---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, January 9, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 6

                            Headlines

ALABAMA: Attorney General Sues Gas Stations For Price Gouging
ALABAMA: Judge Urges Legislature to Confront Prison Overcrowding
ALDERWOODS GROUP: Faces TX Consolidated Casket Antitrust Lawsuit
ALDERWOODS GROUP: Faces Nationwide Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in CA
ALLIED MUTUAL: Deadline Looms For Claims in $135M Insurance Deal

AMERITRADE HOLDING: NE Court Yet To Rule on Summary Judgment
ARDEN REALTY: MI Pension Fund Files Suit in CA to Block GE Deal
ARNOLD FOODS: Recalls Oat Bran Bread For Undeclared Ingredient
ARVINMERITOR INC.: Continues To Face ERISA Fraud Suits in E.D MI
AXEDA SYSTEMS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Suit Settlement

BA-2003 LIMITED: Seeks Dismissal of Apartment Mold Suit in IL
COLLEGIATE PACIFIC: Shareholders Commence Lawsuits V. SSG Merger
COLUMBIA RURAL: Property Owner Files Suit Over August 2005 Fire
CONNECTICUT: City, Towing Companies Face Suit Over Storage Fees
DYNEX CAPITAL: NY Court Mulls Securities Fraud Lawsuit Dismissal

FRITO-LAY INC.: MA Woman Mulls Suit Over Light Snack Ingredient
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces OK Suit For Faulty Floppy Disk Controller
HOT TOPIC: Trial in CA Overtime Wage Suit Set For April 3, 2006
HOT TOPIC: Reaches Settlement For CA Employee Overtime Wage Suit
HOT TOPIC: TN Court Mulls Appeal of Lead Injury Suit Dismissal

ILLINOIS: Regional School Superintendents Sues State Over Raises
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: DE Court Yet To Rule on Securities Suit
MASSACHUSETTS: Residents To File Personal Injury Suit V. Taunton
MCMORAN EXPLORATION: Reaches Settlement in Suit Over 1998 Merger
MISSOURI: Workers File Racial Discrimination Suit V. Union Local

NAUTILUS GROUP: AR Federal Judge to Decide Site For Bowflex Suit
PARADIGM MEDICAL: UT Securities Settlement Approval Deemed Final
PARAGON FINANCIAL: NY Court Affirms Lawsuit Settlement Approval
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Plaintiffs File Amended Antitrust Lawsuit in TX
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Continues To Face Deli Products Recall Lawsuits

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed From Bias Suit
PUBLIX SUPER: Recalls Raisin Bagels For Undeclared Ingredient
RIDLEY INC.: Ontario Court Denies Dismissal Motion V. BSE Suit
SCOBEE FOODS: Recalls Chili Dogs Due to Listeria Contamination
SEMPRA ENERGY: Fitch Says Deal Not Expected to Affect Ratings

TAG-IT PACIFIC: Shareholders File Securities Lawsuit in C.D. CA
STAPLES INC.: CA Court Reinstates Suit Over Insurance Charges
THEGLOBE.COM: NY Court Affirms Approval of Stock Suit Settlement
TOMMY HILFIGER: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
TRADER JOE'S: Recalls Chocolate Fudge Due to Undeclared Walnuts

TRAVELERS LIFE: CT Court Mulls Fraud Suit Certification Appeal
VISTEON CORPORATION: Continues To Face Securities Lawsuit in MI

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

HELEN OF TROY: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX
INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: Mager & Goldstein Lodges Fraud Suit in CA
SERACARE LIFE: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities CA Fraud Suit
SERACARE LIFE: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
SFBC INTERNATIONAL: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in FL

WELLS FARGO: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA


                            *********


ALABAMA: Attorney General Sues Gas Stations For Price Gouging
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama Attorney General Troy King filed the first lawsuits
arising from his on-going inquiry into the dramatic rise in
gasoline prices associated with Hurricane Katrina. The Attorney
General filed civil complaints charging four gas stations-two in
Montgomery, one in Monroeville, and one in Decatur-- with
numerous counts of price gouging. These lawsuits stem from an
initial round of subpoenas served on gas stations by Attorney
General King in mid-September.

The following are accused of multiple violations of the Alabama
Unconscionable Pricing Act: Stop N Go Express, 4714 Mobile
Highway, Montgomery; Cannon Kwik Stop, 1111 Perry Hill Road,
Montgomery; Cannon Oil Company, 256 South Alabama Avenue,
Monroeville; and Bud's #13, 3227 Danville Road, Decatur.
Attorney General King's complaints were filed this morning in
the Circuit Courts of Montgomery, Monroe and Morgan counties.

"There are those among us who see disasters as merely an
opportunity to unconscionably profiteer off of the misery and
misfortune of our neighbors. When they do so, they violate state
law," said Attorney General King. "When they violate state law,
I warned them that we would pursue them, that we would hold them
to account for doing so. Today, we are acting on those
warnings."

An official state of emergency was declared by Governor Bob
Riley on August 28, 2005, as Alabama, Mississippi and Florida
faced the destruction of Hurricane Katrina. According to the
National Weather Service, Katrina was one of the strongest
storms to hit the United States in the past 100 years. Thousands
of residents of Mississippi and Louisiana fled in search of
shelter, and as of October 24, 2005, more than 22,000 of those
evacuated people remained in Alabama. These evacuees, as well as
Alabama residents and emergency workers, purchased goods,
services, and supplies, including petroleum products, in our
state.

The Alabama Unconscionable Pricing Law, enacted to provide
protection during such times of crisis, prohibits abusive or
"unconscionable" price increases during an official state of
emergency. A price that is 25 percent or more than the average
price charged in the same area within the last 30 days--unless
the increase can be attributed to a reasonable cost-- is a prima
facie case of unconscionable pricing. The penalty is a fine of
up to $1,000 per violation, and those determined to have
willfully and continuously violated this law may be prohibited
from doing business in Alabama.

Attorney General King explains in the lawsuits how the evidence
his office has gathered indicates these gas stations committed
multiple violations of price gouging.

Investigators and attorneys reviewed information subpoenaed by
the Attorney General, including documentation of how much the
stations paid for the gasoline prior to and after the
declaration of the state of emergency and how much the stations
charged consumers for the gasoline prior to and after the
declaration of the state of emergency.

Attorney General King compared the prices the stations charged
consumers for gasoline after the declared state of emergency
with the prices the stations and other stations in the affected
area charged consumers for gasoline before the declared state of
emergency, and also took into account any increased costs for
the stations. All four of the stations charged raised their
price for gasoline above 25 percent of the average price for the
30 days immediately prior to the declared state of emergency.

Furthermore, because the gasoline came from an already existing
supply of gas that the stations had previously purchased, the
increase in prices they charged to consumers was not
attributable to an increase in the costs of the gasoline in
question.

 Bud's #13 raised its price of regular unleaded gasoline to
$3.199 per gallon (70 cents per gallon increase) on September 4
and 5, 2005, even though it had not received a delivery of
regular unleaded gasoline since August 27, 2005. Bud's also
increased its mid-grade and premium grade prices by 70 cents per
gallon on September 4 and 5, without having received additional
deliveries.

 Cannon Kwik Stop in Montgomery raised its price of regular
unleaded gasoline to $3.299 per gallon (83 cents per gallon
increase) on September 1, 2005, even though it had not received
a delivery of regular gasoline since August 25, 2005. Cannon
Kwik Stop also increased mid-grade and premium prices by 83
cents per gallon on September 1; by 92 cents per gallon on
September 2-5; and by 73 cents per gallon (83 cents for premium)
on September 6-7 without having received additional deliveries.

 Cannon Oil Company in Monroeville raised its price of mid-
grade unleaded gasoline to $3.529 per gallon (86 cents per
gallon increase) on September 2-5 even though it had not
received a delivery of mid-grade unleaded gasoline since August
28, 2005. Cannon Oil also increased its premium grade gasoline
price by 86 cents per gallon on September 2-5 without having
received additional deliveries.

 Stop N Go Express on Mobile Highway in Montgomery raised its
price of regular unleaded gasoline to $3.099 per gallon (62
cents per gallon increase) on September 1, even though Stop N Go
Express had not received a delivery of regular unleaded gasoline
since August 22, 2005. Stop N Go Express also increased its mid-
grade unleaded gasoline price by 62 cents per gallon on
September 1 without having received an additional delivery.

In response to these dramatic price increases during a state of
emergency, Attorney General King initiated a September 1
conference call among Attorneys General throughout the nation,
which resulted in a multi-state inquiry by 45 Attorneys General
into the drastic rise of gasoline prices. On September 13,
Attorney General King announced that his office was serving an
initial round of subpoenas on 22 gas stations, which represented
those about which his office had received the greatest number of
complaints from consumers.

Of the 21 subpoenas served (one station was out of business),
Attorney General King has determined that seventeen of the
stations are independently owned, and of these, four stations
engaged in price gouging. The Attorney General's Office is
working to obtain more complete information from five of the
other independent stations subpoenaed in this first round. From
the information obtained by subpoena, the Attorney General did
not find evidence of price gouging from the remaining 8
independent stations. The remaining stations that were served
subpoenas in the first round are not independently owned and the
data from those stations is being reviewed along with
information obtained from subsequent subpoenas.

The subpoenas served on gas stations were the first part in
Attorney General King's investigation into complaints of price
gouging. He also issued subpoenas on gasoline distributors and
producers, and his office is currently analyzing the information
received through those subpoenas.

"We do not announce today the conclusion of this investigation,"
said Attorney General King. "Instead, we will continue to
investigate and, as necessary, to file additional suits to hold
those who unconscionably gouged gasoline prices-be it the local
retailers or the distributors or the producers-- to account. I
have said before, and I say again today, Alabama is a good place
to do business, but it is a very bad place to break the law and
to take advantage of our people. Today's actions tangibly
demonstrate the consequences of doing so and underscore my
resolve to protecting the people of Alabama."


ALABAMA: Judge Urges Legislature to Confront Prison Overcrowding
----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge William Shashy, who is weighing a contempt order
against Alabama's prison commissioner, put pressure on the
Legislature recently to alleviate longstanding prison
overcrowding and eliminate inmate backlogs in county jails, The
Associated Press reports.

The circuit judge told attorneys as he delayed ruling on whether
the commissioner should be held in contempt, "Ask the
legislature to expedite this. ... The eyes are on them." Though
the judge did not immediately set a date for a ruling, his
discussion with attorneys indicated that he might wait until
after the legislative session, which begins on January 10 and
continues through most of April.

A 2003 court order requires that state inmates be transferred
from county jails to penitentiaries within 30 days. However,
there are currently 794 state inmates who have been in county
jails longer than the grace period, leaving counties and
sheriff's departments to carry the brunt of the costs, Ken Webb,
an attorney representing counties and their law enforcement
agencies in a class action lawsuit filed in 1992. Mr. Webb
argued at the recent hearing that Commissioner Donald Campbell
should be held in contempt for violating the order.

Neither side disputed that there is a backlog at the jails, but
Mr. Campbell's attorneys claimed that he couldn't be held in
contempt if he does not have enough funding to fix the problem.
"This is a question of resources - we have too many inmates for
the resources we have," according to Assistant Attorney General
Scott Rouse.

Judge Shashy, expressing frustration with the arguments, said
the prison system could not ignore the law, but he asked the
attorneys for ideas. He said, "If you can't be held in contempt,
what am I supposed to say? ...I can't ignore the law."

Ken Wallis, legal adviser to Governor Bob Riley, reminded the
judge that the governor's appointed task force on prison
overcrowding had developed a series of bills to be introduced in
the legislative session that specifically deals with the
problem. The task force recommended that the Legislature pass
voluntary sentencing guidelines, which tighten possible sentence
ranges for drug crimes and nonviolent offenses. Other
suggestions include alternative means of punishment, such as
transition centers and community corrections; expanding prison
industries; building more prisons and drug treatment.

In a recent Associated Press survey answered by 91 percent of
the Senate and 73 percent of the House, 56 percent of the
senators support the sentencing guidelines, which were approved
in the House and the Senate Judiciary Committee before the bill
died on the last day of the regular session. Sixty percent of
the House also supports the measure. "I think at the end of the
six months you would not have the problems you have today," Mr.
Wallis told the judge.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs asked Judge Shashy to take a
tougher stance against the prison commissioner and the
department, saying the judge should order the prison system to
take in all its inmates who have remained in county jails for
more than 30 days by the end of the month, an idea that the
judge believed would cause "chaos."

Mr. Webb said recent governors have promised reform, but
overcrowding remains a problem more than a decade later. He
pointed out, "We've heard for the past 14 years that things will
get better. They all said things well be different in the
legislative session."

Judge Shashy has a long history with the dilemma since the
lawsuit was filed in 1992. The parties agreed on the 30-day
limit in 1998 and, three years later, the judge held then-
Commissioner Mike Haley in contempt for the inmate backlog at
the jails. He also began fining Mr. Haley $26 per day for each
inmate held in county jails longer than 30 days.

The total eventually reached the millions by the time Mr.
Campbell replaced Mr. Haley in January 2003, though the Alabama
Supreme Court ruled last year that the commission couldn't be
fined. The court did uphold the 30-day grace period.

Mr. Webb emphasized that Mr. Haley had $117 million less in his
budget, 1,800 fewer beds and 169 fewer personnel than Mr.
Campbell and that Mr. Haley was still held in contempt.

Mr. Campbell's attorneys responded though that the rate of
inmates entering the system outpaces their space and budget to
take them in. The prison system is at more than double capacity,
with 27,000 inmates.


ALDERWOODS GROUP: Faces TX Consolidated Casket Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alderwoods Group, Inc. faces a consolidated class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, styled "Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc. et al v.
Alderwoods Group, Inc. et al, case no. CV3394.

The suit was initially filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California.   The suit, filed in
April 2005 and served on the Company in May 2005, is a purported
class action on behalf of all persons and entities that have
purchased caskets in the United & States.  The suit names as
defendants the Company and four other public companies involved
in the funeral or casket industry.  The plaintiffs allege that
defendants violated federal and state antitrust laws by engaging
in anticompetitive practices with respect to sales of caskets
and overcharged for caskets. The lawsuit seeks injunctions, an
unspecified amount of monetary damages and treble damages.

A second suit, styled "Ralph Fancher et al v. Alderwoods Group,
Inc. et al, case no. 2:05CV145," is pending in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee at Greenville.
This lawsuit, filed and served on the Company in May 2005, makes
claims similar to those made in the Funeral Consumers Alliance
lawsuit, again purporting to allege a national class action and
seeking relief which would be essentially duplicative of that
sought in the Funeral Consumers Alliance lawsuit. This suit was
voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs and then re-filed in and
again dismissed from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  It is anticipated that
plaintiffs will re-file a second time in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, but they have
yet to do so.

A third lawsuit, styled "Maria Magsarili, et al v. Alderwoods
Group, Inc. et al, case no. C052792MEJ," is pending in the
United States District Court, Northern District of California.
This lawsuit, filed and served on the Company in July 2005,
makes claims similar to those made in the Funeral Consumers
Alliance lawsuit and Fancher lawsuit described above, purporting
to allege a national class action and seeking relief which would
be essentially duplicative of the other two suits.


Three other similar suits have been filed, namely:

     (1) Francis H. Rocha v. Alderwoods Group, Inc. et al,

     (2) Marcia Berger v. Alderwoods Group, Inc. et al,

     (3) Caren Speizer v. Alderwoods Group, Inc. et al,

     (4) Frank Moroz v. Alderwoods Group, Inc. et al, and

     (5) Pioneer Valley Casket Co. v. Alderwoods Group, Inc. et
         al

The suits have been consolidated into this case. It is
anticipated that "Ralph Fancher et al v. Alderwoods Group, Inc.
Et al." will be consolidated if it is re-filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

These cases are purported class actions on behalf of casket
consumers throughout the United States. The suits name as
defendants the Company and four other public companies involved
in the funeral or casket industry. The plaintiffs allege that
defendants violated federal and state antitrust laws by engaging
in anticompetitive practices with respect to the sale and
pricing of caskets. The consolidated antitrust lawsuits seek
injunctions, unspecified amounts of monetary damages, and treble
damages.

The suit is styled "Funeral Consumers Alliance Inc et al v.
Service Corporation International, case no. 4:05-cv-03394,"
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, under Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt.  Representing
the Company are Andrew K. Doty, John M. Garrick, of Iverson
Yoakum Papiano, 624 South Grand Ave, Suite 2700, Los Angeles, CA
90017, Phone: 213-624-7444, Fax: 213-629-4563, E-mail:
adoty@iyph.com or jgarrick@iyph.com; and C Vernon Hartline, Jr.,
Hartline Dacus et al, 6688 N Central Expressway, Ste 1000,
Dallas, TX 75206, Phone: 214-364-3700, Fax: 214-369-2118, and E-
mail: hartline@flash.net.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jonathan S. Abady, Katherine R. Rosenfeld, Emery Celli
         Brinckerhoff, 545 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10022,
         Phone: 212-763-5000, Fax: 212-763-5001, E-mail:
         jabady@ecbalaw.com

     (2) Kerin E. Coughlin, Micheal S. Kayan, Jeanne Kim, Adam
         Nyhan, Gordon Schnell, Constantine Cannon, 450
         Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-350-
         2700, Fax: 212-350-2701, E-mail:
         kcoughlin@constantinecannon.com,
         jkim@constantinecannon.com,
         anyhan@constantinecannon.com,
         gschnell@constantinecannon.com

     (3) Robin C. Gibbs, Barrett H. Reasoner, Gibbs & Bruns,
         1100 Louisiana, Ste 5300, Houston, TX 77002, Phone:
         713-650-8805, Fax: 713-750-0903,

     (4) Jeffrey F Keller, Kathleen R. Scanlan, Keller Grove
         LLP, 425 Second Street Suite 500, San Francisco, CA
         94107, Phone: 415-543-1305, Fax: 415-543-7861, E-mail:
         jfkeller@kellergrover.com or kscanlan@kellergrover.com

     (5) George W Sampson, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, 1301
         Fifth Ave, Ste 2900, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-
         7292, E-mail: george@hbsslaw.com


ALDERWOODS GROUP: Faces Nationwide Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alderwoods Group, Inc. continues to face a class action filed in
the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles, Central District, styled "Richard Sanchez el al v.
Alderwoods Group, Inc. et al, case no. BC328962."

This lawsuit, filed in February 2005 and served on the Company
in April 2005, seeks to certify a nationwide class on behalf of
all plaintiffs who purchased funeral goods and services from the
Company.  Plaintiffs allege that federal and California
regulations and statutes 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
certain disclosures of markups resulted in breach of contract
and other legal claims.  Plaintiffs seek to recover an
unspecified amount of monetary damages, attorneys' fees, costs
and unspecified "injunctive and declaratory relief."


ALLIED MUTUAL: Deadline Looms For Claims in $135M Insurance Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Time is running out for Allied Mutual Insurance policyholders to
claim a share from the $135 million settlement of a long-
standing class action lawsuit, The Associated Press reports.

The deadline for filing a piece of the settlement is on January
10, 2006. Touted as the on of Iowa's largest-ever settlement of
a class action lawsuit, which was approved last October, its
payout fund of $100 million to $135 million has still drawn
scant attention from potential recipients as of late.

According to attorneys, they have received 45,000 claims from
Allied Mutual Insurance policyholders who are eligible to claim
the money, even though at least 305,000 notices have been sent.
Brad Brady, an attorney for plaintiffs who sued Allied Mutual in
1998, told The Des Moines Register, "I don't think anybody is
satisfied with 45,000 (responses)," an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (October 11, 2005) reports.

The suit had claimed that the policyholder-owned Company
improperly transferred assets to publicly held Allied Group of
Des Moines. Both Allied companies were sold to Columbus, Ohio-
based Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. in 1998 for $1.57 billion.
Policyholders of Allied Mutual received $110 million from
Nationwide at the time of the sale. They sued though to collect
more in a case that went through five judges and saw seven
appeals to the Iowa Supreme Court. After all the legal
wrangling, both sides finally agreed in July to the settlement
that would have Nationwide pay a minimum of $100 million and a
maximum of $135 million more to Allied Mutual customers who
owned policies as of February 18, 1993, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (October 11, 2005) reports.

Attorneys told The Des Moines Register that policyholders, both
for auto and home insurance, could receive as much as 40 percent
of the premiums they paid in during a three-year period between
1990 and 1993. They estimated that as many as 25 percent of
potential claimants are from Iowa. Polk County District Judge
Donna Paulsen said she was satisfied that both sides have done
their best to notify policyholders, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (October 11, 2005) reports.

The settlement was one of the richest paydays for lawyers
involved in a state lawsuit. Judge Paulsen approved $28.5
million for the plaintiffs' attorneys, who said they spent
35,000 hours on the case. Eleven law firms are listed as
participants in the Allied Mutual case, including six from Iowa.
Nationwide hired four of the Iowa firms, and they did not
provide a breakdown of fees they charged, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (October 11, 2005) reports.

Individuals, who owned policies as of February 18, 1993, are
eligible for the settlement. But, so far, only 65,000 out of the
estimated 300,000 have stepped forward. Payouts depend on how
long policyholders had coverage and how much they paid for it.
If all 300,000 make claims, the average cash payout will be
around $300 to $400.


AMERITRADE HOLDING: NE Court Yet To Rule on Summary Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Douglas County, Nebraska has yet to rule
on Ameritrade Holding Corporation's motion for summary judgment
in the class action filed against it, claiming the Company was
not able to handle the volume of subscribers to its Internet
brokerage services.   The complaint, as amended, sought
injunctive relief enjoining alleged deceptive, fraudulent and
misleading practices, equitable relief compelling the Company to
increase capacity, and unspecified compensatory damages.

In May 2001, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment in
the matter, which the plaintiffs opposed. The District Court
granted summary judgment for the Company on January 2, 2002, and
the plaintiffs appealed. On August 1, 2003, the Nebraska Supreme
Court reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment
and remanded the case to the District Court for further
proceedings.  The Nebraska Supreme Court did not decide whether
the plaintiffs' claims have merit.

On October 8, 2003, the Company filed with the District Court a
renewed motion for summary judgment. On August 13, 2004, the
District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' class action
allegations and the claims of fraud, misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment and injunction. The District Court stayed the case
pending arbitration of individual claims of breach of contract
under the customer agreements.  Plaintiffs appealed.  On
November 1, 2004, the Company filed a motion for summary
dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the ground
that the District Court's order is not eligible for appeal.


ARDEN REALTY: MI Pension Fund Files Suit in CA to Block GE Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shortly after the announcement of the sale of Arden Realty Inc.
to General Electric Co.'s GE Real Estate unit (with part of
Arden's assets then to be sold to Trizec Properties), a pension
fund in Michigan filed a lawsuit to block the impending deal,
The Commercial Property News reports.

The Charter Township of Clinton Police and Fire Retirement
System, alleges in its suit that the merger price isn't high
enough. The suit was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court
in late December about two days after word of the sale broke. It
specifically alleges among other things that the merger price of
$45.25 per share in cash (roughly 3.7 percent less than the
stock price at the time of the sale) "is inadequate," and that
the individual defendants "breached their fiduciary duties" to
the stockholders in negotiating the deal.

The suit seeks an order from the court to declare it a class
action suit, with the pension fund as a certified "class
representative." If approved, that would allow other Arden
stockholders to join the suit.

The merger that triggered the suit was the sale of Arden, one of
southern California's largest office landlords, to GE Real
Estate, which is one of the largest commercial real estate
investors in the world. The total value of the transaction at
the agreed merger price would be about $3.2 billion. Trizec has
further agreed to buy 13 of the properties from GE after the
merger for about $1.6 billion.

As of late, no hearings on the suit are scheduled in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court. In a recent filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, however, Arden stated that
"that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously
defend the action."


ARNOLD FOODS: Recalls Oat Bran Bread For Undeclared Ingredient
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold Foods Company, Inc. is recalling Arnold brand Country
Classic Oat Bran Bread sold in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina,
South Carolina and Tennessee.

The product being recalled has a code date of either January 8
or January 9, both preceded by the number "360." The code date
and number are printed on the front of the product bag.

The company announced the recall after receiving a report from
one consumer who found walnuts and hazelnuts in the bread, which
are potential allergens that are not named on the ingredient
list. The company has received no other reports from consumers.
There are no reports of injuries.

All products with the code dates are being removed from store
shelves. No other Arnold products are affected.

Consumers with allergies to walnuts or hazelnuts who have
purchased the product can return the product to its place of
purchase for a full refund or call the company at 1-800-984-
0989.


ARVINMERITOR INC.: Continues To Face ERISA Fraud Suits in E.D MI
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc. and Rockwell Automation, Inc. continues to
face three separate class action lawsuits filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in
2003 and 2004, as a result of changes made by the company to its
health insurance benefits to certain United Auto Worker and
United Steel Worker retirees, spouses and dependents.

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


AXEDA SYSTEMS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Axeda
Systems, Inc., certain of its officers and directors, or the
Individual Defendants, and several investment banks, or the
Underwriter Defendants, that were underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering.

The consolidated suit was filed on behalf of investors who
purchased Company stock between July 15, 1999 and December 6,
2000.  The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against one or both the Company and the Individual
Defendants.  The claims are based on allegations that the
underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in our July 15,
1999 initial public offering to certain investors in exchange
for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by
those investors to make additional purchases in the aftermarket
at pre-determined prices.  The Plaintiffs allege that the
prospectus for the Company's initial public offering was false
and misleading in violation of the securities laws because it
did not disclose these arrangements.  The action seeks damages
in an unspecified amount.

Similar "IPO allocation" actions have been filed against over
300 other issuers that have had initial public offerings since
1998 and all are included in a single coordinated proceeding in
the Southern District of New York. On July 15, 2003, the
Company's board of directors approved the terms of a settlement
proposal as set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding (the
"MOU"), which has now been memorialized in a settlement
agreement, an Insurer-Insured Agreement, an Agreement Among
Insurers, and a Special Counsel Agreement.

The settlement agreement and related agreements set forth the
terms of a settlement between the Company, the Individual
Defendants, the Plaintiff class and the vast majority of the
other approximately 300 Issuer Defendants and the Individual
Defendants currently or formerly associated with those
companies.  Among other provisions, the settlement provides for
our release and the release of the Individual Defendants for the
conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful.  The Company
agreed to undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing
to assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims
that it may have against its underwriters.  It is anticipated
that any potential financial obligation of the Company to the
Plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement and
related agreements will be covered by existing insurance.  The
agreement is subject to approval by the court, which cannot be
assured.

A motion for preliminary approval by the court of the proposed
settlement was filed on June 25, 2004.  On July 14, 2004, the
underwriter defendants filed a memorandum in Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement with
Defendant Issuers' and Individuals.  On August 4, 2004 the
Plaintiffs and Issuer Defendants filed replies to the
Underwriter Defendants.  On October 13, 2004 the Court
determined the criteria for Section 11 class certifications, and
certified the Section 11 class in four of the six cases that
were the subject of class certification motions, noting that the
Court's intention was to provide strong guidance to all parties
regarding class certification in the remaining two cases.  The
Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in the
company's case.

On February 15, 2005, the Court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion.  Those modifications have been made
and the issuers and the plaintiffs have submitted to the Court a
revised settlement agreement for approval. There is no assurance
that the Court will grant final approval to the settlement.

The suit is styled "In re Ravisent Tech. IPO Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:01-cv-10683-SAS," related " In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92
(SAS)," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


BA-2003 LIMITED: Seeks Dismissal of Apartment Mold Suit in IL
-------------------------------------------------------------
BA-2003 Limited Partnership and Independent Management Services,
the owners of The Bissel Apartments in Venice, Illinois are
asking Madison County Circuit Judge Andy Matoesian to dismiss a
mold and fungus class action case filed against them last year,
for failure to prosecute, The Madison County Record reports.

The April 2005 lawsuit was filed on behalf of lead plaintiffs
Kesha Manning and her two minor children plus Claude Taylor
against owners. Filed by attorney Lanny Darr of the Alton law
firm of Schrempf, Blaine, Kelly & Darr, the suit also identifies
additional plaintiffs who are "similarly situated."

The suit specifically alleged that the apartments had mold and
fungal growth penicillium and cladosporiumo on surfaces and
structures of the building that make up the complex located at
1400 Klein Ave. According to the complaint, the defendants
breached a duty under Illinois law to exercise ordinary care in
the maintenance of the Bissel complex.

The suit stipulates that all members of the class are citizens
of Illinois, that no class member is seeking damages in excess
of $75,000 and that the total of all damages does not exceed $5
million. Those elements would allow the suit to be filed in a
state court. Under a new law enacted in February 2005, which is
known as the Class Action Fairness Act, class actions involving
defendants from multiple states must be filed in federal courts,
an earlier Class Action Reporter story (April 20, 2005) reports.

The plaintiffs, who claim they have suffered damages in an
unknown amount, are asking the court to certify the claim as a
class action, enter a judgment for compensatory damages to be
determined, and award reasonable attorney fees and court costs
as permitted by law.

Mr. Taylor claims that the apartment's management failed to
protect non-residents from known risks to safety, health and
property. The complaint though does not specify if any class
members have incurred health problems.

The hearing was originally set for December 20, but Judge
Matoesian moved the hearing to January 13, when attorneys for
both sides were unavailable. Back in June 29, 2005, the
apartment owners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. But,
they have not had the opportunity to argue the motion before
Judge Matoesian. Troy Bozarth of Edwardsville and Matt Jacober
of St. Louis represent the apartment complex.


COLLEGIATE PACIFIC: Shareholders Commence Lawsuits V. SSG Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Collegiate Pacific, Inc. faces two class actions filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and four New
Castle County.  The suit also names as defendants Sport Supply
Group, Inc. (SSG) and SSG's directors, including the Company's
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Michael J. Blumenfeld.

On October 5, 2005, two shareholders of SSG, Martin Kleinbart
and William Stahl, filed a separate lawsuit on behalf of the
public shareholders of SSG in connection with the pending
Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which the Company will
acquire the remaining 46.8% of the outstanding capital stock of
SSG that it does not already own. The lawsuit alleges the
consideration to be paid to the public shareholders of SSG is
inadequate and that the defendants breached certain fiduciary
duties owed to the SSG public shareholders. The plaintiffs seek
to enjoin the transaction with SSG or, alternatively, to rescind
the transaction and/or recover damages in the event the
transaction is consummated.


COLUMBIA RURAL: Property Owner Files Suit Over August 2005 Fire
---------------------------------------------------------------
A property owner in Washington's Columbia County initiated a
lawsuit against Columbia Rural Electric Association, a utility
and the Asplundh Tree Expert Company, a tree-trimming company,
alleging that they were responsible for a 49,000-acre wildfire
near Pomeroy last summer, The Associated Press reports.

In his suit, Keller W. Allen seeks unspecified monetary
compensation in the suit filed in the U.S. District Court in
Spokane. Attorney Darrell W. Scott, Mr. Allen's legal
representative, told The Associated Press that he will move to
make his client's case a class action on behalf of hundreds of
property owners who suffered damage from the August 2005 "School
Fire" that also destroyed 200 structures.

Mr. Allen's suit alleges that the fire was caused by the
utility's failure to maintain its overhead distribution lines.
The fire started when a Ponderosa pine fell across the utility's
lines last August 5. According to the suit, Asplundh had been
hired by the utility to perform vegetation management near its
lines.

John Parker, Columbia Rural Electric's CEO and CFO, says the
utility had not seen the lawsuit, so he could not comment. A
manager in Asplundh's Washington office in Bothell was in a
meeting and not immediately available for comment as well.

The suit is styled, "Allen v. Columbia Rural Electric
Association Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00003-FVS," filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington, under Judge Fred Van Sickle. Representing Darrell W.
Scott of Scott Law Group, PS, 926 W. Sprague Ave., Suite 583,
Spokane, WA 99201, Phone: 509-455-3966, Fax: 509-455-3906, E-
mail: scottgroup@mac.com.


CONNECTICUT: City, Towing Companies Face Suit Over Storage Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit accuses the city of Waterbury,
Connecticut and three towing companies of illegally charging
thousands of dollars in storage fees to motorists, whose cars
are seized by the police, The Associated Press reports.

The city has contracts for impounding cars with nine towing
companies. According to the suit, if a judge orders a car
released from the impound yard, the owner is charged for the
storage.  Police seized a car belonging to plaintiff Jeremy
Krampitz, after he was arrested in June 2004 and charged with
selling drugs. Authorities said that they seized the car as
evidence because, according to them, he sold drugs from the
vehicle.

A judge ordered the truck released in January 2005, but an auto
body shop refused to release it until Mr. Krampitz pays more
than $5,000 in storage fees, Martin Minnella, the plaintiff's
attorney told The Associated Press. He argues that the impound
fees should be paid by the city. Currently, Mr. Krampitz is
being held on $625,000 bond, on manslaughter charges for
allegedly providing drugs that killed two people.

Sheila O'Malley, chief of staff to Mayor Michael Jarjura, told
The Associated Press that the city is reviewing the lawsuit. She
adds, "There is nothing in the contract that would preclude them
from charging folks for impounding their car. Obviously, that
aspect of the contract, we need to take a harder look at."


DYNEX CAPITAL: NY Court Mulls Securities Fraud Lawsuit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York has yet to rule on Dynex Capital, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss the amended class action filed against it, its
subsidiary MERIT Securities Corporation, Stephen J. Benedetti
and Thomas H. Potts by the Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division
Pension Fund.

The lawsuit purports to be a class action on behalf of
purchasers of MERIT Series 13 securitization financing bonds,
which are collateralized by manufactured housing loans.  The
allegations include federal securities laws violations in
connection with the issuance in August 1999 by MERIT Securities
Corporation of the Company's MERIT Series 13 bonds. The suit
also alleges fraud and negligent misrepresentations in
connection with MERIT Series 13.

On May 31, 2005, the Teamsters filed an amended class action
complaint. The amended complaint dropped all state common law
claims but added federal securities claims related to the MERIT
Series 12 securitization financing bonds. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 15, 2005 to
which Teamsters filed a response with the District Court on
August 15, 2005.

The suit is styled "Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension
Fund et al v. Dynex Capital, Inc. et al., case no. 1:05-cv-
01897-HB," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Harold Baer.
Representing the Company are Monica Shelton Call, Eric Harrison
Feiler, Edward Joseph Fuhr, Terence James Rasmussen and Joseph
John Saltarelli of Hunton & Williams, LLP(Richmond VA), 951 east
Byrd Street, Richmond, VA 23219, Phone: (804)-788-8632, Fax:
(804)-788-8218, E-mail: trasmussen@hunton.com or
jsaltarelli@hunton.com.   Representing the plaintiffs are Joel
P. Laitman, Christopher Lometti and Samuel P. Sporn, Schoengold
& Sporn, P.C., 19 Fulton Street, Suite 406, New York, NY 10038,
Phone: 212-964-0046, Fax: 212-267-8137, E-mail:
chris@spornlaw.com.


FRITO-LAY INC.: MA Woman Mulls Suit Over Light Snack Ingredient
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Massachusetts woman with backing from a major consumer group
is threatening to sue Frito-Lay Inc. for not warning consumers
about a controversial ingredient in its Light snacks, The Dallas
Morning News reports.

The plaintiff, Lori Perlow, 30, claims that she experienced
digestive problems after eating Ruffles Light in June. The
product as well as others in the Light line contains the fat
substitute olestra, which has a laxative-like effect in some
people.

An executive with the Washington-based Center for Science in the
Public Interest, which is helping push the suit, told The Dallas
Morning News that it may seek class action status. Ms. Perlow's
attorney recently sent a notice of the planned suit to Plano-
based Company and its parent company, PepsiCo Inc., in Purchase,
New York.

Aurora Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for Frito-Lay, told The Dallas
Morning News that there was a small "window," from April to July
of 2005, when snack packages were sold without a notice on the
front about olestra. It was listed among the ingredients.

The consumer group is pushing for a return to warning labels,
which were dropped in 2003, and a reference on the package to
the snacks' former name, "Wow." They contend that consumers were
more aware of the presence of olestra in Wow products.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces OK Suit For Faulty Floppy Disk Controller
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Oklahoma Superior Court granted class certification to a
lawsuit filed against Compaq Computer, which has now merged with
Hewlett-Packard Co., due to a faulty floppy disk controller, The
Daily Oklahoman reports.

Stephen Grider, 46, filed the suit.  He recalled that when he
tried to save information to the laptop's floppy disk drive, the
data saved often came back garbled and unreadable. He said, "We
thought it was something that we were doing wrong."  It wasn't
user error, however, since it turned out that the $1,700
computer had the faulty controller. According to Mr. Grider, he
had paid an extra $219 for an extended warranty, but when Compaq
refused to replace the faulty part, he eventually filed a
lawsuit against the Company.

Oklahoma District Judge Tom Lucas recently certified that
lawsuit, which was filed by Mr. Grider and his wife, Beverly, in
June 2003, as a nationwide class action lawsuit with a whopping
1.7 million potential plaintiffs. John Niemeyer and Linda
Alexander of the Oklahoma City law firm of Niemeyer, Alexander,
Austin and Phillips represent the Griders.

The suit, styled Grider v. Compaq, was filed in state court in
Cleveland County, Oklahoma. The plaintiffs seek, among other
things, specific performance, declaratory relief, damages and
attorneys' fees, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(September 16, 2003) reports.

Ms. Alexander told The Daily Oklahoman, "It's our position that
the warranty requires (Compaq) to repair, replace or refund. If
they can't repair it or replace the parts that are defective,
then I think the reasonable damages would be the value of the
replacement parts."

Finding a proper remedy though might be a problem nearly 5«
years after the Griders bought the computer, since floppy disks
have gone the way of the eight-track tape replaced by read/write
CD drives and flash memory cards in most computers.

Ms. Alexander suggested that Compaq might owe each plaintiff an
amount equivalent to the cost of the computer's motherboard.
That's roughly $500 or more. The case is likely to be assigned
to the state court of appeals, Ms. Alexander told The Daily
Oklahoman. It may drag on for at least another 10 months as each
side files briefs, she explains.

Meanwhile, the Griders are using a Sony desktop computer as they
await the outcome. "We're just trying to look out for ourselves
and everybody else that is involved in a situation like this,"
Mr. Stephen Grider said of the lawsuit. He told The Daily
Oklahoman, "We were put in a situation where we thought we had a
good computer and found out it was defective."


HOT TOPIC: Trial in CA Overtime Wage Suit Set For April 3, 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the overtime wage class action filed against Hot Topic,
Inc. is set for April 3,2006 in the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County.

A former Torrid employee filed the suit on September 17, 2004,
on behalf of a purported class. The lawsuit asserts claims for
failure to provide adequate meal or rest breaks, improper
payment of overtime wages, failure to timely pay wages at end of
employment and unfair business practices. The lawsuit seeks
compensatory damages, statutory penalties, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. On October 21, 2004, the
Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the
complaint.  On June 24, 2005, the plaintiff amended the
complaint to assert an additional claim for failure to pay
split-shift premiums. Discovery has begun in connection with
this matter.  The Company expect plaintiff's counsel to formally
move for certification of a class.

On September 30, 2005, a former Hot Topic employee filed a
related lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, on behalf of a purported class. This lawsuit
asserts similar claims for failure to provide adequate meal or
rest breaks, failure to timely pay wages at end of employment
and unfair business practices. The lawsuit seeks compensatory
damages, statutory penalties, punitive damages, attorneys' fees
and injunctive relief.


HOT TOPIC: Reaches Settlement For CA Employee Overtime Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hot Topic, Inc. reached a settlement for the class action filed
against it on November 18, 2004 by a former Torrid employee, on
behalf of a purported class, with allegations relating to
failure to pay overtime wages, in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County.

In August 2005, the Company reached a tentative settlement in
the case for which the Company recorded an expense of $500,000
in the second quarter of 2005.  On October 13, 2005, the court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement.  A hearing is
scheduled for January 26, 2006, at which the court will consider
granting final approval to the settlement and dismissing the
action with prejudice as to all class members.


HOT TOPIC: TN Court Mulls Appeal of Lead Injury Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Tennessee Superior Court has yet to rule on plaintiffs'
appeal of its ruling dismissing the class action filed against
Hot Topic, Inc. and over two dozen retailers, including teen
retailers like Claire's and Wet Seal, department stores like
Sears, Nordstrom, Macy's and J.C. Penney, and large retailers
like Wal-Mart and Target.

A similar case, filed by the non-profit corporation named Center
for Environmental Health in June 2004, is pending in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
Certain of the defendants, but not the Company, were also named
defendants in a substantially similar lawsuit filed by the State
of California.

The suit alleges the defendants sold jewelry that has been shown
to contain dangerous amounts of lead. Most of the toxic jewelry
is imported costume jewelry specifically marketed to children
and women of childbearing age.  Lead can affect brain
development and is especially harmful to fetuses, infants and
young children, CEH said in a press release, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (May 19,2005) states.

"It's frightening to think that a necklace could be a toxic
noose around your daughter's neck," CEH Executive Director
Michael Green said in a statement.  "We expect these companies
to stop selling lead-contaminated jewelry immediately and put an
end to this real fashion emergency."

The jewelry found with high levels of lead include necklaces
made with plastic cords and metal jewelry made with tin. Poly
vinyl chloride (PVC) plastic in the cords leaches lead, and low-
grade tin in pendants and clasps is often lead-contaminated.
Exposure to lead is a special concern when women or children
chew on jewelry cords or metal parts.  Brand names include:
Orion (Burlington), Claire's, Forever 21, Worthington (J. C.
Penney), Juststyle (K-Mart), Lane Bryant, Nairi (Nordstrom),
Eitenne V (Nordstrom), Apostrophe (Sears), Mainframe (Sears),
and Xhilaration (Target).

The complaint in each case alleges, in general, that the
defendant retailers have violated certain California statutes by
not providing sufficient warning about an alleged potential for
lead exposure relating to costume jewelry sold in stores.  The
complaints do not contain allegations of personal injury.

In August 2004, the Company was served another complaint, filed
in the Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, claiming it
are liable due to alleged lead content in its costume jewelry we
allegedly target to children. This complaint is an alleged class
action, again excluding any personal injury claim, with counts
of negligence and breach of implied warranty.  Similar claims
had been made in Tennessee, prior to service upon the Company,
against other retailers in the same jurisdiction by plaintiffs
represented by the same law firm.

The plaintiffs in the above California cases seek unspecified
fines and penalties, attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive
and other equitable relief; and the plaintiff in the Tennessee
case seeks unspecified money damages, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and injunctive relief on behalf of the alleged
class.


ILLINOIS: Regional School Superintendents Sues State Over Raises
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regional school superintendents filed a lawsuit against the
state of Illinois, alleging that they haven't been getting cost-
of-living raises mandated by state law, The Associated Press
reports.

Filed recently in Sangamon County Circuit Court, the suit claims
that the superintendents are owed three years worth of raises.
The increases were being withheld by Governor Rod Blagojevich's
administration, according to the lawsuit.

Dave Marshall, regional superintendent of schools for Marshall,
Putnam and Woodford counties told The Associated Press, "We
don't want to leave the impression that we're greedy, but we
feel that the state statute has been ignored. We've tried for
the last three years to get it resolved."

The suit affects the paychecks of about 45 regional
superintendents, who are paid $73,500 to $83,500, as well as 45
assistant regional superintendents.

Asked for comment about the suit, Abby Ottenhoff, a spokeswoman
fro the governor told The Associated Press, "We're reviewing it
right now."

Regional Superintendent of Schools for Henderson, Mercer and
Warren Counties Bill Braden told The Associated Press that the
superintendents have discussed the issue with the state for the
last three years, and the governor's office differs on the
interpretation of the law. Mr. Braden hopes a lawsuit will
clarify a law he says mandates yearly increases. He explains,
"(The lawsuit) asks the state to follow the statutes they have
set, just as I would be expected to follow the laws."

In the past, Mr. Braden said that the state Legislature adjusted
regional superintendent's salaries every four years, but changed
the law about seven years ago to give them a cost of living
increase annually.

Pay raises have been frozen for some Illinois officials because
of a tight budget, but Governor Blagojevich granted 4 percent
wage increases to more than 8,000 state administrators on
December 5. The employees had gone without salary increases for
the last three years.

The case is similar to a class action lawsuit filed by state
judges in 2003, according to Mr. Marshall said. In that case,
the Illinois Supreme Court awarded $13 million in back pay to
nearly 1,000 judges who alleged that Governor Blagojevich
improperly blocked legally required cost-of-living pay
increases.


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: DE Court Yet To Rule on Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware in and fore New
Caslte County has yet to rule on the securities class action
filed against Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Seragen, Inc., a
wholly-owned subsidiary, styled "Sergio M. Oliver, et al. v.
Boston University, et al., C.A. No. 16570NC."  The suit also
names as defendants Boston University and others, including
Seragen, its subsidiary Seragen Technology, Inc. and former
officers and directors of Seragen.

The complaint, as amended, alleged that the Company aided and
abetted purported breaches of fiduciary duty by the Seragen
related defendants in connection with the acquisition of Seragen
by Ligand and made certain misrepresentations in related proxy
materials and seeks compensatory and punitive damages of an
unspecified amount.

On July 25, 2000, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Defendants' motions to dismiss.  Seragen, Ligand, Seragen
Technology, Inc. and the Company's acquisition subsidiary,
Knight Acquisition Corporation, were dismissed from the action.
Claims of breach of fiduciary duty remain against the remaining
defendants, including the former officers and directors of
Seragen.  The hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification took place on February 26, 2001.  The court
certified a class consisting of shareholders as of the date of
the acquisition and on the date of an earlier business unit sale
by Seragen.

On January 20, 2005, the Delaware Chancery Court granted in part
and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in its
entirety. Trial was scheduled for February 7, 2005.  Prior to
trial, several of the Seragen director-defendants reached a
settlement with the plaintiffs. The trial in this action then
went forward as to the remaining defendants and concluded on
February 18, 2005.  The timing of a decision by the Court and
the outcome are unknown.


MASSACHUSETTS: Residents To File Personal Injury Suit V. Taunton
----------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of a Thrasher Street neighborhood are threatening to
file a lawsuit against operators of the city of Taunton's
landfill over growing odor, noise and seagull problems,
southofboston.com reports.

In describing the place, Wayne Butler of 35 Bairos Lane, a
seven-house cul-de-sac off Thrasher Street told
southofboston.com, "It's a horror show." Mr. Butler brought the
neighborhood's problems to the Board of Health at a recent
meeting and pleaded with officials to take action. "It's gotten
worse," said Mr. Butler, who built his house three years ago.

Mr. Butler told southofboston.com that the noise, odor, and
seagulls from the landfill are making life miserable for
residents and hurting property values, which are in the $510,000
range. Seagulls from the landfill are flocking to the area,
perching on the rooftops and leaving droppings. He showed
pictures of hundreds of seagulls on the roofs of homes. Health
board inspectors also had taken pictures of the gulls. "There
were over 1,000 on Monday, and some homes had about 200," he
said.

According to Mr. Butler, landfill gas odors and noise have
gotten progressively worse. He told southofboston.com, "I grew
up on Floral Street, and it was never this bad. I moved out and
moved back. If I realized how bad it was, I never would have
built my house there."

Mr. Butler revealed to southofboston.com that residents in the
area are in the planning stages of filing a class action lawsuit
against Waste Management, which runs the landfill for the city.
Two other companies, United Gasco and Minnesota Methane, are
also involved because they run the system that collects,
controls and uses the landfill gases.

Resident complaints were supported by a report from Kelly
Fluharty, the board's landfill environmental compliance officer
who said odor and seagull problems were particularly bad during
the holidays. She also said that the seagulls are being driven
out of the landfill and adjacent cemetery by air guns and
special wires and the birds are moving into surrounding
neighborhoods.

She says that the odors have been getting worse and are linked
to problems with the gas collection system and power plant. The
power plant uses landfill gas to produce electricity. "The odor
problem is very serious and seems to be chronic," according to
Ms. Fluharty, who adds, "It's becoming a major issue in the
Thrasher Street and Whittenton areas."

Ms. Fluharty told southofboston.com that she is also concerned
about company response times when they are alerted to
complaints. Health board member Dr. Joseph Nates said he has
received 35 complaints in the past week. Health board members
said they sympathized with the residents and warned the landfill
contractors to take corrective action or face penalties. "It's
intolerable," said member Dr. C. Nason Burden. "This situation
can't go on," according to Chairman Dr. Bruce E. Bodner. Dr.
Nates told southofboston.com, "We want to work with you, but if
the problems are not corrected I will recommend the city end its
contracts with the companies." He adds, "This has been going on
for two years. I want the situation resolved."

Peter Richer, regional engineer for Waste Management, told
southofboston.com that the odors are not from the garbage but
from the landfill gases. "It's the gas collection system," he
points out. He said Waste Management has hired an independent
consultant to study the problems and make recommendations. Mr.
Richer also emphasizes that they are seeking a state permit to
use methods that kill seagulls.

Joseph Mauro, a representative of Minnesota Methane, said the
company has hired an independent consultant to pinpoint
deficiencies in the collection system. "We're trying to fix the
problems. We're not trying to run and hide," he said. Mr. Mauro
also said that the power plant has not been working right since
a citywide power outage last November and repairs are ongoing.
He noted that four new gas collection wells have been drilled
and will be connected soon, helping to control the problem.


MCMORAN EXPLORATION: Reaches Settlement in Suit Over 1998 Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
McMoRan Exploration Co. (NYSE: MMR) reached an agreement in
principle with plaintiffs to settle previously disclosed class
action litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery relating to
the 1998 merger of Freeport-McMoRan Sulphur Inc. and McMoRan Oil
& Gas Co. While the Company believes that the 1998 merger
transaction was properly considered by the boards of directors
of both companies and was substantively and procedurally fair to
the shareholders of both companies, the Company believes that
this settlement is in the best interests of the company and its
shareholders and eliminates the risk, burden and expense of
further litigation.

The Company will pay $17.5 million in cash into a settlement
fund, the plaintiffs will provide a complete release of all
claims, and the Delaware litigation will be dismissed with
prejudice. The Company is working with its insurance carriers
and expects to fund approximately 30 percent of the settlement
with insurance proceeds. All fees and expenses incident to the
settlement, including costs of administration, notice, and any
payment for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees will be borne by
plaintiffs from the settlement fund. The settlement is subject
to customary conditions, including negotiation of a definitive
settlement agreement and approval by the Delaware Court of
Chancery.

The settlement will result in a fourth-quarter 2005 charge to
expense for the amount of the settlement, net of the amount of
insurance proceeds.

The trial on the consolidated class action filed against McMoRan
Oil & Gas Co. was set for September 2005 in the Delaware
Chancery Court, in and for New Castle County. Two suits were
initially filed, namely "Daniel W. Krasner v. James R. Moffett;
Ren L. Latiolais; J. Terrell Brown; Thomas D. Clark, Jr.; B.M.
Rankin, Jr.; Richard C. Adkerson; Robert M. Wohleber; Freeport-
McMoRan Sulphur Inc. and McMoRan Oil & Gas Co., Civ. Act. No.
16729-NC," (filed October 22, 1998); and "Gregory J. Sheffield
and Moise Katz v. Richard C. Adkerson, J. Terrell Brown, Thomas
D. Clark, Jr., Ren L. Latiolais, James R. Moffett, B.M. Rankin,
Jr., Robert M. Wohleber and McMoRan Exploration Co." (filed
December 15, 1998.)

These two lawsuits were consolidated in January 1999. The
complaint alleges that Freeport-McMoRan Sulphur Inc.'s directors
breached their fiduciary duty to Freeport-McMoRan Sulphur Inc.'s
stockholders in connection with the combination of Freeport-
McMoRan Sulphur Inc. and the Company.  The plaintiffs claim that
the directors failed to take actions that were necessary to
obtain the true value of Freeport-McMoRan Sulphur Inc.  The
plaintiffs also claim that the Company knowingly aided and
abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by
the other defendants, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(April 8, 2005) reports.

In January 2001, the court granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss with leave for the plaintiffs to amend. In February
2001, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and the
defendants then filed a motion to dismiss. In September 2002,
the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. The
plaintiffs appealed the court's decision and in June 2003, the
Delaware Supreme Court reversed the trial court's dismissal and
remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
The lawsuit has been certified as a class action. Fact discovery
has been completed and the defendants have filed a motion for
summary judgment, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (April
8, 2005) reports.


MISSOURI: Workers File Racial Discrimination Suit V. Union Local
----------------------------------------------------------------
Five sheet metal workers initiated a class action lawsuit
against their union local for allegedly discriminating against
African-American workers, The Kansas City Business Journal
reports.

Filed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City by attorney Arthur
Benson of Arthur Benson & Associates, the suit alleges that the
Sheet Metal Workers' International Association Local 2 bypassed
African-American members as their names rose to the top of job-
assignment lists. It specifically alleges that about 45 African-
American union members were affected by Local 2's alleged
practice of referring white workers whose names were low on job-
assignment lists or who allegedly weren't union members for jobs
that black members were in line to receive according to the
union's protocol.

According to the complaint, "This disparity has resulted in
African-American members, including plaintiffs, receiving
significantly less work hours and earning significantly less in
wages than their white counterparts." In addition, the suit also
alleges that the union retaliated against black members after
the plaintiffs filed complaints with regulators.

The suit seeks back pay; compensatory, exemplary and punitive
damages; attorneys' fees and other costs; interest; seniority;
full union benefits; and an order for the union to treat members
"in a non-discriminatory manner."

The suit is styled, "Franklin et al v. Local 2 of the Sheet
Metal Worker's International Association, Case No. 4:06-cv-
00004-GAF," filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri, under Judge Gary A. Fenner.
Representing the Plaintiffs are, Arthur A. Benson and Jamie
Kathryn Lansford of Arthur Benson & Associates, 4006 Central,
P.O. Box 119007, Kansas City, MO 64171, Phone: (816) 531-6565,
Fax: (816) 531-6688, E-mail: abenson@bensonlaw.com and
jlansford@bensonlaw.com.


NAUTILUS GROUP: AR Federal Judge to Decide Site For Bowflex Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A judge will determine if the national class action lawsuit
involving Nautilus Group Inc. and its Bowflex home gym stays in
an Arkansas federal court or gets moved back to Miller County
Circuit Court, The Texarkana Gazette reports.

Although Nautilus wants the lawsuit dropped, they are also
fighting lawyers of Bowflex customers who originally filed the
lawsuit on February 9, 2005, in circuit court in Miller County.
The suit is based on customers' complaints that the Company was
not responsive to the repair kits tied to the equipment's 2004
recall. As part of their lawsuit, they want either a refund or
replacement of the home gyms.

Nautilus transferred the lawsuit to federal court in Texarkana,
Arkansas, where it argued it should be tried, if at all. But,
the customers want it moved back to Miller County. Last January
4, 2006, U.S. District Judge Harry F. Barnes ordered a hearing
set for January 27, 2006, to decide the matter.

The customers revised its lawsuit on October 11, 2005, which is
the same day the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 went into
effect. According to the Company's recent filing, "Congress
passed CAFA to `expand substantially federal court jurisdiction
over class action.' Its provisions should be read broadly, with
a strong preference that interstate class actions be heard in
federal court if properly removed. Under CAFA, a federal court
must exercise its jurisdiction when the number of punitive class
members defined in a complaint exceeds 100, and `the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5 million, exclusive of
interest and costs, and is a class action in which ... any
member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a state
different from any defendant."

According to the lawsuit, the Company voluntarily recalled the
Pro Fitness Machine with the Lat Tower for two safety reasons.
First, the backboard bench on the Bowflex could unexpectedly
break and collapse when in the incline position. Second, the Lat
Tower attachment could rotate forward and fall during use. The
suit also states that as part of the company's recall, customers
were told to stop using the backboard bench and Lat Tower and
that in the meantime, they were to contact the company to get a
free repair or replacement kit within two weeks. However,
lawyers for Bowflex customers say that kits were not shipped for
six weeks or many months later.

The Company argues that the revised version of the lawsuit
includes claims of personal injury as well as an attack on the
method of the recall campaign. In a previous motion to dismiss
the lawsuit, Company lawyers argue that the complainants did not
fashion the lawsuit in a way that they can seek damages for the
legal claims, namely unjust enrichment. In addition, the Company
alleges that the fraud claim lodged by the consumers does not
specify facts that could sustain the claim, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (April 11, 2005) reports.

The Company is relying on its prior notices to customers to not
use the Bowflex equipment because it was deemed to be dangerous
after an investigation of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission. This led to the company's voluntary recall of the
home gym, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (April 11,
2005) reports.

The suit is styled, "Whitehead v. The Nautilus Group, Inc. et
al., Case No. 4:05-cv-04074-HFB," filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, under Judge
Harry F. Barnes. Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Michael B.
Angelovich and Louis Bradon Paddock of Nix, Patterson & Roach,
LLP, 2900 Saint Michael Drive, Suite 500, Texarkana, TX 75503,
Phone: (903) 223-3999, Fax: (903) 223-8520, E-mail:
mangelovich@nixlawfirm.com and bpaddock@nixlawfirm.com and; John
C. Goodson of Keil & Goodson, P.O. Box 618, Texarkana, AR 75504,
Phone: (870) 772-4113, Fax: (870) 773-2967. E-mail:
jcgoodson@kglawfirm.com. Representing the Defendant/s are,
Spencer F. Robinson and John Jarrod Russell of Ramsay,
Bridgforth, Harrelson & Starling, Simmons First Natl Bldg., P.O.
Box 8509, Pine Bluff, AR 71611-8509, Phone: (870) 535-9000, Fax:
(870) 535-8544, E-mail: spencerrobinson@ramsaylaw.com and
jrussell@ramsaylaw.com.


PARADIGM MEDICAL: UT Securities Settlement Approval Deemed Final
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Utah's
ruling grating final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Paradigm
Medical Industries, Inc. is deemed final, after no objections
were filed.

On June 2, 2003, a complaint captioned "Michael Marrone v.
Paradigm Medical Industries, Inc., Thomas Motter, Mark Miehle
and John Hemmer, Case No. 2:03 CV00513 PGC," was filed.  On July
11, 2003, a complaint was filed in the same United States
District Court, captioned "Lidia Milian v. Paradigm Medical
Industries, Inc., Thomas Motter, Mark Miehle and John Hemmer,
Case No. 2:03 CV00617PGC."

These cases are substantially similar in nature and contend that
as a result of allegedly false statements regarding the Blood
Flow Analyzer(TM) and the purchase order from Westland Financial
Corporation and Valdespino Associates Enterprises, the price of
the Company's common stock was artificially inflated and the
persons who purchased the Company's common shares during the
class period suffered substantial damages.

In a press release dated July 11, 2003, captioned "Milberg Weiss
announces the filing of a class action suit against Paradigm
Medical Industries, Inc. on behalf of investors," the law firm
of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, which represents
purchasers of Company securities in the class action suit filed
on July 11, 2003, stated that the Company's alleged
misrepresentations caused the market price of the stock to be
artificially inflated during the class period.  As a result, it
is alleged that investors suffered millions of dollars in
damages from the Company's alleged misstatements.

The cases request judgment for unspecified damages, together
with interest and attorney's fees.  These cases have now been
consolidated with the Meyer case into a single action, captioned
"In re: Paradigm Medical Industries Securities Litigation, Case
No. 03-CV-448TC."  The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman LLP is representing purchasers of the Company's
securities in the consolidated class action.

On June 28, 2004, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities.
The consolidated complaint is similar to the three class action
complaints and alleges that the Company made false
representations regarding the CPT code for the Blood Flow
Analyzer(TM), but it includes additional allegations that the
Company failed to disclose in a timely manner that doctors were
being denied reimbursement for procedures performed with the
Blood Flow Analyzer(TM).  The consolidated complaint also
alleges that the Company made false statements regarding the
purchase order from Westland Financial Corporation and
Valdespino Associates Enterprises.

Earlier this year, the Company reached a settlement agreement
for the suit.  Under the terms of settlement of the federal
court class action lawsuit, U.S. Fire Insurance Company, which
issued a Directors and Officers Liability and Company
Reimbursement Policy to Paradigm Medical for the period from
July 10, 2002 to July 10, 2003, has agreed to pay the sum of
$1,507,500 in cash to the class members that purchased
securities of Paradigm Medical during the period between April
17, 2002 and November 4, 2002, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (February 1,2005) reports.

On August 26, 2005, the United States District Court for the
District of Utah entered an order and final judgment granting
final approval of the settlement agreement executed on February
23, 2005 in the federal court class action lawsuit and
dismissing the complaint filed in the lawsuit with prejudice as
against the Company and its former executive officers.  In
addition, the court permanently enjoined class members in the
lawsuit and their successors and assigns from instituting any
other actions against the Company and its former executive
officers that had been or could have been asserted by the class
members against the Company and its former executive officers in
the federal court class action lawsuit.  Following the entry of
the order and final judgment in the lawsuit, there was a 30-day
period to appeal the order and final judgment.  The 30-day
period is now lapsed and no appeal was made of the order and
final judgment.  Consequently, the order and final judgment
cannot be appealed.

The suit is styled "Rock Solid Invst Mia v. Paradigm Med Ind, et
al., case no. 2:03-cv-00448-TC," filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Utah, under Judge Tena
Campbell.  Representing the plaintiffs are Theodore M. Hess-
Mahan, SHAPIRO HABER & URMY, 1 Exchange PL Ste 3750, Boston MA,
02109-2817, Phone: (617)439-3939; and Thomas R. Karrenberg,
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG, 50 W. Broadway Ste 700, Salt Lake City
Utah 84101, Phone: (801)-534-1700, E-mail:
tkarrenberg@aklawfirm.com.  Representing the Company was Brent
O. Hatch, HATCH JAMES & DODGE, 10 W BROADWAY STE 400, SALT LAKE
CITY, UT 84101, Phone: (801) 363-6363, E-mail:
bhatch@hjdlaw.com.


PARAGON FINANCIAL: NY Court Affirms Lawsuit Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York affirmed its ruling granting preliminary approval to
the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed
against Paragon Financial Corporation, certain of its former
officers and directors and the underwriters of its initial
public offering.

Several suits were initially filed, alleging violations of the
federal securities laws.  In mid-2002, the complaints against
the Company were consolidated into a single action.  The essence
of the complaint is that in connection with the Company's
initial public offering in October 1999 (IPO), the defendants
issued and sold the Company's common stock pursuant to a
registration statement which did not disclose to investors that
certain underwriters in the offering had solicited and received
excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors
acquiring the Company's common stock in connection with the IPO.

The complaint also alleges that the registration statement
failed to disclose that the underwriters allocated Company
shares in the IPO to customers of the underwriters in exchange
for the customers' promises to purchase additional shares in the
aftermarket at pre-determined prices above the IPO price. The
action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.  The action is
being coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical
actions filed against other companies that had initial public
offerings of securities between 1997 and 2000 same time period.

The Company has approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and
related agreements that set forth the terms of a settlement
between the Company, the plaintiff class and the vast majority
of the other approximately 300 issuer defendants. Among other
provisions, the settlement contemplated by the MOU provides for
a release of the Company and the individual defendants for the
conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful. The Company would
agree to undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing
to assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims
the Company may have against its underwriters.  It is
anticipated that any potential financial obligation of the
Company to plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the MOU and
related agreements will be covered by existing insurance.
Therefore, the Company does not expect that the settlement will
involve any payment by the Company.  The MOU and related
agreements are subject to a number of contingencies, including
the negotiation of a settlement agreement and its approval by
the Court.

On August 31,2005, the court affirmed its ruling granting
preliminary approval to the settlement.  Final fairness hearing
is set for April 24,2006.

The suit is styled "IN RE PARAGON FINANCIAL 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


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Plaintiffs File Amended Antitrust Lawsuit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against Pilgrim's Pride
Corporation in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, Texarkana Division, styled "Cody Wheeler, et
al. vs. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation."

The complaint, filed on behalf of a class of chicken growers,
initially alleged that the Company violated the Packers and
Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. Section 192) and breached fiduciary
duties allegedly owed to the plaintiff growers.  The plaintiffs
also brought individual actions under the Packers and Stockyards
Act alleging common law fraud, negligence, breach of fiduciary
duties and breach of contract.

On March 14, 2003, the court entered an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' claim of breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.
The plaintiffs also dropped the charges of fraud prior to the
entering of the order by the court.

On September 30, 2005, plaintiffs amended their lawsuit to join
Tyson Foods, Inc. as a co-defendant. Two additional former
chicken growers were also added as plaintiffs to the lawsuit.
This amendment, which occurred 38 months after the lawsuit's
filing also results in a virtual re-writing of the allegations.
Now plaintiffs contend that the Company and Tyson are involved
in a conspiracy to violate federal antitrust laws.  Plaintiffs'
initial allegations, although still contained in the amended
lawsuit, are no longer the sole focus of the case.

The amended suit is styled "Wheeler et al v. Pilgrim's Pride
Corp et al., case no. 5:06-cv-00004-DF," filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
Texarkana Division, under Judge David Folsom.  Representing the
plaintiffs is C Paul Rogers, III of Locke Liddell & Sapp, 2200
Ross Ave, Suite 2200, Dallas, TX 75201-6776, Phone:
214/740-8477, Fax: 214-740-8800, E-mail:
cprogers@lockeliddell.com.  Representing the Company is Jennifer
Parker Ainsworth, Wilson Sheehy Knowles Robertson & Cornelius
PC, 909 ESE Loop 323, Suite 400, P.O. Box 7339, Tyler, TX 75711-
7339, Phone: 903/509-5000, Fax: 9035095091, E-mail:
jainsworth@wilsonlawfirm.com.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Continues To Face Deli Products Recall Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation continues to face several lawsuits
filed over its recall of cooked deli products produced from its
Franconia, Pennsylvania Plant from May 1,2003 through October
11,2002.

In October 2002, a limited number of USDA environmental samples
from our Franconia, Pennsylvania plant tested positive for
Listeria.  As a result, the Company voluntarily recalled all
cooked deli products produced at the plant from May 1, 2002
through October 11, 2002.  No illnesses have been linked to any
of our recalled products, and none of such products have tested
positive for the strain of Listeria associated with an outbreak
in the Northeastern U.S. that occurred during the summer of
2002.

However, following this recall, a number of demands and cases
have been made and filed alleging injuries purportedly arising
from the consumption of products produced at this facility.
These include:

     (1) "Lawese Drayton, Individually and as Personal
         Representative of the Estate of Raymond Drayton,
         deceased, Plaintiff, v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation,
         Jack Lambersky Poultry Company, Inc. d/b/a JL Foods Co,
         Inc., Defendants," filed in the United States District
         Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April
         15, 2003;

     (2) "Laron Harvey, by his mother and natural guardian,
         Shakandra Hampton, and Shakandra Hampton in her own
         right v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation and Jack Lambersky
         Poultry Company, Inc.," which was filed in the
         Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas on May 5, 2003, and
         has since been removed to the U.S. District Court of
         the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia;

     (3) "Ryan and Dana Patterson v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation
         and Jack Lambersky Poultry Company, et al" which was
         filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
         Division, Passaic County, on August 12, 2003;

     (4) "Jamar Clarke, an infant under the age of fourteen (14)
         years, by his mother and natural guardian, Wanda
         Multrie Clarke, and Wanda Multrie Clarke, individually
         v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation d/b/a Wampler Foods,
         Inc., H. Schrier and Co., Inc., Board of Education of
         the City of New York and Public School 251" which was
         filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
         County of Queens, on August 1, 2003;

     (5) "Peter Roselle, as Administrator and Prosequendum for
         the heirs-at-Law of Louis P. Roselle, deceased; and
         Executor of the Estate of Louis P. Roselle, deceased,
         and individually v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation,
         Wampler Foods, Inc., Jack Lambersky Poultry Company,
         Inc., d.b.a. J.L. Foods Co. Inc." which was filed in
         the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union
         County, on June 14, 2004;

     (6) "Jody Levonchuk, administratrix of the Estate of Joseph
         Cusato v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation and Jack
         Lambersky Poultry Company." which was filed in the U.S.
         District Court for the Eastern District of
         Pennsylvania, on July 28, 2004;

     (7) "Mary Samudovsky v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation and
         Jack Lambersky Poultry Company, Inc., et al," which was
         filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
         Division: Camden County, and served on October 26,
         2004 (which case was voluntarily dismissed by the
         plaintiff on May 8, 2005);

     (8) Nancy Cirigliano and Scott Fischer v. Pilgrim's Pride
         Corporation and Jack Lambersky Poultry Company, et al,"
         which was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
         Union County, on August 10, 2004;

     (9) "Dennis Wysocki, as the Administrator of the Estate of
         Matthew Tyler Wysocki, deceased, and Dennis Wysocki and
         Karen Wysocki, individually v. Pilgrim's Pride
         Corporation and Jack Lambersky Poultry Company, et al,"
         which was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of
         New York, County of New York, on July 30, 2004;

    (10) "Randi Carden v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation and Jack
         Lambersky Poultry Company, et al," which was filed in
         the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County, on
         August 10, 2004; and

    (11) "Catherine Dillon, individually and as guardian ad
         litem for her infant son, Brian Dillon, and Joseph
         Dillon, individually" v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation
         and Jack Lambersky Poultry Company, et al," which was
         filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex
         County, on September 10, 2004 (which case has recently
         been settled); and

    (12) Roberta Napolitano, as Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate
         of Burke Caren Kantrow v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation,
         Wampler Foods, Inc. and Jack Lambersky Poultry Company,
         d/b/a J. L. Foods, Inc., which was filed in the
         Superior Court of Connecticut, New Haven, on June 16,
         2005.

On August 20, 2004, the Estate of Frank Niemtzow re-filed his
individual action from the previously filed and voluntarily
dismissed class action suit.  Neither the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome nor the amount of ultimate liability, if
any, with respect to any of these cases can be determined at
this time.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed From Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Incorporated continues to face a racial and age
discrimination class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Arkansas, El Dorado Division.

On December 31, 2003, the Company was served with a purported
class action complaint styled "Angela Goodwin, Gloria Willis,
Johnny Gill, Greg Hamilton, Nathan Robinson, Eddie Gusby, Pat
Curry, Persons Similarly Situated v. ConAgra Poultry Company and
Pilgrim's Pride, Incorporated."  The suit alleges racial and age
discrimination at one of the facilities the Company acquired
from ConAgra.  Two of the named plaintiffs, Greg Hamilton and
Gloria Willis, were voluntarily dismissed from this action.

The suit is styled "Goodwin, et al v. Conagra Poultry Co, et
al., case no. 1:03-cv-01187-HFB," filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, under Judge
Harry F. Barnes.  Representing the Company are Adam T.
Dougherty, Kimberly F. Rich and Mark D. Taylor, Baker & McKenzie
2001 Ross Avenue, 2300 Trammell Crow Center, Dallas, TX 75201,
Phone: (214) 978-3000, Fax: (214) 978-3099, E-mail:
adam.t.dougherty@bakernet.com, kimberly.f.rich@bakernet.com,
mark.d.taylor@bakernet.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Carolyn B. Witherspoon, Cross, Gunter, Witherspoon &
         Galchus, P.C., 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 200,
         Little Rock, AR 72201, Phone: (501) 371-9999, Fax:
         (501) 371-0035, E-mail: cspoon@cgwg.com

     (2) Rickey H. Hicks, Hicks Law Firm, Attorney at Law
         523 South Louisiana, Suite M100, Little Rock, AR 72201,
         Phone: 501-372-1310, Fax: 501-372-1477, E-mail:
         hickslawoffice@yahoo.com

     (3) Lloyd W. Kitchens, III, Morgan E. Welch, Welch and
         Kitchens, LLC, One Riverfront Place, Suite 413, Little
         Rock, AR 72901, Phone: (501) 978-3030, Fax: (501) 978-
         3050, E-mail: tkitchens@welchandkitchens.com or
         mwelch@welchandkitchens.com

     (4) Robert Pressman, 22 Locust Avenue, Lexington, MA 02421,
         Phone: (781) 862-1955

     (5) Allen P. Roberts, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 280,
         Camden, AR 71701, Phone: (870) 836-5310, Fax: (870)
         836-9662, E-mail: allenroberts@cablelynx.com

     (6) John W. Walker, John W. Walker, P.A., 1723 Broadway
         Little Rock, AR 72206, Phone: 501-374-3758, Fax: 501-
         374-4187, E-mail: johnwalkeratty@aol.com


PUBLIX SUPER: Recalls Raisin Bagels For Undeclared Ingredient
-------------------------------------------------------------
Publix Super Markets is issuing a voluntary recall on
prepackaged Publix Cinnamon Raisin Bagels (4-pack) located at
its stores in South Florida (Key West to Vero Beach).

The product was inadvertently packaged with egg bagels, and the
ingredient label for cinnamon raisin bagels does not declare
eggs. Individuals who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
egg run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products.

"The packaging error was detected during a store inspection
process," said Anne Hendricks manager of media and community
relations. "As part of our commitment to food safety, we
routinely inspect our product for quality. There have been no
reported cases of illness. Customers who have purchased the
product may return it to their store for a full refund or
replacement. All cinnamon raisin bagels currently for sale are
packaged correctly. Consumers with questions may contact Publix
at 1-800-242-1227."


RIDLEY INC.: Ontario Court Denies Dismissal Motion V. BSE Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ridley Inc. (TSX: RCL) reports that the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice denied its motion for early dismissal of the proposed
class action lawsuit filed against Ridley by an Ontario dairy
farmer.

In October 2005, Ridley disclosed that it had filed and argued
preliminary motions seeking early dismissal of the BSE lawsuit
filed in the Ontario Superior Court for failure to state
actionable claims under Canadian law. Ridley had asserted strong
legal arguments supporting its request that the Court strike the
claims in advance of class certification hearings or
commencement of discovery.

"We are disappointed with today's ruling on our preliminary
motion," said Steve VanRoekel, Chief Executive Officer of Ridley
Inc, "but we remain confident in our defence of the case on the
merits. We will continue to vigorously defend the lawsuits at
each and every stage of the litigation as it progresses."

The Court's denial of Ridley Inc.'s preliminary motion does not
impact the merits of the case itself. The issue before the Court
was whether the Ontario case would be allowed to proceed to the
next stages of the litigation, including determination of class
certification and discovery. Ridley will consider all available
options regarding appeal of today's ruling.

In April 2005, Ridley Inc. along with its majority shareholder,
Ridley Corporation Limited of Sydney Australia, and the
Government of Canada were named defendants in proposed class
action lawsuits filed in four Canadian provinces. These lawsuits
sought damages, including punitive damages, for losses allegedly
incurred by Canadian cattle producers as a result of
international bans on the importation of Canadian beef and
cattle. These bans followed the May 20, 2004 announcement of a
bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) diagnosis in an Alberta
cow. None of the plaintiffs in any of the cases alleged any
direct connection between them and Ridley Inc.

The ruling struck all of the plaintiff's claims against Ridley
Corporation Limited. The claims against the Canadian Federal
government will remain.

"Ridley Inc. has at all relevant times been in full compliance
with all applicable laws and regulations." Mr. VanRoekel said.
"We take food safety issues seriously and are committed to
producing and distributing the highest quality animal nutrition
products in the industry."


SCOBEE FOODS: Recalls Chili Dogs Due to Listeria Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scobee Foods, Inc of Dallas, TX. is recalling 364 packages of
Double Chili Dogs with Cheese because it has the potential to be
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, and organism which can
cause serious and sometimes fatal infection in young children,
frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term
symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

While Scobee Foods only sold the product in Texas and Michigan,
S. Abraham & Sons, Inc., Grand Rapids, Michigan has further sold
the recalled product through convenience foods stores in the
States of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky and Wisconsin.

The product comes in a clear plastic package and contains two
individual chili dogs with cheese per package. The product sold
in Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky and Wisconsin has a blue
and white label with the brand name "Grill." All products are
labeled as "Net Weight 8oz." and have a sell by date of 010806
and lot code 335 stamped in black ink in the top right corner of
the label. No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall is the result of a routine sampling program by the
Texas Department of State Health Services which revealed that
the finished products contained the bacteria. Scobee has ceased
the production and distribution of the product as FDA and the
company continue their investigation as to what caused the
problem.

Consumers who have purchased Scobee Grill Double Chili Dogs with
Cheese are urged to return it to the place of purchase or
contact the company for a full refund. Consumers with questions
may contact the company at 1-888-726-9424.


SEMPRA ENERGY: Fitch Says Deal Not Expected to Affect Ratings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings does not expect to take rating action as a
consequence of the announcement by Sempra Energy (SRE; senior
unsecured debt rated 'A', with a Stable Rating Outlook by Fitch)
that it has reached settlements relating to the Continental
Forge class action lawsuit, Nevada antitrust litigation, and
California price reporting litigation. The ratings and Outlooks
of SRE and its subsidiaries, San Diego Gas & Electric Co.
(SDG&E; senior unsecured debt rated 'AA-', with a Stable Outlook
by Fitch) and Southern California Gas Co. (SoCal Gas; senior
unsecured debt rated 'AA-', with a Stable Outlook by Fitch)
incorporate expected costs roughly similar to the announced
settlements.

Under the terms announced, SRE will make pre-tax cash payments
totaling $377 million over eight years, and unilaterally lower
by $300 million its fixed profit margin on the power sales
agreement with the California Department of Water Resources
(CDWR) that expires in 2011.

Approximately $110 million in cash payments would be paid within
30 days of final approval of the settlement with a similar
amount paid during 2007. Subsequently, annual payments of
approximately $26 million will be required through 2013. Lost
pre-tax cash flow on the CDWR contract will average $50 million
annually through 2011. The other settlements terms, including
selling liquefied natural gas to SDG&E and SoCal Gas at a
discount to index and filing with the California Public
Utilities Commission for integration of its utilities' gas
transmission and storage assets, are of benefit to other market
participants but are not expected to have a material cash flow
impact on SRE or its subsidiaries.

SRE has reserved $250 million after-tax for these legal matters,
and an additional 2005 write-down of approximately $100 million
after-tax at the parent company is expected. Adjusting for the
settlement, SRE's consolidated credit metrics are still expected
to remain strong over the next several years. Additionally, the
company has substantial liquidity in the form of cash and
available credit facilities. As of Sept. 30, 2005, SRE had $500
million in cash and available liquidity of approximately $5
billion under multiple revolvers and lines of credit that mature
in 2009-2010.

Although this settlement will reduce cash flow in the short
term, it removes a significant overhang from the company. A
materially adverse jury verdict in the Continental Forge case,
though of low probability, could have been significant, and a
'worst-case' scenario would have severely damaged SRE's credit
profile. While Fitch assessed the implications of unfavorable
judgments in the lawsuits under stress scenarios, SRE's current
ratings and Outlook did not assume substantial negative rulings.
The cash cost of the settlement was at the low end of the range
of Fitch's scenarios.

The settlements remain subject to certain approvals and do not
resolve other ongoing litigation, including disputes with the
CDWR, State of California, and Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.

Fitch's rating definitions and the terms of use of such ratings
are available on the agency's public site,
http://www.fitchratings.com.

For more details, contact Justin Bowersock, Phone: 312-368-3151
(Chicago), Ari Kagan, CFA, Phone: 212-908-0644 (New York), and
Brian Bertsch, Phone: 212-908-0549 (Media Relations, New York).


TAG-IT PACIFIC: Shareholders File Securities Lawsuit in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tag-It Pacific, Inc. faces a purported shareholder class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, styled "HUBERMAN V. TAG-IT PACIFIC,
INC., ET AL., Case No.  CV05-7352 R(Ex)."

The suit, filed in October 2005, alleges claims under Section
10(b) and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The action is
purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
publicly traded securities during the period from November 14,
2003 to August 12, 2005.

The Company has accepted service of the complaint and has
entered into a stipulation with plaintiff's counsel to formally
respond following the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel and the anticipated filing of the consolidated amended
complaint.


STAPLES INC.: CA Court Reinstates Suit Over Insurance Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeals court in California reinstated a lawsuit that claims
office supply chain Staples Inc. cheated customers by charging
them for insurance when shipping some products, The Associated
Press reports.

In a 2-1 decision, the 2nd District Court of Appeals, ruled that
the Company was acting as an unlicensed insurance agent when it
doubled the shipping insurance costs on some packages and took
half of the premium.

Court records show that the Company automatically covered
products worth up to $100 but charged customers additional money
to insure anything over that amount. The Company offered the
insurance through United Parcel Service, which charged 35 cents
per additional $100 of declared value.

The lawsuit claimed that the Company charged consumers 70 cents
and pocketed the difference. The suit, which seeks class action
status, also alleged that the Company violated the state's
insurance regulations and unfair business practices law.

The Company though argued it was simply making a profit on a
product. A Superior Court judge previously agreed with it but
the appellate court reversed the decision and pointed out that
the extra charge was a "commission" for Staples.


THEGLOBE.COM: NY Court Affirms Approval of Stock Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York affirmed its ruling granting preliminary approval to
the settlement for the consolidated securities class action
filed against TheGlobe.com, Inc., certain of its current and
former officers and directors and several investment banks that
were the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering.

On and after August 3, 2001 and as of the date of this filing,
six putative shareholder class action lawsuits were filed on
behalf of purchasers of the stock of the Company during the
period from November 12, 1998 through December 6, 2000.
Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to
allocate stock in the Company's initial public offering to
certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed
commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional
purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.
Plaintiffs allege that the Prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering was false and misleading and in violation of the
securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements.

On December 5, 2001, an amended complaint was filed in one of
the actions, alleging the same conduct described above in
connection with the Company's November 23, 1998 initial public
offering and its May 19, 1999 secondary offering. A Consolidated
Amended Complaint, which is now the operative complaint, was
filed in the Southern District of New York on April 19, 2002.
The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

On February 19, 2003, a motion to dismiss all claims against the
Company was denied by the Court.  On October 13, 2004, the Court
certified a class in six of the approximately 300 other nearly
identical actions and noted that the decision is intended to
provide strong guidance to all parties regarding class
certification in the remaining cases.  Plaintiffs have not yet
moved to certify a class in theglobe.com case.

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

On February 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion.  Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that
the issuer defendants and the plaintiffs must submit a revised
settlement agreement which provides for a mutual bar of all
contribution claims by the settling and non-settling parties and
does not bar the parties from pursuing other claims.  The
issuers and plaintiffs have submitted to the Court a revised
settlement agreement consistent with the Court's opinion.  The
revised settlement agreement has been approved by all of the
issuer defendants who are not in bankruptcy.  On August 31,2005,
the court affirmed its ruling granting preliminary approval to
the settlement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


TOMMY HILFIGER: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tommy Hilfiger Corporation asked the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss the
second amended consolidated securities class action filed
against it and certain of its officers and directors.

Following the Company's September 24, 2004 announcement of the
investigation, approximately eleven purported shareholder class
action lawsuits were filed.  The complaints alleged that,
unbeknownst to investors, the Company's United States subsidiary
padded commissions paid to non-U.S. subsidiaries for the
improper purpose of shifting millions of dollars in reportable
revenue from high to low tax rate jurisdictions. Consequently,
throughout the Class Period, the Company's liability and
provision for income taxes was materially understated, its net
income was materially overstated, and the risk that the Company
would be forced to pay material fines and penalties was
concealed from the investing public. Moreover, all statements
made by defendants with respect to the Company's operating
performance, including the Company's financial statements, were
materially false and misleading, and inherently unreliable,
because defendants failed to disclose that tax evasion was a key
element of the Company's business model. Defendants' scheme
enabled insiders, including defendants, to sell thousand of
their shares of Tommy Hilfiger at artificially inflated prices
for proceeds in excess of $100 million.

The Court has consolidated the purported shareholder class
action lawsuits, and has appointed lead counsel and lead
plaintiffs.  The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated, amended
complaint on May 13, 2005. On August 1, 2005, the Company filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 30, 2005 the
Company and lead plaintiffs agreed to a new schedule, which the
Company expects to be so ordered by the Court, pursuant to which
lead plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint on
October 31, 2005. The Company currently expects to file a new
motion to dismiss by December 5, 2005 and that a hearing on such
motion by the Company will be scheduled by the Court for early
2006.


TRADER JOE'S: Recalls Chocolate Fudge Due to Undeclared Walnuts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trader Joe's Company of Monrovia, California is recalling Trader
Joe's Gourmet Chocolate Fudge (8 oz. original) code BB 07/01/06
LOT 008, because the product may contain walnuts that are not
declared on the label. Since walnuts are an allergen, we're
recalling the entire lot. You can find the code on the back of
the package marked on a small white sticker next to the
nutritional label. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to walnuts run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product.

Trader Joe's Chocolate Fudge (Original) was potentially sold
from Trader Joe's retail stores in Connecticut, Delaware,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and
Virginia. This product code was removed from sale in all Trader
Joe's Eastern Seaboard stores. Warehouse inventory is being held
off sale.

There have been no reports of injury or illness from this
product.

The recall was initiated after Trader Joe's store personal
identified code BB 07/01/06 LOT 008 contained fudge with walnuts
in packaging that did not reveal the presence of walnuts. This
code was only sent to the Eastern Seaboard stores supplied by
the Taunton, MA warehouse.

At Trader Joe's we take the safety of our customers and the
integrity of our products very seriously. Consumers who have
purchased Trader Joe's Gourmet Chocolate Fudge (Original) are
urged to return them to any Trader Joe's store for a full
refund. Consumers with questions may contact Trader Joe's
Customer Service at (781) 455-7319.


TRAVELERS LIFE: CT Court Mulls Fraud Suit Certification Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Connecticut Superior Court has yet to rule on Travelers Life
and Annuity Corporation's appeal of class certification granted
to a lawsuit filed in August 1999, styled "Lisa Macomber, et al.
vs. Travelers Property Casualty Corporation, et al."  The suit
also names as defendants Travelers Property Casualty
Corporation, Travelers Equity Sales, Inc. and certain former
affiliates.

The amended complaint alleges that Travelers Property purchased
structured settlement annuities from the Company and spent less
on the purchase of those structured settlement annuities than
agreed with claimants; and that commissions paid to brokers of
structured settlement annuities, were paid, in part, to the
Travelers Property.

The amended complaint was dismissed and, following an appeal by
the plaintiff in September 2002, the Connecticut Supreme Court
reversed the dismissal of several of the plaintiff's claims. On
May 26, 2004, the Connecticut Superior Court certified a
nationwide class action involving the following claims:
violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practice Statute, unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy. On
June 15, 2004, the defendants appealed the Connecticut Superior
Court's May 26, 2004 class certification order.


VISTEON CORPORATION: Continues To Face Securities Lawsuit in MI
---------------------------------------------------------------
Visteon Corporation continues to face a securities class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.  The suit also names as defendants certain of the
Company's current and former officers, namely:

     (1) Peter Pestillo,

     (2) Michael Johnston,

     (3) Glenda J. Minor,

     (4) Daniel R. Coulson and

     (5) James Palmer

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Company made
misleading statements of material fact or omitted to state
material facts necessary in order to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading. The named individual plaintiff seeks to represent a
class consisting of purchasers of the Company's securities
during the period between January 23, 2004 and January 31, 2005.
Class action status has not yet been certified in this
litigation.  The Company is in the process of evaluating the
claims in this lawsuit.

The suit is styled "Ley v. Visteon Corporation, et al, case no.
2:05-cv-70737-RHC-VMM," filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, under Robert H.
Cleland.  Representing the plaintiffs are E. Powell Miller and
Marc L. Newman of Miller Shea (Rochester) 950 W. University
Drive Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Phone: 248-841-2200 E-mail:
emiller335@aol.com; and Marc A. Topaz, Schiffrin & Barroway
(Radnor) 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

HELEN OF TROY: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, initiated a Class
Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Helen of Troy, Ltd. ("Helen of Troy" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq:HELE) between October 12, 2004 and
October 10, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Helen of Troy and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning Helen of Troy's financial performance
caused the Company's stock price to become artificially
inflated, inflicting damages on investors. Helen of Troy, Ltd.
designs, develops, produces and distributes brand-name personal
care and household consumer products in the United States and
internationally. The Complaint alleges that defendants' Class
Period representations concerning Helen of Troy, Ltd. were
materially false and misleading when made for the following
reasons:

     (1) the Company's sales in its personal care business
         segment were declining due to the lack of solid new
         product ideas;

     (2) the Company was experiencing weak revenue growth; and

     (3) as consequence of the foregoing, the Company's positive
         earnings guidance throughout the Class Period lacked
         any reasonable basis.

On October 11, 2005, the Company stunned the market when it
announced its financial results for the second quarter ended
August 31, 2005. Helen of Troy significantly lowered its
guidance for 2006 and reported a year-over-year decline in
revenue during its second quarter. As a result of this news,
shares of Helen of Troy fell $1.36 per share, or 4.72 percent,
to close on October 12, 2005, at $27.44 per share.

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy and Michael Goldberg
of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or
(888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site:
http://www.glancylaw.com.


INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: Mager & Goldstein Lodges Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Mager & Goldstein, LLP, initiated a class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of securities of
Interlink Electronics Inc. ("Interlink" or the
"Company")(Nasdaq:LINKE) between April 24, 2003 and November 1,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Interlink and its top executives, E.
Michael Thoben, III and Paul D. Meyer, violated federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements during the Class Period which resulted in
artificially inflating the value of Interlink stock. It further
charges that these misrepresentations were a result of the
Company's improper accounting practices and weak internal
accounting controls.

On March 9, 2005, in an effort to correct several instances of
improper accounting, Interlink publicly announced it would be
restating its financial results for the first three quarters of
2004. Then on November 2, 2005, the Company announced that it
again would be restating its financial statements, this time for
all of 2003, 2004 and the first two quarters of 2005,
essentially wiping out earnings that were previously reported.
The announcement shocked investors and the market reacted to the
news, with the value of Interlink shares tumbling 40%.

For more details, contact Lee Albert of Mager & Goldstein, LLP,
One Liberty Place, 21st Floor, 1650 Market St., Philadelphia, PA
19103, Phone: 866-284-3280 or 215-640-3280, Fax: 215-640-3281,
E-mail: lalbert@magergoldstein.com.


SERACARE LIFE: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities CA Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, Case No. 06-CV- 0022 LBLM on behalf of
an investor of SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc. ("SeraCare" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq: SRLSE), accusing the Company of fraud. The
complaint seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who purchased SeraCare common
stock between February 9, 2005 and December 19, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The lawsuit claims that SeraCare and a number of individual
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b)
and 78t, and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

Based in Oceanside, California, SeraCare manufactures and
provides biological products and services for diagnostic,
therapeutic, drug discovery and research organizations.

The complaint alleges that the defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements that artificially inflated the
Company's stock price. Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that
during the Class Period, the defendants issued false and
misleading statements or failed to disclose that:

     (1) SeraCare had improperly recognized revenue, thus
         inflating its financial results;

     (2) The Company had used faulty methods to account for and
         value its inventory;

     (3) The defendants had failed to prevent certain board
         members from exerting undue influence on SeraCare's
         financial reporting and auditing processes;

     (4) The timeliness, quality and completeness of the
         Company's implementation and testing of its internal
         controls were faulty; and

     (5) SeraCare's financial statements had violated Generally
         Accepted Accounting Principles.

According to the complaint, SeraCare's stock price fell by as
much as 62 percent on December 20, 2005, after the Company
revealed that its independent auditors had issued a report about
the above issues. The Nasdaq Stock Market subsequently delisted
SeraCare's shares.

For more details, contact Nicole Lavallee, Esq. and Julie Bai,
Esq. of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, 425
California St., Suite 2100, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone:
(415) 433-3200 or (800) 516-9926, E-mail: sflaw@bermanesq.com,
Web site: http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/SeraCare-Cplt.pdf.


SERACARE LIFE: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, initiated a Class
Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on behalf of a class (the
"Class") consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc.
("SeraCare" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:SRLS) (Nasdaq:SRLSE)
between February 9, 2005 and December 19, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint charges SeraCare and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning SeraCare's operations and financial
performance caused the Company's stock price to become
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. SeraCare
engages in the manufacture and provision of biological products
and services for the diagnostic, therapeutic, drug discovery,
and research organizations worldwide. The Complaint alleges that
throughout the Class Period defendants orchestrated and actively
participated in improper accounting practices in direct
violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). In
doing so, defendants:

     (1) used improper revenue recognition policies and
         practices;

     (2) did not properly account for and value inventory;

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

     (4) neglected to maintain adequate internal controls. As a
         result, defendants were unable to ascertain the true
         financial condition of the Company.

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

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

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy and Michael Goldberg
of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or
(888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site:
http://www.glancylaw.com.


SFBC INTERNATIONAL: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, on behalf of investors who purchased
securities of SFBC International Inc. (Nasdaq: SFCC) between
February 17, 2004 to December 15, 2005, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
SFBC, Lisa Krinsky (Chairman, COO), Arnold Hantman (CEO), and E.
Cooper Shamblen (V.P. Clinical Operations), 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 Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law
Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, Phone (888) 643-6735 or (610) 660-8000,
Fax: (610) 660-8080, E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com, Web site:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


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 Evergreen
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 Evergreen mutual funds and their respective symbols are as
follows:

Evergreen Adjustable Rate (NASDAQ: ESAAX) (NASDAQ: ESABX)
(NASDAQ: ESACX)
(NASDAQ: EKIZX) (NASDAQ: ESARX)
Evergreen Aggressive Growth (NASDAQ: EAGAX) (NASDAQ: EAGBX)
(NASDAQ: EAGCX)
(NASDAQ: EAGYX)
Evergreen AL Municipal Bond (NASDAQ: EALAX) (NASDAQ: EALBX)
(NASDAQ: EALZX)
(NASDAQ: EALYX)
Evergreen Asset Allocation (NASDAQ: EAAFX) (NASDAQ: EABFX)
(NASDAQ: EACFX)
(NASDAQ: EAIFX) (NASDAQ: EAXFX)
Evergreen Balanced (NASDAQ: EKBAX) (NASDAQ: EKBBX) (NASDAQ:
EKBCX)
(NASDAQ: EKBYX)
Evergreen CA Municipal (NASDAQ: EOCAX) (NASDAQ: EOCBX) (NASDAQ:
EOCCX)
(NASDAQ: EOCIX)
Evergreen Core Bond (NASDAQ: ESBAX) (NASDAQ: ESBBX) (NASDAQ:
ESBCX)
(NASDAQ: ESBIX) (NASDAQ: ESBSX) (NASDAQ: ESBRX)
Evergreen CT Municipal Bond (NASDAQ: ECTAX) (NASDAQ: ECTBX)
(NASDAQ: ECTCX)
(NASDAQ: ECTYX)
Evergreen Disciplined Value (NASDAQ: EDSAX) (NASDAQ: EDSBX)
(NASDAQ: EDSCX)
(NASDAQ: EDSIX)
Evergreen Diversified Bond (NASDAQ: EKDLX) (NASDAQ: EKDMX)
(NASDAQ: EKDCX)
(NASDAQ: EKDYX)
Evergreen Emerging Markets Growth (NASDAQ: EMGAX) (NASDAQ:
EMGBX)
(NASDAQ: EMGCX) (NASDAQ: EMGYX)
Evergreen Equity Income (NASDAQ: ETRAX) (NASDAQ: ETRBX) (NASDAQ:
ETRCX)
(NASDAQ: EVTRX) (NASDAQ: ETRRX)
Evergreen Equity Index (NASDAQ: ESINX) (NASDAQ: ESIOX) (NASDAQ:
ESECX)
(NASDAQ: EVIIX) (NASDAQ: EVISX)
Evergreen FL High-Income Muni Bond (NASDAQ: EFHAX) (NASDAQ:
EFHBX)
(NASDAQ: EFHCX) (NASDAQ: EFHYX)
Evergreen FL Municipal Bond (NASDAQ: EFMAX) (NASDAQ: EFMBX)
(NASDAQ: EMBCX)
(NASDAQ: EFMYX)
Evergreen Fundamental Large Cap (NASDAQ: EGIAX) (NASDAQ: EGIBX)
(NASDAQ: EGICX) (NASDAQ: EVVTX)
Evergreen GA Municipal Bond (NASDAQ: EGAAX) (NASDAQ: EGABX)
(NASDAQ: EGACX)
(NASDAQ: EGAYX)
Evergreen Global Large Cap Equity (NASDAQ: EAGLX) (NASDAQ:
EBGLX)
(NASDAQ: ECGLX) (NASDAQ: EYGLX)
Evergreen Global Opportunities (NASDAQ: EKGAX) (NASDAQ: EKGBX)
(NASDAQ: EKGCX) (NASDAQ: EKGYX)
Evergreen Growth (NASDAQ: EGWAX) (NASDAQ: EGRBX) (NASDAQ: EGRTX)
(NASDAQ: EGRYX)
Evergreen Health Care (NASDAQ: EHABX) (NASDAQ: EHCBX) (NASDAQ:
EHCCX)
(NASDAQ: EHCYX)
Evergreen High-Grade Municipal (NASDAQ: EHGAX) (NASDAQ: EHGBX)
(NASDAQ: EHGCX) (NASDAQ: EHGYX)
Evergreen High-Yield Bond (NASDAQ: EKHAX) (NASDAQ: EKHBX)
(NASDAQ: EKHCX)
(NASDAQ: EKHYX)
Evergreen Institutional Mortgage (NASDAQ: EMSFX)
Evergreen Intermediate Muni Bd (NASDAQ: ESTVX) (NASDAQ: ESTTX)
(NASDAQ: ESTUX) (NASDAQ: ESTSX) (NASDAQ: ESTIX)
Evergreen International Bond (NASDAQ: ESIYX) (NASDAQ: ESIUX)
(NASDAQ: ESIVX) (NASDAQ: ESICX) (NASDAQ: ESIBX)
Evergreen International Equity (NASDAQ: EKZAX) (NASDAQ: EKZBX)
(NASDAQ: EKZCX) (NASDAQ: EKZYX) (NASDAQ: EKZRX)
Evergreen Large Cap Equity (NASDAQ: EVSAX) (NASDAQ: EVSBX)
(NASDAQ: EVSTX)
(NASDAQ: EVSYX) (NASDAQ: EVSSX)
Evergreen Large Cap Value (NASDAQ: EILAX) (NASDAQ: EILBX)
(NASDAQ: EILCX)
(NASDAQ: EILIX)
Evergreen Large Company Growth (NASDAQ: EKJAX) (NASDAQ: EKJBX)
(NASDAQ: EKJCX) (NASDAQ: EKJYX)
Evergreen Limited Duration (NASDAQ: ESDAX) (NASDAQ: ESDBX)
(NASDAQ: ESDCX)
(NASDAQ: ESDIX) (NASDAQ: ESDSX)
Evergreen MD Municipal Bond (NASDAQ: EMDAX) (NASDAQ: EMDDX)
(NASDAQ: EMDCX)
(NASDAQ: EMDYX)
Evergreen Mid Cap Growth (NASDAQ: EKAAX) (NASDAQ: EKABX)
(NASDAQ: EKACX)
(NASDAQ: EKAYX)
Evergreen Municipal Bond (NASDAQ: EKEAX) (NASDAQ: EKEBX)
(NASDAQ: EKECX)
(NASDAQ: EKEYX)
Evergreen NC Municipal Bond (NASDAQ: ENCMX) (NASDAQ: ENCBX)
(NASDAQ: ENCCX)
(NASDAQ: ENCYX)
Evergreen NJ Municipal Bond (NASDAQ: ENJAX) (NASDAQ: ENJBX)
(NASDAQ: ENJCX)
(NASDAQ: ENJYX)
Evergreen NY Municipal (NASDAQ: EOYAX) (NASDAQ: EOYBX) (NASDAQ:
EOYCX)
(NASDAQ: EOYIX)
Evergreen Omega (NASDAQ: EKOAX) (NASDAQ: EKOBX) (NASDAQ: EKOCX)
(NASDAQ: EOMYX) (NASDAQ: EKORX)
Evergreen PA Municipal (NASDAQ: EKVAX) (NASDAQ: EKVBX) (NASDAQ:
EKVCX)
(NASDAQ: EKVYX)
Evergreen Precious Metals (NASDAQ: EKWAX) (NASDAQ: EKWBX)
(NASDAQ: EKWCX)
(NASDAQ: EKWYX)
Evergreen SC Municipal Bond (NASDAQ: EGASX) (NASDAQ: EGBSX)
(NASDAQ: EGCSX)
(NASDAQ: EGSYX)
Evergreen Select High Yield Bd (NASDAQ: EHYIX) (NASDAQ: EHYSX)
Evergreen Short-Interm Bond (NASDAQ: EFXAX) (NASDAQ: EFXBX)
(NASDAQ: EFXCX)
(NASDAQ: ESFIX) (NASDAQ: EFISX)
Evergreen Short-Interm Municipal (NASDAQ: EMUAX) (NASDAQ: EMUBX)
(NASDAQ: EMUCX) (NASDAQ: EMUNX)
Evergreen Small Cap Value (NASDAQ: ESKAX) (NASDAQ: ESKBX)
(NASDAQ: ESKCX)
(NASDAQ: ESKIX)
Evergreen Special Equity (NASDAQ: ESEAX) (NASDAQ: ESEBX)
(NASDAQ: ESQCX)
(NASDAQ: ESDDX) (NASDAQ: ESSEX)
Evergreen Special Values (NASDAQ: ESPAX) (NASDAQ: ESPBX)
(NASDAQ: ESPCX)
(NASDAQ: ESPIX) (NASDAQ: ESPRX)
Evergreen Strategic Core Bond Port(NASDAQ: ENFDX)
Evergreen Strategic Growth  (NASDAQ: ESGAX) (NASDAQ: ESGBX)
(NASDAQ: ESGTX) (NASDAQ: ESGIX) (NASDAQ: ESGSX) (NASDAQ: ESGRX)
Evergreen Strategic Income (NASDAQ: EKSAX) (NASDAQ: EKSBX)
(NASDAQ: EKSCX)
(NASDAQ: EKSYX)
Evergreen Strategic Municipal Bd (NASDAQ: VMPAX) (NASDAQ: VMPIX)
(NASDAQ: DHICX) (NASDAQ: VMPYX)
Evergreen Strategic Value (NASDAQ: ESSAX) (NASDAQ: ESSBX)
(NASDAQ: ESSCX)
(NASDAQ: ESSIX) (NASDAQ: ESSSX)
Evergreen U.S. Government (NASDAQ: EUSAX) (NASDAQ: EUSBX)
(NASDAQ: EUSCX)
(NASDAQ: EUSYX)
Evergreen Ultra Short Opportunities (NASDAQ: EUBAX) (NASDAQ:
EUBBX)
(NASDAQ: EUBCX) (NASDAQ: EUBIX)
Evergreen Utility & Telecomm (NASDAQ: EVUAX) (NASDAQ: EVUBX)
(NASDAQ: EVUCX) (NASDAQ: EVUYX)
Evergreen VA Municipal Bond (NASDAQ: EGVRX) (NASDAQ: EVABX)
(NASDAQ: EVACX)
(NASDAQ: EGVZX)

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  * * *