CAR_Public/051228.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, December 28, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 257


                            Headlines

AOL TIME: Litigation Settlement Hearing Set February 22, 2006
APPLE COMPUTER: LA Consumers File iPod Nanos Product Defect Suit
ASIA PULP: Litigation Settlement Hearing Set February 27, 2006
AUSTRALIA: Leading Firm Mulls Antitrust Suit V. Packaging Giants
AUSTRALIA: May 2005 Air Crash Relatives Consider Injury Suit

AVERY DENNISON: Continues To Face PA Suit V. UPM-MACtac Merger
AVERY DENNISON: Securities Fraud Suit Remains Stayed in C.D. CA
AVERY DENNISON: Continues to Face Label Stock Antitrust Lawsuits
AVERY DENNISON: ERISA Violations Lawsuit Stayed in C.D. CA Court
CALIFORNIA: SEC Sues Former San Francisco Hedge Fund Managers

CERNER CORPORATION: Appeals Court Affirms Stock Suit Dismissal
CNA HOLDINGS: Faces Property Damage Litigation in Various Courts
CNA HOLDINGS: Subsidiaries Face Sorbates Antitrust Litigation
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues To Face Overtime Suits in CA Courts
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Female Managers File Sex Bias Suit in CA Court

EL POLLO: CA Employees Commence Unfair Labor Practices Lawsuit
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Reaches Settlement For Overtime Wage Suit in CA
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Continues To Face Amended CA Overtime Wage Suit
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
ILLINI CORPORATION: Court Hears Ousted Trial Attorney's Motion

INTELSAT LTD.: Asks DC Court To Dismiss Suit V. IGO Resolution
INTERMIX MEDIA: Shareholders File Suit V. FIM Transaction in CA
INTERNATIONAL DAIRY: Franchisees Allege Violations of $50M Deal
INSTALOANS FINANCIAL: Ontario Customers Sue V. Loan Practices
LUXOTTICA GROUP: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set February 9, 2006

MERRIMAN CURHAN: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Florida Court
NATIONAL CENTURY: SEC Files Suit V. Executives Over $2.6B Fraud
NEWS CORPORATION: DE Court Grants Final Approval To Settlement
NEWS CORPORATION: DE Court Mulls Investor Suit Dismissal Appeal
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement Hearing Set February 17, 2006

NORTH CAROLINA: Law Firm Helps State Close Down Payday Lenders
NUVASIVE INC.: Plaintiffs Lodge Master Fraud Complaint in CA
PETTERS CONSUMERS: Recalls 165T Battery Packs Due to Fire Hazard
RESTORATION ARCHITEXTURE: Workers File Overtime Wage Suit in PA
ROANOKE TECHNOLOGY: SEC Lodges Suit in FL Over Form S-8 Scheme

SALTON INC.: Continues to Face Russell Hobbs Tea Kettle Lawsuit
SALTON INC.: Consumer Initiates Fraud Litigation in CA Court
SONY BMG: TX Attorney General Files Amended Suit Over Music CDs
SPORT CHALET: Reaches Settlement for DE Shareholder Fraud Suit
THORATEC CORPORATION: CA Court Mulls Securities Suit Dismissal

ZIPREALTY INC.: CA Court Preliminarily OKs Agent Suit Settlement

                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

GUIDANT CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in IN
NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Alfred G. Yates Lodges Securities Suit in NY
NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in NY
SERACARE LIFE: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
STONE ENERGY: Klafter & Olsen Retained to Commence LA Stock Suit

                            *********


AOL TIME: Litigation Settlement Hearing Set February 22, 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Southern District of New
York will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in
the matter, "In re AOL Time Warner, Inc. Securities & 'ERISA'
Litigation, Case No. 02 Civ. 5575 (SWK)." The case was brought
on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased, exchanged or
otherwise acquired publicly traded common stock of AOL, and/or
bought or sold options on AOL common stock during the period
January 27, 1999 through January 11, 2001, and/or purchased,
exchanged or otherwise acquired publicly traded common stock and
bonds of Time Warner and/or bought or sold options on Time
Warner common stock during the period January 11, 2001 through
and including August 27, 2002, and were damaged thereby.

The hearing will be held on February 22, 2006, at 10:30 a.m.,
before the Honorable Shirley Wohl Kram at United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, 40 Centre Street,
Courtroom 619, New York, New York 10007-1581 (the "Final
Approval Hearing") to determine:

     (1) whether the settlement of claims in the class action
         against the Defendants should be approved as fair,
         reasonable and adequate to all members of the
         Securities Class;

     (2) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair,
         reasonable and adequate;

     (3) whether Lead Securities Counsel's application for an
         award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be
         approved; and

     (4) whether the class action should be dismissed with
         prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation that was
         filed with the Court.

For more details, contact AOL Time Warner, Inc. Securities
Litigation, c/o Gilardi & Co., Settlement Administrator, P.O.
Box 808061, Petaluma, CA 949475-8061, Phone: (877) 800-7852, E-
mail: aoltimewarnersettlement@gilardi.com, Web site:
http://www.aoltimewarnersettlement.com/.  


APPLE COMPUTER: LA Consumers File iPod Nanos Product Defect Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Mayo of Louisiana filed a class action lawsuit against
Apple Computer, Inc. in a Baton Rouge federal court, claiming
the abrasions snuffed the life from her iPod nano, The
2theadvocate.com reports.

Ms. Mayo is alleging that the Company's popular petite digital
music player's design is knowingly flawed. Her class action
lawsuit specifically, claims that the nanos, which sell for $199
or more, scratch excessively with normal usage, rendering their
full-color display screens unreadable. Without the navigational
menus on the screen, users can't make the device work.

Philip Bohrer, Ms. Mayo's lawyer told The 2theadvocate.com,
"Apple marketed the nano -- because it's small and streamlined -
- to be used in outdoor activities and athletic activities. But
these devices are not designed to withstand even routine use.
There's a flaw in the design that needs to be changed."

Disgruntled customers filed a total of five similar class action
lawsuits in California, New York and New Jersey. Despite that
the iPod line has been a major success for the Company.  The
Company shipped nearly 6.5 million of them in its fourth quarter
this year, up 220 percent from the same time a year ago. A
recent company financial statement credits the players with
helping boost revenue and earnings to record levels. Some 1
million nanos were sold in the first 17 days the player was on
the market, Apple reports. The gadgets were among the top-
selling electronic items for online retailer Amazon.com the day
after Thanksgiving, while Best Buy sold out.

Nanos store up to 1,000 songs, podcasts and audiobooks or hold
up to 25,000 photographs, depending on the model. They also
carry calendar, contacts and to-do list files. When Apple
launched the nano in September, CEO Steven Jobs introduced the
featherweight, pencil-thin gadget -- hawked as "impossibly
small" -- by pulling it from his pocket.  Since then, frustrated
customers have peppered the Internet with complaints that toting
the nano in that fashion scratches or cracks the LCD screen that
displays menus and navigation prompts, sometimes just hours or
days after purchase.

In a memorandum seeking to consolidate all six federal class
actions and transfer them to the Northern District of
California, where Apple is based, attorney Penelope Preovolos
said the company "denies that the iPod nano scratches
excessively absent user abuse. The iPod nano is an
extraordinarily popular and successful product and is free of
defects."

Ms. Mayo, who bought her nano right after they hit the shelves,
contends in the lawsuit that she and other Louisiana owners "are
now forced to purchase products to protect their nanos from
excessive scratching." Among the accessories Apple sells for the
iPod nano are "tubes" -- protective silicone cases in neon
colors -- and armbands. Each costs $29. Her lawsuit also claims
that the Company violated the Louisiana Products Liability Act,
which protects against the sale of defective merchandise. The
suit seeks unspecified damages and legal fees. Mr. Bohrer could
not say how many Louisiana nano owners might be part of the
class action, but estimates it "could be tens of thousands."

The suit is styled, "Mayo v. Apple Computer, Inc., Case no.
3:05-cv-01382-JJB-DLD," filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana under Judge James J.
Brady with referral to Judge Docia L. Dalby. Representing the
Plaintiff are, Philip Bohrer and Scott E. Brady of Bohrer Law
Firm, 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B, Baton Rouge, LA 70809,
Phone: 225-925-5297, Fax: 225-231-7000, E-mail:
phil@bohrerlaw.com and scott@bradylawfirmllc.com. Representing
the Defendant is Quentin F. Urquhart, Jr. of Irwin Fritchie
Urquhart & Moore, LLC, 400 Poydras St., Suite 2700, New Orleans,
LA 70130, Phone: 504-310-2100, Fax: 504-310-2101, E-mail:
qurquhart@irwinllc.com.


ASIA PULP: Litigation Settlement Hearing Set February 27, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York will hold a fairness haring for the proposed $46
million settlement in the matter, "In re: Asia Pulp & Paper
Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-7351 (JES)." The case was
brought on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired any of the publicly traded securities of the
Asia Pulp & Paper Company Ltd. and its subsidiaries during the
period between August 28, 1998 and April 4, 2001.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable John E. Sprizzo in
the United States District Court, 40 Centre St., New York, NY
10007, at 3:00 p.m., on February 27, 2006.

For more details, contact In re: Asia Pulp & Paper Securities
Litigation, c/o Analytics Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box
2002, Chanhassen, MN 55317-2002, Phone: (866) 314-5805, Web
site: http://www.appsecuritieslitigation.com;Paul D. Young,  
Esq. of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, Phone:
(212) 594-5300; and Joshua N. Rubin, Esq. of Abbey Gardy, LLP,
Phone: (212) 889-3700.


AUSTRALIA: Leading Firm Mulls Antitrust Suit V. Packaging Giants
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maurice Blackburn Cashman, one of Australia's leading plaintiff
law firms, indicated that it is investigating a class action
against alleged cartel members Visy and Amcor on behalf of
customers who were overcharged for the supply of cardboard
boxes, The Age reports.

Bernard Murphy, the firm's senior principal told The Age that
the firm was investigating the situation for several months and
would be in a position to make further comment about it in the
next year. Another spokesman for the firm told The Age that it
has contacted or been contacted by up to 50 customers who were
affected by the allegedly anti-competitive behavior of the two
packaging giants.

Class actions allow affected people to recover losses caused by
illegal behavior by joining a group of complainants, thus saving
time and money. The law firm is currently undertaking another
case of this type, involving illegal price fixing and market
rigging by three manufacturers of animal vitamins.

The Visy-Amcor statement of claim, which was lodged by the
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), details
dozens of companies that were adversely affected. These
companies include conglomerates such as Cadbury Schweppes,
Nestle, Foster's Group and Coca-Cola Amatil to small fruit and
vegetable growers.

One of the complainants, a Visy customer, was quoted a 37 per
cent increase by Visy and a 14 per cent increase by Amcor when
their contract expired. Under these circumstances, it should be
relatively straightforward for the regulator and the plaintiff
lawyers to calculate the losses suffered by the complainants.  
Visy and its executives are accused of having plotted with
executives of Amcor to carve up the $2.2 billion box market,
setting price floors and agreeing not to poach big clients. They
are facing penalties amounting to about $427 million. Howeevr,
Amcor, its former chief executive Russell Jones, and other
executives have been granted immunity by the ACCC in exchange
for co-operating.

Three months ago, the ACCC increased the incentives for cartel
members to break ranks and co-operate with it by replacing its
leniency policy with an immunity policy.  The case, which is
unlikely to be heard for 12 to 18 months, will be the first big
cartel action begun since the ACCC established a specialized
anti-cartel team. Companies involved in cartels face penalties
of up to $10 million per contravention, while their executives
face penalties of up to $500,000 per contravention.


AUSTRALIA: May 2005 Air Crash Relatives Consider Injury Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Relatives of those killed in Australia's worst plane crash in
almost 40 years say they may pursue a class action in a bid to
obtain compensation, The Age reports.

A Transair commuter aircraft traveling at 290kph crashed into a
timber-covered ridge in far north Queensland, instantly killing
13 passengers, the pilot and co-pilot on May 7, 2005. The
Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) recently released a
report that failed to explain why the twin-turboprop Fairchild
Metroliner was flying 1,000 feet too low when it crashed. The
plane was on its final descent in poor weather to Lockhart River
aerodrome near a Cape York Aboriginal community when it failed
to clear the ridge.

Shane Urquhart, the father of policewoman Sally Urquhart, one of
the passengers, told The Age that relatives were angry and
disappointed by a lack of support and compensation. Although the
relatives were yet to mount any compensation bid, pending the
outcome of investigations into the tragedy, Mr. Urquhart told
The Age, "anything was possible". According to him, "When it
comes to loss of life, the insurance company will fight tooth
and nail not to pay." He adds, "We haven't ruled out taking a
group class action and there is some weight behind looking at a
separate inquiry."

Opposition transport spokesman Kerry O'Brien told The Age that
the Civil Aviation Safety Authority had revealed in a Senate
estimates committee hearing that it was aware the operators of
the Metroliner had operated in breach of procedures laid down in
the company's operations manual.

Mr. Urquhart told The Age that the relatives couldn't understand
why government regulators gave operators Transair and Aero-
Tropics the all-clear two months before the accident. He also
adds that relatives were also bitter about not receiving
personal notes of condolence from Transair and Aero-Tropics.

The relatives had joined forces with federal Labor senators to
uncover what they claimed were widespread airline safety
concerns in the far north Queensland's aviation industry. "The
ducking and weaving has now started ... if they think that it's
going to go away they have another thing coming," according to
Mr. Urquhart. He adds, "There are lots of other things coming to
light about the whole operation of air companies in north
Queensland."

Additionally, Mr. Urquhart told The Age that the unanswered
questions, coupled with a lack of support and compensation, saw
his family continue to experience the same level of frustration
and anger it did when the accident happened. He said, "We have
six boxes of Sally's gear like clothes and personal items, in
our house and we still haven't been able to bring ourselves to
open them and go through and look."


AVERY DENNISON: Continues To Face PA Suit V. UPM-MACtac Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avery Dennison Corporation continues to face a purported class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania, related to the proposed merger of UPM-
Kymmene (UPM) and the Morgan Adhesives (MACtac) division of
Bemis Co., Inc. (Bemis).  

The Department of Justice filed a complaint, on the basis of its
belief that in certain aspects of the label stock industry "the
competitors have sought to coordinate rather than compete."  On
April 24, 2003, Sentry Business Products, Inc. filed a purported
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against the Company, UPM, Bemis
and certain of their subsidiaries seeking treble damages and
other relief for alleged unlawful competitive practices,
essentially repeating the underlying allegations of the DOJ
Merger Complaint.  Ten similar complaints were filed in various
federal district courts.

In November 2003, the cases were transferred to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
and consolidated for pretrial purposes. On January 21, 2004,
plaintiff Pamco Tape & Label voluntarily dismissed its
complaint, leaving a total of ten named plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs
filed a consolidated complaint on February 16, 2004, which the
Company answered on March 31, 2004. On April 14, 2004, the court
separated the proceedings as to class certification and merits
discovery, and limited the initial phase of discovery to the
issue of the appropriateness of class certification.

The suit is styled "Sentry Business Products, Inc. v. Avery
Dennison Corporation, et al., case no. 3:03-cv-01999-TIV," filed
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, under Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Stewart M. Weltman of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &
Toll, PLLC, 39 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1100, Chicago, IL
60603, Phone: 312-357-0370, E-mail: sweltman@cmht.com.  
Representing the Company are Joshua N. Holian and J. Thomas
Rosch, of Latham & Watkins LLP, 505 Montgomery Street, Suite
1900, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-646-8343, Fax:
415-395-8095, E-mail: joshua.holian@lw.com or Tom.Rosch@lw.com.  


AVERY DENNISON: Securities Fraud Suit Remains Stayed in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California against Avery
Dennison Corporation, its Chief Executive Officer Philip M.
Neal, Chief Financial Officer D. R. O'Bryant and controller
Michael A. Skovran remains stayed.

On May 6, 2003, Sekuk Global Enterprises filed a purported
stockholder class action seeking damages and other relief for
alleged disclosure violations pertaining to alleged unlawful
competitive practices.  Subsequently, another similar action was
filed in the same court.  On September 24, 2003, the court
appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead and liaison counsel
and ordered the two actions consolidated as the "In Re Avery
Dennison Corporation Securities Litigation."

Pursuant to court order and the parties' stipulation, plaintiff
filed a consolidated complaint in mid-February 2004. The court
approved a briefing schedule for defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint, with a contemplated hearing date in
June 2004.  In January 2004, the parties stipulated to stay the
consolidated action, including the proposed briefing schedule,
pending the outcome of the government investigation of alleged
anticompetitive conduct by the Company. The court has approved
the parties' stipulation to stay the consolidated actions.  
There has been no discovery and no trial date has been set.

The suit is styled "Sekuk Global Ent, et al v. Avery Dennison
Corp, et al., case no. 2:03-cv-03175-NM-FMO," filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, under Judge Nora M. Manella.  Representing the
Company is William J. Meeske of Latham & Watkins, 633 West 5th
Street, Suite 4000, Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007, Phone:
213-891-8108, E-mail: bill.meeske@lw.com.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Peter A. Binkow, Lionel Z. Glancy, Michael M. Goldberg,
         Glancy & Binkow, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste 311, Los
         Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150

     (2) Richard A. Maniskas and Marc A. Topaz, Schiffrin &
         Barroway, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087,
         Phone: 610-667-7706

     (3) David A. Rosenfeld, Samuel H. Rudman of Cauley Geller
         Bowman Coates & Rudman, 200 Broadhollow Rd, Ste 406,
         Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7263, E-mail:
         drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com or srudman@lerachlaw.com  


AVERY DENNISON: Continues to Face Label Stock Antitrust Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avery Dennison faces several class actions filed on behalf of
indirect purchasers of label stock in various state courts.  The
suits also name as defendants, UPM-Kymmene and UPM's subsidiary
Raflatac.

On May 21, 2003, The Harman Press filed in the Superior Court
for the County of Los Angeles, California, a purported class
action on behalf of indirect purchasers of label stock, seeking
treble damages and other relief for alleged unlawful competitive
practices.  Three similar complaints were filed in various
California courts.  In November 2003, on petition from the
parties, the California Judicial Council ordered the cases be
coordinated for pretrial purposes.  The cases were assigned to a
coordination trial judge in the Superior Court for San Francisco
County on March 30, 2004.

On May 21, 2003, The Harman Press filed in the Superior Court
for the County of Los Angeles, California, a purported class
action on behalf of indirect purchasers of label stock, seeking
treble damages and other relief for alleged unlawful competitive
practices.  Three similar complaints were filed in various
California courts.  In November 2003, on petition from the
parties, the California Judicial Council ordered the cases be
coordinated for pretrial purposes.  The cases were assigned to a
coordination trial judge in the Superior Court for San Francisco
County on March 30, 2004.

A further similar complaint was filed in the Superior Court for
Maricopa County, Arizona on November 6, 2003.  Plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the Arizona complaint without prejudice on
October 4, 2004.

On January 21, 2005, American International Distribution
Corporation filed a purported class action on behalf of indirect
purchasers in the Superior Court for Chittenden County, Vermont.  
Similar actions were filed by Webtego on February 16, 2005, in
the Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and by D.R.
Ward Construction Co. on February 17, 2005, in the Superior
Court for Maricopa County, Arizona. On February 17, 2005, Judy
Benson filed a purported multi-state class action on behalf of
indirect purchasers in the Circuit Court for Cocke County,
Tennessee.


AVERY DENNISON: ERISA Violations Lawsuit Stayed in C.D. CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California approved parties' stipulation to stay the class
action filed against Avery Dennison Corporation, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA).  The suit also names as defendants its Chief Executive
Officer Philip M. Neal, Karyn Rodriguez (VP and Treasurer) and
James Bochinski (VP, Compensation and Benefits).

Ronald E. Dancer filed the suit on May 18, 2005, alleging
breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA to the Company's Employee
Savings Plan and Plan participants. The plaintiff alleges, among
other things, that permitting investment in and retention of
Company Common Stock under the Plan was imprudent because of
alleged anticompetitive activities by the Company, and that
failure to disclose such activities to the Plan and participants
was unlawful. Plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendants to
compensate the Plan for any losses and other relief.  The
parties have stipulated to transfer the case to the judge in the
consolidated case, "In Re Avery Dennison Corporation Securities
Litigation" referenced above.  The court approved the parties'
stipulation to stay the matter pending the outcome of the
government investigation of alleged anticompetitive conduct by
the Company.

The suit is styled "Ronald Dancer v. Avery Dennison Corporation
et al., case no. 2:05-cv-03708-NM-FMO," filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
under Judge Nora M. Manella.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Wayne T. Boulton, Robert A. Izard, Andrew M. Schatz,
         Schatz and Nobel, 20 Church Street, 17th Floor,
         Hartford, CT 06103, Phone: 860-493-6292, E-mail:
         wboulton@snlaw.net or firm@snlaw.net

     (2) Michael D. Braun, Marc L. Godino, Braun Law Group,
         12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920, Los Angeles, CA
         90025, Phone: 310-442-7755, E-mail:
         service@braunlawgroup.com  

     (3) Joseph Gentile, Ronnen Sarraf, Sarraf Gentile, 485
         Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10018, Phone: 212-868-
         3610, E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com  


CALIFORNIA: SEC Sues Former San Francisco Hedge Fund Managers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed civil fraud charges
against two former San Francisco hedge fund managers. The SEC
alleges that the fund managers defrauded scores of mutual funds
and their shareholders of approximately $49 million when they
placed thousands of illegal "late trades" after the close of the
market, which enabled the managers to trade based on after-
market events while still obtaining the prices in effect before
the market closed. According to the Commission, the fund
managers also fraudulently engaged in "market timing," by which
they placed frequent short-term trades prohibited by the mutual
funds and burdened other shareholders with unfair costs as a
result.

The Commission's complaint, filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, names Brent W.
Federighi, 34, and Michael C. Hoffman, 42, both of San
Francisco, in connection with their conduct between 2000 and
2002 on behalf of the Ilytat hedge fund, which they co-managed
and which closed in August 2002, and in connection with Mr.
Federighi's conduct from September 2002 to October 2003 in
managing the Gage Capital hedge fund after Ilytat closed. In May
2001, Ilytat's domestic and offshore funds had a total of
approximately $130 million in assets, and when Gage closed in
2003 it had approximately $55 million in assets in its domestic
and offshore funds.

According to the Commission's complaint, Mr. Federighi and Mr.
Hoffman deliberately exploited a loophole in their broker's
mutual fund order entry system to place over 3,000 fraudulent
late trades (representing over 80% of their hedge funds' mutual
fund trades) in over 400 different mutual funds, allowing them  
to obtain better prices for their mutual fund shares  than  
other investors  received.  The late trading by Mr. Federighi
and Mr. Hoffman caused losses of approximately $49million to
other mutual fund investors through the hedge funds' improper
receipt of stale fund prices. Some trades were placed as late as
5:45 p.m. (Eastern Time), or 1.75 hours after the time as of
which the mutual funds' prices were set.

In addition, Mr. Federighi and Mr. Hoffman allegedly engaged in
short-term trading in mutual funds, in violation of the mutual
funds' rules. When the mutual funds discovered this improper
market timing, they restricted or barred Ilytat and Gage from
investing in the funds. Mr. Federighi and Mr. Hoffman then
allegedly used deceptive techniques to conceal the hedge funds'
identities in order to continue market timing those funds. Among
other things, Ilytat and Gage placed trades using multiple, non-
consecutively numbered accounts to conceal their identities from
the funds.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that by engaging in the  
conduct described above, Hoffman and Federighi violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act of 1940, and
Section 37 of  the Investment Company Act.

The Commission seeks to enjoin defendants from committing future
violations of these provisions, disgorgement of all ill-gotten
gains plus prejudgment interest, and civil monetary penalties.
The action is styled, SEC v. Brent William Federighi and Michael
Carl Hoffman, USDC NDCA, Civ. Action No. C-05-05305 MMC.


CERNER CORPORATION: Appeals Court Affirms Stock Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
dismissal of the consolidated securities class action filed
against Cerner Corporation and five of its officers.

In April 2003, several class actions were filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. All
of these lawsuits were filed after a decline in the Company's
stock price following the Company's announcement on April 3,
2003 that the Company would not meet revenue and earnings
estimates for the first quarter of 2003.

On August 20, 2003, the Court ordered that all of the lawsuits
be consolidated under Case No. 03-CV-00296-DW and appointed Phil
Crabtree as Lead Plaintiff.  On December 1, 2003, the Lead
Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint.  In
general, the consolidated complaint alleges that, during a class
period commencing as of July 17, 2002 and ending April 2, 2003,
the Company and individually named defendants misrepresented or
failed to disclose certain factors, which they allege impacted
the Company's business and anticipated revenue and earnings, all
allegedly in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

On June 16, 2004 the Court granted the Company's and the
individual defendants' Motion to Dismiss and ordered the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint dismissed with prejudice
against re-filing.  On June 30, 2004, the Lead Plaintiff
appealed the District Court's dismissal of the action to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The
parties filed their appellate briefs and the issues were argued
before the Eighth Circuit on January 13, 2005.

On October 6, 2005, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District
Court's dismissal of the lawsuit against the Company and the
individual defendants. The plaintiffs had 14 days in which to
seek reconsideration by the 8th Circuit, which did not occur,
and have 90 days from October 6, 2005 in which to seek review by
the United States Supreme Court.  

The suit is styled "Campagnuola v. Cerner Corporation et al.,
case no. 4:03-cv-00296-DW," filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri, under Judge Dean
Whipple.  Representing the Company are Theresa L. Davis, David
H. Kristenbroker and Pamela G. Smith of Katten, Muchin &
Rosenman, LLP, 525 West Monroe Street, Chicago, IL 60661-3693,
Phone: (312) 902-5206, Fax: (312)577-4725, E-mail:
theresa.davis@kmzr.com.   Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) James M. Evangelista, Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP, 1230
         Peachtree St., N.E., Suite 2300, Atlanta, GA 30309,
         Phone: (404) 607-6871, Fax: (404)876-4476, E-mail:
         jevangelista@chitwoodlaw.com

     (2) Stuart J. Guber, 2300 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree
         Street, NE, Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: 404-873-3900

     (3) Don R. Lolli, Dysart Taylor Lay Cotter & McMonigle, PC,
         4420 Madison Avenue, Kansas City, MO 641111, Phone:
         (816)931-2700, Fax: (816)931-7377, E-mail:
         dlolli@dysarttaylor.com


CNA HOLDINGS: Faces Property Damage Litigation in Various Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Holdings, Inc., a U.S. subsidiary of Celanese Corporation,
which included the U.S. business now conducted by the Ticona
segment, along with Shell Oil Company (Shell), E.I. DuPont de
Nemours and Company (DuPont) and others, face a series of
lawsuits, including a number of class actions, alleging that
plastics manufactured by these companies that were utilized in
the production of plumbing systems for residential property were
defective or caused such plumbing systems to fail.

Based on, among other things, the findings of outside experts
and the successful use of Ticona's acetal copolymer in similar
applications, the Company does not believe Ticona's acetal
copolymer was defective or caused the plumbing systems to fail.  
In many cases, the Company's exposure may be limited by
invocation of the statute of limitations since the Company
ceased selling the resin for use in the plumbing systems in site
built homes during 1986 and in manufactured homes during 1990,
the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company has been named a defendant in ten putative class
actions, as well as a defendant in other non-class actions filed
in ten states, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Canada. In these
actions, the plaintiffs typically have sought recovery for
alleged property damages and, in some cases, additional damages
under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act or similar type
statutes.  Damage amounts have not been specified.

In order to reduce litigation expenses and to provide relief to
qualifying homeowners, in November 1995, the Company, DuPont and
Shell Oil Company entered into national class action
settlements, which have been approved by the courts. The
settlements call for the replacement of plumbing systems of
claimants who have had qualifying leaks, as well as
reimbursements for certain leak damage. Furthermore, the three
companies have agreed to fund these replacements and
reimbursements up to $950 million. As of September 30, 2005, the
aggregate funding is $1,073 million due to additional
contributions and funding commitments made primarily by other
parties. There are approximately ten additional pending lawsuits
not discussed herein; however, these cases do not involve
(either individually or in the aggregate) a large number of
homes, and management does not expect the obligations arising
from these lawsuits to have a material adverse effect on the
Company.


CNA HOLDINGS: Subsidiaries Face Sorbates Antitrust Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Holdings, Inc. faces litigation in various courts, alleged
antitrust violations in the sorbates industry.

In May 2002, the European Commission informed Hoechst of its
intent to investigate officially the sorbates industry. In early
January 2003, the European Commission served Hoechst, Nutrinova,
Inc., a U.S. subsidiary of Nutrinova Nutrition Specialties &
Food Ingredients GmbH, previously a wholly owned subsidiary of
Hoechst, and a number of competitors with a statement of
objections alleging unlawful, anticompetitive behavior affecting
the European sorbates market. In October 2003, the European
Commission ruled that Hoechst, Chisso Corporation, Daicel
Chemical Industries Ltd., The Nippon Synthetic Chemical Industry
Co. Ltd. and Ueno Fine Chemicals Industry Ltd. operated a cartel
in the European sorbates market between 1979 and 1996. The
European Commission imposed a total fine of EUR138 million, of
which EUR99 million was assessed against Hoechst. The case
against Nutrinova was closed. The fine against Hoechst is based
on the European Commission's finding that Hoechst does not
qualify under the leniency policy, is a repeat violator and,
together with Daicel, was a co-conspirator. In Hoechst's favor,
the European Commission gave a discount for cooperating in the
investigation. Hoechst appealed the European Commission's
decision in December 2003, and that appeal is still pending.

In addition, several civil antitrust actions by sorbates
customers, seeking monetary damages and other relief for alleged
conduct involving the sorbates industry, have been filed in U.S.
state and federal courts naming Hoechst, Nutrinova, and CNA
Holdings, Inc.'s other subsidiaries, as well as other sorbates
manufacturers, as defendants.  Many of these actions have been
settled and dismissed by the court.  One private action, styled
"Kerr v. Eastman Chemical Co. et al., previously pending in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester County,
was dismissed in October 2005 for failure to prosecute.  The
plaintiff alleged violations of the New Jersey Antitrust Act and
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and sought unspecified
damages.  The only other private action previously pending,
styled `Freeman v. Daicel et al.' had been dismissed. The
plaintiffs lost their appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee
in August 2005 and have since filed a motion for leave.

In July 2001, Hoechst and Nutrinova entered into an agreement
with the Attorneys General of 33 states, pursuant to which the
statutes of limitations were tolled pending the states'
investigations. This agreement expired in July 2003. Since
October 2002, the Attorneys General for several states filed
suit on behalf of indirect purchasers in their respective
states, all of which have been either settled or dismissed,
except as noted below. The Nevada action has been dismissed as
to Hoechst, Nutrinova and CAG; however, a motion for
reconsideration is still pending. The New York action, styled
`New York v. Daicel Chemical Industries Ltd., et al.' which was
pending in the New York State Supreme Court, New York County was
dismissed in August 2005; however, it is still subject to
appeal.

In January 2005, Hoechst, Nutrinova, and other subsidiaries, as
well as other sorbates manufacturers, entered into a settlement
agreement with the Attorneys General of Connecticut, Florida,
Hawaii, Maryland, South Carolina, Oregon and Washington before
these states filed suit. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement
agreement, the defendants agreed to refrain from engaging in
anticompetitive conduct with respect to the sale or distribution
of sorbates and pay approximately $1 million to the states in
satisfaction of all released claims.

Based on the advice of external counsel and a review of the
existing facts and circumstances relating to the sorbates
matter, including the status of government investigations, as
well as civil claims filed and settled, the Company has
remaining accruals of $130 million. This amount is included in
current liabilities at September 30, 2005 for the estimated loss
related to this matter.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues To Face Overtime Suits in CA Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation continues to face several overtime
wage lawsuits filed in California State Court.

The Company is a defendant in two actions purportedly brought as
class actions on behalf of certain present and former Costco
managers in California, in which plaintiffs allege that they
have not been properly compensated for overtime work.  The suits
are styled:

     (1) Scott M. Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corporation,
         United States District Court (San Diego), Case No. 02-
         CV-2003 NAJ (JFS); Superior Court for the County of San
         Diego, Case No. GIC-792559; and

     (2) Greg Randall v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Superior
         Court for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC-
         296369.

The Company is also a defendant in an overtime compensation case
purportedly brought as a class action on behalf of present and
former hourly employees in California, in which plaintiffs
allege that the Company's semi-annual bonus formula is improper
with regard to retroactive overtime pay.  The suit is styled
"Anthony Marin v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Superior Court
for the County of Alameda, Case No. RG-04150447."

The Company is also a defendant in an action purportedly brought
as a class action on behalf of present and former hourly
employees in California, in which plaintiffs allege that the
Company did not properly compensate and record hours worked by
employees, and failed to provide meal and rest breaks.  The suit
is styled "Kevin Doty and Sarah Doty v. Costco Wholesale
Corporation, United States District Court (Los Angeles), Case
No. CV-05-3241 FMC (JWJx)."

Claims in these four actions are made under various provisions
of the California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code. Plaintiffs seek restitution/disgorgement,
compensatory damages, various statutory penalties, liquidated
damages, punitive, treble and exemplary damages, and attorneys'
fees.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Female Managers File Sex Bias Suit in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation faces a class action on behalf of
certain present and former female managers, in which plaintiffs
allege denial of promotion based on gender in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The suit is styled
`Shirley "Rae" Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No.
C-04-3341-MHP" filed in the United States District Court in San
Francisco, California.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, exemplary and punitive
damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. In none of
these five cases has the Court been asked yet to determine
whether the action should proceed as a class action or, if so,
the definition of the class.


EL POLLO: CA Employees Commence Unfair Labor Practices Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
alleging certain violations of California labor laws and the
California Business and Professions Code, based on, among other
things, failure to pay overtime compensation, unlawful
deductions from earnings and unfair competition.

Salvador Amezcua filed the suit on October 18, 2005, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, seeking remedies
including compensatory damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement
of profits and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Company
has not yet been served with this complaint.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Reaches Settlement For Overtime Wage Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts, Inc. reached a settlement for the amended class
action filed in the Superior Court in San Mateo, California,
styled "Kirschenbaum v. Electronic Arts Inc."  The complaint
alleges that the Company improperly classified "Image Production
Employees" in California as exempt employees and seeks
injunctive relief, unspecified monetary damages, interest and
attorneys' fees.

The complaint was first amended on November 30, 2004 to add two
former employees as named-plaintiffs, and amended again on
January 5, 2005 to add another former employee as a named-
plaintiff.  The allegations in the complaint were not materially
changed by the amendments.

In early October 2005, the Company reached a settlement to
resolve these claims. Under the terms of the settlement, the
Company will make a lump sum payment of $15.6 million to cover:

     (1) all claims allegedly suffered by the class members,

     (2) plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, not to exceed 25% of the
         total settlement amount,

     (3) plaintiffs' costs and expenses,

     (4) any incentive payments to the named plaintiffs that may
         be authorized by the court, and

     (5) all costs of administration of the settlement.

On October 17, 2005, the court granted its preliminary approval
of the settlement. The court has scheduled a hearing to consider
its final approval of the settlement for January 27, 2006.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Continues To Face Amended CA Overtime Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts, Inc. continues to face an amended class action
filed in the Superior Court in San Mateo, California, styled
"Hasty v. Electronic Arts Inc."

The complaint alleges that the company improperly classified
"Engineers" in California as exempt employees and seeks
injunctive relief, unspecified monetary damages, interest and
attorneys' fees.  On March 16, 2005, the Company received a
first amended complaint, which contains the same material
allegations as the original complaint.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against Electronic Arts, Inc. and
certain of its officers and directors.

On March 24, 2005, a class action lawsuit was filed, asserting
claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 based on allegedly false and misleading statements.  
Additional class action lawsuits have been filed in the same
court by other individuals asserting the same claims against the
Company.  On May 9, 2005, the court consolidated the complaints,
and on June 13, 2005, the court appointed lead plaintiff and
lead counsel pursuant to the requirements of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  

An amended consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of the
lead plaintiff on August 12, 2005, and on September 27, 2005,
the Company moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
for failure to state a claim under the federal securities laws.

Separately, on April 12, 2005, a shareholder derivative action
was filed in San Mateo Superior Court against certain of the
Company's officers and directors.  This suit asserts claims
based on substantially the same factual allegations set forth in
the federal class action lawsuits. Two other shareholder
derivative actions have been filed in San Mateo Superior Court
based on the same claims.  Two of the three derivative actions
have been consolidated; a request to consolidate the third is
currently pending. In addition, two other shareholder derivative
actions based on substantially the same allegations have been
filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California.

The suit is styled "In re Electronic Arts Inc. Securities
Litigation et al, case no. 3:05-cv-01219-MMC,' filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, under Judge Maxine M. Chesney. Representing the
plaintiffs is Robert S. Green, Green Welling LLP, 595 Market
Street, Suite 2750, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone:
415/477-6700, Fax: 415-477-6710, E-mail: RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM.  
Representing the Company is Michael D. Celio, Keker & Van Nest
LLP, 710 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA 94111-1704, Phone:
415/773-6613, Fax: 415-397-7188, E-mail: mdc@kvn.com.


ILLINI CORPORATION: Court Hears Ousted Trial Attorney's Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District heard the
removed trial attorney's motion appealing the approval granted
to the settlement of the shareholder class action filed against
Illini Corporation and the Illinois Stock Transfer Company, as
the Company's rights agent.  The court has yet to rule on the
motion.

The first case was filed in 1998 by an Illini Corporation
against Illinois Stock Transfer Company, as Rights Agent for the
Company under the Company's Shareholder Rights Agreement, for
specific performance of the Rights Agreement, on behalf of the
plaintiff individually and on behalf of a class of shareholders.  
The complaint alleged that the Rights Agreement was triggered in
April of 1998, and that the Rights Agent had a duty under the
Rights Agreement to distribute Rights Certificates to the
Company's shareholders.  The Company was named as a defendant in
1999 and the class was certified.  Plaintiff was seeking to
recover attorneys' fees from the Corporation in addition to
other relief.

In January of 2000, the trial court entered summary judgment in
favor of the Company and the Rights Agent.  Plaintiff appealed
this ruling to the Illinois Appellate Court.  The Appellate
Court reversed the order granting summary judgment for
defendants and remanded the case for trial on the issue of
whether the Company's Board of Directors acted in good faith in
determining that a shareholder's acceptance of a gift of the
Company's Stock did not trigger the Rights Agreement, and in the
Company's later amendment of the Rights Agreement.  The
Appellate Court further ruled that plaintiff's attorney's fees
were recoverable under the Rights Agreement.  After a series of
unsuccessful motions filed by the Plaintiff's counsel, the
Company filed a motion to remove the Plaintiff's attorney.  The
court removed the attorney for the Plaintiff class and appointed
new counsel to represent the class.  The removed counsel filed a
motion for reconsideration, which was denied.

The new counsel filed a motion for direction to remove the class
representative, which was granted on January 15, 2003.  On March
7, 2003 the trial court appointed a successor class
representative. The Company has negotiated a settlement of the
suit with the new class representative and class counsel.  The
terms of that settlement have been agreed upon and approved by
the court following a fairness hearing.  That agreement provides
for a complete resolution of the shareholder claims and a
portion of the claims for attorney fees for the class
representative.

The removed attorney, representing the removed class
representative, appealed various rulings of the trial court,
including the order approving the settlement as fair to the
class.  That appeal was argued before the Appellate Court of
Illinois, Fourth District on April 13, 2005, and the Appellate
Court subsequently affirmed the settlement as fair to the class
and also affirmed the trial court's disqualification of the
removed attorney.  The removed attorney has indicated that he
intends to seek review of the Appellate Court's decision with
the Illinois Supreme Court. Whether or not the Illinois Supreme
Court grants review is a matter for that Court's discretion.  
The removed attorney is also petitioning the trial court for
fees.  The court will also be asked to deny the fee request
filed by the attorney for the original class representative.  


INTELSAT LTD.: Asks DC Court To Dismiss Suit V. IGO Resolution
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intelsat Ltd. asked the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia to dismiss the consolidated amended class
action filed against it, arising out of a resolution adopted by
the governing body of the IGO prior to privatization.

Two cases were initially filed in mid-2004.  In each case, the
named plaintiffs are Intelsat retirees, spouses of retirees or
surviving spouses of deceased retirees. They allege, among other
things, that the Company wrongfully modified health plan terms
to deny coverage to surviving spouses and dependents of deceased
Company retirees.  The Company has moved to dismiss the
complaints, arguing that the resolution is not enforceable, that
Intelsat has the right to modify the terms of any postretirement
health benefits being provided, and that the associated damage
claims are without merit.

On May 4, 2005 and again on May 9, 2005, one of the plaintiff
groups filed an amended complaint (including a motion for leave
to file the second amended complaint) to add certain factual
allegations and claims. On May 5, 2005, the other plaintiff
group filed an amended complaint.  Among other things, the
amended complaints contain a new claim based on language in the
resolution which states that if the Company's consolidated net
worth falls below $500,000, it would be required to establish an
irrevocable trust to accept funds for payment of these health
benefits and to obtain a letter of credit in an amount equal to
150% of the then current Financial Accounting Standards Board,
or FASB, valuation of the benefit liability, and that if the
Company's consolidated net worth falls below $300,000, the trust
can and will exercise this letter of credit, with the funds to
be paid into the trust. According to a Company filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company's consolidated
net worth is currently less than $300,000.  If the Company's
consolidated net worth falls below $300,000, the trust can and
will exercise this letter of credit, with the funds to be paid
into the trust.

A hearing on the motions to dismiss in both cases was conducted
on May 11, 2005, at which time the court consolidated the two
cases but did not make a final determination on the motions.  
Shortly before the Court's hearing, both groups of plaintiffs
filed amended complaints to add certain factual allegations and
claims, including a claim for $112,500 allegedly arising from an
obligation under the IGO resolution to fund the plaintiffs'
postretirement health benefits if the Company's consolidated net
worth fell below $300,000. In addition, one of the amended
complaints increased its claim for compensatory and punitive
damages to $500,000.

On August 19, 2005, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' fraud allegations, except for those
plaintiffs who accepted early retirement in October 2001, but
denied the Company's motions to dismiss the original and amended
complaints on other grounds. The Court also granted the
plaintiffs' motion to file an amended and consolidated complaint
but denied (without prejudice) their motions to file discovery
or to certify the litigation as a class action.

On September 30, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a third amended and
consolidated complaint. Like the original complaints described
above, the amended and consolidated complaint alleges claims for
estoppel, breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA, and breach of
contract. The amended and consolidated complaint also includes
claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent conveyance,
and conspiracy to defraud plaintiffs. Under the amended and
consolidated complaint, plaintiffs seek:

     (1) a declaratory judgment that putative class members are
         entitled, in perpetuity, to health benefits as they
         existed on January 1, 2001;

     (2) injunctive relief to prevent future changes to these
         benefits and to require continuing coverage for
         surviving spouses and dependents;

     (3) a judgment in the amount of $112,500;

     (4) compensatory and punitive damages of $1,000,000; and

     (5) attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company responded to the complaint with its answer, filed
November 1, 2005, and a motion to dismiss the majority of the
fraud and estoppel claims.

The suit is styled `MORALES et al v. INTELSAT GLOBAL SERVICE
CORP. et al., case no. 1:04-cv-01044-JR," filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia, under Judge
James Robertson.  Representing the plaintiffs is Lawrence P.
Postol, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, 815 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20006-4004, Phone: (202) 463-2400, E-mail:
lpostol@seyfarth.com.  Representing the Company is Andrew
Gendron, VENABLE LLP, Two Hopkins Plaza, Suite 1800, Baltimore,
MD 21201-2978, Phone: (410) 244-7439, Fax: (410) 244-7742, E-
mail: agendron@venable.com


INTERMIX MEDIA: Shareholders File Suit V. FIM Transaction in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intermix Media, Inc.'s officers face two class actions filed in
the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles,
opposing the formation of Fox Interactive Media (FIM), which was
announced in by the Company.  

FIM is a new unit that manages the Company's entertainment, news
and sports brands, including foxsports.com, foxnews.com and
fox.com, and the Company owned television station web
properties, across the Internet. FIM will focus on leveraging
the Company's current and archive video assets, while building
an integrated web domain with multiple points of entry and
navigation capabilities that users will be able to customize and
personalize, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On August 26, 2005, a purported class action lawsuit, captioned
`Ron Sheppard v. Richard Rosenblatt et. al.' was filed.  The
suit also names as defendants the Company's former Chief
Executive Officer (Brad Greenspan), a former Intermix director,
all of the other then incumbent members of the Intermix Board
and entities affiliated with Venture Partners, a former major
Intermix stockholder. The complaint alleges that in pursuing the
FIM Transaction and approving the merger agreement, the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Company
stockholders by, among other things, engaging in self-dealing
and failing to obtain the highest price reasonably available for
the Company and its stockholders. The complaint further alleges
that the merger agreement resulted from a flawed process and
that the defendants tailored the terms of the merger to advance
their own interests. The complaint seeks an injunction
preventing the completion of the merger, an order requiring
Intermix directors to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain
a transaction in the best interests of Company stockholders,
rescission of the proposed merger to the extent already
implemented and reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.

On August 30, 2005, a similar purported class action lawsuit,
captioned "John Friedmann v. Intermix Media, Inc. et. al.," was
filed in the same court, naming as defendants all of the same
individuals and entities named in the "Sheppard" action, as well
as the Company . The complaint makes substantially similar
claims and allegations and seeks substantially similar relief as
the "Sheppard" action.

Prior to the consummation of FIM Transaction on September 30,
2005, plaintiff conducted expedited discovery and filed a motion
with the court seeking to enjoin the acquisition. Plaintiff
withdrew his motion after the Company filed supplemental proxy
materials augmenting certain information it included in its
proxy statement distributed to Company stockholders in
connection with seeking stockholder approval of the FIM
Transaction. On September 23, 2005, Mr. Greenspan announced his
presentation of an alternative acquisition proposal to the
Company's board of directors which, on September 26, 2005, the
board publicly rejected. Plaintiff thereafter applied to the
court for an order delaying the vote by Company stockholders on
the FIM Transaction in order to afford Company stockholders
additional time to consider the Greenspan proposal. The Court
denied the plaintiff's request and Company stockholders approved
the FIM Transaction on September 30, 2005.

The Company expects that the lawsuits will be consolidated under
lead counsel and a lead plaintiff and that a consolidated
amended complaint will be filed.  The Company further believes
that the lawsuits described above are meritless and intends to
vigorously defend against the claims and allegations in the
complaints.


INTERNATIONAL DAIRY: Franchisees Allege Violations of $50M Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Dairy Queen Inc. is once again caught up in a
dispute with franchisees after they complained that the Company
is violating terms of a $50 million class action settlement from
2000, The Twin Cities Business Journal reports.

The ice cream giant spent this week in arbitration with leaders
of a franchisee association, attempting to work out differences
over where store operators can buy their supplies. The dispute
dates back to 1994, when five franchisees filed a federal
antitrust lawsuit against the corporate parent, alleging that
the Company prevented franchisees from buying products from
alternative sources. The case attained class action status two
years later.

The franchisees dragged Dairy Queen back to the negotiating
table, complaining about three main issues:

     (1) A franchise agreement released in March for DQ Grill &
         Chill says Dairy Queen can require franchisees to only
         buy from the company. That violates the class action
         settlement, association reps say.

     (2) Dairy Queen dictates when and where there are enough
         franchised stores, or a critical mass, to permit
         alternative product buying. The franchisees say the
         company is being too restrictive.

     (3) Dairy Queen gets a discounted price on crushed Oreo
         cookies from Kraft Foods; the co-op run by franchisees
         wants its distributors to get the same deal.

A judge is holding the arbitration in Denver and will rule in
the coming months.

Franchisors typically can't force franchisees to buy specific
products or services from the corporation unless those items are
proprietary or unique to the business, Chuck Modell, chair of
the franchise group at Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren law firm
in Bloomington told The Twin Cities Business Journal. He has no
connection to the case. For example, Dairy Queen's ice cream mix
is proprietary, but the candy or strawberries on top of the ice
cream are likely not.

Dairy Queen agreed to the $50 million settlement six years after
the lawsuit was filed, denying any wrongdoing but saying that it
wanted to move forward in a "positive and united effort" and
avoid costly litigation.

The Dairy Queen Operators Association and Dairy Queen Operators'
Cooperative, also known as DQOA-DQOC, filed the most recent
complaint. The association advises its 1,900 members on legal
issues and business operations.

On the other hand, the cooperative organizes an independent
sourcing system so Dairy Queen franchisees can buy products at a
discount. In addition, the co-op negotiates prices and
specifications with manufacturers for products franchisees need.
With 3,900 Dairy Queen franchisees in the network, manufacturers
and distributors have incentive to participate. The co-op also
receives rebates from manufacturers that want franchisee
business. That money is paid out as dividends to franchisees,
which buy the products and are members of both the association
and the co-op.

Harris Cooper, executive director of both the co-op and
association, told The Twin Cities Business Journal that
independent product sourcing is crucial to franchisees'
profitability. Mr. Harris served as Dairy Queen's corporate
president and CEO from 1970 to 1987.

Before the settlement, franchisees paid between 38 to 42 percent
of their revenues for supplies, according to Mr. Harris. Since
2000, that amount dropped to between 23 to 32 percent, thanks to
alternate sourcing. He told The Twin Cities Business Journal
that for the typical Dairy Queen franchise owner, that amounts
to about $60,000 in savings each year.
   
A Dairy Queen spokesman told The Twin Cities Business Journal
that the company does not discuss its internal operations,
including franchisee sourcing and supplies, and declined to
comment on the pending arbitration.

Mr. Modell told The Twin Cities Business Journal that in a
perfect situation franchise sourcing isn't a problem, since
franchisors can get a lower price for products than franchisees.
Franchisors often sell products to their franchisees as an
additional revenue stream. Problems arise when the franchisor
tries to make too much money at the franchisees' expense, or
when franchisees want to buy cheaper products, likely of
substandard quality, according to Mr. Modell. The former angers
franchisees, the latter threatens a franchise system's No. 1
strength: consistency.


INSTALOANS FINANCIAL: Ontario Customers Sue V. Loan Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian individuals, who received a payday loan from either of
the two former Instaloans Financial Solution Centers in
Ontario's Thunder Bay, can join a class action lawsuit against
the parent company, The Chronicle Journal.com reports.

Customers in Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, who took out
payday loans between January 1, 1998 and April 21, 2005, have
until 4:30 p.m. on Jan. 31, 2006 to register, according to
Calgary lawyer Bill McNally, who is representing the customers
in the suit.

On December 5, 2005, the Ontario Superior Court certified a
class action lawsuit against Instaloans Financial Solution
Centres (Alberta) Ltd. and approved a settlement to reimburse
customers who were charged as much as 650 per cent interest. The
legal limit is a 60 per cent annual percentage rate (APR).
Payday loan companies in Thunder Bay charge between 20 and 25
per cent interest.

There is a company in Thunder Bay with the name instaloan, but
it is in no way connected with the firm that is the subject of
the lawsuit. Mr. McNally told The Chronicle Journal.com that
this was the first settlement of its kind in Canada. He adds,
"People will get a fair bit of money back if they make a claim."

Under the deal, customers will get back a minimum of 15 per cent
interest over the 60 per cent annual rate allowed by federal
law. According to Mr. McNally, about 75,000 potential claimants
live in Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and he estimated
that only 10 to 20 per cent would join the class action.

Instaloans has sold its assets although there are some stores,
such as the one in Thunder Bay, still using the name. Edmonton
lawyer Graham McLennan, who represented Instaloans, told The
Chronicle Journal.com that the company couldn't run a business
charging 60 per cent. He pointed out, "It's just ridiculous to
suggest that." Mr. McLennan said that one out of every five
customers defaults on their loan. He adds, "You never see them
again."

Critics of the industry say that payday lenders use a loophole
to get around the 60 per cent limit by charging documentation or
brokerage fees.

People making a claim can call toll-free 1-866-662-3452 or go to
the following website, http://www.mcnallycuming.comand provide  
your name, social insurance number, location of the outlet where
the loan was obtained and your current mailing address. In
addition, plaintiffs must fax a clear copy of current photo
identification to 1-866-577-8709.


LUXOTTICA GROUP: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set February 9, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in
the matter, "In re: Luxottica Group, S.p.A. Securities
Litigation, Case No. CV 01-3285 (JBW)." The case was brought on
behalf of all persons or entities whose shares of Sunglass Hut
International, Inc. were tendered to and accepted by Luxottica
Group, S.p.A. pursuant to the tender offer of March 5, 2001,
which provided for a net cash payment of $11.50 per share.

The Hearing will be held before the Honorable Jack B. Weinstein,
at the United States Courthouse, Courtroom 10, 225 Cadman Plaza
East, Brooklyn, NY 11201, on February 9, 2006 at 10:00 a.m.

For more details, contact In re: Luxottica Group, S.p.A.
Securities Litigation, Luxottica Defendants Partial Settlement,
c/o The Garden City group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box
9000 #6311, Merrick, NY 11566-9000, Phone: (800) 377-6967.


MERRIMAN CURHAN: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Florida Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merriman Curhan Ford & Co. faces a class action suit brought in
connection with a registered offering involving Odimo
Incorporated in which the Company served as co-manager.  The
complaint, filed in the 17th Judical Circuit Court for Broward
County in Florida on September 30, 2005, alleges violations of
federal securities laws against Odimo and certain of its
officers as well as the Company's underwriters, including the
Company, based on alleged misstatements and omissions in the
registration statement.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the actions
and intends to vigorously defend against such claims as they
apply to it, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities
and Exchange Commission.  Based upon the facts as the Company
know them to date, it does not believe that the outcome will
have a material effect on it.


NATIONAL CENTURY: SEC Files Suit V. Executives Over $2.6B Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil injunctive
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, alleging Lance Poulsen, principal and former Chief
Executive Officer of National Century Financial Enterprises,
Inc. (NCFE), Donald S. Ayers, principal and former Chief
Operating Officer of NCFE, Rebecca S. Parrett, principal and
former Director of NCFE's Accounts Receivable Services
Department, and Randolph H. Speer, former Chief Financial
Officer of NCFE, participated in a scheme to defraud investors  
in securities issued by subsidiaries of NCFE, NPF VI and NPF XII
(Programs).

Through the Programs, NCFE purchased medical accounts receivable
and issued notes that securitized those receivables. The
subsidiaries were required to maintain certain cash reserves and
receivables as collateral for the notes. Nevertheless, these
defendants and others depleted the Programs' reserve accounts
and collateral base by "advancing" as much as $1.2 billion from
the programs' funds to health-care providers without receiving
eligible receivables in return. The advances were essentially
unsecured loans to distressed or defunct health-care providers,
some of which were wholly or partly owned by NCFE or its
principals. To disguise the advances and other business losses,
NCFE provided false receivables information in offering
documents; made large accounting transfers to hide $350 million
or more in reserve shortfalls; issued false investor reports;
created false audit detail; and provided other misleading
information to its independent auditors.

NCFE and its subsidiaries collapsed suddenly in October 2002
when investors discovered that the companies had hidden massive
cash and collateral shortfalls from investors and auditors. The
collapse caused investor losses exceeding $2.6 billion and
approximately 275 health-care providers were forced to file for
bankruptcy protection.

The suit is styled, SEC v. Lance Poulsen, Rebecca Parrett,
Donald Ayers and Randolph Speer, Civil Action No. 2:05 CV 1142,
SD Ohio.


NEWS CORPORATION: DE Court Grants Final Approval To Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery granted final approval for the
settlement of the consolidated securities class actions filed
against News Corporation, relating to a number of purported
class actions filed in Delaware and New York Courts, related to
the merger of Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. (FEG) into its
direct wholly-owned subsidiary Fox Acquisition Corporation has
been preliminarily approved

In March 2005, Fox Acquisition completed its offer to the
holders of Class A common stock of FEG to exchange 2.04 shares
of the Company's Class A common stock for each outstanding share
of FEG's Class A common stock validly tendered and not withdrawn
in the exchange offer.  Shortly thereafter, the Company effected
a "short form" merger of FEG with and into Fox Acquisition
Corporation.  Each share of FEG Class A common stock not
acquired in the Offer, other than the shares owned by the
Company, was converted in the "short form" merger into 2.04
shares of the Company's Class A common stock. The Company issued
approximately 357 million shares of News Corporation's Class A
Common Stock valued at approximately $6.3 billion in exchange
for the outstanding FEG Class A common shares. After the
consummation of the offer and the subsequent merger, Fox
Acquisition Corp changed its name to "Fox Entertainment Group,
Inc."  As a result of the Offer, the Company's ownership
interest increased from approximately 82% to 100%.

Several suits were initially filed in the Court of Chancery in
the State of Delaware. The complaints generally allege, among
other things, that the Company and the members of the FEG board
of directors have breached fiduciary duties owed to the public
stockholders of FEG, including as a result of News Corporation
offering to acquire shares of FEG Class A common stock at an
unfair price and at a time that disadvantages the FEG
stockholders. The complaints generally seek declaratory and
injunctive relief and damages in an unspecified amount.

The Company is currently aware of 17 purported class action
complaints that were filed in January 2005 at the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware challenging the FEG Offer. The
Delaware complaints are captioned:

     (1) Allen v. News Corp., et al., No. 979-N;

     (2) Mascarenhas v. Fox Entertainment Group, et al., No.
         980-N;

     (3) Shemesh v. Fox Entertainment Group, et al., No. 981-N;

     (4) Striffler v. FEG Holdings, et al., No. 982-N;

     (5) Howard Vogel Ret. Plan v. Powers, et al., No. 984-N;

     (6) Doniger v. News Corp., et al., No. 985-N;

     (7) Engle v. Murdoch, et al., No. 986-N;

     (8) Shrank v. Murdoch, et al., No. 988-N;

     (9) Blackman v. Fox Entertainment Group, et al., No. 991-N;

    (10) Fishbone v. News Corp., et al., No. 994-N;

    (11) Kennel v. News Corp., et al., No. 995-N;

    (12) Millner v. News Corp., et al., No. 996-N;

    (13) Pipefitters Locals v. Fox Entertainment Group, et al.,
         No. 1003-N;

    (14) Molinari v. News Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1018-N;

    (15) Seaview Services v. Fox Entertainment, et al., C.A. No.
         1026-N;

    (16) Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana v. Powers, et
         al., C.A. No. 1033-N; and

    (17) New Jersey Building Laborers' Pension Fund v. Powers,
         et al., C.A. No. 1034.

The Shrank action, No. 988-N, was voluntarily dismissed on
January 19, 2005.  

The Company is also currently aware of two purported class
action complaints raising substantially similar claims that have
been filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County
of New York, and one that has been filed in the US District
Court for the Southern District of New York, which were filed in
January 2005. The New York complaints are captioned: "Shrank v.
Murdoch, et al., Index No. 600114/2005;" and "Green Meadows Ptr.
v. Fox Entertainment, et al., No. 100706/2005."  The US Southern
District of New York complaint is captioned "Gary Kosseff v. Fox
Entertainment Group, Inc., et. al., No. 05 Civ. 1942 (LLS)."

On January 21, 2005, certain plaintiffs in the Delaware lawsuits
filed a motion that seeks to consolidate the Delaware actions.
In addition, the Company has filed motions to dismiss and to
stay discovery, and the plaintiffs have filed a motion for
expedited proceedings.  On February 3, 2005, the Court of
Chancery denied the Company's motion to stay discovery, and
granted the plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery and
motion to consolidate.  The consolidated Delaware complaint was
styled "In re Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. Shareholders
Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 1033-N."

Each of the consolidated Delaware complaint and the New York
Supreme Court complaints generally alleges, among other things,
that News Corporation and the members of the FEG board of
directors purportedly breached fiduciary duties owed to the
public stockholders of FEG in connection with the FEG Offer by:

     (i) offering to acquire their shares at an unfair price;

    (ii) offering to acquire their shares at a time that
         disadvantages the public stockholders;

   (iii) having FEG appoint directors who are neither
         independent nor disinterested to a special committee
         created to consider the FEG Offer; and

    (iv) failing to adequately disclose information material to
         the FEG Offer, including disclosure with respect to the
         FEG 2005 budget.

The US Southern District of New York complaint also generally
alleges, among other things, some of the foregoing matters.  The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 24, 2005 in
the US Southern District of New York alleging violations of the
federal securities laws in addition to the foregoing matters. On
February 24, 2005, the US Southern District of New York denied
the plaintiffs' motion for expedited proceedings.  As for
relief, the plaintiffs seek, among other things, an order that
the complaints are properly maintainable as a class action; a
declaration that defendants have breached their fiduciary duties
and other duties to the plaintiffs and other members of the
purported class; injunctive relief; unspecified monetary
damages; attorneys' fees, costs and expenses; and such other and
further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

A memorandum of understanding setting forth the terms of a
settlement with respect to the aforementioned litigation was
entered into by the plaintiffs and the named defendants as of
March 2, 2005.  Among other conditions, the settlement is
subject to negotiation of final settlement documentation,
confirmatory discovery by the plaintiffs, court approval of the
settlement and dismissal with prejudice of the litigation.  On
June 15, 2005, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement in the consolidated Delaware action. In an Order
dated June 23, 2005, the Chancellor, among other things,

     (i) preliminarily approved the stipulation of settlement;

    (ii) preliminarily certified the class for settlement
         purposes; and

   (iii) set a hearing for September 19, 2005

Among other conditions, the settlement is subject to final court
approval of the settlement and dismissal with prejudice of the
litigation. Among other conditions, the settlement is subject to
final court approval of the settlement and dismissal with
prejudice of the litigation.  The court approved the settlement
on September 16, 2005 and the case has been dismissed with
prejudice.


NEWS CORPORATION: DE Court Mulls Investor Suit Dismissal Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware heard oral
arguments on plaintiff's appeal of its ruling dismissing the
consolidated class action filed against The News Corporation
Limitied (TNCL), predecessor of News Corporation, styled "In re
General Motors (Hughes) Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated
Civil Action No. 20269-NC."

The lawsuit relates to TNCL's acquisition of stock in Hughes
Electronics Corporation (DirecTV) on December 22, 2003 which was
subsequently transferred to the Fox Entertainment Group (FEG).
The complaint alleges that TNCL aided and abetted an alleged
breach of fiduciary duty by the Board of Directors of Gemstar  
(GM) allegedly owed to a class of certain GM shareholders. The
plaintiffs allegedly seek "appropriate equitable relief"
including rescissory remedies to the extent feasible.  

On August 30, 2004, TNCL filed a brief in support of its motion
to dismiss the complaint. On October 18, 2004, the plaintiffs
filed their opposition to the motion. The Company filed its
reply on November 17, 2004. The oral argument was heard on March
7, 2005. On May 4, 2005, the court issued its decision granting
the motion to dismiss.  Plaintiffs have appealed the decision
and the Company has cross-appealed on jurisdictional and
improper service issues.  Oral arguments on the appeal were held
on December 21, 2005.


NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement Hearing Set February 17, 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas will hold a fairness
hearing for the proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit
brought against Nextel Communications, Inc., where in Plaintiffs
claim that the Company improperly removed Extra Bonus Minutes
from customers' accounts in or about the summer and fall of
2003. The case was brought on behalf of all persons, who were
Nextel Customers and had an Extra bonus Minutes removed from
their account as part of a removal program.

The hearing will be held at the Philadelphia Court of Common
Pleas, City Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19107, on February 17, 2006
in Courtroom 246 at 9:30 a.m.

For more details, contact Nextel Communications, Inc.
Settlement, P.O. Box 1327, Blue, Bell, PA 19422, Phone: 10877-
637-7223; and Peter R. Kahana of Berger & Montague, Phone:
(215) 875-4629, E-mail: pkahana@bm.net.


NORTH CAROLINA: Law Firm Helps State Close Down Payday Lenders
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Salisbury law firm of Wallace and Graham is helping lead the
North Carolina's efforts to shut down payday lenders, The
Salisbury Post reports.

The firm has commenced five class actions against companies like
Advance America, which the state's banking commissioner ordered
to stop doing business. Advance America Cash Advance had an
outlet listed at 519 Jake Alexander Blvd. and another in the
Cloverleaf Plaza in Kannapolis, but the company suspended
lending at its 117 North Carolina outlets in September.

Mona Lisa Wallace released a statement Friday saying many of the
victims live in Rowan County. "We are representing consumers in
class actions against the five largest payday lenders in the
state: Advance America, Check Into Cash, Check 'n Go, Nationwide
Budget and First Southern," according to Ms. Wallace.

The statement continued by saying that predatory lenders had
taken advantage of more than 100,000 consumers statewide,
charging interest rates sometimes exceeding a 400 percent annual
percentage rate. "That is why we decided to do these cases," Ms.
Wallace's statement read.

Ms. Wallace's firm is working with lawyers from the nonprofit
North Carolina Justice Center and the Financial Protection Law
Center. "In some cases our clients have had to file bankruptcy
in part because of the situation these loans put them in," Ms.
Wallace's statement further read.

The loans allow a borrower who needs money to leave a check
written for a set amount, generally for a two-week period. At
the end of the two weeks, if the borrower can't pay off the loan
and the inflated interest, they have to write a new check and
pay a high fee, often paying more interest than the amount of
the loan.

Ms. Wallace said in the prepared statement, "We are seeking in
our cases to obtain refunds to consumers throughout the state.
We have many clients who have seen their medical benefits and
retirement pensions slashed. Many of these people are the same
people who have been taken advantage of by the payday lenders.
Payday loans are not good for people. Consumers get ... trapped
in a cycle of debt." Through the prepared statement, Ms. Wallace
also offered praise for the state's commissioner of banks and
the attorney general in their pursuit of companies whose
practices harm consumers.

John Hughes of the Wallace and Graham firm told The Salisbury
Post that the class action work and the commissioner of banks
ruling "spells doom for all payday lenders in the state."


NUVASIVE INC.: Plaintiffs Lodge Master Fraud Complaint in CA
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a master complaint for all class actions filed
against NuVasive, Inc., on behalf of a putative class of
families of decedents who donated their bodies to the University
of California in Los Angeles' (UCLA) medical school for research
and training purposes as part of UCLA's willed body program.  
The master complaint is pending in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles.

On April 11, 2005, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, titled "Beverly Holmes, Kenneth Pesso, Joanne Streek,
and Robert A. McDonough, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated plaintiffs v. Regents of the University of
California, The David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Ernest
V. Nelson, Henry G. Reid, Johnson & Johnson, NuVasive, Inc. and
does 1-1,000." The complaint alleges that the head of UCLA's
donor program, Henry G. Reid, and a third party, Ernest V.
Nelson, improperly sold some of the donated cadavers to the
Company and other defendants.  Plaintiffs allege the
following causes of action against all defendants:

     (1) breach of fiduciary duty,

     (2) negligence,

     (3) fraud,

     (4) negligent misrepresentation,

     (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress,

     (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress,

     (7) intentional interference with human remains,

     (8) negligent interference with human remains,

     (9) violation of California Business and Professions Code
         Section 17200 and

    (10) injunctive and declaratory relief

On May 5, 2005, the case was deemed complex and ordered to the
courtroom of Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl along with other actions
filed by unaffiliated families of decedents who donated their
remains to UCLA through its willed body program.

In addition, on June 23, 2005, the plaintiffs in a lawsuit
titled "Margaret Brown-Hurst, Linda C. James, Eric V. James, Jan
James, Dawn M. James and Emma James v. Regents of the University
of California; Henry Reid, Ernst V. Nelson and Albennie E.
Nelson, dba Empire Anatomical Services; Johnson & Johnson, a
corporation; Dupuy Mitek, Inc., a corporation, fka Mitek, Inc.,"
filed an amendment naming the Company as a Doe defendant. The
lawsuit generally involves the same kinds of factual allegations
and legal theories as the other related lawsuits, and was
consolidated in Judge Kuhl's chambers.

A status conference was held on July 13, 2005, at which time an
order was issued governing preliminary discovery, the adoption
of a Master Complaint for all related class action and
specifying a briefing schedule for the parties to file motions
challenging the Master Complaint.  Plaintiffs then filed a
master complaint, as ordered.  The court will hear argument on
the defendents' challenges to the plaintiffs' complaint on
November 17, 2005.  The parties have continued on a briefing
schedule for the defendants to challenge the plaintiff's Master
Complaint. The court heard argument on the defendants'
challenges to the plaintiffs' complaint on December 5, 2005.


PETTERS CONSUMERS: Recalls 165T Battery Packs Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Petters Consumer Brands LLC, of Minnetonka, Minnesota is
voluntarily recalling about 165,000 units of Battery packs used
with Polaroid-brand portable DVD players

According to the Company, the battery can overheat and melt the
plastic case while recharging, posing a fire and burn hazard to
consumers. Petters Consumer Brands has received eight reports of
batteries overheating, melting the plastic case, or units
smoking during the recharging process. No injuries have been
reported.

The recall involves external battery packs used with the
Polaroid-brand portable DVD players in 7-inch and 8-inch screen
sizes. The 7-inch DVD player has model number PDV-0700 and 8-
inch player has a model number of PDV-0800. The players and
battery packs are silver in color.

The battery packs attach to the bottom of the DVD player and
have the following serial numbers:

DVD Model Number = Battery Pack Serial Number Range
PDV-0800 =
060300020000001 through 060300020018000
070300020008001 through 070300020020000

PDV-0700 =
04170303070001000001 through 04170303070001005000
04270303070001005001 through 04270303070001010000
05040303070001010001 through 05040303070001014000
05150303070001014101 through 05150303070001016100
05190303070001016101 through 05190303070001020100
05260303070001020101 through 05260303070001024100
06010303070001024401 through 06010303070001024900
060300010024101 through 060300010033523
060300010033524 through 060300010050100
070300010050101 through 070300010114100
080300010114101 through 080300010159100
090300010159101 through 090300010193100  

Manufactured in China, the batteries were sold at various
electronics and department stores nationwide from May 2003
through March 2004 for between $150 and $350.

Remedy: Consumers should stop using and stop recharging the
battery packs immediately and contact Petters Consumer Brands
for a free replacement battery pack. Consumers can continue
using the portable DVD player without the battery, by detaching
it from the unit, and plugging in the DC Cord or the AC Power
Adapter.

Consumer Contact: Consumers should contact Petters Consumer
Brands toll-free at (866) 866-6292 anytime to arrange for a
replacement battery pack, or visit the company's Web site at
http://www.Polaroid.comto sign up for the recall.


RESTORATION ARCHITEXTURE: Workers File Overtime Wage Suit in PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nine construction workers who claim they were not paid overtime
and went unpaid for some hours worked at the Pocono Market Fair
in Hazleton, Pennsylvania initiated a class action suit in
federal court, The Standard Speaker reports.

According to the suit, which was filed on December 19, 2005 in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania,
the workers consistently worked more than 40 hours a week but
were not paid for some of those hours. The suit alleges that
they were not paid 150 percent of their regular pay rate when
working more than 40 hours per week even though federal and
state laws required those payments.

Additionally, the suit also alleges that one plaintiff, Eric
Ortiz of Allentown, claims that defendant Roger Soler
immediately fired him when he asked for back pay and said he
would go to the Department of Labor if violations of the law
continued.

The suit lists Mr. Soler, Pocono Market Fair LLC and Restoration
Architexture LLC as defendants and says Mr. Soler is the owner
and highest-ranking corporate officer of Pocono and Restoration.
It says that Restoration Architexture paid the workers, but
their labor benefited all defendants through an agreement to
share services.

At the Market Fair, the workers performed demolition,
construction, and renovation, and they also removed fixtures
from sites such as the Mount Airy Lodge to install at the Market
Fair. The workers, who are from Allentown, Hazleton and Bath,
Northampton County, are claiming that they did not receive clear
explanation of their rate of pay or how it would be calculated,
according to the suit.

The plaintiffs seek back pay, compensatory damages, legal fees
and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which
doubles awards when injury is deemed willful. Some claims in the
suit were also filed under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. In addition, Mr.
Ortiz himself further seeks reinstatement, out-of-pocket
expenses and punitive damages. Federal law makes it unlawful for
an employer to retaliate against an employee for asserting his
rights, the suit contends.

The suit says that more than 30 workers employed by the
defendants since December 19, 2002 might be eligible to join the
case. Pete Winebrake of Trujillo Rodriguez and Richards in
Philadelphia is the attorney for the workers.

The suit is styled, "Ortiz et al v. Restoration Architexture,
LLC et al, Case No. 4:05-cv-02624-JEJ," filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania,
under Judge John E. Jones, III. Representing the Plaintiff/s
are, Peter D. Winebrake of Trujillo, Rodriguez & Richards, LLC,
226 West Rittenhouse Square, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone:
(215) 731-9004, Fax: 12157319044, E-mail: peter@trrlaw.com.


ROANOKE TECHNOLOGY: SEC Lodges Suit in FL Over Form S-8 Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in
federal district court in Orlando, Florida against Roanoke
Technology Corp. (Roanoke), based in Rocky Mount, North
Carolina, David L. Smith, Jr., Roanoke's chairman, chief
executive officer and president, Thomas L. Bojadzijev, and
Barrett R. Clark. The complaint alleges that the defendants
participated in a scheme to illegally raise money for themselves
by using Form S-8 registration statements. The complaint also
names Sussex Avenue Partners LLC (Sussex) as a relief defendant.

According to the complaint, from 2003 through October 2004, Mr.
Smith had Roanoke issue over one billion shares, pursuant to
several Form S-8 registration statements, to Mr. Bojadzijev and
Mr. Clark, purportedly to compensate them for services provided
to Roanoke.  The complaint alleges that Mr. Bojadzijev and Mr.
Clark raised over $7 million in liquidating these shares and
funneled over $4 million to Mr. Smith, who used the funds for
his own personal spending.  Form S-8 registration statements
permit the issuance of stock to consultants in certain
circumstances to compensate them for legitimate services
rendered. S-8 stock, however, cannot be used by the issuer, such
as Roanoke, to raise capital for its control persons. The
complaint also alleges that Smith caused Roanoke to issue a
series of false and misleading press releases while Mr.
Bojadzijev was selling stock into the market.

The Commission's complaint alleges that the defendants violated
the securities registration provisions of Sections 5(a) and 5(c)
of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) and the antifraud
provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Commission's complaint further
alleges that Roanoke violated the reporting provisions of
Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 12b-20 thereunder,
and that Smith aided and abetted Roanoke's violations of Section
13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 12b-20 thereunder, and
violated the certification provisions of Section 13(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 13a-14 thereunder.  The Commission's
complaint also alleges that Mr. Smith, Mr. Bojadzijev, and Mr.
Clark violated the reporting provisions of Sections 13(d) and
16(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13d-1, 13d-2, and 16a-3
thereunder. The action is styled, SEC v. Roanoke Technology
Corp., et al., Civil Case No. 6:05-CV-1880-ORL-3-KRS, USDC, M.D.
Fla.


SALTON INC.: Continues to Face Russell Hobbs Tea Kettle Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Salton, Inc. faces a complaint filed in New York State Supreme
Court, styled "DiNatale vs. Salton," seeking unspecified
damages, and alleging that the plaintiffs were injured by water
contaminated with lead taken from a tea kettle sold by the
Company under its Russell Hobbs brand.

The plaintiffs' attorney had been seeking to convert the lawsuit
into a class action suit; no class action suit has been filed to
date. The manufacturer of the product and its insurer are
defending this lawsuit. The Company's attorneys and its insurers
are cooperating in the defense of the lawsuit.

After receiving notice of a lawsuit, the Company voluntarily
suspended selling the product. The Company believes that, at
substantially the same time, the two retailers who had purchased
the kettle from the Company also suspended selling the product.
The Company believes that only a limited number of the kettles
were sold to consumers.

The Company voluntarily contacted the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") and shared its information and test
results concerning the product with the agency. The Company
issued a recall of the product. The manufacturer has agreed to
compensate the Company for its legal costs and out of pocket
expenses in connection with the recall and to supply replacement
products.

In connection with the tea kettle matter, the Company reviewed
other products received from the same manufacturer and
subsequently notified the FDA that some manufacturing runs of
another coffee maker product might have a lead content above FDA
allowed standards. As a result, the FDA requested the Company to
recall the product. The Company has done so, the retailer to
whom the product was sold has cooperated in returning for credit
its unsold units of the product. The manufacturer has agreed to
compensate the Company for the costs that it may incur.


SALTON INC.: Consumer Initiates Fraud Litigation in CA Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Salton, Inc. faces a class action filed on October 19, 2005 in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, styled "Jay Kordich v. Salton, Inc."

The plaintiff in this action is seeking a judicial determination
that a covenant not to compete in an agreement between him and
the Company is invalid and unenforceable against him plus
attorneys' fees and costs.

The suit is styled "Jay Kordich v. Salton Inc., case no.
3:05cv1976," filed in the United States District Court Southern
District of California (San Diego), under Judge Larry Alan
Burns.  Representing the plaintiff is David P Beitchman,
Beitchman and Zekian, 510 West 6th Street, Penthouse 1220, Los
Angeles, CA 90014, phone: (213)488-1115.  Representing the
Company is Laura Ann Wytsma, Sonnenschein Nath and Rosenthal,
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1500, Los Angeles, CA
90017,Phone: (213)623-9300.


SONY BMG: TX Attorney General Files Amended Suit Over Music CDs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott bolstered his pending
November lawsuit against SONY BMG Music Entertainment by adding
a number of new allegations that reflect harm to consumers who
purchased certain compact discs (CDs).

In November, Attorney General Abbott sued the New York-based
company under the state's new spyware law of 2005, making him
the first state official in the nation to bring legal action
against SONY BMG for embedding illegal "spyware" in consumer
products.

In new allegations, Attorney General Abbott invoked the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Attorney General alleges the
company's "MediaMax" technology for copy protection violates the
state's spyware and deceptive trade practices laws in that
consumers who use these CDs are offered a license agreement, but
even if consumers reject that agreement, files are secretly
installed on their computers that pose additional security risks
to those systems.

"We keep discovering additional methods SONY used to deceive
Texas consumers who thought they were simply buying music," said
Attorney General Abbott. "Thousands of Texans are now potential
victims of this deceptive game SONY played with consumers for
its own purposes."

The Attorney General's lawsuit asserts the company failed to
clearly warn consumers of the harm its copy protection software
could cause when installed on consumers' personal computers, and
the fact that files secretly embedded in certain CDs purchased
at retailers would likely compromise computers.

In addition, Attorney General Abbott is taking action to
minimize the number of consumers who become potential victims of
SONY's spyware on millions of certain CDs by various artists. In
a letter sent today, he urges retailers who continue to carry
the tainted 52 CDs titles to take quick action to remove them.

"These CDs open the door for malicious hackers to target
consumers' computers. Hackers may be using the SONY files to
install viruses, malware or even commit identity theft," warned
Attorney General Abbott. "Retailers that continue to sell these
CDs may be just as liable under the law as SONY."

The original suit in November alleges the company
surreptitiously installed spyware using so-called "XCP"
technology on millions of CDs that consumers unwittingly
download onto their computers when they play the CDs. Today's
amended lawsuit alleges SONY CDs containing MediaMax technology
can compromise and harm personal computers at least as much as
XCP technology and that SONY has utilized the same deceptive
means with consumers.

In addition to violations of the Consumer Protection Against
Computer Spyware Act of 2005, which allows for civil penalties
of $100,000 for each violation of the law, the amended suit
alleges violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practice Act.
Penalties under this law can be a maximum of $20,000 per
violation.

Attorney General Abbott is warning consumers to take extreme
caution with these CDs and contact his office if they have
experienced problems related to either technology. The Attorney
General's toll-free complaint line is (800) 252-8011, and
consumers may also file complaints online at
http://www.oag.state.tx.us.


SPORT CHALET: Reaches Settlement for DE Shareholder Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sport Chalet, Inc. reached a settlement for the class action
filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, styled
"Miriam Gruber v. Sport Chalet, Inc., Norbert Olberz, Irene
Olberz, Craig L. Levra, Howard K. Kaminsky, Al D. McCready, Eric
S. Olberz, Frederick H. Schneider, John R. Attwood, Donald J.
Howard and Kenneth Olson."

The action, which is purportedly brought individually,
derivatively and as a class action on behalf of the public
stockholders of the Company, challenges the recapitalization and
the associated transactions.  The complaint alleges that
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
public stockholders by, among other things,

     (1) diverting an opportunity of the Company to Craig Levra
         and Howard Kaminsky;

     (2) failing to seek the best available transaction that
         would maximize the benefits for the Company and all its
         stockholders;

     (3) approving transactions which are not entirely fair to
         the Company and its public stockholders and

     (4) attempting to entrench themselves in office.

The complaint seeks, among other things, a preliminary and
permanent injunction against the recapitalization; a declaration
that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties;
damages and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

On August 26, 2005, the parties executed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) memorializing their agreement in principle
to settle the Action.  An amended preliminary proxy statement,
reflecting the proposed settlement and the comments of
plaintiff's counsel, was filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 30, 2005. The definitive proxy statement
(the "Proxy Statement") was filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 1, 2005.

On September 27, 2005, a Stipulation and Agreement of
Compromise, Settlement and Release (the "Stipulation") was
executed by the parties through their respective counsel. The
Settlement is subject to various conditions, including Court
approval. The Court considered whether or not to approve the
Settlement at a hearing on November 29, 2005. In connection with
the Settlement, plaintiff's counsel intends to petition the
Court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in an
aggregate amount not to exceed $480,000. Defendants have agreed
that they will not object to such an application by plaintiff's
counsel for an award in or below the amount of $480,000.


THORATEC CORPORATION: CA Court Mulls Securities Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California has yet to rule on Thoratec Corporation's motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against
it on behalf of purchasers of its publicly traded securities
during the period between April 28, 2004 and June 29, 2004.

Commencing on or about August 3, 2004, several federal
securities law putative class action suits were filed, alleging
the Company and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
Complaints allege that during the Class Period, defendants made
a number of false and misleading statements regarding expected
sales and the market for the HeartMate as a "Destination
Therapy" treatment for end-stage heart failure patients.  As a
result of these statements, Thoratec's stock traded at
artificially inflated levels and defendants were able to
complete a $143.7 million note offering, an earlier Class Action
Reporter (September 30,2004) reports.

On November 24, 2004, the Court entered an order consolidating
the various putative class action complaints into a single
action entitled "In re Thoratec Corp. Securities Litigation" and
thereafter entered an order appointing Craig Toby as "Lead
Plaintiff" pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995.  On January 18, 2005, Lead Plaintiff filed a
Consolidated Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint generally
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the
Company, its chief executive officer, cardiovascular division
president and former chief financial officer based upon, among
other things, alleged false statements about the Company's
expected sales and the market for HeartMate as a Destination
Therapy treatment.  The Consolidated Complaint seeks to recover
unspecified damages on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
publicly traded securities during the putative class period.

The complaint seeks to recover unspecified damages on behalf of
all purchasers of the Company's publicly traded securities
during the class period.  On March 4, 2005, defendants moved to
dismiss the Consolidated Complaint and that motion currently is
pending.

On or about September 1, 2004, a shareholder derivative action
entitled "Wong v. Grossman" was filed in the California Superior
Court for Alameda County based upon essentially the same facts
as the Federal securities class action suits referred to above.
This action names the individual members of the Company's Board
of Directors, including the Chief Executive Officer and certain
other Executive Officers of the Company as defendants and
alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and
wasted corporate assets, and that certain of the defendants
traded in the Company's securities while in possession of
material nonpublic information. Proceedings are currently stayed
until at least December 2005.

The suit is styled "In re Thoratec Corporation Securities
Litigation, case no. 5:04-cv-03168-RMW," filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
under Judge Ronald M. Whyte.  Representing the plaintiffs are
Patrick J. Coughlin and Jeffrey W. Lawrence, Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600,
San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415/288-4545, Fax: 415-288-4534,
Email: patc@mwbhl.com or jeffreyl@lerachlaw.com.  Representing
the Company is Michael B. Smith of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
1881 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone: 650-849-5338,
Fax: 650-849-5038, Email: mbsmith@gibsondunn.com.  


ZIPREALTY INC.: CA Court Preliminarily OKs Agent Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Diego, Central Division granted preliminary approval to the
settlement of the class action filed against Ziprealty, Inc.,
styled "Sullivan, et al v. ZipRealty case number GIC851801."  
Two former employee agents for the Company filed the suit,
alleging, among other things, that the Company's s expense
allowance policies violate California law.

The Company has reached an agreement in principle to settle this
claim in exchange for the Company's payment of $4,164,000.  The
agreement, which includes a full release from any further
liability on this issue, was granted preliminary court approval
on October 21, 2005 and is subject to final court approval. The
Company is not currently subject to any other material legal
proceedings.



                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars




* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

January 14, 2005
TORTS PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB
San Francisco Hilton and Towers, San Francisco
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

January 14, 2005
TORTS PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB
Wilshire Grand Hotel and Centre, Los Angeles
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

January 18-19, 2006
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE FOR THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com

January 19-20, 2006
LPL / LEGAL MALPRACTICE
American Conference Institute
Miami
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com

January 21, 2005
TORTS PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB
Doubletree Hotel, Sacramento
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

January 21, 2005
TORTS PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB
San Diego County Bar Association,  San Diego
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

January 23-24, 2006
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com

January 23-24, 2005
4TH ANNUAL ADVANCED INSURANCE COVERAGE ISSUES
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

January 24, 2005
TORTS PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB
PLI California Center, San Francisco
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

January 25, 2006
CONCRETE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Laguna Niguel, Dana Point, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

January 26-27, 2006
DEFENSE STRATEGIES IN PHARMACEUTICAL LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Laguna Niguel, Dana Point, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

January 26-27, 2006
AUTO INSURANCE CLAIMS AND LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Las Vegas
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com

January 28, 2005
TORTS PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB
Santa Clara Convention Center, Santa Clara
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

January 28, 2005
TORTS PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB
Sheraton Anaheim, Anaheim
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

February 2-3, 2006
SOLVENT SCHEMES OF ARRANGEMENT CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

February 9, 2006
LEXISNEXIST PRESENTS WALL STREET FORUM: ASBESTOS Mealey
Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

February 13-14, 2006
FUNDAMENTALS OF ASBESTOS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

February 13-14, 2006
FUNDAMENTALS OF INSURANCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

February 16-17, 2006
ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Coral Gables, Miami, Florida
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

February 23-24, 2006
LITIGATING DISABILITY INSURANCE CLAIMS
American Conference Institute
Miami
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com

February 27-28, 2006
REINSURANCE AGREEMENTS
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com

March 9-10, 2006
TOXIC TORT UPDATE: TEXAS
Mealey Publications
Las Colinas Four Seasons, Dallas, Texas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

March 23-24, 2006
FUNDAMENTALS OF REINSURANCE LITIGATION & ARBITRATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

March 30, 2006
EMAIL DISCOVERY & RETENTION POLICIES CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Grand Hyatt, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

March, 2006
BIRTH CONTROL PATCH LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Dallas, TX
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

April 5-8, 2006
13TH INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

May 25-26, 2006
INSURANCE COVERAGE 2006: CLAIM TRENDS & LITIGATION
Practising Law Institute
New York
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

September 28-30, 2006
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614


* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

December 01-30, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 01-30, 2005
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 01-30, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 01-30, 2005
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 01-30, 2005
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

GUIDANT CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in IN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins,
LLP, initiated a class actions in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of
purchasers of Guidant Corporation ("Guidant") (NYSE:GDT)
publicly traded securities during the period between December
15, 2004 and November 4, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaints charge Guidant and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Guidant and its subsidiaries provide therapeutic medical
solutions for customers, patients and healthcare systems
worldwide.

On December 15, 2004, defendants announced that Guidant had been
sold to Johnson & Johnson ("J&J") for approximately $25 billion
in cash and J&J stock, within an imputed value of approximately
$76 per share. Meanwhile, according to the complaints,
throughout the fall of 2004 and spring of 2005, defendants
continued concealing from investors, regulators, and,
ostensibly, J&J, the truth about the known defects in Guidant's
defibrillators and pacemakers, including:

     (1) that they had discovered a design flaw in
         defibrillators manufactured prior to April 2002;

     (2) that despite knowledge of the design flaw, they
         continued to sell these defective defibrillators to
         maintain Guidant's revenue stream;

     (3) that at the time of the proposed merger with J&J, many
         defibrillators and pacemakers had failed or
         malfunctioned;

     (4) that as a result of these manufacturing defects,
         revenues from Guidant's defibrillator and pacemaker
         business would be negatively impacted going forward;
         and

     (5) more importantly, that Guidant would likely be exposed
         to substantial litigation risks as more reports of
         failed defibrillators and pacemakers surfaced,
         significantly decreasing the price J&J would be willing
         to pay for Guidant.

Finally, on November 2, 2005, citing issues surrounding
Guidant's defibrillators and the investigation initiated by the
U.S. Attorney's Office as constituting "material adverse
effects" that delimited its duty to perform on the merger
agreement, J&J announced it was not required to complete the
acquisition of Guidant, signaling it would not. On November 4,
2005, when J&J's 48-hour deadline in which to complete the
transaction expired, shares of Guidant fell to $57.52, a drop of
more than $14 per share from the December 15, 2004 merger
announcement date, erasing over $4.5 billion in market
capitalization. Thereafter, on November 15, 2005, defendants
agreed to sell Guidant to J&J for $21.5 billion, or $4 billion
less than the price announced at the start of the Class Period.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, Phone:
800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058, E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web
site: http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/guidantcorp/.  


NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Alfred G. Yates Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC, commenced a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Northwest Airlines Corporation ("Northwest" or the
"Company") (OTC: NWACQ - News) 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 complaint alleges 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 alleges,
defendants misrepresented 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 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. Plaintiff 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 Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. of The Law
Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC, Pittsburgh, Phone:
800-391-5164 or 412-391-5164, Fax: 412-471-1033, E-mail:
yateslaw@aol.com.


NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Northwest Airlines
Corporation (Other OTC: NWACQ.PK - News) ("Northwest" or the
"Company") between April 21, 2005 and September 14, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The class action lawsuit is against certain officers and
directors of Northwest and was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Northwest
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Evan J. Smith, Esq. or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esq. of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite
602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 877-LEGAL-90, E-mail:
clients@brodsky-smith.com.


SERACARE LIFE: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of SeraCare Life
Sciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: SRLS) common stock during the period
between May 3, 2005 and December 19, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges SeraCare and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. SeraCare engages in the manufacture and provision of
biological products and services for diagnostic, therapeutic,
drug discovery and research organizations worldwide.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants directly participated in an accounting fraud that
materially overstated the Company's financial results in
violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP").
Specifically, the complaint charges that throughout the Class
Period, defendants orchestrated and actively participated in the
following improper accounting practices in direct violation of
GAAP:

     (1) defendants used improper revenue recognition policies
         and practices;

     (2) defendants failed to properly account for and value
         inventory;

     (3) defendants failed to prevent certain Board members from
         exerting undue influence on the financial reporting
         process of the audit process; and

     (4) defendants failed to maintain adequate internal
         controls and were, therefore, unable to ascertain the
         true financial condition of the Company.

Defendants engaged in these improper accounting practices in
order to bolster the Company's stock price, which enabled the
Company to complete a secondary offering of stock in May 2005,
raising $42 million for the Company, and allowed certain of the
defendants to take advantage of the artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period and sell 606,000 shares of their
SeraCare stock for total proceeds of over $7.8 million.

On December 20, 2005, before the market opened, the Company
announced that "the chairman of the Company's audit committee
has received a letter from Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C. (MHM), the
Company's independent auditors, in which MHM raised concerns
with respect to the Company's financial statements, accounting
documentation and the ability of MHM to rely on representations
of the Company's management." On this news, SeraCare shares fell
as much as 62% before closing down $9.26 per share on volume of
5.8 million shares, 116 times the daily average volume for
SeraCare.

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


STONE ENERGY: Klafter & Olsen Retained to Commence LA Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Klafter & Olsen, LLP, was retained to commence a
securities fraud class action against Stone Energy Corporation
("Stone Energy") (NYSE: SGY) and certain of its officers in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana on
behalf of investors who purchased the publicly traded securities
of Stone Energy during an expanded period beginning March 9,
2005 through and including October 5, 2005 (the "Class Period").
As described below, if you purchased Stone Energy publicly
traded securities during the Class Period, you have until
January 30, 2006 to move to be appointed as a Lead Plaintiff.

Stone Energy is an oil and gas company engaged in the
acquisition, exploration, development, operation and production
of oil and gas properties. In its Form 10-K filed with the SEC
on March 9, 2005, for its year ended December 31, 2004, Stone
Energy claimed to have proved oil and gas reserves of
approximately 825 billion cubic feet equivalent (Bcfe). Before
the opening of the market on October 6, 2005, however, Stone
Energy revealed its proven reserves as of December 31, 2004 had
been overstated by 161 Bcfe or 20% less. On the announcement of
this significant overstatement, Stone Energy stock plunged by
$7.93 to close at $48.14 on October 6.

On November 8, 2005, Stone Energy announced that as a result of
its overstatement of proven reserves, it will be filing an
amended Form 10-K for 2004 and amended quarterly reports for its
quarters ended March 31, 2005 and September 30, 2005. On
November 10, Stone Energy announced that the SEC is conducting
an informal inquiry into its restatement of its proven reserves.
Most significantly, on December 5, Stone Energy announced the
results of an investigation into its proven reserve
overstatement, which found, among other things, that "there was
an optimistic and aggressive 'tone from the top' with respect to
estimating reserves;" Stone management had failed to "fully
grasp" the SEC's requirements for booking reserves; and that
Stone Energy "lacked adequate internal guidance and training" on
the SEC standards for booking reserves.

Klafter & Olsen LLP seeks to recover damages on behalf of
purchasers of Stone Energy securities during the Class Period
for violations of the federal securities laws by Stone Energy
and certain of its officers as a result of its public
dissemination of false and misleading proven oil and gas
reserves. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Kurt B. Olsen of Klafter & Olsen, LLP,
Phone: +1-202-261-3553, Web site: http://www.klafterolsen.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  * * *