CAR_Public/051222.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, December 22, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 253


                           Headlines

3CI COMPLETE: LA Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Continues To Face CA Securities Fraud Suit
BROOKSTONE PROPERTIES: Settlement Hearing Set January 4, 2006
BROWN & BROWN: Named As Defendant in Insurance Fee Fraud Lawsuit
CCC INFORMATION: Court Gives Final OK to Total Loss Settlement

CHI-CHI'S RESTAURANT: DE Court OKs Hepatitis Outbreak Settlement
DYNEGY INC.: Finalizing TX Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit Settlement
DYNEGY INC.: NY Court Refuses Transfer of ERISA Fraud Suit To TX
DYNEGY INC.: CA Court Dismisses Remaining Antitrust Lawsuits
ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement For RI Securities Lawsuit

EUROPEAN UNION: Easing Suits Proposed For Antitrust Enforcement
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Continues To Face NJ Securities Fraud Suits
FIRST COMMERCE: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set March 16, 2006
FRANCE: Class Action Plan Hits Snag, Attorneys Criticize Report
HARMONIC INC.: Court Yet To Rule on CA Suit Dismissal Appeal

IDAHO: Judge Hears Motions in Twin Falls Teachers' Union's Suit
ILLINOIS: District U46 Opposes Motion For a Meeting in Bias Suit
INPUT/OUTPUT INC.: TX Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
KENTUCKY: Three People Object to $120M Sexual Abuse Settlement
MAGEE-WOMEN'S HOSPITAL: PA Court Mulls Pap Smear Case Appeal

MBNA CORPORATION: Continues To Face NY Currency Conversion Suit
MBNA CORPORATION: Continues To Face DE Securities Fraud Lawsuits
MBNA CORPORATION: Continues To Face ERISA Violations Suit in DE
MBNA CORPORATION: Continues To Face CT Retail Merchants Lawsuit
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: High Court to Hear Dismissal Bid V. RICO Suit

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Judge Nixes Suit Over Law on Financial Statements
OHIO: Companies Side With Philip Morris in Light Cigarettes Case
PRINTCAFE SOFTWARE: PA Court Hears Settlement Approval Motions
SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: DE Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
SILICON STORAGE: Asks CA Court to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit

SIZELER PROPERTY: MD Court Dismisses Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit
SOLECTRON CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For CA Securities Suit
ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Suit Settlement Hearing Set December 27,2005
STELLENT INC.: MN Court Mulls Stock Lawsuit Settlement Approval
TREK ALLIANCE: FTC Settles Charges For Illegal Pyramid Scheme

VASO ACTIVE: MA Court Gives Final OK to Class, Derivative Suits
VERITAS SOFTWARE: DE Court Mulls Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal
WELLMAN INC.: Continues To Face Polyester Fiber Antitrust Suits
WOODWARD GOVERNOR: EEOC Probe Finds Racial, Gender Bias at Firm
XL CAPITAL: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Fraud Suit in CT

XL CAPITAL: Named As Defendant in Amended NJ Insurance Fees Suit

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

DIEBOLD INC.: Wechsler Harwood Commences ERISA Investigation
NASH FINCH: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN
NASH FINCH: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN
NASH FINCH: Squitieri & Fearon Files Securities Fraud Suit in MN
NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Milberg Weiss Bershad Files Fraud Suit in NY



                            *********


3CI COMPLETE: LA Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
3CI Complete Compliance Corporation, d.b.a. American 3CI (OTC
Bulletin Board: TCCC) (the "Company"), a medical waste
management services company reports that the court in its class
action lawsuit against Stericycle, Inc. and other defendants
preliminarily approved the terms of the settlement agreement
among the parties and the form of notice to class members.

Class members consist of all persons who held Company common
stock on September 30, 1998, or acquired common stock during the
class period (September 30, 1998 to February 10, 2005), with
certain exclusions. Anyone who has purchased 3CI common stock
for the first time since February 10, 2005, is not a class
member and will not participate in the settlement proceeds
distribution.

The notice to class members, which the court preliminary
approved, includes a $0.60 per share allocation as the
consideration for the Company common stock to be purchased by
Stericycle as part of the settlement and to be paid to class
members who file validated claims and who still hold their
shares when the settlement receives final court approval. The
balance of the $32.5 million settlement amount, after deducting
fees and expenses that currently are not anticipated to exceed
$12.6 million, will be paid to class members who file validated
claims for their alleged damages in proportion to the length of
time they held Company common stock during the class period.

The settlement and all of its terms remain subject to final
court approval. The lawsuit, in which a class of certain of the
Company's minority stockholders and the Company are plaintiffs,
is pending in the First Judicial District Court, Caddo Parish,
Louisiana.

The court ordered the form of notice to be sent to all class
members no later than December 23, 2005, and scheduled a hearing
at 1:30 on February 21, 2006, for final approval of the
settlement. Any objections to the settlement, including
allocation of the settlement proceeds, must be filed by February
6, 2006.

On June 20, 2002, Larry F. Robb, individually, on behalf of a
class comprised of the Company's minority stockholders, and
derivatively on behalf of the Company, filed a suit, styled Robb
et al. v. Stericycle, Inc., et al, cause no.467704-A."  The
plaintiffs originally asserted numerous claims of minority
stockholder oppression, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment against the Company, Waste Sytems Inc. (WSI), the
four affiliates of Stericycle who are or were directors of 3CI
Complete Compliance Corporation (the "Stericycle Affiliates")
and Otley L. Smith III, 3CI's President and Chief Executive
Officer, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (January 5,
2005) reports.

As of January 8, 2004, the Board expanded the authority of the
Special Committee to grant the Special Committee the exclusive
power and authority on behalf of the Company to:

     (1) make all inquiries, conduct all investigations and
         gather all information related to the Louisiana Suit,
         the 1995 Action and the 2003 Action, or any actions or
         proceedings related to any of the foregoing;

     (2) make or approve all decisions of the Company related to
         the Louisiana Suit, the 1995 Action and the 2003
         Action, including the Company's filing, amending,
         maintaining, prosecuting or settling of any legal
         proceedings related to such suits; and

     (3) exercise such other power and authority that may be
         exercised by the full Board with regard to the
         foregoing.

The Special Committee is composed of Stephen B. Koenigsberg and
Kevin J. McManus, who are the independent directors on the Board
not affiliated with Stericycle or WSI.  Robert M. Waller,
previously a member of the Special Committee, for personal
reasons, resigned from the Board on March 11, 2004.  The Special
Committee appointed legal counsel to assist it in its
investigation of the Louisiana Plaintiffs' allegations and to
gather all information related to the Louisiana Suit, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (January 5, 2005) reports.

After conducting an investigation into the facts, arguments and
other matters that in its view are related to the issues raised
in the Louisiana Suit, the Special Committee has determined that
the claims against Stericycle, WSI and the Stericycle Affiliates
(the "Louisiana Defendants") in the Louisiana Suit have merit
and warrant prosecution by the Company, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (January 5, 2005) reports.

On December 10, 2004, the Company, at the direction of the
Special Committee, and the Louisiana Plaintiffs filed a motion
with the Louisiana Court seeking leave to file a joint petition
(the "Joint Petition"), which was granted on December 14, 2004.
The Joint Petition amends and supersedes the Plaintiffs' First
Amended Petition filed with the Court on October 27, 2003.
Pursuant to the Joint Petition, 3CI has realigned itself as a
plaintiff in the Louisiana Suit and joins on its own behalf in
the prosecution of the claims asserted by the Louisiana
Plaintiffs in the Louisiana Suit against Stericycle, WSI and the
Stericycle Affiliates, and Otley L. Smith III, 3CI's President
and Chief Executive Officer, previously named as a defendant in
the Louisiana Suit, has been non-suited, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (January 5, 2005) reports.

The Louisiana Plaintiffs and 3CI allege in the Joint Petition
that the Louisiana Defendants wrongfully:

     (i) diverted 3CI's cash and assets,

    (ii) manipulated and increased 3CI's debt to WSI,

   (iii) directly and indirectly increased Stericycle's and
         WSI's percentage ownership of 3CI,

    (iv) forced 3CI to declare significant cash dividends on its
         Preferred Stock payable to WSI,

     (v) usurped 3CI's corporate opportunities,

    (vi) misappropriated 3CI's customers,

   (vii) unfairly competed with 3CI, and

  (viii) operated 3CI with the goal of maximizing Stericycle's
         profitability and furthering Stericycle's integration
         plan.

In the Joint Petition, the Louisiana Plaintiffs and 3CI jointly
pray for a judgment against the Louisiana Defendants for actual
damages and punitive damages; for forfeiture of all fees,
payments, warrants, Common Stock, and all other forms of value
which Stericycle and WSI have received from 3CI and its minority
stockholders; unwinding Stericycle's acquisition of the Shepherd
Parties' (as hereinafter defined) 3CI-related interests and
disgorging all benefits realized by Stericycle from that
transaction; returning to 3CI all shares of Common Stock
acquired by WSI pursuant to warrants; declaring the Preferred
Stock Dividends null and void; requiring a buyout of the
Company's minority stockholders; establishing a constructive
trust on all profits or benefits realized by the Louisiana
Defendants as the result of the disputed transactions;
disqualification of any Stericycle director, officer or other
representative from serving on the Board; attorney's and expert
witness fees; and pre- and post-judgment interest.  The
Louisiana Plaintiffs and 3CI also request injunctive relief in
order to remove the current Stericycle representatives from the
Board, prohibit Stericycle thereafter from electing any of its
representatives to the Board and require Stericycle and WSI to
vote their Common Stock for nominees to the Board who are
nominated by the independent directors on the Board.  The
Louisiana Court has set a trial date of September 12, 2005 if
the suit is tried before a jury, and a trial date of October 4,
2005, if the suit is tried to the judge, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (January 5, 2005) reports.

In order to avoid any potential for confusion and conflict that
may arise if 3CI and the Louisiana Plaintiffs separately
prosecuted such claims against Stericycle, WSI and the
Stericycle Affiliates, 3CI, at the direction of the Special
Committee, has entered into an Agreement for Joint Prosecution
by and among the Company, the Louisiana Plaintiffs and The Wynne
Law Firm, legal counsel to the Louisiana Plaintiffs in the
Louisiana Suit (the "Joint Prosecution Agreement"), an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (January 5, 2005) reports.

Pursuant to the Joint Prosecution Agreement, 3CI and the
Louisiana Plaintiffs have agreed to jointly prosecute the claims
asserted in the Louisiana Suit against Stericycle, WSI
and the Stericycle Affiliates and to seek monetary damages and
equitable remedies on behalf of both 3CI and the Louisiana
Plaintiffs.  The Joint Prosecution Agreement provides that two-
thirds of all services and other work performed in jointly
prosecuting these claims will be performed by the Louisiana
Plaintiffs and/or The Wynne Law Firm and one-third of such
services and other work will be performed by the Company.  In
addition, the Joint Prosecution Agreement provides that two-
thirds of any monetary recoveries (as defined in the Joint
Prosecution Agreement) received by 3CI and/or the Louisiana
Plaintiffs that are related to, or arise out of, the claims
asserted in the Louisiana Suit will be allocated to the
Louisiana Plaintiffs and one-third of any monetary recoveries
will be allocated to the Company, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (January 5, 2005) reports.

Pursuant to the Joint Prosecution Agreement, none of 3CI
(directly or through its counsel), the Louisiana Plaintiffs or
The Wynne Law Firm may propose, accept or authorize a settlement
or compromise of any or all of the claims asserted in the
Louisiana Suit without the prior written consent of the other
parties.  The Joint Prosecution Agreement will become effective
on the date that all of the following have occurred:

     (a) the Louisiana Court certifies the Louisiana Plaintiffs'
         claims as a class action;

     (b) the Louisiana Court approves the Joint Prosecution
         Agreement; and

     (c) the Louisiana Court approves The Wynne Law Firm as
         counsel to the Louisiana Plaintiffs.

3CI or the Louisiana Plaintiffs may terminate the Joint
Prosecution Agreement at any time if a material disagreement
arises between the Company and the Louisiana Plaintiffs with
respect to the claims asserted in the Louisiana Suit, or if
either party in good faith believes that its or their best
interests would conflict if the parties continued to jointly
prosecute all or any of the claims.  Notwithstanding the
termination of the Joint Prosecution Agreement, 3CI's and the
Louisiana Plaintiffs' obligation pursuant to the Joint
Prosecution Agreement to share in any monetary recoveries
received shall continue in full force and effect, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (January 5, 2005) reports.

For more details, contact Matthew D. Peiffer, Chief Financial
Officer, Phone: 972-375-0006.


BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Continues To Face CA Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Biolase Technology, Inc. and certain of its officers continue to
face the consolidated securities class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of an alleged class of persons who
purchased the Company's common stock between October 29, 2003
and July 16, 2004.

The complaints allege that the Company and its officers violated
federal securities laws by failing to disclose material
information about the demand for our products and the fact that
the Company would not achieve the alleged forecasted growth.
The claimed misrepresentations include certain statements in the
Company's press releases and the registration statement the
Company filed in connection with our public offering of stock in
March 2004.

The suit is styled "Van Dam Holdings Ltd. v. Biolase Technology,
Inc., et al, case no 8:04-cv-947," filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, under
Judge David O. Carter.  Lead plaintiffs Alan Harvey and
Elizabeth Paul are represented by Dale Joseph MacDiarmid, Lionel
Z Glancy, Peter Arthur Binkow of Glancy Binkow and Goldberg,
1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067, USA,
Phone: 310-201-9150.


BROOKSTONE PROPERTIES: Settlement Hearing Set January 4, 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida will hold a fairness hearing in the proposed settlement
in the matter: "Access Now, Inc., v. Brookstone Properties,
Inc., Case No. 00-00740 CIV-LENARD. The case was brought on
behalf of all Persons who have qualified, qualify, or will
qualify, as having a "disability," as that term is defined by
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC 12102) and
persons and/or associations associated therewith, who will be
adversely affected by the design or construction of, or the
policies, practices, or procedures relating to the accessibility
(physical or otherwise), communication barriers, or the
provision of auxiliary aides and services for all retail store
establishments presently owned, leased by, leased to, or
operated by defendants, and retail store establishments which
may in the future be acquired, owned, leased by, leased to, or
operated by, Defendants, which are located in any state, as
defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC
12102.

The fairness hearing is scheduled before the Honorable Joan A.
Lenard, United States District Judge, in Miami-Dade County,
Florida on January 4, 2006, at 3:30 p.m. at 301 North Miami
Ave., 7th Floor, Miami, FL 33128.

For more details, visit http://www.adaaccessnow.org/class.htmor
http://www.brookstone.com/service/company_info.asp?company_info_
id=295.


BROWN & BROWN: Named As Defendant in Insurance Fee Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brown & Brown, Inc. continues to face a consolidated class
action, related to an action that was filed against insurance
firm Marsh & McLennan by New York State Attorney General Eliot
Spitzer on October 14, 2004.

On October 29, 2004, the Company was served with a First Amended
Complaint (the Complaint) in a putative class action lawsuit
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, styled "OptiCareHealth Systems, Inc. v.
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 04 CV
06954 (DC)."  The Complaint added the Company, as well as six
other insurance intermediaries and four commercial insurance
carriers and their affiliates, as defendants in a case initially
filed against three of the largest U.S. insurance intermediaries
(Marsh & McLennan, AON Corporation and Willis Group).

The Complaint and alleges various improprieties and unlawful
acts by the various defendants in the pricing and placement of
insurance, including alleged manipulation of the market for
insurance by, among other things:

     (1) "bid rigging" and "steering" clients to particular
         insurers based on considerations other than the
         customers' interests;

     (2) alleged entry into unlawful tying arrangements pursuant
         to which the placement of primary insurance contracts
         was conditioned upon commitments to place reinsurance
         through a particular broker; and

     (3) alleged failure to disclose contingent commission and
         other allegedly improper compensation and fee
         arrangements.

The Complaint includes the Company in a group together with the
other defendant insurance intermediaries, and does not allege
that any separate, specific act was committed only by the
Company.  The action asserts a number of causes of action,
including violations of the federal antitrust laws, multiple
state antitrust and unfair and deceptive practices statutes, and
the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO), as well as breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation,
conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and unjust enrichment, and
seeks injunctive and declaratory relief.  The Complaint also
contains a separate breach of contract claim directed only at
the Marsh & McLennan affiliates.  The plaintiff, allegedly a
client of a Marsh & McLennan subsidiary, seeks to represent a
putative class consisting of all persons who, between August 26,
1994 and the date a class is certified in the case, engaged the
services of any of the insurance intermediary defendants or any
of their subsidiaries or affiliates, and who entered into or
renewed a contract of insurance with any of the insurance
carrier defendants.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages,
including treble damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

On December 6, 2004, two additional putative class actions were
filed against the Company and other brokers and insurers in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Eastern Division), styled "Stephen Lewis v. Marsh & McLennan
Companies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 04 C 7847," and "Diane
Preuss v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al., Civil Action
No. 04 C 7853" (together with the OptiCare Action, the
"Policyholder Actions").  The allegations of both of the
complaints in these actions largely mirror the allegations in
the OptiCare Action, but include Robinson-Patman Act price
discrimination claims.  Both plaintiffs, Stephen Lewis and Diane
Preuss, allege that they "purchased an insurance policy from one
of the defendants or defendants' co-conspirators.

On or about February 17, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multi-
District Litigation ("MDL Panel") transferred the OptiCare
Action, and other similar actions in which the Company is not
named as a defendant, to the District of New Jersey to be
coordinated in a single jurisdiction for pre-trial purposes
before U.S. District Court Judge Faith S. Hochberg. On or about
March 10, 2005, the MDL Panel issued a "Conditional Transfer
Order" which will transfer the "Lewis" and "Preuss" actions
along with other "tag-along" actions in which the Company is not
named as a defendant to the District of New Jersey to be
coordinated with the previously transferred actions unless a
party files an objection within fifteen days from the date of
the Order.

The OptiCare suit is styled "In Re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation, case no. 2:05-cv-01168-FSH," filed in the United
States District Court in New Jersey, under Judge Faith S.
Hochberg.  Representing the Company is Shawn Patrick Regan,
HUNTON AND WILLIAMS, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 Phone:
212-309-1046.

Representing the plaintiffs are Joseph P. Guglielmo and Edith M.
Kallas, MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN LLP (NYC) One
Pennsylvania Plaza, New York NY 10119 Phone: 212-594-5300; and
Mark C. Rifkin, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP, 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212 545-4600 E-mail:
rifkin@whafh.com.


CCC INFORMATION: Court Gives Final OK to Total Loss Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
CCC Information Services Inc., a subsidiary of CCC Information
Services Group Inc. (Nasdaq: CCCG), reports that the Illinois
Circuit Court for Madison County, Illinois issued an order
granting final approval of the settlement agreed to by the
company, 15 of its customers and the plaintiffs in various class
actions consolidated in Madison County, Illinois, "In re Total
Loss Class Action Litigation Case Nos. 01 L 157, et al." The
settlement includes no admission of liability or wrongdoing by
CCC or its customers.

The Honorable Judge Ralph Mendelsohn entered an order today
giving final approval to the settlements and directing the
implementation of their final terms. In July 2005, the Company
announced that it had received the Court's preliminary approval
for settlement of these cases, which relate to the valuation of
vehicles that have been declared a total loss by insurers.

"We are very pleased to see this matter near a close," said
Githesh Ramamurthy, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of CCC.
"The Court's decision confirms that the settlement terms are
equitable for all parties. We, in turn, believe that this is a
very good result for CCC and its customers."

The suits relate to the valuation of vehicles that have been
declared total losses by insurers. The proposed classes
represent all customers of the settling carriers who had a total
loss claim from January 28, 1989 to the present, for which the
Company's product and service (now called CCC Valuescope(R))
were used to perform the valuation, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (August 3, 2005) reports.

On July 13, 2005, the Company signed a settlement agreement with
the plaintiffs and co-defendants in the suits:

     (1) LANCEY v. COUNTRY MUTUAL INS. CO., AND CCC INFORMATION
         SERVICES INC., Case No. 01 L 113 (filed January 29,
         2001);

     (2) KMUCHA v. COLONIAL PENN INSURANCE COMPANY AND CCC
         INFORMATION SERVICES INC., Case No. 03 L 1267 (filed
         September 18, 2003)

     (3) JACKSON v. ATLANTA CASUALTY COMPANY, INFINITY PROPERTY
         & CASUALTY CORPORATION AND CCC INFORMATION SERVICES
         INC., Case No. 03 L 1266 (filed September 18, 2003)

The settlement requires CCC to pay notice and administration
fees and other costs associated with the settlement. The
administrative process is underway, and the Company estimates
that these costs will total approximately $8 million, including
available insurance proceeds of $1.8 million. The Company is
fully reserved for these payments. CCC will also engage the
services of an independent, third party as a Court-appointed
monitor for five years following settlement. The monitor will
periodically review the methodology used in CCC's valuation
product and oversee the performance of various product
validation studies.

In connection with the settlement, the Company was added as a
party to the following additional cases, which assert claims and
seek relief substantially similar to the above cases, namely:

     (i) BORDONI v. CGU INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLNOIS AND CCC
         INFORMATION SERVICES INC., Case No. 01 L 157;

    (ii) SCHOENLEBER v. PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
         INSURANCE COMPANY AND CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC.,
         Case No. 01 L 99;

   (iii) RICHARDSON V. PROGRESSIVE PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY OF
         ILLINOIS AND CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., Case No. 01
         L 149,

    (iv) KNACKSTEDT v. ECONOMY PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY,
         METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
         AND CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., Case No. 01 L 153;

     (v) HUFF AND MADISON v. HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF
         ILLINOIS, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST AND
         CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., Case No. 01 L 158;

    (vi) JACKSON v. NATIONALGENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND CCC
         INFORMATION SERVICES INC., Case No. 02 L 628;

   (vii) PARCHMENT v. TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE
         COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY
         COMPANY, AND CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., Case No. 02
         L 1135; and

  (viii) CARTER, VANOVER AND URKE v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
         NATIONAL-BEN FRANKLIN INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS AND
         CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., Case No. 02 L 717

The proposed settlement class consists of all customers of the
settling carriers who had a total loss claim from January 28,
1989 to July 18, 2005, for which the Company provided a
valuation to the carrier. This settlement includes no admission
of liability or wrongdoing by the Company or its customers. Upon
final approval of the settlement, the above-described cases will
be dismissed and the Company will receive releases with respect
to the matters raised in the lawsuits.  The Company, in turn,
has agreed to pay for all costs of settlement administration and
certain other costs associated with the settlement. The Company
estimates that these costs will total approximately $8.0
million.  The Company also has agreed to engage the services of
an independent third party as a Court-appointed monitor to
periodically review its Valuescope's methodology for five years
following settlement and to oversee the performance of various
product validation studies. Other settlement costs, including
the payment of claims made by class members, will be paid by the
insurance companies that are participating in the settlement, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (August 3, 2005) reports.

On July 18, 2005, the Court granted preliminary approval to the
settlement, and a final approval hearing is scheduled for
December 20, 2005, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(August 3, 2005) reports.


CHI-CHI'S RESTAURANT: DE Court OKs Hepatitis Outbreak Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly 5,000 people who had to get shots to ward off hepatitis A
during a food-poisoning outbreak at a western Pennsylvania Chi-
Chi's restaurant two years ago will be mailed checks for $162.23
each next month, The Associated Press reports.

A federal judge in Delaware, who is overseeing Chi-Chi's
bankruptcy, recently signed off on the class action settlement.
In all, Chi-Chi's paid $800,000 to those who had to get shots.
Nearly 9,500 people got the shots, but only 4,931 filed claims
by the court-imposed deadline of October 24. The money was
equally divided among those who filed claims, according to Bill
Marler, the Seattle attorney who sued on their behalf.

The class action settlement compensates those whom state health
officials urged to get shots because they ate at the restaurant
during the outbreak in the fall of 2003, or because they were
closely related to someone who got sick. All those given shots
were mailed claim forms in August, the proposed settlement was
also advertised in various Pennsylvania newspapers. More than
600 people were sickened, and al least four eventually died,
from eating tainted green onions served at the Chi-Chi's in the
Beaver Valley Mall.

The settlement though does not cover anybody who filed a lawsuit
over damages or death. More than 550 people, and all four
families of those who died, also filed claims for out-of-pocket
medical expenses or for more serious damages. According to Chi-
Chi's attorney Fred Gordon, all but a handful of those cases
including all four wrongful death suits settled for a total of
about $40 million, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(August 9, 2005) reports.

Court documents revealed that Chi-Chi's sued Castellini Co. of
Wilder, Kentucky, accusing the firm of supplying the tainted
onions, which the Food and Drug Administration traced to several
Mexican farms. Castellini officials though denied wrongdoing and
have a motion pending in U.S. District Court to dismiss the
lawsuit, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (August 9, 2005)
reports.

Chi-Chi's filed for bankruptcy shortly before the outbreak,
citing cash flow problems. The chain and its insurers are
seeking reimbursement for the settlements, and Chi-Chi's also
wants another $55 million because the outbreak scuttled a
pending plan to sell the chain as part of a Chapter 11
bankruptcy plan, Mr. Gordon said. The restaurant chain
liquidated last September, an earlier, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (August 9, 2005) reports.

The restaurant chain instead liquidated in September 2004,
selling 76 remaining restaurants to Outback Steakhouse Inc., of
Tampa, Florida, for $42.5 million.



DYNEGY INC.: Finalizing TX Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy, Inc. is finalizing the payment and implementation of the
conditions of the settlement of the securities class action
filed against it in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's publicly traded securities from January 2000 to July
2002 seeking unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

The lawsuit as filed principally alleged that the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors
violated the federal securities laws in connection with our
disclosures, including accounting disclosures, regarding Project
Alpha (a structured natural gas transaction entered into by the
Company in April 2001), round-trip trading, the submission of
false trade reports to publications that calculate natural gas
index prices, the alleged manipulation of the California power
market and the restatement of the Company's financial statements
for 1999-2001. The Regents of the University of California are
the lead plaintiff and Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins, LLP is
class counsel.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in January 2004 and, in
March 2004, the Company filed motions to dismiss.  Briefing on
the Company's motions was completed in June 2004. The judge
entered an order on the Company's motion in October 2004
dismissing all claims brought by the plaintiff under the
Securities Act of 1933, except those relating to the Company's
March 2001 note offering and December 2001 common stock
offering, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except those
dealing with Project Alpha and two alleged round-trip trades.
Further, the judge scheduled the trial to commence in May 2005.
Also in October 2004, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its
claim under the Securities Act of 1933 relating to our March
2001 note offering.  The parties filed motions on the class
certification issue throughout the fourth quarter 2004.

In December 2004, the court issued an order identifying the
class period for the Exchange Act claims as June 21, 2001
through July 22, 2002, and the class period for the Securities
Act claims to begin December 20, 2001.

In July 2005, the court approved the comprehensive settlement
agreement reached by the parties to the class action litigation
in April 2005, which provided for an aggregate settlement
payment by Dynegy, Inc. and Dynegy Holdings, Inc. of $468
million, comprised of a $150 million cash payment funded by
insurance proceeds, a $250 million cash payment by the Company
and the issuance by Dynegy, Inc. to the plaintiffs of $68
million in its Class A common stock, consisting of 17,578,781
shares based on a calculation using a volume weighted average
stock price for the 20 trading days ending April 15, 2005.
Dynegy Holdings was required to make two payments totaling $250
million during 2005, consisting of an initial payment of $175
million, which it paid in May 2005, followed by a second payment
of $75 million plus interest upon court approval, which it paid
in July 2005.  The appeal period for the litigation expired on
August 8, 2005, and, as required by the settlement, the Company
issued the shares of Class A common stock promptly thereafter,
on August 12, 2005. The lead plaintiff agreed to submit a list
of at least five qualified director candidates from which we
will select two new members for Dynegy's Board of Directors to
replace two directors who were defendants in the litigation.
The Company will also nominate such directors for election at
its next meeting of shareholders at which directors are elected.

In addition, the Company is a nominal defendant in several
derivative lawsuits brought by shareholders on the Company's
behalf against certain of its former officers and current and
former directors whose claims are similar to those described
above.  These lawsuits have been consolidated into two groups -
one pending in federal court and the other pending in state
court.  A hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss the federal
derivative claim was held in February 2005, at which time the
judge indicated his intent to stay or dismiss this matter
pending the resolution of the shareholder litigation described
above.  Subsequently, in February 2005, the plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit.  Discovery in the state
derivative matter is ongoing.

The suit is styled "The Regents of the University of California
v. Dynegy, Inc., et al, case no. 4:02-cv-02374," filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
under Judge Sim Lake.  Representing the plaintiffs is Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller et al, 9601 Wilshire Bld, Ste 510 Los
Angeles, CA 90210 Phone: 310-859-3100.


DYNEGY INC.: NY Court Refuses Transfer of ERISA Fraud Suit To TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York denied Dynegy, Inc.'s motion seeking to transfer the
class action filed in against it by three Illinois Power
employees and participants in the Illinois Power Company
Incentive Savings Plan For Employees Covered Under a Collective
Bargaining Agreement, which the Company refers to as the
Illinois Power 401(k) Plan, to the Southern District of Texas.

The suit purports to represent all Illinois Power employees who
held the Company's common stock through the Illinois Power
401(k) Plan during the period from February 2000 through
September 2004.  The suit also names as defendants Illinois
Power, Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. (DMG) and several
individual defendants.

The complaint alleges violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) in connection with the Illinois
Power 401(k) Plan, including claims that certain of the
Company's former and current officers (who are past and present
members of its Benefit Plans Committee) breached their fiduciary
duties to the plan's participants and beneficiaries in
connection with the plan's investment in Dynegy common stock in
a manner similar to that alleged in the complaint filed with
respect to the ERISA litigation the Company settled in December
2004 described above.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for
the losses to the plan, as well as attorney's fees and other
costs.  The Company filed a motion to transfer this litigation
to the Southern District of Texas, but the court denied the
motion in October 2005.

Additionally, in September 2005, two former Illinois Power
salaried employees who were participants in the Dynegy Midwest
Generation, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan for salaried employees
(formerly known as the Illinois Power Incentive Savings Plan and
referred to as the "DMG Salaried Plan") purporting to represent
all DMG Salaried Plan participants who held Dynegy common stock
through the DMG Salaried Plan during the period from January 1,
2002 though January 30, 2003, filed a lawsuit in federal court
in the Southern District of Texas against us and several
individual defendants. The complaint alleges violations of ERISA
in connection with the DMG Salaried Plan that are similar to the
claims made in the ERISA litigation we settled in December 2004
and the ERISA litigation referenced in the preceding paragraph,
including claims that certain of the Company's former and
current officers (who are past and present members of its
Benefit Plans Committee) breached their fiduciary duties to the
plan's participants and beneficiaries in connection with the
plan's investment in Dynegy common stock - in particular with
respect to the Company's financial statements, Project Alpha,
round trip trades and gas price index reporting. The lawsuit
seeks unspecified damages for the losses to the plan, as well as
attorney's fees and other costs.

The suit is styled "Lively, et al. v. Dynegy, Inc., et al., case
no. 3:05-cv-00063-MJR," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Michael
J. Reagan.  Representing the defendants is Charles L. Joley,
Donovan, Rose et al., Generally Admitted 8 East Washington
Street Belleville, IL 62220 Phone: 618-235-2020 Fax: 618-235-
9632, E-mail: cjoley@ilmoattorneys.com.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Matthew B. Leppert, James I. Singer, Schuchat, Cook et
         al. 1221 Locust Street 2nd Floor St. Louis, MO 63103-
         2364 Phone: 314-621-2626, Fax: 314-621-2378, E-mail:
         MBL@SCHUCHATCW.COM, JIS@SCHUCHATCW.COM;

     (2) Jeffrey Lewis, Teresa S. Renaker, Lewis, Feinberg et
         al., 1330 Broadway Suite 1800 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone:
         510-839-6824 Fax: 510-839-7839, E-mail:
         jlewis@lewisfeinberg.com or trenaker@lewisfeinberg.com


DYNEGY INC.: CA Court Dismisses Remaining Antitrust Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
California Superior Court dismissed the remaining class actions
filed against Dynegy, Inc. and numerous other power generators
and marketers, arising from their participation in the western
power markets during the California energy crisis, on federal
preemption grounds.

Several lawsuits, which primarily allege manipulation of the
California wholesale power markets and seek unspecified treble
damages, were consolidated before a single federal judge.  The
suits are styled:

     (1) Pamela R. Gordon v. Reliant Energy Inc., et al.;

     (2) Ruth Hendricks v. Dynegy Power Marketing, et al.;

     (3) The People of the State of California v. Dynegy Power
         Marketing, et al.;

     (4) Sweetwater Authority v. Dynegy Inc., et al.;

     (5) People of the State of California ex rel. Bill Lockyer,
         Attorney General v. Dynegy Inc., et al.;

     (6) Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County v.
         Dynegy Power Marketing, et al.; and

     (8) Bustamante [I] v. Dynegy Inc., et al.

That judge dismissed two of the cases (Snohomish and Lockyer) in
the first quarter 2003 on the grounds of Federal Energy
Regulation Commission (FERC) preemption and the filed rate
doctrine. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed these
dismissals in June 2004 and September 2004, respectively.  An
appeal from the Ninth Circuit's affirmation of the September
2004 dismissal has been taken to the United States Supreme
Court, and the Company filed its response brief in January 2005.
In "Lockyer," plaintiffs' Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
U.S. Supreme Court was denied in April 2005.  Plaintiffs in
"Snohomish County" filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to
the U.S. Supreme Court in November 2004 that was denied in June
2005. The remaining five coordinated cases were remanded to a
California state court, and in May 2005, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss.  The court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss in October 2005 on grounds of federal preemption.

In addition to the eight consolidated lawsuits discussed above,
nine other putative class actions and/or representative actions
were filed in state and federal court on behalf of business and
residential electricity consumers against the Company and
numerous other power generators and marketers between April and
October 2002.  The complaints allege unfair, unlawful and
deceptive practices in violation of the California Unfair
Business Practices Act and seek an injunction, restitution and
unspecified damages.

While some of the allegations in these lawsuits are similar to
the allegations in the eight lawsuits described above, these
lawsuits include additional allegations relating to, among other
things, the validity of the contracts between these power
generators and the California Department of Water Resources
(CDWR).  The court dismissed eight of these nine actions,
although the plaintiffs appealed, and the briefing on that
appeal was completed in October 2004. In February 2005, the
Ninth Circuit issued its decision affirming the denial of remand
and dismissal of these cases. The ninth case was remanded to
state court, where a newly added defendant filed a motion in
February 2004 to remove the case back to federal court.  In
January 2005, following a hearing on the issue, the court denied
the removal and returned the case to state court.  The company
intends to file expeditiously a motion to dismiss this case.

In December 2002, two additional actions were filed with similar
allegations on behalf of residents of Washington and Oregon. In
May 2003, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed these actions and
refiled them in California Superior Court as a class action
complaint.  The complaint, which was brought on behalf of
consumers and businesses in Oregon, Washington, Utah, Nevada,
Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona and Montana that purchased energy
from the California market, alleges violations of the Cartwright
Act and unfair business practices.  The Company has removed the
action from state court and consolidated it with existing
actions pending before the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The hearing on plaintiffs'
appeal to remand to state court occurred in February 2004.  The
judge stayed his ruling on the appeal pending the Ninth
Circuit's ruling on the six consolidated cases referenced above.


ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement For RI Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Rhode
Island has yet to rule on approval for the settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against Enterasys
Networks, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island,
styled "In re Cabletron Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation
(C.A. No. 97-542-JD (N.H.); No. 99-408-S (R.I.))."

Between October 24, 1997 and March 2, 1998, nine shareholder
class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Hampshire. By order dated March 3,
1998, these lawsuits, which are similar in material respects,
were consolidated into one class action lawsuit, and referred to
the District of Rhode Island.  The complaint alleges that the
Company and several of its officers and directors disseminated
materially false and misleading information about its operations
and acted in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder during the period between March 3, 1997
and December 2, 1997, and that certain officers and directors
profited from the dissemination of such misleading information
by selling shares of the Company's common stock during this
period.  The complaint does not specify the amount of damages
sought on behalf of the class.

In February 2005, the Company entered into an agreement in
principle to settle this litigation which is subject to approval
by the Court and does not reflect any admission of wrongdoing.
If finally approved, the settlement would result in the
dismissal and release of all claims and, under the financial
terms of the settlement, the Company would pay $10.5 million in
cash in addition to ongoing defense costs of approximately $1.1
million in connection with the litigation, the majority of which
will be offset by approximately $11.0 million in cash proceeds
from certain of the Company's insurers.

The suit is styled "Mesko, et al v. Cabletron Systems, et al.,
case no. 1:99-cv-00408-S," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Rhode Island, under Judge William E.
Smith.  Representing the defendants are Robert Clark Corrente,
U.S. Attorney's Office, Fleet Center, 50 Kennedy Plaza, 8th
Floor, Providence, RI 02903, Phone: 603-709-5038.  Representing
the plaintiffs are Biron L. Bedard, Cook & Molan, PA, P.O. Box
1465, Concord, NH 03302-1465, Phone: 603-225-3323, Fax:
603-225-8930; and Matthew F. Medeiros, Little, Medeiros, Kinder,
Bulman & Whitney, 72 Pine St., 5th Floor, Providence, RI 02903
Phone: 603-272-8080, Fax: 603-521-3555.


EUROPEAN UNION: Easing Suits Proposed For Antitrust Enforcement
---------------------------------------------------------------
European Union regulators proposed encouraging victims of
illegal monopolies and cartels to sue for damages, potentially
doubling the cost of violating EU competition law and opening
companies to American-style class action lawsuits, Bloomberg
Reports.

The European Commission, the EU's regulatory arm in Brussels,
backed efforts to increase the civil liability of price-fixers,
in addition to regulatory fines. Damage claims can help cartel
victims recover losses, according to the commission. Competition
Commissioner Neelie Kroes said in an e-mailed statement to
Bloomberg, "Businesses and individuals who suffer losses because
of illegal activities such as cartels have a right to
compensation. Currently, this right is all too often theoretical
because of obstacles to exercising this right in practice."

Unlike in the EU, U.S. courts can award triple damages. An
estimated 2.2 percent of the U.S.'s gross national product is
eaten up in civil litigation, according to a paper by the
Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, a public policy think tank.
The figure in sharp contrast to an August 2004 report
commissioned by the EU regulator, which revealed that out of the
60 attempts to sue for antitrust violations in the EU, only 28
have succeeded.

In the latest paper, dated December 19, the EU regulator
outlines barriers to private enforcement and offers options on
how to lower obstacles to filing civil lawsuits. The commission
may propose measures to improve the situation after consulting
with the public.

One barrier to private enforcement is that legal costs outweigh
the benefits. Some governments in the 25-nation EU prohibit
punitive damages. According to the 2004 EU study, "The
risk/reward balance in antitrust litigation is skewed against
bringing actions." The commission states that damages need to be
defined with one possibility being "double damages" for price-
fixing cartels. "Such awards could be automatic, conditional or
at the discretion of the court," the commission said in the 12-
page document, referring to national courts. The largest fine
imposed by the commission was about $1 billion (855.2 million
euros) against seven companies in 2001 for fixing the price of
vitamins.

The EU wants to avoid creating a system similar to the U.S.,
which is seen as encouraging frivolous suits. The regulator said
the U.S. systems "should be examined carefully and lessons drawn
from it." The commission pointed out, "The ultimate objective
should be to foster a competition culture, not a litigation
culture." Class action suits, in which individuals that were
victims of illegal cartels or monopolies pool their claims,
could help ease barriers to private enforcement, according to
the commission's report.


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Continues To Face NJ Securities Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exide Technologies, Inc. and certain of its current and former
officers continue to face two securities class actions filed in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
by two of its former shareholders, Aviva Partners LLC and Robert
Jarman.

The suits allege violations of certain federal securities laws,
on behalf of those who purchased the Company's stock between
November 16, 2004 and May 17, 2005.  The complaints allege that
the named officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 in connection with
certain allegedly false and misleading public statements made
during this period by the Company and its officers. The
complaints do not specify an amount of damages sought.

The first suit in this litigation is styled "Aviva Partners LLC,
et al. v. Exide Technologies, et al.," filed in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation:

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

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

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

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

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


FIRST COMMERCE: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set March 16, 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement in the matter: "Thomas Levitan, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. John B. McCoy,
Richard D. Lehmann, Michael J. McMennamin and Bank One
Corporation, No 00 C 5096 (the "Litigation"), otherwise known as
The First Commerce Corporation Shareholder Litigation." The
Class is defined as: "All persons and entities who acquired
their shares of Bank One Corporation ("Bank One") common stock
in exchange for their First Commerce Corporation ("First
Commerce Corporation") common stock pursuant to the Registration
Statement and Merger Proxy/Prospectus, in connection with the
Merger between Bank One and First Commerce on June 12, 1998. Not
included are:

     (1) all persons who sold their stock prior to August 24,
         1999;

     (2) Defendants;

     (3) any entity in which a Defendant has a controlling
         interest or is part or subsidiary of, or is controlled
         by Bank One; and

     (4) the directors, officers, affiliates, legal
         representatives, heirs, predecessors, successors and
         assigns of any of the Defendants."

With respect to the paragraph above, "persons" who sold shares
of Bank One common stock acquired in the Merger are excluded
from the Class only to the extent they sold all such common
stock before August 24, 1999. Persons and entities who sold
fewer than all shares before August 24, 1999, remain in the
Class. With respect to subparagraph (3) above, the First
Commerce Corporation Retirement Plan, First Commerce Corporation
Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan, First Commerce
Corporation Retirement Benefits Restoration Plan, or the
successors to those plans, are, to the extent of their
qualifying ownership of Bank One common stock, included in the
Class. With respect to subparagraph (4) above, the reference to
"officers" is a reference to persons who were officers of Bank
One as of June 12, 1998.

The hearing will be held on March 16, 2006 at 8:45 a.m. before
the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen for the purposes of determining:

     (i) whether a proposed Settlement of the above Litigation
         for the principal amount of Thirty-Nine Million Nine
         Hundred Thousand Dollars ($39,900,000), plus accrued
         interest, should be approved by the Court as fair,
         reasonable and adequate;

    (ii) whether an Order of Final Judgment and Dismissal
         approving the Settlement and dismissing the Litigation
         on the merits and with prejudice should be entered;

   (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair and
         reasonable; and

    (iv) whether the motion for attorneys' fees and
         reimbursement of expenses and costs and any motion for
         an award to Lead Plaintiffs are reasonable and should
         be approved.

For more details, contact Claims Administrator at First Commerce
Corporation Shareholder Litigation, c/o Berdon Claims
Administration LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, NY 11753-8914,
Phone: 800-766-3330, Fax: 516-931-0810, Web site:
http://www.berdonllp.com/claimsor
http://rbcc.royalbank.com/RT/GSS.nsf/0/2FCB2AFB65435BA7852570D80
0569CCE?opendocument.


FRANCE: Class Action Plan Hits Snag, Attorneys Criticize Report
---------------------------------------------------------------
President Jacques Chirac's plan to introduce U.S.-style class
action lawsuits in France appears to have hit problems after the
government taskforce charged with presenting proposals for a law
failed to reach an agreement, The Financial Times reports.

Attorneys criticized the report presented to the government last
week and compiled after nine months of work by a 17-strong group
of experts. Patrick Dunaud, head of litigation at Latham &
Watkins told The Financial Times, "It is a vast panorama of
foreign experiences, with no legislation proposed." He adds, "It
has been a very difficult debate between the consumer
associations, industry and the lawyers."

The government announced a further consultation period in an
attempt to reach some sort of consensus on introducing the
collective legal action that has proved so controversial in the
United States. According to the Finance Ministry, interested
parties will have until March 1 to make their views known, when
the government will take a position.

The report puts forward two proposals, one in which claimants
can join a collective action before it is launched, and a
second, whereby damages in a class action suit can be applied to
similar cases after the judgment.

France is the latest European country to consider ways of
facilitating collective legal action against companies, after
several financial and health scandals affected confidence in the
corporate sector. Aside from France, the United Kingdom recently
changed a certain law to allow groups of cases to be managed
collectively, while German lawmakers are considering similar
moves.

Back in January, France's president shocked business leaders by
announcing that he had instructed his government to introduce
class action lawsuits. The move was welcomed by French consumer
groups, but was fiercely criticized by both the business and
legal community, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (January
10, 2005) reports.

According to the consumer groups, introduction of collective
lawsuits would help redress the balance of economic power,
currently weighted in favor of producers, since unlike the
United States, France has few powerful consumer champions or
shareholder rights groups and independent pension funds capable
of taking on powerful companies.  The government stressed though
that it would learn from the American's experience and prevent
any abuses of the system by unscrupulous lawyers, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (January 27, 2005) reports.

However, Ernest-Antoine SeilliŠre, president of Medef, the
French employers' federation, said that class action lawsuits
could have "catastrophic consequences" and added "We are very
active in trying to limit these measures," an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (January 27, 2005) reports.

President Chirac's request, which was made during a New Year
speech to business and trade union leaders, is part of a
government drive to strengthen consumer rights. Following the
departure of Nicolas Sarkozy, a consumer champion, from the
finance ministry last year to prepare for a presidential
challenge in 2007, President Chirac is determined to demonstrate
his government's popular credentials, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (January 10, 2005) reports.


HARMONIC INC.: Court Yet To Rule on CA Suit Dismissal Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule
on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Harmonic, Inc. and certain
of its officers and directors.

Between June 28 and August 25, 2000, several actions alleging
violations of the federal securities laws by the Company and
certain of its officers and directors (some of whom are no
longer with the Company) were filed in or removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The actions subsequently were consolidated.

A consolidated complaint, filed on December 7, 2000, was brought
on behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased the
Company's publicly traded securities between January 19 and June
26, 2000.  The complaint also alleged claims on behalf of a
purported subclass of persons who purchased C-Cube securities
between January 19 and May 3, 2000.  In addition to the company
and certain of its officers and directors, the complaint also
named C-Cube Microsystems Inc. and several of its officers and
directors as defendants.

The complaint alleged that, by making false or misleading
statements regarding the Company's prospects and customers and
its acquisition of C-Cube, certain defendants violated sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
complaint also alleged that certain defendants violated section
14(a) of the Exchange Act and sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 by filing a false or misleading
registration statement, prospectus, and joint proxy in
connection with the C-Cube acquisition.

On July 3, 2001, the Court dismissed the consolidated complaint
with leave to amend. An amended complaint alleging the same
claims against the same defendants was filed on August 13, 2001.
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on September
24, 2001. On November 13, 2002, the Court issued an opinion
granting the motions to dismiss the amended complaint without
leave to amend. Judgment for defendants was entered on December
2, 2002. On December 12, 2002, plaintiffs filed a motion to
amend the judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint
pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  On June 6, 2003, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion
to amend the judgment and for leave to file an amended
complaint. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on July 1, 2003.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral
arguments on February 17, 2005, but has not ruled on the appeal
yet.

The suit is styled "Smith et al v. Harmonic, Inc., et al., case
no. 00-CV-2287," filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, under Judge Phyllis J.
Hamilton.  Representing the plaintiffs are William S. Lerach and
Patrick J. Coughlin, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP, 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-231-1058.  Representing the Company are Terri A.
Garland, Margaret L. Wu, Melinda S. Blackman, Morrison &
Foerster LLP 425 Market St San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Phone:
(415) 268-7000.


IDAHO: Judge Hears Motions in Twin Falls Teachers' Union's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth District Court Judge John Butler recently heard motions to
remove individual names from the Twin Falls Education
Association's (TFEA) class action lawsuit against the Twin Falls
School District, The Twin Falls Times-News reports.

The suit, filed on behalf of the TFEA and four teachers: Shana
Hoge, Trina Tinder, Peggy Hoy and Janel Maki, alleges the Twin
Falls school board and superintendent violated good-faith
bargaining, which requires that the board and superintendent
negotiate teacher contracts only with the teachers' union. The
TFEA also alleges that Wiley Dobbs, superintendent of the Twin
Falls School District, violated the bargaining process when he
sent an E-mail to teachers and staff explaining the board's
contract offer.

Though Judge Butler heard comments from attorneys on both sides,
he did not make a decision. Instead the Idaho judge will make a
ruling within 30 days. Both the district, as well as the
teachers' union, said that it is still possible for the case to
be settled outside the courtroom.


ILLINOIS: District U46 Opposes Motion For a Meeting in Bias Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for Illinois' Elgin School District U46 recently filed
a response arguing against a motion made by lawyers for a
handful of area families who want a mandatory meeting to try to
settle a potential federal class action lawsuit against the
district, The Elgin Courier News reports.

Attorneys of Chicago-based Futterman and Howard, the firm
representing the families, filed the motion for the mandatory
settlement conference last week. Federal Judge Robert Gettleman
is scheduled to rule on the request for the settlement
conference soon. If approved, the settlement meeting likely
would be scheduled after mid-January.

In the motion, the families' attorneys noted that the two sides
entered into negotiations on a number of occasions, most
recently in November during a meeting arranged by Elgin
community members. According to the attorneys, they have twice
sought a court-supervised negotiation session, but have gotten
little word from U46.

Carol Ashley of Futterman and Howard told The Elgin Courier
News, "At this time, plaintiffs believe that a court-supervised
settlement discussion would be fruitful and could expedite the
disposition of this case." She adds, "I think the motion speaks
for itself."

The class action lawsuit, which was filed last February with
three Hispanic Elgin families listed as plaintiffs, alleges that
Latino students and those with limited English skills receive an
inferior education in the Elgin School District U46, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (February 18, 2005) reports.

The lawsuit is largely influenced by last year's decision to
redesign school attendance zones to emphasize the concept of
"neighborhood schools." About 700 fewer U46 students now use
school buses to attend schools, a move that not only helps the
district financially, but also aids parents who want to become
more involved in their children's education. Critics argued that
in the process of implementing it, a "de facto segregation" has
been created by lumping larger groups of poor and minority
children into schools on Elgin's east side, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (February 18, 2005) reports. More than
one-third of the 40,000 students in U46 are Hispanic, while
about 7 percent are black. District officials have said that
about 6,000 children are non-native English speakers.

Patricia Whitten of Chicago-based Franczek Sullivan, the law
firm representing Elgin School District U46, told The Elgin
Courier News that it is opposing the motion after previous
negotiating sessions have produced no results. According to her,
they've been fruitless, since the plaintiffs have not provided
specific demands that would be needed settling the case. While
the plaintiffs' lawyers have suggested that they would have
clear demands in such a meeting, Ms. Whitten told The Elgin
Courier News she doesn't understand why they need to take place
under court supervision.

Previously, in their first public comments since the recent
filing of the suit, U46 officials have called the claims
absolutely false. In a recent newspaper column, U46
Superintendent Connie Neale stated, "The rezoning decision was
not made lightly, but was based on more than two years of study,
as well as years of review and recommendation by our Citizens'
Advisory council." She also states that the new attendance zone
plan has been enhanced more recently through equity-related
policies such as an expansion of a school choice program and two
separate analyses of the district's bilingual programs. The idea
that by creating neighborhood schools and effectively increasing
the populations of Latino students in some schools - some of
them are being set up for failure, is wrong, Ms. Neale said. "I
don't think there's anything automatic about it," she said.
"Just because a child is Latino and speaks another language
doesn't mean they're an at-risk child," an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (February 18, 2005) reports.

The suit is styled, "Daniel et al v. Board of Education for
Illinois School District U-46, Case No. 1:05-cv-00760," filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, under Judge Robert W. Gettleman. Representing the
Plaintiff/s is Carol Rose Ashley of Futterman & Howard, Chtd.,
122 South Michigan Ave., Suite 1850, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone:
(312) 427-3600, E-mail: cashley@futtermanhoward.com.
Representing the Defendant/s is Patricia J. Whitten of Franczek
Sullivan, P.C., 300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3400, Chicago, IL
60606-6785, Phone: (312) 986-0300, E-mail: pjw@franczek.com.


INPUT/OUTPUT INC.: TX Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division, dismissed the consolidated securities
class action filed against Input/Output, Inc., its chief
executive officer, its chief financial officer and the president
of GX Technologies Corporation, which the Company acquired in
June 2004.

The first suit, filed on January 12, 2005, is styled "Harold
Read, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Input/Output, Inc, Robert P. Peebler, J. Michael
Kirksey, and Michael K. Lambert."  The suit alleges violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The action was filed
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock who purchased shares during the period from May 10, 2004
through January 4, 2005. The complaint seeks damages in an
unspecified amount plus costs and attorneys' fees. The complaint
alleges misrepresentations and omissions in public announcements
and filings concerning the Company's business, sales and
products.

On February 4 and 10, 2005, and March 15, 2005, three
similar lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The three
complaints are styled:

     (1) Matt Brody, individually and on behalf of all others
         similarly situated v. Input/Output, Inc, Robert P.
         Peebler and J. Michael Kirksey,

     (2) Giovanni Arca vs. Input/Output, Inc., Robert P.
         Peebler, J. Michael Kirksey, and Michael K. Lambert,
         and

     (3) Schneur Grossberger, individually and on behalf of all
         others similarly situated v. Input/Output, Inc., Robert
         P. Peebler, J. Michael Kirksey, and Michael K. Lambert

These suits contain factual allegations similar to those in the
Read complaint. The Brody complaint was voluntarily dismissed
by the plaintiff in that case on April 28, 2005.   On August 26,
2005, the court ordered that the class action allegations
contained in the consolidated lawsuit be stricken from the
lawsuit for the plaintiffs' failure to identify and designate a
lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.  On September 2, 2005, the court
ordered that the former putative class action lawsuit be
dismissed without prejudice.


KENTUCKY: Three People Object to $120M Sexual Abuse Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Three people objected to a proposed $120 million settlement of a
class action lawsuit against the Roman Catholic Diocese of
Covington, The Associated Press reports.

The class action lawsuit, which was filed in Boone County
Circuit Court by Cincinnati-based attorney Stan Chesley, claims
that 21 priests and some other workers abused more than 150
victims in the Diocese of Covington for decades while church
officials did nothing to stop the misconduct, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (February 18, 2003) reports.

According to the court filings, from about 1956, information on
the sexual abuse of minors by diocesan priests has been
concealed from the public, including parents of children in
schools and parishes where the alleged perpetrators were
assigned, as well as from family members of employees of the
diocese. Specifically, the suit accuses the diocese, which is
just across the Ohio River from Cincinnati, of a 50-year cover-
up of sexual abuse by priests and others, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (February 18, 2003) reports.

In July, a state judge granted approval a proposed settlement
between victims of sexual abuse and the Diocese. The settlement
would compensate victims, who were fondled, raped or sodomized
by priests and other church employees. The amounts paid out to
plaintiffs will depend on the size of the settlement fund, the
number and nature of claims and the severity of each victim's
abuse. The Covington Diocese spans 14 counties and has 89,000
parishioners, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November
8, 2005) reports.

Specifics about the objections aren't known, since the papers
were filed recently and are currently under seal with the Boone
County Circuit Court clerk. The next step is for Special Judge
John Potter of Louisville, Kentucky to hold a fairness hearing
on the proposed settlement January 9, 2006. The people who filed
the objections will have a chance to speak at that hearing.

The settlement announced in June calls for the Northern Kentucky
diocese to contribute $40 million to the fund. The diocese's
insurance carriers would contribute up to $80 million. Still
pending though is a federal lawsuit between the diocese, the
plaintiffs and three insurance companies who are being asked to
pay up the $80 million amount as part of the settlement. Lawyers
are hopeful that it will be settled before January.


MAGEE-WOMEN'S HOSPITAL: PA Court Mulls Pap Smear Case Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
At least part of a class action lawsuit involving women who had
Pap smears at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center's
Magee-Women's Hospital may be revived, The Associated Press
reports.

According to Pennsylvania's Supreme Court, it will consider an
appeal to reinstate part of the lawsuit, which was filed two
years ago by women who claim that the hospital made it look as
if doctors signed off on the tests, which had actually been
screened only by technicians. The suit's original plaintiffs
were Christine Walter of Sewickley and Sharon King of West Deer.
They accused Magee of using physician auto signatures to
intentionally mislead patients into believing a physician had
reviewed the test results.

County Common Pleas Judge Robert Horgos threw out the suit back
in 2004, saying that the women suffered no injuries from the way
the tests were handled. The Superior Court later affirmed that
decision. In affirming the lower court's ruling, Judge Patrick
R. Tamilia wrote, "Although the presence of reproduced
signatures on cytotechnologist-reviewed Pap smear reports were
slightly misleading, we cannot conclude appellants' reliance on
the reports was the proximate cause of their alleged injury --
the cost of medical retesting," an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (April 19, 2005) reports.

Even with the court's recent decision, attorney Joseph Podraza
Jr., legal counsel for Ms. Walter and Ms. King, indicated that
they would appeal the decision or ask for reconsideration. "This
is too serious a matter to end at this juncture," he told The
Pittsburgh Post Gazette. He also said that while his clients
have been retested and found to be disease-free, "nothing has
been done to directly notify other women [tested at Magee] that
there is a possible problem, and that is disheartening," an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (April 19, 2005) reports.

The Supreme Court, however partially disagreed with the ruling,
and thus said that it will consider two questions: whether the
women have a claim under a law that allows women to be tested if
they've been exposed to health hazards, and whether the patients
suffered a legal not physical injury.

Hospital spokeswoman Jane Duffield called the decision "just
another step in the appeals process" and expressed confidence
the Supreme Court will agree with earlier rulings.


MBNA CORPORATION: Continues To Face NY Currency Conversion Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
MBNA Corporation and MBNA America Bank, N.A. continue to face
the consolidated class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, relating
to foreign currency conversion fees to customers, styled "In Re
Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation."

Mastercard and Visa applied a currency conversion rate, equal to
a wholesale rate plus 1%, to credit card transactions in foreign
currencies for conversion of the foreign currency into U.S.
dollars.  They required the Company's banking subsidiaries and
other member banks to disclose the 1% add-on to the wholesale
rate if the bank chose to pass it along to the credit
cardholder. The Company's banking subsidiaries disclosed this
information in their cardholder agreements.

In January 2002, the Company and MBNA America were added as
defendants in the matter. The plaintiffs claim that the
defendants conspired in violation of the antitrust laws to
charge foreign currency conversion fees and failed to properly
disclose the fees in solicitations and applications, in initial
disclosure statements and on cardholder statements, in violation
of the Truth-in-Lending Act. The plaintiffs also claim that the
bank defendants and MasterCard and Visa conspired to charge the
1% foreign currency conversion fee assessed by MasterCard and
Visa and an additional fee assessed by some issuers. Unlike most
other issuers, in the United States the Company's banking
subsidiaries did not charge the additional fee on consumer
credit cards in addition to the fee charged by MasterCard and
Visa, but did charge such an additional fee on business credit
cards. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages
and injunctive relief.

In July 2003, the court granted a motion to dismiss certain
Truth-in-Lending Act claims against the Company and other
defendants, but denied a motion to dismiss the antitrust claims
against the defendants. In October 2004, a class was certified
by the Court.

The suit is styled "In re: Currency Conversion Litigation, case
no. 1:01-md-01409-WHP," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge William
H. Pauley III.  Representing the plaintiffs are Goldberg, Kohn,
Bell, Black, Rosenbloom & Moritz, Ltd., 55 East Monroe Street,
Suite 3700, Chicago, Illinois 60603 and Lerach Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 288-4545, Fax:
(415) 288-4534.


MBNA CORPORATION: Continues To Face DE Securities Fraud Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
MBNA Corporation and certain of its officers face continue to
face several shareholder fraud class actions filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware, seeking
unspecified damages, interest and costs, including reasonable
attorneys' fees, stemming from alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

On April 21, 2005, the company announced in its first quarter
earnings release that management believed the Company's 2005
earnings would be "significantly below" its previously-stated
growth objective.  The company's stock price dropped following
publication of that earnings release. The lawsuits allege that
the Corporation and certain of its officers violated federal
securities laws through material misstatements and omissions
regarding the Company's business, which the plaintiffs allege
had the effect of inflating the Company's stock price.


MBNA CORPORATION: Continues To Face ERISA Violations Suit in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
MBNA Corporation, its pension and 401(k) plan committee face a
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, alleging that the defendants violated
certain provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA) as a result of breaches of fiduciary duties
owed to the 401(k) plan participants and beneficiaries.

Specifically, the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties related
to, but are not limited to, offering MBNA Corporation common
stock as an investment option, purchasing MBNA Corporation stock
for the 401(k) plan, holding MBNA Corporation stock in the
401(k) plan, failing to monitor the 401(k) plan's investment in
MBNA Corporation stock and failing to communicate information
concerning the Company's financial performance to 401(k) plan
participants and beneficiaries.


MBNA CORPORATION: Continues To Face CT Retail Merchants Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
MBNA Corporation continues to face a class action filed in the
United States District court for the District of Connecticut,
alleging violations of federal antitrust laws.

In June 2005, certain retail merchants filed the suit, alleging
that MasterCard and Visa and their member banks, including MBNA
America, conspired to charge retailers excessive interchange in
violation of federal antitrust laws.  The Company is in the
process of reviewing and assessing the impact of the lawsuit.

The suit is styled "East Goshen Pharmacy Inc v. Visa USA Inc et
al, case no. 3:05-cv-01177-JBA," filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut under Judge Janet
Bond Arterton.  Representing the plaintiffs are Patrick A.
Klingman and James E. Miller of Sheperd Finkelman Miller & Shah-
Chester, 65 Main St., Chester, CT 06412, Phone: 860-526-1100,
Fax: 860-526-1120, E-mail: pklingman@sfmslaw.com or
jmiller@sfmslaw.com.  Representing the Company is Suzanne Ellen
Wachsstock of Wiggin & Dana, 400 Atlantic St., 7th Fl., PO Box
110325, Stamford, CT 06911-0325, Phone: 203-363-7601, E-mail:
swachsstock@wiggin.com.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: High Court to Hear Dismissal Bid V. RICO Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision to hear Mohawk
Industries Inc.'s (NYSE: MHK) contention that it shouldn't face
a civil racketeering suit could resolve disagreements about how
courts handle similar suits by workers complaining that their
employers drive down wages by hiring illegal immigrants willing
to work cheap, The Fulton County Daily Report reports.

This is the claim made by former and current hourly employees of
the Calhoun, Georgia-based carpet giant in their 2004 class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia. The case has already survived Mohawk's
challenges in the district court and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals.

According to the original complaint that was filed in U.S.
District Court in Rome by four current and former Mohawk
workers, the company sent its employees "to the United States
border, including areas near Brownsville, Texas, to recruit
undocumented aliens that recently entered the United States in
violation of federal law" and transport them to North Georgia.
It also alleges that Mohawk employees and other recruiters
provided these illegal immigrants with housing and found them
jobs with the company. The suit even charges that although some
of the illegal workers were arrested, Mohawk's supervisors
helped others evade detection, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (July 6, 2005) reports.

In addition, the suit claims that even though Mohawk fired
several illegal immigrants after discovering them among its work
force during internal audits, the company soon rehired them
under different names. The suit also claims Mohawk destroyed
documents in an effort to conceal the fact that it employed
illegal workers. One of Mohawk's objectives, according to the
suit, was to inflate the size of the pool from which it hires
hourly workers, thereby depressing wages. Another was to reduce
the number and expense of workers' compensation claims, since
"illegal employees are unlikely to file," the suit states, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 6, 2005) reports.

The plaintiffs' legal team, which includes Atlanta's Bondurant
Mixson & Elmore LLP and noted North Georgia defense attorney
Bobby Lee Cook, argued the bulk of their case falls under the
state and federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
(RICO) acts. RICO primarily is used to prosecute tax evaders and
organized crime, but it also permits civil suits against those
who break immigration law, and the damages awarded can be triple
the norm, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 6, 2005)
reports.

In February 2004, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint, which was denied by the Northern District in April
2004. The Company then sought and obtained permission to file an
immediate appeal of the Northern District's decision to the
United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. In June
2005, the 11th Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part the
lower court's decision. The Company then filed a motion
requesting review by the full 11th Circuit. The court refused to
hear the case and the Company appealed to the United States
Supreme Court, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November
21, 2005) reports.

The case is one of many around the country in which workers say
that their employers violate federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, statutes by hiring undocumented
foreign workers.

The Supreme Court lawyer for the Mohawk employees, Howard W.
Foster, has brought cases against chicken processor Tyson Foods
Inc. and fruit producer Zirkle Fruit Co. He is also representing
an Idaho county bringing what he says is the first case of a
local government using RICO statutes to sue employers of illegal
workers.

At issue in the Mohawk case is whether its relationship with
outside labor recruiters constitutes a racketeering enterprise
as defined under RICO, the question the high court justices on
December 12 agreed to hear. The court's ruling could resolve a
split among circuit courts on the question.

The 11th Circuit decided that Mohawk and its outside recruiters
make up a racketeering enterprise, however, but in a similar
case last year, Baker v. IBP, Inc., 357 F.3d 685, the 7th
Circuit ruled the other way. In that case, workers sued a meat-
processing plant for conspiring with recruiters and a Chinese
aid group to hire illegal workers and drive down their wages.
The 7th Circuit decided that a racketeering enterprise existed,
consisting of the meat processor, the recruiters and the aid
group. But the 7th Circuit also ruled that the members of the
enterprise did not have a "common purpose" -- another
requirement for a RICO case -- because the employer wanted to
pay lower wages, the recruiter wanted to get paid as much as
possible for supplying workers and the aid group wanted to help
Chinese immigrants.

In its June 9 per curiam decision, the federal appeals court
panel upheld key elements of a ruling by U.S. District Senior
Judge Harold L. Murphy that allowed the case to proceed.
According to the 11 Circuit panel, the plaintiffs easily met two
of the four requirements to bring a federal RICO suit, which
alleges a pattern of racketeering activity. The panel stated
that the harder questions were whether the plaintiffs had
established "conduct of an enterprise" and whether the
enterprise had a common goal, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (June 20, 2005) reports.

The panel also pointed out that the "enterprise" prong was met,
since "Mohawk and the third-party recruiters are distinct
entities that, at least according to the complaint, are engaged
in a conspiracy to bring illegal workers into this country for
Mohawk's benefit."  It also ruled that the common-purpose test
was met, since the plaintiffs clearly alleged that the members
of the enterprise stand to gain sufficient financial benefits
from Mohawk's employment of illegal workers, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (June 20, 2005) reports.

The 11th Circuit concluded that the complaint sufficiently
alleges that Mohawk is engaged in operating the enterprise.
However, the judges added that "at this stage of the litigation,
we simply cannot say whether the plaintiffs will be able to
establish that Mohawk had 'some part in directing' the affairs
of the enterprise," an earlier Class Action Reporter story (June
20, 2005) reports.

Mohawk's Supreme Court lawyer, Carter G. Phillips of Sidley
Austin Brown & Wood, argued in his petition for certiorari that
a corporation and its non-employee agents performing corporate
functions do not constitute a racketeering "enterprise" as
defined by RICO. He bolstered that claim by pointing out that
the employees' original suit was solely against Mohawk, not the
other members of the supposed illegal-alien-recruiting
enterprise.

Mr. Phillips urged the high court to consider the case because,
he wrote, a RICO "enterprise" definition that encompasses a
corporation and agents acting on its behalf could have a
chilling effect on U.S. business activities. He warned that if
the 11th Circuit's decision is upheld, corporations could be
held liable under RICO for a "broad range of routine corporate
conduct."

Mr. Phillips further argued, "Every corporation must act through
agents to carry out business. He added that under the 11th
Circuit's rule, "each of these corporations could be held liable
under RICO simply because it hired an outside company to perform
these tasks rather than using its own employees."

The employees' lawyer, Mr. Foster of the Chicago firm Johnson &
Bell, dismissed Mr. Phillips' concern in his response brief,
writing that Mohawk's argument was based on an incorrect framing
of what constitutes a racketeering enterprise. Mr. Fosters
contends that such an enterprise, quoting RICO, can be "any
union or group of individuals associated in fact though not a
legal entity."

He further argues that the conspiracy between Mohawk and the
temp agencies to "violate federal immigration laws, destroy
documentation and harbor illegal workers" readily fits the bill.
The question Mr. Phillips raises of whether a "defendant
corporation and its agents can constitute an 'enterprise' under
[RICO]" is irrelevant, he added, since the employees never
contended in their original complaint that the recruiters were
Mohawk's agents and the 11th Circuit similarly did not address
that question in its June opinion.

In the lower courts, the Mohawk employees were also represented
by Bobby Lee Cook of Cook & Connelly, John Earl Floyd of
Bondurant Mixson & Elmore and Matthew D. Thames of the Dalton
firm Goddard Thames Hammontree & Bolding. Sidley Austin Brown &
Wood also represented Mohawk before the lower courts, along with
lawyers from Constangy Brooks & Smith's Atlanta office.

Amicus briefs to the Supreme Court in support of Mohawk are due
January 26 and those in support of the class of employees are
due March 2. An argument date has not been scheduled.

The case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court is titled,
"Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Williams, No. 05-465." Previously
pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit, the suit was titled, "Williams v. Mohawk, No.
04-13740."

The original suit is styled, " Williams, et al v. Mohawk
Industries, Case No. 4:04-cv-00003-HLM," filed in the United
States District Court for the District of North Georgia, under
Judge Harold L. Murphy. Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Bobby Lee Cook of Cook & Connelly, P.O. Box 370,
         Summerville, GA 30747-0370, Phone: 706-857-3421, E-
         mail: LisaDodd@alltel.net;

     (2) Ronan P. Doherty, John Earl Floyd, Nicole G. Iannarone
         and Joshua F. Thorpe of Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, 1201
         West Peachtree St., N.W., 3900 One Atlantic Center,
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3417, Phone: 404-881-4100, E-mail:
         doherty@bmelaw.com, floyd@bmelaw.com,
         iannarone@bmelaw.com and thorpe@bmelaw.com;

     (3) Howard Foster of Johnson & Bell, 55 East Monroe St.,
         Suite 4100, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: 312-372-0770, E-
         mail: fosterh@jbltd.com; and

     (4) Matthew Daniel Thames of Goddard Thames Hammontree &
         Bolding, Suite 209, P.O. Box 399, 101 N. Thornton Ave.,
         Dalton, GA 30722-0399, Phone: 706-278-0464, E-mail:
         mattatty@alltel.net.

Representing the Defendant/s are, Steven Thomas Cottreau, Juan
P. Morillo and Virginia A. Seitz of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood,
1501 K. St., NW Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-736-8000, E-
mail: scottreau@sidley.com; and R. Carl Cannon and Rosemary C.
Lumpkins of Constangy Brooks & Smith, 230 Peachtree St., N.W.,
2400 Peachtree Center Tower, Atlanta, GA 30303-1557, Phone:
404-525-8622, E-mail: ccannon@constangy.com.


NEW HAMPSHIRE: Judge Nixes Suit Over Law on Financial Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Magistrate Judge James Muirhead dismissed a challenge to
a New Hampshire law that seals personal financial statements
filed in divorce custody and child support cases and makes it a
crime to disclose them, The Associated Press reports.

Arthur Ginsberg of Nashua filed lawsuit against state Attorney
General Kelly Ayotte last June, contending that he wanted to
hire a forensic accountant to review financial documents from
his divorce but worried about being prosecuted. Mr. Ginsberg
pointed out that he was trying to trace money intended to send
the couple's two daughters to college. The suit revealed that he
has primary custody.

In addition, Mr. Ginsberg also revealed in his lawsuit that he
might take further court action against his ex-wife, which would
require them to file new financial affidavits under seal. He
explains that if he sues her, he wants a fully open, public
court proceeding.

Mr. Ginsberg hoped to have the lawsuit certified as a class
action, however in a ruling late last week, Judge Muirhead ruled
that the issue was not ready for review. Judge Muirhead noted
that all the financial affidavits filed during the couple's
divorce proceedings remain open to public view and can be
disclosed without penalty. All were filed before the law took
effect on August 10, 1994. The law is not applied retroactively.

Also, according to Judge Muirhead, while Mr. Ginsberg may take
further legal action against his ex-wife, he may find that it's
not warranted after completing his forensic investigation, or he
may decide that the best way to pursue it is through a type of
case not included under the sealing law. That makes the federal
lawsuit premature and "speculative," Judge Muirhead said.

Despite that ruling, Judge Muirhead did leave the door open for
Mr. Ginsberg to re-file. In his ruling, the judge wrote, "If
plaintiff decides ... that it is necessary to bring forward his
divorce case or commence a new domestic relations proceeding,
and if the Superior Court finds that the confidentiality
provisions of (the law) prevent plaintiff from making
disclosures that he wishes to make at that time, then
plaintiff's declaratory judgment action would likely be ripe for
judicial review." He adds, "None of those possibilities are
presented concretely now."

The law in question makes it a crime to disclose financial
affidavits in marital cases to anyone but the parties, their
lawyers, guardians for the children's rights and a few
government officials. Judges can make exceptions, but only if
disclosure clearly outweighs the individual's interest in
privacy.

A lawyer for Jennifer Wilson, Mr. Ginsberg's ex-wife, has said
the judges in the divorce considered Mr. Ginsberg's financial
claims and rejected them. The divorce became final in 2003.

In the previous year, news organizations including The
Associated Press sued in state court to have the same law
declared unconstitutional. They lost, but an appeal is pending.

Supporters of the law say it is necessary to protect financial
information from identity thieves, con artists, marketing firms
and nosy neighbors, especially as New Hampshire moves toward
putting court records on the Internet.

The law though conflicts with previous state Supreme Court
decisions, including one that unsealed financial affidavits in a
divorce. Those decisions say anyone trying to seal court records
must demonstrate an "overriding" interest that outweighs the
public's right to access. Then judges must use the least
restrictive means to protect the private information, sealing
entire cases or documents only as a last resort.

The suit is styled, "Ginsberg v. NH Attorney General, Case No.
1:05-cv-00193-JM," filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Hampshire, under Judge James R. Muirhead.
Representing the Plaintiff is Jill Dinneen of Dinneen Law
Office, 10 Glendale Dr., Nashua, NH 03064, Phone: 603 821-0417,
E-mail: jdinneen@aol.com. Representing the Defendant is Wynn E.
Arnold of The Attorney General's Office, Civil Bureau, 33
Capitol St., Concord, NH 03301-6397, Phone: 271-3658, E-mail:
wynn.arnold@doj.nh.gov.


OHIO: Companies Side With Philip Morris in Light Cigarettes Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio companies are siding with Philip Morris USA Inc. in a
lawsuit over so-called light cigarettes, arguing that the state
could become a magnet for class action lawsuits of all kinds if
smokers prevail in their claim, The Associated Press reports.

Recently, the Richmond, Virginia-based cigarette giant asked the
Ohio Supreme Court to strike down the class action status of two
Ohio smokers. They claim the tobacco company knew cigarettes
that it marketed as having less tar and nicotine would be as
dangerous as regular ones.

Philip Morris contends that Ohio law requires a more specific
warning from the state on a company's marketing practices before
allowing such lawsuits. A ruling will come next year for the
case.

The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, Ohio Manufacturers Association and
other trade groups warn that Ohio's economy may be at risk if
the case is allowed to be a class action. The groups' attorney
William Todd told The Associated Press, "Under the rationale
utilized by the lower courts in this case, virtually any
consumer transaction can become the foundation for a statewide
class action seeking extraordinary damages. Ohio may become a
haven for these new forms of intrastate class actions that would
target Ohio businesses."

The court is not deciding the merits of whether the cigarette
ads were deceptive. Instead, the smokers argue that the company
knew consumers would cover the filter holes with their fingers
or simply smoke more cigarettes to get more addictive nicotine.
The light cigarettes have the same tobacco mix as regular ones
but are supposed to provide less tar and nicotine through a
special filter.

On December 15, 2005, in a highly anticipated ruling, the
Illinois Supreme Court reversed a $10.1 billion verdict against
Philip Morris USA in a case in which the largest U.S. cigarette
maker was found to have fooled smokers into thinking "light"
cigarettes were healthier than regular ones. The class action
award, alleging that smokers were misled about whether such
cigarettes were safer, was seen as the most challenging of three
big cases remaining against Altria Group Inc., the parent
company, and may hasten a proposed corporate break-up.

The Illinois court's ruling focused on the fact that the Federal
Trade Commission, the federal consumer protection watchdog, had
authorized tobacco companies to describe their products as
"light" or "low tar". The high court found that Illinois state
law precludes such suits when a federal agency has acted in this
way. The unanimous ruling stated, "The FTC could, and did,
specifically authorize all United States tobacco companies to
utilize the words 'low', 'lower', 'reduced' or like qualifying
terms, such as 'light.'" So in essence, Philip Morris did not
improperly mislead customers about the health impacts of its
cigarettes, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (December 19,
2005) reports.

All Ohio businesses should pay attention to the case, according
to Ohio State University law professor Christopher Fairman. He
told The Associated Press, "This is a limit-drawing case. It's
going to have ripple effects."

Ohio's consumer law outlaws deceptive practices in marketing,
but says in order to sue as a class; consumers must show the
company was notified that a practice is deceptive through a
previous court case or attorney general's ruling.

Attorneys for the smokers say such notification came in a prior
ruling on the marketing of automobiles. That decision said a
manufacturer can't make false claims about a product's
performance that a reasonable consumer would think are true.

In arguments before the court last October, Charles Saxbe,
attorney for the smokers, said, "Whether you're selling iPods or
automobiles or gasoline or cigarettes, a knowing
misrepresentation is clearly covered."

Philip Morris attorney Irene Keyse-Walker called that an unfair
characterization of her argument. She said the cigarette case is
different from the automobile case, since the performance of the
cigarettes depends on how the consumer uses them.

Ohio Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton told Mr. Saxbe she was
struggling with his argument. The judge said, "This is going to
affect every single business. We have a very specific rule, and
you're urging a very general construction of it."


PRINTCAFE SOFTWARE: PA Court Hears Settlement Approval Motions
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania held a fairness hearing for the settlement for the
amended securities class action filed against PrintCafe
Software, Inc. and certain of its directors, but has yet to
grant approval.

The suit was initially filed in June 2003 against the Company,
now a wholly owned subsidiary of Electronics For Imaging, Inc.,
and certain of Printcafe's officers.  The complaint alleges that
the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and misleading
statements in connection with Printcafe's initial public
offering and subsequent press releases.

While the Company believes this lawsuit is without merit, the
parties have reached an agreement in principle to fully and
finally resolve this litigation, subject to the Court's approval
of the proposed class action settlement.  The parties executed a
written Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement
dated September 23, 2005 and jointly moved for the Court's
preliminary approval of the settlement on September 29, 2005.

The suit is styled "CITILINE HOLDINGS v. PRINTCAFE SOFTWARE, et
al., case no. 2:03-cv-00959-DWA-ARH," filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, under
Judge Donetta W. Ambrose.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jack G. Fruchter, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, One Penn
         Plaza, Suite 2805, New York, NY 10119, Phone: (212)
         279-5050

     (2) David A. Rosenfield and Samuel H. Rudman, Lerach,
         Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, 200
         Broadhollow Road, Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone:
         (631) 367-7100

     (3) Gerald L. Rutledge and Alfred G. Yates, Law Offices of
         Alfred G. Yates, Jr., 429 Forbes Avenue, 519 Allegheny
         Building, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Phone: (412) 391-5164,
         E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com

     (4) Marc A. Topaz, Schiffrin & Barroway, 280 King of
         Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: (215) 667-7706

Representing the Company are Roy W. Arnold and Traci Sands Rea
of Reed Smith, 435 Sixth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1886,
Phone: (412) 288-3131, E-mail: trea@reedsmith.com and
rarnold@reedsmith.com; and Douglas J. Clark, David L. Lansky,
and Nicholas I. Porritt of Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati,
650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050


SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: DE Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware dismissed the
class action filed against Safeguard Scientific, Inc., CompuCom
Systems, Inc. and members of CompuCom's board of directors.

The suit was filed on behalf of CompuCom's minority stockholders
seeking to enjoin the proposed merger of CompuCom with Platinum
Equity, LLC on the ground that the members of the board of
directors of CompuCom and Safeguard have allegedly breached
fiduciary duties to CompuCom and its minority stockholders.

On July 27, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint, asserting claims similar to those brought in the
original complaints and adding claims relating to CompuCom's
disclosure in its Schedule 14A filed with the Securities &
Exchange Commission on July 15, 2004.  On July 27, 2004, the
plaintiffs also filed a motion for expedited proceedings and
discovery in connection with the injunctive relief sought and
requested that a preliminary injunction hearing be held before
August 19, 2004, the date of the special meetings of the
shareholders of the Company and the stockholders of CompuCom
relating to the CompuCom merger.

Defendants filed their opposition to the motion on July 28,
2004.  On July 29, 2004, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion
to expedite.  On September 13, 2004, plaintiffs filed a Second
Amended Complaint alleging substantially similar claims.  On
November 5, 2004, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Second
Amendment Complaint. On September 29, 2005, the Court granted
defendants motions to dismiss. As of the date of this report,
plaintiffs have not filed an appeal of the Court's order to
dismiss this case.


SILICON STORAGE: Asks CA Court to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. asked the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California to
dismiss the securities class action filed against it and certain
of its officers, under the caption "In re Silicon Storage
Technology, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. C 05 00295
PJH."

In January and February 2005, multiple putative shareholder
class action complaints were filed, following the Company's
announcement of anticipated financial results for the fourth
quarter of 2004.  The suits were later consolidated.

On May 3, 2005, the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton appointed the
"Louisiana Funds Group," consisting of the Louisiana School
Employees' Retirement System and the Louisiana District
Attorneys' Retirement System, to serve as lead plaintiff and the
law firms of Pomeranz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP and
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo to serve as lead
counsel and liason counsel, respectively, for the class.  The
lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint on July 15, 2005.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages on alleged violations of
federal securities laws during the period from April 21, 2004 to
December 20, 2004.  The Company moved to dismiss the complaint
on September 16, 2005. Plaintiff served an opposition to the
motion to dismiss on November 4, 2005.

The suit is styled "In re Silicon Storage Technology, Inc.
Securities Litigation, case no. 3:05-cv-00295-PJH," filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, under Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Christopher T. Heffelfinger of Berman DeValerio
Pease & Tabacco, P.C., 425 California Street, Suite 2025, San
Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415/433-3200, Fax: 415-433-6382, E-
mail: cheffelfinger@bermanesq.com.  Representing the Company are
Jonathan B. Gaskin and Robert P. Varian of Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP, 405 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
Phone: 415-773-5700, Fax: 415-773-5759, E-mail:
jgaskin@orrick.com or rvarian@orrick.com.


SIZELER PROPERTY: MD Court Dismisses Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sizeler Property Investors, Inc. and its directors asked the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland,  to
dismiss the class action filed against them, styled "Jolly Roger
Fund LP and Jolly Roger Offshore Fund, Ltd. v. Sizeler Property
Investors, Inc., J. Terrell Brown, William Byrnes, Harold
Judell, Sidney W. Lassen, Thomas A. Masilla, Jr., James
McFarland, Richard Pearlstone, James R. Peltier and Theodore H.
Strauss, Case No. 1:05-cv-841-RDB."

The plaintiffs allege that the directors' approval of the Stock
Sale constituted a violation of the directors' fiduciary duties
as directors. The plaintiffs seek an order restoring the named
plaintiffs and the purported class to their respective
percentage ownership interests in the Company prior to the Stock
Sale. Plaintiffs also seek damages and interest in an
unspecified amount.

The Company and its directors have filed a motion to dismiss
this case, based upon the Company's position that this action
may be brought only as a derivative action, and thus, if at all,
only by the Company itself.  The Company and its directors filed
a motion to dismiss the case.  On November 4, 2005, the Court
granted the motion filed by the Company and the directors and
dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims.

The suit is styled "Jolly Roger Fund LP et al v. Sizeler
Property Investors, Inc. et al., case no. 1:05-cv-00841-RDB,"
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland under Judge Richard D. Bennett.  Representing the
plaintiffs is H. Russell Smouse of the Law Offices of Peter G.
Angelos, One Charles Center, 100 N Charles St 22nd Fl,
Baltimore, MD 21201, Phone: 14106492000, Fax: 14106492148, E-
mail: djmiller@lawpga.com.  Representing the Company is Mark D.
Gately and Mark Spencer Saudek of Hogan and Hartson LLP, 111 S
Calvert St Ste 1600, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 14106592700,
Fax: 14105396981, E-mail: mdgately@hhlaw.com or
mssaudek@hhlaw.com.


SOLECTRON CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For CA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Solectron Corporation reached a preliminary settlement with
agreement with parties in the consolidated securities class
action filed against it and certain of its officers, styled "In
re Solectron Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. C-03-
0986 CRB."

On March 6, 2003, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed, alleging claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleged that the
defendants issued false and misleading statements in certain
press releases and SEC filings issued between September 17, 2001
and September 26, 2002.  In particular, plaintiff alleged that
the defendants failed to disclose and to properly account for
excess and obsolete inventory in the former Technology Solutions
business unit during the relevant time period.

Additional complaints making similar allegations were
subsequently filed in the same court, and pursuant to an order
entered June 2, 2003, the Court appointed lead counsel and
plaintiffs to represent the putative class in a single
consolidated action.  The Consolidated Amended Complaint, filed
September 8, 2003, alleges an expanded class period of June 18,
2001 through September 26, 2002, and purports to add a claim for
violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, on behalf of a putative class of former shareholders of
C-MAC Industries, Inc., who acquired Solectron stock pursuant to
the October 19, 2001 Registration Statement filed in connection
with Solectron's acquisition of C-MAC Industries, Inc.

In addition, while the initial complaints focused on alleged
inventory issues at the former Technology Solutions business
unit, the Consolidated Amended Complaint adds allegations of
inadequate disclosure and failure to properly account for excess
and obsolete inventory at Solectron's other business units.  The
complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of
the putative class.

On June 14, 2004 the lead plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification seeking to have the court declare this matter a
class action litigation.  The court heard the Motion on October
1, 2004 and granted the motion.  In August 2005, the parties
reached an agreement in principal to settle the litigation on
terms not material to the Company. The parties are currently
negotiating the terms of the formal written settlement agreement
which they expect to execute and file with the Court in November
2005.

The suit is styled "In re Solectron Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. C-03-0986 CRB," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, under
Judge Charles R. Breyer.

Representing the Company is Ellen H. Ehrenpreis, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto CA 94304-1050
Phone: 650-493-9300 or by Fax: 650-565-5100.  Plaintiff firms in
this litigation are:

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

     (2) Green & Jigarjian LLP, 235 Pine Street, 15th Floor, San
         Francisco, CA, 94104, Phone: 415.477.6700, Fax:
         415.477.6710,

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


ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Suit Settlement Hearing Set December 27,2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the
matter: "In re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation, Case
No. 04-CV-3801 (JRT/FLN)." The case was brought on behalf of all
persons who purchased shares of St. Paul common stock between
November 17, 2003 and April 1, 2004; exchanged shares of
Travelers A and/or B common stock for STA common stock as a
result of the Merger between St. Paul and Travelers and/or voted
for the Merger; and/or purchased shares of STA common stock
between April 2, 2004 and August 4, 2004, and sustained a loss
on the transactions.

The Court will hold a Final Fairness Hearing on December 27,
2005, at 1:30 p.m., at the United States District Courthouse,
300 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55415, to decide
whether to approve: the Settlement; the Plan of Allocation;
certification of the Settlement Class; and application by
plaintiffs' counsel for fees, and applications by Lead Plaintiff
and plaintiffs' counsel for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in
litigating the class action.

The settlement, which was preliminarily approved by Judge John
Tunheim on November 25, 2005, will result in an all cash
settlement fund of $67.5 million - the second largest settlement
in the Eighth Circuit, and one of the top 100 securities class
action settlements of all time. The action arose when the St.
Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. announced that it would be taking
an approximately $1.6 billion purchase accounting adjustment,
several months after St. Paul and Travelers merged in April
2004, contravening earlier statements.

For more details, contact In re St. Paul Travelers Securities
Litigation, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims
Administrator, P.O. 9000 #6375, Merrick, NY 11566-9000, Phone:
1-800-445-9125, Web site:
http://www.stpaultravelerssettlement.com/.


STELLENT INC.: MN Court Mulls Stock Lawsuit Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
has yet to give approval to the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Stellent, Inc. and certain
of its current and former officers, styled "In re Stellent
Securities Litigation."

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements relating to the Company and its future
financial prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiff seeks
monetary damages against the defendants in unspecified amounts.

In fiscal year 2005 a settlement was reached, subject to final
documentation and preliminary and final court approval. No
further expenses of any significance are anticipated with this
lawsuit, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.


TREK ALLIANCE: FTC Settles Charges For Illegal Pyramid Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Trade Commission has settled charges against three
corporations and their owners and officers that the defendants
used deceptive practices to promote their multilevel-marketing
program and were operating an illegal pyramid scheme. The
Commission will receive about $1.5 million in consumer redress
as part of the settlement. Three of the defendants, who had been
top distributors for Equinox International, a multilevel-
marketing firm sued by the FTC in 1999, are permanently banned
from the multilevel-marketing industry.

The defendants sold products such as water filters, cleaning
supplies, nutritional supplements, and beauty aids through a
nationwide network of distributors. In its complaint filed in
December 2002, the FTC alleged that while distributors were told
they could make money by selling the products, the defendants
emphasized that they could make more money by focusing on
recruiting new distributors. According to the complaint,
distributors used deceptive claims to lure prospective
participants, including claims that salaried jobs were being
offered. The complaint further alleged that the defendants
misrepresented that distributors were likely to earn substantial
incomes, and that the defendants operated an illegal pyramid
scheme.

The defendants - Trek Alliance, Inc.; J. Kale Flagg; Richard and
Tiffani Von Alvensleben; Harry Flagg; Trek Education
Corporation; and VonFlagg Corporation - are a multi-level
marketing company, its owners and officers, its training arm,
and its parent corporation.

The orders against Kale Flagg, the Von Alvenslebens, and the
corporations permanently ban them from multilevel-marketing. In
addition, Kale Flagg is ordered to pay $360,000 and the Von
Alvenslebens to pay $515,000. Harry Flagg - who, unlike the
other individual defendants, had not previously been involved in
multilevel-marketing - is not subject to a ban, but is
prohibited from participating in illegal pyramid schemes and is
required to pay $20,000. The orders for all of the defendants
also prohibit the violations alleged in the Commission's
complaint. Additionally, as part of the settlement, the
defendants have authorized their insurance company to pay
$600,000 to the FTC to be used as consumer redress. The payment
settles a claim against a Directors & Officers liability policy
issued to the defendants.

The Commission vote to authorize the staff to file the
stipulated final orders was 4-0. The stipulated final orders for
permanent injunction were entered in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on December 13, 2005.

Copies of the stipulated final orders are available from the
FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's
Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to
prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in
the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers
spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or
Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints),
or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call
toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint
form at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet,
telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related
complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database
available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement
agencies in the U.S. and abroad.  For more details, contact
Jacqueline Dizdul, Office of Public Affairs by Phone:
202-326-2472 or John Jacobs or Jennifer Brennan, FTC's Western
Region, Los Angeles, by Phone: 310-824-4343 or visit the
Website: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/12/trekall.htm.


VASO ACTIVE: MA Court Gives Final OK to Class, Derivative Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Vaso Active") (VAPH.pk) of
Danvers, Massachusetts reports that Judge Reginald C. Lindsay of
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted final approval of the previously reported
consolidated class action settlement and the Massachusetts
derivative action settlement entered into in September 2005 by
Vaso Active and certain of its officers and directors. Judge
Lindsay also dismissed the class action and the Massachusetts
derivative action that were the subject of the settlement
agreements. Absent any appeal, the settlements will become
effective thirty days after the court's orders.

Under the terms of the derivative action settlement agreement,
plaintiffs in an additional derivative action pending in
Delaware Chancery Court are required to now seek dismissal of
that case by the Delaware Court, which Vaso Active believes will
occur in the next several weeks.

Under the terms of the class action settlement agreement, Vaso
Active, disclaiming any liability, has caused to be paid into
escrow by its insurance carrier for the benefit of the class
$1,100,000 in cash and will issue $750,000 face amount of 2-year
5% subordinated callable notes convertible at a conversion price
of $1.75 per share (which initial conversion price is subject to
certain anti-dilution adjustments). Vaso Active's insurance
carrier has paid the $1,100,000 cash payment in exchange for a
release of its liability under its insurance policy with Vaso
Active.

Under the terms of the derivative action settlement agreement,
Vaso Active, disclaiming any liability, will institute or
maintain certain corporate governance measures. In addition,
Vaso Active has agreed to pay to plaintiffs' counsel for the
Massachusetts and Delaware derivative actions a total of $25,000
in cash and $110,000 face amount of 2-year 5% subordinated
callable notes convertible at a conversion price of $1.75 per
share (which initial conversion price is subject to certain
anti-dilution adjustments). Absent an appeal, Vaso Active will
be required to make these payments to the applicable plaintiff's
counsel within thirty business days of the date of final court
approval by the relevant court.

In consideration of these settlements, the plaintiffs in each
case agreed to fully and finally release and discharge Vaso
Active from, among other things, the claims alleged in the
complaints.

"We are extremely pleased with the court's approval of these
settlements. We can now concentrate on marketing our existing
products and bringing additional products to market," said
Joseph Frattaroli, President of Vaso Active.

In April, May, and June 2004, several securities class action
lawsuits were filed, seeking equitable and monetary relief, an
unspecified amount of damages, with interest, attorney's fees
and costs.  The suits were allegedly filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's Class A common stock during the
period December 11, 2003 to March 31, 2004. The complaints
allege that during the period in question the Defendants
violated the federal securities laws by allegedly failing to
make accurate and complete disclosures concerning the Company,
its financial condition, its business operations and future
prospects, the clinical trial and endorsement of the Company's
Termin8 anti-fungal product (previously known as "deFEET") and
the institutional demand for the Company's securities.  These
complaints are captioned as follows:

     (1) DENNIS E. SMITH V. VASO ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
         ET AL., Civ. No. 04-10708 (RCL) (D. Mass.);

     (2) RICHARD SHAPIRO V. VASO ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
         ET AL., Civ. No. 04-10720 (RCL) (D. Mass.);

     (3) CHRISTOPHER PEPIN V. VASO ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
         ET AL., Civ. No. 04-10763 (RCL) (D. Mass.);

     (4) MODHI GUDE, ET AL. V. VASO ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS,
         INC., ET AL., Civ. No. 04-10789 (RCL) (D. Mass.);

     (5) KIM BENEDETTO, ET AL. V. VASO ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS,
         INC., ET AL., Civ. No. 04-10808 (RCL) (D. Mass.);

     (6) DEAN DUMMER V. VASO ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET
         AL., Civ. No. 04-10819 (RCL) (D. Mass.);

     (7) EDWARD TOVREA V. VASO ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET
         AL., Civ . No. 04-10851 (RCL);

     (8) KOUROSH ALIPOR V. VASO ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET
         AL., Civ. No. 04-10877 (RCL);

     (9) PAUL E. BOSTROM V. VASO ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
         ET AL., Civ. No. 04-10948 (RCL);

    (10) IRA A. TURRET SEP-IRA DATED 01/24/02 V. VASO ACTIVE
         PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., Civ. No. 04-10980 (RCL);

    (11) RICHARD PAGONA V. VASO ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET
         AL., Civ. No. 04-11100 (RCL);

    (12) JAMES KARANFILIAN V. VASO ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS,., ET
         AL. , Civ. No. 04-11101 (RCL); and

    (13) CHARLES ROBINSON V. VASO ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
         ET AL., Civ. No. 04-11221 (RCL)

The Court has consolidated the above-referenced cases, other
than the TOVREA and KARANFILIA complaints in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  On November
4, 2004, the Court appointed Schiffrin & Barroway LLP as lead
counsel for the Consolidated Action and appointed Shapiro, Haber
& Urmy LLP as local counsel.  The Court also appointed Edwin
Choi, Richard Ching, and Joe H. Huback as interim co-lead
plaintiffs, pending a determination of whether the Consolidated
Action may proceed as a class action.  The Court further ordered
that co-lead plaintiffs file a consolidated amended complaint in
the Consolidated Action no later than December 4, 2004. On
December 3, 2004, plaintiffs filed the Consolidated Amended
Complaint, which added as defendants the Company's directors at
the time of the Company's initial public offering and issuance
of its 2003 Annual Report, and alleged that during the period in
question the Defendants made false and misleading statements
concerning FDA approval of its current products and related
misstatements and concerning the clinical trial of the anti-
fungal product. On January 20, 2005, the Defendants filed an
Answer to the Complaint essentially denying the allegations and
liability, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (October 6,
2005) stated.

In June 2005, the company entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding Concerning Settlement Terms (MOU) to settle the
pending consolidated securities class action lawsuit. Under the
terms of the MOU, the lead plaintiffs and the settling
defendants agree that the final stipulation will contain a
disclaimer of liability consistent with the MOU, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (October 6, 2005) stated.

Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the MOU,
settling defendants will pay into escrow for the benefit of the
class $1,100,000 in cash and $750,000 face amount of 2-year 5%
subordinated callable notes convertible at $1.75 per share
within 10 business days of preliminary approval of the
settlement by the court. In consideration of this payment, the
parties will fully and finally release and discharge all claims
against each other. The settlement still needs court approval.
The Company's insurance carrier has agreed to pay the $1,100,000
cash payment in exchange for a release of its liability under
its insurance policy with the Company, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (June 6, 2005) stated.

The suit is styled "In Re Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals Securities
Litigation, case no. 1:04-cv-10708-RCL," filed in the United
States District Court in Massachusetts, under Judge Reginald C.
Lindsay. Representing the Company is Michael G. Bongiorno of
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, 60 State Street,
Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-526-6145, Fax: 617-526-5000, E-
mail: michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com. Representing the
plaintiffs are Stuart L. Berman, Darren Check, Sean M. Handler
of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor,
PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail:
ecf_filings@sbclasslaw.com. The derivative action is styled, "In
Re: Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Derivative Litigation,
Case No. 1:04-cv-10792-RCL," filed in the United States District
Court in Massachusetts, under Judge Reginald C. Lindsay.
Representing the Company is Jay Holtmeier of Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, 399 Park Ave., New York, NY 10022,
Phone: (212) 230-8800; and Richard S. Kraut of Dilworth Paxson,
LLP, 1818 N. Street NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036, Phone:
202-466-9152. Representing the plaintiff is George E. Barrett of
Barret Johnston & Parsley, 217 Second Ave., N. Nashville, TN
37201-1601, Phone: 615-244-2202, E-mail:
gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com and Mary T. Sullivan of Segal,
Roitman & Coleman, 11 Beacon St., Boston, MA 02108, Phone:
617-742-0208, Fax: 617-742-2187, E-mail:
msullivan@segalroitman.com.


VERITAS SOFTWARE: DE Court Mulls Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Delaware
has yet to rule on VERITAS Software Corporation's motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against
it, alleging violations of federal securities laws.

On July 7, 2004, a purported class action complaint entitled
"Paul Kuck, et al. v. VERITAS Software Corporation, et al.," was
filed.  The lawsuit alleges violations of federal securities
laws in connection with the Company's announcement on July 6,
2004 that it expected its results of operations for the fiscal
quarter ended June 30, 2004 to fall below estimates that were
earlier provided by the Company.  The complaint generally seeks
an unspecified amount of damages.

Subsequently, additional purported class action complaints have
been filed in Delaware federal court against the same defendants
named in the Kuck lawsuit.  These complaints are based on the
same facts and circumstances as the Kuck lawsuit.  On March 3,
2005, the Court entered an order consolidating these actions and
appointing lead plaintiffs and counsel. A consolidated amended
complaint was filed on May 27, 2005, expanding the class period
back one year, to between April 23, 2004 and July 6, 2004. The
suit also named another officer as a defendant and added
allegations that the Company and the named officers made false
or misleading statements in the company's press releases and SEC
filings regarding the company's financial results, which
allegedly contained revenue recognized from contracts that were
unsigned or lacked essential terms.


WELLMAN INC.: Continues To Face Polyester Fiber Antitrust Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wellman, Inc. is working to resolve several lawsuits in various
courts nationwide, alleging violations of state unfair
competition and antitrust laws relating to its sale of polyester
staple fiber products.

The Company and certain other persons are named as defendants in
40 still pending purported class actions alleging violations of
state antitrust or unfair competition laws and certain state
consumer protection acts that have been filed in various state
courts on behalf of purported classes of indirect purchasers
of polyester staple fiber products.  In each lawsuit, the
plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to
fix prices of polyester staple fiber products.

In addition, certain of the actions claim restitution,
injunction against alleged illegal conduct and other equitable
relief. The indirect purchaser cases were filed in Arizona,
California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Kansas,
Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia and Wisconsin.  In all of these
cases, the plaintiffs seek damages of unspecified amounts,
attorneys' fees and costs and unspecified relief.

Since June 2005, the Company has entered into settlement
agreements with respect to 23 of these lawsuits and has also
settled with 24 direct purchasers who never brought lawsuits.
These agreements contain releases of all claims against Wellman
or any of its directors and employees arising from alleged price
fixing and market allocation through the date of the settlement.
These settlements cover virtually all of the volume of polyester
staple fiber sold in North America from April 1999 to July 2001.
Some of these settlements remain subject to court approval.

The Company and certain other persons are named as defendants in
actions filed in the Superior Court of Justice for Ontario, the
Supreme Court of British Columbia, and the Superior Court for
Quebec, Canada, by plaintiffs purporting to represent classes of
direct and indirect purchasers of polyester staple fiber. The
Company has entered into an agreement to resolve all of the
Canadian litigation by paying $500,000. The Company denies the
allegations in the Canadian litigation. The settlement has been
approved by the Ontario Court. It has been tentatively approved
by the Quebec Court and final approval is expected from the
Quebec Court in August 2005.  It is still subject to Court
approval by the British Columbia Court. The Court approval
hearing in British Columbia is currently scheduled to occur in
September 2005.  This settlement may be terminated under certain
circumstances.


WOODWARD GOVERNOR: EEOC Probe Finds Racial, Gender Bias at Firm
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is alleging that
Illinois-based Woodward Governor Company (NASDAQ: WGOV), which
employs more than 1,000 locally, discriminated against its
minority and female employees, The Rockford Register Star
reports, The Rockford Register Star reports.

The federal agency recently notified Woodward of its findings in
a letter, after a nearly three-year investigation of the
company's practices at its Loves Park and Rockton locations. The
EEOC's determination could be a blow to the Loves Park-based
aerospace and information-controls manufacturer because of the
agency's allegation that Woodward discriminated against female
employees as well.

It may be significant, since Woodward faces a lawsuit brought by
86 current and former minority employees. Female employees are
not plaintiffs in that case. Jennifer Soule of the Chicago law
firm Soule, Bradtke & Lambert, which is representing the
minority workers in their class action suit told The Rockford
Register Star, "It opens the door to a second class action based
on gender." Ms. Soule pointed out that the Company has about 275
female employees at its Rock River Valley locations.

Rose Briani-Burden, Woodward's spokeswoman, provided a statement
that said the company "strongly disagrees" with the EEOC's
position. The statement further said, "Woodward believes that
when all the facts are fairly considered the allegations of
unlawful discrimination will not be upheld."

U.S. Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney in Rockford is hearing
the class action case against Woodward involving minority
employees. The discovery phase of the case is scheduled to end
on January 6, 2006, according to Ms. Soule, with a final status
hearing set for January 19, 2006.

Ms. Soule told The Rockford Register Star that the EEOC
investigation, which was triggered by employee complaints before
the lawsuit was filed, is separate from the court action, but
"it lends credibility to our clients' claims and bolsters our
positions." The determination, handed down by EEOC District
Director John P. Rowe in Chicago and released to the media by
Ms. Soule's office, found that Woodward minority employees were
paid at a lower rate than their white counterparts, were
promoted at a slower rate and were less often chosen for
training programs that led to promotions. The agency also
determined that Woodward failed to properly maintain records on
its minority workers.

In terms of Woodward's female work force, the EEOC determined
that the company paid them at lower rates than its male staff.
The EEOC did not find discrimination of females in training,
promotions or record keeping.

One of Woodward's options in reaction to the EEOC allegations is
to agree to negotiate a settlement. It has 14 days to do so.
But, if it declines, the EEOC could file a lawsuit separate from
the existing class action lawsuit on behalf of minority and
female workers, or it could seek to join the existing lawsuit on
behalf of the minority workers.

Rita Coffey of the Chicago office of the EEOC told The Rockford
Register Star that the agency wouldn't comment on Woodward
unless it files a lawsuit. The agency's determination included
37 past and current minority and female employees.

"The EEOC letter invites Woodward to conciliate these disputed
claims and give up our day in court by negotiating a
settlement," the company said in its statement. "Woodward will
give serious and careful consideration to its response."

If the EEOC sues successfully, a judgment could be awarded to
all minority and female workers employed at Woodward during the
alleged period of discrimination. While not saying what it will
do, EEOC regional attorney John Hendrickson told The Rockford
Register Star in an interview that his Chicago office wins more
than 90 percent of its cases. According to him, "We receive
4,000 to 5,000 charges a year in this office and we file only 20
to 35 lawsuits a year. We very carefully vet the cases so the
ones where we do file are pretty good cases. As a result, about
80 percent are settled by consent decree because the companies
don't want to go to trial."

The suit is styled, "Bell, et al v. Woodward Gov Co, et al, case
No. 3:03-cv-50190," filed in the United States District Court
for Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Philip G.
Reinhard with referral to Judge P. Michael Mahoney. Representing
the Plaintiff/s is Jennifer Kay Soule of Soule, Bradtke &
Lambert, 155 N. Michigan Ave., 500 Chicago, IL 60601, Phone:
(312) 616-4422, Fax: (312) 616-4422, E-mail: jenksoule@aol.com.
Representing the Defendant/s is Michael W. Duffee of Matkov,
Salzman, Madoff & Gunn, 55 East Monroe St., Suite 2900, Chicago,
IL 60603-5709, Phone: (312) 332-0777, E-mail:
duffee@matkovsalzman.com.


XL CAPITAL: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Fraud Suit in CT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated securities class action
filed against XL Capital Ltd. and certain of its present and
former directors and officers, styled "Malin et al. v. XL
Capital Ltd et al.," in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut.

The suit purports to be on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between November 1, 2001 and October 16, 2003, and
alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The
Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants violated the
Securities Laws by, among other things, failing to disclose in
various public and shareholder and investor reports and other
communications the alleged inadequacy of the Company's loss
reserves for its NAC Re subsidiary (now known as XL Reinsurance
America, Inc.) and that, as a consequence, the Company's
earnings and assets were materially overstated.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint which
motion is pending before the Court. On August 26, 2005, the
Court dismissed the Amended Complaint, but provided leave for
Plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint. Plaintiffs
thereafter filed a proposed Second Amended Complaint which is
substantially similar to the Amended Complaint. Defendants
intend to seek dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint.

The suit is styled "Malin et al v. XL Capital Ltd. et al., case
no. 3:03-cv-02001-PCD," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut, under Judge Peter C.
Dorsey.  Representing the Company is Leonard A. Spivak of
Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, 80 Pine St., New York, NY 10005,
Phone: 212-701-3000, Fax: 212-269-5420, E-mail:
lspivak@cahill.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Ramzi Abadou, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman - CA,
         401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
         619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423, E-mail:
         ramzia@mwbhl.com

     (2) George Edward Barrett, Barrett, Johnston & Parsley, 217
         Second Avenue, Nashville, TN 37201, Phone: 615-244-
         2202, E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com

     (3) Patrick A. Klingman, Sheperd Finkelman Miller & Shah-
         Chester, 65 Main St., Chester, CT 06412, Phone: 860-
         526-1100, Fax: 860-526-1120, E-mail:
         pklingman@sfmslaw.com

     (4) James W. Oliver, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
         Robbins - SF, 100 Pine St., Suite 2600, San Francisco,
         CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax: 415-288-4534, E-
         mail: jimO@lcsr.com

     (5) David A. Rosenfeld, Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP,
         200 Broadhollow Rd., Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747-
         4806, Phone: 631-367-7100, E-mail:
         drosenfeld@cauleygeller.com


XL CAPITAL: Named As Defendant in Amended NJ Insurance Fees Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
XL Capital, Ltd. was named as a defendant in the amended
consolidated class action, styled "In re Insurance Brokerage
Antitrust Litigation MDL No. 1663," filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.  The suit also
names as new defendants approximately 30 entities, including
Greenwich Insurance Company and Indian Harbor Insurance Company.

19 named plaintiffs have asserted various claims, purportedly on
behalf of a class of commercial insureds, against approximately
113 insurance companies and insurance brokers through which the
named plaintiffs allegedly purchased insurance. The Amended
Complaint alleges that the defendant insurance companies and
insurance brokers conspired to manipulate bidding practices for
insurance policies in certain insurance lines and failed to
disclose certain commission arrangements. The named plaintiffs
have asserted statutory claims under the Sherman Act, various
state antitrust laws and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, as well as common law claims alleging breach
of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary
duty and unjust enrichment.

The Complaint alleges various improprieties and unlawful acts by
the various defendants in the pricing and placement of
insurance, including alleged manipulation of the market for
insurance by, among other things:

     (1) "bid rigging" and "steering" clients to particular
         insurers based on considerations other than the
         customers' interests;

     (2) alleged entry into unlawful tying arrangements pursuant
         to which the placement of primary insurance contracts
         was conditioned upon commitments to place reinsurance
         through a particular broker; and

     (3) alleged failure to disclose contingent commission and
         other allegedly improper compensation and fee
         arrangements.

Discovery has commenced. Answers or motions to dismiss the
Amended Complaint must be filed by November 29, 2005.

The OptiCare suit is styled "In Re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation, case no. 2:05-cv-01168-FSH," filed in the United
States District Court in New Jersey, under Judge Faith S.
Hochberg.  Representing the plaintiffs are Joseph P. Guglielmo
and Edith M. Kallas, MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN LLP (NYC)
One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York NY 10119 Phone: 212-594-5300;
and Mark C. Rifkin, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP,
270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212 545-4600 E-
mail: rifkin@whafh.com.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

DIEBOLD INC.: Wechsler Harwood Commences ERISA Investigation
------------------------------------------------------------
The New York law firm of Wechsler Harwood, LLP, commenced an
investigation into Diebold, Inc. ("Diebold" or the "Company")
(NYSE:DBD) for violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") in relation to its handling of
investments in the Diebold, Incorporated 401(k) Savings Plan
(the "Plan").

In particular, the investigation focuses on whether the Company
and certain Plan administrators breached their fiduciary duties
by, among other things:

     (1) negligently misrepresenting and negligently failing to
         disclose material facts to the Plan and the Plan
         participants in connection with the management of the
         Plan's assets;

     (2) failing to properly monitor Plan fiduciaries; and

     (3) negligently permitting the Plan to purchase and hold
         Diebold stock when it was imprudent to do so.

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 material facts being investigated
include, but are not limited to allegations that the Company
issued false statements about its business, products, financial
results and prospects which caused the Company's stock to trade
at artificially inflated levels. 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, the Company's stock plummeted
to $37.27 per share on volume of 6.1 million shares. Diebold's
CEO and Chairman subsequently resigned.

According to a recent class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against
the Company and certain of its senior officers and directors for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, defendants
were aware of but concealed from the investing public that:

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

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

   (iii) 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;

    (iv) 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

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

Wechsler Harwood has taken a leading role in many significant
actions on behalf of current and former employees who have
suffered losses in their employer-sponsored retirement accounts
due to breaches of fiduciary duties owed to them. The firm
devotes a large part of its practice to pursuing such claims as
well as claims by defrauded investors and consumers. Recently,
the firm served as Co-Lead Counsel in an ERISA class action
against Royal Dutch/Sell plc, which resulted in a recovery of
over $90 million for the class.

For more details, contact Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq. of Wechsler
Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Ave., 8th Floor, New York, NY 10022,
Phone: (877) 935-7400 (ext. 286), E-mail: jmn@whesq.com.


NASH FINCH: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Nash Finch
Company (NASDAQ: NAFC) between February 24, 2005 and October 20,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


NASH FINCH: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Nash Finch Company ("Nash
Finch" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:NAFC) between February 24, 2005
and October 20, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit was filed against Nash Finch and certain officers and
directors ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Nash Finch made a series of false and misleading statements with
respect to the acquisition of Roundy's, a food distributor.
These statements were false and misleading because Defendants
knew or recklessly disregarded that Nash Finch was operating
well below expectations, that the Company had under-reserved for
the Roundy's acquisition, and that the integration of Roundy's
was not going according to plan.

On October 20, 2005, Nash Finch issued a press release
announcing lower fiscal 2005 earnings guidance of $3.00 to $3.25
per share, versus its original expectations of $3.70 to $3.89
per share. The Company attributed the lower guidance to a
decline in retail gross margins and inadequate execution of
pricing across its retail operations and higher than expected
acquisition integration costs. In reaction to the news, Nash
Finch shares tumbled $12.76 per share, or 28.6% to close at
$30.04 on October 21, 2005.

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


NASH FINCH: Squitieri & Fearon Files Securities Fraud Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court of Minnesota
on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Nash
Finch Company (Nasdaq:NAFC) ("Nash" or "The Company"), between
February 24, 2005 and October 20, 2005, (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges that Nash and certain of its officers
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On February 24,
2005, defendants announced a $220 million acquisition of
Roundy's Distribution Center ("Roundy's"), a Midwest food
distributor, which, according to defendants, was expected to add
nearly $1 billion in yearly sales to the Company, be immediately
accretive to earnings, and create approximately $10 million per
year in cost savings. Unbeknownst to investors, however,
defendants' statements were materially false and misleading
because defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that:

     (1) the Company was operating far below expectations;

     (2) Nash had significantly under-reserved for the Roundy's
         acquisition;

     (3) the integration of Roundy's was not proceeding
         according to plan; and

     (4) the Company's core business was under-performing
         guidance.

On October 20, 2005, the last day of the Class Period, the
Company issued a press release announcing significantly lower
fiscal 2005 earnings guidance of $3.00 to $3.25 per share, from
its previous guidance of $3.70 and $3.89. The Company attributed
the lowered guidance to "a decline in retail gross profit
margins, primarily reflecting inadequate execution in pricing
across the Company's retail operations; depressed wholesale
gross profit margins principally relating to manufacturer
promotional spending; and higher than expected acquisition
integration costs." In reaction to this news, the price of Nash
stock fell $12.11 per share, or 35%, from its closing price of
$42.34 on October 20, 2005, to close at $30.23 on the following
trading day. Defendants engaged in the fraudulent and wrongful
conduct to sell more than $300 million in notes in a private
placement and in order for Company insiders to sell more than
$17 million of their privately-held Nash shares while in
possession of material adverse non-public information about the
Company.

For more details, contact Philip P. Foote of Squitieri & Fearon,
LLP, Phone: (212) 421-6492, E-mail: Pfoote@sfclasslaw.com.


NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Milberg Weiss Bershad Files Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Northwest Airlines Corporation ("Northwest" or the "Company")
(OTC: NWACQ) between April 21, 2005 and September 14, 2005
inclusive (the "Class Period") seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action, numbered 05-CV-10653, is pending before the
Honorable Richard J. Holwell in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against defendants Alfred
A. Checchi (Director), Bernard L. Han (CFO), Douglas M.
Steenland (CEO, President and Director) and Gary L. Wilson
(Chairman). Northwest is not named as a defendant in this action
solely because it is in chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain
Northwest insiders sold their Northwest securities for proceeds
in excess of $30 million while in possession of nonpublic
information regarding Northwest's plans to file for Chapter 11
bankruptcy. The complaint further alleges that defendants made
materially false and misleading statements, throughout the class
period, with respect to Northwest's prospects. Specifically, the
complaint alleges, defendants maintained that Chapter 11
bankruptcy was "a possibility" and that the Northwest might have
"to consider" filing for bankruptcy if certain conditions were
not met. The complaint further alleges that defendants'
statements were materially false and misleading not only because
defendants failed to disclose that the Company's Chapter 11
bankruptcy filing was already imminently anticipated and being
planned for, but also because they failed to disclose that
filing for Chapter 11 protection was, in fact, a strategy that
defendants had adopted at least as early as April 2005 because
they viewed bankruptcy reorganization as the only way to dump
the crushing burden of Northwest's pension obligations on the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., impose their will upon
Northwest's union to obtain givebacks of at least $1.1 billion,
and thereby compete with lower-cost discount carriers such as
JetBlue Airways, and so-called "legacy" rivals such as UAL Corp.
and US Airways Group Inc., that had already offloaded their
pension obligations and otherwise achieved significant savings
through bankruptcy reorganization.

The Company, on September 14, 2005, announced that it had filed
a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11, title 11,
United States Code, 11 U.S.C. sections 101, et seq. (the
"Bankruptcy Code"). On this news the Company's shares, which had
been trending downward, fell from a closing price of $1.87 on
September 14, 2005 to an opening price of $0.86 on September 15,
2005. The stock was delisted on September 26, 2005 but continued
to trade over-the-counter as a penny stock. As a result of
defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and this material
erosion and decline in the market value of Northwest securities,
plaintiffs and other class members who purchased such Northwest
securities during the Class Period have suffered significant
losses and damages.

The complaint further alleges that, during the months preceding
the bankruptcy, insiders sold their Northwest shares to
unwitting investors for proceeds in excess of $30 million under
highly suspicious circumstances that raise the inference that,
at the time of the sales, defendants had material nonpublic
information that the Company had already planned to file for
bankruptcy and that the filing was imminently expected.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman
and Andrei V. Rado of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone:
(800) 320-5081, E-mail: sfeerick@milbergweiss.com, Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.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  * * *