CAR_Public/051229.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, December 29, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 258


                            Headlines

ALAN VESTER: Faces Lawsuit in NC Over "Falsified Down Payments"
ALLIED CAPITAL: SEC Lodges CA Civil Suit V. Company, Shea Silva
AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls 6,786 2006 Motorcycles For Crash Hazard
ARVINMERITOR INC.: To Appeal MI Court Order Blocking Reductions
AVANEX CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement

BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Settlement
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders File Fraud Suits in N.D. CA
CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: CA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
CARLISLE TIRE: MI Residents File Defective Tire Consumer Lawsuit
DELTA FINANCIAL: Discovery Proceeds in PA FLSA Violations Suit

DELTA FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Seek Certification For IL Lawsuits
DELTA FINANCIAL: Discovery Continues in NY Consumer Fraud Suit
DELTA FINANCIAL: Objectors Block NY Consumer Lawsuit Settlement
DYNABAZAAR INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
GOLF HOST: FL Court Refuses Appeal of Suit's Summary Judgment

HARVARD MEDICAL: MA Court Dismisses Civil Suit V. Donor Program
INTERNATIONAL TRUCK: Recalls 1,918 Buses Due to Injury Hazard
LIQUID AUDIO: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement
LOUISIANA: Three Companies Agree to Settle "Junk Faxes" Lawsuit
MAGMA DESIGN: Continues To Face Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CA

MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: SEC Lodges Suit in DC V. Company Executive
MARYLAND: Settles Suit V. Transit Service, Makes Improvements
MICHIGAN: Detroit NPR Listeners File Suit V. Programming Changes
MOSSIMO INC.: Reaches MOU To Settle Investor Fraud Lawsuit in DE
NATURE'S TREAT: U.S. Attorneys File Suit V. Ephedra Products

PENNSYLVANIA: Unions' Recruitment Tactics Trigger Federal Suit
PIP/USA INC.: Trial in Unfair Trade Suit Set March 2006 in Texas
SELECT MEDICAL: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in PA
STATE FARM: OH Consumers Commence Suits Over Salvaged Vehicles
TENFOLD CORPORATION: Final Fairness Hearing Set April 2006 in NY

TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: NY Court Affirms Preliminarily Suit Approval
UNITED STATES: Coastal Waters, Fish Not Affected by Hurricanes
WEYERHAEUSER CO.: Takes $25M Charge For Antitrust Settlements

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

DIEBOLD INC.: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in OH
FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Scott + Scott Offers Update on FL Litigation
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Scott + Scott Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
MOTIVE INC.: Rosen Law Firm Sets January Lead Plaintiff Deadline
SERACARE LIFE: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA


                            *********


ALAN VESTER: Faces Lawsuit in NC Over "Falsified Down Payments"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Vester car dealerships faces a class action filed in
Franklin County, North Carolina, alleging a " . uniform practice
of using falsified down payments," The Roanoke Rapids Daily
Herald reports.  Lawyer John Hughes, an attorney with the
Salisbury firm of Wallace & Graham, filed the suit in Franklin
County against various Vester enterprises, Alan Vester and
several of his associates in Roanoke Rapids, which serves as the
company's hub.

A spokesman for the dealership told The Roanoke Rapids Daily
Herald that though it has yet to see the lawsuit, it believes
that the legal action is simply an effort to get money from the
dealership and described the lawyers as "ambulance chasers."

Part of the lawsuit centers on alleged violation of the state's
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute
which seek to deter unlawful activity by organized unlawful
elements. Mr. Hughes told The Roanoke Rapids Daily Herald that
he and his associates "thought long and hard about whether to
include a RICO claim." In the end, according to him, they
decided to add the RICO claim because they believe falsifying
financial records was a company-wide policy. He adds, "It's hard
to believe the senior people at Vester didn't know about it and
our evidence is the senior people did know."

The suit is open as a class action, which is based on a
complaint by Amelia Jefferson of Henderson who on November 17,
2003, purchased a new Mitsubishi from the dealership. That suit
contends that Mrs. Jefferson and her daughter were led to
believe the vehicle was being sold to Ruby Venable, Mrs.
Jefferson's daughter. It alleges that Vester misrepresented to
the financing lender a down payment of $1,000 and inflated the
vehicle price by that amount.

However, both mother and daughter claim in the suit that no such
down payment was made. "Vester improperly forged and/or
improperly obtained Mrs. Jefferson's signature on transactional
documents leading her to believe she was not in fact the buyer,
as part of an unfair and deceptive straw purchase," according to
the suit.

The lawsuit purports that Vester "represented or caused to be
represented to one or more financing lenders that Mrs. Jefferson
had retired from 30 years employment at J.P. Taylor (and) was
receiving in excess of $1,700 per month in retirement benefits,
when in reality she had never worked for the company." Her
Social Security payments were represented to be $759 per month
when in reality she was receiving a much smaller amount, the
lawsuit contends. "Vester contacted another one of Ms.
Jefferson's daughters, Alma Peace, and gave her written
instructions to provide false information, as well as
verification of the false $1,000 down payment, to any
representative of the finance company who called."

The lawsuit alleges, "Mrs. Jefferson has no intention of
purchasing an automobile for her own use and in fact had not
possessed a valid drivers license since 1992. Vester should have
known that the plaintiff did not even have a driver's license.
Ruby Venable went to Vester to purchase a vehicle for her own
use and Ms. Jefferson merely accompanied her to the dealership
in case Ruby had insufficient credit to buy the vehicle without
a co-signer."

Mr. Hughes told The Roanoke Rapids Daily Herald that what he
would like to find during discovery is what the dealership's
explanation is for its down payment practices are and did it
occur at every dealership. The law firm in the Vester case is
focusing on alleged falsified down payments, misrepresentation
of income and straw purchases. "That is the area which goes into
car sales, which is our area of expertise," Hughes said. "We did
notice from public records there are also complaints about false
advertising, however, we are still in the middle of researching
advertising claims."

Vester referred questions about the lawsuit to its Raleigh-based
PR firm. Rick French, president and CEO of French/West/Vaughan,
told The Roanoke Rapids Daily Herald that the company has not
seen the lawsuit. In a recent telephone interview, Mr. French
told The Roanoke Rapids Daily Herald, "These law firms are not
law enforcement authorities." He adds, "For them to put in
inflammatory comments is irresponsible and haven't been proven
in a courtroom either criminally or civilly and we view this law
firm as the worst of the worst. They are ambulance chasers. They
are just trying to see who they can round up to further their
financial interests."

Mr. French also told The Roanoke Rapids Daily Herald that there
have been no charges brought out of any of the complaints
alleged in the lawsuit or reported to the state Attorney
General's Office. He said pointedly, "People come out of the
woodwork when they see the chance to get some remuneration.
Those are charges to be proved first criminally. It's just plain
irresponsible."

The only thing the allegations are doing, according to Mr.
French, "Is damaging the reputation of Alan Vester. Again,
that's just irresponsible. It's what gives the legal profession
a bad name." Mr. French told The Roanoke Rapids Daily Herald
that the Company has contemplated suing Durham television
station WTVD, whose "Trouble Shooter" reports first broadcast
complaints filed with the state Attorney General's Office. He
said though at the recent interview, "Yes, there has been
discussion but that's as far as that's gone. My hope is that can
be avoided."

The Company continues to work with the Attorney General's Office
and the state Division of Motor Vehicles, according to Mr.
French. "In class action suits they try to get a total bigger
judgment so they can settle and take their 40 percent. Quite
honestly, it turns my stomach. They're trying to try this in the
court of public opinion. It's ethically and morally wrong.
That's for the court to decide," Mr. French said.


ALLIED CAPITAL: SEC Lodges CA Civil Suit V. Company, Shea Silva
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil action in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against Shea Silva of Costa Mesa, California, and Allied Capital
Management, Inc. (Allied), a California corporation under his
control, for violations of the antifraud and registration
provisions of the federal securities laws.

On the Commission's application, the Court issued a Temporary
Restraining Order, Order Freezing Assets and Prohibiting the
Destruction of Documents, and Order to Show Cause why a
Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue (Order). In its
Complaint, the Commission alleges that from approximately
November 2001 through the present, Mr. Silva, Allied, and two
defunct entities known as Sunrise Energy, Inc. and Blue Marlin
Energy, Inc., defrauded investors of over $5 million through the
sale of unregistered securities. The securities were purportedly
sold to invest in oil and gas operations.  According to the
Complaint, Mr. Silva, Allied, and others acting at their
direction engaged in high-pressure cold call campaigns and
solicited investments from hundreds of individuals nationwide.  
However, the defendants misrepresented the nature of the
investments, the risks involved in the investments, and the
potential return on the investments.  

The Commission also alleges that Mr. Silva misappropriated a
large portion of investor funds and acted as an unregistered
broker-dealer. The Complaint claims that, through these
activities, Mr. Silva and Allied violated Sections 5(a), 5(c)
and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and
15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder. Among other things, the Court's Order prohibits the
defendants, pending a hearing, from disposing of any assets and
prohibits financial institutions holding the defendants' assets
from allowing any withdrawals. The Order also requires that the
defendants notify the Court of each account they hold with a
financial or brokerage institution. The action is styled, SEC v.
Allied Capital Management, Inc. and Shea Silva, Case No. CV05-
8800-GPS (JTLx) (C.D. Cal.)] (LR-19513).


AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls 6,786 2006 Motorcycles For Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Honda Co. in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 6,786 units of 2006 HONDA /
VT750C motorcycles due to crash hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID
Number: 05V562000.

According to the ODI, on certain motorcycles, a damaged
connector in the handlebar mounted headlight switch may cause
the headlight switch to flicker and eventually fall. If riding
at night, the sudden loss of headlights could result in a crash.  

As a remedy, dealers will install new left and right handle
switch assemblies with undamaged connectors free of charge. An
interim letter to owners was mailed on December 13, 2005. The
recall is exp0ected to begin on January 5, 2006.

For more details, contact Honda, Phone: 1-866-784-1870 OR the
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web
site: http://www.safecar.gov.


ARVINMERITOR INC.: To Appeal MI Court Order Blocking Reductions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle exhaust systems maker ArvinMeritor, Inc. (NYSE: ARM)
intends to appeal a federal court order that blocks a January 1,
2006 reduction in the company's retiree health care benefits,
The Bloomberg News reports.

The ruling was issued by the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan in response to a challenge by
the United Automobile Workers (UAW). The Troy, Michigan-based
Company disclosed that the court decision and its intention to
appeal in a regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  The filing provided no details on the planned
changes. In August 2004, however, the Company did say that as of
2006 it would scrap health care benefits that supplement federal
Medicare coverage for retirees 65 or older.

Additionally, the federal court also told the Company to
reinstate health benefits for UAW retirees to levels before cuts
made this year and in 2003, according to the filing.

In the past few years, three class action lawsuits have been
commenced against the company's changes in retiree benefits,
contending that the revisions violate terms of agreements with
the UAW and the United Steel Workers union at plants that have
been closed or sold, the Company's SEC filings noted. The
company has been cutting costs after posting net losses in three
of its last five quarters.

The Company along with Rockwell Automation, Inc. were slapped
with three separate class action lawsuits filed in a Michigan
Federal Court in 2003 and 2004, as a result of changes made by
the company to its health insurance benefits to certain United
Auto Worker and United Steel Worker retirees, spouses and
dependents, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (August 2,
2005) reports.

The lawsuits allege that the changes breach the terms of various
collective bargaining agreements entered into with the United
Auto Workers and the United Steel Workers at former facilities
that either have been closed or sold and are located in
Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois and
Michigan. The complaints also allege a companion claim under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)
essentially restating the alleged collective bargaining breach
claims and bringing them under ERISA. Plaintiffs seek an
injunction requiring the defendants to provide lifetime retiree
health care benefits under the applicable collective bargaining
agreements, plus costs and attorneys' fees, as well as punitive
and unspecified damages for mental distress and anguish, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (August 2, 2005) reports.
  
The first identified complaint is styled "Intl U Utd Auto, et al
v. Arvinmeritor Inc, et al., case no. 2:03-cv-73872-NGE," filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan under Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. Representing the
plaintiffs are, Stuart M. Israel of Martens, Ice, (Royal Oak),
306 S. Washington Suite 600, Royal Oak, MI 48067, Phone:
248-398-5900, E-mail: israel@martensice.com; and Daniel W.
Sherrick, UAW International Union, Legal Department, 8000 E.
Jefferson Avenue, Detroit, MI 48214, Phone: 313-926-5216, Fax:
313-926-5216. Representing the Company are Michael A. Alaimo and
Leonard D. Givens of Miller, Canfield, (Detroit), 150 W.
Jefferson Avenue Suite 2500, Detroit, MI 48226-4415, Phone:
313-963-6420, E-mail: alaimo@millercanfield.com or
givens@millercanfield.com; and Charles S. Mishkind of Miller,
Canfield, (Grand Rapids), 99 Monroe Avenue, N.W. Suite 1200,
Grand Rapids, MI 49503, Phone: 616-454-8656, E-mail:
Mishkind@MillerCanfield.com.


AVANEX CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against Avanex
Corporation, certain of its officers and directors, and various
underwriters in its initial public offering (IPO).

Several suits were initially filed and later consolidated into
"In re Avanex Corp. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 01 Civ. 6890."  The consolidated
amended complaint in the action generally alleges that various
investment bank underwriters engaged in improper and undisclosed
activities related to the allocation of shares in Avanex's IPO.
Plaintiffs have brought claims for violation of several
provisions of the federal securities laws against those
underwriters, and also against Avanex and certain of its
directors and officers, seeking unspecified damages on behalf of
a purported class of purchasers of Avanex's common stock between
February 3, 2000, and December 6, 2000.

Various plaintiffs have filed similar actions asserting
virtually identical allegations against more than 40 investment
banks and 250 other companies.  All of these "IPO allocation"
securities class actions currently pending in the Southern
District of New York have been assigned to Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin for coordinated pretrial proceedings as "In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92."

On October 9, 2002, the claims against Avanex's directors and
officers were dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a tolling
agreement.  The issuer defendants filed a coordinated motion to
dismiss all common pleading issues, which the court granted in
part and denied in part in an order dated February 19, 2003.  
The court's order did not dismiss the Section 10(b) or Section
11 claims against Avanex.  The settlement is subject to a number
of conditions, including approval of the proposed settling
parties and the court.  On August 31, 2005, the court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement is
subject to a number of conditions, including final approval of
the court.

The suit is styled, "In re Avanex Corporation Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01 Civ. 1890 (Sas)"
related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira
Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
class action filed against Brocade Communications Systems, Inc.,
certain of its officers and directors and certain of the
underwriters for the Company's initial public offering.

The consolidated suit, styled "Chae v. Brocade Communications
Systems, Inc. et al.," generally alleged that various
underwriters engaged in improper and undisclosed activities
related to the allocation of shares in the Company's initial
public offering.

On March 1, 2002, the Court entered an order dismissing without
prejudice all claims against the Company and its officers and
directors named in the consolidated proceeding.  On April 19,
2002, a consolidated amended class action captioned "In Re
Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation," was filed making claims against the
Brocade parties that are substantially similar to those alleged
in the earlier case.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of common stock from May 24, 1999 to
December 6, 2000.  The lawsuit against the Brocade parties is
one of a number of cases challenging underwriter practices in
the initial public offerings of more than 300 cases.  All of the
cases have been coordinated for pretrial proceedings as "In Re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92(SAS)."

In October 2002, the individual defendants were dismissed
without prejudice from the action, pursuant to a tolling
agreement.  On February 19, 2003, the Court issued an Opinion
and Order dismissing all of the plaintiffs' claims against
Brocade.  Subsequently, the plaintiffs in all of the cases
presented a settlement proposal to all of the issuer defendants.  

Under the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss and
release all claims against participating issuer defendants in
exchange for a contingent payment guaranty by the insurance
companies collectively responsible for insuring the issuer
defendants in all of the related cases, and the assignment or
surrender to the plaintiffs of certain claims the issuer
defendants may have against the underwriters.  The settlement is
subject to a number of conditions, including approval by the
Court.

The suit is styled "In re Brocade Communications Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation,"  filed in relation to
"IN re IPO Securities Litigation, 21-MC-92 (Sas)," in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders File Fraud Suits in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brocade Communications, Inc. and certain of its current and
former officers face several securities class actions filed
beginning on May 19, 2005 in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California

These actions were filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock from February 2001 to May 2005. The securities
class action complaints allege, among other things, violations
of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaints seek
unspecified monetary damages and other relief against the
defendants.  The complaints generally allege that the Company
and the individual defendants made false or misleading public
statements regarding the Company's business and operations.
These lawsuits followed the Company's restatement of certain
financial results due to stock-based compensation accounting
issues.


CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: CA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed the consolidated securities class action
filed against Callidus Software, Inc. and certain of its present
and former executives and directors.

The suit originally alleged that the Company and the executives
and directors made materially false or misleading statements or
omissions in violation of federal securities laws.  The suit
seeks damages on behalf of a purported class of individuals who
purchased Company stock during the period from November 19, 2003
through June 23, 2004.

In October 2004, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. In
November 2004, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
naming the Company, Ronald J. Fior, its vice president for
finance and chief financial officer and Reed D. Taussig, the
former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer as defendants and
amending the purported class to include individuals who
purchased Company stock during the period from January 22, 2004
through June 23, 2004.

In February 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  The court granted the motion to dismiss in
May 2005 and granted Plaintiffs leave to amend. Plaintiffs
declined to amend the complaint and the court thereafter entered
a dismissal with prejudice on July 5, 2005.

The suit is styled "In Re: Callidus Software, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 04-CV-2707," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.  Lead
counsel for the plaintiffs are Robert S. Green of Green Welling
LLP, 235 Pine Street, 15th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94104
Phone: 415.477.6700, Fax: 415.477.6710, E-mail:
gw@classcounsel.com; and David Kessler, Michael K. Yarnoff and
Christopher Nelson of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E,
Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056,
E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.  Representing the Company is James
N. Kramer, William F. Alderman, M. Todd Scott of Orrick,
Herrington and Sutcliffe, LLP, 405 Howard St., San Francisco CA
94105, Phone: 415-773-5992 and Fax:  415-773-5759.


CARLISLE TIRE: MI Residents File Defective Tire Consumer Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two west Michigan residents initiated a lawsuit against Carlisle
Tire & Wheel Co., claiming that their tire tread separated while
towing vehicles with their recreational vehicles (RV), WZZM13
News reports

Jeffrey Hunsaker, of Byron Center, and Dennis Drooger, of
Holland, filed the suit against the Aiken, South Carolina-based
Company last January in Kalamazoo, Michigan. They are suing the
Company for tires used in RVs that they say are defective and
pose a safety risk. Just this month, their attorneys asked U.S.
District Judge Richard Enslen for class action status to allow
them to open the lawsuit to Carlisle tire owners as far back as
1999. Both men are seeking a recall of the tires and monetary
compensation.

According to court records, Mr. Hunsaker was towing a year-old
camper to northern Michigan in 2004 when it began shaking and
rattling. He pulled over and found the tire's tread had
separated. The same thing happened on the way home with a
different tire, he told The Grand Rapids Press.

Mr. Drooger said he was pulling a trailer to Ludington State
Park in the fall of 2003, when he and his wife heard a "thud."
He later discovered that a tire had lost its tread and the belts
inside had unraveled. A friend with an RV on the same trip had a
similar failure, according to Mr. Drooger.

However, the Company contends that the claims are groundless. It
pointed out that its historical failure rate since it went into
business in 1917 is less than 1 percent and that it pays claims
within the warranty period.

The plaintiffs' lawyer though, Brian Masternak, argued in a
court filing that the defective tires "impose economic losses on
consumers, cause other property damage to their vehicles, and
create a major inconvenience to recreational travelers." He
adds, "Worse yet, the Carlisle tires at issue also present a
significant safety risk." The company was given until January
31, 2006 to respond to the plaintiffs' request for class action
status.

The suit is styled, "Drooger et al v. Carlisle Companies, Inc.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00073-RAE," filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Michigan, under Senior Judge
Richard Alan Enslen. Representing the Plaintiff/s is, Brian J.
Masternak of Warner Norcross & Judd LLP (Grand Rapids), 900
Fifth Third Ctr., 111 Lyon St., NW Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2487,
Phone: (616) 752-2205, E-mail: bmasternak@wnj.com. Representing
the Defendant/s is Daniel N. Sharkey of Butzel Long (Detroit),
150 W. Jefferson Ave., Ste. 100, Detroit, MI 48226, Phone:
(313) 983-6909, E-mail: sharkey@butzel.com.


DELTA FINANCIAL: Discovery Proceeds in PA FLSA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is continuing in the collective action filed against
Delta Financial Corporation in the United States District Court
of the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging that its
subsidiary, Fidelity Mortgage Inc. (Fidelity), did not pay its
loan officers overtime compensation and/or minimum wage in
violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

The complaint seeks an amount equal to the unpaid wages at the
applicable overtime rate, an amount equal to the minimum wages
at the applicable minimum wage, an equal amount as liquidated
damages, costs and attorneys' fees, leave to add additional
plaintiffs and leave to amend to add claims under applicable
state laws.

The Company filed an answer and discovery has commenced. In
April 2005, the plaintiff filed his motion for conditional class
certification and in May 2005, Fidelity filed its opposition to
that motion. In June 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
and Recommendation, recommending that the plaintiff's motion for
conditional class certification be granted, and that plaintiff's
motion to authorize judicial notice be granted (subject to
revision and final approval by the District Court). In July
2005, Fidelity filed with the District Court its objections to
the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and the
plaintiff filed its opposition to the Company's objections. In
July 2005, the District Court upheld the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation.  Any potential class members who
desired to join the collective action were provided an
opportunity to do so during an "opt-in' period that ended in
October 2005. To date, the Company has received notice that
approximately 200 individuals, virtually all of whom are former
employees, have opted into the collective action.

The suit is styled `PONTIUS v. DELTA FINANCIAL CORP, case no.
2:04-cv-01737-GLL-LPL," filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, under Judge Gary
L. Lancaster.  Representing the Company is Robert W. Pritchard,
Littler Mendelson, 625 Liberty Avenue, 26th Floor, Pittsburgh,
PA 15222, Phone: (412) 201-7628, E-mail: rpritchard@littler.com.  
Representing the plaintiffs are Sarah M. Fleegel, Donald H.
Nichols, Jill M. Novak, Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols, Kaster &
Anderson, PLLP, 4600 IDS Center, 80 S. Eighth St., Minneapolis,
MN 55402, US, Phone: (612) 256-3200, E-mail: fleegel@nka.com,
nichols@nka.com, novak@nka.com, srey@nka.com  


DELTA FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Seek Certification For IL Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the Circuit Court, Third Judicial Circuit in
Madison County, Illinois to grant class certification to two
class actions filed against Delta Financial Corporation.

One alleged that the Company had improperly charged certain
borrowers fax fees, and one alleged that the Company improperly
retained extra per diem interest when loans were satisfied. The
complaints seek certification of a class of plaintiffs,
direction to return fax fees charged to borrowers, and
unspecified compensatory and statutory damages, including
prejudgment and post judgment interest and attorneys' fees,
based upon alleged:

     (1) breach of contract,

     (2) statutory fraud and

     (3) unjust enrichment

In February 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case
pertaining to fax fees claims. The plaintiff was granted leave
to file a motion to amend his complaint in the fax fee case,
which rendered the Company's February 2004 motion to dismiss
moot. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in July 2004 and
the Company filed a new motion to dismiss in August 2004, which
the court denied in January 2005, and the Company has since
filed an answer in that case. In March 2004, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the case pertaining to per diem interest
claims, which the court denied in September 2004.  The Company
has since filed an answer in that case and plaintiffs filed a
motion to dismiss its affirmative defenses, which the Circuit
Court granted, permitting the Company leave to replead the
defenses with more particularity, which we have done. Discovery
has commenced in both cases.  In June 2005, the Company filed
opposition papers to the plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the case pertaining to fax fee claims.


DELTA FINANCIAL: Discovery Continues in NY Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in the class action filed against Delta
Financial Corporation in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, New York County, alleging that the Company had improperly
charged certain borrowers processing fees.  

The complaint sought certification of a class of plaintiffs, an
accounting and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages,
including attorneys' fees, based upon alleged unjust enrichment,
fraud and deceptive trade practices.

In April 1999, the Company filed an answer to the complaint. In
September 1999, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was opposed by the plaintiffs, and in February
2000, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.  In April 1999,
the Company filed a motion to change venue and the plaintiffs
opposed the motion.  In July 1999, the Court denied the motion.  
The Company appealed, and in March 2000, the Appellate Court
granted its appeal to change venue from New York County to
Nassau County.  

In August 1999, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which the Company opposed in July 2000.  In
September 2000, the Appellate Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, from which the Company appealed.  
The Appellate Court denied the Company's appeal in December
2001.  In June 2001, the Company filed a motion for summary
judgment to dismiss the complaint, which was denied by the Court
in October 2001.  The Company appealed that decision, but the
Appellate Court denied its appeal in November 2002.  The Company
filed a motion to reargue in December 2002, which was denied by
the Appellate Court in January 2003.


DELTA FINANCIAL: Objectors Block NY Consumer Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several parties objected to the approval granted to the
settlement of the class action filed against Delta Financial
Corporation in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

In December 1998, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
alleging that the Company had violated the Home Ownership and
Equity Protection Act of 1994, the Truth-in-Lending Act and
Section 349 of the New York State General Business Law, which
relates to consumer protection for deceptive practices. The
complaint sought certification of a class of plaintiffs,
declaratory judgment permitting rescission, unspecified actual,
statutory, treble and punitive damages, including attorneys'
fees, injunctive relief and declaratory judgment declaring the
loan transactions as void and unconscionable.

On December 7, 1998, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking a
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction,
enjoining the Company from conducting foreclosure sales on 11
properties. The District Court Judge ruled that in order to
consider the motion, plaintiff must move to intervene on behalf
of these 11 borrowers. Thereafter, plaintiff moved to intervene
on behalf of three of these 11 borrowers and sought injunctive
relief on their behalf. The Company opposed the motions.

On December 14, 1998, the District Court Judge granted the
motion to intervene and on December 23, 1998, the District Court
Judge issued a preliminary injunction that enjoined the Company
from proceeding with the foreclosure sales of the three
interveners' properties.  The Company filed a motion for
reconsideration of the December 23, 1998 order. In January 1999,
the Company filed an answer to plaintiffs' first amended
complaint. In July 1999, the plaintiffs were granted leave, on
consent, to file a second amended complaint. In August 1999, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that, among other
things, added additional parties but contained the same causes
of action alleged in the first amended complaint.

In September 1999, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was opposed by plaintiffs and, in June 2000,
was denied in part and granted in part by the District Court.  
In October 1999, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking an order
preventing the Company, its attorneys and/or the New York State
Banking Department (NYSBD) from issuing notices to a number of
our borrowers, in accordance with the settlement agreement
entered into by and between the NYSBD and the Company. In the
fourth quarter of 1999, the Company and the NYSBD submitted
opposition to the plaintiffs' motion. In March 2000, the
District Court issued an order that permitted the Company to
issue an approved form of the notice.  In September 1999, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the
Company opposed in February 2000, and which was ultimately
withdrawn without prejudice by the plaintiffs in January 2001.

In February 2002, the Company executed a settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs, under which it denied all wrongdoing, but
agreed to resolve the litigation on a class-wide basis. The
District Court preliminarily approved the settlement and a
fairness hearing was held in May 2002. The Company submitted
supplemental briefing at the Court's request in or about April
2004. In August 2004, the District Court conditionally approved
the settlement, subject to the Company's submitting supplemental
documentation regarding a change in the settlement agreement and
proposed supplemental notices to be sent to those borrowers who
either opted out or objected. The Company, plaintiffs and
certain objectors submitted its respective supplemental
submissions in August 2004 and the District Court granted its
final approval to the settlement in January 2005. In February
2005, certain objectors filed a notice of appeal.  The objectors
filed their appellate brief in July 2005.  The company filed its
appellate papers in opposition in September 2005, and the
objectors filed their reply papers in September 2005.

The suit is styled "Lopez v. Delta Funding Corporation et al.,
case no. 1:98-cv-07204-MDG," filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge Marilyn
D. Go.  Representing the Company are Martin C. Bryce, Ballard
Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP, 1735 Market Street, 51st. Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: (215) 864-8238, Fax:
(215) 864-9511, E-mail: bryce@ballardspahr.com; and Eugene R.
Licker, Loeb & Loeb, 345 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10154, Phone:
212-407-4157, Fax: 646-219-7454, E-mail: elicker@loeb.com.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Karin E. Fisch, Abbey Gardy, LLP,
212 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-889-3700.


DYNABAZAAR INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against DynaBazaar,
Inc. and:

     (1) Scott Randall (former President, Chief Executive
         Officer and Chairman of the Board),

     (2) John Belchers (former Chief Financial Officer),

     (3) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc.,

     (4) Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. and

     (5) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

Several suits were initially filed by individual shareholders
who purport to seek class action status on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons who purchased the Company's common
stock between March 14, 2000 and December 6, 2000.  The lawsuits
allege that certain underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering solicited and received excessive and undisclosed fees
and commissions in connection with that offering.  The lawsuits
further allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a registration statement and
prospectus in connection with the Company's initial public
offering which failed to accurately disclose the amount and
nature of the commissions and fees paid to the underwriter
defendants.

On October 8, 2002, the court entered an Order dismissing the
claims asserted against certain individual defendants in the
consolidated actions, including the claims against Mr. Randall
and Mr. Belchers, without any payment from these individuals or
the Company. On February 19, 2003, the Court entered an Order
dismissing with prejudice the claims asserted against the
Company under Section 10 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended. As a result, the only claims that remain
against the Company are those arising under Section 11 of the
Securities of 1933, as amended.

The Company has entered into an agreement-in-principle to settle
the remaining claims in the litigation. The proposed settlement
will result in a dismissal with prejudice of all claims and will
include a release of all claims that were brought or could have
been brought against the Company and its present and former
directors and officers.  It is anticipated that any payment to
the plaintiff class and their counsel will be funded by the
Company's directors' and officers' liability insurance and that
no direct payment will be made by the Company. The parties have
negotiated and executed a definitive settlement agreement. The
Court has granted preliminary approval of the settlement. A
notice to all class members seeking approval of the settlement
is expected to be sent to them by November 30, 2005. The
settlement remains contingent on a number of significant
conditions and contingencies, including final approval of the
settlement by the plaintiff class and the Court.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


GOLF HOST: FL Court Refuses Appeal of Suit's Summary Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Appeals Court denied plaintiffs' appeal of a lower court
ruling granting summary judgment in favor of Golf Host Resorts,
Inc. and its corporate parent Golf Hosts, Inc. in the lawsuit
filed against it, related to various aspects of an arrangement
the owner/borrower of the resort entered with many of the
persons who own condominium units at the Innisbrook Resort
whereby the condominiums owned by these persons are placed in a
pool and rented as hotel rooms to guests of the arrangement.

Certain of the resort's condominium owners filed the suit over
The he condominium owners/plaintiffs are seeking to resolve
these issues, among others:

     (1) whether every condominium owner who is also a member of
         the Innisbrook Golf and Country Club has the right to
         participate in the lessor's rental pool, so long as
         there is a rental pool, by virtue of defendant's
         alleged marketing promises to all purchasers of
         condominiums at the Resort;

     (2) whether the condominium unit owners were coerced by
         economic pressure and duress to enter into the master
         lease agreement, or guaranteed lease agreement;

     (3) whether the guaranteed lease agreement is invalid by
         reason of such alleged coercion and economic duress
         and, if so, whether the condominium owners who entered
         into the guaranteed lease agreement are entitled to be
         reimbursed for the difference between the amount of
         income that was distributed to them under the
         guaranteed lease agreement and the amount of income
         that would have been distributed to them had they
         remained subject to the master lease agreement;

     (4) whether the unit owners who signed the guaranteed lease
         agreement have the right to return to the master lease
         agreement without penalty, and thereby be entitled to
         be reimbursed for the difference between the income
         that they received under the guaranteed lease agreement
         and the income they would have received under the
         master lease agreement; and

     (5) whether the defendant breached its contract with the
         unit owners by allowing members of the public upon the
         golf courses, thereby adversely affecting the "private
         golf course" concept of Innisbrook;

Deposition of class members and others, including depositions of
prior executives of Golf Host Resorts, Inc. have been taken and
additional discovery remains to be undertaken.  The previously
scheduled trial date of February 3, 2003 was postponed by the
Court and a new trial date has not yet been set.

In July 2003, the judge in the litigation against Golf Host
Resorts, Inc. reversed an earlier ruling and held that the case
could not proceed as a class action.  The judge also ruled that
the plaintiffs could not seek recovery from the individuals that
hold stock in Golf Host Resorts, Inc. and its affiliates
(rejecting plaintiffs' attempt to "pierce the corporate veil").

In October 2003, the judge ruled that the claims of the former
members of the class who were not named as plaintiffs in the
lawsuit were barred by the statute of limitations.  These
rulings leave approximately 80 individual plaintiffs in the
lawsuit.  Plaintiffs have appealed each of these rulings to the
court of appeals.  The court of appeals summarily affirmed the
lower court's ruling that the case could not proceed as a class
action and has affirmed the lower court's dismissal with
prejudice of the veil piercing case.  On June 15, 2004, counsel
for GHR reargued the motion for summary judgment to summarily
dismiss the claims of the remaining 80 individual Plaintiffs.  
On July 29, 2004, the court entered an order granting the
defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs filed an
appeal of this ruling on October 26, 2004.  Briefing has been
completed in the appeal from the court's final judgment granting
the Company's motion for summary judgment.  Argument before the
appellate court was held on September 21, 2005.  The court later
denied the plaintiffs' appeal.


HARVARD MEDICAL: MA Court Dismisses Civil Suit V. Donor Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court in Boston, Massachusetts dismissed a civil
lawsuit against a Harvard Medical School donor program, which
used the Bayview Crematory in Seabrook, The Hampton Union
reports.

Judge Reginald C. Lindsay granted Harvard's motion to dismiss on
December 19, 2005, court records show. However, the court denied
motions to dismiss by Bayview and Linda Stokes, owner of the
crematory property.

The civil suit was brought by Gloucester, resident Geraldine
Favaloro. The body of Ms. Favaloro's mother, Betty Frontiero,
was given to Harvard's Anatomical Gifts Program after her
February 2004 death. Her body was cremated nine months later at
Bayview, according to court records. Ms. Favaloro alleged that
Harvard failed to uphold promises it made to donors on the
disposition of remains.

The Bayview Crematory has been the subject of an investigation
by New Hampshire since February 23, when state troopers found
the partially decomposed body of a woman in a non-air-
conditioned room at the Seabrook business. The troopers also
found the remains of two people in the crematorium's oven and a
trash bin located in the rear of the building overflowing with
medical waste. After these discoveries, the crematorium was shut
down and an investigation ensued, which has led to charges
against two assistant medical examiners alleging that they took
money from crematoriums without overseeing the process, as the
law requires, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (May 17,
2005) reports.

The motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of the President and
Fellows of Harvard College, whose attorneys argued that the
donor program extends immunity to the school for good faith
conduct and that Ms. Favaloro did not allege the school acted in
bad faith.

When the lawsuit was first filed in July, Harvard Medical School
issued a statement saying it was concerned by published reports
about alleged practices at Bayview Crematory. In addition, it
also stated the school did not contract directly with Bayview
and that "the school remains committed to proper handling of
anatomical gifts."

Ms. Favaloro sought class action status to representing other
families whose loved ones were given to the Harvard donor
program and then turned over to Bayview. Her lawsuit is similar
to class action suits in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine,
filed on behalf of families who claim Bayview mishandled their
loved ones remains.

Paul Anzalone of Mansfield along with 35 other plaintiffs filed
the Massachusetts case in Essex County Superior Court. Named as
defendants in the suit were Ms. Stokes and 11 funeral homes in
Boston, Lawrence, Haverhill, Quincy, Dracut, Brighton and
Newburyport. Mr. David H. Charlip, a lawyer from Hollywood,
Florida, represent the plaintiffs, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (May 17, 2005) reports.

Lorraine Hunt brought the New Hampshire case in what was the
first federal complaint filed since the crematorium was shut
down by authorities. Ms. Hunt, who alleges that her father's
remains, one Robert Lowe Cashman, were mishandled, filed the
complaint in U.S. District Court. Her suit bares a striking
resemblance to recent complaints in state courts that seek
certification as class action complaints on behalf of customers
of funeral homes that contracted with the crematorium. The suit,
which seeks damages for negligence, intentional emotional
distress and other alleged breaches of trust, alleges that
Bayview Crematory "commingled bodies while they were cremated,
failed to keep accurate records of the bodies" and either failed
to return remains to families or returned them in urns mixed
with the ashes from other bodies, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (June 6, 2005) reports.

The Maine case was brought on behalf of Jill Stinchcomb, her
sister, Jeri Painten, and three other families, who seek money
for negligence and emotional distress from the crematorium's
owners, Linda and Larry Stokes its former owner, Ms. Stokes' son
Derek Wallace and several funeral homes and directors. It was
filed in Cumberland County Superior Court in Portland, Maine and
is similar to another class action suit filed on behalf of 36
Massachusetts families by the same Florida-based lawyer, David
Charlip, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (June 10, 2005)
reports.

Since Bayview closed, operator Derek Wallace, of Salisbury,
Massachusetts, lost his funeral director's license and both of
his Massachusetts funeral homes, Simplicity Burial & Cremation
Services in Salisbury and the Hart-Wallace Funeral Home in
Lawrence. Mr. Wallace's mother, Linda Stokes, named in Ms.
Favaloro's lawsuit, also sought to dismiss the case. The motion
was denied.

The suit is styled, "Favaloro v. President and Fellows of
Harvard College et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-11594-RCL," filed in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, under Judge Reginald C. Lindsay. Representing the
Plaintiff/s are, David H. Charlip of The Charlip Law Group, LC,
1930 Harrison St., Suit 208, Hollywood, FL 33020, Phone: 954-
921-2131, Fax: 954-921-2191; and Lisa DeBrosse Johnson of The
Pilot House, Lewis Wharf, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-854-3740,
Fax: 617-854-3743, E-mail: DeBrosseJohnson@comcast.net.
Representing the Defendant/s are:

     (1) Dona Feeney of Getman, Stacey, Tamposi, Schulthess &
         Steere, Three Executive Park Drive--Suite 9, Bedford,
         NH 03110, Phone: 603-634-4300, Fax: 603-626-3647, E-
         mail: dfeeney@gstss.com;

     (2) Edward P. Leibensperger and Melissa L. Nott of
         McDermott, Will & Emery, LLP, 28 State St., Boston, MA
         02109-1775, Phone: 617-535-4046 and 617-535-4189, Fax:
         617-535-3800, E-mail: eleibensperger@mwe.com and
         mnott@mwe.com;

     (3) Douglas A. Robertson of Martin, Magnuson, McCarthy and
         Kenney, 101 Merrimac St., Boston, MA 02114, Phone:
         617/227-3240, Fax: 617-227-3346, E-mail:
         drobertson@mmmk.com; and

     (4) William P. Smith of Haverty & Feeney, 54 Samoset St.,
         Plymouth, MA 02360, Phone: 508-746-6100, Fax: 508-746-
         7067, E-mail: wsmith@havertyfeeney.com.


INTERNATIONAL TRUCK: Recalls 1,918 Buses Due to Injury Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
International Truck & Engine Corporation in cooperation with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 1,918
units of 2007 IC / BE and 2005-2007 IC / CE school and transit
buses due to injury hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V561000.

According to the ODI, certain buses manufactured between
February 10, 2004, and December 15, 2005 have passenger coat
strings or carry on items that can get caught between the door
control bracket and the door control arm as the passenger exits
the bus. If the driver is unaware of the situation, the entrance
door may be closed, capturing the item in the door. Death or
injury could occur to the person exiting the bus.

As a remedy, IC will notify its owners and repair all the buses
free of charge. The recall is expected to begin on February 15,
2006.

For more details, contact IC, Phone: 800-448-7825 OR the NHTSA
Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web site:
http://www.safecar.gov.


LIQUID AUDIO: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval for the consolidated
securities class action filed against Liquid Audio, Inc.,
certain of its former officers and directors, and various of the
underwriters in its initial public offering ("IPO") and
secondary offering, styled "IN RE LIQUID AUDIO, INC. INITIAL
PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, CV-6611."

The consolidated amended complaint generally alleges that
various investment bank underwriters engaged in improper and
undisclosed activities related to the allocation of shares in
our IPO and secondary offering of securities.  The plaintiffs
brought claims for violation of several provisions of the
federal securities laws against those underwriters, and also
against the Company and certain of its former directors and
officers, seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of our common stock between July 8, 1999 and
December 6, 2000.

Various plaintiffs filed similar actions asserting virtually
identical allegations against more than 40 investment banks and
250 other companies.  All of these "IPO allocation" Securities
class actions currently pending in the Southern District of New
York are assigned to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin for coordinated
pretrial proceedings as in re Liquid Audio, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92.  The issuer defendants
in the coordinated proceedings, including the Company, filed
omnibus motions to dismiss the actions. In October 2002, the
Company's directors and officers were dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to a tolling agreement. In February 2003, the
court issued a ruling denying the motion to dismiss with respect
to the claims against the Company.

In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement, for the release of
claims against the issuer defendants, including the Company, in
exchange for a contingent payment to be made by the issuer
defendants' insurance carriers and an assignment of certain
claims, was submitted to the Court for approval.  The settlement
is subject to a number of conditions, including approval of the
Court. On February 15, 2005, the Court granted a conditional
preliminary approval of the stipulation of settlement.  On
August 31, 2005, the Court granted a preliminary approval of the
stipulation of settlement. The settlement is subject to a number
of conditions, including final approval of the Court.

The suit is styled "IN RE LIQUID AUDIO, INC. INITIAL PUBLIC
OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, CV-6611," filed in relation to
"IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master
File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


LOUISIANA: Three Companies Agree to Settle "Junk Faxes" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three companies will spend more than $2 million to settle claims
they illegally blasted Louisiana businesses with junk faxes.

They are among more than a dozen targets of class action
lawsuits in Baton Rouge federal court and two-dozen others in
East Baton Rouge and West Baton Rouge parishes, alleging that
they broke federal and state bans on such unsolicited
advertisements. The settlements come after they unsuccessfully
tried to argue those laws violate the First Amendment by
regulating commercial speech. U.S. District Judge James Brady
rejected that argument in August 2004, refusing to dismiss the
cases.

Baton Rouge lawyer Philip Bohrer, who filed the cases told
2theadvocate.com, "This is important to everyone because the
transmission and receipt of unsolicited faxes are costly to the
recipients. They tie up phone lines and fax lines, use toner and
paper and require labor overhead costs that makes those
businesses -- and all recipients -- less productive."

Details of settlements that have been made public in Baton Rouge
federal court in recent months include:

     (1) Kappa Publishing Group will pay $1.5 million. The
         13,500 potential class members will get $75 in cash and
         a coupon for half off a one-year subscription to a
         company magazine. Those payouts come after the lawyers
         get $560,000 in fees and expenses and another $65,000
         goes to pay settlement administrative expenses. The
         company's lawyer, Dan West of Baton Rouge, declined
         to comment. The suit is styled, Accounting Outsource v.
         Kappa Publishing Grp, et al., Case No. 3:03-cv-00169-
         JJB-DLD," filed in the United States District Court for
         Middle District of Louisiana, under Judge James J.
         Brady with referral to Judge Docia L. Dalby.

     (2) Monroe Systems for Business Inc. will set aside a
         settlement fund of $510,985 for the 630 potential class
         members -- $220,000 of it for cash awards; the rest to
         fund $95 coupons for calculators it sells. Lawyers
         stand to get as much as $75,000 in fees, plus expenses.
         The suit is styled, "Accounting Outsource v. Monroe
         Systems for Business Inc., Case No. 3:03-cv-00755-JJB-
         DLD," filed in the United States District Court for
         Middle District of Louisiana, under Judge James J.
         Brady with referral to Judge Docia L. Dalby.

     (3) Satellink Paging will pay $75,000 to fund awards
         ranging from $70 to $500, depending on how many of the
         630 potential class members file claims. Lawyers will
         get $25,000 of that in fees. The company's lawyer, Alex
         Peragine of Covington, declined to comment. The suit is
         styled, "Dominion Motor Cars v. Satellink Paging LLC,
         et al., Case No. 3:03-cv-00173-JJB-DLD," filed in the
         United States District Court for Middle District of
         Louisiana, under Judge James J. Brady with referral to
         Judge Docia L. Dalby.

A fourth company, Rawlings Insurance Services scheduled a
settlement conference for January 2006, before U.S. Magistrate
Docia Dalby. Neither of its lawyers, Susan Daigle nor Jean
Billeaud of Lafayette, was available for comment.

Another Baton Rouge lawyer defending several junk fax cases,
Connell Archey, also declined to comment, saying that he doesn't
want to "sour ongoing settlement negotiations" or "trample" on
the terms of any agreements.

At issue in the federal cases is the decade-old Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA, a federal law that at the time
prohibited advertisers from sending unsolicited faxes unless the
sender had prior permission. That law imposed fines of $500 to
$1,500 per violation.

The lawsuits liken the faxes, which were promising everything
from cheap trips to Disney World to specials on wireless
telephone service, to a postman delivering junk mail with
postage due. They cite the cost of toner and paper, plus wear
and tear on fax machines that count against maintenance
agreements.

The Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, which Congress passed in
January after most of the Louisiana lawsuits were filed, eased
the law by permitting the faxing of advertisements to recipients
with whom the sender has an established business relationship.
This fall, however, California legislators passed a statute
overriding that exception, but a federal judge barred the law
from taking effect on January 1, 2006.

Although the TCPA was enacted in 1991, it virtually was ignored
until four years later. That's when the courts found in favor of
a Georgia lawyer who sued Hooters after the restaurant faxed him
a lunch coupon. The award: nearly $12 million to 1,093
plaintiffs.

The first Louisiana class action lawsuit was filed in the spring
of 2003. Both U.S. Attorney David Dugas and the Louisiana
Attorney General Charles Foti filed briefs in the case, urging
Judge Brady to uphold the constitutionality of the federal and
state laws. Despite the settlements, several federal cases are
still pending in Baton Rouge against Clear Channel
Communications, Verizon Wireless and other corporations, while
others have been dismissed by mutual agreement.

In a February 2004 memorandum filed in Baton Rouge federal
court, lawyers Brett Furr and Brandon Black argue the that
lawsuits should be dismissed in part because Congress and the
Louisiana Legislature intended the issue to be settled in small-
claims court and not as class actions. Citing one Texas case,
the lawyers write that the court "succinctly summarized the
general distaste of the federal judiciary for attempts to use a
simple consumer protection statute as a get-rich-quick scheme
for 'enterprising attorneys.'"


MAGMA DESIGN: Continues To Face Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magma Design Automation, Inc. continues to face a shareholder
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, styled "The Cornelia I. Crowell
GST Trust vs. Magma Design Automation, Inc., Rajeev Madhavan,
Gregory C. Walker and Roy E. Jewell., case No. C 05 02394."

The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose
information regarding the risk of the Company infringing
intellectual property rights of Synopsys, Inc., in violation of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder, and prays for unspecified damages.

The Company is currently unable to assess the possible range or
extent of damages and/or other relief, if any, that could be
awarded to the shareholder class, so no contingent liability has
been recorded on the Company's condensed consolidated balance
sheet as of July 3, 2005.


MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: SEC Lodges Suit in DC V. Company Executive
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed civil insider
trading charges against Gregory N. Champe, an executive of
Martek Biosciences Corporation, a publicly traded company
headquartered in Columbia, Maryland.

The SEC's Complaint, which was filed with the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that after
the close of the market on April 27, 2005, Martek announced
publicly that it expected revenues for the next two quarters to
be significantly lower than previously forecast. The closing
price of Martek's common stock plummeted on this news from $60
per share on April 27 to $32.50 on April 28, 2005, a one-day
stock drop of 46 percent. According to the Complaint, Mr. Champe
sold 2,600 shares of Martek common stock on April 26 -- the day
before the negative news announcement -- on the basis of
material, nonpublic information concerning the company's revenue
forecast, thereby avoiding a loss of $71,552.

Without admitting or denying the allegations of the Complaint,
Champe consented to a final judgment permanently enjoining him
from violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and ordering that he pay $54,825 in
disgorgement. The proposed final judgment does not impose any
additional monetary sanctions based upon Mr. Champe's
demonstrated inability to pay. The action is styled, SEC v.
Gregory N. Champe, Case No. 1:05CV02445 (Friedman, J.) D.D.C]
(LR-19514).


MARYLAND: Settles Suit V. Transit Service, Makes Improvements
-------------------------------------------------------------
State officials say that a new agreement to improve transit
service for disabled riders will allow Maryland to have the best
such service in the country, TheWBALChannel.com reports.

The settlement, which was revealed just recently, ends a class
action lawsuit filed on behalf of disabled people who ride the
Maryland Transit Administration's Mobility vans and buses. The
federal class action lawsuit was triggered by accumulated
complaints against the Maryland Transit Administration's
ParaTransit program that were made by disabled people left
stranded for hours as well as dialysis patients late for life-
saving appointments. The suit, which was filed way back in
October 2003, called for a federal court to force the MTA to
make changes in 30 days (from the suit's filing).

"They treat you as if you're not even a human being, and they
act like they've done you a great favor to pick you up. You
would think they weren't getting paid to do a job," ParaTransit
rider Genevieve Jones told TheWBALChannel.com in October 2003.
Attorney Andrew Levy, one of the legal representatives for the
riders previously told TheWBALChannel.com, "This ParaTransit
system is an open sore that has existed for years."

Secretary of Transportation Robert Flanagan though previously
pointed out that the system has made improvements. He told
TheWBALChannel.com, "It is very important to us that we improve
that service and we're working very hard on that and we have
spent an awful lot of time and effort and resources since taking
office directed to that."

State transportation officials told TheWBALChannel.com recently
that the improvements already in place have increased the
service's on-time rate from 76 percent to 90 percent.

The suit is styled, "Smith et al. v. Flanagan et al., Case No.
1:03-cv-02895-BEL," filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Maryland, under Judge Benson
Everett Legg. Representing the Plaintiff/s is Andrew D. Levy of
Brown Goldstein and Levy, LLP, 120 E Baltimore St., Ste. 1700,
Baltimore, MD 21202-6701, Phone: 14109621030, Fax: 14103850869,
E-mail: adl@browngold.com. Representing the Defendant/s are:

     (1) John Charles Bell of Maryland Office of the Attorney
         General, Department of Transportation, 7201 Corporate
         Dr., P.O. Box 548, Hanover, MD 21076, Phone:
         4108651110, Fax: 4108651238, E-mail:
         jbell@mdot.state.md.us;

     (2) Michael D Berman of State of Maryland Office of the
         Attorney General, 200 Saint Paul Pl., Baltimore, MD
         21202-2021, Phone: 14105766345, Fax: 14105766955, E-
         mail: mberman@oag.state.md.us; and

     (3) William F Brockman of Office of the Attorney General,
         200 Saint Paul Pl., 20th Fl., Baltimore, MD 21202,
         Phone: 14105767055, Fax: 14105766955, E-mail:
         wbrockman@oag.state.md.us.


MICHIGAN: Detroit NPR Listeners File Suit V. Programming Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------
A National Public Radio fan in Detroit, Michigan launched a
class action lawsuit in Wayne County Circuit Court charging that
the city's NPR station with fraud for recently made programming
changes, The Chicago Tribune reports.

The fury in Detroit over program changes at WDET-FM has
listeners claiming that they were tricked into contributing
money to the station during a pledge drive while station
operators were secretly planning to junk locally produced
programming and replace it with national talk and public affairs
shows.

Kevin Ernst, the lawyer representing a group of listeners, told
The Chicago Tribune, "This is a public radio station, and their
decision just completely disregarded the public and the
community that is loyal to the station and financially supports
it. People contributed for those local programs, not national
programs."

Mr. Ernst also told The Chicago Tribune that the listeners want
the return of the eclectic, daytime music programs the station
canceled as of December 13, 2005. And if they can't get that,
they want the money they gave in the fall pledge drive, adding,
"This is outright fraud."

Louis Lessem, vice president and general counsel at Wayne State
University, which owns WDET, told The Chicago Tribune that he
has "no interest in litigating this in the press. ... We're
sorry the plaintiffs choose to do that." He adds, "We understand
the disappointment of the listenership, but we do not believe it
(the lawsuit) has any merit and we will fully litigate it."

The program change at WDET that eliminated music from the
daytime hours received mixed reviews, with supporters of local
music upset and the audience for news programming supportive.
The lawsuit comes at a time of change at many NPR stations,
where formats are being altered in hopes of building on a
growing national audience of more than 27 million listeners
weekly, according to Arbitron. More often than not, music has
given way to national talk and public affairs programs from NPR
and the BBC. For instance, classical music at Washington,
D.C.'s, WETA-FM was replaced earlier this year in favor of news
and public affairs shows.

Critics of the switch in Detroit complain the move away from
locally produced music and programming embraces "the same
cookie-cutter format" that can be found at many NPR stations,
including the public radio station in Ann Arbor, about 40 miles
to the west. However, according to a recent survey from Station
Resource Group, of Takoma Park, Maryland, public radio stations
that are heavily news-oriented have enjoyed the greatest
audience gains in recent years.

Commercial radio stations change formats and frequently anger
some listeners, but these stations are supported by advertising
dollars. Most public broadcasters have steadily increased their
financial reliance on listeners and corporate sponsors. That has
made the controversy at WDET potentially more troublesome as the
station charts its future, since about 90 percent of the
station's annual budget comes from its listeners. The station
finished its fiscal year, on September 30, with a $300,000
deficit, and the fall pledge drive in October fell $100,000
short of its goal.

Though Michael Coleman, WDET's general manager, referred all
questions about the suit to lawyers, he did make a plea for
understanding in an open letter to listeners on the station's
Web site. Mr. Coleman said, "Regardless of how you feel, know
that these decisions were painstakingly difficult. The rationale
for the changes were very straightforward - to save and
strengthen this important public radio service."

Supporters of the lawsuit say that they are planning protests
against the station and Wayne State University during the
upcoming Detroit Auto Show and the Super Bowl, which will be
held in Detroit on February 5, 2006.


MOSSIMO INC.: Reaches MOU To Settle Investor Fraud Lawsuit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mossimo, Inc. faces a consolidated shareholder class action
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, styled
"In re Mossimo, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated Civil
Action No.1246-N."

On April 12, 2005, Mossimo Giannulli offered to acquire all of
the outstanding publicly held common stock of the Company at a
price of $4.00 per share.  Since then, six purported class
action lawsuits were filed, asserting that the Directors have
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders,
and seeks an injunction preventing the acquisition.  On May 27,
2005, the above referenced cases were consolidated.

The Company and its Board of Directors intend to defend the
lawsuits.  On April 19, 2005, the Board of Directors appointed a
Special Committee to consider and evaluate Mr. Giannulli's
proposal.  The Special Committee retained Houlihan Lokey and
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher to serve as the Committee's independent
financial advisor and legal counsel, respectively, with respect
to the Committee's evaluation of Mr. Giannulli's proposal.  

On October 10, 2005, the Company and other defendants entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to settle the suit.  
Under the terms of the MOU, Mr. Giannulli agreed that his
proposal to acquire all of the Company's outstanding shares
would be priced at $5.00 per share and that the tender offer
pursuant to which the acquisition is proposed to be consummated
would be conditioned upon no less than 50 percent of all public
stockholders of the Company unaffiliated with Mr. Giannulli
accepting or approving the tender offer.  The MOU further
provided that plaintiffs' lead counsel will be afforded the
opportunity to comment on and suggest inclusions to the
disclosures made to the Company's public stockholders in
conjunction with the acquisition.  In addition, the Company
agreed to negotiate in good faith with the plaintiffs' lead
counsel concerning the amount of attorney fees and expenses to
be paid, subject to Delaware Chancery Court approval.

The Company has agreed to pay whatever fee and expense amount
the Delaware Chancery Court may award to plaintiffs' lead
counsel.  In consideration of these terms, the parties will
fully and finally release and discharge all claims against each
other.  The settlement is conditioned the consummation of the
acquisition by Mr. Giannulli, the negotiation of a definitive
stipulation of settlement and the entry of a Final Order and
Judgment approving the settlement by the Delaware Chancery
Court.

On November 12, 2005, Mr. Giannulli terminated his proposal to
acquire the outstanding shares of the Company that he does not
already own after the Company's special committee withdrew its
recommendation of the proposal.  The parties have not proceeded
with the further negotiations required to finalize the
settlement.


NATURE'S TREAT: U.S. Attorneys File Suit V. Ephedra Products
------------------------------------------------------------
At the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Texas and
the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Oregon filed
Complaints for Forfeiture against Nature's Treat Energy Plus #1,
a dietary supplement that contains ephedra, an herbal source of
ephedrine alkaloids. The supplement is distributed by Nature's
Treat, Inc., Gainesville, Texas and ACD Distributing, LLC, of
Eugene, Oregon.

"FDA will do all we can to protect Americans from potentially
dangerous dietary supplements," said Andrew von Eschenbach, MD,
Acting FDA Commissioner. "We will continue to warn consumers to
avoid consumption of dietary supplements containing ephedrine
alkaloids."

Ephedrine alkaloids are adrenaline-like stimulants that can have
potentially dangerous effects on the heart. Recent studies have
confirmed that ephedrine alkaloids raise blood pressure and
otherwise stress the circulatory system, effects that are linked
to adverse health effects like heart attacks and strokes. Based
on this and other evidence in the scientific literature, FDA
issued a rule in 2004 declaring that dietary supplements
containing ephedrine alkaloids present an unreasonable risk of
illness or injury. According to the product's label, the
recommended daily dose of Energy Plus #1 contains 46.8 mg of
ephedrine alkaloids.

U.S. Marshals seized 2634 bottles (120 capsules per bottle) of
Nature's Treat Energy Plus #1 (lot numbers 205108 and 205109)
from Nature's Treat, Inc., Gainesville, Texas. Also seized were
363 bottles of the same lot numbers from ACD Distributing. The
seized products have a total retail value of approximately
$150,000.


PENNSYLVANIA: Unions' Recruitment Tactics Trigger Federal Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Pennsylvania workers launched a lawsuit against two
unions over what it says are overly aggressive recruiting
tactics, The United Press International reports.

According to a report by The Wall Street Journal, Unite Here and
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters have noted license
plate numbers of workers at a Cintas Corporation factory in
Emmaus and sent organizers to their homes. Workers in the
lawsuit allege that their rights had been violated under the
federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA), a law
that prohibits the disclosure and use of personal information
obtained through motor vehicle records, with a limited number of
exceptions, including use by courts or law-enforcement agencies.

Last June 2005, Judge Stewart Dalzell granted class action
status to the case, Pichler v. UNITE (Union of Needletrades,
Industrial & Textile Employees AFL-CIO), stating that any worker
whose license plate let the union to obtain personal information
from motor vehicle records between July 1, 2002, and August 2,
2004, could stand to receive $2,500 in damages for each time the
union used it to make home visits or mail materials, for
example. About 1,000 workers are expected to be part of the
plaintiff class.

In the judge's 74-page opinion, which could very well change the
way some union organizers do business, the federal judge
rejected a defense argument that since the DPPA requires proof
of "actual damages," the workers should not be allowed to
proceed as a class. Instead, Judge Dalzell concluded that the
DPPA contains no such requirement of actual damages and that "a
plaintiff may recover liquidated damages of $2,500 under the
DPPA even if she fails to prove actual damages." Thus, he found
that all of the workers whose license plates were used by UNITE
to obtain personal information share common legal issues that
are properly handled in a class action, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (June 9, 2005) reports.

The DPPA was passed in 1994 after the murder of actress Rebecca
Schaeffer by a stalker who obtained her address from the
California Department of Motor Vehicles. Upheld by the U.S.
Supreme Court in 2000, the law prohibits state officials from
sharing the personal information they collect when administering
driver's licenses unless they obtain a person's "express
consent" to do so. Additionally, the law also mandates that
states keep the information private in most circumstances. Now
key sections of the law, specifically those that prohibit anyone
from using motor vehicle records to obtain personal information,
are proving to be an agent for change in the ongoing battles
between industry and union organizers, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (June 9, 2005) reports.

Testimony in the Pichler case shows that until the lawsuit was
filed, it was a common practice for some union organizers to use
license plates in company parking lots to gather the home
addresses of workers. Union organizers testified that employees
often wouldn't speak with them on the company's premises because
they fear that management will retaliate against any employees
who consort with the union, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (June 9, 2005) reports.

In a prior opinion, Judge Dalzell rejected the argument that
union organizers should be exempted from the DPPA because it
conflicts with their rights under the National Labor Relations
Act. In that previous ruling, the judge concluded that the
National Labor Relations Board "has no jurisdiction -- exclusive
or otherwise -- over the plaintiffs' DPPA claim because Congress
has not authorized it to enforce that statute," an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (June 9, 2005) reports.

Attorneys for the union argued that courts have long approved of
unions' using information from motor vehicle records to contact
employees during organizing campaigns. Judge Dalzell though also
rejected the argument, pointing out that the union was in effect
arguing that since the DPPA's legislative history never mentions
the law's potential effects on this practice, the courts should
infer that Congress intended not to prohibit it. He further
pointed out, "We may well agree that Congress probably did not
consider carefully the effect that the DPPA would have on union
organizing. But it is quite another matter to use such
speculation as a basis upon which to infer that Congress
affirmatively intended for the unions' alleged conduct to be
exempt from the DPPA," an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(June 9, 2005) reports.

Court papers indicate that UNITE has set its sights on
unionizing employees of Cintas Corporation, a manufacturer of
corporate uniforms, restroom supplies, and first aid and safety
products, which operates 351 facilities that employ more than
28,000 people in the United States and Canada. Since the fall of
2002, UNITE has waged a campaign to educate Cintas employees
about how to protect their rights under federal and state law,
an earlier Class Action Reporter story (June 9, 2005) reports.

In court papers, the union claims it was concerned with what it
characterizes as Cintas's low wages, poor benefits, unsafe
working conditions, discriminatory practices, and violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family Medical Leave Act and
workers' compensation laws. UNITE officials testified that it
was critically important to them that the Cintas campaign
succeed because they believed Cintas's practices were holding
down labor standards throughout the laundry industry, one of
UNITE's key businesses. In his opinion, Judge Dalzell outlined
UNITE's efforts to compile a list of Cintas employees' home
addresses, including the use of motor vehicle records, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (June 9, 2005) reports.

When the Judge Dalzell opinion was issued, UNITE organizers
started recording the license plate numbers of the vehicles
parked in the lot at the Cintas's plant in Emmaus and then gave
the numbers to a private investigator who, in turn, hired
Pennsylvania Auto License Brokers to access home addresses from
state databases. However, when UNITE began visiting Cintas
workers at their homes, the plan backfired. Some workers
complained to management, and the company hired lawyers from
Spector Gadon & Rosen to investigate whether the workers'
privacy rights had been violated, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (June 9, 2005) reports.

The eventual suit that followed the law firm's investigation is
the one that Judge Dalzell certified as a class action. He had
granted the class certification after finding that the DPPA was
designed to provide liquidated damages to any plaintiff whose
personal information was improperly obtained through motor
vehicle records. Defense lawyers though argued that the wording
of the statute shows that a defendant is liable only if the
violation was committed with knowledge of its illegality, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (June 9, 2005) reports.

However, Judge Dalzell disagreed, contending that such a ruling
would mean that "every defendant would get at least one free
bite at the violation-of-privacy apple." "After all," Judge
Dalzell further stated, "anyone could claim that he did not
'know' his purpose to be impermissible until a court interpreted
the DPPA to proscribe that purpose." The defense lawyers, Judge
Dalzell adds, "have not provided any evidence that Congress
intended such a strange result," an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (June 9, 2005) reports.

In a ruling that defined the reach of the law, Judge Dalzell
wrote: "We hold that, to be eligible to recover under the DPPA,
a plaintiff must prove that the defendant knowingly obtained,
disclosed, or used personal information from her motor vehicle
records and the purpose of such obtaining, disclosure, or use
was not permissible. The plaintiff need not show that the
defendant knew that the obtaining, disclosure, or use was
impermissible," an earlier Class Action Reporter story (June 9,
2005) reports.

The suit is styled, Pichler v. UNITE (E.D. Pa., 339 F.Supp.2d
665), filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, under Judge Stewart Dalzell. Attorneys
Paul R. Rosen, Beth Lincow Cole, James Bucci, David B. Picker
and Bruce Bellingham of Spector Gadon & Rosen represent the
plaintiffs. UNITE is represented by attorneys Thomas M. Kennedy,
Dennis Torreggiani and Susan M. Jennik of Kennedy Schwartz &
Cure in New York, and Laurence M. Goodman and Mark Featherman of
Willig Williams & Davidson in Philadelphia.


PIP/USA INC.: Trial in Unfair Trade Suit Set March 2006 in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial for the class action filed against PIP/USA, Inc. in the
District Court of Harris County, Texas, styled "Marsha Dicken,
et al. v. PIP/USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 2003-05588," is set
for March 2006.

Plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of themselves and an alleged
class of persons allegedly similarly situated for alleged strict
liability, breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranties, violation of Section 402B of the Restatement
(Second) of Torts, negligence, misrepresentations, and violation
of Texas' Deceptive Trade Practices Act with respect to implant
products.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount in alleged
compensatory damages, additional statutory damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.  

The lawsuit is in the discovery phase and no hearing has been
held, or order entered, concerning class certification.  The
Company's distributor has filed motions seeking to dismiss
certain claims in a summary judgment proceeding.  The court has
specified that a trial date will be set shortly after the
pretrial conference.

The Plaintiffs have since given up the class action allegations
of the petition and the Court entered an Order on August 10,
2005, striking eighteen plaintiffs from the lawsuit. The lawsuit
is in the discovery phase and the trial is scheduled for March
of 2006.  The Company's distributor, PIP America, has settled
the lawsuit against it. PIP America had, prior to settling,
tendered this case to Poly Implant Prostheses, S.A., for defense
and indemnity.


SELECT MEDICAL: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in PA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs file amended securities class action against Select
Medical Corporation in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The suit also names as
defendants:

     (1) Martin Jackson,

     (2) Robert A. Ortenzio,

     (3) Rocco A. Ortenzio,

     (4) Patricia Rice

On August 24, 2004, Clifford C. Marsden and Ming Xu filed the
suit on behalf of the public stockholders of the Company,
alleging, among other things, failure to disclose adverse
information regarding a potential regulatory change affecting
reimbursement for the Company's services applicable to long-term
acute care hospitals operated as "hospitals within hospitals" or
as "satellites," and the issuance of false and misleading
statements about the financial outlook of the Company.  The
complaint seeks, among other things, damages in an unspecified
amount, interest and attorney's fees.

In February 2005, the Court appointed James Shaver,
Frank C. Bagatta and Capital Invest, die
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft der Bank Austria Creditanstalt
Gruppe GmbH as lead plaintiffs.  On April 19, 2005, Lead
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of
a class of Company shareholders against Martin F. Jackson,
Robert A. Ortenzio, Rocco A. Ortenzio, Patricia A. Rice, and the
Company as defendants.

The amended complaint continues to allege, among other things,
failure to disclose adverse information regarding a potential
regulatory change affecting reimbursement for the Company's
services applicable to long-term acute care hospitals operated
as hospitals within hospitals, and the issuance of false and
misleading statements about the financial outlook of the
Company. The amended complaint seeks, among other things,
damages in an unspecified amount, interest and attorneys' fees.
This litigation is in its pre-answer motion phase.

The suit is styled "MARSDEN et al v. SELECT MEDICAL CORP. et
al., case no. 2:04-cv-04020-JCJ," filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under
Judge J. Curtis Joyner.  Representing the plaintiffs are Sanford
P. Dumain, Lori G. Feldman, Shannon L. Hopkins, Peter E.
Seidman, MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN LLP, One Pennsylvania
Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-594-5300, E-mail:
sdumain@milbergweiss.com, lfeldman@milbergweiss.com,
shopkins@milbergweiss.com; and Eric L. Young, KENNEY LENNON &
EGAN, 3031 Walton Road, Building C, Suite 202, Plymouth PA
19462, Phone: 215-260-5493, E-mail: eyoung@kle-law.com.  
Representing the Company are David M. Howard, DECHERT LLP, Cira
Centre, 2929 Arch St. Philadelphia, PA 19104-2857,
Phone: 215-994-4000, E-mail: david.howard@dechert.com; and
Michael L. Kichline, Stuart T. Steinberg, DECHERT, PRICE &
RHOADS, 1717 Arch Street, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower,
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793, phone: 215-994-2749, Fax:
215-994-2222, E-mail: michael.kichline@dechert.com or
stuart.steinberg@dechert.com.


STATE FARM: OH Consumers Commence Suits Over Salvaged Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angry Ohio consumers commenced lawsuits in Cleveland, Columbus,
Dayton, Toledo, Celina, Napoleon and Ottawa, in the last few
weeks, against State Farm Insurance Company and local car
dealers claiming they were not told the truth about salvage cars
that they were selling and which the insurance company totaled
out and then resold, reported Dayton Ohio attorney Ronald
Burdge.

The lawsuits claim State Farm illegally resold more than 30,000
totaled cars in violation of state laws nationwide between 1997
and 2002. In Ohio alone, violating the law like that could have
cost State Farm $25,000 per vehicle in government fines alone,
with one-fourth of each fine ending up in the local county
treasury.

A recent class action case was filed in Dayton against State
Farm challenging a settlement between State Farm and the Ohio
Attorney General, which consumers claim leaves them short.

When Maria Loftis bought a 1987 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Super
Sport in Preble County last year, she and her husband thought
the Super Sport would be safe transportation and ideal to
restore to near "show" quality for car shows. That changed last
September when they got a letter from the state of Ohio that
said their car was just "salvage" with a title that was no good.
Worse yet, they would have to get a new car title issued that
was branded as a "rebuilt salvage" vehicle.

Mrs. Loftis claims that sometime in 1999, State Farm had
declared the vehicle a total loss. State Farm retitled the
vehicle into its own name in Montgomery County, Ohio, and then
sold the car to a local used car dealer, A & B Auto Sales, with
a "clean" title that Ms. Loftis claims hid the fact that the car
had been totaled. A & B rebuilt the car and then dumped it on
the used car market without retitling the vehicle as "salvage"
either. A & B sold it to Jeff Miller Auto Sales in New Lebanon,
Ohio, where it was later sold to James Myers and Myers later
sold it to Mr. And Mrs. Loftis.

No one ever told the Loftis family about the vehicle's history
or that it had been declared salvage. State Farm offered Mr. and
Mrs. Loftis $1,000.

Dissatisfied with State Farm's offer, and not being told what
caused State Farm to total out the car in the first place, Mrs.
Loftis filed a class action against State Farm, asking the court
to allow them to represent all State Farm consumer victims in 25
southwest Ohio counties: Darke, Shelby, Logan, Union, Franklin,
Miami, Champaign, Madison, Preble, Montgomery, Clark, Pickaway,
Greene, Butler, Warren, Clinton, Fayette, Ross, Hamilton,
Clermont, Brown, Adams, Scioto, Pike, and Highland counties,
where almost 100 other victims reside.

Mrs. Loftis is seeking unspecified damages for all Southwest
Ohio consumers and an injunction to stop State Farm from
reselling totaled vehicles without disclosing the vehicles'
prior history. Dayton attorney Ronald Burdge is handling all the
cases filed so far in Ohio.

For more details, contact Ronald L. Burdge of Burdge Law Office
Co LPA, Phone: 937-432-9500 or 1-888-331-6422, E-mail:
ron@ohiolemonlaw.com, Web site: http://www.salvagetitleinfo.com.


TENFOLD CORPORATION: Final Fairness Hearing Set April 2006 in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Tenfold Corporation,
certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters of
its initial public offering is set for April 24,2006 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The suit alleges violations of federal securities laws pursuant
to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act 1934 on the basis of an alleged
failure to disclose the underwriters' alleged compensation and
manipulative practices.

Similar complaints have been filed against over 300 other
issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998.  The
individual officer and director defendants entered into tolling
agreements and, pursuant to a Court Order dated October 9, 2002,
were dismissed from the litigation without prejudice.  On
February 19, 2003, the Court granted a Motion to Dismiss the
Rule 10b-5 claims against 116 defendants, including the Company.

On June 27, 2003, the Company's Board of Directors approved a
proposed partial settlement with the plaintiffs in this matter.
In June 2004, a settlement agreement was submitted to the Court
for preliminary approval.  The settlement would provide, among
other things, a release of TenFold and of the individual
defendants for the alleged wrongful conduct in the Amended
Complaint.

The Company agreed to undertake other responsibilities under the
partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away, not
assert, or release certain potential claims we may have against
the Company's underwriters.  The underwriters filed a memorandum
with the Court opposing preliminary approval of the settlement.
Any direct financial impact of the proposed settlement is
expected to be borne by our insurers.  The Company agreed to
approve the settlement subject to a number of conditions,
including the participation of a substantial number of
other issuer defendants in the proposed settlement, the consent
of our insurers to the settlement, and the completion of
acceptable final settlement documentation.  Furthermore, the
settlement is subject to a hearing on fairness and approval by
the Court overseeing the litigation.

Although the Company and the individual defendants believe that
the complaints are without merit and deny any liability, but
because they also wish to avoid the continuing waste of
management time and expense of litigation, they accepted
plaintiffs' proposal to settle all claims that might have been
brought in this action.  The Company and the individual
Transmeta defendants expect that their share of the global
settlement will be fully funded by their director and officer
liability insurance.  Although the Company and the Transmeta
defendants have approved the settlement in principle, it remains
subject to several procedural conditions, as well as formal
approval by the Court.  It is possible that the parties may not
reach a final written settlement agreement or that the Court may
decline to approve the settlement in whole or part.

In June 2004, a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement was filed with the Court. The underwriters filed a
memorandum with the Court opposing preliminary approval of the
settlement. The court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement on February 15, 2005, subject to certain
modifications. On August 31, 2005, the court issued a
preliminary order further approving the modifications to the
settlement and certifying the settlement classes. The court also
appointed the Notice Administrator for the settlement and
ordered that notice of the settlement be distributed to all
settlement class members beginning on November 15, 2005 and
completed by January 15, 2006. The settlement fairness hearing
has been set for April 26, 2006. Following the hearing, if the
court determines that the settlement is fair to the class
members, the settlement will be approved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: NY Court Affirms Preliminarily Suit Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York affirmed its ruling granting preliminary approval to
the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed
against Turnstone Systems, Inc., certain of its current and
former officers and directors, and the underwriters of its
initial public offering of stock as well as its secondary
offering of stock.

On November 9, 2001, Arthur Mendoza filed a securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a class of
individuals who purchased common stock in the Company's initial
public offering and its secondary stock offering between January
31 and December 6, 2000. The complaint alleges generally that
the prospectuses under which such securities were sold contained
false and misleading statements with respect to discounts and
commissions received by the underwriters.

The case has been coordinated for pre-trial purposes with over
300 cases raising the same or similar issues and also currently
pending in the Southern District of New York. On April 18, 2002,
Michael Szymanowski was appointed lead plaintiff in the action.
On April 22, 2002, an amended complaint was filed. On July 1,
2002, the underwriter defendants filed an omnibus motion to
dismiss. On July 15, 2002, the Company, collectively with the
other issuer defendants, also filed an omnibus motion to
dismiss. The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the
underwriters' motion to dismiss on August 15, 2002 and to the
issuers' motion to dismiss on August 27, 2002.  The
underwriters' reply to the opposition was filed on September 13,
2002, and the Company's reply to the opposition was filed on
September 27, 2002.  On February 19, 2003, the court issued an
order denying the motions to dismiss with respect to
substantially all of the plaintiffs' claims, including those
against the Company.

In February 2005, the court granted preliminary approval for a
proposed settlement and release of claims against the issuer
defendants, including the Company.  The settlement is still
subject to a number of conditions, including final court
approval.  In August 2005, the court entered an order affirming
its preliminary approval for the proposed settlement, and
scheduled a hearing on the fairness of the proposed settlement
to the shareholder class for April 2006. The settlement is still
subject to a number of conditions, including final court
approval.

The suit is styled "IN RE TURNSTONE SYSTEMS, INC. INITIAL PUBLIC
OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION," filed in relation to "IN RE
INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira
N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


UNITED STATES: Coastal Waters, Fish Not Affected by Hurricanes
--------------------------------------------------------------
The states of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana, along with
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration have analyzed hundreds of samples of fish and
shellfish from the waters affected by Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita, the United States Food and Drug Administration announced
in a statement.  To date, the data show no reason for concern
about consuming seafood from the Gulf region due to the
hurricanes.  

The samples were analyzed for chemical and microbiological
contaminants that could have been introduced by the hurricanes.
The extensive seafood tissue sampling occurred in an area from
the estuaries of New Orleans to Gulf Shores, AL. The sampled
areas included Lake Pontchartrain, Mississippi Sound, Mobile Bay
as well as the offshore areas of the northern Gulf of Mexico.  
Additional monitoring is currently in progress and results will
be announced as they become available.

"While many oyster harvest areas have been tested and re-opened,
other areas remain closed until routine sampling by existing
state regulated Molluscan Shellfish Programs determines that
oyster harvesting can resume.  Current data from analyses of
fish and other shellfish from these areas show no reason for
concern," the statement said.

Health officials advise that consuming raw seafood always poses
a potential risk from bacterial and viral contamination.  This
risk can be reduced by thoroughly cooking seafood.

"As always, fishermen should avoid catching seafood in areas
with visible oil sheens or slicks, and should only harvest live
seafood.  Consumers should follow proper sanitary practices when
handling and preparing seafood for consumption. Also, health
officials advise that following simple guidelines is appropriate
when preparing fish and seafood at any time, not only after a
storm event.  These guidelines include keeping seafood cold
until ready to cook and thoroughly cooking seafood.  Consumers
can further reduce risk by not eating the skin or organs, such
as crab "fat". It is also recommended that broiling, grilling or
poaching fish are healthy, low-fat methods of cooking," the
statement continued.  

For more information, contact the Louisiana Department of Health
and Hospitals (Kathleen Golden, 1-888-293-7020), the Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality (Robbie Wilbur,
601-961-5277), the Alabama Department of Public Health (Dr. Neil
Sass, 1-800-201-8208) or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(Eryn Witcher 202-564-4355).


WEYERHAEUSER CO.: Takes $25M Charge For Antitrust Settlements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Weyerhaeuser Co. (NYSE: WY) will take an after-tax charge of $25
million to settle legal actions relating to a 1999 antitrust
allegation, The Associated Press reports.

The litigation stems from antitrust lawsuits filed six years ago
in U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania that accused Weyerhaeuser
as well as other companies of conspiring to fix or manipulate
the price of linerboard. According to the suits, that, in turn,
affected the price of corrugated sheets and containers that are
made from linerboard. They specifically allege that the
defendants manipulated containerboard prices from 1993 to 1995.

The Company, settled the class action portion of two civil
antitrust lawsuits in 2003, however some customers decided to
opt out of those settlements and pursue separate litigation in
the same federal court. The newly announced settlements are with
all but one of those plaintiffs, according to the Company. Bruce
Amundson, a spokesman for the Federal Way, Washington-based wood
products Company told The Associated Press that no trial date
has been set for the case that was not settled.

The Company along with International Paper Corporation and
Georgia-Pacific Corporation, three of the country's biggest
paper manufacturers, came to the 2003 settlement. Under it, the
Companies will pay a total of $68 million. International Paper
will pay $24 million, while Weyerhaeuser $23 million and
Georgia-Pacific $21 million. The Companies did not admit any
wrongdoing in the settlement, which will dismiss all the claims
in the suit. The court is expected to approve the settlement
later that year, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(September 25, 2003) reports.

In a prepared statement, Claire Grace, the Company's acting
general counsel, said that Weyerhaeuser still believes that the
lawsuits were without merit. However, she maintains that it was
in the best interest of shareholders to settle the cases. The
Company noted that the after-tax charge of $25 million, or 10
cents per share, would be recorded in the fourth quarter ended
December 25.

The litigation is styled, "In re: Linerboard Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 2:10-md-01261-JD," filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
under Judge Jan E. Dubois.



                 New Securities Fraud Cases


DIEBOLD INC.: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in OH
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, filed the the first of a
number of similar securities fraud class actions against
Diebold, Inc. ("Diebold" or the "Company") (NYSE:DBD) and
certain of its officers and directors. The action is pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio (No. 05CV2873). The Class is defined in the complaint
drafted by Scott+Scott as those who purchased Diebold securities
between October 22, 2003, and September 21, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

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

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

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


FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Scott + Scott Offers Update on FL Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, which at the direction of
clients, filed the first of a number of similar securities fraud
class actions in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida (Orlando Division -- No. 05-cv-1810) against
FARO Technologies Inc. ("FARO" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:FARO)
and individual defendants on behalf of a class who purchased
FARO securities between May 6, 2004, and November 3, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period") reminds interested parties that
any purchaser of FARO securities can contact the firm as the
class period may change as information is revealed.

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

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

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


GUIDANT CORPORATION: Scott + Scott Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, which initiated a securities
fraud class action on November 3, 2005, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against
Guidant Corporation ("Guidant") (NYSE:GDT) and certain
individual defendants (No. 05CV1658) on behalf of Guidant
securities purchasers between December 15, 2004 and November 3,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), reminds all interested
parties that they have until January 3, 2006 to be appointed
lead plaintiff.

The complaint alleges that Guidant and certain of its officers
and directors violated provisions of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, causing the Company's stock price to become
artificially inflated. On December 15, 2004, Guidant entered
into a $24.5 billion merger deal with Johnson & Johnson.
According to the complaint, while the Company pointed to its
defibrillator business as a key component of that deal, it
concealed from investors significant unaddressed product defect
and liability issues of the Company's implantable defibrillator
product lines.

On June 17, 2005, the FDA issued a nationwide recall
notification impacting Guidant's implantable defibrillators and
cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators. Within that
notification, the FDA advised the public that the malfunction of
Guidant's devices could lead to a serious, life-threatening
event for a patient. On July 18, 2005, the FDA published a
"Recall -- Firm Press Release" on its website, that then
revealed the Company's knowledge of pacemaker-related defects.
In the recall publication, Guidant warned physicians and
patients to seek replacement of at least nine different cardiac
pacemaker models and product lines.

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


MOTIVE INC.: Rosen Law Firm Sets January Lead Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm reminds investors that they have until
January 3, 2006 to seek appointment by the Court as Lead
Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit filed by the Rosen Law
Firm on behalf of purchasers of Motive, Inc. ("Motive" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq: MOTVE) common stock during the period
between April 21, 2005 through October 26, 2005 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas, alleges that Motive issued false and
misleading financial statements for the first two quarters of
2005. On October 27, 2005, Motive announced that it would be
restating its financial statements for the first two quarters of
2005. Before news of the restatement was released to the public,
Scott L. Harmon, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, sold 8,000 shares of his privately held stock for
proceeds in excess of $49,585.

For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. of The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A., Phone: (212) 686-1060 or 1-866-767-3653, Fax:
(212) 202-3827, E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com, Web site:
http://www.rosenlegal.com.


SERACARE LIFE: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of SeraCare
Life Sciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: SRLSE) between May 3, 2005 and
December 19, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


                            *********


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  * * *