice
medicine to begin with. Mr. Momah had been accused of
malpractice at the Massena, New York hospital where he had
worked, Mr. Bharti told The Associated Press.


WYOMING: Court Monitor's Report Calls Prison Conditions Better
--------------------------------------------------------------
A recent report on changes made at Wyoming State Penitentiary to
prevent inmate-on-inmate assaults revealed that conditions at
the facility improved over the past two years but some problems
persist, The Associated Press reports.

William C. Collins, an attorney appointed as a "joint expert" to
monitor prison improvements, also said in the report, "I still
believe the Wyoming State Penitentiary is not a dangerous
prison." The monitoring was required in a remedial plan ordered
by U.S. District Judge Clarence Brimmer more than two years ago.

The report is in connection to a class action lawsuit filed by
the American Civil Liberties Union filed on behalf of inmate
Brad Skinner against the Department of Corrections. On November
4, 1999, three inmates severely beat Mr. Skinner because they
thought he was an informant.

Eventually, Mr. Skinner spent five weeks in the hospital and
suffered spinal injuries, swelling on his face, a concussion and
bruising. The lawsuit claimed guards ignored existing department
policies and violated prisoners' Eighth Amendment protections
against "cruel and unusual punishment," an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (January 2, 2003) reports. It was filed against
former Corrections Director Judy Uphoff and three other current
and past prison officials.

Mr. Collins' report stated that the prison still has delays in
following up prison assault incidents with corrective action. He
noted though that the number of incidents is low and the
majority are short physical altercations between inmates.

Bob Lampert, director of the Department of Corrections, told The
Associated Press that he believes the department has come a long
way. Under the Prison Litigation Act, the state is free to file
for termination of the plan after two years. According to Mr.
Lampert, the state probably will file a motion to terminate
soon.

However, the ACLU will oppose that motion, Stephen Pevar, the
organization's chief national counsel told The Associated Press.
He explains that although the department has made "great
strides," more needs to be done.

The suit is styled, Skinner v. Uphoff, et al., Case No. 2:02-cv-
00033-CAB," filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Wyoming, under Judge Clarence Brimmer. Representing
the Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Shirley Kingston, 418 South 12th St., Laramie, WY
         82070, Phone: 307/745-3729, Fax: 745-3729;

     (2) Timothy C. Kingston of GRAVES MILLER & KINGSTON, 408
         West 23rd St., Suite 1, Cheyenne, WY 82001, Phone:
         307/638-8885, Fax: 307/637-4850, E-mail:
         kingston@rockymtnlaw.com; and

     (3) Stephen L. Pevar of THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION,
         32 Grand St., Hartford, CT 06106, Phone: 860/293-1559,
         Fax: 293-1016.

Representing the Defendant/s are, David Delicath of WYOMING
ATTORNEY GENERAL, Herschler Building, 1st Floor NW, Cheyenne, WY
82002, Phone: 307/777-7818, Fax: 307/777-6329.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


DIEBOLD INC.: Chitwood Harley Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, filed a securities
fraud class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Ohio against Diebold, Inc.
("Diebold" or the "Company") (NYSE: DBD), Walden W. O'Dell, Eric
C. Evans, and Gregory T. Geswein on behalf of purchasers of DBD
common stock during the period between October 22, 2003 and
September 20, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The civil action number
for this case is 5:05CV2912.

The complaint charges Defendants with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that
Diebold and the Individual Defendants made material
misrepresentations and/or omitted to make material disclosures
throughout the Class Period by knowingly disseminating to the
market numerous false financial statements and press releases
during the Class Period. The Complaint alleges, among other
things, that Diebold, a manufacturer of automated teller
machines ("ATMs") and election machines, under-accrued its
commissions expenses, had woefully deficient internal controls,
and was losing market share in North America in its ATM business
so that its results would not be nearly as favorable in 2005 as
the market had been led to believe. The Complaint also alleges
that the Company's election machines suffered from ongoing
severe problems. Together, the Complaint explains, these
problems caused Diebold not to be on track to report the
favorable 2005 earnings per share projected. When Diebold
announced before the market opened on September 21, 2005 that
its results for the third quarter and fiscal year 2005 would
fall materially short of its prior projections, the price of
Diebold stock fell $6.86 per share, or 15.5%, on unusually high
trading volume of more than 6.1 million shares.

For more details, contact Lauren S. Antonino or Leslie Glover
Toran of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, Atlanta, Phone:
404-873-3900, ext. 6829, 404-607-6829, 888-873-3999, ext. 6829,
E-mail: LAntonino@chitwoodlaw.com or LToran@chitwoodlaw.com, Web
site: http://www.chitwoodlaw.com.  


DIEBOLD INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins,
LLP, initiated a class action in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio on behalf of purchasers
of Diebold, Incorporated ("Diebold") (NYSE:DBD) common stock
during the period between October 22, 2003 and September 20,
2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Diebold and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Diebold is primarily engaged in the manufacture, sale,
installation and service of automated self-service transaction
systems, electronic and physical security products, election
systems and software.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued false statements about the Company's business, products,
financial results and prospects causing the Company's stock to
trade at artificially inflated levels. Then on September 21,
2005, before the market opened, the Company announced it was
"lowering its third quarter and full-year earnings per share
guidance for 2005." Upon release of this news, Diebold's stock
collapsed to $37.27 per share on volume of 6.1 million shares.
Diebold's CEO and Chairman has since resigned from the Company.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) Diebold's financial statements in 2004 and the first
         two quarters of 2005 were misstated due to its improper
         accounting for commission expenses;

     (2) the Company's internal controls were woefully
         deficient;

     (3) Diebold was losing market share in North America to NCR
         such that its ATM business would not be nearly as
         favorable in 2005 as the market had been led to
         believe;

     (4) Diebold's election machines continued to have severe
         problems that would hurt the Company in the future due
         to adverse publicity and reduced sales; and

     (5) due to these problems, Diebold was not on track to
         report the favorable 2005 EPS being projected for the
         Company.

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


DIEBOLD INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., filed a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Ohio on behalf of all persons who purchased
the common stock of Diebold, Inc. (NYSE:DBD) ("Diebold") between
October 22, 2003 and September 20, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Diebold violated federal securities
laws by making false representations concerning its financial
condition and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges
that Diebold under-accrued its commission expenses and lacked
proper internal financial controls. On September 21, 2005
Diebold announced that its results for the third quarter and
fiscal year 2005 would not meet its previously issued financial
guidance. On this news, the price of Diebold stock fell from a
close of $44.13 per share on September 20, 2005, to close at
$37.27 per share on September 21, 2005.

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa of
Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.


EVCI CAREER: Rosen Law Expands Class Period For NY Stock Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, which recently filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of EVCI Career Colleges
Holdings Corporation ("EVCI") (Nasdaq:EVCI) common stock during
the period between August 14, 2003 and December 6, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), expanded the Class Period for
purchasers of EVCI common stock from August 14, 2003 to December
6, 2005, inclusive.

The complaint charges that during the Class Period, EVCI,
through its subsidiary, Interboro Institute, Inc. ("Interboro"),
violated federal securities laws, in that the Company
misrepresented and failed to disclose that Interboro did not
maintain, among other things, adequate equipment, libraries,
admissions control, and teaching staff to support its growing
enrollment, in violation of the New York State Education
Department's ("NYSED") educational minimum standards. The
complaint also alleges that EVCI failed to disclose material
facts known to it concerning its response to the NYSED draft
report -- in that the Company failed to disclose it had agreed
to cease all expansion at Interboro. As a result, defendants
misled investors concerning EVCI's earning and enrollment growth
and obtained millions of dollars in proceeds from the sales of
EVCI's inflated stock price, when the Company knew or recklessly
disregarded that it would have to limit its growth and spend
substantial sums to meet the NYSED minimum requirements.

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


MOTIVE INC.: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.,
initiated a lawsuit on behalf of its client and all securities
purchasers of Motive, Inc. (NASDAQ: MOTV) ("Motive" or the
"Company") between April 21, 2005 and October 26, 2005 inclusive
(the "Class Period") in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas. Another investor has filed a similar
claim encompassing the period between June 25, 2004 and October
26, 2005, inclusive, including those who purchased their shares
pursuant to the Company's June 2004 Initial Public Offering.

The complaint filed by Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,
P.L.L.C. charges Motive, Scott L. Harmon, and Paul M. Baker with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically,
the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company improperly recognized $5.2 million in
         revenue from a licensing agreement, which materially
         inflated its revenue figures;

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

     (3) that the Company lacked the necessary personnel and
         controls to issue accurate financial reports and
         projections.

On October 4, 2005, after the close of the market, Motive
announced that it expected core revenue for the third quarter of
2005, which excludes impact from business acquisitions, to be in
the range of $15.5 million to $17.5 million, compared to core
revenue of $23 million for the same period the year before.
Following this announcement, the price of Motive stock fell
dramatically, from $6.26 per share on October 4, 2005 to $4.01
per share on October 5, 2005, a one-day drop of $2.25 per share,
or 35.94 percent, on unusually heavy trading volume. On October
27, 2005, Motive, prior to the opening of the market, issued a
press release announcing financial results for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2005, as well as the decision to restate its financial
results for the quarters ended March 31, 2005 and June 30, 2005
and for the six-month period ended June 30, 2005. In reaction to
this announcement, the price of Motive stock fell, from $4.12
per share on October 26, 2005 to $3.66 per share on October 27,
2005, a one-day drop of $0.46 per share, or 11.2 percent, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq., Matthew B.
Kaplan, Esq. and Robert Smits of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &
Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., West Tower - Suite
500, Washington, D.C.  20005, Phone: (888) 240-0775 or
(202) 408-4600, E-mail: stoll@cmht.com, mkaplan@cmht.com and
rsmits@cmht.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  * * *