CAR_Public/060105.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, January 5, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 4


                            Headlines

ABATIX CORPORATION: TX Court Grants Final Approval to Settlement
AIRNET COMMUNICATIONS: NY Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement
ALABAMA: Suit Over City's Taxes in Police Jurisdiction Proceeds
APOLLO GROUP: AZ Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
APOLLO GROUP: CA Teachers' Overtime Suit Moved To Solano County

AVONDALE INC.: NC Court Mulls Antitrust Fraud Lawsuit Dismissal
BROADVISION INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated CA Stock Lawsuit
CANADA: New Law Empowers Shareholders, Will Keep Law Firms Busy
CELL THERAPEUTICS: Continues To Face Securities Lawsuits in WA
CHALK'S OCEAN: Crash Victims' Family Sues For Insurance Money

GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 425,593 Vehicles Due to Injury Hazard
HOMETOWN AUTO: Continues To Face NJ Consumer Fraud Litigation
HOMETOWN AUTO: Continues To Face Securities Fraud Lawsuit in DE
HORIZON HEALTH: Discovery Proceeds in CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
IBIS TECHNOLOGY: MA Judge Recommends Partial Dismissal of Suit

ILLINOIS: Insurers agree to $92M Settlement in "Total Loss" Case
MASERATI NORTH: Recalls 169 2006 Vehicles Due to Crash Hazard
MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls 61T 2005-06 Vehicles Due to Injury Hazard
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Seeks Dismissal of IL XBox Consumer Suit
MONARCH CASINO: NV Court Grants Suit Summary Judgment Motion

NAVARRE CORPORATION: Lead Plaintiff Motion Filed in MA Lawsuit
ORANGE 21: Continues To Face Investor Fraud Suits in S.D. CA
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Settles Heartland Suit in WI For $8.25M
PROTECTION ONE: Reaches Settlement for CA Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
PUTNAM FIDUCIARY: SEC Files Fraud Suit in MA V. Former Officers

QUICKLOGIC CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal NY Lawsuit Dismissal
QUICKLOGIC CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Pact
SERVICE CORPORATION: Continues To Face TX Securities Fraud Suit
SERVICE CORPORATION: Faces Funeral Casket Antitrust Lawsuits
SERVICE CORPORATION: Appeals Certification of TX Consumer Suit

STANFORD LAW: Report Says Fewer Securities Suits Filed in 2005
STOCKERYALE INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated NH Fraud Suit
THERMO KING: Recalls TRIPAC Auxiliary Power Units For Fire Risk
VISA USA: Merchants to Get Payouts From $3.1B Debit Card Deal

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

MIKOHN GAMING: Charles Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in NV
SFBC INTERNATIONAL: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in FL
SFBC INTERNATIONAL: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in FL
SFBC INTERNATIONAL: Sarraf Gentile Lodges Securities Suit in FL
SFBC INTERNATIONAL: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in FL

SFBC INTERNATIONAL: Wolf Popper Files Securities Suit in S.D. FL
WELLS FARGO: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA


                        *********


ABATIX CORPORATION: TX Court Grants Final Approval to Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division granted final approval to the settlement
of the consolidated securities class action filed against Abatix
Corporation and certain of its officers and directors.

Several suits were initially filed, alleging that defendants
violated the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly
making a series of materially false and purportedly misleading
statements concerning the Company's business agreement with the
Goodwin Group LLC and, as a result, the price of the Abatix
stock was allegedly artificially inflated causing plaintiff and
other members of the class to allegedly suffer damages.  All of
the lawsuits were transferred to one Federal District Court in
the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division and have been
consolidated into a single case under "Family Medicine
Specialists, et al v. Abatix, et al., case no. Cause No. 3-04CV-
872-D."

On May 27, 2004, the Company's officers and directors were also
named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in the District Court of
Dallas County, Texas, 162nd Judicial District styled "Daniel M.
Johnson Plaintiff v. Terry Shaver; Frank Cinatl IV; Gary L Cox;
Donald N. Black; Eric A. Young; and A. David Cook; Defendants v.
Abatix Corp. Nominal Defendant (Cause No. 2004-04-4841)."
Plaintiff has dismissed A. David Cook from this case.  This suit
is a stockholder derivative action that alleges that all of the
defendants breached certain fiduciary duties and abused their
control of the Company.  Further, the plaintiff seeks
contribution and indemnification.  In addition, this petition
alleges that Donald Black, an outside board of director of the
Company, breached his fiduciary duties by selling securities
based on allegedly material, non-public information and by
allegedly misappropriation of information.

On May 6, 2005, the Company executed a Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement to settle the suit.  On May 9, 2005, the Company
executed a Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement to settle
the Derivative Suit ("Derivative Stipulation," and with the
Class Stipulation, "Stipulations") now pending in the State
District Court.  While the Company was prepared to vigorously
defend itself and the officers and directors against the
allegations, the Company agreed to settle the Class Action for
$900,000 in cash and will adhere to certain corporate governance
provisions to settle the Derivative Suit, so that management and
its employees can concentrate their full attention on growing
the business by eliminating the distraction of further
protracted litigation.  In addition, the Company agreed to the
Stipulations in order to eliminate the litigation risk and
expense.  The settlement funds are expected to be covered by the
Company's insurance policy.  These proposed settlements
expressly provide that the Company and its officers or directors
do not admit or concede any violation of law or wrongdoing of
any kind.

On May 16, 2005, the State District Court signed the "Order
Regarding Proposed Derivative Action Settlement, Settlement
Hearing and Notice Thereof" which allows the notification of the
proposed settlement to the stockholders of record as of May 9,
2005.  In addition, August 11, 2005 was established as the date
for, among other things, determining whether the proposed
settlement is fair, reasonable and in the best interest of the
nominal defendant, the Company, and its stockholders and whether
it should be approved by the State District Court.

On May 17, 2005, the Federal Court signed the "Preliminary Order
for Notice and Hearing in Connection with Settlement
Proceedings" which allows the notification of the proposed
settlement to the class.  In addition, August 11, 2005 was
established as the date for, among other things, determining
whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and
adequate.  

On August 11, 2005, the District Court of Dallas County, Texas,
162nd Judicial District heard Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for
Approval of Settlement and Award of Attorney Fees, requesting
entry of the Order and Final Judgment Approving Settlement in
the Derivative Suit previously disclosed.  The Court determined
the proposed settlement of the Derivative Suit was fair,
reasonable and in the best interest of the nominal defendant,
the Company, and its stockholders, and signed the "Order and
Final Judgment Approving Settlement."  As a result, final
approval of the Settlement of the Derivative Suit was granted.

Also on August 11, 2005, the Federal District Court in the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division heard Lead
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
and Plan of Allocation filed in the Class Action litigation
previously disclosed.  The Court determined the Settlement was
fair, reasonable and in the best interest of the Class and all
parties, and signed the Order and Final Judgment.   As a result,
final approval of the Settlement of the Class Action was
granted.

The suit is styled "Family Medicine Specialists et al v. Abatix
Corporation et al., case no. 3:04-cv-00872," filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, under
Judge Jane J. Boyle.  Representing the Company are Richard S.
Krumholz, Fulbright & Jaworski Texas Commerce Bank Tower 2200
Ross Ave Suite 2800 Dallas, TX 75201-2784 Phone: 214/855-8000
Fax: 214/855-8200 E-mail: rkrumholz@fulbright.com; and Gerard G.
Pecht, Fulbright & Jaworski - Houston 1301 McKinney St Suite
5100 Houston, TX 77010-3095 Phone: 713/651-5151 Fax: 713/651-
5246 E-mail: gpecht@fulbright.com.  Representing the plaintiffs
are Sharon M. Lee and Lee A. Weiss of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman - New York, 1 Pennsylvania Plaza 49th Floor New York,
NY 10119 Phone: 212/594-5300 E-mail: lweiss@milbergweiss.com,
and W D Masterson, III of Kilgore & Kilgore, 3109 Carlisle
Suite 200 Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: 214/969-9099 Fax: 214/953-0133
E-mail: wdm@kilgorelaw.com.  


AIRNET COMMUNICATIONS: NY Court Approves 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 Airnet
Communications Corporation, two of its former officers and
members of the underwriting syndicate involved in its initial
public offering.

The action, number 21 MC 92 (SAS), alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages
and certification of a plaintiff class consisting of all persons
and entities who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise
acquired shares of the Company's common stock between December
6, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.  The complaint charges
ostensible violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. In substance, the suit alleges that the underwriters of
the Company's IPO charged commissions in excess of those
disclosed in the IPO materials and that these actions were not
properly disclosed.

More than 300 similar class action lawsuits filed in the
Southern District of New York have been consolidated for
pretrial purposes under the caption of "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation."  On July 15, 2002, a joint
Motion to Dismiss was filed by the defendants.  In February
2003, the Motion to Dismiss was granted in part (with respect to
the Company) and denied in part (with respect to all issuer
defendants). The claims against the Company's two former
officers named in the class action lawsuit have been dismissed
without prejudice, pursuant to agreement.

The issuer defendants and the plaintiffs have since drafted and
agreed upon a settlement, which is pending approval by the
court. A committee of the Company's Board of Directors has
accepted the pending settlement. Under the terms of the
settlement agreement, the defendant issuers' insurers have
agreed to pay the plaintiffs the amount of one billion dollars
less the total of all of the plaintiffs' recoveries from the
underwriter defendants. Furthermore, pursuant to the agreement,
the issuer defendants have assigned all their potential claims
against the underwriter defendants to a litigation trust, to be
represented by plaintiffs' counsel.

On February 15, 2005, the Court granted preliminary approval of
the proposed settlement.  The Court's approval is contingent on
certain modifications of the settlement provisions concerning a
bar on claims of contribution.  Under the terms of the
settlement, there would be no liability to be recorded by the
Company. Pursuant to a separate agreement, the insurers have
also agreed to pay the issuers' defense costs incurred on or
subsequent to June 1, 2003 on a pooling basis. Furthermore,
pending approval, the individual tolling agreements dismissing
the named individual defendants have been extended, so that the
individual defendants will be covered by the settlement as well.
Final approval of the settlement remains pending before the
Court. While awaiting final court approval of the settlement,
the issuers, including the Company, have complied with discovery
obligations specified in the settlement, by providing a limited
number of documents.

The suit is styled "In Re Airnet Communications Corporation
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


ALABAMA: Suit Over City's Taxes in Police Jurisdiction Proceeds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile County Circuit Judge James Wood ruled that a local
company could open a class action lawsuit against the city of
Mobile, Alabama and go forward with its claim that the city
collects too much money from businesses inside its police
jurisdiction, The Mobile Register reports.

While Judge Wood said the plaintiffs could try to reclaim money
paid through business license fees, he denied the request by
Dickson Campers Inc. to recoup gross receipts tax revenue along
with other taxes on goods, which is a much larger pot.

Stephen Clements, an attorney for the Company, told The Mobile
Register that he recently sent notices to all businesses in the
police jurisdiction, notifying them of the class action status.
According to him, those businesses will automatically become
part of the class action unless owners opt out within 60 days.

The suit alleges that the city violated state law by collecting
more taxes inside its 3-mile-wide police jurisdiction, which
extends west and south of the city, than the services it
provides there. The city also has not, on an annual basis as it
should have, justified the amount it collects, Mr. Clements has
said. The suit was brought by James Dickson, who told The Mobile
Register, "I don't mind paying for what I get, but I want to get
what I pay for."

In the police jurisdiction, the city collects half its regular
tax rate on goods and services and half the cost of a business
license. The largest revenue source targeted by the lawsuit was
the 2 percent gross receipts tax levied by the city until it
switched to a sales tax in 2003. In exchange for the money
collected, the city offers police and fire protection to the
area. Robert "Bubba" Young, the city's budget director told The
Mobile Register that the city collected $24.8 million in taxes
and fees last fiscal year in the police jurisdiction.

In his ruling, Judge Wood noted that Dickson Campers, along with
most other businesses, passes on to customers' taxes on gross
receipts, lodging, liquor, gasoline, cigarettes and leased
goods. The city, in a March hearing, had argued that businesses
could unjustly benefit if they won money that had been paid by
their customers. The judge though wrote in his September ruling,
"The court finds that the annual business license fee is paid by
the business entity and is not passed on directly to the
customer or consumer. It is considered a cost of doing
business."

The ruling suggests that the businesses can seek to recoup
business license fees collected since 2001. Mr. Clements told
The Mobile Register that amounts to a total of about $15
million, including interest. Mr. Young though told The Mobile
Register that the city collected $2.68 million last year in
business license fees from inside the police jurisdiction.

Paul Carbo, an attorney representing the city, told The Mobile
Register that his side would now try to argue it only has to
prove that the city spends an amount in the police jurisdiction
equal to what it collects in business license fees. "If that's
the case, it's pretty much a slam-dunk," Mr. Carbo points out.

However, according to Mr. Clements, just because Judge Wood
ruled that businesses cannot form a class to recoup gross
receipts tax revenue, the city can't ignore what it collects
outside of the business licenses in determining what the city
collects compared with the services it provides.

Mr. Carbo told The Mobile Register that if the city does have to
compare all collections to what it spends in the police
jurisdiction, "we are collecting less than what we spend in the
police jurisdiction." Asked why, then, the city doesn't simply
cease having a police jurisdiction, he said, "I'm not a
councilman or the mayor ... that's a political question." He
continued, "If we don't spend more (in the jurisdiction), it's
so darn close." Mr. Carbo also told The Mobile Register that in
addition to what the city pays for police and fire salaries to
cover the jurisdiction, there's also the cost of benefits,
gasoline, vehicles and support personnel.


APOLLO GROUP: AZ Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona
refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class action
filed against Apollo Group, Inc. and certain of its officers on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between March 12,
2004, and September 14, 2004.

On approximately October 12, 2004, a class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona, captioned "Sekuk Global Enterprises et. al. v. Apollo
Group, Inc. et. al., Case No. CV 04-2147 PHX NVW." Plaintiff, a
shareholder of the Company who purchased its shares in August
and September of 2004, filed this class action on behalf of
itself and all shareholders of the Company who acquired their
shares, and seeks certification as a class and monetary damages
in unspecified amounts.  Plaintiff alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, by the
Company for its issuance of allegedly materially false and
misleading statements in connection with its failure to publicly
disclose the contents of the U.S. Department of Education's
program review report.

A second class action complaint making similar allegations was
filed on October 18, 2004, in the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona, captioned "Christopher Carmona et.
al. v. Apollo Group, Inc. et. al., Case No. CV 04-2204 PHX EHC."
A third class action complaint making similar allegations was
filed on October 28, 2004, in the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona, captioned "Jack B. McBride et. al.
v. Apollo Group, Inc. et. al., Case No. CV 04-2334 PHX LOA."  

The Court consolidated the three pending class action complaints
and a consolidated class action complaint was filed on May 16,
2005.  A motion to dismiss the consolidated class action
complaint was filed on June 15, 2005, on behalf of the Company
and the individual named defendants. The Court denied the motion
to dismiss on October 18, 2005.

"Sekuk Global Enterprises et. al. v. Apollo Group, Inc. et. al.,
Case No. CV 04-2147 PHX NVW" is pending before Judge Neil V.
Wake.  "Christopher Carmona et. al. v. Apollo Group, Inc. et.
al., Case No. CV 04-2204 PHX EHC" is pending before Judge Earl
H. Carroll.  "Jack B. McBride et. al. v. Apollo Group, Inc. et.
al., Case No. CV 04-2334 PHX LOA" is pending before Judge
Lawrence O. Anderson.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation
are:

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

     (2) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
         80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
         mail: info@dyershuman.com

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

     (4) Robbins Umeda & Fink, LLP, 1010 Second Avenue, Suite
         2360, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800-350-6003, E-
         mail: info@ruflaw.com

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

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


APOLLO GROUP: CA Teachers' Overtime Suit Moved To Solano County
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action complaint filed against Apollo Group, Inc. has
been moved to the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Solano.  The suit, initially filed in the County
of Orange is captioned "Bryan Sanders et. al. v. University of
Phoenix, Inc. et. al., Case No. 03CC00430."

Plaintiff, a former academic advisor with University of Phoenix,
filed this class action on behalf of himself and current and
former academic advisors employed by the Company in the State of
California and seeks certification as a class, monetary damages
in unspecified amounts, and injunctive relief. Plaintiff alleges
that during his employment, he and other academic advisors
worked in excess of 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week, and
contends that the Company failed to pay overtime.

On June 6, 2005, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to remove
Bryan Sanders as the named plaintiff and replace him with Deryl
Clark and Romero Ontiveros.  Five status conferences have
occurred and the parties are now in the process of discovery.
The court has granted defendants' motion to transfer venue to
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Solano.  Plaintiff's previously filed motion to certify the
class now will be decided by the Solano County Superior Court.


AVONDALE INC.: NC Court Mulls Antitrust Fraud Lawsuit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina has yet to rule on Avondale, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss the consolidated antitrust class action filed against it
and other defendants.

Aside from the federal suit, the company was also named as a
defendant in a class action complaint filed in the Circuit Court
for Shelby County, Tennessee.  These complaints seek, under
federal or state antitrust laws, various damages and injunctive
relief related to the pricing and sale of open-end yarns.  

On February 14, 2005, the Company, along with the other
defendants named in the federal lawsuits, moved to dismiss the
federal complaint and to compel arbitration with certain of the
named plaintiffs. The motion has been fully briefed and argued
and remains pending.  The Company moved to dismiss the Tennessee
state case for failure to state a claim on January 24, 2005;
this motion is not fully briefed.


BROADVISION INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated CA Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
BroadVision, Inc. in California Superior Court for the county of
San Mateo.

Four class actions were initially filed by an alleged holder of
shares of the Company's common stock, namely:

     (1) Gary Goberville, et al., vs. Pehong Chen, et al., Civ
         448490,

     (2) Cookie Schwartz, et al., vs. BroadVision, Inc., et al,
         Civ 448516,

     (3) Leon Kotovich, et al., vs. BroadVision, Inc., et al,  
         Civ 448518 and

     (4) Anthony Noblett, et al., vs. BroadVision, Inc., et al,
         Civ 448519

Each claim names the Company and its directors as defendants,
and each alleges that the director defendants violated their
fiduciary duties to stockholders by, among other things, failing
to maximize the Company's value and ignoring, or failing to
adequately protect against, certain purported conflicts of
interest. Each complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive
relief and damages in an unspecified amount.

On September 21, plaintiff Goberville filed an amended complaint
alleging that defendants caused materially misleading
information regarding a proposed merger to be disseminated to
the Company's stockholders.  On October 20, 2005, the Court
ordered consolidation of the four pending actions pursuant to
the parties' stipulation.  In accordance with the Court's order,
plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint was filed and served
no later than December 5, 2005.  Defendants also completed by
December 5, 2005, their production of relevant documents
responsive to the first request for production of documents that
were served on defendants by plaintiff Kotovich on August 9,
2005 and plaintiff Goberville on August 31, 2005.


CANADA: New Law Empowers Shareholders, Will Keep Law Firms Busy
---------------------------------------------------------------
A London attorney says that a new Canadian law that empowers
shareholders may mean a flurry of activity for local law firms,
The London Free Press reports.

As of New Year's Day, Bill 198 became law, making it easier for
shareholders to sue companies and their executives. For lawyers
who specialize in class action lawsuits, it may mean 2006 is a
busy year, according to David Williams, a partner at Harrison
Pensa. He told The London Free Press, "There is a very
significant increased liability." He points out, "This is very
significant matter for the business community."

With the law taking effect investors now have the right to try
to win back losses they feel are due them because a business
misrepresented returns on investments. Under the law, suits can
be based on incorrect financial statements, misleading news
releases, even speeches from a company executive.  Even if a
company has to restate its quarterly earnings, which is a
regular occurrence for many businesses, especially in volatile
markets, it will now raise a red flag and the business may come
under greater scrutiny for any misrepresentation.

Mr. Williams told The London Free Press, "Any downgrade in
earnings will attract scrutiny. Questions will be asked about
what was known and what should have been known." He also told
The London Free Press, "With existing class action legislation
this is a powerful remedy. If a stock takes a dive, ordinary
shareholders were not able to sue on the basis of
misrepresentation. This is a significant change in the law and
it affords a greater level of protection that did not exist
before."

Three London firms, Harrison Pensa, Lerners and Siskinds do a
significant number of class action lawsuits, according to Mr.
Williams. Lerners was one of the first law firms in Ontario to
win at trial a class action lawsuit against a company regarding
disclosure of financial information. The Court of Appeal
recently reversed that decision. "It will have an impact on
everywhere. I know a lot of companies are aware of this and
looking at it with due diligence," Mr. Williams said. He told
The London Free Press, "I expect we will be very busy. A lot of
class action skilled firms happen to be located west of
Toronto."

The new law empowers "secondary market" investors, which are
smaller, private investors who may be buying shares for their
pension plans.

Realistically, individuals will not use this new law, but large
plan administrators for pension funds who may not hesitate to
use this to recoup losses are awaiting it eagerly, Mr. Williams
said. He explains, "If there was incorrect information on a
financial statement, if the president of a firm at a luncheon
speech makes a public pronouncement, they will now be
scrutinized. Law firms will watch shares and if they take a
significant dip, they will take action."


CELL THERAPEUTICS: Continues To Face Securities Lawsuits in WA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cell Therapeutics, Inc. continues to face several securities
class actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, alleging violations of federal
securities laws.  The suit also names as defendants James Bianco
and Max Link.

The securities lawsuits assert claims arising under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder on behalf of a class of purchasers of common
stock during the period from June 7, 2004 to March 4, 2005, or
the Class Period.  Plaintiffs allege that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by, among other things, making
false statements of material facts and/or omitting to state
material facts to make the statements not misleading, in
connection with the results of the Company's STELLAR clinical
trials for its drug XYOTAX.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled "F.L.
Heywood, et al. v. Cell Therapeutic Inc., et al.," filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

     (2) Chitwood & Harley, 7945 East Paces Ferry Road, 1400
         Resurgens Plaza, Atlanta, GA, 30326, Phone:
         404.266.1650,

     (3) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
         80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
         mail: info@dyershuman.com

     (4) Keller, Rohrback L.L.P., 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200,
         Seattle, WA, 98101-3052 Av, Phone: 800.776.6044, Fax:
         206.623.3384, E-mail: investor@kellerrohrback.com

     (5) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         (Melville), 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY,
         11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com

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

     (7) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr,
         New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com

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

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

    (10) Schoengold & Sporn, P.C., 233 Broadway 39Th Floor, New
         York, NY, 10279, Phone: 212.964.0046,

    (11) Scott & Scott LLC, P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue,
         Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone: 860.537.5537, Fax:
         860.537.4432, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com

    (12) Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, 35 East State
         Street, Media, PA, 19063, Phone: 877.891.9880, E-mail:
         jshah@classactioncounsel.com

    (13) 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


CHALK'S OCEAN: Crash Victims' Family Sues For Insurance Money
-------------------------------------------------------------
The relatives of a woman and her infant daughter who were killed
in a seaplane crash two weeks ago launched a class action
lawsuit against Chalk's Ocean Airways in Miami-Dade Circuit
Court, asking a judge to make sure all the crash victims'
families get their share of the company's insurance money, The
Sun-Sentinel.com reports.

John Ruiz, attorney for plaintiff Kendrick Sherman of Bimini,
the Bahamas, told The Sun-Sentinel.com that he moved quickly to
sue because the Company is on shaky financial ground and the
only money victims might have access to will be a $50 million
insurance policy. He pointed out, "There's really not much more
in the way of assets."

Mr. Sherman lost his wife, Sophia, and daughter, Bethany, in the
crash off of Miami Beach on December 19, 2005. Twenty people
died when the Bimini-bound Flight 101 plunged into the ocean
shortly after taking off from Watson Island in Miami, Florida.
Twelve of those passengers were from Bimini.

The wrongful death suit alleges that Chalk's financial problems
in recent years included $1.5 million in losses in 2001 and 2002
and failed attempts by owner James Confalone, who bought the
Company out of bankruptcy in 1999, to sell the airline. Mr. Ruiz
told The Sun-Sentinel.com that he thinks the financial value of
the airline "is minimal if not nonexistent," particularly since
the Company stopped flying two days after the crash and the
Federal Aviation Administration recently grounded the type of
seaplanes Chalk's flies pending further inspections.

Although Sherman and his two surviving children are named as
plaintiffs, Mr. Ruiz told The Sun-Sentinel.com that he actually
represents relatives of six of the Bimini-based crash victims
and the families of two other victims from the island have
verbally agreed to hire him. He explains, "[Mr. Sherman] is the
representative of the class action. He lost his wife and his 16-
month-old baby girl. We felt that his claim was the most
adequate claim, someone who lost a wife and a child and left two
minor children behind."

Mr. Ruiz wants a judge to order that any successful claims
against the Company be paid out equitably from the insurance
proceeds. The order would essentially mean that regardless of
how much courts award to the 18 passengers' families in lawsuits
involving the crash, each family would get a proportionate share
of the $50 million available, according to Mr. Ruiz.

National Transportation Safety Board investigators have said
they found a fatigue crack in a wing that separated from the
plane before it crashed, but have not determined officially what
caused the crash.

The suit alleges that although corrosion was found in the wing
of a Chalk's plane wing in the early 1990s, the Company did not
take adequate steps to address the corrosion problem in its
fleet. Such steps, the suit goes on to state, would have
involved a "rigorous maintenance plan" that would have included
x-rays of the wing of the plane that crashed and peeling back
the plane's skin for a detailed inspection. "We believe that the
plane was not being properly maintained," Mr. Ruiz told The Sun-
Sentinel.com.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 425,593 Vehicles Due to Injury Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 425,593 units
of 2003-06 CHEVROLET / EXPRESS and 2003-06 GMC / SAVANA vans due
to injury hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V558000.

According to the ODI, on certain full-size passenger, cargo or
cutaway vans, the front and rear seat belt buckles will not
latch or will not unlatch. In the event of a crash, a seat
occupant may not be properly restrained increasing the risk of
personal injury.

As a remedy, dealers will inspect the buckles and if found to be
inoperative, the entire buckle assembly would be replaced. For
buckles found to be operative, dealers will replace only the
upper buckle cover. The manufacturer has not yet provided an
owner notification schedule for this campaign.

For more details, contact CHEVROLET, Phone: 1-800-630-2438, GMC,
Phone: 1-866-996-9463 OR the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline:
1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web site:
http://www.safecar.gov.


HOMETOWN AUTO: Continues To Face NJ Consumer Fraud Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hometown Auto Retailers, Inc. d/b/a Muller Toyota, Inc.
continues to face a complaint filed by Maryann Cerbo, et. al. in
the Superior Court of New Jersey in Bergen County.  The Company
is one of the 1,667 defendants named in the suit.

The action has been brought on behalf of about 111 named
plaintiffs and, purportedly on behalf of a class of individuals
and companies who have purchased or leased a motor vehicle from
the defendants.  Plaintiffs contend that the defendants:

     (1) overcharged for registration and/or title fees;

     (2) failed to properly itemize documentary costs and  
         governmental costs;

     (3) charged grossly excessive documentary fees not
         reasonably related to costs; and

     (4) failed to disclose that the defendants are not required
         to perform certain documentary services.  

It appears from the complaint that plaintiffs have attempted to
name as defendants all franchised automobile dealers in the
State of New Jersey, as well as a large assortment of other
persons and entities.  There are no allegations that the Company
ever performed any services for any of the plaintiffs.  The
complaint makes certain class action allegations and alleges
violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act as well as
common law fraud.  The Court has dismissed the portions of the
complaint alleging violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act, common law fraud and conspiracy to commit common law fraud.  


HOMETOWN AUTO: Continues To Face Securities Fraud Lawsuit in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hometown Auto Retailers, Inc. continues to face a class action
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  The
suit also names as defendants its directors:

     (1) Corey E. Shaker,  

     (2) William C. Muller, Jr.,

     (3) Joseph Shaker,  

     (4) Bernard J. Dzinski, Jr.,  

     (5) Steven A. Fournier,  

     (6) H. Dennis Lauzon and

     (7) Timothy C. Moynihan.  

Plaintiffs Steven N. Bronson, Louis J. Meade and Leonard Hagan
purport to bring the action individually, derivatively and as a
class action on behalf of the public stockholders of the
Company's Class A shares.  The Plaintiffs allege in their
complaint that the directors and controlling stockholders have
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and the Class A
stockholders, have failed to seek a transaction that would
maximize value for Hometown and all it stockholders, and have
initiated a transaction that is not fair to the Company and its
public stockholders.  The plaintiffs seek equitable and monetary
relief, including, rescission of the Exchange Agreement, a
preliminary and permanent injunction the Exchange Agreement
transactions, a declaration that the defendants have breached
their fiduciary duties, a constructive trust on any assets
transferred pursuant to the Exchange Agreement transactions,
damages for the injury suffered by plaintiffs and the Class as a
result of defendants' breach of fiduciary duties, certification
of the action as a class action,  and an order requiring
defendants to pay attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs.


HORIZON HEALTH: Discovery Proceeds in CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against
Horizon Health Corporation styled "Jeanine Phillips, on behalf
of herself and all others simultaneously situated v. ProCare One
Nurses, LLC, Obstetrical Nurses, Inc. and Horizon Health
Corporation, Case Number 030000425," pending in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Orange.

The complaint alleges various violations of California wage and
hour laws and seeks the recovery of substantial amounts for
wages, fines, penalties and attorneys fees. The case is filed as
a private attorney general action under Section 17200 of the
California Business and Profession Code. The Company considers
that it is entitled to indemnity from Obstetrical Nurses, Inc.,
a predecessor to ProCare One Nurses, LLC for liability relating
to a portion of the claims and has asserted a claim for
Indemnity in a separate lawsuit. The parties are engaged in
discovery proceedings.  The case is filed as a class action, but
the court has not yet ruled on a motion for class certification.


IBIS TECHNOLOGY: MA Judge Recommends Partial Dismissal of Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts' magistrate judge recommended the partial
dismissal of the consolidated securities class action filed
against Ibis Technology Corporation, styled "In re Ibis
Technology Securities Litigation, C.A. 04-10446 RCL."

Five class action securities lawsuits were initially filed,
namely:

     (1) Martin Smolowitz v. Ibis Technology Corporation., et
         al., Civ. No. 03-12613 (RCL)

     (2) Fred Den v. Ibis Technology Corporation., et al., Civ.
         No. 04-10060 (RCL)

     (3) Weinstein v. Ibis Technology Corporation., et al., Civ.
         No. 04-10088 (RCL)

     (4) George Harrison v. Ibis Technology Corporation., et
         al., Civ. No. 04-10286 (RCL)

     (5) Eleanor Pitzer v. Ibis Technology Corporation, et al,
         Civ. No. 04-10446 (RCL)

On July 6, 2004, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed which alleges, among other things, that the Company
violated federal securities laws by allegedly making
misstatements to the investing public relating to demand for
certain Ibis products and intellectual property issues relating
to the sale of the i2000 oxygen implanter. The plaintiffs are
seeking unspecified damages.

On August 5, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on the grounds, among others,
that it failed to state a claim on which the relief could be
granted. That motion now has been fully briefed, and the Company
is awaiting ruling on it from the Court.  On September 22, 2005,
the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation
recommending that the Company's motion be granted in part and
denied in part.  The Company and the plaintiffs have both filed
partial objections to the report and recommendation with Court,
and after briefing of these objections is complete the Court
will determine whether to adopt the report and recommendation in
whole or in part.

The suit is styled "In Re IBIS Technology Securities Litigation,
case no. 1:04-cv-10446-RCL," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, under Judge Reginald C.
Lindsay.  Representing the Company are Christine A. S. Chung and
Brian E. Pastuszenski, Goodwin Procter LLP, Exchange Place, 53
State Street, Boston, MA 02109, E-mail:
cchung@goodwinprocter.com or BPastuszenski@goodwinprocter.com;
and Laura M Stock of Goodwin Procter LLP, Exchange Place
53 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-570-1709, Fax:
617-523-1231, E-mail: lstock@goodwinprocter.com.  Representing
the plaintiffs are Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Shapiro Haber & Urmy
LLP, 53 State Street, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939,
Fax: 617-439-0134, E-mail: ted@shulaw.com; and Gregory M.
Nespole, Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-545-4600, Fax:
2112-545-4653, E-mail: nespole@whafh.com.


ILLINOIS: Insurers agree to $92M Settlement in "Total Loss" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Automobile insurers agreed to pay about $92 million to settle a
Madison County class action suit over the values the insurers
assigned to wrecked vehicles, The Madison County Record reports.

Motorists who accepted payouts on "total loss" crashes would
qualify for up to $132 under a pair of orders that Associate
Circuit Judge Ralph Mendelsohn signed on December 20, 2005. The
settlement, which provides more than $16 million for class
counsel at the Lakin Law Firm of Wood River and four Chicago
firms, covers dozens of insurers. About four million persons
have received mailed notices about it.

Judge Mendelsohn's first order covered 10 separate class action
suits from 2001 through 2003. His second order covered a single
class action suit from 2003.

Previously, the Madison County Circuit Court in Illinois issued
an order granting final approval of the settlement agreed to by
CCC Information Services Inc., a subsidiary of CCC Information
Services Group Inc. (Nasdaq: CCCG), 15 of its customers and the
plaintiffs in various class actions consolidated in Madison
County, Illinois, "In re Total Loss Class Action Litigation Case
Nos. 01 L 157, et al." The settlement includes no admission of
liability or wrongdoing by CCC or its customers, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (December 22, 2005) reports.

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

The settlement requires the Company to pay notice and
administration fees and other costs associated with the
settlement. The administrative process is underway, and the
Company estimates that these costs will total approximately $8
million, including available insurance proceeds of $1.8 million.
The Company is fully reserved for these payments. CCC will also
engage the services of an independent, third party as a Court-
appointed monitor for five years following settlement. The
monitor will periodically review the methodology used in CCC's
valuation product and oversee the performance of various product
validation studies, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(December 22, 2005) reports.

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

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

Judge Mendelsohn normally does not hear class action cases. But,
Chief Judge Edward Ferguson assigned these to Judge Mendelsohn
after attorneys consolidated them for settlement.

The lead attorney in the ten consolidated cases was Richard
Burke of the Lakin firm. The lead attorney in the other case was
William Harte of Chicago.

Mr. Burke wrote to Judge Mendelsohn that, "After years of hard
fought litigation and years of arms length negotiations, the
parties reached a Settlement Agreement." He also wrote that the
agreement relied on an expert examination of 189,124 total
losses.

Additionally, Mr. Burke estimated the settlement value of his
ten suits at $52 million, and the value of the combined
settlement at $92 million. He also wrote that defendants in his
ten cases would pay $9.5 million in legal fees and expenses to
the Lakin firm and Freed and Weiss of Chicago. In the other
case, Mr. Harte wrote to Judge Mendelsohn that his firm and two
other firms in Chicago would receive $6.6 million.


MASERATI NORTH: Recalls 169 2006 Vehicles Due to Crash Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maserati North America, Inc. in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 169 units of
2006 MASERATI / QUATTROPORTE passenger vehicles due to crash
hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V574000.

According to the ODI, on certain vehicles, the power assist
delivered by the steering rack may not be fully available while
making extreme left hand turns for a prolonged period of time.
An internal O-ring of the steering rack can become dislodged or
dislocated causing a loss of power assist to the driver. Such
circumstances could lead to a reduction in vehicle control,
which could result in a crash.

As a remedy, dealers will replace the steering rack free of
charge. The recall is expected to begin in January 2006.

For more details, contact MASERATI, Phone: 1-201-816-2600 OR the
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web
site: http://www.safecar.gov.


MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls 61T 2005-06 Vehicles Due to Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 61,000 units of 2005-06
MERCEDES BENZ / C CLASS passenger vehicles due to injury hazard.
NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V560000.

According to the ODI, certain vehicles equipped with sport model
steering wheels fail to comply with the requirements of Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, "Occupant Crash
Protection." In certain low risk air bag deployment tests
conducted by NHTSA, using an auto out-of-position and unbelted
5th percentile female crash test dummy, irregularities were
demonstrated indicating that occupants may not be properly
protected in a crash. In the event of a crash, an occupant may
not be properly restrained, which could result in injuries.

As a remedy, dealers will install a new air bag inflator module
free of charge. The recall is expected to begin in match 2006.

For more details, contact MERCEDES-BENZ, Phone: 1-800-367-6372
OR the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-
9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Seeks Dismissal of IL XBox Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation, the manufacturer of the Xbox 360, filed a
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit brought by a Chicago,
Illinois resident who claims that the new video game console has
a design flaw that causes it to overheat and freeze up, The Xbox
Today reports.

Though due to be heard on January 10, the software giant is
trying to get it thrown out of court before it even begins. It
seems that Robert Byers, who filed the suit, has not even
contacted customer support about the problems with his own 360
and it's not even clear his 360 is malfunctioning. He may be
bringing the lawsuit on the strength of others' complaints,
which will make for an interesting argument in court.

In the motion to dismiss, the Company notes, "Significantly,
Plaintiff omits the fact that his Xbox 360, purchased in
November 2005, is still covered by a 90-day warranty, under
which Microsoft agreed to repair or replace it, or issue a
refund. In fact, Plaintiff does not allege that he contacted
anyone at Microsoft about the alleged defect, let alone that
Microsoft refused to honor the terms of its warranty. Moreover,
Plaintiff does not allege that his Xbox 360 ever malfunctioned.
He alleges only, "members of the class have experienced
malfunctions" with their Xbox 360s not that he has.

The proposed class action claims that in the Company's bid to
gain a share in the $25 billion global video game market, the
company was so intent on releasing the Xbox 360 before competing
next-generation machines from Sony Corporation and Nintendo Co
Ltd. that it sold a "defectively designed" product. The suit
seeks unspecified damages and litigation-related expenses, as
well as the replacement or recall of Xbox 360 game consoles, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (December 7, 2005) reports.

According to Mr. Byers, the power supply and central processing
unit in the Xbox 360 overheat, affecting heat-sensitive chips
and causing the console to lock up. Complaints about the problem
surfaced quickly on gaming enthusiast Web sites after the Xbox
360 debuted last November 22. Console owners reported that some
systems had crashed during regular use as well as during online
game play using the Xbox Live service. Problems included screens
going black and the appearance of a variety of error messages,
an earlier Class Action Reporter story (December 7, 2005)
reports.

The suit is styled, "Byers v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No.
1:05-cv-06834," filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge David H. Coar.
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Richard Joseph Doherty and
James Michael Smith of Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates, 25 East
Washington St., Suite 900, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312) 372-
8822, E-mail: rich@horwitzlaw.com and jsmith@horwitzlaw.com.


MONARCH CASINO: NV Court Grants Suit Summary Judgment Motion
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada
granted Monarch Casino & Resort, Inc.'s motion for summary
judgment in the class action filed against it and other
manufacturers, distributors and casino operators of video poker
and electronic slot machines.

On April 26, 1994, and May 10, 1994, complaints in purported
class action lawsuits, styled "William Poulos v. Caesars World,
Inc. et al., Case No.94-478-Civ-Orl-22," and "William H. Ahern
v. Caesars World, Inc. et al., Case No. 94-532-Civ-Orl-22," were
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida (the "Florida Complaints") and subsequently
were transferred to the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada, Southern Division (the "Nevada District
Court").  On September 26, 1995, a complaint in a purported
class action lawsuit, styled "Larry Schrier v. Caesars World,
Inc. et al., Case No. 95-923-LDG (RJJ)," was filed in Nevada
District Court (along with the Florida Complaints, the
"Complaints").

The Complaints allege that manufacturers, distributors and
casino operators of video poker and electronic slot machines,
including the Company, have engaged in a course of conduct
intended to induce persons to play such games based on a false
belief concerning how the gaming machines operate, as well as
the extent to which there is an opportunity to win on a given
play.  The Complaints charge Defendants with violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), as
well as claims of common law fraud, unjust enrichment and
negligent misrepresentation, and seek damages in excess of $1
billion without any substantiation of that amount. The Nevada
District Court consolidated the actions (and one other action
styled "William Poulos v. American Family Cruise Line, NV et
al., Case No. CV -S-95-936-LDG (RLH)," in which the Company is
not a named defendant).

The Plaintiffs moved to certify two classes of plaintiffs,
essentially encompassing all persons in the U.S. who have played
one or more of the defendants' video poker or electronic slot
machines in the prior ten years.  That motion was opposed by the
defendants and subsequently, the court ruled in favor of the
defendants and denied the class certification motion.  That
ruling was upheld on appeal.  As a result, the named plaintiffs,
Poulos, McElmore and Schreier must proceed on behalf of
themselves, not a class.  The plaintiffs have admitted that
they, personally, did not gamble in all of the establishments
owned by entities named as defendants in the suit, and have
offered to dismiss those defendants associated with casinos at
which they did not personally gamble.  

On September 7, 2005, U.S. District Judge Roger L. Hunt granted
the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on all claims made
by Plaintiffs, and dismissed Plaintiffs' claims in their
entirety. On October 14, 2005, Plaintiffs William Poulos and
Brenda McElmore lodged a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, seeking to appeal from the
District Court's order of summary judgment in favor of
defendants and two discovery orders also issued by the district
court.  The Company intends to vigorously respond to the appeal
jointly with its co-defendants/co-respondents.


NAVARRE CORPORATION: Lead Plaintiff Motion Filed in MA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two groups filed lead plaintiff motions for the consolidated
class action litigation against Navarre Corporation in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.  

Three actions were initially commenced in June 2005. The
allegations in each of these lawsuits are virtually identical,
and essentially claim that the Company and certain of its
officers and/or directors violated federal securities laws and
regulations because the Company's financial results were
materially inflated and not prepared in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles.

The complaints allege that these accounting irregularities
benefited Company insiders including the individual defendants.
The Complaints further allege that the Company failed to
properly recognize executive deferred compensation and
improperly recognized a deferred tax benefit as income.
Plaintiffs allege violation of Sec. 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5), promulgated under the
Act, and as to the individual defendants only, violation of Sec.
20(a) of the Act.  Plaintiffs seek certification of the actions
as class actions, compensatory but unspecified damages allegedly
sustained as a result of the alleged wrongdoing, plus costs,
counsel fees and experts fees.

The actions are identified as follows:


     (1) AVIVA Partners, Ltd. v. Navarre Corp., et al., case no.
         05-1151 (PAM/RLE)

     (2) Vivian Oh v. Navarre Corp., et al., case no. 05-01211
         (MJD/JGL)

     (3) Matthew Grabler v. Navarre Corp., et al., case no. 05-
         1260 (DWF/JSM)

Defendants entered into a stipulation with counsel for
plaintiffs in each of these cases to postpone the time for
bringing a motion to dismiss until after a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel are appointed by the Court, and an amended
consolidated complaint is filed.  

Two groups have filed motions to be named lead plaintiffs, but
the Court has not scheduled a hearing on these competing
motions. Once that decision is made, the lead plaintiff will
have forty-five (45) days within which to serve a consolidated
amended Complaint, after which motion practice to dismiss that
Complaint will likely occur. During this period, no discovery
will occur.


ORANGE 21: Continues To Face Investor Fraud Suits in S.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------
Orange 21, Inc., its directors and certain of its officers
continue to face two stockholder class action lawsuits filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California. The complaints purport to seek unspecified damages
on behalf of an alleged class of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock pursuant to the registration statement
filed in connection with the Company's public offering of stock
on December 14, 2004.

The complaints allege that the Company and its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws by failing to
disclose in the registration statement material information
about the status of its European operations and whether certain
of the Company's products infringe on the intellectual property
rights of Oakley, Inc.  The Company has not yet formally
responded to this action and no discovery has been conducted.


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Settles Heartland Suit in WI For $8.25M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, agreed to settle a
class action lawsuit over how it audited two collapsed mutual
funds, The Associated Press reports.

An attorney for investors in the funds, C. Oliver Burt III, told
The Associated Press that the settlement was for $8.25 million.
The Company was the accounting firm for Milwaukee-based
Heartland Advisors Inc. in 2000 when the investment firm marked
down the value of the two funds. The U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission estimated that fund shareholders lost about
$80 million. The lawsuit was the subject of a trial that was
scheduled to have gone to a jury.

Commenting on the settlement, Pricewaterhouse spokesman Steven
Silber told The Associated Press, "Given the uncertain outcome
of litigation we made a business decision to settle the case for
a fraction of the original claim without admitting any
liability."

U.S. District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller must approve the
settlement, which is not expected to occur before April 2006,
according to his clerk, Greg Feldkamp. Attorney's fees and costs
will get deducted from the settlement money.

After the deduction of attorney's fees and costs, any money
recovered from the Company would be distributed among 10,000 to
11,000 investors in the old Heartland High-Yield Municipal Bond
Fund and Short Duration High-Yield Municipal Fund. The case
started after a sharp fall in the value of the two funds in
October 2000. At that time, assets in the High-Yield Municipal
Bond fund were marked down by 69% and those in the Short
Duration fund were marked down by 44%, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (November 25, 2005) reports.

Heartland left the case in July 2002, when it settled its
liability for $14 million. In addition, Interactive Data
Corporation, which helped Heartland price some of the bonds in
the funds, agreed to pay $1 million to settle its part in the
case, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 25, 2005)
reports.

Shareholders received about $30 million when the funds' assets
were liquidated. Despite that Heartland officials still face
trial on a civil complaint by the SEC.

The suit is styled, "White v. Heartland High-Yield, et al, Case
No. 2:00-cv-01388-JPS," filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin under Judge J. P.
Stadtmueller. Representing the Plaintiff/s are, C. Oliver Burt,
III of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, Esperante
Bldg., 222 Lakeview Ave. - Ste. 900, West Palm Beach, FL 33401,
Phone: 561-835-9400; and Thomas A. Doyle of Saunders & Doyle
20 S. Clark St. - Ste. 1720, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone:
312-551-0051, Fax: 312-551-4467. Representing the Defendant/s
are, Timothy A. Duffy of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, 200 E. Randolph
Dr. - 60th Fl., Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: 312-861-2445, Fax:
312-861-2200, E-mail: tduffy@kirkland.com.


PROTECTION ONE: Reaches Settlement for CA Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc. reached a settlement for
the class action filed against it in the Los Angeles Superior
Court in California, styled "Milstein v. Protection One Alarm
Services, Inc., John Does 1-100, including Protection One Alarm
Monitoring, Inc., Case No. BC296025."

On May 20, 2003, Joseph G. Milstein filed the suit, alleging
that Mr. Milstein and similarly situated customers in California
should not be required to continue to pay for alarm services
during the term of their contracts if the customer moves from
the monitored premises. The complaint seeks money damages and
disgorgement of profits based on several purported causes of
action.

On May 29, 2003, the plaintiff added the Company as a defendant
in the lawsuit.  On October 28, 2003, the Court granted the
Company's motion to compel arbitration of the dispute pursuant
to the terms of the customer contract.  A Clause Construction
hearing was conducted August 10, 2004, and on October 27, 2004,
the arbitrator ruled that the arbitration clause permits the
plaintiff to seek to proceed on behalf of a class.  On February
24, 2005, a class certification hearing was conducted and the
parties are awaiting the arbitrator's ruling on whether the
matter may proceed as a class action.   The suit was
subsequently referred to arbitration in accordance with the
terms of the customer contract.  The parties mutually agreed to
settle the claims underlying the dispute, and on September 20,
2005, the Court entered an order dismissing the lawsuit with
prejudice.


PUTNAM FIDUCIARY: SEC Files Fraud Suit in MA V. Former Officers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil fraud
action against six former officers of Putnam Fiduciary Trust
Company (PFTC), a Boston-based registered transfer agent, for
engaging in a scheme beginning in January 2001 by which the
defendants defrauded a defined contribution plan client and
group of Putnam mutual funds of approximately $4 million.

The six defendants are Karnig Durgarian, of Hopkinton,
Massachusetts, a former senior managing director and chief of
operations for PFTC, as well as principal executive officer of
certain Putnam mutual funds from 2002 through 2004; Donald
McCracken, of Melrose, Massachusetts, a former managing director
and head of global operations services for PFTC; Virginia Papa,
of Newton, Massachusetts, a former managing director and
director of defined contribution servicing; Sandra Childs, of
Duxbury, Massachusetts, a former managing director who had  
overall responsibility for PFTC's compliance department; Kevin  
Crain, of Princeton, New Jersey, a managing director who had
responsibility for PFTC's plan administration unit; and Ronald  
Hogan, of Saugus, Massachusetts, a former vice-president who had
responsibility for new business implementation at PFTC.

The Commission's complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in
Boston, alleges that the defendants' misconduct arose out of
PFTC's one-day delay in investing certain assets of a defined
contribution client, Cardinal Health, Inc., in January 2001. The
markets rose steeply on the missed day, causing Cardinal
Health's defined contribution plan to miss out on nearly $4
million of market gains.  According to the complaint, rather
than inform Cardinal Health of the one-day delay or compensate
their client for the missed trading gain, the defendants decided
to improperly shift approximately $3 million of the costs of the
delay to shareholders of certain Putnam mutual funds through
deception, illegal trade reversals, and accounting machinations.  
The complaint also alleges that the defendants improperly
allowed Cardinal Health's defined contribution plan to bear
approximately $1 million of the loss without disclosing to
Cardinal Heath that they had done so.

The complaint further alleges that Mr. Durgarian, Ms. Papa, Ms.
Childs, and Mr. Crain also took steps to cover-up the wrongful
conduct. As a result, the conduct was not discovered until
January 2004. The complaint alleges that through their
fraudulent conduct, defendants violated Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933 and violated and/or aided abetted
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The complaint further alleges that Durgarian also violated
Sections 34(b) and 37 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The
Commission is seeking injunctive relief and civil monetary
penalties.

The Commission revealed that it would not bring any enforcement
action against PFTC because of its swift, extensive and
extraordinary cooperation in the Commission's investigation of
the transactions that are the subject of the Commission's
complaint. PFTC's cooperation consisted of prompt self-
reporting, an independent internal investigation, sharing the
results of that investigation with the government (including not
asserting any applicable privileges and protections with respect
to written materials furnished to the Commission staff),
terminating and otherwise disciplining responsible wrongdoers,
providing full restitution to its defrauded clients, paying for
the attorneys' and consultants' fees of its defrauded clients,
and implementing new controls designed to prevent the recurrence
of fraudulent conduct. The suit is styled, SEC v. Karnig H.
Durgarian, Jr., Donald F. McCracken, Ronald B. Hogan, Virginia
A. Papa, Kevin F. Crain, and Sandra G. Childs, USDC, District of
Massachusetts, Civil Action No. 05-12618-NMG) (LR-19517).


QUICKLOGIC CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal NY Lawsuit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York has yet to rule on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal
of the consolidated securities class action filed against Tower
Semiconductor Ltd., several of its directors and several of its
investors including QuickLogic Corporation.  The Company was
named solely as an alleged control person.

On August 19, 2004, the court dismissed the claims against all
defendants, including the Company, with prejudice.  On September
29, 2004, one of the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from
the judgment.

The suit is styled "De Vries, et al v. Tower Semiconductor, et
al., case no. 1:03-cv-04999-KMW," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Kimba M. Wood.  Representing the plaintiffs are Jeffrey S.
Abraham of Abraham & Associates, One Penn Plaza, Suite # 1910,
New York, NY 10119, Phone: (212) 714-2444; and Lawrence Donald
Levit, Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP, One Penn Plaza, Suite
1910, New York, NY 10119, Phone: (212)-279-5050, Fax:
(212)-279-3655, E-mail: llevit@aftlaw.com.  Representing the
Company is Charles Cummings of Baker & McKenzie, 805 Third Ave.,
New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-751-5700.


QUICKLOGIC CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 Quicklogic
Corporation, certain of its officers and directors and some
investment banks that underwrote the Company's initial public
offering.

The complaint alleges excessive and undisclosed commissions in
connection with the allocation of shares of common stock in
QuickLogic's initial and secondary public offerings and
artificially high prices through "tie-in" arrangements which
required the underwriters' customers to buy shares in the
aftermarket at pre-determined prices in violation of the federal
securities laws.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
damages on behalf of persons who purchased QuickLogic's stock
pursuant to the registration statements between October14, 1999,
and December6, 2000.

Various plaintiffs have filed similar actions asserting
virtually identical allegations against over 300 other public
companies, their underwriters, and their officers and directors
arising out of each company's public offering.  These actions,
including the action against QuickLogic, have been coordinated
for pretrial purposes and captioned "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92."

A stipulation of settlement for the claims against the issuer
defendants, including the Company, has been submitted to the
court for preliminary approval.  Under the stipulation of
settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims
against participating defendants in exchange for a contingent
payment guarantee by the insurance companies collectively
responsible for insuring the issuers in all the related cases,
and the assignment or surrender to the plaintiffs of certain
claims the issuer defendants may have against the underwriters.

Under the guarantee, the insurers will be required to pay the
amount, if any, by which $1.0 billion exceeds the aggregate
amount ultimately collected by the plaintiffs from the
underwriter defendants in all the cases.  There is no guarantee
that the settlement will become effective, as it is subject to a
number of conditions, including court approval. On February 15,
2005, the court preliminarily approved the settlement contingent
on specified modifications. The settlement is still subject to
court approval and a number of other conditions. There is no
guarantee that the settlement will become effective.  On August
31,2005, the court affirmed its ruling granting preliminary
approval to the settlement.

The suit is styled "In Re Quicklogic Corp. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 9503 (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


SERVICE CORPORATION: Continues To Face TX Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International continues to face a
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
several of its current and former executive officers or
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division.  The suit is styled "Conley
Investment Counsel v. Service Corporation International, et al;
Civil Action 04-MD-1609."

The suit resulted from the transfer and consolidation by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation of three lawsuits,
namely:
      
     (1) Edgar Neufeld v. Service Corporation International,
         et al.; Cause No. CV-S-03-1561-HDM-PAL; In the United
         States District Court for the District of Nevada;

     (2) Rujira Srisythemp v. Service Corporation International,
         et. al.; Cause No. CV-S-03-1392-LDG-LRL; In the United
         States District for the District of Nevada; and

     (3) Joshua Ackerman v. Service Corporation International,
         et. al.; Cause No. 04-CV-20114; In the United States
         District Court for the Southern District of Florida

The suit alleges that the defendants failed to disclose the
unlawful treatment of human remains and gravesites at two
cemeteries in Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, Florida.
Since the action is in its preliminary stages, no discovery has
occurred, and the Company cannot quantify its ultimate
liability, if any, for the payment of damages.

The suit is styled "Conley Investment Counsel v. Service
Corporation International et al, case no. 4:04-md-01609," filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York under Judge Lynn N. Hughes.  Representing the lead
plaintiff are Thomas E. Bilek, 1000 Louisiana Suite 1302
Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713-227-7720, Fax: 713-227-9404 E-mail:
tbilek@hb-legal.com; and Christopher L. Nelson of Schiffrin &
Barroway LLP Three Bala Plz E Ste 400 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004,
Phone: 212-545-4600.  The Company is represented by
Andrew M. Edison and J. Clifford Gunter III of Bracewell and
Giuliani LLP, 711 Louisiana Ste 2300 Houston, TX 77002, Phone:
713-221-1371 Fax: 713-221-2144; and Roger B. Greenberg of
Schwartz Junell et al, 909 Fannin Ste 2000 Houston, TX 77010
Phone: 713-752-0017 Fax: 713-752-0327, E-mail:
rgreenberg@schwartz-junell.com.


SERVICE CORPORATION: Faces Funeral Casket Antitrust Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International continues to face several
funeral casket antitrust lawsuits in various courts. The funeral
and casket antitrust lawsuits seek injunctions, unspecified
amounts of monetary damages and treble damages.

The Company is a defendant in the class action styled "In re:
Funeral Consumers Antitrust Litigation, case no. 4:05-CV-03394,"
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas in Houston.  This is a purported class action
on behalf of casket consumers throughout the United States. The
plaintiffs allege that the Company and several other companies
involved in the funeral industry violated federal antitrust laws
and state consumer laws by engaging in various anti-competitive
conduct associated with the sale of caskets.

The Company is also a defendant in a suit styled "Pioneer Valley
Casket, et al. v. Service Corporation International, et al.,
Cause No. 4:05-CV-03399," filed in the United States District
Court of Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. This
lawsuit makes the same allegations as the Funeral Consumers Case
and is also brought against several other companies involved in
the funeral industry. Unlike the Funeral Consumers Case, this
case is a purported class action on behalf of all independent
casket distributors that are in the business or were in the
business any time between July 18, 2001 and to present.

Another class action lawsuit that makes the same allegations as
the Funeral Consumers Case has been filed against the Company in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California-San Francisco Division. It is styled "Ralph Lee
Fancher v. Service Corporation International, et al., Cause No.
C-05-3855."  This lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all
Tennessee consumers who purchased caskets from Batesville Casket
Company, The York Group, Inc. and Aurora Casket Company.
The parties have agreed to transfer this case to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Another class action lawsuit that makes the same allegations as
the Funeral Consumers Case has been filed against the Company in
Cameron County, Texas. It is styled Leoncio Solis v. Service
Corporation International, case no. 2005-CCL-1023-C," filed in
the County Court at Law No. 3 of Cameron County, Texas. This
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all consumers located in the
state of Texas who purchased Batesville Casket Company, Inc.
caskets from the Company and all consumers who are threatened
with injury by the alleged conspiracies.  The Company has
removed this case to federal court.


SERVICE CORPORATION: Appeals Certification of TX Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International appealed the County Court of
El Paso County, Texas, County Court at Law Number Three's ruling
granting certification in the class action filed against it,
styled "David Hijar v. SCI Texas Funeral Services, Inc., SCI
Funeral Services, Inc., and Service Corporation International,
case no. 2002-740 (Hijar Lawsuit)."

The Hijar Lawsuit is a putative statewide class action brought
on behalf of all persons, entities and organizations who
purchased funeral services from the Company or its subsidiaries
in Texas at any time since March 18, 1998.  Plaintiffs allege
that federal and Texas funeral related rules (Rules) required
the Company to disclose its markups on all items obtained from
third parties in connection with funeral service contracts and
that the failure to make required disclosures of markups
resulted in fraud and other legal claims.  

Over the course of the Hijar Lawsuit, the parties have disputed
the proper scope and substance of discovery. Each side has filed
various motions to compel, motions for protection and/or to
quash, motions for sanctions, motions to reconsider, and/or
motions to lift sanctions. The trial court has signed several
discovery orders against the Company, some of which were
effectively vacated when the Company sought relief from the
Texas Supreme Court and when, in response to that
Court's stay and request for briefing, the sole plaintiff at
that time withdrew his requested discovery until summary
judgment issues were decided the following year.

Each side in the Hijar Lawsuit filed motions to summarily
establish that its interpretation of the Rules was correct. The
Company contends that the items at issue, which plaintiffs
contend were not disclosed properly under the Rules, were not
"cash advance items" that would have been required by the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Funeral Rule and Texas
counterpart to be disclosed in a certain way on invoices. The
International Cemetery and Funeral Association, the Texas
Funeral Directors Association, the National Funeral Directors
Association, the National Funeral Directors and Morticians
Association, Inc., the Texas Funeral Service Commission, and
three industry competitors filed Amicus Curiae briefs during the
course of the Hijar Lawsuit, asserting that their interpretation
of the Rules was the same as the Company's. Additionally, the
FTC provided the Company with an informal staff opinion
supporting the Company's interpretation, which the Company
provided to the trial court. Despite these authorities, the
trial court granted and refused to reconsider its ruling on
Hijar's summary judgment motion, which summarily determined
certain elements of liability based on a finding that the items
at issue were "cash advance items."  This ruling allowed the
plaintiffs to proceed to a certification hearing.

The trial court entered an order certifying the class and two
subclasses on April 15, 2005.  On April 29, 2005, the trial
court entered an order imposing sanctions against the Company
and finding that the Company breached its contracts by failing
to disclose that funeral goods and services were purchased from
third parties and resold to customers at higher prices, and by
failing to disclose the amount of price mark-ups, and approving
a damage calculation methodology proposed by the plaintiffs
under which the damages would equal the difference between the
costs to the Company of items of funeral goods and services
purchased from third parties and the price at which they were
resold to persons arranging funerals, minus any legally proper
off-sets. On April 29, 2005, pursuant to section 51.014(a)(3) of
the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, the Company filed a
notice of appeal regarding the trial court's order certifying a
class, and it appears from section 51.014(b) that this
interlocutory appeal "also stays all other proceedings in the
trial court pending resolution of that appeal." The Company
filed its appellants' brief of the case with the El Paso Court
of Appeals in October 2005.


STANFORD LAW: Report Says Fewer Securities Suits Filed in 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
A recently released report by the Stanford Law School Securities
Class Action Clearinghouse in cooperation with Cornerstone
Research finds the number of securities fraud class actions
filed in 2005 decreased more than 17 percent compared to 2004
levels, falling from 213 filings to 176. The 2005 filing rate is
nearly 10 percent below the 1996 - 2004 historic average of 195.

Significantly, the study also finds that investor losses related
to these lawsuits decreased dramatically in 2005. The
Clearinghouse's Disclosure Dollar Loss Index (DDL Index(TM))
measures the decline in the defendant firm's market
capitalization at the end of the class period (usually the time
of the disclosure of the alleged fraud). The DDL decreased 33
percent, from $147 billion in 2004 to $99 billion in 2005.
Compared to 2001 and 2002, the DDL was off by more than 49
percent and 51 percent, respectively.

"The pig may have moved through the python," said Stanford Law
School Professor Joseph Grundfest, Director of the Securities
Class Action Clearinghouse and former Commissioner of the
Securities and Exchange Commission. "Two factors are likely
responsible for the decline. First, lawsuits arising from the
dramatic boom and bust of U.S. equities in the late 1990s and
early 2000s are now largely behind us. Second, improved
governance in the wake of the Enron and WorldCom frauds may have
reduced the actual incidence of fraud."

The decline in stock market volatility in 2005 may be yet
another reason for the lower intensity of securities class
action filings. "Our observations over the past decade indicate
that lower market volatility tends to be associated with a lower
number of filings," explained Dr. John Gould, vice president of
Cornerstone Research and contributor to the study. "Only time
will tell whether this decline in litigation activity is
transient or the start of a longer-term trend," Mr. Grundfest
added.

Lawsuits filed in 2005 also tended to allege misrepresentations
in financial reporting and false forward-looking statements more
frequently than in the past. The percentage of filings alleging
misrepresentations in financial documents increased from 78
percent in 2004 to 89 percent in 2005, and the percentage of
filings alleging false forward looking statements increased from
67 percent in 2004 to 82 percent in 2005. The percentage of
filings alleging GAAP violations and insider trading remained
relatively stable.

"This trend suggests that the securities litigation market is
now even more focused on the validity of financial results and
forecasts presented in financial documents, such as SEC filings
and press releases," said Dr. Gould.

As for filings by industry, the study found that the technology
and communications sectors - with filings down more than 32
percent from 2004 levels and 36 percent from historic averages -
were no longer the major driver of securities fraud litigation
in 2005. Instead, the consumer non-cyclical sector (e.g.,
biotechnology, commercial services, cosmetics/personal care,
food, healthcare-products, healthcare-services pharmaceuticals,
etc.) now gives rise to the most litigation.

The report also found that the most active federal circuits in
2005, as measured by the number of issuers sued, were: the
Second Circuit (New York) with 44 filings, the Ninth Circuit
(California) with 38 filings, and the Third Circuit
(Delaware/Pennsylvania) with 18 filings. When ranked by
disclosure dollar loss, the top three circuits in 2005 were: the
Second Circuit with $38 billion, the First Circuit
(Massachusetts) with $17 billion and the Third Circuit with $10
billion. These data reflect a dramatic 41 percent decline from
2004 in the number of securities fraud lawsuits filed in the
Ninth Circuit, a trend that it is correlated with the decline in
litigation against high-technology firms that tend to be based
in California.

The Securities Class Action Clearinghouse is an authoritative
source of data and analysis regarding the financial and economic
characteristics of federal securities fraud class action
litigation. The full text of the 2005 report can be found on the
Clearinghouse site, http://securities.stanford.edu.  

Cornerstone Research provides financial and economic analysis in
civil litigation and regulatory proceedings, and concentrates in
securities, antitrust, intellectual property, energy,
accounting, and financial institutions litigation. Cornerstone
Research cosponsors the Stanford Law School Securities Class
Action Clearinghouse, the leading source of data and analytical
information regarding the financial and economic characteristics
of securities class action litigation.

For more details, contact John Gould of Cornerstone Research,
Phone: 617-927-3000 or John Hellerman, 202-274-4762, E-mail:
jhellerman@hellermanbaretz.com or Joseph Grundfest of Stanford
University Law School, Phone: 650-723-0458.


STOCKERYALE INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated NH Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
StockerYale, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
District of New Hampshire.

Several class actions were initially filed on behalf of
purchasers of the firm's securities between April 19, 2004 and
May 23, 2005.  The actions also name as defendants Mark W.
Blodgett (CEO, President and Chairman), Francis J. O'Brien
(former CFO), Richard P. Lindsay (current CFO), and Ricardo A.
Diaz (COO). No class has yet been certified in the above
actions.

The complaints, which assert claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5)
promulgated thereunder, allege that certain disclosures made by
the Company in press releases dated April 19, 2004 and April 21,
2004 were materially false or misleading. The complaints seek
unspecified damages.

The three complaints were consolidated into one action and
assigned to a single federal judge. The Court also appointed a
group of lead plaintiffs and plaintiffs' counsel, who recently
filed a consolidated amended complaint to supercede the
previously filed complaints. The consolidated amended complaint
asserts claims under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The suit is styled "In re StockerYale, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 1:05-cv-00177-JM," filed in the United
States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, under
Judge James R. Muirhead.  Representing the Company is Douglas C.
Doskocil, Goodwin Procter LLP (MA), Exchange Place, 53 State St
Boston, MA 02109-2881, Phone: 617 570-1000, E-mail:
ddoskocil@goodwinprocter.com.  Representing the plaintiffs is
William L. Chapman and Jennifer A. Eber, Orr & Reno PA, One
Eagle Sq, PO Box 3550, Concord, NH 03302-3550, Phone:
603-224-2381, E-mail: wlc@orr-reno.com or jaeber@orr-reno.com.


THERMO KING: Recalls TRIPAC Auxiliary Power Units For Fire Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thermo King Corporation in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 8,000 units of TRIPAC /
AUXILIARY POWER UNITS due to injury hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID
Number: 05E080000.

According to the ODI, all TRIPAC AUXILIARY POWER UNITS (TRIPAC
APU) TRIPAC TIER 1 (SERIAL NUMBER RANGE 023D00A001 TO
065D02A022) AND TRIPAC TIER 2 (SERIAL NUMBER RANGE 0453TC0001 TO
1153TC5116), installed as aftermarket equipment on heavy trucks
to reduce unnecessary truck idle and conserve diesel fuel. The
APU's circuit protection is not adequate to protect against
electrical faults in the APU. In adequate circuit protection
could result in the APU overheating and causing a fire.

As a remedy, dealers will retrofit the APU with a new fuse kit
free of charge. The recall began on December 26, 2005.

For more details, contact THERMO KING, Phone: 952-887-2396 OR
the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153,
Web site: http://www.safecar.gov.


VISA USA: Merchants to Get Payouts From $3.1B Debit Card Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Though the first checks to merchants, who are entitled to some
of the $3.1 billion settlement fund in the Visa/MasterCard debit
card antitrust lawsuit went out last month that was only a small
fraction of the expected total distribution from what is widely
known as the Wal-Mart settlement, The Digital Transactions News
reports.

That's according to the lead attorney for the victorious
retailers, led by Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which sued Visa USA and
MasterCard International in 1996 over debit-card acceptance.
Lloyd Constantine, chairman of the New York City-based law firm
Constantine Cannon P.C., told The Digital Transactions News that
some 22,000 checks with a total value of between $50 million and
$60 million went out on December 19, 2005. He explains, "These
were the simplest, earliest, cleanest forms," adding, "That was
the first part of the first distribution."

An administrator overseeing the process mailed more than 8
million claim forms in September 2005 to merchants believed to
have accepted Visa and MasterCard debit cards between October
1995 and June 2003, the time period covered by the class action
suit, according to the Washington, D.C.-based National Retail
Federation (NRF) trade group. Merchants had until December 28,
2005 to file claims in the settlement being overseen by the U.S.
District Court in Brooklyn, New York.

Merchants could file their claims by mail or at the Web site:
http://www.inrevisacheckmastermoneyantitrustlitigation.com.Mr.  
Constantine does not expect to have data about the total number
of claims or their value until late this month.

Mr. Constantine told The Digital Transactions News that he might
recommend that the court consider claims filed up to a few days
late. Meanwhile, the NRF is urging retailers not to sell their
claim rights to third parties, saying they may miss out on a
possible second distribution.

The suit, styled In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust
Litigation (United States District Court, Eastern District of
New York, Case No. 96-CV-5238 (JG)), was between retailers
nationwide and credit providers Visa and MasterCard. It relates
to how the stores process transactions made with debit cards,
which deduct cash from consumers' existing bank accounts, rather
than building up their debt with credit accounts. The suit
charges both MasterCard and Visa USA with violating U.S.
antitrust law by monopolistic and anticompetitive business
practices concerning debit cards, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (November 24, 2005) reports.

The suit specifically alleges that Visa and MasterCard violated
antitrust laws by insisting that merchants who accept their
credit cards must also accept their debit cards, and also that
the two card companies charge unfair fees, eventually driving up
costs for consumers. The case was certified as a class action in
February of 2000, included five million merchants in the U.S.
and is said to involve billions of dollars, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (April 30, 2003) reports.

On the eve of trial, the parties agreed to settle with the final
settlement agreements being signed on June 4, 2003 and the
federal judge overseeing the case, Judge John Gleeson, granting
preliminary approval to the deal and the notice plan on June 13,
2003. Objections to the terms of the settlements and plan of
allocation were due last September 5, 2003. A fairness hearing
took place on September 25, 2003, in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York before Judge Gleeson, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (July 24, 2003) reports.

The settlement will bring awards ranging from healthy to
adequate. According to those overseeing the suit, the $3
billion-plus compensation should begin early next year. They say
that the antitrust class award would go to all businesses and
organizations in the United States that accepted Visa and
MasterCard debit and credit cards between October 25, 1992 and
June 21, 2003, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November
24, 2005) reports.

Alongside the $3 billion compensation award, the settlement also
called for the providers to stop requiring merchants that accept
credit cards to also accept certain debit card transactions. The
companies also agreed to lower debit card fees that they charge
merchants for an interim period, by one-third, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (November 24, 2005) reports.

Some of retail's heaviest hitters led the suit, including Wal-
Mart Stores Inc., Sears Roebuck and Co., Circuit City Stores
Inc. and Safeway Inc. Those stores will collect exponentially
more than a business the size of the smaller companies involved
in the case, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November
24, 2005) reports.

The suit is styled, "Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, et al v. Visa USA,
Inc., et al, Case No. 1:96-cv-05238-JG-RLM," filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
under Judge John Gleeson with referral to Roanne L. Mann.
Representing the Plaintiff/s are: Lloyd Constantine, Matthew L.
Cantor, Jeffrey Issac Shinder and Robert L. Begleiter of
Constantine Cannon, P.C., 477 Madison Ave., 11th Floor, New
York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-350-2700, Fax: 212-350-2701, E-mail:
lconstatine@cpny.com, mcantor@cpny.com, jshinder@cpny.com and
rbegleiter@cpny.com. Representing the Defendant/s are: Kevin J.
Arquit of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, 425 Lexington Ave., 29th
Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 455-7680 or -2000, Fax:
(212) 455-2502, E-mail: karquit@stblaw.com and Stephen V. Bomse,
Brian P. Brosnahan and Thomas P. Brown of Heller, Ehrman, White
and McAuliffe, 333 Bush St., Suite 3100, San Francisco, CA
94104-2878, Phone: (415) 772-6000, E-mail: sbomse@hewm.com,
bbrosnahan@hewm.com and tbrown@hewm.com.



                New Securities Fraud Cases


MIKOHN GAMING: Charles Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in NV
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Mikohn
Gaming Corporation (d/b/a Progressive Gaming International
Corporation) ("PGIC" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PGIC) between
January 23, 2005 through October 19, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada against defendant PGIC and one or more of its
executive officers. The action charges that defendants violated
federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class
Period, which statements had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the Company's securities. No class
has yet been certified in the above action.
If you acquired shares of PGIC during the Class Period indicated
and want to discuss your legal rights, you may e-mail or call
Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. who will, without
obligation or cost to you, attempt to answer your questions.
Charles J. Piven has been involved in securities litigation for
approximately 20 years. You may

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.  


SFBC INTERNATIONAL: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in FL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of SFBC
International Inc. (NASDAQ: SFCC) between February 17, 2004 and
December 15, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

For more details, contact 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.  


SFBC INTERNATIONAL: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of SFBC International Inc.
("SFBC" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:SFCC) between February 17,
2004 and December 15, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit was filed against SFBC and Lisa Krinsky, Arnold Hantman
and E. Cooper Shamblen ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges,
inter alia, that during the Class Period Defendants
misrepresented the Company's business condition and financial
results by touting that the Company's purported ability to
perform large-scale drug trials allowed it to obtain large,
lucrative contracts from pharmaceutical companies. The Company's
financial progress, however, was actually the result of improper
and reckless business practices. If discovered, these practices
would cause the Company to lose pharmaceutical customers, face
tighter regulation, and lead to lawsuits from victims of faulty
trials.

The truth regarding SFBC's business practices began to trickle
into the market on November 2, 2005, through the end of the
Class Period on December 15, 2005, during which time SFBC's
stock price fell from $41.49 per share to $15.78, or
approximately 62%.

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


SFBC INTERNATIONAL: Sarraf Gentile Lodges Securities Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Sarraf Gentile, LLP, filed a securities class
action on behalf of those who acquired the securities of SFBC
International Inc. ("SFBC" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SFCC)
between February 17, 2004 through December 15, 2005 (the "Class
Period"). A case is pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors.

SFBC provides early and late stage clinical drug development
services. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
the defendants misrepresented SFBC's financial health by touting
the Company's strong revenue, earnings, and its ability to
outperform competitors because of the large numbers of
participants its facilities could handle, and its ability to
quickly recruit participants for drug trials. The Company's
financial success, however, was the result of improper business
practices that, if discovered, would cause the Company to lose
its credibility for accurate drug testing, lose customers,
expose the Company to fines and possible lawsuits from victims
of faulty drugs, and face heavy regulation such that its ability
to beat competitors and quickly recruit large groups of
participants could no longer be sustained.

When the truth of defendants improper business practices was
revealed beginning on November 2, 2005, through December 15,
2005, SFBC's stock price fell from $41.49 to $15.78, a loss of
over 60%.

For more details, contact Ronen Sarraf and Joseph Gentile of
SARRAF GENTILE, LLP, 485 Seventh Ave., Suite 1005, New York, NY
10018, Phone: 212-868-3610, Fax: 212-918-7967,
http://www.sarrafgentile.com.


SFBC INTERNATIONAL: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of SFBC International,
Inc. ("SFBC" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:SFCC) between February
17, 2004 and December 15, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Also included are all those who acquired SFBC's shares through
the acquisitions of Taylor Technology or PharmaNet and those who
purchased in the secondary offering on March 10, 2005.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements concerning SFBC's business condition. Specifically,
defendants touted the Company's strong revenue, earnings, and
its ability to outperform competitors and obtain large contracts
from drug companies, because of the large numbers of
participants its facilities could handle, and its ability to
quickly recruit participants for drug trials. SFBC's financial
success, however, was the result of business practices that were
improper and reckless, and if discovered, would cause the
Company to lose its credibility for accurate drug testing, and
thus lose customers, expose the Company to fines and possible
lawsuits from victims of faulty drugs, and face heavy regulation
such that its ability to outperform competitors and quickly
recruit large groups of participants could no longer be
sustained.

When news of SFBC's improper business practices was revealed to
the market beginning on November 2, 2005, through the end of the
Class Period on December 15, 2005, the Company's stock price
fell 61.9% from $41.49 to $15.78.

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


SFBC INTERNATIONAL: Wolf Popper Files Securities Suit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Popper, LLP, filed a securities fraud
lawsuit, on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities
of SFBC International Inc. ("SFBC" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:
SFCC) on the open market during the period February 17, 2004
through December 15, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The action is pending in the United States District Court,
Southern District of Florida, against defendants SFBC, Lisa
Krinsky (Chairman, COO), Arnold Hantman (CEO), and E. Cooper
Shamblen (V.P. Clinical Operations), and is seeking remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the
defendants misrepresented SFBC's business conditions, prospects
and financial results to public investors by touting the
Company's strong revenue, earnings, and its ability to
outperform competitors and obtain large contracts from drug
companies, because of the large numbers of participants its
facilities could handle, and its ability to quickly recruit
participants for drug trials. The Company's financial success,
however, was the result of business practices that were improper
and reckless, and if discovered, would cause the Company to lose
its credibility for accurate drug testing, and thus lose
customers, expose the Company to fines and possible lawsuits
from victims of faulty drugs, and face heavy regulation such
that its ability to outperform competitors and quickly recruit
large groups of participants could no longer be sustained.

When the truth of defendants business practices was revealed to
the market beginning on November 2, 2005, through the end of the
Class Period on December 15, 2005, SFBC's stock price fell from
$41.49 to $15.78, a staggering 61.9% drop.

For more details, contact Emily DeMuro, Investor Relations or
James Kelly-Kowlowitz, Esq. of Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third Ave.,
New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-759-4600 or 877-370-7703, Fax:
212-486-2093 or 877-370-7704, E-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com,
edemuro@wolfpopper.com and Jkelly@wolfpopper.com.


WELLS FARGO: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Wells Fargo & Company and certain
of its affiliates, on behalf of those who purchased PIMCO mutual
funds from Wells Fargo Investments, LLC ("Wells Fargo
Investments") during the period between June 30, 2000 and June
8, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The PIMCO mutual funds and their respective symbols are as
follows:

PIMCO All Asset Fund (NASDAQ: PASAX) (NASDAQ: PASBX) (NASDAQ:
PASCX)
(NASDAQ: PAAIX) (NASDAQ: PAALX)
PIMCO Asset Allocation Fund (NASDAQ: PALAX) (NASDAQ: PALBX)
(NASDAQ: PALCX)
PIMCO CA Intermediate Muni Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PCMBX) (NASDAQ:
PCIMX)
PIMCO CA Muni Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PCAAX) (NASDAQ: PICMX)
PIMCO CCM Capital Appreciation Fund (NASDAQ: PCFAX) (NASDAQ:
PFCBX)
(NASDAQ: PFCCX) (NASDAQ: PAPIX)
PIMCO CCM Mid-Cap Fund (NASDAQ: PFMAX) (NASDAQ: PFMBX) (NASDAQ:
PFMCX)
(NASDAQ: PGMIX)
PIMCO CommodityRealReturn Strategy Fund (NASDAQ: PCRAX) (NASDAQ:
PCRBX)
(NASDAQ: PCRCX) (NASDAQ: PCRIX)
PIMCO Diversified Income Fund (NASDAQ: PDVAX) (NASDAQ: PDVBX)
(NASDAQ: PDICX) (NASDAQ: PDIIX)
PIMCO Emerging Markets Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PAEMX) (NASDAQ: PBEMX)
(NASDAQ: PEBCX) (NASDAQ: PEBIX)
PIMCO Foreign Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PFOAX) (NASDAQ: PFOBX) (NASDAQ:
PFOCX)
(NASDAQ: PFORX)
PIMCO GNMA Fund (NASDAQ: PAGNX) (NASDAQ: PGGNX) (NASDAQ: PCGNX)
(NASDAQ: PDMIX)
PIMCO Global Bond II Fund (NASDAQ: PAIIX) (NASDAQ: PBIIX)
(NASDAQ: PCIIX)
(NASDAQ: PGBIX)
PIMCO High Yield Fund (NASDAQ: PHDAX) (NASDAQ: PHDBX) (NASDAQ:
PHDCX)
(NASDAQ: PHIYX)
PIMCO International StocksPlus TR Strategy Fund (NASDAQ: PIPAX)
(NASDAQ: PIPBX) (NASDAQ: PIPCX)
PIMCO Investment Grade Corporate Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PIGIX)
PIMCO Long-Term U.S. Govt. Fund (NASDAQ: PFGAX) (NASDAQ: PGGBX)
(NASDAQ: PFGCX) (NASDAQ: PGOVX)
PIMCO Low Duration Fund (NASDAQ: PTLAX) (NASDAQ: PTLBX) (NASDAQ:
PTLCX)
(NASDAQ: PLDTX)
PIMCO Low Duration II Fund (NASDAQ: PLDTX)
PIMCO Low Duration III Fund (NASDAQ: PLDIX)
PIMCO Moderate Duration Fund (NASDAQ: PMDRX)
PIMCO Money Market Fund (NASDAQ: PYAXX) (NASDAQ: PYCXX) (NASDAQ:
PKCXX)
(NASDAQ: PMIXX)
PIMCO Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PMLAX) (NASDAQ: PNFBX)
(NASDAQ: PMLCX)
(NASDAQ: PFMIX)
PIMCO NACM Flex-Cap Fund (NASDAQ: PNFAX) (NASDAQ: PNFBX)
(NASDAQ: PNFCX)
PIMCO NACM Global Fund (NASDAQ: NGBAX) (NASDAQ: NGBBX) (NASDAQ:
NGBCX)
PIMCO NACM Growth Fund (NASDAQ: NGWAX) (NASDAQ: NGWBX) (NASDAQ:
NGWCX)
PIMCO NACM International Fund (NASDAQ: PILAX) (NASDAQ: PILBX)
(NASDAQ: PILCX)
PIMCO NACM Pacific Rim Fund (NASDAQ: PPRAX) (NASDAQ: PPRBX)
(NASDAQ: PPRCX)
(NASDAQ: NAPRX)
PIMCO NACM Value Fund (NASDAQ: PVUAX) (NASDAQ: PVUBX) (NASDAQ:
PVUCX)
PIMCO NFJ Dividend Value Fund (NASDAQ: PNEAX) (NASDAQ: PNEBX)
(NASDAQ: PNECX) (NASDAQ: NFJEX)
PIMCO NFJ Large-Cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: PNBAX) (NASDAQ: PNBBX)
(NASDAQ: PNBCX)
PIMCO NFJ Small-Cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: PCVAX) (NASDAQ: PCVBX)
(NASDAQ: PCVCX) (NASDAQ: PSVIX)
PIMCO NY Muni Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PNYAX)
PIMCO PEA Growth Fund (NASDAQ: PGWAX) (NASDAQ: PGFBX) (NASDAQ:
PGWCX)
(NASDAQ: PGFIX)
PIMCO PEA Growth and Income Fund (NASDAQ: PGRAX) (NASDAQ: PGRBX)
(NASDAQ: PGNCX) (NASDAQ: PMEIX)
PIMCO PEA Innovation Fund (NASDAQ: PIVAX) (NASDAQ: PIVBX)
(NASDAQ: PIVCX)
(NASDAQ: PIFIX)
PIMCO PEA Opportunity Fund (NASDAQ: POPAX) (NASDAQ: PQNBX)
(NASDAQ: POPCX)
(NASDAQ: POFIX)
PIMCO PEA Renaissance Fund (NASDAQ: PQNAX) (NASDAQ: PGNBX)
(NASDAQ: PQNCX)
(NASDAQ: PRNIX)
PIMCO PEA Target Fund (NASDAQ: PTAAX) (NASDAQ: PTABX) (NASDAQ:
PTACX)
(NASDAQ: PFTIX)
PIMCO PEA Value Fund (NASDAQ: PDLAX) (NASDAQ: PDLBX) (NASDAQ:
PDLCX)
(NASDAQ: PDLIX)
PIMCO RCM Biotechnology Fund (NASDAQ: RABTX) (NASDAQ: RBBTX)
(NASDAQ: RCBTX)
PIMCO RCM Global Healthcare Fund (NASDAQ: RAGHX) (NASDAQ: RBGHX)
(NASDAQ: RCGHX)
PIMCO RCM Global Small-Cap Fund (NASDAQ: RGSAX) (NASDAQ: RGSBX)
(NASDAQ: RGSCX) (NASDAQ: DGSCX)
PIMCO RCM Global Technology Fund (NASDAQ: RAGTX) (NASDAQ: RBGTX)
(NASDAQ: RCGTX) (NASDAQ: DRGTX)
PIMCO RCM International Growth Equity Fund (NASDAQ: RAIGX)
(NASDAQ: RBIGX)
(NASDAQ: RCIGX) (NASDAQ: DRIEX)
PIMCO RCM Large-Cap Growth Fund (NASDAQ: RALGX) (NASDAQ: RBLGX)
(NASDAQ: RCLGX) (NASDAQ: DRLCX)
PIMCO RCM Mid-Cap Fund (NASDAQ: RMDAX) (NASDAQ: RMDBX) (NASDAQ:
RMDCX)
(NASDAQ: DRMCX)
PIMCO RCM Tax-Managed Growth Fund (NASDAQ: PMWAX) (NASDAQ:
PMWBX)
(NASDAQ: PMWCX) (NASDAQ: DRTIX)
PIMCO Real Return Fund (NASDAQ: PRTNX) (NASDAQ: PRRBX) (NASDAQ:
PRTCX)
(NASDAQ: PRRIX) (NASDAQ: PARRX) (NASDAQ: PRRRX)
PIMCO Real Return Fund (NASDAQ: PRRIX)
PIMCO Real Return II Fund (NASDAQ: PIRRX)
PIMCO Real Estate Real Return Strategy Fund (NASDAQ: PETAX)
(NASDAQ: PETBX)
(NASDAQ: PETCX)
PIMCO Short Duration Municipal Income Fund (NASDAQ: PSDAX)
(NASDAQ: PSDCX)
(NASDAQ: PSDIX)
PIMCO Short-Term Fund (NASDAQ: PSHAX) (NASDAQ: PTSBX) (NASDAQ:
PFTCX)
(NASDAQ: PTSHX)
PIMCO Stocks PLUS Fund (NASDAQ: PSPAX) (NASDAQ: PSPBX) (NASDAQ:
PSPCX)
(NASDAQ: PSTKX)
PIMCO Stocks PLUS Total Return Fund (NASDAQ: PTOAX) (NASDAQ:
PTOBX)
(NASDAQ: PSOCX) (NASDAQ: PSPTX)
PIMCO Total Return Fund (NASDAQ: PTTAX) (NASDAQ: PTTBX) (NASDAQ:
PTTCX)
(NASDAQ: PTTRX)
PIMCO Total Return II Fund (NASDAQ: PMBIX)
PIMCO Total Return III Fund (NASDAQ: PTSAX)
PIMCO Total Return Mortgage Fund (NASDAQ: PMRAX) (NASDAQ: PMRBX)
(NASDAQ: PMRCX) (NASDAQ: PTRIX)

The Wells Fargo Preferred Funds include mutual funds in the
following mutual fund families: Franklin Templeton Investments,
Putnam Investments, MFS Investment Management, Fidelity
Investments, Evergreen Investments, Alliance Bernstein
Investment Research and Management, Van Kampen Investments, AIM
Distributors, Inc., Oppenheimer Funds, Inc., Eaton Vance Managed
Investments, ING Funds Distributors, LLC, Allianz Global
Investors Distributors, LLC, Federated, The Hartford Mutual
Funds, Dreyfus Service Corporation, Delaware Investments,
Pioneer Investment Management, Inc., Scudder Investments, and
Wells Fargo Mutual Funds.

The H.D. Vest Preferred Funds include mutual funds in the
following mutual fund families: Oppenheimer Funds, Putnam
Investments, Scudder Investments, MFS Investment Management, Van
Kampen Investments, Lincoln Financial Distributors, AIM
Investments, Phoenix Investment Partners, John Hancock Funds,
Wells Fargo Funds, American Funds, and Franklin Templeton
Investments.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against defendant Wells
Fargo & Company and certain of its affiliated entities. The
complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. Unbeknownst to
investors, defendants, in clear contravention of their
disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, failed to
properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to
aggressively push Wells Fargo Investments and H.D. Vest sales
personnel to steer clients into purchasing certain Wells Fargo
Funds and Wells Fargo and H.D. Vest Preferred Funds
(collectively, "Shelf Space Funds") that provided financial
incentives and rewards to Wells Fargo and H.D. Vest and their
personnel based on sales. The complaint alleges that defendants'
undisclosed sales practices created an insurmountable conflict
of interest by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell
Shelf-Space Funds to their clients, even though such investments
were not in the clients' best interest. Wells Fargo Investments
and H.D. Vest's failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.

The action also includes a subclass of persons who held any
shares of Wells Fargo Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally
alleges that the investment advisor subsidiary of Wells Fargo,
Wells Fargo Funds Management, created further undisclosed
material conflicts of interest by entering into revenue sharing
agreements with brokers at Wells Fargo Investments and H.D. Vest
to push investors into Wells Fargo Funds, regardless of whether
such investments were in the investors' best interests. The
investment advisors financed these arrangements by illegally
charging excessive and improper fees to the fund that should
have been invested in the underlying portfolio. In doing so they
breached their fiduciary duties to investors under the
Investment Company Act and state law and decreased shareholders'
investment returns.

The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
Wells Fargo Financial Plan that held Wells Fargo Funds. The
Wells Fargo Financial Plans include, but are not limited to Full
Service Brokerage Accounts, Wells Asset Management accounts,
WellsChoice account, and WellsSelect account.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody of Stull, Stull & Brody,
6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 1-800-337-4983,
Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.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 2006.  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  * * *