CAR_Public/051230.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, December 30, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 259


                            Headlines

724 SOLUTIONS: NY Court Affirms Approval of Lawsuit Settlement
AIRSPAN NETWORKS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement
ANGELCITI ENTERTAINMENT: Trial Begins in CA Gambling Ads Suit
APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
ARBINET-THEXCHANGE: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in NJ

ASCENDANT SOLUTIONS: Court Denies Appeal of Certification Denial
BACKWEB TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Affirms Suit Settlement Approval
CALIFORNIA: Court Orders Agency to Issue "Green Cards" to LPRs
CALIFORNIA: Judge Dismisses Bettor's Suit V. Sta. Anita Derby
CALIFORNIA: Rosemead Mayor Lodges Suit V. English-Only Petition

CONOCOPHILIPS: Deal Signed For Reduced Sale of Tobacco to Minors
DELTATHREE INC.: NY Court Affirms Suit Pact Preliminary Approval
EBS PENSION: Fully Settles Investor Fraud Lawsuit in DE Court
EGAIN COMMUNICATIONS: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Settlement
GATEWAY REGIONAL: IL Court to Decide Patients' Lawsuit Dismissal

GEOPHARMA INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Lawsuit in NY
IBASIS INC.: Court Affirms Preliminary Suit Settlement Approval
ILLINOIS: Loan Originator Launches Suits V. Mortgage Companies
INFORTE CORPORATION: Final Fairness Hearing Set April 2006 in NY
LANE BRYANT: Named As Defendant in WA Employee Wardrobing Suit

LANTRONIX INC.: Trial in CA Securities Suit Set September 2006
LOOKSMART LTD.: Discovery Begins in AR Pay-Per-Click Fraud Suit
LOOKSMART LTD.: Trial Begins in CA Gambling Advertisements Suit
MATCH.COM: Counsel Labels CA Consumer Fraud Lawsuit "Frivolous"
MURPHY OIL: Attorneys Prepare For Status Hearing on LA Oil Spill

NETGEAR INC.: Enters Settlement Discussions For CA Consumer Suit
NEW JERSEY: Ramsey Borough Faces Suit Over Rental Policies
NEW JERSEY: Resident Files Stolen Bone Suit V. Several Companies
OCCAM NETWORKS: Court Affirms Preliminarily Settlement Approval
ONVIA.COM: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Securities Suit Settlement

ONVIA.COM: Court Grants Partial Summary Judgment For Fraud Suit
PAXIL: New Studies Suggest Drug Increases Risk of Birth Defects
PETCO PETROLEUM: Settlement Proposed For Pollution Suit in IL
SERONO INC.: ME Medicaid Program Receives Settlement Check
TELECOMUNICACIONES DE PUERTO RICO: Court Mulls Summary Judgment

TRINSIC COMMUNICATIONS: IL Court Dismisses in Part Consumer Suit
TRINSIC INC.: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Suit Settlement
UNITED STATES: FDA Warns V. Drinking Raw Milk Due To Health Risk
ZIRKLE FRUIT: Trial For WA Immigration Case Set to Begin Soon

                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Indemnifies Dresser Inc. Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WVU to Fund Medical Testing for 5T Workers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NY Man Blamed for Unlawful & Unsafe Removal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FL Court Grants US$31M Damages to Mechanic
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kubota Apologizes, Pledges More Benefits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Fights Pending Suits From Old Operations
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum to File New Plan on Feb. 3, 2006
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PA Firm's Right to Represent Widow Upheld
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Platinum Equity Permitted to End Rohn Deal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Says Hype Led to '04 Spike in Claims  

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JPN Makers Admit Asbestos Used in 1.6M Cars
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JPN Govt. Set to Release JPY3M Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CA Court Orders New Trial Against Unocal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Agency Covers Cleanup Cost at PA State Park
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japanese Victims Upset Over Low Payout Plan

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos-Linked Deaths Sparked Panic in `05
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Asks Court to Drop Charges v. Workers
ASBESTOS ALERT: Ohio Court Charges Company for Improper Removal
ASBESTOS ALERT: NH Const. Firm Sued By State Over Contamination
ASBESTOS ALERT: Reading International Notes One 3rd-Party Claim

ASBESTOS ALERT: KS Court Grants Discovery Motion v. ESCM, Shaw
                        
                  New Securities Fraud Cases

DIEBOLD INC.: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in OH
EVCI CAREER: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
GENERAL MOTORS: Law Firms Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MI
HELEN OF TROY: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX
MIKOHN GAMING: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NV

NASH FINCH: Smith & Smith Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN
SERACARE LIFE: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in S.D. CA
UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in NY

                            *********


724 SOLUTIONS: NY Court Affirms Approval of Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York affirmed its ruling granting preliminary approval of
the consolidated securities class action filed against 724
Solutions, Inc., certain of its officers and directors and the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering.

Several class actions were filed between approximately June 13,
2001 and June 28, 2001 on behalf of purported classes of
plaintiffs who acquired the Company's common shares during
certain periods. These lawsuits have since been consolidated
into a single action and an amended complaint was filed on or
about April 19, 2002.  Similar actions have or since been filed
against over 300 other issuers that have had initial public
offerings since 1998 and all are included in a single
coordinated proceeding in the Southern District of New York.

The amended complaint in the IPO Allocation Litigation names as
defendants, in addition to the Company, some former directors
and officers of the Company and certain underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering of securities.  In general,
the amended complaint alleges that the Underwriter Defendants:

     (1) allocated shares of the Company's offering of equity
         securities to certain of their customers, in exchange
         for which these customers agreed to pay the Underwriter
         Defendants extra commissions on transactions in other
         securities; and
  
     (2) allocated shares of the Company's initial public
         offering to certain of the Underwriter Defendants'
         customers, in exchange for which the customers agreed
         to purchase additional common shares of the Company in
         the after-market at certain pre-determined prices.

The amended complaint also alleges that the Company and the
Individual Defendants failed to disclose these facts and that
the Company and the Individual Defendants were aware of, or
disregarded, the Underwriter Defendants' conduct.  In October
2002, the Individual Defendants were dismissed from the IPO
Allocation Litigation without prejudice.

In July 2003, a committee of the Company's Board of Directors
conditionally approved a proposed partial settlement with the
plaintiffs in this matter.  The settlement would provide, among
other things, a release of the Company and of the Individual
Defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful
in the amended complaint. The Company would agree to undertake
other responsibilities under the partial settlement, including
agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain
potential claims the Company may have against its underwriters.
Any direct financial impact of the proposed settlement is
expected to be borne by the Company's insurers.

In June 2004, an agreement of settlement was submitted to the
Court for preliminary approval.  The Court granted the
preliminary approval motion on February 15, 2005, subject to
certain modifications.  The parties were directed to report back
to the Court regarding the 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 the
settlement is fair to the class members, the settlement will be
approved.

The suit is styled "In Re 724 Solutions, 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:

     (i) 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

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

   (iii) 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

    (iv) 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

     (v) 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

    (vi) 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


AIRSPAN NETWORKS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 Airspan Networks, Inc., certain of the underwriters of
its initial public offering, and:

     (1) Eric D. Stonestrom (President and Chief Executive
         Officer),

     (2) Joseph J. Caffarelli (former Senior Vice President and
         Chief Financial Officer),

     (3) Matthew Desch (Chairman) and

     (4) Jonathan Paget (Executive Vice President and Chief
         Operating Officer)

On and after July 23, 2001, three Class Action Complaints were
filed.  These suits were later consolidated.  The Consolidated
Amended Complaint, which is now the operative complaint, was
filed on April 19, 2002. The complaint alleges violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for
issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained
materially false and misleading information and failed to
disclose material information.

In particular, Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter-defendants
agreed to allocate stock in the Company's initial public
offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and
undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to
make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-
determined prices. The action seeks damages in an unspecified
amount.

This action is being coordinated with approximately three
hundred other nearly identical actions filed against other
companies. On July 15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all
claims against it and the Individual Defendants. On October 9,
2002, the Court dismissed the Individual Defendants from the
case without prejudice based upon Stipulations of Dismissal
filed by the plaintiffs and the Individual Defendants. This
dismissal disposed of the Section 15 and 20(a) control person
claims without prejudice, since these claims were asserted only
against the Individual Defendants. On February 19, 2003, the
Court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against the Company, but
allowed the Section 11 claim to proceed.  

On October 13, 2004, the Court certified a class in six of the
approximately 300 other nearly identical actions. In her
Opinion, Judge Shira Scheindlin noted that the decision is
intended to provide strong guidance to all parties regarding
class certification in the remaining cases. Judge Scheindlin
determined that the class period for Section 11 claims is the
period between the IPO and the date that unregistered shares
entered the market. Judge Scheindlin also ruled that a proper
class representative of a Section 11 class must have purchased
shares during the appropriate class period; and have either sold
the shares at a price below the offering price or held the
shares until the time of suit. In two of the six cases, the
class representatives did not meet the above criteria and
therefore, the Section 11 cases were not certified.  Plaintiffs
have not yet moved to certify a class in the Airspan case.

The Company has approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements which set forth the terms of a settlement between it,
the Individual Defendants, the plaintiff class and the vast
majority of the other approximately 300 issuer defendants and
the Individual Defendants currently or formerly associated with
those companies.  Among other provisions, the settlement
provides for a release of the Company and the individual
defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful.
The Company would agree to undertake certain responsibilities,
including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release
certain potential claims it may have against its underwriters.
The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of
$1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the
approximately 300 issuers. To the extent that the underwriter
defendants settle all of the cases for at least $1 billion, no
payment will be required under the issuers' settlement
agreement.  To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle
for less than $1 billion, the issuers are required to contribute
the difference.

On February 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion.  Judge Scheindlin ruled that the
issuer defendants and the plaintiffs must submit a revised
settlement agreement which provides for a mutual bar of all
contribution claims by the settling and non-settling parties and
does not bar the parties from pursuing other claims.

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 Airspan Networks, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Sec. Litigation," related to "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS),"
filed 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


ANGELCITI ENTERTAINMENT: Trial Begins in CA Gambling Ads Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against Angelciti Entertainment
in the Superior Court of the State of California, for accepting
and placing advertising for on-line gambling companies has
begun.  

The suit seeks relief based upon the fact that these companies
aided and abetted illegal activities under California law by
accepting advertising fees and otherwise promoting such
activities. The action is brought as a Private Attorney General
Action seeking disgorgement of the advertising fees earned by
such companies for the advertising, plus penalties.  

The listed plaintiffs included a gambler, who claims to have
lost more than $100,000, Indian Tribes of California, who
claimed they lost gambling revenues they would have otherwise
earned, and the State of California, that lost taxation and
other revenues they would have earned had such gambling
activities occurred at the Indian Gambling locations in the
State of California.   The suit also names numerous other online
content companies like Google, Yahoo and Overture, as
defendants.

On January 3, 2005, the Company filed a demurrer to the
complaint, which was overruled on January 27, 2005.  On January
3, 2005, the Company also filed a motion to strike certain
allegations regarding claims for restitution, which was denied
in part and granted in part on May 9, 2005.  The Company filed
an answer to the complaint on February 28, 2005, consisting of a
general denial of all allegations.  The court has allowed
certain discovery to proceed with respect to plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary injunction.

On October 11, 2005, the court conducted a bifurcated trial and
ruled that California public policy bars the plaintiffs from
receiving any remedy of restitution on any alleged gambling
losses. The court was scheduled to hear arguments on an
application by plaintiffs for a temporary restraining order on
October 25, 2005, however, plaintiffs requested that that
hearing be merged into a hearing on plaintiffs' request for
preliminary injunction. A case management conference is set for
December 1 to discuss plaintiffs' request for preliminary
injunctive relief. Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction papers are
due to be filed November 21, 2005.

The suit is styled "Mario Cisneros et al, v. Yahoo! Inc., et al,
case no. CGC-04-433518," filed in the California Superior Court
in San Francisco County, under Judge Richard A. Kramer.
Representing the plaintiffs are Kathrein R. Reed and Ira P.
Rothken.  


APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval for the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Apropos
Technology, Inc., certain of its current and former officers and
the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering (IPO).

In November 2001, the Company was named as a defendant in
shareholder class action litigation, alleging, among other
things, that the underwriters of the Company's IPO improperly
required their customers to pay the underwriters excessive
commissions and to agree to buy additional shares of the
Company's stock in the aftermarket as conditions of receiving
shares in the Company's IPO.

The lawsuit further claims that these supposed practices of the
underwriters should have been disclosed in the Company's IPO
prospectus and registration statement. In April 2002, an amended
complaint was filed which, like the original complaint, alleges
violations of the registration and antifraud provisions of the
federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages.

The Company understands that various other plaintiffs have filed
substantially similar class action cases against approximately
300 other publicly traded companies and their public offering
underwriters in New York City, which along with the case against
the Company have all been transferred to a single federal
district judge for purposes of coordinated case management.

In July 2002, the Company, together with the other issuers named
as defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a
collective motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints
against them on various legal grounds common to all or most of
the issuer defendants.  In October 2002, the Court approved a
stipulation providing for the dismissal of the individual
defendants without prejudice. In February 2003, the Court issued
a decision granting in part and denying in part the motion to
dismiss the litigation filed by the Company and the other issuer
defendants. The claims against the Company under the antifraud
provisions of the securities laws were dismissed with prejudice;
the claims under the registration provisions of the securities
laws were not dismissed as to the Company or virtually any other
issuer defendant. The Court also denied the underwriter
defendants' motion to dismiss in all respects.

In June 2003, the Company elected to participate in a proposed
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation.  If
ultimately approved by the Court, this proposed settlement would
result in a dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the
litigation against the Company and against any of the other
issuer defendants who elect to participate in the proposed
settlement, together with the current or former officers and
directors of participating issuers who were named as individual
defendants. The proposed settlement does not provide for the
resolution of any claims against the underwriter defendants, and
the litigation as against those defendants is continuing.  The
proposed settlement provides that the class members in the class
action cases brought against the participating issuer defendants
will be guaranteed a recovery of $1 billion by insurers of the
participating issuer defendants.  

If recoveries totaling $1 billion or more are obtained by the
class members from the underwriter defendants, however, the
monetary obligations to the class members under the proposed
settlement will be satisfied. In addition, the Company and any
other participating issuer defendants will be required to assign
to the class members certain claims that they may have against
the underwriters of their IPOs.

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary
to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would come
from participating issuers' directors and officers liability
insurance policy proceeds as opposed to funds of the
participating issuer defendants themselves.  A participating
issuer defendant could be required to contribute to the costs of
the settlement if that issuer's insurance coverage were
insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share of the
settlement costs. The Company expects that its insurance
proceeds will be sufficient for these purposes and that it will
not otherwise be required to contribute to the proposed
settlement.

Consummation of the proposed settlement is conditioned upon
obtaining both preliminary and final approval by the Court.
Formal settlement documents were submitted to the Court in June
2004, together with a motion asking the Court to preliminarily
approve the form of settlement. Certain underwriters who were
named as defendants in the settling cases, and who are not
parties to the proposed settlement, opposed preliminary approval
of the proposed settlement of those cases.  The Court has issued
an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement in all
respects but one.  On September 1,2005, the Court preliminarily
approved the proposed settlement, directed that notice of the
terms of the proposed settlement be provided by class members,
and scheduled a fairness hearing, at which objections to the
proposed settlement will be heard.  Thereafter, the Court will
determine whether to grant final approval to the proposed
settlement.

The suit is styled "In Re Apropos Technology, 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


ARBINET-THEXCHANGE: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arbinet-thexchange, Inc. and certain of its officers, current
and former directors and the underwriters of its initial public
offering face four securities class actions filed in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.  The suits
are styled:

     (1) Jonathan Crowell v. Arbinet-thexchange, Inc., et al.,
         MID-L-5874-05 (N.J. Sup. Ct.);

     (2) Harish Grover v. Arbinet-thexchange, Inc., et al., C.A.
         No. 05-CV-04404 (D. N.J.);

     (3) Sandra Schwartz v. Arbinet-thexchange, Inc., et al.,
         C.A. No. 05-CV-04444 (D. N.J.); and

     (4) James Bendrick v. Arbinet-thexchange, Inc., et al.,
         C.A. No. 05-CV-04664 (D. N.J.)

On September 27, 2005 defendants removed the Crowell action to
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
where it has been docketed as "Jonathan Crowell v. Arbinet-
thexchange, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 05-CV-4697."

These lawsuits allege violations of the registration and anti-
fraud provisions of the federal securities laws due to alleged
statements in and omissions from the Company's initial public
offering registration statement, as well as statements made by
the Company following the IPO. The complaints seek, among other
things, unspecified damages and costs associated with the
litigation.


ASCENDANT SOLUTIONS: Court Denies Appeal of Certification Denial
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied
plaintiffs' appeal of a lower court ruling refusing to grant
class certification to the consolidated lawsuit filed against
Ascendant Solutions, Inc., certain of its directors and a
limited partnership of which a director is a partner.

Between January 23, 2001 and February 21, 2001, five putative
class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas.  The five lawsuits
assert causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, for an unspecified
amount of damages on behalf of a putative class of individuals
who purchased common stock between various periods ranging from
November 11, 1999 to January 24, 2000.  The lawsuits claim that
the Company and the individual defendants made misstatements and
omissions concerning its products and customers.

In April 2001, the Court consolidated the lawsuits, and on
July 26, 2002, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint
(CAC).  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the suit on or
about September 9, 2002. On July 22, 2003, the Court granted in
part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss.  On
September 2, 2003, defendants filed an answer to the suit.
Plaintiffs then commenced discovery. On September 12, 2003,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and on
February 17, 2004, the Company filed its opposition. On July 1,
2004, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for certification.  On
September 8, 2004, the Fifth Circuit granted plaintiffs'
petition for permission to appeal the denial of class
certification.  Briefing on the appeal is complete but the Fifth
Circuit has not yet ruled on plaintiff's appeal.

On August 23, 2005, the Fifth Circuit rejected plaintiffs'
claims, affirmed denial of class certification, and remanded the
two individual plaintiffs' claims to the district court.  On
October 25, 2005, the Fifth Circuit denied plaintiffs' request
for panel rehearing.  The Fifth Circuit then ordered plaintiffs
to pay defendants' costs on appeal.

The suit is styled "Bell v. Ascendant Solutions, et al. case no.
3:01-cv-00166," filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, under Judge David C Godbey.  
Representing the Company is Paul R Bessette, Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer & Feld - Austin, 300 W Sixth St., Suite 2100, Austin, TX
78701, Phone: 512/499-6250, Fax: 512/499-6290, E-mail:
pbessette@akingump.com.  Representing the plaintiffs is W Kelly
Puls, Puls Taylor & Woodson, 2600 Airport Frwy, Fort Worth, TX
76111, Phone: 817/338-1717, Fax: 817/338-1416, E-mail:
kpuls@ptwlaw.com.


BACKWEB TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Affirms Suit Settlement 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 BackWeb Technologies, Inc., six of its officers and
directors, and various underwriters for its initial public
offering, styled "In re BackWeb Technologies Ltd. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-10000."

Similar cases have been filed alleging violations of the federal
securities laws in the initial public offerings of more than 300
other companies, and these cases have been coordinated for
pretrial proceedings as "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92." A consolidated amended
complaint filed in the BackWeb case asserts that the prospectus
from the Company's June 8, 1999 initial public offering failed
to disclose certain alleged improper actions by the underwriters
for the offering, including the receipt of excessive brokerage
commissions and agreements with customers regarding aftermarket
purchases of shares of the Company's stock.  The complaint
alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  On July 15, 2002, an omnibus motion to
dismiss was filed in the coordinated litigation on behalf of
defendants, including the Company, on common pleadings issues.
In October 2002, the Court dismissed all six individual
defendants from the litigation without prejudice, pursuant to a
stipulation.  On February 19, 2003, the Court denied the motion
to dismiss with respect to the claims against the Company. No
trial date has yet been set.

A proposal has been made for the settlement and for the release
of claims against the issuer defendants, including BackWeb, has
been submitted to the Court. We have agreed to the proposal. The
settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
approval by the proposed settling parties and the court.

The suit is styled "In re BackWeb Technologies Ltd. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-10000,"
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


CALIFORNIA: Court Orders Agency to Issue "Green Cards" to LPRs
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court in California issued a permanent injunction
against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), ordering the
agency to provide documentation of lawful status ("green cards")
to a nationwide class of lawful permanent residents (LPRs) who
have been denied such proof for months and, in many cases,
years.

The December 22, 2005 order by U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn
Hall Patel of the Northern District of California added teeth to
her August 2005 summary judgment ruling, in which she held that
the DHS's policy of withholding documentation from persons
already determined to be LPRs by Immigration Courts was
arbitrary and capricious, and violated the DHS's
nondiscretionary duty to issue documentation in a timely manner.
In issuing a permanent injunction, the court rejected the DHS's
national security contentions, concluding that such arguments
were "illogical and unacceptably vague as a legal justification
for withholding documentation."

The plaintiff class is represented by Cooley Godward LLP, the
Texas Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, and the Mexican
American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF). The DHS
had acknowledged that the class, originally estimated to exceed
12,000, numbered in excess of 6,000 persons as of October 2005.

John C. Dwyer, a partner at Cooley Godward, which is handling
the suit on a pro bono basis, welcomed the ruling, stating:
"It's unfortunate when it takes an order from a federal judge to
get the federal government to do what they are obligated to do
by law. Judge Patel got it right, and we hope that the
Department of Homeland Security will now finally provide the
documentation to which these lawful residents are entitled."

The permanent injunction requires the DHS to issue documentation
of lawful status to class members within a set period of time
after the class member appears at an appointment at a U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) office and requests
documentation. The applicable time period depends on whether the
class member was adjudicated as an LPR before or after April 1,
2005, when the Justice Department changed certain regulations
that apply to class members. Generally, the court's injunction
requires the DHS to issue documentation within 30 days of the
first USCIS appointment for post-April 1, 2005 grantees and
within 60 days for pre-April 1, 2005 grantees. The time periods
afford DHS the opportunity to verify that the class member was
granted LPR status and allows for collection of biometrics
information, such as fingerprints and photographs. The
injunction also required the USCIS to post a notice to class
members on its website containing instructions for obtaining
documentation. A class member may start the process of obtaining
documentation by making an appointment at a local USCIS district
office and presenting the Immigration Court's order granting LPR
status along with proof of their identity. The DHS's failure to
abide by the injunction is to be remedied through contempt
proceedings before the court.

Javier N. Maldonado, Executive Director of the Texas Lawyers'
Committee, commended the ruling, stating: "We are extremely
pleased with the court's injunction. Our clients will now have
the opportunity to fully enjoy the important rights and
privileges of being a lawful permanent resident in the United
States, that is to work, travel, attend school, and pursue the
American dream."

The lawsuit, Santillan, et al. v. Gonzales, et al., was filed in
federal district court in San Francisco in July 2004. The class
action suit charged that DHS offices nationwide are consistently
rejecting and delaying lawful permanent residents' requests for
documentation of their LPR status. Green card delays, which have
lasted from months to years, have created serious hardships for
immigrants and their families.

The Department of Homeland Security has 60 days from the entry
of the injunction to file an appeal. The Litigation Assistance
Partnership Project (LAPP) of the American Bar Association (ABA)
facilitated the public interest litigation partnership of Cooley
Godward's Pro Bono practice and the non-profit Texas Lawyers'
Committee.

The suit is styled, "Santillan et al v. Ashcroft et al, Case No.
3:04-cv-02686-MHP, filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, under Judge Marilyn H.
Patel. Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Maureen P. Alger,
Reuben Ho-Yen Chen, John C. Dwyer and Michelle S. Rhyu of Cooley
Godward, LLP, Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Palo
Alto, CA 94306-2155, Phone: 650-843-5000 and 650-843-5480, Fax:
650-857-0663, E-mail: malger@cooley.com, rchen@cooley.com,
dwyerjc@cooley.com and mrhyu@cooley.com; and Javier Nyrup
Maldonado of Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights, Under Law of
Texas, 118 Broadway, Suite 502, San Antonio, TX 78205, Phone:
210-277-1603, Fax: 210-225-3958, E-mail:
jmaldonado@txlawyerscommittee.org. Representing the Defendant/s
are, Edward A. Olsen of United States Attorney's Office, 450
Golden Gate Ave., P.O. Box 36055, San Francisco, CA 94102,
Phone: 415-436-6915, Fax: 415-436-7169, E-mail:
edward.olsen@usdoj.gov; and Elizabeth J. Stevens of U.S. Dept.
of Justice, P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station, 1331
Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20044, Phone: 202-616-9752,
Fax: 202-307-0592, E-mail: Elizabeth.Stevens@usdoj.gov.

For more details, contact Javier N. Maldonado of Texas Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights, Phone: +1-210-379-3860, E-mail:
jmaldonado@txlawyerscommittee.org, Web site:
http://www.txlawyerscommittee.org/;Ellen Taverner of Cooley  
Godward, LLP, Phone: +1-650-843-5887, E-mail:
etaverner@cooley.com, Web site: Web site:
http://www.cooley.com/LPR;and Marisol Perez of Mexican American  
Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Phone: +1-210-224-5476, E-
mail: mperez@maldef.org, Web site: http://www.maldef.org/.


CALIFORNIA: Judge Dismisses Bettor's Suit V. Sta. Anita Derby
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge recently dismissed a
lawsuit filed on behalf of those who wagered on Sweet Catomine
in last April's Santa Anita Derby, The BloodHorse reports.

The plaintiffs in the class action case sought damages
contending that the filly's owner and trainer, Martin and Pam
Wygod and Julio Canani, as well as the Los Angeles Turf Club
(LATC) and Santa Anita Park, defrauded the public by failing to
disclose physical problems with Sweet Catomine.

According to the suit, Sweet Catomine started the race on April
9 as an even-money favorite but finished fifth. The suit follows
several allegations brought by the California Horse Racing Board
(CHRB) against Sweet Catomine's handlers. It seeks to represent
others who bet on the horse and could have turned into a class
action. Sweet Catomine had a five-race winning streak before the
Santa Anita Derby, but after her poor finish, owner Mr. Wygod
told The Los Angeles Times that he'd almost scratched Sweet
Catomine, but hadn't because Santa Anita had focused the race's
publicity campaign around the filly, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (April 21, 2005) reports

Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl, after hearing a pre-trial
motion from LATC attorneys on September 21, ruled that the
plaintiffs had failed to show that the track was liable. Her
decision was then issued on December 23.

The Wygods and Mr. Canani were dropped as defendants in the case
earlier, following a CHRB hearing that cleared the owners of
wrongdoing. Barring an appeal, Judge Kuhl's ruling brings the
suit to an end.

Frank DeMarco Jr., Santa Anita's attorney, was happy with the
ruling telling The BloodHorse, "(California Horse Racing Board)
rules say that the trainer merits the final say on whether a
horse is fit and should run." He goes on to say, "There was
nothing brought in the complaint that set up a cause of action
against Santa Anita. In other words, even if everything they
said in the complaint was true, they hadn't shown that the track
was responsible." He added, "The ruling upholds a longstanding
public policy in California that (the court) doesn't interfere
with the outcome of sporting events."

In post-race remarks, Mr. Wygod said he had considered
scratching Sweet Catomine because she had bled in her final
workout and was in season. Mr. Wygod also said he told Santa
Anita officials the filly might be scratched.

Mr. Wygod disclosed that five days before the race, Sweet
Catomine was shipped from the Santa Anita backstretch in the
early-morning hours to the Alamo Pintado equine medical clinic
several hours north of the Los Angeles area. She was treated in
a hyperbaric oxygen chamber at the clinic. It was later learned
that Sweet Catomine was identified to Santa Anita gate security
personnel as a "stable pony" when she left and returned to the
track by horse van the following day.

The comments sparked the CHRB's investigation. Hollywood Park
stewards dismissed all charges against Mr. Wygod stemming from
his remarks April 23. The CHRB dropped a similar complaint
against Mr. Canani prior to a hearing with the agency's
executive director Ingrid Fermin, saying that the probe into the
Sweet Catomine affair was a "faulty procedure."

Attorney Stephen Bernard, who represented the two bettors,
Arthur G. Mota and Reid Wissner, who filed the action, could not
be reached for comment regarding any possible appeal.

Sweet Catomine, whose five-race winning streak ended in the
Santa Anita Derby, never raced again. Mr. Wygod retired the
homebred daughter of Storm Cat shortly after the stewards'
hearing with a leg injury. She won five of her seven starts,
including three grade I races - the Del Mar Debutante, Breeders'
Cup Juvenile Fillies and Santa Anita Oaks - and earned
$1,059,600.


CALIFORNIA: Rosemead Mayor Lodges Suit V. English-Only Petition
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Jay Imperial commenced a lawsuit in a California federal
court against the city of Rosemead, alleging that the recall
petition successfully circulated against him should have been in
multiple languages, The Pasadena Star-News reports.

In a written statement presented to the city council, Mayor
Imperial said, "Today I requested that the federal court review
the petitions used in the Rosemead recall effort to determine
their compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act." He
continues, "My council colleagues chose not to seek such a
review, and by their action put the validity of the February 7
election in real jeopardy. They also invited anyone who
disagreed with them to file an action seeking a judicial review
of the petitions. I have taken that action."

Save Our Community member and Alhambra resident Julie Wang told
The Pasadena Star-News that Mayor Imperial should have
considered filing a class action lawsuit with the residents he
alleges suffered a violation under the Voting Rights Act. She
added that the mayor's suit is an effort to undermine the rights
of the residents who signed the petition, largely to oppose his
support of a Wal-Mart Supercenter.

Mayor Imperial and Councilman Gary Taylor are the targets of a
recall election on February 7. Residents angry at both
officials' support of Wal-Mart started the recall drive earlier
this year. The petitions were circulated in English.

In addition, Mayor Imperial's statement also said that non-
English speakers in the city were duped into signing the
petitions by circulators, something his opponents vehemently
deny. He also said, "I am ready for the recall debate and
campaigning period, but I want an election that is legitimate
and not subject to further challenge." He adds, "This course of
action is the only way to assure that Rosemead voters have an
election that is final and legitimate."

Steven Ly, a spokesman for the both Mayor Imperial's and Mr.
Taylor's anti-recall campaigns, told The Pasadena Star-News that
his mother has also become part of the suit with her allegation
that petitioners tricked her into signing her name. According to
Mr. Ly, his mother was told in Chinese that she was signing a
petition in favor of Wal-Mart.


CONOCOPHILIPS: Deal Signed For Reduced Sale of Tobacco to Minors
----------------------------------------------------------------
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer announced an agreement
with ConocoPhillips under which the oil firm will adopt new
procedures and contractual requirements to reduce sales of
tobacco products to minors at 10,463 company-owned and franchise
retail outlets across the country, including 1,211 in
California.

"Our children are our future, but what kind of future will they
have if they start a habit that kills?" asked Mr. Lockyer. "We,
as a society, have a shared duty to protect our kids from
cigarettes and other tobacco products. To its credit,
ConocoPhillips has recognized its responsibility and taken an
important step to become part of the solution."

Mr. Lockyer, and the Attorney Generals of 39 other states signed
the agreement. It applies to outlets that operate under the
Conoco, Phillips 66 and 76 brand names in 31 of the signing
states, including California. The Attorneys General of nine
states that currently do not have ConocoPhillips outlets signed
the agreement. If the company opens stores in those
jurisdictions, the outlets will be covered by the agreement.

The ConocoPhillips "Assurance of Voluntary Compliance" (AVC) is
the eighth such agreement produced by an ongoing, multi-state
enforcement effort which Lockyer has helped lead. Previous
agreements cover, in the signing states, all Wal-Mart,
Walgreens, Rite Aid and 7-Eleven stores, and all gas stations
and convenience stores operating under the Exxon, Mobil, BP,
ARCO and Amoco brand names.

In addition to the multi-state AVCs, Lockyer and Los Angeles
City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo in December 2004 reached a
similar, court-approved settlement with Safeway, Inc. That
agreement covers 538 Safeway, Vons, Pavilions and Pak N' Save
stores in California. The settlement resolved a lawsuit brought
by Mr. Lockyer and Mr. Delgadillo that alleged Safeway violated
state laws designed to prevent tobacco sales to minors.

Combined, the AVCs and Safeway settlement cover roughly 55,000
retail outlets across the nation. The AVCs provide measures to
reduce sales of tobacco products to minors by the nation's top
retail chain (Wal-Mart), number one drug store chain
(Walgreens), largest oil company (ExxonMobil) and biggest
retailer of tobacco products (7-Eleven).

Launched in 2000, the multi-state enforcement effort by a group
of 32 Attorneys General focuses on retailers with poor records
of selling tobacco products to minors. State laws prohibit such
sales. The enforcement program's goal is to secure the
companies' agreement to take specific corrective actions. The
agreements incorporate "best practices" to reduce sales to
minors, developed by the Attorneys General in consultation with
researchers, and state and federal tobacco control officials.

The retailing reforms of the ConocoPhillips AVC explicitly apply
to company-owned stores. The agreement, however, also calls for
ConocoPhillips to take steps to ensure its franchisees comply
with state laws governing the sale of tobacco products. For
example, ConocoPhillips will revise its franchise contracts to
specify that tobacco-product sales to minors can result in loss
of the franchise.

The AVC limits in-store advertising of tobacco products to brand
names, logos, other trademarks and pricing. Additionally, the
agreement bans self-service displays of cigarettes and all other
tobacco products. Aside from the advertising and self-service
restrictions, the AVC also requires ConocoPhillips to:

     (1) Check the ID of any person purchasing tobacco products
         when the person appears to be under the age of 35, and
         accept as proof of age only valid government-issued
         photo ID.

     (2) Prohibit the following: use of vending machines to sell
         tobacco products, distribution of free samples, sale of
         cigarette look-alike products and the sale of smoking
         paraphernalia to minors.

     (3) Hire an independent entity to conduct random compliance
         checks twice each year at all company-owned stores in
         the signing states.

     (4) Train employees on state and local laws and company
         policies regarding tobacco sales to minors, including
         explaining the health-related reasons for laws that
         restrict youth access to tobacco.

The Attorneys General have long recognized that youth access to
tobacco products ranks among the most serious public health
problems. Studies show more than 80 percent of adult smokers
begin smoking before the age of 18. Research indicates that
every day in the United States, more than 2,000 people under the
age of 18 start smoking and that one-third of those persons
ultimately will die from a tobacco-related disease. Young people
are particularly susceptible to the hazards of tobacco, often
showing signs of addiction after smoking only a few cigarettes.

In 1999, Mr. Lockyer established a full-time Tobacco Litigation
and Enforcement Section to enforce California laws regarding the
sale and marketing of tobacco products. The section also
enforces the national Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) reached
with tobacco companies in November 1998.

Californians who suspect violations of state tobacco laws or the
MSA can file complaints by calling 916-565-6486 at any time, or
by writing to the Tobacco Litigation and Enforcement Section at
P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento, CA 94244-2550. Additional
information is available on the Attorney General's web site at
http://www.ag.ca.gov/tobacco/.


DELTATHREE INC.: NY Court Affirms Suit Pact Preliminary 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 Deltathree, Inc. and certain of its former officers and
directors.

Several suits were initially filed, arising out of its initial
public offering in November 1999 (IPO).  Various underwriters of
the IPO also are named as defendants in the actions. The
complaints allege, among other things, that the registration
statement and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for purposes of the IPO were false and misleading
because they failed to disclose that the underwriters allegedly
solicited and received commissions from certain investors in
exchange for allocating to them shares of Company stock in
connection with the IPO and entered into agreements with their
customers to allocate such stock to those customers in exchange
for the customers agreeing to purchase additional shares in the
aftermarket at predetermined prices.

On August 8, 2001, the court ordered that these actions, along
with hundreds of IPO allocation cases against other issuers, be
transferred to Judge Shira Scheindlin for coordinated pre-trial
proceedings. In July 2002, omnibus motions to dismiss the
complaints based on common legal issues were filed on behalf of
all issuers and underwriters. On February 19, 2003, the Court
issued an opinion granting in part and denying in part those
motions to dismiss.  The complaint against the Company was not
dismissed as a matter of law.  Final settlement documentation is
in the process of being approved.  Under the terms of the
proposed settlement agreement, the Company is not conceding any
liability and it will not bear any expenses associated with the
settlement, other than legal fees it may incur.

On August 31, 2005, the Court granted preliminary approval of an
omnibus settlement of the litigation. Under the terms of the
proposed settlement agreement, the Company is not conceding any
liability and presently does not expect to make any payments
under the pending settlement, other than legal fees we may incur

The suit is styled "In re Deltathree, 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


EBS PENSION: Fully Settles Investor Fraud Lawsuit in DE Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
EBS Pension, LLC and EBS Litigation LLC has fully settled the
class action filed against them in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware, styled "EBS Litigation,
L.L.C. v. Barclays Global Investors, N.A., et al., C.A. No. 98-
547 SLR."

Third-Party Defendants, David B. Cooper, Jr., Julian I. Edison,
Peter A. Edison, Jane Evans, Alan A. Sachs, Craig D. Schnuck,
and Martin Sneider filed the suit in March 2003.  Briefly, the
suit brought by EBS Litigation alleged that the Third Party
Plaintiffs were liable for the return of Dave & Buster stock
received by them as a distribution from Edison in 1995. The
Third-Party Plaintiffs subsequently brought a Third-Party claim
in the Litigation alleging that if the Third-Party Plaintiffs
were found liable then the Edison Directors are liable to the
Third-Party Plaintiffs for all or a part of the recovery. The
Fourth Party Complaint brought by the Edison Directors alleges
that if the Edison Directors are found liable in the Third Party
claim, then pursuant to Section 5.1(f) of the Plan establishing
the Indemnification Reserve, the Company and EBS Litigation are
liable to the Edison Directors for all costs and expenses the
Edison Directors have incurred or will incur in connection with
the Edison Director's defense of the Third Party claim and with
the prosecution of their Fourth Party Complaint.

Prior to the Litigation being filed, in February 2003, the
District Court hearing the Litigation referred the matter to
mediation before a magistrate judge. The mediation took place on
March 28, 2003. The mediation involved all claims involved in
the Litigation, as well as the Fourth Party Complaint
indemnification claims brought by the Edison Directors against
the Company and EBS Litigation pursuant to indemnification
provisions in the Debtor's Amended Joint Plan or Reorganization.

As mentioned above, the Fourth Party Complaint was also referred
to Mediation. The Mediation was continued at a mediation
conference on August 11, 2003. The Mediation process concluded
with the parties reaching a proposed settlement.  On January 29,
2004, Judge Robinson in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware (the "District Court") approved the notice of
settlement. The notice of pendency of class action settlement
was mailed to the members of the class on February 12, 2004. On
March 31, 2004 the District Court granted the motion to approve
the settlement of all claims in the Litigation. The settlement
allowed for members of the defendant class to opt out of the
portion of the settlement addressing the claims of the Company
against the defendant class. The District Court's Order and
Final Judgment provides for releases of all Third-party claims
and Fourth-party claims brought in the Litigation. The Order and
Final Judgment requires members of the defendant class to pay
$5.00 per Dave & Buster share received in the dividend, with
$.50 per share going to defray the litigation costs and fees
incurred by the Class Representatives on behalf of the defendant
class, and the remaining $4.50 per share being paid to the
Company. The Order and Final Judgment was subject to various
contingencies, including the receipt by counsel for the
defendant class of settlement payments by members of the class
in excess of $1.8 million dollars. To the Company's knowledge,
the contingencies have been met and no members of the Defendant
Class have opted out of the settlement.


EGAIN COMMUNICATIONS: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
eGain Communications Corporation asked the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York to grant
preliminary approval to the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, certain of its then
officers and directors and the underwriters connected with the
Company's initial public offering of common stock.

The suit alleged generally that the prospectus under which such
securities were sold contained false and misleading statements
with respect to discounts and excess commissions received by the
underwriters as well as allegations of "laddering" whereby
underwriters required their customers to purchase additional
shares in the aftermarket in exchange for an allocation of IPO
shares.  The suit sought an unspecified amount in damages on
behalf of persons who purchased the common stock between
September 23, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

Similar complaints were filed against 55 underwriters and more
than 300 other companies and other individuals.  The over 1,000
complaints were consolidated into a single action.  The Company
reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to resolve the cases as
to our liability and that of its officers and directors.  The
settlement involved no monetary payment or other consideration
by the Company or its officers and directors and no admission of
liability.

On August 31, 2005, the court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and setting a public hearing on its
fairness for April 24, 2006 (the postponement from January 2006
to April 2006 was because of difficulties in mailing the
required notice to class members).  On October 27, 2005, the
court issued an order making some minor changes to the form of
notice to be sent to class members.

The suit is styled "In Re Egain Communications Corp. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case no. 01 Civ. 9414
(Sas)," related " In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed 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


GATEWAY REGIONAL: IL Court to Decide Patients' Lawsuit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison County Circuit Court in Illinois will hear Gateway
Regional Medical Center's motion to dismiss the class action
alleging the hospital inflated charges for uninsured patients on
January 5, 2006, The Madison County Record reports.

Madison County Circuit Judge Don Weber will hear the dismissal
motion for the suit, which is styled, "Chronister, et al. vs.
Granite City Illinois Hospital Company, LLC d/b/a Gateway
Regional Medical Center." Previously, the motion was to be heard
on September 26 by Circuit Judge Daniel Stack in place of the
retired Judge Philip Kardis.

The plaintiffs in the suit, who are all from Illinois, are
Kimberly Chronister, Lisa Golino, Julia Holman, Linda Hughes,
and Robert Orasco. They are accusing the hospital of charging
unfair and unreasonable prices for medical care, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (September 24, 2005) reports.

According to the suit filed by SimmonsCooper attorney Ken
Brennan, "Gateway charged...more than triple what Gateway
received for the same services from the vast majority of their
other patients, often triple what governmental agencies paid
under Medicare and Medicaid; and more than triple the actual
cost of the care." Chicago attorney James Branit of Bullaro &
Carton also represents the plaintiffs.

Gateway, represented by Richard Hunsaker, Patrick Cloud and
Michael Daniels of Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen in
Edwardsville, filed the motion to dismiss on June 15, stating,
"Plaintiff's failed to plead sufficient facts to state a claim
for breach of contract, Illinois Consumer Fraud, common law
fraud, or abuse of process, consequently, this Honorable Court
should dismiss each claim." The motion goes on to state, "More
specifically, the plaintiffs have not alleged facts indicating
that Gateway's conduct offended public policy, was immoral,
unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous, or caused substantial
injury to consumers."

In addition, the motion to dismiss also states, "None of the
plead facts in the complaint indicate that Gateway did anything
other than what they allegedly promised to do, charge their
regular rates."

The plaintiffs contend that the only group required to pay the
alleged inflated rates are those who do not qualify for Medicaid
or Medicare, or are not sufficiently covered by health
insurance, often because of financial inability. Fees charged to
the uninsured or under-insured "bore no rational relationship to
actual costs and were not 'regular' or 'usual and customary',"
according to their suit.

Court records show that all of the named plaintiffs have been
sued by Gateway seeking to recover money for medical services
provided to them or their minor children.

In its 10-count class action suit, the plaintiffs allege that
Gateway was in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, constructive fraud, fraudulent
misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of good faith and
fair dealing, unjust enrichment, theory of imposition,
unconscionability, civil conspiracy and declaratory judgment.

Additionally, the plaintiffs allege that if they had known the
truth about being charged regular rates for medical services,
they would not have accepted the services that Gateway provided,
or would have negotiated the charges before receiving the
services.


GEOPHARMA INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated securities class action
against GeoPharma, Inc. and certain of its officers in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

In December 2004 and January 2005, five securities class action
lawsuits were filed, alleging violations of federal securities
laws in connection with certain press releases issued by the
Company relating to Belcher Pharmaceuticals' planned
introduction of Mucotrol.  The suits were styled:

     (1) Mat eVentures v. Kotha Sekharam and GeoPharma, Inc.
         (SDNY 04 Civ. 9463);

     (2) Moshayedi v. GeoPharma, Inc., Jugal Taneja, Mihir
         Taneja, and Kotha Sekharam (SDNY 04 Civ. 9736);

     (3) Sarno v. Mihir Taneja, Kotha Sekharam, and GeoPharma,
         Inc. (SDNY 04 Civ. 9975);

     (4) Farwell v. Kotha Sekharam and GeoPharma, Inc. (SDNY 05
         Civ. 188); and

     (5) Taylor v. Kotha Sekharam and GeoPharma, Inc. (SDNY 05
         Civ. 258)

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, seek unspecified damages allegedly suffered in
connection with their respective purchases and sales of the
Company's securities during the Class period. On March 9, 2005
the Court consolidated the actions and appointed lead plaintiff
and lead counsel.  On April 18, 2005 plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. On June 6, 2005
defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the action.

By Opinion and Order dated September 30, 2005 the Court granted
defendents' motion and dismissed the action without prejudice,
with leave to replead. On October 24, 2005 plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint in the
action. Defendents again plan to move to dismiss the action;
their motion was filed on November 21, 2005.

The suit is styled "In Re: Geopharma, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 1:04-cv-09463-SAS," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  Representing the plaintiffs
are Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller,
Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 406, Melville,
NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail:
srudman@lerachlaw.com; and Roy Laurence Jacobs of Roy Jacobs &
Associates, 60 East 42nd Street 46th Floor, New York, NY 10165,
Phone: 212-867-1156, Fax: 212-504-8343, E-mail:
rljacobs@pipeline.com.  Representing the Company is Robert Allen
Scher of Foley & Lardner, LLP, 90 Park Avenue, New York, NY
10016, Phone: (212) 682-7474, Fax: (212) 687-2329, E-mail:
rscher@foley.com.   


IBASIS INC.: Court Affirms Preliminary Suit Settlement 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 iBasis, Inc., certain of its officers, directors, former
officers and directors, and the investment banking firms that
underwrote its November 10,1999 initial public offering of the
common stock and its March 9, 2000 secondary offering of the
common stock.

Beginning July 11, 2001, several suits were filed on behalf of
persons who purchased the common stock during different time
periods, all beginning on or after November 10, 1999 and ending
on or before December 6, 2000.  The complaints are similar to
each other and to hundreds of other complaints filed against
other issuers and their underwriters, and allege violations of
the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 primarily based on the assertion that there was undisclosed
compensation received by the Company's underwriters in
connection with its public offerings and that there were
understandings with customers to make purchases in the
aftermarket.  The plaintiffs have sought an undetermined amount
of monetary damages in relation to these claims.

On September 4, 2001, the cases against the Company were
consolidated.  On October 9, 2002, the individual defendants
were dismissed from the litigation by stipulation and without
prejudice.  On June 11, 2004, the Company and the individual
defendants, as well as many other issuers named as defendants in
the class action proceeding, entered into an agreement-in-
principle to settle this matter, and on June 14, 2004, this
settlement was presented to the court.  A motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement was filed and is pending.  Once the
court preliminarily approves the settlement and notice has been
mailed, there will be an objection period, followed by a hearing
for final approval of the settlement.

Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, in exchange
for a termination and release of all claims against the Company
and the individual defendants and certain protections against
third-party claims, the Company will assign to the plaintiffs
certain claims it may have as an issuer against the
underwriters, and its insurance carriers, along with the
insurance carriers of the other issuers, will ensure a floor of
$1 billion for any underwriter-plaintiff settlement.  

On August 31, 2005, the court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and setting a public hearing on its
fairness for April 24, 2006 (the postponement from January 2006
to April 2006 was because of difficulties in mailing the
required notice to class members).  

The suit is styled "In re iBasis, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 10120 (Sas)," filed 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, newyork@whafh.com


ILLINOIS: Loan Originator Launches Suits V. Mortgage Companies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Derrick Perry, a loan originator for Wells Fargo Home Mortgage
and National City Mortgage, initiated two class action cases
against his former employers in an Illinois federal court,
alleging that they failed to pay him overtime in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938, The Madison County
Record reports.

In one of the suits, which were filed on December 19, Mr. Perry
claims that during the past three years he regularly worked far
in excess of 40 hours per week, including regularly scheduled
hours on weekends but was only paid by commission. He claims
that loan originators are eligible for repayable draws of up to
$2,000 per month in case their commissions did not equal that
amount in any given month, but were not compensated for any
substantial overtime hours worked. In addition, Mr. Perry also
claims in the suits that loan originators are not required to
record their time worked, and that Wells Fargo and National City
failed to maintain accurate time records as required by the
FLSA.

The suit alleges the defendants' willfully violated the FLSA by
failing to pay overtime and further claims that he and other
employee's are victims of a uniform and company-wide
compensation policy that is in violation of the FLSA.

According to Mr. Perry, his primary duties were to communicate
with potential customers and originate mortgage loan products.
He then explains that if a customer showed interest in obtaining
a mortgage, he would complete an application and forward it to a
loan underwriter for an approval decision, but had no authority
to approve or deny the loan.

Filed by Michael Marker of the Rex Carr Law Firm in East St.
Louis the suit states, "Plaintiff and all similarly situated
employees are entitled to damages equal to the mandated overtime
premium pay within the three years preceding the filing of this
complaint, plus periods of equitable tolling, because the
defendants acted willfully and knew or showed reckless disregard
for the matter."

Mr. Perry is seeking compensatory damages, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest and any other relief the court deems fair. Both his
cases were assigned to U.S. District Judge David Herndon.

The suits involved are styled, "Perry v. National City Mortgage,
Inc., Case No. 3:05-cv-00891-DRH-PMF" and "Perry v. Wells Fargo
Home Mortgage Inc., Case No. 3:05-cv-00890-DRH-CJP," both filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois, under Judge David R. Herndon with referral to Judge
Clifford J. Proud. Representing the Plaintiff in both cases are,
Michael B. Marker of Rex Carr Law Firm, Generally Admitted, 412
Missouri Ave., East St. Louis, IL 62201, Phone: 618-274-0434,
Fax: 618-274-8369, E-mail: mmarker@rexcarr.com; and George A.
Hanson of Stueve, Siegel et al., 330 West 47th St., Suite #250,
Kansas City, MO 64112, Phone: 816-714-7112, Fax: 816-714-7101.  


INFORTE CORPORATION: Final Fairness Hearing Set April 2006 in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against InForte Corporation and
former officers Philip S. Bligh, Stephen C.P. Mack and Nick
Padgett is set for April 24,2006 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit, styled "Mary C. Best v. Inforte Corp.; Goldman, Sachs;
Co.; Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.; Philip S. Bligh; Stephen C.P.
Mack and Nick Padgett, Case No. 01 CV 10836," is among more than
300 putative class actions against certain issuers, their
officers and directors, and underwriters with respect to such
issuers' initial public offerings, coordinated as "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS)."

An amended class action complaint was filed in the Case on April
19, 2002. The amended complaint in the Case alleges violations
of federal securities laws in connection with the Company's
initial public offering occurring in February 2000 and seeks
certification of a class of purchasers of Company stock,
unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' and expert witness
fees and other costs. The amended complaint does not allege any
claims relating to any alleged misrepresentations or omissions
with respect to the Company's business.  

The individual defendants (Messrs. Bligh, Mack and Padgett) have
been dismissed from the case without prejudice pursuant to a
stipulated dismissal and a tolling agreement.  The Company moved
to dismiss the plaintiff's case.  On February 19, 2002, the
Court granted this motion in part, denied it in part and ordered
that discovery in the case may commence.  The Court dismissed
with prejudice the plaintiff's purported claim against the
Company under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, but left in place the plaintiff's claim under Section 11
of the Securities Act of 1933.

The Company has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the
MOU), along with most of the other defendant issuers in the
Multiple IPO Litigation, whereby such issuers and their officers
and directors (including the Company and Messrs. Bligh, Mack and
Padgett) will be dismissed with prejudice from the Multiple IPO
Litigation, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions.
Under the terms of the MOU, neither the Company nor any of its
formerly named individual defendants admit any basis for
liability with respect to the claims in the Case. The MOU
provides that insurers for Inforte and the other defendant
issuers participating in the settlement will pay approximately
$1 billion to settle the Multiple IPO Litigation, except that no
such payment will occur until claims against the underwriters
are resolved and such payment will be paid only if the recovery
against the underwriters for such claims is less than $1 billion
and then only to the extent of any shortfall.  

Under the terms of the MOU, neither the Company nor any of its
named directors will pay any amount of the settlement. The MOU
further provided that participating defendant issuers will
assign certain claims they may have against the defendant
underwriters in connection with the Multiple IPO Litigation. The
MOU is subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions,
including, among others, approval of the Court.

In an order dated February 15, 2005, the Court certified
settlement classes and class representatives and granted
preliminary approval to the settlement contemplated by the MOU
with certain modifications, including that the "bar order," or
claims that would be barred by the settlement, be modified
consistent with the Court's opinion. The Court has ordered the
parties to submit a revised settlement stipulation consistent
with its opinion and has also scheduled a further hearing to
determine the form, substance and program of notices to class
members and to determine the fairness of the settlement.

Amended settlement documents were subsequently presented to the
Court and, on August 31, 2005, the Court entered an order
approving the form, substance and program of notice of the
settlement to class members and further set a hearing concerning
the fairness of the settlement on April 26, 2006.  Certain of
the underwriters that are defendants in the lawsuit have
appealed the Court's ruling granting class certification.

The suit is styled "IN RE INFORTE CORPORATION INITIAL PUBLIC
OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 01 CV 10836" 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


LANE BRYANT: Named As Defendant in WA Employee Wardrobing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lane Bryant was added as a defendant in a lawsuit, which accuses
the clothing retailer and several of its sister companies of
violating state law by requiring employees to buy and wear
clothes from the store without compensation, The Seattle Times
reports.

Filed in King County Superior Court in Washington, the lawsuit
against Charming Shoppes was brought on behalf of employees who
worked at Lane Bryant, Fashion Bug and Catherines stores from
2002 to the present. It alleges that the defendants required
employees to purchase clothing at their own expense to be worn
while at work. The practice, according to the suit, reduced the
pay of some employees below the minimum wage required by
Washington law. The suit also contends that it violated a state
statute that prohibits employers from changing the styles or
colors of employees' clothing more than once every two years.

Attorneys with the firm of Connor & Chung, which filed a similar
lawsuit against Abercrombie & Fitch two years ago, are asking
that the case be certified as a class action lawsuit and are
seeking reimbursement for employees who have worked at any of
the named Charming Shoppes stores since February 2002. Earlier
this year, the Abercrombie & Fitch case was settled for
$850,000, according to attorney Anne-Marie E. Sargent.

Ms. Sargent told The Seattle Times that the Abercrombie
settlement gave entry-level workers $65 for every three months
they worked for Abercrombie. On the other hand, managers
received $110 for every three months they worked for the
retailer.


LANTRONIX INC.: Trial in CA Securities Suit Set September 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated securities class action filed against
Lantronix, Inc. and certain of its current and former directors
and former officers is set for September 2006 in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.

The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws and
is styled "In re Lantronix, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
CV 02-3899 GPS (JTLx)." After the Court appointed a lead
plaintiff, amended complaints were filed by the plaintiff, and
the defendants filed various motions to dismiss directed at
particular allegations.  Through that process, certain of the
allegations were dismissed by the Court.

On October 18, 2004, the plaintiff filed the third amended
complaint, which is now the operative complaint in the action.
The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  
The 1933 Act claims are brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased common stock of Lantronix pursuant or traceable to the
Company's August 4, 2000 initial public offering ("IPO").

The 1934 Act claims are based on alleged misstatements related
to the Company's financial results that were contained in the
Registration Statement and Prospectus for the IPO. The claims
brought under the 1934 Act are brought on behalf of all persons
and entities that purchased or acquired Lantronix securities
from November 1, 2000 through May 30, 2002.  The Complaint
alleges that defendants issued false and misleading statements
concerning the business and financial condition in order to
allegedly inflate the value of the Company's securities during
the Class Period.  The complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, Lantronix overstated financial results through improper
revenue recognition and failure to comply with GAAP.

Defendants have filed an answer to the complaint and the case is
now in discovery.  The Court has set a trial date in September
2006. While the complaint does not specify the damages plaintiff
may seek on behalf of the purported classes of shareholders, a
recovery by the plaintiff and the plaintiff classes could have a
material adverse impact on the Company.

The suit, styled "In re Lantronix, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. CV 02-3899 GPS (JTLx)," is pending in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge George P. Schiavelli.  Lead counsel for the plaintiffs is
Weiss & Yourman (Los Angeles, CA), 10940 Wilshire Blvd - 24th
Floor, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, Phone: 310.208.2800, Fax;
310.209.2348, E-mail: info@wyca.com


LOOKSMART LTD.: Discovery Begins in AR Pay-Per-Click Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery begins in the class action filed against Looksmart
Ltd. in the Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas, alleging
breach of contract, restitution/unjust enrichment/money had and
received, and civil conspiracy claims in connection with
contracts allegedly entered into with plaintiffs for Internet
pay-per-click advertising.

The complaint, initially filed in the Circuit Court of Miller
County, Arkansas on March 14, 2005, names eleven search engines
and Web publishers as defendants (including the Company).  The
named plaintiffs are Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, L.L.C., U.S.
Citizens for Fair Credit Card Terms, Inc., Savings 4 Merchants,
Inc., and Max Caulfield d/b/a Caulfield Investigations.

On March 30, 2005 the case was removed to United States District
Court for the Western District of Arkansas. On April 4, 2005
plaintiffs U.S. Citizens for Fair Credit Card Terms, Inc. and
Savings 4 Merchants, Inc. filed a motion of voluntary dismissal
without prejudice. The motion was granted on April 7, 2005.
Plaintiffs Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, L.L.C. and Max
Caulfield d/b/a Caulfield Investigations filed a motion to
remand the case to state court on April 13, 2005, which was
granted in June 2005.  In July 2005, defendants, including the
Company, petitioned the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for an
appeal of the remand order, and moved to stay the proceedings
while the appeal is pending.  The petition was denied on
September 8, 2005 and the case was remanded to the Circuit Court
of Miller County, Arkansas.

The Company has filed and/or joined motions to dismiss on the
basis of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, lack of personal jurisdiction, and improper venue.
Plaintiffs have until January 27, 2006 to respond to the motions
to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue.
Plaintiffs have until June 9, 2006 to respond to the motion to
dismiss on the basis of failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.  The Company was served with discovery
requests on October 7, 2005.


LOOKSMART LTD.: Trial Begins in CA Gambling Advertisements Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial is proceeding in the class action filed against Looksmart
Ltd., and other web publishers and search engines in the
Superior Court in San Francisco County, California, in
connection with the display of advertisements from Internet
gambling companies.

On August 3, 2004, Mario Cisneros and Michael Voight filed the
private attorney general lawsuit on behalf of a proposed class,
alleging unfair business practices, unlawful business practices,
and other causes of action.  The complaint seeks restitution,
unspecified compensatory damages, declaratory and injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs also filed a motion for
preliminary injunction on August 3, 2004.

On January 3, 2005, the Company filed a demurrer to the
complaint, which was overruled on January 27, 2005.  On January
3, 2005, the Company also filed a motion to strike certain
allegations regarding claims for restitution, which was denied
in part and granted in part on May 9, 2005.  The Company filed
an answer to the complaint on February 28, 2005, consisting of a
general denial of all allegations.  The court has allowed
certain discovery to proceed with respect to plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary injunction.

On October 11, 2005, the court conducted a bifurcated trial and
ruled that California public policy bars the plaintiffs from
receiving any remedy of restitution on any alleged gambling
losses. The court was scheduled to hear arguments on an
application by plaintiffs for a temporary restraining order on
October 25, 2005; however, plaintiffs requested that that
hearing be merged into a hearing on plaintiffs' request for
preliminary injunction. A case management conference is set for
December 1 to discuss plaintiffs' request for preliminary
injunctive relief. Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction papers are
due to be filed November 21, 2005.

The suit is styled "Mario Cisneros et al, v. Yahoo! Inc., et al,
case no. CGC-04-433518," filed in the California Superior Court
in San Francisco County, under Judge Richard A. Kramer.
Representing the plaintiffs are Kathrein R. Reed and Ira P.
Rothken.  


MATCH.COM: Counsel Labels CA Consumer Fraud Lawsuit "Frivolous"
---------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney representing Match.com called the lawsuit filed in
Los Angeles against the Company's AC/Interactive Corporation
unit, alleging the Company set up a fake date to keep a client
subscribing, "frivolous," The Recorder reports.

Robert Platt, a partner at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips partner
told The Recorder that the suit is simply a "frivolous" claim
that the Company plans not to settle. He pointed out that just
like any other business, people are looking to make an easy
buck.

Mr. Platt has also been dealing with a class action that says
the California dating act applies to online dating. That act,
which was established in the era of brick-and-mortar dating
services, required companies to refund money if the user did not
receive the intended services. He explained though that the act
was created to avoid situations where candidates paid huge
upfront fees after they were assured they'd meet a suitable
person.

"They'd come in, and there would be one guy who weighed 700
pounds, was unemployed and smelled," Mr. Platt joked. "Of
course, candidates would want their money back."

The act also says that if one moves more than 50 miles from the
dating office, one can get money back. On that point, Mr. Platt
asked, "How does that apply to us?" He then pointed out, "We
don't even have a dating services office and we're in 153
different countries." He told The Recorder that despite the
recent press on lawsuits, "the overwhelming majority of people
who use our site love it."

The suit, which seeks class action status, came as growth in the
online dating industry has slowed, although web matchmaking
still remains a big business. U.S. consumers spent $245.2
million on online personals and dating services in the first
half of 2005, up 7.6 percent from a year earlier, according to
the Online Publishers Association, which is a slower growth rate
compared with several years ago. At the same time, competition
among online dating services is fierce, with some sites offering
newfangled features such as extensive compatibility surveys to
match up people with similar temperaments and outlooks, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 22, 2005) reports.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles by
plaintiff Matthew Evans, who contends that he went out with a
woman he met through the site who turned out to be nothing more
than "date bait" working for the company. According to his suit,
the relationship went nowhere. Mr. Evans claims that Match set
up the date for him because it wanted to keep him from pulling
the plug on his subscription and was hoping he'd tell other
potential members about the attractive woman he met through the
service. Though he was unavailable for comment, Mr. Evan's
attorney described him as a working professional of Orange
County, California, who is in his 30s, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (November 22, 2005) reports.

Previously, H. Scott Leviant, an attorney at Los Angeles law
firm Arias, Ozzello & Gignac LLP, which represents Mr. Evans,
told Reuters that his client found out about the alleged scam
after the woman he dated confessed that Match employed her.
Additionally, the suit also claims that the company violated the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, a law best
known for being used in prosecuting organized crime, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (November 22, 2005) reports.

The suit is styled, "Evans v. IAC/InteractiveCorp et al, Case
No. 8:05-cv-01104-CJC-RNB," filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, under Judge Cormac
J. Carney. Representing the Plaintiff are, Mike M. Arias, H.
Scott Leviant and Louis Pacella of Arias Ozzello & Gignac, 6701
Center Dr. W, Ste. 1400, Los Angeles, CA 90045-1558, Phone:
310-670-1600, Fax: 310-670-1231; and Devin R. Lucas, Richard E.
Quintilone II and Heather K Rowell of Quintilone and Associates,
15 Studebaker, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92618-2013, Phone:
949-458-9675.


MURPHY OIL: Attorneys Prepare For Status Hearing on LA Oil Spill
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys in the litigation over Murphy Oil Co.'s spill in
Meraux, Louisiana are gearing up for a January 12, 2006 federal
hearing in New Orleans that will determine whether the cases
qualify for class action status, The Associated Press reports.

Previously, Judge Eldon Fallon scheduled a two-day hearing on a
series of lawsuits that assert the Company was negligent in
causing a massive oil spill in St. Bernard Parish in the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The Company maintains though the
spill, which came from a storage tank that was rocked by
flooding, was the result of an "act of God."

Much of the hearing is likely to focus on determining how many
homes were harmed by the spill. So far 64 named plaintiffs have
stepped forward to join the suit. Plaintiffs' attorneys said in
a September filing that the spill might have harmed more than
160,000 properties.

A federal health consultation released on December 9, 2005
concluded that 1,800 properties were "visually determined" to be
affected by the spill. The Environmental Protection Agency
classified 114 properties as having a "heavy" level of oiling,
286 properties as medium and the rest have a "light level of
oiling" only, according to the report.

The El Dorado, Arkansas-based Company has been trying to ward
off a slew of class action suits that were filed after 1 million
gallons of oil spilled into homes and canals in Meraux after
Hurricane Katrina's storm surge lifted a massive storage tank
off its base. In an effort to narrow the potential scope of
those suits, Murphy opened up five claims offices and started
contacting residents two months after the storm. It offered
people tens of thousands of dollars for damage to their homes if
they dropped out of the suits, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (November 17,2005) states.

However, at a previous hearing in federal court, plaintiffs'
attorneys alleged that the Company is providing false and
misleading information about the massive oil spill. The
allegation was made in a hearing in which plaintiffs' attorneys
sought to convince Judge Fallon to restrict Murphy from entering
into settlement talks with victims of the Meraux oil spill. In
that hearing, plaintiffs' attorneys pointed out to Judge Fallon
that the Company has downplayed and misled people about the
potential long-term health and environmental risks of the 1
million gallon oil spill that washed into about 1,500 homes.
They also charged that the Company is making people think that
the contaminated area is smaller than it actually is. In
addition, the attorneys contended that under the enduring
chaotic conditions victims are unable to get adequate legal help
and that the court should safeguard them from predatory
practices, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 7,
2005) reports.

Judge Fallon agreed in part with the lawyers, pointing out that
the Company needs to tell victims to consult a lawyer before
settling and that they would waive their legal rights in the
case by accepting money. In addition he also said that the
Company couldn't seek out residents who had not previously
contacted it on their own or those who have lawyers. IN essence
the judge ordered the Company to be more transparent in its
settlement talks with oil spill victims, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (November 17, 2005) reports.

The January 12 hearing is expected to include testimony from
expert witnesses and residents. Judge Fallon is then expected to
issue a written opinion on the case. Though the judge barred
attorneys from discussing the substance of the case with the
media, an attorney involved with the case confirmed the
procedural details of the hearing.

The Company faces two class action lawsuits, which seeks
unspecified damages for an oil leak at the Louisiana refinery.
Filed in Lafayette, Louisiana, the federal suits accuse the
company and its Murphy Oil USA Inc. unit of negligence when
Hurricane Katrina hit August 29, 2005 and knocked out the
company's plant at Meraux, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (September 20, 2005) reports.

A lawsuit filed by property owner Patrick Joseph Turner on
behalf of at least 500 property owners in St. Bernard Parish
states, "As a direct and proximate cause of the negligence of
the defendant, plaintiffs sustained damages that include
contamination of property, mental anguish, emotional distress,
inconvenience, loss of use, loss of property value, loss of
income, loss of profits, loss of business opportunity and fear
of cancer," an earlier Class Action Reporter story (September
20, 2005) reports.

The second lawsuit filed by residents John and Theonise Maus,
Judith Maus, Charles August Maus, Marcel Wieners, Carla Valaske
and at least 5,000 other parish residents states that among the
issues to be considered is whether "Murphy's negligence is
ultimately found to prolong the time in which members cannot
return to their property and whether the class members' property
is permanently damaged so that their property's fair-market
value is diminished," an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(September 20, 2005) reports.

The suits involved are styled:

     (1) "Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-
         04206-EEF-JCW," filed in the United States District
         Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, under
         Judge Eldon E. Fallon with referral to Judge Joseph C.
         Wilkinson. Representing the Plaintiff/s is Mickey P.
         Landry of Landry & Swarr, LLC, 1010 Common St., Suite
         2050, New Orleans, LA 70112, Phone: 504-299-1214, E-
         mail: mlandry@landryswarr.com. Representing the
         Defendant/s is George A. Frilot, III of Frilot
         Partridge Kohnke & Clements (Lafayette), 107 Global
         Circle, Lafayette, LA 70503, Phone: 337-988-5422, E-
         mail: gfrilot@fpkc.com.

     (2) "Maus et al v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. et al, Case No.
         2:05-cv-04160-EEF-JCW," filed in the United States
         District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana,
         under Judge Eldon E. Fallon with referral to Judge
         Joseph C. Wilkinson. Representing the Plaintiff/s is
         Scott R. Bickford of Martzell & Bickford, 338 Lafayette
         St., New Orleans, LA 70130, Phone: (504) 581-9065, E-
         mail: usdcedla@mbfirm.com. Representing the Defendant/s
         is George A. Frilot, III, Frilot Partridge Kohnke &
         Clements (Lafayette), 107 Global Circle, Lafayette, LA
         70503, Phone: 337-988-5422, E-mail: gfrilot@fpkc.com.


NETGEAR INC.: Enters Settlement Discussions For CA Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
NETGEAR, Inc. entered settlement discussions for two class
actions filed in the Superior Court of California, county of
Santa Clara, on behalf of all persons or entities in the United
States who purchased the Company's wireless products other than
for resale.

In June 2004, a lawsuit, entitled "Zilberman v. NETGEAR, Civil
Action CV021230," was filed, alleging that the Company made
false representations concerning the data transfer speeds of its
wireless products when used in typical operating circumstances,
and is requesting injunctive relief, payment of restitution and
reasonable attorney fees.  Limited discovery is currently under
way and no trial date has been set.

In February 2005, a lawsuit, entitled "McGrew v. NETGEAR," was
filed in the same court, making the same allegations and
purports to represent the same class of persons and entities as
the Zilberman suit.  

Similar lawsuits have been filed against other companies within
the Company's industry. The Company has filed an answer to the
complaint denying the allegations.  The Company and the
Plaintiff are engaged in settlement discussions. Any settlement
would be subject to final court approval.


NEW JERSEY: Ramsey Borough Faces Suit Over Rental Policies
----------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey's borough of Ramsey along with some condominium
owners may end up in court over whether the owners can rent out
their low-income units, The NorthJersey.com reports.

A group of owners at the 44-unit Timber Valley complex recently
banded together to file a class action lawsuit after borough
officials amended affordable housing regulations earlier this
year. Those amendments require low-to-moderate units to be
owner-occupied and can only be rented if a tenant is currently
residing in the condo.

The changes came after borough officials received complaints
that some Timber Valley units were being rented at market rate
or to people who didn't qualify for low- to moderate-income
housing. All of the units are considered affordable housing
under the state Supreme Court's Mount Laurel rulings.

Steven Schuster, a lawyer representing a group of homeowners,
told The NorthJersey.com that the changes are unfair and would
force his clients to sell their property prematurely. He also
said, "I don't understand the whole motivation behind this other
than they [borough officials] don't want people renting the
units." He adds, "There are a lot of rumors going around that
some are rented at market rate. That's something that can be
enforced by the town. If that's the reason [for the amendments],
then that's a spurious reason."

The owners have a great incentive to hold onto their units,
since they can be sold at market rate in 2017, according to a
flier calling for Timber Valley owners to join the lawsuit. The
flier blamed the borough for not providing eligible tenants for
the condos.

The borough has hired a Princeton consulting company, Piazza &
Associates, which specializes in affordable housing issues to
see if Timber Valley landlords comply with state and borough
law. Currently, borough officials are waiting for a final
report. The company's principal, Frank Piazza, did not return a
phone call seeking comment.

Additionally, the Company will also enforce deed restrictions
and develop a procedure to assure that all units follow
affordable housing guidelines, according to borough documents.

Jean Wallace, who owns a Timber Valley unit, brought the matter
to borough officials after she tried to help friends rent an
apartment in the complex. She said they could not afford the
rent because it was at market rate. She told The
NorthJersey.com, "There are so many people who can't afford
housing, and there are people who are making a fortune here.
It's not fair."


NEW JERSEY: Resident Files Stolen Bone Suit V. Several Companies
----------------------------------------------------------------
A New Jersey resident, who received a transplanted bone at Shore
Memorial Hospital in Somers Point that may have been illegally
harvested from a corpse at a New York funeral home, launched a
civil lawsuit, The Press of Atlantic City reports.

Two law firms, Andres & Berger in Haddonfield and Anapol,
Schwartz in Cherry Hill, filed lawsuits in Atlantic County
Superior Court on behalf of Anthony J. Vitola and his wife,
Melanie, of Deptford, naming several medical companies as
defendants. The firms are seeking class action status because
numerous people who believe they received bones and tissue in
the alleged scheme have come forward.

Attorney Ken Andres told The Press of Atlantic City, "These
companies treated human bodies like cars in a chop shop. These
illegal and immoral actions have devastated the families of the
deceased and innocent patients seeking medical cures."

The defendants named are Biomedical Tissue Services Ltd.,
Lefecess Corporation, Lost Mountain Tissue Bank, Blood and
Tissue Center of Central Texas, Tutogen Medical Inc. and
Regeneration Technologies. According to court records, Shore
Memorial Hospital and AtlantiCare Regional Medical Center, both
located in Atlantic County, used products from Regeneration
Technologies supplied by Biomedical Tissue Services. Both
hospitals have not been named in any of the cases.

Since the criminal investigation began involving New York
funeral homes in October, patients have been receiving calls
from doctors warning them that they must be tested for diseases
because the cadaver bones and tissue used for their procedures
may have been illegally harvested from corpses.

Like hundreds of other patients in the nation who may have
received stolen body parts, Mr. Vitola found out that the
materials were not screened for diseases, including HIV,
hepatitis B and C and syphilis, and had to take several tests.
Although Mr. Vitola and two other Atlantic County residents who
received bone and tissue transplants at Shore Memorial Hospital
tested negative for diseases, they still fear diseases with long
incubation periods such as HIV may not show up right away on
tests.

Recently though, attorney Patrick D'Arcy told The Press of
Atlantic City that three Atlantic County residents who received
bone transplants at Shore Memorial tested positive for hepatitis
and syphilis. Mr. D'Arcy anticipates that 15 to 20 more lawsuits
will be filed in the coming weeks, and he also is seeking to
file a national class-action lawsuit.

Mr. Vitola's lawyer, Mr. Andres told The Press of Atlantic City
that the situation is hard to fathom. He pointed out, "The shame
of it is these are everyday folks seeking medical care." He
adds, "This is like a bad horror novel. This is evil."

The D'Arcy law firm in Galloway Township filed the first two
lawsuits against the medical supply companies, the funeral
parlor and two men alleged to be a part of the scheme. Gary
Pieper of Mays Landing filed one of those suits.

In that suit, Mr. Pieper claims that the bone used when he
underwent an operation last year was taken from a corpse without
permission from the family of the deceased and was not tested
for various diseases. Mr. Pieper's suit names as defendants a
Brooklyn, New York funeral home and three companies involved in
obtaining and marketing human tissue such as skin, bones and
eyes for transplants, as well as an embalmer and the man who ran
one of the tissue firms. Among the companies named is Medtronic
Inc.'s Memphis, Tennessee-based spinal-implant unit Sofamor
Danek Inc. The other defendants in the case, Biomedical Tissue
Services, Daniel George & Son Funeral Home of Brooklyn and
Regeneration Technologies Inc., of Alachua, Florida, either
could not be reached or did not return messages asking for
comment on the suit, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(December 20, 2005) reports.


OCCAM NETWORKS: Court Affirms Preliminarily Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York affirms ruling granting preliminary approval to the
settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed
against Occam Networks, Inc. (formerly Accelerated Networks,
Inc.), certain of its then officers and directors and several
investment banks that were underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering.

In June 2001, three putative stockholder class action lawsuits
were filed, and later consolidated, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The Court
appointed a lead plaintiff on April 16, 2002, and plaintiffs
filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on April 19,
2002.

The Complaint was filed on behalf of investors who purchased the
Company's stock between June 22, 2000 and December 6, 2000 and
alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933 Act and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the 1934 Act against
one or both of the Company and the individual defendants. The
claims were based on allegations that the underwriter defendants
agreed to allocate stock in the Company's initial public
offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and
undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to
make additional purchases in the aftermarket at pre-determined
prices. Plaintiffs alleged that the prospectus for the Company's
initial public offering was false and misleading in violation of
the securities laws because it did not disclose these
arrangements.

These lawsuits are part of the massive "IPO allocation"
litigation involving the conduct of underwriters in allocating
shares of successful initial public offerings.  Over three
hundred other companies have been named in more than one
thousand similar lawsuits that have been filed by some of the
same plaintiffs' law firms.  In October 2002, the plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the individual defendants without
prejudice.  On February 19, 2003 a motion to dismiss filed by
the issuer defendants was heard and the court dismissed the
10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 claims against the Company.  

On July 31, 2003, the Company agreed, together with over three
hundred other companies similarly situated, to settle with the
Plaintiffs. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), along with a
separate agreement and a performance bond of $1 billion issued
by the insurers for these companies is a guarantee, allocated
pro rata amongst all issuer companies, to the plaintiffs as part
of an overall recovery against all defendants including the
underwriter defendants who are not a signatory to the MOU. Any
recovery by the plaintiffs against the underwriter defendants
reduces amount to be paid by the issuer companies. The
settlement documents are in process and it is anticipated that
the Company will execute the settlement documents in 2005.  This
settlement will require approval of the members of the class of
plaintiffs and the court.

On August 31,2005, the court affirmed its ruling granting
preliminary approval to the settlement.  There is a fairness
hearing scheduled for April 24, 2006 to obtain final approval of
the settlement by the members of the class of plaintiffs and the
court.

The suit is styled "In re Accelerated Networks, 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


ONVIA.COM: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Securities 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 Onvia.com,
Inc., former executive officers Glenn S. Ballman and Mark T.
Calvert, and its lead underwriter, Credit Suisse First Boston
(CSFB).

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who acquired
securities of Onvia between March 1, 2000 and December 6, 2000.  
The complaint charged defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, for issuing a Registration Statement and
Prospectus that contained material misrepresentations and/or
omissions.  The complaint alleged that the Registration
Statement and Prospectus were false and misleading because they
failed to disclose:

     (1) the agreements between CSFB and certain investors to
         provide them with significant amounts of restricted
         Onvia shares in the initial public offering (IPO) in
         exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions; and

     (2) the agreements between CSFB and certain customers under
         which the underwriters would allocate shares in the IPO
         to those customers in exchange for the customers'
         agreement to purchase Onvia shares in the after-market
         at predetermined prices.

The complaint sought an undisclosed amount of damages, as well
as attorney fees.  On October 9, 2002, an order of dismissal
without prejudice was entered, dismissing former officers Glenn
S. Ballman and Mark T. Calvert.  In June 2003, Onvia, along with
most of the companies named as defendants in this litigation,
accepted a settlement proposal negotiated among plaintiffs,
underwriters and issuers.  The major points of the settlement
are:

     (i) insurers will provide a $1 billion guaranty payable to
         plaintiffs;

    (ii) companies will assign excess compensation claims
         against underwriters to plaintiffs;

   (iii) companies will agree not to assert pricing claims
         or claims for indemnification against the underwriters;

    (iv) companies and their officers and directors will be
         released from any further litigation relating to these
         claims; and

     (v) companies will agree to cooperate in any document
         discovery.

The final settlement agreement must be negotiated and approved
by the court.  The settlement was preliminarily approved by the
court in February 2005, with one modification relating to a bar
order, and the Company is awaiting final court approval.

The suit is styled "In re Onvia.com, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," related " In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS),"
filed 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


ONVIA.COM: Court Grants Partial Summary Judgment For Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The King County Superior Court in Washington granted Onvia.com,
Inc.'s motion for partial summary judgment in the class action
filed against it, alleging it sent unsolicited facsimiles to
recipients in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, Washington's facsimile law, and the Washington
Consumer Protection Act.

Responsive Management Systems filed the suit, which sought
injunctive relief as well as incidental statutory damages of
$500 per fax on behalf of the plaintiff and each member of the
proposed class who received a facsimile on or about August 23,
2001.  In a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the Company denied the charges, saying "We fax only
to vendors with whom we have an existing business relationship,
or to vendors with whom our agency partners have an existing
relationship."

On October 7, 2005, the court granted the Company's motion for
partial summary judgment, eliminating the plaintiff's claim for
injunctive relief and thereby making it very difficult for
plaintiff to certify a class action status.


PAXIL: New Studies Suggest Drug Increases Risk of Birth Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Food and Drug Administration alerted health care
professionals and patients about early results of new studies
for Paxil (paroxetine) suggesting that the drug increases the
risk for birth defects, particularly heart defects, when women
take it during the first three months of pregnancy.  Paxil is
approved for the treatment of depression and several other
psychiatric disorders.  FDA is currently gathering additional
data and waiting for the final results of the recent studies in
order to better understand the higher risk for birth defects
that has been seen with Paxil.  

FDA is advising health care professionals to discuss the
potential risk of birth defects with patients taking Paxil who
plan to become pregnant or are in their first three months of
pregnancy.  Health care professionals should consider
discontinuing Paxil (and switching to another antidepressant if
indicated) in these patients.  In some patients, the benefits of
continuing Paxil may be greater than the potential risk to the
fetus.  FDA is advising health care professionals not to
prescribe Paxil in women who are in the first three months of
pregnancy or are planning pregnancy, unless other treatment
options are not appropriate.

FDA is advising patients that this drug should usually not be
taken during pregnancy, but for some women who have already been
taking Paxil, the benefits of continuing may be greater than the
potential risk to the fetus.  Women taking Paxil who are
pregnant or plan to become pregnant should talk to their
physicians about the potential risks of taking the drug during
pregnancy.  Women taking Paxil should not stop taking it without
first talking with their physician.

The early results of two studies showed that women who took
Paxil during the first three months of pregnancy were about one
and a half to two times as likely to have a baby with a heart
defect as women who received other antidepressants or women in
the general population. Most of the heart defects reported in
these studies were atrial and ventricular septal defects (holes
in the walls of the chambers of the heart). In general, these
types of defects range in severity from those that are minor and
may resolve without treatment to those that cause serious
symptoms and may need to be repaired surgically.

In one of the studies, the risk of heart defects in babies whose
mothers had taken Paxil early in pregnancy was about 2 percent,
compared to a 1 percent risk in the whole population. In the
other study, the risk of heart defects in babies whose mothers
had taken Paxil in the first three months of pregnancy was 1.5
percent, compared to 1 percent in babies whose mothers had taken
other antidepressants in the first three months of pregnancy.

FDA has asked the manufacturer, Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK), to
change the pregnancy category from C to D, a stronger warning.
Category D means that studies in pregnant women (controlled or
observational) have demonstrated a risk to the fetus. However,
the benefits of therapy may outweigh the potential risks to the
fetus.

Based on results of the preliminary data, GSK updated the drug's
labeling in September 2005 to add data from one study. As
additional data have become available, the label has now been
changed to reflect the latest data from the two studies and to
change the pregnancy category.

Additional information concerning today's announcement is
available on FDA's Web site at:
Public Health Advisory:
http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/advisory/paroxetine200512.htmand  
CDER Information Sheets:
http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/paroxetine/default.htm.  


PETCO PETROLEUM: Settlement Proposed For Pollution Suit in IL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan said a proposed
settlement with the state's largest independent oil producer
would require the producer to pay a civil penalty to resolve
several cases of recurring oil spills, releases of salt water
and the alleged water pollution they caused at injection wells
the company operates in Fayette and Jefferson Counties.

Petco Petroleum Corporation, an Indiana corporation, has agreed
to pay a civil penalty of $135,000 to resolve an October 2004
complaint filed by Ms. Madigan's office. The settlement covers a
series of six events that occurred in 2004 at Fayette County
drilling sites as well as five additional spills that occurred
during May and August of 2005. In all, Ms. Madigan said Petco is
allegedly responsible for releases of approximately 1,100
barrels of salt water and an estimated 20 barrels of crude oil
since 2004.

According to Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)
estimates, spills at two of the sites allegedly killed more than
2,000 fish after salt water overflowed and ran into nearby
streams. The incidents were referred to Ms. Madigan's office by
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA).

Ms. Madigan said Petco operates approximately 1,400 oil wells in
Fayette and Jefferson Counties through permits granted to the
company by the IDNR. Producers such as Petco, which employ the
injection or water flood method of production, pump large
volumes of salt water into wells to aid in extracting crude oil
from the ground.

"Petco Petroleum must clean up its act in Illinois," Ms. Madigan
said. "This series of spills and incidents is unacceptable."

Under the settlement, filed on December 22, before the Illinois
Pollution Control Board (IPCB), Petco must continue to clean up
the aftermath of oil and salt water spills at all of the wells
cited in Madigan's complaints. In addition, Petco must continue
to replace corroded pipelines and upgrade other production
equipment that allegedly contributed to the various oil spills.

In 1999, Petco Petroleum, owned by Jay Bergman of Hinsdale, was
assessed $40,000 in penalties by a Jefferson County court. Last
year, Petco was assessed a $168,000 penalty in Sangamon County
for improper disposal of oil field wastes and approximately 200
other spills; however, this judgment is on appeal.

The company would have 30 days to pay the civil penalty after
the IPCB rules on the settlement proposal. The agreement does
not include an admission of guilt by Petco. Ms. Madigan's
Environmental Bureau Chief Thomas Davis is handling the case.


SERONO INC.: ME Medicaid Program Receives Settlement Check
----------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Steve Rowe announced that the State Medicaid
Program ("MaineCare") received a check for $207,334.29 as part
of a final settlement in a multi-state action against the
pharmaceutical company Serono Inc., a Swiss corporation with
offices in Rockland, Massachusetts.  

Maine joined with 41 states and the District of Columbia in
charging that Serono had promoted the drug Serostim for the
treatment of HIV-wasting, an AIDS related syndrome, when the
drug had not been approved by the FDA for that purpose.  The
States also alleged that Serono had induced physicians to
prescribe Serostim for HIV-wasting by offering the physicians
benefits such as trips to France.  The settlement includes
restitution and penalties, and will reimburse the State for
claims paid to Serono for dispensing Serostim for the
unauthorized treatment between 1997 and 2004.  

"Serono abused its position of trust by using an unproven drug
on people suffering with HIV to obtain funds from Medicaid and
Medicare," said Mr. Rowe. "Our Healthcare Crimes Unit will work
with other States in bringing enforcement actions against
pharmaceutical companies which defraud the Medicaid programs."

The state settlement was reached as part of a federal civil and
criminal settlement negotiated by the United States Attorney's
Office in Boston. Under the federal agreement, Serono
Laboratories, Inc., a U.S. affiliate of Serono S.A., pled guilty
to charges of conspiring to defraud the United States and
kickback charges.  As a result of its criminal conviction,
Serono Laboratories will be excluded from participation in all
healthcare programs for at least five years.  Serostim will
remain eligible for reimbursement by state Medicaid programs.

Finally, as part of the settlement, all U.S. affiliates of
Serono have entered into a Corporate Integrity Agreement ("CIA")
with the United States Department of Health and Human Services
Office of Inspector General.


TELECOMUNICACIONES DE PUERTO RICO: Court Mulls Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Bayamon, Puerto Rico heard
Telecomunicaciones de Puerto Rico's (PRTC) motion for summary
judgment in the class action filed against it by its
subscribers.
  
On November 17, 2003, six residential subscribers and eight
business service subscribers filed the suit in the Superior
Court of Puerto Rico under the Puerto Rico Telecommunications
Act of 1996 and the Puerto Rico Class Action Act of 1971.  The
plaintiffs have claimed that the Company's charges for touchtone
service are not based on cost, and are therefore in violation of
the Act.  The plaintiffs have requested that the Superior Court:

     (1) issue an order certifying the case as a class action,

     (2) designate the plaintiffs as representative of the
         class,

     (3) find that the charges are illegal, and

     (4) order the Company to reimburse every subscriber for
         excess payments made since September 1996

On December 30, 2003, the Company filed its answer to the
complaint and requested dismissal on the grounds that the claim
is not a legitimate class action suit.  On February 17, 2004,
the plaintiffs filed their first set of interrogatories and
request for admissions to initiate discovery.  PRTC will ask the
Superior Court to first decide the threshold issue of class
certification.  On February 23, 2004, the Superior Court issued
an order scheduling a status conference for April 30, 2004.

At the hearing, the Superior Court ruled that at this stage of
the proceedings the discovery process would be addressed, but
not limited to the determination of the class.  Therefore, PRTC
was ordered to submit responses to the plaintiffs' request for
admissions and to their first and second sets of
interrogatories.  PRTC submitted its responses to the
plaintiffs' request for admissions and to their first and second
sets of interrogatories on July 6 and July 16, 2004,
respectively.  The court ordered the Company to submit responses
to the discovery on the merits without having certified the
class.  On October 13, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion opposing
PRTC's writ of certiorari. The PR Court of Appeals denied PRTC's
writ of certiorari requesting the reversal of a Superior Court
order allowing unlimited discovery.

On November 15, 2004, the Court held an evidentiary hearing in
order to determine if this case will be certified as a class
action. At the hearing, the Judge ordered PRTC to comply with
the plaintiffs' discovery requests with respect to the merits
and PRTC has now done so. On May 9, 2005, the Court issued a
Resolution and Order certifying the class. On May 25, 2005, PRTC
filed reconsideration to the Court's determination of the class
certification and a hearing was scheduled for June 20, 2005.
After the hearing, the Court denied PRTC's reconsideration
request.  Notwithstanding, during the hearing the Court allowed
the intervention (amicus curiae) of Puerto Rico Electric Power
Authority and the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority.

On July 7, 2005, PRTC filed a reply to plaintiff's opposition to
a motion for summary judgment filed earlier by PRTC.  On July
28, 2005, PRTC filed a petition for certiorari requesting the
P.R. Appeals Court to overturn the P.R. Superior Court's
decision to certify the class. The petition was denied on
September 16, 2005. PRTC filed a Motion for Reconsideration on
October 4, 2005. On October 5, 2005 the P.R. Appeals Court
denied the Reconsideration. PRTC plans to file a petition for
certiorari in the P.R. Supreme Court no later than November 10,
2005. A hearing for Summary Judgment was held on November 10,
2005 in the Superior Court of Bayamon, Puerto Rico.


TRINSIC COMMUNICATIONS: IL Court Dismisses in Part Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department,
Chancery Division dismissed in part the consumer fraud class
action filed against Trinsic Communications, Inc. (formerly
known as Z-Tel Communications, Inc.)

The suit was initially filed in the state court, styled "Susan
Schad, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
v. Z-Tel Communications, Inc., In the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Illinois County Department, Chancery
Division, case no. C.A. No. 04CH07882."  Susan Schad, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, filed a class
action lawsuit against the Company, alleging that it has engaged
in a pattern and practice of deceiving consumers into paying
amounts in excess of their monthly rates by deceptively labeling
certain line-item charges as government-mandated taxes or fees
when in fact they were not. The complaint seeks to certify a
class of plaintiffs consisting of all persons or entities who
contracted with the Company for telecommunications services and
were billed for particular taxes or regulatory fees.  The
complaint asserts a claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Businesses Practices Act and seeks unspecified
damages, attorneys' fees and court costs.

On June 22, 2004, the Company filed a notice of removal in the
state circuit court action, removing the case to the United
States District court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, C.A. No. 4 C 4187, styled "Susan Schad, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Z-Tel
Communications, Inc., case no. C.A. No. 4 C 4187."

On July 26, 2004, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to
the state circuit court.  On January 12, 2005, the federal court
granted the motion and remanded the case to the state court.  On
October 17, 2005, the state court heard argument on our motion
to dismiss the lawsuit and granted that motion, in part with
prejudice. The court dismissed with prejudice the claims
relating to the "E911 Tax," the "Utility Users Tax," and the
"Communications Service Tax."  The court found that those tax
charges were specifically authorized by state law or local
ordinance, and thus cannot be the basis of a Consumer Fraud
claim. The court also dismissed (but with leave to replead
within 28 days) the claims relating to the "Interstate Recovery
Fee" and the "Federal Regulatory Compliance Fee."  The court
determined that plaintiff had failed to allege how she was
actually damaged by the allegedly deceptive description of the
charges.

The suit is styled "Susan Schad, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, v. Z-Tel Communications, Inc., In the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Illinois County
Department, Chancery Division, case no. C.A. No. 04CH07882,"
filed under Judge Richard J. Billik, Jr.  Representing the
plaintiffs is MILLER FAUCHER CHERTOW, 30 N LaSalle St. 3630,
Chicago IL 60602, Phone: (312) 782-4485.  Representing the
Company is PRETZEL & STOUFFER, 1 S. Wacker Dr #2500, Chicago,
IL, 60606, Phone: (312) 346-1973.


TRINSIC INC.: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Stock 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 Z-Tel
Technologies, Inc. (now known as Trinsic Inc.), certain of its
current and former directors and officers and firms engaged in
the underwriting of the Company's initial public offering of
stock (IPO).

During June and July 2001, three separate class action lawsuits
were filed, along with approximately 310 other similar lawsuits
filed against other issuers arising out of initial public
offering allocations.  The suits have been assigned to a Judge
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York for pretrial coordination.

The lawsuits against the Company have been consolidated into a
single action.  A consolidated amended complaint was filed on
April 20, 2002.  A Second Corrected Amended Complaint, which is
the operative complaint, was filed on July 12, 2002.

The Amended Complaint is based on the allegations that the
Company's registration statement on Form S-1, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in connection with the
IPO, contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted to
state facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading
by failing to disclose that the underwriters allegedly had
received additional, excessive and undisclosed commissions from,
and allegedly had entered into unlawful tie-in and other
arrangements with, certain customers to whom they allocated
shares in the IPO.  The plaintiffs in the Amended Complaint
assert claims against the Company and the directors and officers
pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated by the SEC there under.  

The plaintiffs in the Amended Complaint assert claims against
the directors and officers pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by
the SEC thereunder.  The plaintiffs seek an undisclosed amount
of damages, as well as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, experts' fees and
other costs and disbursements.  Initial discovery has begun.  
The Company believes it is entitled to indemnification from our
Underwriters.

A settlement has been reached by the respective lawyers for the
plaintiffs, the issuers and insurers of the issuers.  The
principal terms of the proposed settlement are:

     (1) a release of all claims against the issuers and their
         officers and directors,

     (2) the assignment by the issuers to the plaintiffs of
         certain claims the issuers may have against the
         Underwriters and

     (3) an undertaking by the insurers to ensure the plaintiffs
         receive not less than $1 billion in connection with
         claims against the Underwriters.

Hence, under the terms of the settlement the Company's financial
obligations will likely be covered by insurance.  The Company's
board of directors has approved the settlement.  To be binding,
the settlement must be executed by the parties and thereafter
submitted to and approved by the court.  The settlement will not
be binding upon any plaintiffs electing to opt-out of the
settlement.  The court has given preliminary approval of the
settlement subject to certain modifications. A revised
settlement agreement has been submitted to the court. To be
binding, the settlement must be executed by the parties and
thereafter submitted to and approved by the court.

On August 31, 2005, the court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and setting a public hearing on its
fairness for April 24, 2006 (the postponement from January 2006
to April 2006 was because of difficulties in mailing the
required notice to class members).  

The suit is styled "In Re Z-Tel Technologies, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01 Civ. 5074
(Sas)," related " In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed 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:

     (i) 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

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

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

    (iv) 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

     (v) 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

    (vi) 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: FDA Warns V. Drinking Raw Milk Due To Health Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Following an outbreak in the state of Washington, the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) is warning the public against drinking
raw milk because it may contain harmful bacteria that can cause
life-threatening illnesses. Raw milk is not treated or
pasteurized to remove disease-causing bacteria.

The risk of drinking raw milk was most recently demonstrated in
Washington State by an outbreak associated with raw milk
containing the bacteria called Escherichia coli O157:H7 (E.
coli). To date, eight illnesses have been reported in Washington
state, several of which were in children. Two of the children
remain hospitalized. Health authorities have identified locally
sold raw milk as a source of the outbreak, and have ordered the
unlicensed dairy to shut down.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
more than 300 people in the United States became ill by drinking
raw milk or eating cheese made from raw milk in 2001, and nearly
200 became ill from these products in 2002.

Symptoms of E. coli O157:H7 illness include stomach cramps and
diarrhea, including bloody diarrhea. E. coli O157:H7 disease
sometimes leads to a serious complication called hemolytic
uremic syndrome (HUS), which can cause kidney failure. People
typically become ill two to five days after eating contaminated
food. People who have developed those symptoms after consuming
unpasteurized milk should seek immediate medical attention.

Pasteurization is the only effective method for eliminating the
bacteria in raw milk and milk products. Pasteurization uses heat
applied for a length of time sufficient to destroy harmful
bacteria such as E. coli O157:H7 without significantly changing
milk's nutritional value. There is no meaningful difference in
the nutritional value of pasteurized and unpasteurized milk.
Pasteurization can also prevent such contagious diseases as
tuberculosis, diphtheria, polio, Q fever, salmonellosis, strep
throat, scarlet fever, and typhoid fever that can be spread by
bacteria in milk. All milk shipped between states is required,
by law, to be pasteurized.


ZIRKLE FRUIT: Trial For WA Immigration Case Set to Begin Soon
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Chicago, Illinois attorney who has described the city of
Yakima, Washington as "overrun with Mexicans" and "smothered by
endless taco joints" will argue an unusual immigration case
against executives of Zirkle Fruit Co. in a trial set to start
within the next few weeks, The Yakima Herald-Republic reports.

Howard Foster, who pioneered the use of a racketeering statute
in immigration cases, will try to show in federal court that
Zirkle management purposely hired thousands of undocumented
workers in order to depress wages and keep down costs. He
argues, as many as 20,000 legal workers in the Yakima Valley
were injured as a result.

If Mr. Foster wins at the trial, the jury would decide in a
second phase if legal workers, who have class action status in
the case, are entitled to damages and how much. Under the
federal racketeering statute those damages would be tripled. In
essence, each class member would receive a check for back pay
based on hours worked from November 1999 to the present.

In his complaint, Mr. Foster states that owner William Zirkle
and top executives William Wangler and Gary Hudson conspired to
hire thousands of illegal immigrants for orchard and warehouse
work at Selah-based Zirkle Fruit in violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Also named as a
defendant is Selective Employment, a temporary job placement
company used by Zirkle Fruit. Zirkle Fruit, the business itself,
is not a defendant in the case.

Though a settlement hearing is scheduled this week, both sides
told The Yakima Herald-Republic in recent telephone interviews
that they are not close to a compromise. U.S. District Court
Judge Fred Van Sickle of Spokane will preside over the January
9, 2005 trial in federal district court in Yakima.

Ryan Edgley, who is defending the Zirkle executives, told The
Yakima Herald-Republic that none of them knowingly hired illegal
workers. He predicted that Mr. Foster's case will fall apart at
trial for lack of evidence. He pointed out, "Bill Zirkle is one
of the finest, most upstanding businessmen in this community. He
wouldn't do anything wrong if his life depended on it."

Brendan Monahan, the lawyer for Selective Employment, filed a
motion to have his client dismissed from the case, pending a
U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a separate lawsuit expected next
year. Mr. Monahan, who is also a lawyer for The Yakima Herald-
Republic said, "Selective strenuously denies all of the
allegations. Selective Employment is an honest company run by
honest people."

Serving as co-counsel with Mr. Foster is prominent Seattle
lawyer Steve Berman. Mr. Berman, who specializes in class action
suits, has won sizable settlements against the tobacco industry,
Boeing, Nordstrom and the Washington Public Power Supply System.

At one time, Matson Fruit of Selah was a defendant. But both Mr.
Foster and Mr. Berman dropped the company from the case after
Judge Van Sickle failed to extend class status to Matson
employees.

The convergence of racketeering and immigration law divides
lawyers and policy analysts. Cheering on the plaintiffs is Mark
Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration
Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit group, which seeks
"fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted." He
told The Yakima Herald-Republic absent a federal government
solution to illegal immigration, litigation against employers
like Mr. Zirkle is a way to enforce the law.

According to him, "It will be a big step forward if the
defendants in this case lose because it will put the fear of God
into businesses that trial lawyers are coming after them." He
also called litigation like Mr. Foster's "the courtroom version
of the Minuteman project," the volunteer group of civilians that
has gained prominence lately for watching the borders for
suspicious activity.

However, others find such lawsuits troublesome. "It's a
political gimmick," Crystal Williams, deputy director for
programs at the D.C.-based American Immigration Lawyers
Association tells The Yakima Herald-Republic. The U.S. Chamber
of Commerce doesn't like the strategy either. Angelo Amador, a
lawyer and director of immigration policy for the nation's
largest employer group told The Yakima Herald-Republic, "RICO
was really created to go after the Mafia, and they are trying to
use it to go after employers who are doing everything according
to the law." Mr. Amador added that he doesn't believe Mr. Foster
will be able to prove that undocumented farm workers suppressed
the wages of legal farm workers. "You have to show economic
injury; that's very difficult," he points out.

Mr. Foster though contends that wage depression is not difficult
to show, and he noted that the trial is split into a liability
and damage phase. He told The Yakima Herald-Republic, "The first
phase doesn't require such proof. All the jury will be asked to
decide is if the defendants were engaged in a scheme to hire
illegal immigrants."

In 1996, Congress expanded RICO, historically used to prosecute
organized crime, to include violations of federal immigration
law. Since then, Mr. Foster, a 1984 graduate of Brandeis
University and Boston University Law School four years later,
has been testing the legal theory against various employers with
mixed results.

Mr. Foster's litigation has drawn criticism from the
conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, which
criticized the marriage of trial lawyers with the "anti-
immigrant right."

The Center for American Unity, which runs an Internet journal
called VDARE.com, however, called the paper's characterization a
"cheap smear. We're actually anti-immigration. There's a
difference," wrote Peter Brimelow, president of the Warrenton,
Virginia-based organization that fights what it calls threats to
the nation from mass immigration and multiculturalism. VDARE is
so named for Virginia Dare, the first child born of English
parents in the new world.

Mr. Foster visited Yakima often to take depositions in the case
and shared his thoughts in an article on VDARE two years ago. He
wrote, "This small city might seem to some as heartland
territory. In the small downtown you find a mall, a courthouse,
plenty of cheap restaurants and motels, and not a trace of the
sophistication of Seattle, two hours to the west. But look just
a bit closer, and you suddenly sense that border feel that is
instantly noticeable in El Paso."

Originally, the civil lawsuit was filed in March of 2000 against
Zirkle Fruit Co., Matson Fruit Co. and the Selective Employment
Agency. Judge Van Sickle dismissed it back in 2001, but a three-
judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San
Francisco, California later revived it, saying the plaintiffs
should have a chance to show if the hiring practices drove down
employees' wages. The suit was filed on behalf of Olivia Mendoza
and Juan Mendiola, both former employees of Zirkle Fruit,
accusing the two fruit companies of using the Selective
Employmnet Agency to hire illegal immigrants who would work for
wages below minimum standards, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (September 10, 2002) reports.

Filed under RICO, the suit is the first of its kind in the U.S.
where legal workers have sued agricultural employers about
intentional wage depression through the use of illegal labor. It
was certified as a class action in July 2004, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (July 16, 2004) reports.

The suit is styled, "Mendoza, et al. v. Zirkle Fruit Co, et al.
Case No. 2:00-cv-03024-FVS," filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Washington, under Judge Fred
Van Sickle. Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Steve W. Berman and Andrew M Volk of Hagens Berman
         Sobol Shapiro, LLP, 1301 Fifth Ave., Suite 2900,
         Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-7292, Fax:
         12066230594, E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com and
         andrew@hbsslaw.com;

     (2) Michael V. Connell of Smart Law Offices, PS, 501 North
         2nd St., Yakima, WA 98901-2309, Phone: 509-573-3333, E-  
         mail: connell@yvn.com; and
    
     (3) Howard W. Foster, Jack T. Riley and James Kevin Toohey
         of Johnson & Bell Ltd., 55 E. Monroe St., Suite 4100,
         Chicago, IL 60603-5896, Phone: 312-372-0770, Fax: 312-
         372-9818, E-mail: fosterh@jbltd.com and
         rileyj@jbltd.com.

Representing the Defendant/s are:

     (1) Alexander A Baehr of Holland & Knight, LLP, 520 Pike
         St., Suite 2600, Seattle, WA 98101-1385, Phone: 206-
         340-1825, E-mail: alexander.baehr@hklaw.com;

     (2) Mark David Watson of Meyer Fluegge & Tenney, 230 S.
         Second St., P.O. Box 22680, Yakima, WA 98907, Phone:
         509-575-8500, Fax: 15095754676, E-mail:
         Watson@mftlaw.com;

     (3) Ryan M Edgley and Paul Hamilton Beattie of Edgley &
         Beattie, PS, 201 East D. St., Yakima, WA 98901, Phone:
         509-248-1717, Fax: 15092481573, E-mail:
         edgleyr@hscis.net and hrappgray@aol.com;

     (4) Brendan Victor Monahan of Velikanje Moore & Shore, PS,
         405 E. Lincoln Ave., P.O. Box 22550, Yakima, WA 98907,
         Phone: 509-248-6030, E-mail: bmonahan@vmslaw.com; and

     (5) Diehl Randall Rettig of Rettig Osborne Forgette
         O'Donnell Iller & Adamson, LLP, 6725 W. Clearwater
         Ave., Kennewick, WA 99336, Phone: 509-783-6154, Fax:
         15097830858, E-mail: diehl.rettig@rettiglaw.com.



                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Indemnifies Dresser Inc. Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dresser Inc (NYSE: DI Proposed) states that, in accordance with
an agreement relating to a recapitalization
transaction, Halliburton Co agreed to indemnify the Company for
any present or future asbestos claims based on or arising out of
events or occurrences with respect to the Company's businesses,
according to a Securities and Exchange Commission report.

Halliburton had also agreed to indemnify the Company against any
loss, liability, damage or expense relating to worker's
compensation, general liability, and automobile liability
arising out of events or occurrences prior to the closing, but
such rights with respect to those claims expired in April 2004.

Halliburton has been subject to numerous lawsuits, which
have cost Halliburton significant expense, involving asbestos
claims associated with the operating units of Dresser Industries
that were retained by Halliburton or disposed of by Dresser
Industries or Halliburton prior to the transaction.

In December 2003, certain Halliburton affiliates filed a
petition for relief under the US Bankruptcy Code in the US
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Those
affiliates filed a plan of reorganization, which became
effective on January 20, 2005, that requires asbestos plaintiffs
with claims against the Company or Halliburton to look for
relief exclusively to a trust established under the plan.

The plan prevents the Company from asserting its indemnification
right under the recapitalization agreement with Halliburton as
it relates to asbestos claims based on events occurring before
the closing of the recapitalization. However, this
indemnification right is unnecessary because the plan also
prevents those asbestos plaintiffs from asserting claims against
the Company.

The maximum combined amount of all losses indemnifiable by
Halliburton pursuant to the recapitalization agreement is
US$950.0 million. In some general indemnities in the
recapitalization agreement, there is an aggregate US$15 million
deductible that is applicable prior to the indemnification
obligations.

Any single claim for such indemnities is subject to a threshold
of US$0.5 million in the case where there was no knowledge of
such claim by Halliburton and a US$0.1 million threshold if
there was knowledge.


The Company has not historically incurred and believes it will
not incur in the future any material liability as a result of
the past use of asbestos in products manufactured by the
businesses currently owned by the Company or its predecessors.

Addison, TX-based Dresser Inc (formerly Dresser Industries,
which was once a part of Halliburton), makes flow control
products, measurement systems, and power systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WVU to Fund Medical Testing for 5T Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
West Virginia University agrees to pay for, up to 20 years, the
medical testing for 5,600 former and current employees who fear
they were exposed to asbestos in the workplace, the Star Tribune
reports.

WVU will cover the costs of chest X-rays, lung-function exams
and other testing as often as once a year under a settlement
approved by a judge.

The November 25, 2005 Class Action Reporter stated that a part
of the proposed settlement will entail WVU to institute and pay
for a medical surveillance program to be conducted for 20 years.
The University also agreed to pay US$1 million to cover
potential claims and legal fees.

Employees sued after WVU's coliseum was closed during the 1999-
2000 academic year and federal regulators demanded a major
cleanup of asbestos in the ceiling. The school later agreed to
pay a US$10,500 fine for mishandling the job.

The lawsuit alleged WVU officials knew for several years that
the insulation was in poor condition. The cost of the monitoring
has yet to be established.

"Even if it's US$2 million or US$3 million, it's incalculable in
terms of the benefits to the claimants," state Kanawha Circuit
Judge Tod Kaufman said.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NY Man Blamed for Unlawful & Unsafe Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In violation of the Clean Air Act, Troy Donie was arrested for
the felony removal of asbestos at the St. Eustace Episcopal
Church, announced Glenn T. Suddaby, the U.S. Attorney for the
Northern District of New York. Mr. Donie was also charged with
making false statements to federal law enforcement officials
about the removal, the Press Republican reports.

The filed complaint specifically alleged Mr. Donie removed the
asbestos in an unsafe and illegal manner and that he falsely
claimed he acted alone.

The case was investigated by the New York State Department of
Labor, the Asbestos Control Bureau and by special agents with
the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Assistant US Attorney Craig A. Benedict is prosecuting the case
and EPA special agents are continuing the investigation and the
search for Mr. Donie's accomplices.

Clean Air Act violations and lying to federal agents each carry
a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a US$250,000
fine. The EPA has determined no level of asbestos exposure to be
safe.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FL Court Grants US$31M Damages to Mechanic
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Miami-Dade jury awarded Joseph Mallia US$31 million
compensation for asbestos exposure while working as a mechanic
for Cooper Industries Ltd's former Pneumo Abex brake unit, the
Miami Herald reports.

The Circuit Court jury awarded Mr. Mallia US$3 million in
economic damages, and US$28 million in past and future damages
for pain and suffering. The 48-year-old Mr. Mallia also sought
punitive damages in his lawsuit, but a new Florida law that took
effect in July 2005 bars punitive damages in asbestos cases.

Cooper Industries said it plans to appeal the verdict. Pneumo
Abex is on the hook for US$14.26 million of the US$31 million
verdict.

Mr. Mallia spent most of his career as a mechanic repairing
automobiles and heavy-construction equipment. It was during that
time that he inhaled asbestos from various auto parts, according
to the lawsuit. In 2004, he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a
rare form of asbestos-related cancer.

In July 2004, Mr. Mallia sued more than a dozen automotive-parts
manufacturers and distributors claiming the companies continued
to sell asbestos-containing products even though they knew they
were a health hazard.

According to court documents, Mr. Mallia co-owns pavement
marking Company Sealmasters Sealcoating in Pompano Beach with
his brother Stephen.

Houston, TX-based Cooper sold its automotive-parts division,
including Abex, to Federal-Mogul for US$1.9 billion in 1998. As
part of the deal, Federal-Mogul promised to defend any potential
asbestos-related claims against Cooper, Cooper spokesman John
Breed said. After Federal-Mogul filed for bankruptcy in 2001,
Cooper assumed responsibility for defending the asbestos-related
lawsuits against Abex. Federal-Mogul is one of 77 companies that
cited asbestos lawsuits when filing for bankruptcy.

A manufacturer of tools and electrical products, Cooper
announced it had agreed to pay US$630 million to settle more
than 38,000 claims against Abex.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kubota Apologizes, Pledges More Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daisuke Hatakake, the president of Kubota Corporation (NYSE:
KUB), apologized to sick people living near its now-defunct
Kanzaki factory, reports The Japan Times.

The Amagasaki residents, who are suffering from asbestos-related
diseases, said that Mr. Hatakake promised to set up a new
compensation scheme for them similar to that for Kubota
employees by April 2006 after listening to their views on the
matter.

At the meeting residents, Mr. Hatakake was quoted as saying it
"cannot be denied" that asbestos fibers might have escaped from
the factory premises. However, he said the causal relationship
between that and mesothelioma has not been fully confirmed.

The residents lived near Kubota's Kanzaki factory, which
operated between 1954 and 1997 and manufactured products like
asbestos-containing sewer pipes. Records showed the factory
used, between 1957 and 1975, some 9 tons of blue asbestos,
believed to be the most toxic form of the substance.

Of the 251 employees involved in producing the pipes, roughly
half had been diagnosed with asbestos-linked diseases such as
mesothelioma and 61 had died.

The Company has an existing system under which mesothelioma
patients and bereaved families living near the factory can
receive JPY2 million in sympathy and condolence money. It stated
that 70 people had applied for the money and payments have been
made to 46 of them.

The Government is planning to submit to the ordinary Diet
session that begins January 2006 a bill to help victims of
asbestos-related diseases. If the bill will be enacted,
employees' families and residents currently receiving medical
treatment will be given roughly JPY100,000 per month in addition
to the portion of the medical costs they shoulder.

Families of victims who have already died will be given a lump
sum of JPY3 million. For families unable to apply for workers'
compensation due to the statute of limitations, the Government
will pay pensions of JPY2.4 million a year.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Fights Pending Suits From Old Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2005, NL Industries Inc (NYSE: NL) defended 490
lawsuits in different jurisdictions, which alleged personal
injuries that resulted from workplace exposure mainly to
products made by formerly owned operations containing asbestos,
silica or mixed dust, according to a Securities and Exchange
Commission report.

These cases involved about 14,500 plaintiffs and their spouses.

NL has received notices regarding asbestos or silica claims
purporting to be brought against its former subsidiaries,
including notices provided to insurers with which NL has entered
into settlements extinguishing certain insurance policies. These
insurers may seek indemnification from NL.

Dallas, TX-based NL Industries Inc, through its majority-
controlled subsidiary Kronos Worldwide, supplies titanium
dioxide worldwide. NL holds a majority stake in CompX, a
manufacturer of office furniture components. Valhi, which is
controlled by Contran Corporation, owns about 83% of NL
Industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum to File New Plan on Feb. 3, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
Congoleum Corporation (AMEX: CGM) announced on December 21, 2005
that negotiations are underway regarding a new Plan of
Reorganization, which the Company expects to file with the New
Jersey Bankruptcy Court by February 3, 2006, according to a
Securities and Exchange Commission report.

Congoleum further announced that it anticipates that the trustee
for the holders of Congoleum's 8.625% senior notes due in August
2008 will ask that a committee of bondholders be formed to
negotiate treatment of their claims under the new plan.

The Bankruptcy Court has scheduled a hearing on April 13, 2006
to consider the adequacy of the plan disclosure statement. The
Company announced that it now appears that achieving a
consensual plan with the asbestos claimants is going to require
concessions on Congoleum's bondholders' part, as well as
concessions on the shareholders' part, which would include
American Biltrite Inc.

Congoleum further stated that it hoped that any new plan would
be confirmed during the second half of 2006.

On December 31, 2003, Congoleum filed a voluntary petition with
the United States Bankruptcy Court seeking relief under Chapter
11 of the US Bankruptcy Code as a way to resolve claims asserted
against it related to the use of asbestos in its products
decades ago.

Mercerville, NJ-based Congoleum Corp manufactures resilient
flooring, serving both residential and commercial markets.
Congoleum is a 55% owned subsidiary of American Biltrite Inc
(AMEX: ABL).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PA Firm's Right to Represent Widow Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
In reversing a probate court's decision, the Ohio Court of
Appeals for the Seventh District reinstated the litigation
agreement between a widow and Goldberg, Persky & White, PC, a
Pennsylvania-based law firm, on December 8, 2005.

Appellate judges Joseph J. Vukovich, Cheryl L.Waite, and Mary
DeGenaro reviewed Case No. 04 MA 264.

GPW appealed the decision of the Mahoning County Probate Court,
which reversed its prior decision to approve the agreement
between GPW and Ellen J. DeCarlo, executrix of the Estate of
Raymond A. DeCarlo, for asbestos litigation.

GPW represented Mr. DeCarlo in an asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuit, which GPW continued to represent after his
death. On July 13, 2004, the Probate Court, which granted GPW
pro hac vice status, approved the agreement between Mrs. DeCarlo
and GPW for the continued representation in the suit.

On November 22, 2004, the Probate Court vacated its order
approving the representation agreement between GPW and Mrs.
DeCarlo. GPW appealed the decision.

The Ohio Court of Appeals held that the Probate Court acted
beyond its power to let Ellen J. DeCarlo choose another
attorney. It concluded that GPW has the right to Mr. DeCarlo's
estate upon any of its wrongful death claims.

John Juhasz of Youngstown represented Ellen J. DeCarlo.

Mark Meyer and Jason Shipp of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
represented Goldberg, Persky & White, PC.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Platinum Equity Permitted to End Rohn Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Delaware in New Castle County allowed two
firms to terminate its Asset Purchase Agreement with Rohn
Industries Inc due to future material asbestos liability.

Judge Susan C. Del Pesco ruled in favor of Platinum Equity LLC
and Pfrank LLC in Case No. 03C-04-134 SCD, which was decided on
November 22, 2005.

On November 27, 2002, Rohn and Platinum entered into the
agreement, in which Platinum subsidiary Pfrank was to acquire
most of Rohn's assets with Platinum as guarantor.

Platinum learned that there was corporate history related to
asbestos. It asked that a termination clause be put into the
contract, which Rohn agreed to.

Rohn's assets were not associated with asbestos. It had been a
part of UNR, successor to Unarco Industries Inc, which made
asbestos-containing products before 1970.

In 1982, UNR filed for bankruptcy in the Northern District of
Illinois. On June 2, 1989, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the
UNR Plan of Reorganization. In 1993, UNR moved to get cash to
distribute to the UNR Trust.

Since the creation of the UNR Trust, each time Rohn has been
sued with asbestos-related allegations, it has been informed of
the channeling injunction and the matter has ended. In all the
agreements, Rohn and UNR agreed to indemnify the purchasers for
pre-purchase liabilities.
            
On December 26, 2002, Platinum informed Rohn that it was
terminating the contract. Platinum terminated the agreement
based on a provision that if it "determines in good faith that
there is a reasonable basis in law and in fact" to conclude that
the transaction could result in material asbestos liability.

John L. Reed, John H. Newcomer, Jr., and Matt Neiderman of Duane
Morris LLP in Wilmington, DE, and Maria Cilenti and John
Dellaportas of Duane Morris LLP in New York, NY represented Rohn
Industries Inc.

Peter J. Walsh, Jr. and Sarah E. DiLuzio of Potter Anderson &
Corroon, LLP in Wilmington, DE and Kevin S. Reed and Kevin Janus
of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLP in New York, NY,
represented Platinum Equity LLC and Pfrank LLC.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Says Hype Led to '04 Spike in Claims  
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Wilkinson, an actuary hired by James Hardie Industries
NV, stated that publicity about the Company's underfunding of an
asbestos compensation trust set up in 2001 caused a spike in
asbestos claims, The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

Hardie noted an upsurge in compensation claims in 2004 against
it for mesothelioma, a rare and fatal asbestos-linked cancer,
but Mr. Wilkinson said it might be the last big leap.

The trust received 254 mesothelioma claims in 2004 to March
2005, a 40% increase from 12 months and twice the 126 claims
received in 2000 to 2001.

Mr. Wilkinson had told Hardie to expect claims to drop to 218 in
2005 before returning to about 240-250 for another four or five
years and then beginning a permanent, steady decline. The first
wave of illness affected asbestos miners, the second wave
comprised of factory workers who made sheeting or workers in
industries that used the fiber for large-scale insulation such
as power plants or shipping.

Although Hardie stopped making asbestos products in 1987, the
average 35-year latency of mesothelioma means compensation funds
will be needed until mid-century.

In an early 2005 report, Mr. Wilkinson predicted that 5,268
Australians would contract mesothelioma from exposure to Hardie
products in coming decades. His latest report reduced that
number to 4,915. When less serious forms of asbestos-related
disease are included, Mr. Wilkinson expects James Hardie to
compensate 8,725 victims, down from his previous estimate of
9,085.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JPN Makers Admit Asbestos Used in 1.6M Cars
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association states that
Japanese automakers used asbestos-containing components in a
total of 1.64 million vehicles made between November 1996 and
November 2005, the Japan Economic Newswire reports.

JAMA asserted, however, that the components, which are gaskets,
packing and resin materials, should cause no health problems,
and the automakers involved will not recall the vehicles in
question to replace the parts.

The automakers in question are Suzuki Motor Corp. with 1.01
million vehicles, Nissan Motor Co. with 177,000 vehicles, Hino
Motors Ltd. With 159,000 vehicles, and Toyota Motor Corp. with
27,000 vehicles.

Other automakers are Isuzu Motors Ltd., Nissan Diesel Motor Co.,
Mitsubishi Motors Corp., Mitsubishi Fuso Truck & Bus Corp. and
Yamaha Motor Co.

In October 1996, JAMA said that member automakers had completely
ended the use of asbestos-containing components.

In October 2005, Nissan Motor was found to have used such
components in auto production between 1995 and 1999, and JAMA
asked its 14 member automakers to reopen their investigation.

Toyota, Hino and Mitsubishi Fuso continued to use the components
in some of their vehicles until October or November 2005.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JPN Govt. Set to Release JPY3M Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
An official said that the Japanese Government adopted a plan to
pay nearly JPY3 million (US$25,800, EUR21,900) to the bereaved
families and victims of asbestos-linked diseases, the Associated
Press reports.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe said that Government
ministers adopted the compensation plan at a recent meeting.

The policy increases one-time compensation by JPY200,000
(US$1,724, EUR1,461) to JPY2.8 million (US$24,100, EUR20,500)
for each victim or family and offer a one-off funeral fee of
JPY200,000.

It also calls for about JPY100,000 (US$862; EUR730) in monthly
medical payments for residents living near factories producing
asbestos products and families of workers suffering from
asbestos-linked diseases.

Cabinet Office official Toshikazu Mito said that the package
also stipulates new guidelines for removing asbestos from
buildings and outlines plans for further research into treating
asbestos-related illnesses.

The disclosure of hundreds of cancer deaths linked to asbestos
in Japan has triggered mounting concern about the material's
widespread use in the country. It has lagged behind other
industrialized nations in banning asbestos, only prohibiting its
most common form, white asbestos, in October last year.

As of November 2005, at least 39 factories across Japan still
manufactured asbestos products, according to the Environment
Ministry. A loophole still exists in Japan's asbestos ban that
allows the material to be used when there are no substitutes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CA Court Orders New Trial Against Unocal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Citing that a California jury's instructions did not accurately
reflect a firm's limited duty, the Supreme Court of California
reversed the jury's verdict to favor a carpenter against Unocal
Corporation and remanded for a new trial.

Decided on December 19, 2005, Chief Justice Ronald M. George,
with Justices Carlos R. Moreno, Joyce L. Kennard, Marvin R.
Baxter, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Ming W. Chin, and Dennis A.
Cornell reviewed Case No. S118561.

Ray Kinsman was an employee of Burke & Reynolds, which Unocal
hired to perform scaffolding work during its Wilmington, CA
refinery's periods of "shutdown" and repair.

In the 1950s, Mr. Kinsman worked at the refinery where he built
and dismantled scaffolding used by other trades, including pipe
fitters and insulators. This work exposed him to airborne
asbestos that led him to develop mesothelioma.

Burke & Reynolds did not provide safety equipment to Mr.
Kinsman.

Mr. Kinsman argued that Unocal should have warned Burke &
Reynolds or adopted various safety measures. Unocal conceded
that it was aware of asbestos' hazards in the 1950s but it
argued that Mr. Kinsman was not exposed to asbestos levels that
were considered unsafe at the time.

The jury assigned Unocal 15% of the fault in causing Mr.
Kinsman's illness, while the remaining 85% is attributable to
"others," and awarded Mr. Kinsman over US$3 million in
compensation against Unocal.

Unocal appealed the judgment. The Court of Appeal consolidated
the appeals and reversed the judgment.

Although the jury found that Unocal knew of asbestos' hazards on
its property, it made no finding about whether Burke & Reynolds
knew of the hazard, and whether Unocal was aware that Burke &
Reynolds did not know of the hazard.

Horvitz & Levy, David M. Axelrad, Stephen E. Norris; Walsworth,
Franklin, Bevins & McCall, Michael T. McCall, Robert M.
Channell, Cyrian B. Tabuena and Allan W. Ruggles represented
Unocal Corporation.

Law Offices of Daniel U. Smith, Ted W. Pelletier; Wartnick,
Chaber, Harowitz & Tigerman, The Wartnick Law Firm, Harvey F.
Wartnick, Charles C. Kelly II, Steven M. Harowitz, Stephen M.
Tigerman and Richard A. Brody represented Ray Kinsman.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Agency Covers Cleanup Cost at PA State Park
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Parks and Recreation Department will pay US$1,200 to remove
bags carrying asbestos-laden heating duct material at the Tyler
State Park in Warren, Pennsylvania, The Republican reports.

Parks and Recreation Department Chairman Daniel R. Flynn said
that the Department budget is about US$35,000. However, he wants
the US$1,200 bill reimbursed by the Finance Committee. He told
the Board of Selectmen about the bags found late in November
2005 by Water Superintendent David Johnson at the park on
Southbridge Road.

Jean McCaughey, administrative secretary to the selectmen, said
that an investigation is being carried out. The state Department
of Environmental Protection was also notified. Mr. Flynn said
the police lifted fingerprints and are trying to find the
culprit.

Mr. Flynn assumed it to be a "dump and run" operation, perhaps
by a small roofing firm.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japanese Victims Upset Over Low Payout Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Suffering patients and bereaved families remain dissatisfied
over the Japanese Government's planned JPY2.8 million asbestos
compensation, The Yomiuri Shimbun reports.

Sugio Furuya, the secretary general of Ban Asbestos Network
Japan, expressed plans to ask for a higher payment.

"The Government payment is good as an emergency relief measure,"
says Rikkyo University Professor Takehisa Awaji. "But there is
still a need to determine who is responsible for the problem and
to get as many companies as possible to take on the burden of
the relief cost and compile a comprehensive support program."

The latest Government measure will be reviewed within five years
to accommodate possible adjustments in the number of patients
suffering from mesothelioma. However, experts say it takes an
average of 38 years for the illness to surface after inhaling
asbestos.

Some Environment Ministry officials say the Government's failure
to take appropriate measures years ago will be discovered if the
number of mesothelioma cases continues to rise after 2010, 38
years after the World Health Organization first pointed out the
link between asbestos and mesothelioma in 1972.

The Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry's Chemical Hazards
Control Division says it has taken appropriate measures in
regulating asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos-Linked Deaths Sparked Panic in `05
----------------------------------------------------------------
In 2005, Japanese citizens were gripped with the fear of deadly
side effects following a surge of deaths caused by the use of
carcinogenic asbestos, the Mainichi Daily News reports.

Kubota Corporation came with its first major report of asbestos
fatalities in its former Kanzaki plant in Amagasaki, Hyogo
Prefecture. The Company's first asbestos-linked death was
reported in 1978, but as of June 2005 the number of fatalities
among employees and contracted workers had risen to 79.

In early July 2005, the Mainichi surveyed 65 firms and found
that 358 workers at 38 workplaces of 23 companies had died of
diseases allegedly caused by asbestos inhalation, while 65
others were undergoing treatment.

In August 2005, Government officials announced Japan would sign
the 1986 Asbestos Convention banning certain forms of asbestos.
The Government later drafted a bill to compensate victims of
asbestos-related illnesses and the families of those who had
died from such illnesses.

On December 19, 2005, an interim report based on a survey by the
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport showed that
asbestos was exposed in 13,099 large-scale private apartment
blocks and buildings across the country.

However, local bodies responded for only about 75% of the
structures subject to investigation, and an updated report was
expected in 2006.

Although asbestos use is banned in principle, builders are still
allowed to use it when there is no substitute. However, the spur
of deaths prompted the Health Ministry to plan a total asbestos
ban by 2008.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Asks Court to Drop Charges v. Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
On December 15, 2005, lawyers for WR Grace & Co (NYSE: GRA)
filed eight motions in the US District Court in Montana to have
criminal charges dismissed against seven current or former
employees, The Western News reports.

In February 2005, a federal grand jury slapped Grace and seven
officials with a ten-count indictment for crimes stemming from
Grace's Libby, MT vermiculite mining and mill operations.

The first request to dismiss charges is based on duplicity.
The second and third motions seek to dismiss three charges
against Grace and the seven defendants based on statute of
limitations and duplicity. The fourth request is for the
dismissal of three charges because the indictment fails to
"allege that the defendants' alleged asbestos release breached
an emission standard set by the US Environmental Protection
Agency."

The fifth motion states the Government failed to sufficiently
inform the defendants of the nature of the offense charged. The
sixth filing says the indictment fails to allege knowledge of
unlawful conduct while the seventh and eighth filings are
challenging the Government's accusation of wire fraud.

District Court Judge Donald Malloy has scheduled a status
conference on February 14, 2006 to discuss the upcoming trial
and has agreed to hear oral arguments on Grace's motions.

The Grace trial was initially scheduled for May 2006, but in a
March 15, 2005 scheduling order, Judge Molloy set the trial for
September 11, 2006.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Ohio Court Charges Company for Improper Removal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro files a lawsuit accusing
Tallmadge, OH-based Spiker Environmental Inc and six of its
officials of improperly and illegally removing asbestos in
Northeast Ohio, the Akron Beacon Journal reports.

The 10-count suit against the now-closed Company also alleges
that the officials fraudulently transferred, concealed and spent
the Company's money so that the Company is unable to pay for the
penalties being sought by the State.

The suit names as defendants Samuel A. Keller, David J. Keller,
Shirley Mendendall, James Black, Gary Shoemaker, and Frank Towns
who are all Company directors, shareholders, and employees.

Spiker Environmental and the defendants each face fines of
US$25,000 a day for each violation.

The suit, with complaints dating from 1999 to 2002, states that
the defendants failed to notify the US Environmental Protection
Agency of their asbestos-removal plans and failed to prevent the
discharge of asbestos dust. They also failed to properly remove
or handle asbestos in some cases.

Judge Patricia Cosgrove presides over the lawsuit filed in the
Summit County Common Pleas Court.


ASBESTOS ALERT: NH Const. Firm Sued By State Over Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
The state of New Hampshire sues construction firm George R.
Cairns and Sons Inc for contaminating the site of the former
Benson's Wild Animal Farm in Hudson with asbestos, The Boston
Globe reports.

Court records state that the Company was hired to restore the
wetlands at the former theme park. State officials say the
Company either used contaminated soil from elsewhere, or failed
to check the existing soil before doing the work.

Company vice president Glenn Cairns denies the firm is
responsible. He says the contamination was only discovered about
a year after his Company completed the restoration work.

The Company has argued that the soil was likely contaminated
before it began work at the site.

According to court records, the Company says state workers
oversaw the restoration project and had the same opportunities
to notice problems but did not. It also says inspecting the soil
for contaminants was not part of its contract.

Department of Transportation Commissioner Carol Murray says the
contamination is not yet a public health risk. However, the
legal wrangling has delayed the town's plans to convert the land
into a recreational area.

The state wants the Company to remove the asbestos, and then
restore the wetlands.


COMPANY PROFILE

George R. Cairns and Sons Inc.
8 Ledge Road
Windham, NH 03087
Tel.: (603) 421-1888
Main Fax: (603) 421-9211
Estimating Fax: (603) 421-9210
Shop Fax: (603) 421-9212
http://www.gcairnsinc.com/

Description:
George R. Cairns and Sons, Inc. is a civil construction firm
providing construction services through contracting, scheduling
and managing. After being based in Methuen, MA for more than 20
years, the Company relocated its headquarters to Windham, NH.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Reading International Notes One 3rd-Party Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reading International Inc states that it has only one third-
party claim, which arose from claims brought against the Company
relating to the exposure of former employees of its railroad
operations to asbestos and coal dust, according to a Securities
and Exchange Commission report.

These claims are generally covered by an insurance settlement
reached in September 1990 with the Company's insurance carriers.
However, the settlement does not cover litigation by people who
were not employees and who may claim second hand exposure to
asbestos, coal dust or other chemicals or elements now known to
potentially cause cancer in humans.

Due to the Company's historical involvement in the railroad
industry, it has a number of former employees claiming monetary
compensation for hearing loss, black lung and other asbestos
related illness suffered as a result of their past employment.

With respect to the personal injury claims, the Company's
insurance carrier generally pays about 98% of the claims and the
Company does not believe that it has a significant exposure.


COMPANY PROFILE

Reading International, Inc. (AMEX: RDI)
550 S. Hope St., Ste. 1825
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213-235-2240
Fax: 213-235-2229
http://www.readingrdi.com

Description:
Reading International, through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates cinemas and live theaters throughout Australia, New
Zealand, and the US. The Company develops, owns, and operates
real estate assets.


ASBESTOS ALERT: KS Court Grants Discovery Motion v. ESCM, Shaw
--------------------------------------------------------------
On November 1, 2005, the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas granted the United States of America to go
ahead with its discovery motion against Edward Shaw and his firm
ESCM & Associates, Inc.

Magistrate Judge James P. Ohara reviewed Case No. 04-2503 RDR.

The US alleged that Mr. Shaw and ESCM violated the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act by
selling a "superfund" site to Jena and Carl Stiffler, knowing
that the site contained asbestos.

In a prior lawsuit, the Stifflers pleaded guilty to illegal
asbestos disposal, and Mr. Shaw was convicted of making false
statements regarding the presence of asbestos at the superfund
site.

The US then filed suit to recover costs incurred in the site
clean up, as provided for by CERCLA. The US sought the Court's
permission that the Court allow discovery as to real estate
dealings in which Mr. Shaw was involved where the property
contained hazardous substances.

The US argued that Mr. Shaw's knowledge and intent with regard
to the presence of hazardous substances on the property at the
time of the transaction at issue in this case is relevant, and
that information as to his other similar real estate dealings
will shed light on those issues.

Mr. Shaw argued that information regarding his other real
estate transactions and his knowledge or intent at the time of
the transaction at issue is irrelevant, that such information is
available from other sources.

Mr. Shaw asked that the Court exercise its discretion to limit
the scope of discovery because the information supposedly is
available from other sources. He asked the Court to take
judicial notice of the fact that he admitted in his criminal
case that he knew about the presence of asbestos on the property
at issue.


COMPANY PROFILE

ESCM & Associates, Inc.
1781 Mars Hill Rd.
Watkinsville Georgia USA 30677
Phone: (706) 769-4434
Fax: (706) 769-1431

                        
                  New Securities Fraud Cases

DIEBOLD INC.: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in OH
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Smith & Smith, LLP, initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased
securities of Diebold, Incorporated ("Diebold" or the
"Company")(NYSE:DBD), during the period October 22, 2003 through
September 20, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio.

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

For more details, contact Howard Smith, Esq. of Smith & Smith,
LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, PA 19020, Phone:
(866) 759-2275, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com.  


EVCI CAREER: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. commenced a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of EVCI Career
Colleges Holdings Corporation (NASDAQ: EVCI) between August 14,
2003 and December 6, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


GENERAL MOTORS: Law Firms Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MI
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Weiser Law Firm and Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. LLC initiated a
class action lawsuit the State of Michigan, Wayne County Circuit
Court on behalf of all purchasers of General Motors Acceptance
Corporation ("GMAC") SmartNotes between September 30, 2003 and
March 16, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933
("Securities Act") against defendants GMAC, General Motors
(NYSE: GM), Eric Feldstein, William F. Muir, Linda K. Zukauckas,
Richard J. S. Clout, John E. Gibson, W. Allen Reed, Walter G.
Borst, John M. Devine, Gary L. Cowger, G. Richard Wagoner, Jr.,
ABN Amro Financial Services, Inc., A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.,
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P.,
Fidelity Capital Markets, a division of National Financial
Services, LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc.,
Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., UBS Financial Services, Inc., and
Wachovia Securities, Ltd.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants sold an
aggregate of up to $15 billion of GMAC SmartNotes by means of a
Registration Statement, Prospectus and Pricing Supplements that
contained materially false and misleading statements and/or
omitted material facts necessary to make the statements in those
documents accurate. In particular, defendants failed to disclose
that GM's financial and operational outlook were poor and that
certain of its financial statements for the years just prior to
the sale of GMAC's SmartNotes were materially overstated.
Because the credit ratings of GM and GMAC were inextricably
intertwined, the financial and operational performance of GM
directly affected the credit rating of GMAC. By failing to
disclose the material adverse facts about GM, GMAC and the other
defendants were able to issue and sell the SmartNotes based on
GMAC's materially inflated credit ratings, materially reducing
GMAC's borrowing costs. As such the SmartNotes were overpriced
upon sale, and purchasers paid too much for the SmartNotes
and/or received too little interest based on the GMAC's
materially inflated credit rating.

On March 16, 2005, GM began to disclose material, adverse
information about its financial performance and outlook.
Thereafter, the three credit ratings agencies all downgraded the
debt of GMAC to below investment grade, causing loss to
purchasers of GMAC SmartNotes during the Class Period.

For more details, contact Robert Weiser, Esq. of The Weiser Law
Firm, Phone: +866-934-7372, E-mail: rw@weiserlawfirm.com; and
Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. of Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq., LLC, Phone:
+1-215-782-8235, E-mail: jacobagoldberg@comcast.net.


HELEN OF TROY: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Smith & Smith, LLP, initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased
securities of Helen of Troy, Ltd. ("Helen of Troy" or the
"Company")(Nasdaq: HELE), during the period October 12, 2004,
through October 10, 2005, (the "Class Period"). The class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas.

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

For more details, contact Howard Smith, Esq. of Smith & Smith,
LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, PA 19020, Phone:
(866) 759-2275, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com.  


MIKOHN GAMING: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NV
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Smith & Smith, LLP, initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased
securities of Mikohn Gaming Corporation (d/b/a Progressive
Gaming International Corporation) ("PGIC" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:PGIC), between February 22, 2005 and October 19, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada.

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

For more details, contact Howard Smith, Esq. of Smith & Smith,
LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, PA 19020, Phone:
(866) 759-2275, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com.  


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

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period
concerning the Company's operations and financial performance,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Nash Finch Company
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Howard Smith, Esq. of Smith & Smith,
LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, PA 19020, Phone:
(866) 759-2275, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com.  


SERACARE LIFE: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in S.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of SeraCare Life
Sciences ("SeraCare" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:SRLSE) between
February 9, 2005 and December 19, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit was filed against SeraCare and certain
officers and directors ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the compliant alleges that
Defendants failed to disclose:

     (1) the Company was violating its own revenue recognition
         policy to improperly inflate its financial results;

     (2) the Company's accounting for its inventory was faulty;
   
     (3) that the Company failed to prevent certain board
         members from exerting undue influence over the
         Company's financial reporting process;

     (4) that the Company lacked sufficient internal controls
         over its financial reporting; and,

     (5) that the Company's financial statements were presented
         in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles ("GAAP").

On December 14, 2005, SeraCare filed a Form 8-K where it
indicated that it would not be able to file its Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2005. Then on December 20,
2005, SeraCare indicated that the Company had received a letter
from its independent auditors raising concerns about the
Company's financial statements. In reaction to the news, shares
of SeraCare dropped dramatically, falling from $19.03 per share
on December 19, 2005 to $10.04 per share on December 20, 2005, a
one-day decline of approximately 48%.

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


UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Smith & Smith, LLP, initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased
securities of Universal American Financial Corporation
("Universal American" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:UHCO), between
February 16, 2005 and October 28, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

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

For more details, contact Howard Smith, Esq. of Smith & Smith,
LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, PA 19020, Phone:
(866) 759-2275, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.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  * * *