CAR_Public/060112.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, January 12, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 9


                            Headlines

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: LA Court Approves Overtime Suit Settlement
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: OH Court OKs Amended FLSA Violations Suit
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: OH Court Consolidates FLSA Violations Suit
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: WA Court OKs Wardrobing Lawsuit Settlement
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in OH

ALABAMA: Discrimination Suit Defense Costing State Over $15 Mil
BELK INC.: Nets Share in Visa/Mastercard Antitrust Settlement
CHALK'S OCEAN: New Lawsuit Filed in FL Over 2005 Seaplane Crash
CHICAGO TRANSIT: Suit Filed Over Availability of "Chicago Cards"
COLORADO: Alcoholic-Beverage Makers Strike Back at Plaintiffs

CONEXANT INC.: NY Court Affirms Preliminary Settlement Approval
COOLEY GODWARD: National Law Journal Honors Pro Bono Victory
CYBERONICS INC.: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in TX
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Reaches Settlement For Canada Consumer Lawsuit
FLORIDA: Motley Rice Files Suit V. Firms For 2004 Canadair Crash

FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS: Belden Village Sues To Stop "Junk" Faxes
HOLLISTER CO.: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court
IDENTIX INC.: OR Court Grants Summary Judgment in Consumer Suit
JOHN B. SANFILIPPO: Recalls Mixed Nuts due to Undeclared Peanuts
KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: NY Court Affirms Preliminary Suit Pact Approval

LOG HOUSE: Recalls Assorted Flavored Chips For Undeclared Milk
MEDTRONIC INC.: Various Suits Filed Due To Faulty Defibrillators
MISSOURI: Jury Election Begins For Jasper County Fen-Phen Case
MOTOROLA INC.: IL Court Grants Certification to Securities Suit
NETFLIX INC.: FTC Asks CA Judge to Reject Proposed Settlement

OHIO: Judge Urges Lawyers to Settle Suit Over 2005 Chemical Leak
SEARS ROEBUCK: Trial in IL Securities Lawsuit Set September 2006
SEARS ROEBUCK: Discovery Proceeds in IL ERISA Violations Lawsuit
SEARS ROEBUCK: Asks Court To Partially Dismiss SRAC Stock Suit
SEARS ROEBUCK: Court Dismisses Appeal of IL Investor Suit Stay

SEARS ROEBUCK: NY Court Dismisses Investor Suit V. Kmart Merger
SEARS ROEBUCK: IL Court Mulls Dismissal of Suit V. Kmart Merger
STEWART & STEVENSON: Faces 2 Antitrust Fraud Lawsuits in E.D. MI
TOSHIBA AMERICA: Settles CA Defective Satellite Pro 6100s Suit
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Smoked Trout Due to Listeria Contamination


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in FL
GREAT WOLF: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in WI
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Wechsler Harwood Lodges CA Securities Fraud Suit
SFBC INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Fraud Suit in NJ


                            *********


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: LA Court Approves Overtime Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for Los Angeles County granted
preliminary approval to the settlement of the class action filed
against Abercrombie & Fitch Co., alleging violations of overtime
wage laws, styled "Bryan T. Kimbell, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated and on Behalf of the Public v.
Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc."

The plaintiffs, on behalf of their respective purported class,
seek injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of economic and
liquidated damages.  The plaintiffs allege that California
general and store managers were entitled to receive overtime pay
as "non-exempt" employees under California wage and hour laws.  

An answer was filed in the Kimbell case on September 4, 2002 and
the parties are in the process of discovery.  The trial court
has ordered a class of store managers in California certified
for limited purposes.  The parties have agreed to a settlement
of the matter, which must be approved by the California Superior
Court for Los Angeles County. The parties filed a joint motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement on August 26, 2005.
The California Superior Court for Los Angeles County
preliminarily approved the settlement on September 14, 2005, and
a hearing to consider final approval of the settlement has been
set for January 12, 2006.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: OH Court OKs Amended FLSA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio allowed plaintiffs to amend the class action styled
"Melissa Mitchell, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and
Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc."

The suit originally alleged that assistant managers and store
managers were not paid overtime compensation in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio law.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Mitchell case on
July 28, 2003.  The case was transferred from the Western
Division to the Eastern Division of the Southern District of
Ohio on April 21, 2004. The plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint to add Scott Oros as a named plaintiff on October 28,
2004. The defendants subsequently renewed their motion to
dismiss, which was denied as to the two original plaintiffs. The
state law claim of plaintiff Oros was dismissed by the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on May
17, 2005 and his Fair Labor Standards Act claim remains pending.

The defendants filed an answer to plaintiffs' October 28, 2004
amended complaint on May 23, 2005 and the parties have commenced
discovery. On June 17, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
further amend the complaint to add claims under the laws of a
number of states, and the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio granted that motion on November 8,
2005. On June 24, 2005, the defendants filed motions for summary
judgment seeking summary judgment on all of the claims of each
of the three plaintiffs. On July 1, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a
Rule 23 Motion for Certification of a Class of State Wage Act
Claimants and a Motion for Designation of FLSA Claims as
Collective Action and Authority to Send Notice to Similarly
Situated Employees.  The defendants intend to file their
opposition to both motions in early December 2005.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: OH Court Consolidates FLSA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.,
styled "Casey Fuller, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.," has
been consolidated with the pending Mitchell suit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

The suit was originally filed on December 28, 2004 in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.  
The plaintiff alleges that he and other similarly situated
assistant managers and managers in training were not paid
properly calculated overtime during their employment and seeks
overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The defendant
filed an answer on February 7, 2005.

The defendant filed an answer on February 7, 2005. Because of
its similarities to the Mitchell case, the defendant filed, on
April 19, 2005, a motion to stay the Fuller case pending the
outcome of the Mitchell case or, in the alternative, transfer
the Fuller case to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio. On May 31, 2005, the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee transferred
the Fuller case to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.  On September 2, 2005, the Fuller
case was consolidated with the Mitchell case for all purposes.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: WA Court OKs Wardrobing Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Superior Court of King County granted final
approval to the settlement of the class action filed against
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. in the Washington Superior Court of King
County, over the Company's alleged "wardrobing" policy, styled
"Shelby Port, et al v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc."  

In 2003, an action was filed on behalf of a purported class of
employees and former employees of the Company alleging that the
Company required its employees to purchase and wear specified
clothes during specified times in violation of Washington law
and seeking, on behalf of the purported class, injunctive relief
and unspecified amounts of economic and liquidated damages. The
Company has filed an answer in this legal proceeding.

The plaintiffs filed, and the Company opposed, a motion to
certify a class of employees in the State of Washington. The
trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion and the Company has
commenced a discretionary appeal thereof.  The parties have
agreed to a settlement of this matter, which must be approved by
the trial court.  The parties filed a joint motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement on or about June 6,
2005.  The court preliminarily approved the settlement on June
13, 2005 and a final approval hearing was held on September 19,
2005.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Company faces several securities fraud class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on behalf of a purported class of all
persons who purchased or acquired shares of Class A Common Stock
of the Company between June 2, 2005 and August 16, 2005.

The first suit was filed on September 2, 2005, styled "Robert
Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Company, et al."  The suit also
named as defendants the Company's officers.  In September and
October of 2005, five other purported class actions were
subsequently filed against the Company and other defendants in
the same Court. All six cases seek to allege claims under the
federal securities laws as a result of a decline in the price of
the Company's Class A Common Stock in the summer of 2005.

On November 1, 2005, a motion to consolidate all these purported
class actions into the first-filed case was filed by some of the
plaintiffs.  The Company has joined in that motion.


ALABAMA: Discrimination Suit Defense Costing State Over $15 Mil
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for the state of Alabama say that the state has spent
more than $15 million in legal and consulting fees to defend a
discrimination lawsuit, which could result in payouts that would
dwarf the $250 million cost of a similar lawsuit known as the
Reynolds case, The Mobile Register reports.

Alice Ann Byrne, the general counsel for the state Personnel
Department told The Mobile Register that the professional fees
include more than $10 million paid since 2002 for two consulting
firms to analyze the hiring and promotion practices going back
to 1988 at every key state agency. The only key agency not being
reviewed by the consultants is the Alabama Department of
Transportation (DOT), the department sued in the much-publicized
Reynolds case.

That lawsuit, which was filed in 1985 by the late Johnny
Reynolds against DOT, his employer, had alleged that the
department did not promote him because he was black. Others
later joined the suit, which gained class action status.
According to the attorney general's office, it remains one of
Alabama's oldest active court cases and has cost the state more
than $250 million in settlements, fines, legal fees and other
costs, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (September 27,
2005) reports.

The lawsuit against the remaining state agencies is known as the
Crum case, so named after its initial plaintiff, former state
employee Eugene Crum. The plaintiffs in that case are asking the
court to certify the case as a class action, as occurred what
has with the Reynolds case.

Deputy Attorney General Keith Miller told The Mobile Register,
"In a nutshell, the Crum case seeks to cover every state agency
except the Department of Transportation. It alleges systematic
discrimination in the hiring and promotion of minorities
throughout state government." He adds, "If the judge were to
certify a class, it could have the potential to be a much more
expensive litigation than Reynolds."

Ms. Byrne, the Personnel Department lawyer, told The Mobile
Register that the consulting fees, while high, are necessary.
She explains, "The Crum case is almost exactly the same as the
Reynolds case, which was against one state agency and has cost
$250 million, but in this one, 23 state agencies are defendants,
and we certainly don't want to end up with another Reynolds."
Ms. Byrne added, "What we learned with Reynolds is, we can't go
in without being fully and totally prepared, and that's what
we're going to do."

Montgomery, Alabama-based U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson,
who has and continues to preside over the highway department
case, also is handling the Crum case. In addition, the lead
plaintiffs firm in the Reynolds case, Birmingham-based Gordon,
Silberman, Wiggins & Childs, is also handling the Crum case. The
firm is asking Judge Thompson to certify a class of plaintiffs
that would include virtually all current and former black
employees going back to 1988, as well as blacks who applied for
state jobs during that period but didn't get them, according to
Ms. Byrne.

A plaintiffs' brief estimates that the class exceeds 90,000.
That same brief pointed out that a class action is the best
means of correcting employment practices that
"disproportionately eliminates African-Americans at each of its
stages." The plaintiffs contend that what the state needs and
what can only be provided through the class action are
structural changes throughout the state's hiring practices. The
changes include a restructuring of the state's methods of
recruiting employees and testing them. The tests, as now
designed, result in lower scores for black employees and harm
their ability to win promotions, according to the plaintiffs'
court filings.

If Judge Thompson were to refuse to let the case proceed as a
class action, individual plaintiffs could still proceed with
discrimination complaints against the state, as they can now.
With such a ruling, the state would dodge the financial bullet
of making court-ordered restitution to those thousands of class
members, and of paying what would surely be tens and perhaps
hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees to the plaintiffs'
attorneys.

Of the estimated $250 million paid out in the Reynolds case,
more than $112 million was spent on litigation-related costs,
including about $50 million in legal fees, much of it paid to
the Gordon Silberman firm. Bob Childs is the firm's lead
attorney in the case.

Ms. Byrne and other lawyers for the state told The Mobile
Register that they're reasonably confident that the state will
prevail in the Crum case and avoid a repeat of the Reynolds
case. The reason, according them, is the data that has been
generated by the consulting firms.

The Crum case began in 1994, because of a six-year-statute of
limitations. It covers class members allegedly harmed since
1988.

The two consulting firms hired by the state, Tallahassee-based
ERS Group and SHL USA Inc. of Colorado, provide two different
types of analyses, according to Ms. Byrne. She points out that
ERS, which has been paid more than $6 million, has compiled and
analyzed statistical information on applications, hirings, job
evaluations and promotions going back to 1988 and because the
case remains active, the firm must continue to provide those
services. She adds that tens of thousands of people apply for
state jobs each year, and then pointed out, "All those have to
be analyzed." On the other hand, according to Ms. Byrne, SHL USA
was hired to analyze the qualifications required for the
estimated 1,600 classifications of state jobs and, when
applicable, the tests that applicants must take. She explains
that those classifications and tests have gone through many
changes since 1988, and all must be researched and analyzed.

The records generated by the consultants show that about 40
percent of state employees are black, which Ms. Byrne said is
nearly twice the rate in the private sector, and proves that the
state has not engaged in a systematic attempt to discriminate.
She told The Mobile Register, "We feel very good about it. We do
not feel there has been what they call disparate impact." While
there might be some black employees who have legitimate
discrimination claims it is not the same as having a class of
all state employees with such claims, according to her.

The state has been waiting several years for Judge Thompson to
decide if the case should proceed as a class action. If he
issues such a ruling, Ms. Byrne pointed out that the state would
appeal. She told The Mobile Register though, "Still, we're
spending too much money for a case that we have not had a class
certified on. We really need to stop the hemorrhaging, because
the state agencies can't afford it."

In December, state Rep. Alvin Holmes, D-Montgomery, asked for a
report of all professional fees spent to date on the Crum case.
Last week, the state comptroller's office provided an accounting
going back to 2002. That report showed about $10.1 million to
the consultants, and about $3.1 million to eight different law
firms, including $379,975 to the small Mobile firm headed by
Willie Huntley Jr. Capell Howard of Montgomery has earned
$970,795 since 2002, the most of any of the firms. Ms. Byrne
estimated that the state had spent about $2 million in legal and
consulting fees prior to the amounts shown in the comptroller's
report.

The suit is styled, "Crum, et al v. State of Alabama, et al.
Case No. 2:94-cv-00356-MHT-CSC," filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern
Division, under Judge Myron H. Thompson with referral to Judge
Charles S. Coody. Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Russell
Wayne Adams, Henry Wallace Blizzard, III, and Joseph Hiram
Calvin, III, of Wiggins Childs Quinn & Pantanzis, PC, 301 19th
St., North Birmingham, AL 35203-3204, Phone: 205-314-0640 or
205-314-0500, Fax: 205-458-1259 or 205-254-1500, E-mail:
radams@wcqp.com, hwb@wcqp.com and jcalvin@wcqp.com. Representing
the Defendant/s are:

     (1) Alice Ann Byrne of State Personnel Department, 64 North
         Union St., Folsom Administrative Building, Suite 316
         Montgomery, AL 36130, Phone: (334) 242-3450, Fax: (334)
         353-4481, E-mail: aabyrne@personnel.state.al.us;

     (2) Richard Taylor Abbot, Jr. of Spain & Gillon, L.L.C.,
         2117 Second Ave., North, The Zinszer Building,
         Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: 205-328-4100, Fax: 205-
         324-8866, E-mail: anc@spain-gillon.com;  

     (3) Andrew P. Campbell of Campbell Waller & Poer, LLC,
         2100-A SouthBridge Parkway, Suite 450, Birmingham, AL
         35209-1303, Phone: (205) 803-0051, Fax: 205-803-0053,
         E-mail: acampbell@cwp-law.com;

     (4) Willie Julius Huntley, Jr. of The Huntley Firm, PC,
         P.O. Box 370, Mobile, AL 36601, Phone: 251-434-0007,
         Fax: 251-434-0086, E-mail: huntfirm@bellsouth.net; and

     (5) Christopher W. Weller, Constance S. Barker, Henry Clay
         Barnett, Jr. and Mai Lan Fogal Isler of Capell Howard,
         PC, P.O. Box 2069, Montgomery, AL 36102-2069, Phone:
         334-241-8066, 334-241-8048, 334-241-8059 and 334-241-
         8069, Fax: 323-8888, 241-8248, 241-8259 and 334-241-
         8269, E-mail: cww@chlaw.com, csb@chlaw.com,
         hcb@chlaw.com and mfi@chlaw.com.


BELK INC.: Nets Share in Visa/Mastercard Antitrust Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Belk, Inc. was a member of the plaintiffs' class in the Visa
Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation, a class action lawsuit
in which the class consisted of all businesses and organizations
in the United States that accepted Visa and MasterCard debit and
credit cards for payment at any time during the period October
25, 1992 to June 21, 2003.

The class plaintiffs claimed that, through their "Honor All
Cards" policies, Visa and MasterCard forced merchants to accept
Visa and MasterCard signature debit card transactions at
supracompetitive prices.  In April 2003, Visa and MasterCard
settled with the plaintiffs' class by agreeing to pay $3.05
billion over time into a settlement fund.

During the third quarter, the Company received notice that its
portion of the VISA Settlement was calculated to be
approximately $1.7 million.  The Company recorded this amount as
a reduction to selling, general and administrative expenses
during the quarter ended October 29, 2005.


CHALK'S OCEAN: New Lawsuit Filed in FL Over 2005 Seaplane Crash
---------------------------------------------------------------
Relatives of three of the victims of the December 19, 2005
Chalk's Ocean Airways plane crash off Miami Beach secured legal
aviation specialist, The Nolan Law Group out of Chicago,
Illinois, to pursue compensation for their losses, The Bahama
Journal reports.

In a recent a press conference at the Radisson Cable Beach
Resort, attorney Manuel Von Ribbeck told reporters that on his
firm filed a complaint against Flying Boat Inc., the operators
of Chalks' Ocean Airways, in the Circuit Court of Miami Dade
County, Florida. The Nolan Law Group will represent the families
of Genevieve Ellis, Salome Rolle, and Niesha Fox.

According to Mr. Von Ribbeck, the complaint filed by his firm
alleges that the Grumman G-73T seaplane that was built in 1947
crashed as a result of failure on the part of the Company to
have the plane properly maintained. It also notes that old
aircraft should be subjected to rigorous inspections and
maintenance to monitor the effects of saltwater erosion. The
Chalk's plane that crashed was 58 years old.

Mr. Von Ribbeck told reporters that the group will not limit
itself to a class action lawsuit, but intends to go after the
insurance policies of everyone connected to the airline's
operations. He believes that all of the maintenance people as
well as companies that made components and parts for the
aircraft should be held liable because they all played a part in
the operation of the aircraft.

The firm will seek to obtain not only the Chalk's insurance
policy, but also whatever other assets the airline may own. Mr.
Von Ribbeck told reporters, "Those additional defendants I am
sure are also insured, and I'm sure they have assets that could
be used to benefit or compensate for the damages that the
families have suffered."

According to the National Transportation Safety Board in the
United States, the seaplane had cracks in both wings and not
just one as was originally reported.

The group plans to use a series of reconstruction exercises
intended to give its investigators better insight into what
caused the crash. Mr. Von Ribbeck said former chairman of the
NTSB James Hall, who is now a part of the Nolan Law Group, would
assist investigations.

Jeff Charlton, the oldest son of Genevieve Ellis, said he is not
too concerned about the amount of the settlement, but wants to
know the exact cause of the crash. He told reporters, "I just
want to find out the truth and get to the bottom of this before
it gets too late and they take all the papers and disappear with
[them] and the family wouldn't know what happened." Mr. Charlton
reiterates, "It isn't about the money. I just want to find
justice and the truth about what's [going] on. There [isn't any]
amount of money [that] can bring back my [mother] or my aunt, so
it isn't about the money."


CHICAGO TRANSIT: Suit Filed Over Availability of "Chicago Cards"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The inability of a South Shore-area public transit commuter to
find a Chicago Transit Authority "Chicago Card" prompted the
filing of class action lawsuit that may be amended to a racial
discrimination complaint, The Chicago Defender reports.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Tiffany Chancellor, an
African-American, whose attorneys say is spending as much as
three times the cost of riding CTA to and from work because of
the inability to find the "Chicago Card" in stores near where
she lives near 69th Street and Clyde Avenue. Al Hofeld Jr., an
attorney for Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LCC, in
Chicago told The Defender, "The CTA is running out of the
Chicago Card or they have ran out of Chicago Cards." He also
told The Chicago Defender, "Our client is a young woman who
lives in the South Shore neighborhood on the South Side of
Chicago. She tried various currency exchanges but couldn't find
any Chicago Cards. She works downtown and tried to find the
'Chicago Card' at various locations downtown, and still found
none."

The `Chicago Card' is a new transit card system launched by CTA
last year, which according to them would make paying fares and
collecting monies an easier and smoother transition. On January
1, the CTA increased it fares by 25 cents and announced that
riders who used cash to board on buses and trains would have to
pay a full fare of $2 each time they boarded. Those using the
transit cards could continue to pay 2005 fare prices with two
free transfers within a two-hour period.

Attorney Daniel A. Edelman told The Chicago Defender that as a
result, Ms. Chancellor has been required to pay about  $12 a day
roundtrip in cash to take three buses to drop her child off to
school and then get to her job. He contends that if she had
found adequate locations to purchase the Chicago Card, his
client would only pay an average $4 roundtrip per day.

Mr. Hefeld added, "We believe thousands are in the same
situation. The legal theory is that the CTA is a public utility,
and by not having enough (Chicago) cards, it is not honoring its
published fares and rates." He also told The Chicago Defender,
"We don't know when will have our first hearing on this
complaint. In the meantime, we will probably be filing an
amended complaint Monday. We believe there is a deeper issue
here. We believe that the outlets that are distributing the
cards are mostly in white affluent areas. So if that is true, we
believe there may also be some form of discrimination that is
happening here."

CTA spokeswoman Ibi Antongiorgi had no comment on lawsuit. He
did tell The Chicago Defender, "We can't comment on a lawsuit
that we haven't seen. We do have plenty of 'Chicago Cards' in
stock, and we sent them out promptly to all vendors who
requested them." However, random calls placed to "Chicago Card"
vendors, listed by the CTA, seemed to confirm that there is a
shortage of the "Chicago Card" available.

Ana Lozoya, who works as a cashier at the 43rd & Ashland
Currency, told The Chicago Defender that her store ran out of
the cards early last week. She said new cards are on order and
she expected them to come in soon, she didn't know though how
many cards were on order.

A similar problem is being faced by the 7-Eleven store located
at 343 S. Dearborn St., according to store clerk Sandy Matthew.
He told The Chicago Defender that his store has plenty of
regular CTA cards, such as 7-day and 30-day passes, but no
"Chicago Card." Mr. Matthew also said that the store's manager
hopes to get a new supply in sometime this week.

CTA riders who are still having difficulty finding the "Chicago
Card" at area vendors can go the CTA main office at 567 W. Lake
St., or order the cards online at http://www.transitchicago.com,
Mr. Antongiorgi told The Chicago Defender.


COLORADO: Alcoholic-Beverage Makers Strike Back at Plaintiffs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Following their victory in a Colorado class action case that
claimed the industry marketed to minors and sought
"disgorgement" of profits from money the youngsters allegedly
spent on their products, a group of alcoholic-beverage makers
recently decided to make the losers pay, MarketWatch reports.

Back in mid-September, a district court judge in Colorado
dismissed "with disfavor" the Kreft case, which had targeted
Coors Brewing, Bacardi, Brown-Forman, Heineken, Diageo, Mike's
Hard Lemonade, The Beer Institute, a trade association, and
others. The suit stems from the use of drinking advertisements
that are aimed at minors.

In a seven-page order, Judge James Zimmerman berated the suit
saying that the plaintiffs failed to show that they or any of
their children suffered damages because of the advertisements.
In his order, the judge stated, "It clearly appears that the
plaintiffs cannot prove facts in support of their claims."  In
addition to dismissing the suit, Judge Zimmerman also ordered
the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' legal fees, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (September 23, 2005) reports.

The suit was originally filed in December 2003 by law firm
Straus & Boies, LLP. It listed Randy and Colleen Kreft as lead
plaintiffs. The alcohol-marketing lawsuit had accused Coors of
using the Coors Light Twins to promote the PG-13-rated film
"Scary Movie 3." The suit also alleged that Bacardi advised
visitors to its website on how to "avoid any dirty looks from
Mom as you reach for a Bacardi bottle at 8 a.m.," while
preparing a "breakfast with a bang" consisting of rum,
grapefruit and sugar, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(September 23, 2005) reports.

Just before Christmas, the defendants filed to collect the legal
fees that the plaintiffs were ordered to pay, totaling more than
$350,000. While the group said that the fee wouldn't cover all
the money spent defending them, it isn't the cash they want, but
the precedent and a deterrent. There are virtually identical
class action cases working their way through the courts in five
other states: Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, West Virginia and
Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia. Any plaintiff success
could lead to copycats in rest of the country and a landslide of
expensive litigation for the industry.

Tom Pirko, president of Bevmark, an industry consultant told
MarketWatch, "I think it is a largely symbolic gesture and I
doubt that those fees will ever be collected." He adds, "Sure,
they'd like to get the money but what they are really thinking
about is that they have to more than stand firm."

Though they have all, either in the media or in court filings,
rejected claims they market to minors, none of the companies
contacted would comment on the record about the decision to seek
fees from the plaintiffs. However, Coors was the exception, in a
written response to MarketWatch questions, the Company said,
"The court found the case so lacking in merit that it took the
unusual step of ordering the plaintiffs to pay the legal fees of
the companies they sued."

The plaintiff's lawyers are also refusing to comment on the
fees, in particular David Boies, III, of the Fairfax, Virginia
firm of Straus & Boies, didn't return repeated phone calls
seeking comment. He has until later this month to respond to the
fee filing but the judge will ultimately decide how much is owed
and who Mr. Boies, his clients or both is on the hook for it.

All defendants made the filing for fees jointly, the same way
the defense was run. Three people involved in the discussions
told MarketWatch that the decision was unanimous. The same
people also said that the intent was to send a clear message and
act as deterrent to others suits.

The industry, according to Mr. Pirko "is feeling some
vulnerability and I think they have come to the conclusion that
retreat isn't in their best interests." Benj Steinman, editor of
Beer Marketer's Insights, agrees by telling MarketWatch, "They
are trying to make an example of [Mr. Boies]. And this seemed to
be a particularly flimsy case."

In addition, Mr. Steinman also noted that the "highly unusual"
level of cooperation among the defendants. Beer companies
compete ferociously, as do spirits makers. And the two sectors
go at each other hammer-and-tong over both market share and
taxation/regulation issues. He notes, "I guess they are facing a
common enemy and not knocking each other around for a change.
You won't see a heck of a lot of that."

George Hacker, director of the Alcohol Policies Project of the
Center for Science in the Public Interest, told MarketWatch that
the fee award adds a powerful disincentive to suing the industry
on similar claims. Mr. Hacker explains, "Suing a mega-billion
dollar corporation to start with is enough of a deterrent for
most plaintiffs, but this is certainly an additional one," he
also says, "These are difficult cases to bring but having to pay
the defendant [what are] essentially damages only adds to the
burden." In the past, Mr. Hacker's group has locked horns with
the alcoholic-beverage industry, but it wasn't directly involved
in the Colorado case.

The rights of winning defendants to seek fees vary widely from
state to state and between their courts and federal ones. But
the awarding of them is still rare. Tobacco firms have been
successful in virtually all of the class action cases brought
against them but have almost never been able to recoup any of
their legal costs. A representative of Altria Group's Philip
Morris, for instance, could remember only one case from almost a
decade ago.

Paul Bland, a staff attorney with Trial Lawyers for Public
Justice told MarketWatch, "I have not seen this very often. The
standards for these kinds of sanctions are very high and they
are awarded very infrequently." He notes that such an award "is
extremely rare and usually only [comes] in the cases of the most
serious abuse."

If the strategy to seek fees helps ward off other lawsuits, it
also carries some risk. A company's public image could be in
jeopardy if an individual plaintiff ends up in financial
distress as a result and that fact is widely publicized. Michael
Kempner, CEO of MWW Group, a public relations agency owned by
Interpublic Group told MarketWatch, "Right or wrong, you can
never win going against parents and their children in the court
of public opinion." He explains, "It will always side with them
- particularly against a liquor company."

Mr. Kempner pointed out that people may not sympathize much with
lawyers who get hurt, but a fee award that breaks the bank of a
middle-class family is a different matter. "The potential for a
public relations disaster is quite high - particularly if the
plaintiffs are actually forced to pay," according to him.


CONEXANT INC.: NY Court Affirms Preliminary 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 Conexant, Inc., certain of its officers and directors
and the underwriters of its initial and secondary public
offerings.

In November 2001, Collegeware Asset Management, LP, on behalf of
itself and a putative class of persons who purchased the common
stock of the Company between June 23, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
filed a complaint alleging violations of federal securities
laws.  The complaint alleges that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by issuing and selling the Company's
common stock in the initial and secondary offerings without
disclosing to investors that the underwriters had

     (1) solicited and received undisclosed and excessive
         commissions or other compensation and

     (2) entered into agreements requiring certain of their
         customers to purchase the stock in the aftermarket at
         escalating prices.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages. The complaint was
consolidated with approximately 300 other actions making similar
allegations regarding the public offerings of hundreds of other
companies during 1998 through 2000.  In June 2004, the Company,
and its then named officers and directors entered into a
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs that will, among other
things, result in the dismissal with prejudice of all the claims
against them.  On February 15, 2005, the Court issued a decision
certifying a class action for settlement purposes and granting
preliminary approval of the settlement, subject to modification
of certain bar orders contemplated by the settlement. On August
31,2005, the court affirmed its ruling granting preliminary
approval to the settlement.

The settlement remains subject to a number of conditions and
final approval. It is possible that the parties will not reach
agreement on the final settlement or that the settlement will
not be approved. Even if the settlement is approved, individual
class members will have an opportunity to "opt out" of the class
and to file their own lawsuits, and some may do so.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


COOLEY GODWARD: National Law Journal Honors Pro Bono Victory
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cooley Godward, LLP, reports that Santillan, et
al. v. Gonzales, et al., a major impact pro bono matter
successfully handled by the firm, was selected by the National
Law Journal (NLJ) as one of the country's top pro bono cases of
2005. Only four pro bono cases nationwide earned this
recognition.

"We strive to give generously of our time, talents and resources
to the communities in which we practice, and pro bono work is
one of the primary ways we fulfill that goal," said Stephen
Neal, chairman and CEO of Cooley Godward. "It is extremely
gratifying to see the Firm's commitment and the team's hard work
and dedication acknowledged in such a positive and visible way."

In a case seeking to protect the rights of up to 12,000
immigrants, Cooley and the Texas Lawyers' Committee for Civil
Rights filed a nationwide class action lawsuit against the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) for denying documentation of lawful status to
lawful permanent residents. The suit sought to compel the DHS to
provide evidence of lawful status to thousands of immigrants who
had been granted such status by the immigration courts.

In August 2005, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel of the U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California, granted plaintiffs'
summary judgment motion, ruling that the DHS policy of
withholding documentation from persons already determined to be
lawful permanent residents by immigration courts was arbitrary
and capricious and violated DHS's non-discretionary duty to
issue documentation in a timely manner.

On December 22, 2005, the matter was definitively concluded in
the district court when Judge Patel issued a permanent
injunction against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
ordering the agency to provide documentation of lawful status
("green cards") to class members within a specified period of
time.

The Santillan team was comprised of Cooley partners John Dwyer
and Michelle Rhyu, pro bono counsel Maureen Alger, associates
Rueben Chen and Rob McHenry, paralegal Jeannine Douglas and
administrative assistant Debra Elliott.

In 2005, for the third consecutive year, Cooley met its goal of
contributing at least three percent of its attorneys' billable
hours to pro bono work.

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

For more details, contact Ashley Kanigher of Cooley Godward,
LLP, Phone: 650-843-5721, E-mail: akanigher@cooley.com, Web
site: http://www.cooley.com.


CYBERONICS INC.: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas ordered consolidated the two securities class actions
filed against Cyberonics, Inc. and certain of its current
officers.

On June 17, 2005, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of its current officers in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
The lawsuit is styled "Richard Darquea v. Cyberonics Inc., et
al., Civil Action No. H:05-cv-02121." A second lawsuit with
similar allegations, styled "Stanley Sved v. Cyberonics, Inc.,
et al., Civil Action No. H:05-cv-2414," was filed on July 12,
2005. The complaints generally allege, among other things, that
the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading
statements relating to the Company's Vagus Nerve Stimulation
Therapy System device (the "VNS Device").

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed
to disclose that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the FDA)
had "safety and efficacy concerns" about the use of the VNS
Device for the treatment of depression and that the defendants
failed to disclose the existence of certain "manufacturing and
quality practices," as detailed in the FDA's December 22, 2004
Warning Letter, that negatively impacted the Company's prospects
for obtaining FDA approval to use the VNS Device to treat
depression. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons
and entities, except those named as defendants, who purchased or
otherwise acquired Company securities during the period June 15,
2004 through October 1, 2004.  The complainants seek unspecified
monetary damages and equitable or injunctive relief, if
available.

On July 28, 2005, the Court consolidated the two cases under
Civil Action No. H-05-2121, styled "In re Cyberonics, Inc.
Securities Litigation" and entered a scheduling order. Under the
terms of the order, the Court will select a lead plaintiff who
will then have 60 days to file an amended complaint. Defendants
will have 60 days to answer or respond to the amended complaint.
If defendants move to dismiss the amended complaint, lead
plaintiff will have 60 days to respond and defendants will have
45 days to file a reply.


The suit is styled "Darquea v. Cyberonics Inc et al., case no.
4:05-cv-02121," filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, under Judge Sim Lake.  
Representing the Company is N Scott Fletcher, Vinson & Elkins
LLP, 1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2300, Houston, TX 77002-6760,
Phone: 713-758-3234, Fax: 713-615-5168, E-mail:
sfletcher@velaw.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Elizabeth A. Abbott, John G. Emerson, Scott E. Poynter,
         Emerson Poynter LLP, 2228 Cottondale Lane, Suite 100,
         Little Rock, AR 72202-2037, E-mail:
         john@emersonpoynter.com  

     (2) Mark A Golovach, Mark L Knutson and Jeffrey R. Krinsk,
         Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP, 501 West Broadway, Ste 1250,
         San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-238-1333, Fax: 619-238-
         5425, E-mail: mlk@classactionlaw.com or
         fk@classactionlaw.com  

     (3) Neil Rothstein, David R. Scott, Arthur L Shingler, III
         Scott & Scott LLC, 600 B Street, Ste 1500, San Diego,          
         CA 92101, Phone: 619-233-4565


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Reaches Settlement For Canada Consumer Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Corporation reached a pending settlement in a
class action lawsuit filed by customers in Alberta, Canada, The
Associated Press reports.

According to the financial services provider, customers who
alleged that a check-cashing fee charged in connection with Fast
Cash Advances by National Money Mart, a Canadian subsidiary of
the Company, is a breach of legislation, filed the class action
case back in 2003. The pending settlement is a compromise of the
disputed claims and the Company does not admit to any wrongdoing
or liability.

On November 6, 2003, the Company learned of a suit that alleges
violations of a Canadian federal law proscribing usury and seeks
restitution and damages in an unspecified amount, including
punitive damages. Gareth Young, a former customer of the
Company's Canadian subsidiary, asserted that case on behalf of a
purported class of Alberta borrowers. The "Young" action is
pending in the Court of Queens Bench of Alberta. Plaintiffs in
the case though have signed agreements to arbitrate all disputes
with the Company, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(October 18, 2005) reports.


FLORIDA: Motley Rice Files Suit V. Firms For 2004 Canadair Crash
----------------------------------------------------------------
One of the largest aviation litigation firms in the U.S., Motley
Rice LLC, filed two major lawsuits against Canada-based
Bombardier Inc., as well as U.S. companies General Electric,
Honeywell, Northwest Airlines and KGS Electronics, and others,
on behalf of the families of captain Jesse Rhodes and first
officer Richard Peter Cesarz, victims of the crash of Pinnacle
Airways Flight 708, a Canadair Regional Jet (CRJ-200), which
took place on October 14, 2004 outside of Jefferson City,
Missouri. The flight, a regularly scheduled repositioning
flight, had originated in Little Rock, Arkansas, and was enroute
to Minneapolis-St. Paul for use in commercial flights. No other
passengers were on board at the time of the incident.

Prior to the incident, the flight had already been postponed
once on the morning of October 14th, due to maintenance issues.
On-site technicians could not locate the problem, and
subsequently two Pinnacle mechanics flew in from Memphis,
Tennessee to identify and fix the aircraft. The mechanics
verified a fault in the right air duct-sensing loop. The loop
was removed and replaced in the right engine.

At approximately 9:21 p.m., the plane took off. During flight,
the crew took the aircraft to the manufacturer's authorized
altitude ceiling of 41,000 feet. Flight at this altitude offers
significantly better fuel economy. Once at 41,000 feet, the
aircraft was unable to hold altitude. The crew immediately asked
air traffic control for permission to descend. While waiting for
permission, the plane experienced double engine failure. They
repeatedly tried to re-start the engines using the
manufacturer's instructions, but all attempts failed. The plane
dropped at a rate of 2500 to 5000 feet per minute and was headed
directly for a residential area. In the final seconds of their
lives, the pilots steered the plane clear of homes sparing lives
on the ground, but losing their own.

A post crash investigation revealed that the Flight Data
Recorder (FDR) recovered from the scene recorded that the engine
core rotors (known as N2) did not begin to rotate with the
opening of pneumatic valves used for engine restarts. This
phenomenon is known as "core-lock". The post crash investigation
also revealed the GE CF-34-3B engines' oil pump malfunctioned
and that other components of the engines suffered from extensive
heat damage consistent with exposure to extreme high
temperatures during operation, resulting in the rotor blades
failing to rotate and suffering from the aforementioned core-
lock, causing both engines to fail all restart efforts by the
crew after numerous attempts to do so.

According to a March 2003 Boston Globe article regarding a
similar incident involving a Bombardier aircraft, GE had been
aware of the high-altitude, low oil pressure problem with the
engine but hid the information from Bombardier.

"Our clients, Mr. Rhodes and Mr. Cesarz, were operating under
approved guidelines at legal altitudes and did everything in
their power to restart the engines," stated Motley Rice attorney
and former U.S. Inspector General for the Department of
Transportation in Washington, D.C., Mary Schiavo "However, this
proved impossible because of core lock, oil pump malfunction,
faulty re-start instructions and other problems with the
aircraft. It is a horrible tragedy that they had to die because
of these known engine problems. With this litigation, we intend
to further the safety of our regional carriers, and safeguard
pilots and crew to enable the provision of safer flights for
their passengers."

Unfortunately, this crash is not an isolated incident for our
country's regional carriers. Regional carriers, while operating
under the names of the larger airlines, often employ foreign-
built jets that may not receive the same level of scrutiny as a
major carrier aircraft.

"Examining all the problems on this aircraft and these engines
is very important not only to regional carriers, but also to
operators of private jets. The engines and other parts and
equipment on the CRJ are identical to the Challenger CL 600, a
very popular corporate jet," said Marlon Kimpson, another of
Motley Rice's aviation attorneys. "In recent years, several
Challengers have been involved in crashes."

"We want to bring to light systemic difficulties so problems can
be fixed and lives can be saved," added Motley Rice attorney
J.B. Harris. "We hope the manufacturers of both the plane and
engines will be forthcoming and responsive to the problems, so
more fine pilots like Rhodes and Cesarz do not have to die
trying to do the impossible; start an engine in corelock."

Both cases were filed in Circuit Court in Broward County,
Florida and included the following defendants: Bombardier, Inc.,
Bombardier Aerospace Corporation, General Electric Company,
Honeywell International, Inc., Parker Hannafin Corporation,
Northwest Airlines, Inc., and KSG Electronics. Motley Rice
attorneys working on this case are Marlon Kimpson, J.B. Harris,
and Mary Schiavo.

For more details, contact Sally W. Comollo, Director of
Marketing of Motley Rice, LLC, Phone: 843-216-9121 or (Mobile)
843-834-1612, E-mail: SComollo@motleyrice.com, Web site:
http://aviation.motleyrice.com/.


FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS: Belden Village Sues To Stop "Junk" Faxes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Belden Village Pain and Wellness Center Inc., a Jackson
Township, Stark County, Ohio health center launched a class
action lawsuit against Forest Pharmaceuticals Inc. over its fax
machine being tied up with unwanted advertisements from the St.
Louis drug manufacturer, The Akron Beacon Journal reports.

The suit alleges the Company did not have approval to ship faxes
for its Lexapro drug to the center, which essentially violates
federal law. John P. Lowry, a Cincinnati lawyer and one of the
attorneys representing the center told The Akron Beacon Journal,
"It's a frequently violated statute. It affects a lot of
businesses in America. We represent a lot of businesses who say
they are sick and tired of junk faxes."

According to the suit, Belden Village received four faxes for
Lexapro, a drug that treats depression and anxiety, between
November 1, 2004, and December 13, 2004, but the advertisements
were sent "to hundreds or thousands' of others. Belden Village
is seeking $500 for each violation and more in punitive damages,
plus an order prohibiting Forest Pharmaceuticals from sending
more faxes.

The suit, which was filed recently in Stark County Common Pleas
Court, isn't the first over unwanted faxes. A California
businessman filed a $2.2 trillion suit against the now-defunct
Fax.com three years ago. He also created Junkfax.org, a Web site
devoted to showing people how they can file complaints and suits
against companies that send unwanted advertisements via fax.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 prohibits
unsolicited telephone marketing calls and faxes. However, last
year, Congress approved the Junk Fax Prevention Act, which
allows unsolicited advertisements to be forwarded if the sender
has an established business relationship.

Junk faxes are a common complaint to the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), a spokeswoman told The Akron Beacon Journal,
but the federal agency lumps telemarketing and fax complaints
together and was unable to break out the number of fax
complaints. The FCC issued 24 warning letters to companies last
year over apparent fax violations, but levied no fines.


HOLLISTER CO.: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hollister Co. faces a class action filed in the Superior Court
of Orange County, California, styled "Gibson v. Hollister Co.,
Case No. 05CC00244."

Employee Melissa Gibson filed the suit on October 25, 2005,
alleging that she and a class of hourly employees employed by
Hollister in the State of California were not provided with
uniforms or break periods required by California law. The
complaint also alleges other miscellaneous violations of
California wage and hour law. The complaint seeks compensatory
damages for alleged unpaid wages, penalties, injunctive relief,
and attorneys' fees.  The complaint has not yet been served on
the defendant.


IDENTIX INC.: OR Court Grants Summary Judgment in Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Magistrate Judge in Oregon granted summary
judgment in favor of Identix, Inc. in the class action filed
against it and certain of its affiliates.

In July 2004, Miguel and Lilia Espinoza filed the purported
class action. Mr. Espinoza claimed he was misidentified as a
convicted felon and that his misidentification resulted from the
issuance to him of a duplicate fingerprint identification number
generated by a live scan system manufactured by one of the
defendants. The complaint alleges liability under strict product
liability, failure to warn, breach of implied warranty,
negligence, product misrepresentation and 42 U.S.C Section 1983
among other theories of liability.

The entities affiliated with the Company were dismissed from the
action by court order.  Subsequently, the Company filed a motion
for summary judgment on the merits.  In April 2005, the U.S.
Magistrate Judge handling the case granted summary judgment in
favor of the Company stating that the live scan machine in
question had correctly assigned different fingerprint control
numbers to Mr. Espinoza and the third party felon. In accordance
with applicable rules of civil procedure, the summary judgment
ruling will now be reviewed by a U.S. District Judge prior to
any final entry.

While the case is in its earliest stages, based on currently
available information, the Company believes that the issuance of
any duplicate fingerprint numbers was not the result of any
design, manufacturing or product defect or malfunction, or any
other error, omission or fault on the part the Company or
affiliated defendants, the Company said in a regulatory filing.


JOHN B. SANFILIPPO: Recalls Mixed Nuts due to Undeclared Peanuts
----------------------------------------------------------------
John B. Sanfilippo and Son, Inc. is conducting a voluntary
recall on its distribution of Fisher Brand Deluxe Mixed Nuts (w/
No Peanuts) packaged in 32 oz. plastic jars because this product
may contain undeclared peanuts. The consumption of peanuts by
individuals who suffer from peanut allergies may result in a
severe or life-threatening reaction.

The recalled Fisher Brand Deluxe Mixed Nuts product bears a
"BEST BY" date of 110506 S1. The recalled product was shipped to
the following grocery retailers' distribution centers: Hannaford
Co. in South Portland, ME, Kash N' Karry Food Stores in Plant
City, FL and Stater Bros. in Colton, CA.

The Fisher Brand Deluxe Mixed Nuts that are being recalled
should not be consumed by those who suffer from peanut
allergies, but rather returned to the store of purchase for a
full refund. For further information, call us at (847)-593-2300,
ext. 0 from 7:30 AM and 5:00 PM Central Daylight Savings Time
(Monday through Friday.)


KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: NY Court Affirms Preliminary Suit Pact 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 Keynote Systems, Inc., certain of its officers and the
underwriters of its initial public offering.

In August 2001, hundreds of suits were filed against over 300
issuers of securities including the Company, certain of its
officers, and the underwriters of its initial public offering.  
These lawsuits were essentially identical, and were brought on
behalf of those investors who purchased the Company's securities
between September 24, 1999 and August 19, 2001.  These
complaints alleged generally that the underwriters in certain
initial public offerings, including the Company, allocated
shares in those initial public offerings in unfair or unlawful
ways, such as requiring the purchaser to agree to buy in the
aftermarket at a higher price or to buy shares in other
companies with higher than normal commissions.  The complaint
also alleged that the Company had a duty to disclose the
activities of the underwriters in the registration statement
relating to its initial public offering.

The plaintiffs' counsel and the issuer defendants' counsel
reached a preliminary agreement to settle these actions,
including the Company, without any payments by the Company. The
settlement awaits approval by the Court.   On August 31,2005,
the court affirmed its ruling granting preliminary approval to
the settlement.

The suit is styled " In re Keynote Systems, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ 7666 (SAS)," filed in
relation to "IN re IPO Securities Litigation, 21-MC-92 (Sas),"
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms
in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


LOG HOUSE: Recalls Assorted Flavored Chips For Undeclared Milk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Log House Foods of Plymouth, MN is recalling all 10 ounce
packages of "Log House Cherry Flavored Chips", all 12 ounce
packages of "Log House Butterscotch Flavored Chips", and all 12
ounce packages of "Hy-Vee Butterscotch Flavored Chips" because
they contain undeclared Milk. People who have allergies to Milk
run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume these products.

The recalled "Log House Cherry Flavored Chips" and "Log House
Butterscotch Chips" were distributed nationwide in retail
grocery stores. The "Hy-Vee Butterscotch Chips" were sold by Hy-
Vee, Inc. located in the upper Midwest.

The "Log House Cherry Flavored Chips" product is packed in a 10
ounce, red and brown package with one of the following lot
numbers: 08-05-07; 09-30-06; 09-30-07; 10-03-07; 10-06-06; 10-
07-06; 10-18-07; 10-21-06; 10-27-07; 10-28-07; 11-04-06; 11-16-
07; 11-28-07; 12-04-04; 12-05-04; 12-09-06; 12-13-06.

The "Log House Butterscotch Flavored Chips" product is packed in
a 12 ounce, orange and brown package with one of the following
lot numbers: 01-24-01; 02-12-06; 03-10-07; 06-09-07; 06-10-06;
06-22-06; 08-01-07; 08-03-06; 09-12-07; 09-23-07; 09-28-06; 10-
19-06; 10-20-07; 10-21-06; 11-01-06; 11-03-06; 11-04-06; 11-09-
06; 11-21-07; 12-14-06; 12-21-07.

The "Hy-Vee Butterscotch Flavored Chips" product is packed in a
12 ounce, orange package with one of the following lot numbers:
01-03-07; 02-17-07; 03-09-07; 03-01-06; 04-06-06; 04-14-07; 05-
10-06; 05-17-07; 06-01-06; 06-09-07; 06-22-06; 06-23-06; 06-24-
06; 06-27-07; 07-07-06; 07-21-07; 07-29-07; 08-01-07; 08-03-06;
08-19-06; 08-23-06; 09-02-06; 09-16-06; 09-26-07; 10-11-06; 10-
12-06; 10-28-07; 10-01-06; 11-22-06; 11-30-07; 12-06-07; 12-08-
06; 12-14-06; 12-21-06

There has been one reported allergic reaction related to the
consumption of the "Log House Cherry Chips". There have been no
known allergic reactions to the consumption of the "Log House
Butterscotch Chips" or "Hy-Vee Butterscotch Chips".

The voluntary recall was initiated after it was discovered that
the milk-containing products were distributed in packaging that
did not declare the presence of milk. Log House Foods has
suspended production of the products until the labels have been
corrected.

Consumers with a Milk or Dairy allergy who have purchased 10
ounce bags of "Log House Cherry Flavored Chips", 12 ounce "Log
House Butterscotch Chips" or 12 ounce "Hy-Vee Butterscotch
Chips" are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a
full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at
(866) 835-8395.


MEDTRONIC INC.: Various Suits Filed Due To Faulty Defibrillators
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc. faces approximately 30 putative class actions
and approximately 25 individual actions filed in various
jurisdictions, in relation to its February 11, 2005 advisory to
physicians about a potential battery shorting mechanism that may
occur in a subset of implantable cardioverter defibrillators
(ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators
(CRT-Ds), including certain of the Marquis VR/DR and Maximo
VR/DR ICDs and certain of the InSync I/II/III Marquis and InSync
III CRT-D devices.

The Company provided physicians with a list of potentially
affected patients and recommended that physicians communicate
with those patients so they could manage the potential issue in
a manner they felt was appropriate for their individual
patients. Subsequent to this voluntary field action, later
classified by the FDA as a Class II Recall, approximately 30
putative class actions and approximately 25 individual actions
have been filed against the Company in various state and federal
jurisdictions. Several plaintiffs are seeking to have these
cases consolidated for certain purposes under a process known as
Multi-District Litigation (MDL).

The Company opposed the petition for MDL on the basis, in part,
that individual issues far outweigh any common issues in the
cases.  The panel that heard the MDL arguments will make a
decision sometime in the near future. Four additional putative
class actions have been filed in Canada. The Marquis complaints
generally allege strict liability, negligence, warranty and
other common law and/or statutory claims; and seek compensatory
and punitive damages. Two of the cases involve claims of third
party payors for reimbursement of costs associated with the
field action. The punitive class action complaints also seek
class certification. The Company is unaware of any confirmed
injury or death resulting from a device failure due to the
shorting mechanism that was the subject matter of the field
action, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.


MISSOURI: Jury Election Begins For Jasper County Fen-Phen Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jury selection recently began in the first lawsuit to be filed
in Jasper County Circuit Court in Missouri against the
manufacturer of the so-called fen-phen diet drugs, with a two-
week trial anticipated, The Joplin Globe reports.

Bonnie Weston, of Webb City, is suing pharmaceutical maker
Wyeth, formerly known as American Home Products Corporation,
alleging that severe injuries to her heart valves as the
consequence of taking the diet drugs Pondmin and Redux, also
known as fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine. Her lawsuit states
that she also may be suffering from pulmonary hypertension
secondary to her heart-valve injuries, but she is not claiming
to be suffering from primary pulmonary hypertension.

The lawsuit states that she is seeking only damages that she is
legally entitled to seek as an "intermediate opt-out" to a
national class action settlement. It also pointed out that she
is not making any claims for punitive, exemplary or multiple
damages or alleging malicious or wanton conduct on the part of
the Company.

The drugs named in Weston's lawsuit were withdrawn from the
market in 1997. The suit claims that the Company had knowledge
of medical evidence of dangerous and potentially fatal side
effects from the use of the drugs beginning in the early 1990s,
and that it continued to market and sell them as wonder diet
drugs. Those side effects included pulmonary hypertension,
primary pulmonary hypertension and valvular heart disease,
according to the lawsuit.

The suit alleges that the company breached its duty to exercise
reasonable care in the design, marketing, manufacture, sale,
testing, quality assurance, and control and distribution of the
drugs, and that it failed to conduct adequate post-marketing
surveillance and medical monitoring of their use. It also
alleges failure to adequately warn of the drugs' side effects in
the company's labeling of its products.

Originally, the suit named Dr. Karen Porte, of Joplin, as a co-
defendant for allegedly knowing of Ms. Weston's past use of the
diet drugs and failing to have her undergo an echocardiogram to
determine the presence and severity of any valvular damage to
her heart. However, she was dismissed from the case without
prejudice in 2004, which essentially means that a lawsuit may be
re-filed against her.


MOTOROLA INC.: IL Court Grants Certification to Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action, "In Re: MOTOROLA SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case
No. 03 C 00287," under Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, has been
certified by the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois as a class action on behalf of a Class
consisting of all persons who purchased publicly traded
Motorola, Inc. common stock or certain registered debt
securities during the period from February 3, 2000 through May
14, 2001 and who allegedly were damaged thereby.

The Court has appointed the Department of Treasury of the State
of New Jersey and its Division of Investment, as the Lead
Plaintiff and class representative in the Action, and Wolf
Popper, LLP, 845 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10022, and
Lite DePalma Greenberg & Rivas LLP, Two Gateway Center, Newark,
New Jersey 07102 as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class.

For more details, contact James A. Harrod of Wolf Popper, LLP,
Phone: +1-212-759-4600, E-mail: classaction@wolfpopper.com, Web
site: http://www.wolfpopper.com.


NETFLIX INC.: FTC Asks CA Judge to Reject Proposed Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is asking a California judge
to reject a proposed class action settlement between consumers
and the Internet DVD rental service Netflix, Inc. (NASDAQ:
NFLX), saying that the agreement "appears dangerously close to
being a promotional gimmick," The Seattle Post-Intelligencer
reports.

The Company was sued more than a year ago in California, where
the company is based, after a consumer learned that the company
used several different methods to limit how many DVDs a customer
could receive a month, even though the company promoted its
service as offering unlimited rentals.

The national class action lawsuit, filed on September 2004 in
San Francisco Superior Court, alleged that Netflix misled
consumers by failing to deliver DVDs as promised, within one
business day. In reality, according to the suit, it would often
take as long as four to six business days for customers to
receive requested DVDs. And that meant customers could watch
fewer videos than they had signed up for under Netflix's monthly
membership plan, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (January
11, 2006) reports.

The Company has denied wrongdoing but agreed to settle the suit,
whose costs dragged down its third-quarter net income by $3.4
million. According to the proposed settlement, Netflix
subscribers who joined the service before January 15 and
remained members through October 19, will get a one-month
upgrade in their service level while paying their usual
subscription price. For example, subscribers to the three-
movies-out plan would pay $17.99 but would get four movies out
at a time for one month. Meanwhile, those who subscribed to
Netflix before January 15 but canceled their membership before
October 19 are eligible to one month of free service. Netflix
users must register by February 17 to receive the upgrade, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 4, 2005) reports.

In the proposed settlement, plaintiffs' lawyers would receive
$2.5 million, but the plaintiffs, in this case, the class of
current and former Netflix customers would receive either a free
service upgrade for one month or a coupon for free service for
one month. However, if customers receiving the freebies do not
cancel the upgrades or service before the end of the month is
up, Netflix would begin charging them for the extra services.

Attorneys for the FTC outlined the coupons as a "negative
option" benefit, one that dubiously requires consumers to take
action to not buy and pay for a service rather than the
traditional action of buying and paying for a service. Along
with the FTC, several other groups and individuals have written
objections to the settlement, including the Trial Lawyers for
Public Justice, a professional group representing class action
lawyers.

The Company and plaintiffs' attorneys reached the settlement in
September and, almost immediately after announcing it, caused a
firestorm of opposition online. Chris Ambler, a computer
programmer in Seattle, Washington created the Web site
Netflixsettlementsucks.com just to oppose the action. He's been
collecting names of people to object to the agreement. A
memorandum on behalf of him and 400 others was filed recently in
California Superior Court. A final hearing on the proposed
settlement is scheduled for January 18 in San Francisco.

Mr. Ambler said that he is happy with his Netflix service and
believes there should not have been a lawsuit filed against the
company in the first place, otherwise, he objects to plaintiffs'
attorneys receiving $2.5 million in compensation. "Who's going
to pay that $2.5 million? Most likely, in my opinion, the
consumers, in the form of a rate hike," according to him,.

The suit is styled "FRANK CHAVEZ VS. NETFLIX, INC., A FOREIGN
CORPORATION et al, Case No. CGC-04-434884."  Representing the
Company is Keith Eggleton of WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI,
650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto CA 94304-1050 USA Phone: (650)
493-9300.  Representing the plaintiffs are Adam Gutride LAW
OFFICES OF ADAM GUTRRIDE 835 Douglass Street, San Francisco CA
94114 USA Phone: (415) 271-6469; and Seth Safire, 6467
California, San Francisco CA 94121 USA Phone: (415) 876-4345.

Fort more details, visit http://www.netflix.com/settlementor  
http://netflixsettlementsucks.com/.  


OHIO: Judge Urges Lawyers to Settle Suit Over 2005 Chemical Leak
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Melba Marsh is asking
attorneys to try to settle the remaining claims filed after a
chemical leaked from a parked rail car last summer in the East
End, which forced the evacuation of nearby homes and businesses
for three days, The Associated Press reports.

On August 28, 2005 a tanker owned by Houston-based Westlake
Chemical Corporation, leaked vapor from its load of styrene, a
chemical that is used to make plastics, synthetic rubber and
resins, which is a highly flammable liquid hazardous to breathe
in gaseous form. Residents in the area sued Westlake Chemical,
Indiana and Ohio Railway Corporation and Kinder Morgan Liquid
Terminals over the leak, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(November 22, 2005) reports.

In a recent meeting with attorneys for residents and businesses
and the companies, Judge Marsh gave both sides until January 31,
2006 to resolve the remaining claims. The judge plans to set a
trial date if they fail to reach an agreement.

Previously, attorneys representing the residents asked Judge
Marsh to combine their lawsuits into a single class action
complaint against the companies they blame for the chemical
leak. They argued in their request to the judge that about
30,000 residents and workers affected by the leak, which forced
a three-day evacuation of 800 homes and businesses, should be
paid damages. In addition they argued that anyone within a 3.2-
mile radius of the leak should be paid as well.

James Brockman, a railroad lawyer, told The Associated Press
that the companies have reached settlements with more than 1,000
people.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Trial in IL Securities Lawsuit Set September 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial for the consolidated securities class action filed against
Sears, Roebuck and Co., is set for September 2006 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Several actions were initially filed on and after October 18,
2002 against the company and certain of its current and former
officers, alleging that certain public announcements by the
Company concerning its credit card business violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The Court has consolidated the
actions and certified the consolidated action as a class action.
Discovery is underway.


The suit is styled "Craig v. Sears Roebuck & Co., case no. 1:02-
cv-07527," filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Elaine E. Bucklo.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Steven G. Schulman, Milberg Weiss
Bershad & Schulman LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New
York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: (212)594-5300.  Representing the
Company are Harold C. Hirshman, Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal,
LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive, 8000 Sears Tower, Chicago, IL
60606, Phone: (312)876-8000; and Jeffrey C Fourmaux of Wachtell,
Lipton, Rosen & Katz, 51 West 52nd Street, New York, HY 10019,
Phone: (212)403-1000


SEARS ROEBUCK: Discovery Proceeds in IL ERISA Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated class action filed
against Sears Roebuck and Co., certain of its officers and
directors and alleged fiduciaries of its 401(k) Savings Plan,
seeking damages and equitable relief under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

On and after November 15, 2002, several actions were filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, on behalf of participants in the Plan.  The suits
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA in connection
with the Plan's investment in the Company's common shares and
alleged communications made to Plan participants regarding the
Company's financial condition.

The Court has consolidated these actions and certified the
consolidated action as a class action. Discovery is underway. No
trial date has been set.

The suit is styled "Kehr v. Sears Roebuck & Co, et al., case no.
1:02-cv-08324," filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge John W. Darrah.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Steven E. Cauley, Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road, #406
Melville, NY 11747, Phone: (631)367-7100.  Representing the
Company is Harold C. Hirshman, Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal,
LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive, 8000 Sears Tower, Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312)876-8000.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Asks Court To Partially Dismiss SRAC Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Roebuck & Co. asked the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois to partially dismiss the
consolidated amended securities class action filed against it
and certain of its officers.  

The suit was initially filed on behalf of a class of all persons
who, between June 21, 2002 and October 17, 2002, purchased the
7% notes that the Company's domestic wholly-owned financing
subsidiary, Sears Roebuck Acceptance Corporation (SRAC), issued
on June 21, 2002.

An amended complaint has been filed, naming as additional
defendants certain former officers, SRAC and several investment
banking firms who acted as underwriters for SRAC's March 18, May
21 and June 21, 2002 notes offerings. The amended complaint
alleges that the defendants made misrepresentations or omissions
concerning its credit business during the class period and in
the registration statements and prospectuses relating to the
offerings. The amended complaint alleges that these
misrepresentations and omissions violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and purports to be brought on behalf of a class of all
persons who purchased any security of SRAC between October 24,
2001 and October 17, 2002, inclusive.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the action.  On
September 24, 2004, the court granted these motions in part, and
denied them in part.  The court dismissed the claims related to
the March 18 and May 21, 2002 note offerings because the
plaintiff did not purchase notes in those offerings.  The court
dismissed the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims against
several of the individual defendants because the plaintiff
failed to adequately plead such claims.  The court sustained the
remaining claims.  

By leave of court, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint on November 15, 2004.  Defendants (other than one of
the underwriter defendants) filed motions to partially dismiss
the second amended complaint on January 10, 2005.  The defendant
that did not move to partially dismiss filed an answer to the
second amended complaint on January 28, 2005, denying all
liability.

On September 14, 2005, the court granted the pending motions to
dismiss in part, and denied them in part.  The court dismissed
the Section 11 claim with respect to SRAC's May 21, 2002 notes
on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing, and the
Section 12 claims with respect to SRAC's March 18, 2002 notes
and May 21, 2002 notes on the ground that the plaintiffs could
not allege damages. The court dismissed the Section 15 claim on
the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to allege a predicate
violation of the Securities Act of 1933 on the part of SRAC. The
court dismissed the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims as to
some, but not all, of the individual defendants. The court
sustained the remaining claims. By leave of court, the
plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on October 28,
2005.  The non-underwriter defendants filed a motion to
partially dismiss the third amended complaint on November 15,
2005.

The suit is styled "Ong, et al v. Sears Roebuck & Co, et al,
case no. 1:03-cv-04142," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Rebecca
R. Pallmeyer.  Representing the plaintiffs is Carol V. Gilden,
Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Rubenstein, P.C., 191
North Wacker Drive, Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60605-1615, Phone:
(312)521-2000.  Representing the Company is Harold C. Hirshman,
Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive,
8000 Sears Tower, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312)876-8000.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Court Dismisses Appeal of IL Investor Suit Stay
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Appellate Court dismissed plaintiffs' appeal of the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois' ruling staying the
consolidated class action filed against Sears, Roebuck & Co. and
certain of its officers and directors, as moot.  The suit also
names as defendants Kmart Holdings Corporation, Edward S.
Lampert and other affiliated entities.

Three suits were initially filed, contesting the merger of Sears
Roebuck & Co. with Kmart Holdings Corporation to form Sears
Holdings Corporation.  These actions assert claims on behalf of
a purported class of Company stockholders, alleging breach of
fiduciary duty in connection with the merger.  The plaintiffs
allege that the merger favors interested defendants by awarding
them disproportionate benefits, and that the defendants failed
to take appropriate steps to maximize the value of a merger
transaction for the Company's stockholders. The actions have
been consolidated, and an amended complaint was filed in early
January 2005.

The amended complaint asserts similar breach-of-fiduciary duty
claims, as well as alleging that defendants have made
insufficient and misleading disclosures in connection with the
mergers, and seeks injunctive relief. The plaintiffs have moved
for expedited discovery.  On February 1, 2005, the court granted
the defendants' motion to stay or dismiss these actions in favor
of similar pending New York actions.  Accordingly, these actions
are stayed pending resolution of the New York actions.  
Plaintiffs have appealed the stay order to the Appellate Court
of Illinois-First District, and briefing on that appeal is
complete.

On October 28, 2005, following the dismissal with prejudice of
the New York actions and the New York plaintiffs' failure to
appeal, the Appellate Court of Illinois dismissed the appeal as
moot. The cases are now pending in the Circuit Court, and the
defendants intend to renew their motion to dismiss.


SEARS ROEBUCK: NY Court Dismisses Investor Suit V. Kmart Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County
dismissed the consolidated class action filed against Sears
Roebuck & Co. and certain of its officers and directors.  The
suit also names as defendants Kmart Holdings Corporation, Edward
S. Lampert and other affiliated entities.

Two suits were initially filed, contesting the merger of Sears
Roebuck & Co. with Kmart Holdings Corporation to form Sears
Holdings Corporation.  The parties agreed to consolidate these
two actions. Pending consolidation, the defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint in both actions for lack of standing and
failure to state a cause of action.

On February 15, 2005, the Court ordered that the two cases be
consolidated as a single action.  On February 16, 2005, the
plaintiffs filed a superceding consolidated amended class action
complaint. The amended complaint asserts claims on behalf of a
purported class of Company stockholders against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors for breach of fiduciary
duty in connection with the mergers on the grounds that
defendants allegedly failed to take proper steps to maximize the
value of a merger transaction for the Company's stockholders.
Additionally, the plaintiffs claim that the defendants made
insufficient and misleading disclosures in connection with the
mergers.  The amended complaint also names Kmart Holdings
Corporation, Edward S. Lampert, and ESL, Inc. as defendants on
the grounds that they aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.  The amended complaint seeks provisional and
permanent injunctive relief, as well as damages.

On March 24, 2005, the Court denied plaintiffs' motions for
expedited discovery and a preliminary injunction against the
closing of the mergers.  On July 29, 2005, the Court granted all
defendants' motions to dismiss the action with prejudice. The
time to appeal has expired, and plaintiffs have not filed an
appeal.  


SEARS ROEBUCK: IL Court Mulls Dismissal of Suit V. Kmart Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois has yet to rule on Sears Roebuck & Co.'s motion to
dismiss a securities class action filed against it and Alan J.
Lacy, on behalf of a purported class of the Company's
stockholders.

The defendants allegedly failed to make timely disclosure of
merger discussions with Kmart Corporation during the period
November 8 through 16, 2004, and seeks damages. The court
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, and an amended
complaint was filed on March 11, 2005.  The amended complaint,
names Edward S. Lampert and ESL Partners, L.P., as additional
defendants, and purports to assert claims on behalf of sellers
of Company stock during the period September 9 through
November 16, 2004.

All defendants have moved to dismiss, and briefing on the
motions was completed in early July 2005.

The suit is styled "Levie v. Sears Roebuck Co, et al., case no.
1:04-cv-07643,' filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Robert W.
Gettleman.  Representing the Company is Mark A. Flessner of
Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive,
8000 Sears Tower, Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312)876-8000, E-
mail: mflessner@sonnenschein.com.  Representing the plaintiffs
are:

     (1) Charles J Piven, Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.,
         The World Trade Cener - Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
         Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: (410)
         332-0030

     (2) Andrae P Reneau, The Wexler Firm LLP, 1 North LaSalle
         Street, Suite 2000, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312)
         346-2222

     (3) Lee Squitieri, Squitieri & Fearon LLP, 32e East 57th
         Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-421-
         6492


STEWART & STEVENSON: Faces 2 Antitrust Fraud Lawsuits in E.D. MI
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart & Stevenson Services, Inc. is a co-defendant with
Detroit Diesel Corporation and other Detroit Diesel distributors
in two putative class action suits related to the Power Products
business filed on February 9, 2005, styled:

     (1) Cumberland Truck Equipment Co. et al. v. Detroit Diesel
         Corp., et al., case no. 05-616;

     (2) Diamond International Trucks, Inc. et al. v. Detroit
Diesel Corp., et al., case no. 05-625

The suits were initially filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  On November 14,
2005, the cases were transferred to the Eastern District of
Michigan.  In the Cumberland Litigation, plaintiffs were dealers
of Detroit Diesel parts whose agreements were terminated or not
renewed on or after February 9, 2001.  The plaintiffs are
claiming antitrust violations arising out of the termination or
non-renewal of their dealer agreements.  

In the DIT Litigation, plaintiffs are dealers of Detroit Diesel
parts whose dealership classification was changed on or after
February 9, 2001.  The plaintiffs in the DIT Litigation are
claiming antitrust violations arising out of changes to the
classification of their dealerships.  The Company is a
distributor of Detroit Diesel parts and had a dealer agreement
with one or more of the named plaintiffs in each suit.  

The plaintiffs in each suit have also alleged price fixing and
group boycott in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and
have made claims for treble damages and injunctive and other
relief.  


TOSHIBA AMERICA: Settles CA Defective Satellite Pro 6100s Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, along
with co-counsel, is representing owners of the Toshiba Satellite
Pro 6100 Series notebook computer in a class action lawsuit
against Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.

The lawsuit alleges that the Satellite Pro 6100 contains a
design defect that causes certain power-supply, display and
related failures. The suit further alleges that Toshiba knew of,
and concealed the existence of, the alleged defect at the time
it sold the Satellite Pro 6100. Toshiba denies any and all
liability to Plaintiffs and the Class and has agreed to settle
the actions for the sole purpose of avoiding the expense and
time of further litigation.

On December 8, 2005, Judge Emilie Elias of the Los Angeles
County Superior Court granted preliminary approval to a
settlement of the class action and conditionally certified a
class of all end-user persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired in the United States, for their own use and
not for resale, a new Toshiba Satellite Pro 6100 Series notebook
computer.  

In general terms, the settlement includes an extended warranty
for all Satellite Pro 6100 computers, cash compensation for
certain repairs, and reimbursement for certain out-of-warranty
repair expenses. A settlement hearing will be held on March 17,
2006, for the court to determine whether the settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and whether the Court should approve
it.  

For more details, contact Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. or Kristen E.
Law, Esq. of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, 275
Battery St., 30th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111, E-mail:
klaw@lchb.com; and Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. or Patrick DeBlase, Esq.
of Kiesel, Boucher & Larson, LLP, 8648 Wilshire Blvd., Beverly
Hills, CA 90211, E-mail: kiesel@kbla.com, Web site:
http://www.sp6100settlement.com/faq.php3.


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Smoked Trout Due to Listeria Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market is recalling Whole Catch Lemon Pepper Garlic
Hot Smoked Trout because it has the potential to be contaminated
with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious
and sometimes fatal infections 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.

The product, distributed by Whole Foods Market, may have reached
consumers via stores in the following states: California,
Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of
Columbia.

The product can be identified by a label that reads "Whole Catch
Lemon Pepper Garlic Hot Smoked Trout." This item comes in an 8-
ounce, green colored package with yellow and white lettering and
has a UPC Code of 9948241183. The batch number is 10724701 and
the sticker can typically be found on the back of the package.
No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after random testing by the Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of
Food Safety. Other batches and other varieties of this product
are not affected by this voluntary recall. The company continues
an investigation as to what may have caused the problem.

Consumers who have purchased this product are urged to return it
to the place of purchase for a full refund. Whole Foods Market
has contacted its locations holding stocks of this product and
has directed Store/Facility Team Leaders to remove this product
from the shelves and to destroy it until a new supply becomes
available. The recall does not affect any other Whole Foods
Market product. Consumers with questions may contact the company
at 512/542-0656.



                 New Securities Fraud Cases

FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.,
filed a lawsuit on behalf of its client and on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Faro Technologies, Inc.
(Nasdaq:FARO) ("Faro" or the "Company") between May 6, 2004, and
November 3, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The
Complaint charges Faro and certain executive officers of Faro
with violations of federal securities laws.

FARO and its subsidiaries develop, manufacture, market and
support software-based three-dimensional measurement devices for
manufacturing, industrial, building construction and forensic
applications. The complaint charges FARO and Simon Raab (Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman), Gregory A. Fraser (Executive
Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and a director), and
Barbara R. Smith (Chief Financial Officer) with violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and alleges that throughout
the Class Period, these defendants directly participated in
accounting fraud which materially misrepresented the Company's
financial results in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles ("GAAP").

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that at or about the
beginning of the Class Period, the defendants represented that
the Company had implemented practices that purportedly increased
the Company's production capacity by, among other improvements,
eliminating overproduction, wait time, inefficient processes,
and product defects. During the Class Period, defendants issued
strong results and positive guidance, which they attributed in
material part to the Company's purported implementation of
adequate controls and more efficient practices. The Complaint
alleges that defendants' Class Period representations regarding
the Company's financial performance and prospects were
materially false and misleading when made because the Company's
internal inventory and accounting controls and procedures were
wholly defective and inadequate during the Class Period.

The truth began to emerge on July 18, 2005. On that day, the
Company issued a press release revealing that it had a backlog
of unfilled customer orders that had grown significantly in the
second quarter of 2005 and that, as a result, the Company
significantly lowered its earnings guidance for that quarter.
Further, on November 3, 2005, after the market closed, the
Company announced that it had incurred $1.6 million in
"inventory costing and consumption variances" related to the
implementation of a new accounting and inventory management
system. Defendant Simon Raab later admitted that the Company had
not been able to keep up with customer orders which resulted in
"substantially more complex inventory management situations, and
... substantial inventory increases." In reaction to this news,
the price of FARO stock plummeted $4.39, or 19.6%, from its
closing price of $22.38 on November 3, 2005, to finally close on
November 4, 2005, at $17.99, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The Complaint also alleges that during the Class Period, before
the truth was revealed to investors, defendants sold or caused
to be sold more than 1.48 million of their own shares of Faro
stock, for net proceeds of approximately $40.9 million,
including through the use of highly complicated forward sales
transactions that allowed defendants to both realize immediate
profits and avoid current tax liabilities.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. or Audrey Braccio
of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York
Ave., N.W. West Tower - Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20005,
Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600, E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or
abraccio@cmht.com.


GREAT WOLF: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in WI
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood, LLP, filed a class action suit
on behalf of all securities purchasers of Great Wolf Resorts,
Inc. (Nasdaq:WOLF) ("Great Wolf" or the "Company") between
December 14, 2004, and July 28, 2005, including those who
purchased stock pursuant to or traceable to the Company's
initial public offering on or about December 14, 2004 (the
"Offering" or the "IPO"), inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action, entitled, Paul v. Great Wolf Resorts, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 06-C-0011-C, is pending in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, and names as
defendants, the Company, John Emery, James A. Calder, Bruce D.
Neviaser, Elan Blutinger, Randy Churchey, Michael M. Knetter,
Alissa N. Nolan, Howard Silver, and Marc B. Vaccaro.
Additionally, the Complaint names as defendants, Citigroup
Global Markets, Inc., A.G. Edwards & Sons Inc., Raymond James &
Associates Inc., Calyon Securities (USA), Societe Generale,
ThinkEquity Partners, LLC, Rubin Brown Gornstein & Co., LLP, and
Deloitte and Touche.

The Complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933. More specifically, the complaint
alleges that, during the Class Period, the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the Company lacked an adequate internal system of
         controls necessary to accurately ascertain the
         Company's overall condition;

     (2) that the Company's quarterly and annual guidance based
         on non-GAAP EBITDA and Adjusted Net Income concealed
         the true financial health of the Company; and

     (3) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
         statements with respect to its future prospects and the
         intrinsic value of its business lacked in all
         reasonable basis.

Great Wolf operates as a family entertainment resort company in
the United States. The Company owns, operates, and develops
drive-to family resorts featuring indoor water parks and other
family-oriented entertainment activities. The Company was formed
in May 2004 to succeed to the family entertainment resort
business of its predecessor companies, The Great Lakes
Companies, Inc. and a number of its related entities.

In December 2004, Great Wolf commenced a public offering, with
the intent to acquire, from Great Lakes, its resorts and the
resorts currently under construction, as well as certain resort
development and management operations, in exchange for an
aggregate of 14,033,501 shares of its common stock and $97.6
million. In the IPO, the Company issued 14,000,000 shares of
stock to public investors and planned to use a portion of the
proceeds as partial consideration for the purchase of the
resorts. Investors purchased Great Wolf's shares pursuant to
registration statements, which contained misleading and
exaggerated statements regarding Great Wolf's future prospects
and the intrinsic value of the Company's business. On June 14,
2005, Great Wolf revised downward its previously announced
financial guidance while remaining positive about its future
prospects. The warning concealed from investors the actual state
of affairs at Great Wolf. Then, on July 28, 2005, Great Wolf
announced that its results were significantly below the
Company's previously announced guidance. On this news, shares of
Great Wolf fell $6.12 per share, or 30 percent, to close, on
July 28, 2005, at $13.65 per share.

For more details, contact Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq. of Wechsler
Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Ave., 8th Floor, New York, NY 10022,
Phone: (877) 935-7400, E-mail: jmn@whesq.com, Web site:
http://www.whesq.com.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Wechsler Harwood Lodges CA Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood, LLP, filed a class action suit
on behalf of all securities purchasers of Impac Mortage
Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:IMH); ("IMH" or the "Company") between May
13, 2005, and August 9, 2005, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The action, entitled, Schriver v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.
Case No. SACV-06-0031 CIC (RNBx), is pending in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
and names as defendants, the Company as well as certain senior
officers and directors.

The Complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the complaint
alleges that, during the Class Period, the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the Company lacked an adequate internal system of
         controls necessary to accurately ascertain the
         Company's overall condition;

     (2) that the Company's quarterly guidance concealed the
         true financial health of the Company;

     (3) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
         statements with respect to its future prospects and the
         intrinsic value of its business lacked in all
         reasonable basis.

IMH is a mortgage real estate investment trust ("REIT") that
acquires, originates, sells and invests primarily in non-
conforming, Alt-A mortgages, small-balance, multi-family
mortgages, and sub-prime or B/C mortgages. The Company also
provides warehouse and repurchase financing to originators of
mortgages.

According to the complaint, while the Company was unabashedly
positive in its public statements, the defendants knew but
failed to reveal that material indicators of the Company's true
financial condition would be lower than expected for the second
fiscal quarter of 2005, as compared to previous quarters. Rather
than disclose this adverse information to investors, Company
insiders, including defendants, took the opportunity to sell
more than 300,000 shares of their personally held Company stock,
reaping more than $5.5 million in proceeds. Shortly thereafter,
on August 9, 2005, IMH shocked the market, revealing that it was
posting a net loss of $55 million, or 78 cents per share,
compared to a profit of $143.2 million, or $2.17 per share, a
year earlier and forecasted a reduced dividend of .50 cents to
.60 cents a share in the third quarter (down from the previous
.75 cents per share). On this news, IMH shares plunged
approximately 40% from a Class Period high of $22.32 to close at
$13.46 on August 10, 2005 on volume of nearly 6.5 million shares
-- or roughly 13 times above average daily volume.

For more details, contact Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq. of Wechsler
Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Ave., 8th Floor, New York, NY 10022,
Phone: (877) 935-7400, E-mail: jmn@whesq.com, Web site:
http://www.whesq.com.


SFBC INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Fraud Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey on behalf of all securities
purchasers of SFBC International, Inc. (Nasdaq: SFCC) ("SFBC" or
the "Company") from August 4, 2003 through December 15, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges SFBC and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. SFBC, a drug development services company, provides a
range of early- and late-stage clinical drug development
services to branded pharmaceutical, biotechnology, generic drug,
and medical devices companies worldwide. More specifically, the
Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts, known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company engaged in improper and unseemly
         business practices;

     (2) that the Company's financial health was a direct result
         of its engagement in such practices;

     (3) that the defendants masked its improper and unseemly
         business practices so that SFBC could continue to
         report strong revenue, earnings, and tout its ability
         to outperform competitors because of the large numbers
         of participants its facilities could handle, and its
         ability to quickly recruit participants for drug
         trials;

     (4) that the defendants knew and/or recklessly disregarded
         the fact that if SFBC's improper and irregular business
         practices were discovered that it would have a material
         effect on the Company's financial health, cause it to
         lose its credibility for accurate drug testing, lose
         customers, and inhibit its ability to beat competitors
         and quickly recruit large groups of participants, and
         expose the Company to fines and possible lawsuits from
         victims of faulty drugs; and

     (5) that at all relevant times, the Company lacked adequate
         internal controls.

On November 2, 2005, Bloomberg News published an article
entitled "Big Pharma's Shameful Secret." The article summarized
the results of an extensive investigation by certain Bloomberg
News reports regarding the safety of human drug testing. The
article centered its investigation on SFBC and included
statements from interviews with experts in the industry, SFBC
drug participants, and SFBC executives. The article revealed
that the Institutional Review Board ("IRB") that the Company
retained to oversee testing at SFBC facilities is owned by
Alison Shamblem, wife of defendant E. Cooper Shamblem, who is
SFBC's vice president of clinic operations. This conflict of
interest was never publicly disclosed. The article reported
that, according to interviews with SFBC participants from the
Company's Miami, Florida facility, participants were enrolled in
back-to-back trials at SFBC, without adhering to minimum waiting
requirements. According to the article, SFBC never contacted
competing clinics to determine if its participants were enrolled
in more than one drug trial at the same time. The article
further stated that SFBC used coercive payment schemes to
decrease the chance that a participant would report
uncomfortable or adverse reactions to the drug. Bloomberg News
also revealed that defendant Lisa Krinsky, who is described in
SEC filings and Company literature as a medical doctor, has
never been licensed to practice medicine in the United States.
On news of this, shares of SFBC fell $9.98 per share, or 26.34
percent, to close at $27.91 per share on November 3, 2005.

Then, on November 16, 2005, Bloomberg News reported that SFBC
threatened to arrange federal deportation of Latin American
immigrants who disclosed health risks in clinical trials,
according to people who participated in the company's Miami-
based experiments. The participants also said SFBC tried to make
them sign false statements. SFBC placed at least three drug
trial participants in separate rooms with SFBC officials,
including Chief Executive Officer Arnold Hantman, who, using
profanity, threatened to call the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security to have the participants deported if they didn't sign
statements refuting the Bloomberg News story published Nov. 2.
On news of this, shares of SFBC fell $7.20 per share, or 21.71
percent, to close at $25.97 per share on November 16, 2005.

On December 15, 2005, SFBC cut its profit forecast for 2005. The
Company expected earnings per share of $1.56 to $1.61, down from
$1.66 to $1.72, which the Company set forth in November. SFBC
also stated that the reduction in this year's earnings estimate
included 3 cents a share in legal and other expenses related to
the Bloomberg articles and 2 cents in lost earnings per share
"as a direct result of one client canceling two signed contracts
of ongoing studies due to the Bloomberg articles." Additionally,
on December 15, 2005, Bloomberg News ran another story wherein
it stated that nine participants in a September drug trial in
SFBC's Montreal facility tested positive for latent
tuberculosis, according to the Montreal Regional Health
Department. On news of this, shares of SFBC fell $1.88 per share
or 10.65 percent to close at $15.78 per share on December 15,
2005.

On December 16, 2005, SFBC was reduced to "neutral" from
"outperform" by Robert W. Baird & Co. Robert W. Baird & Co.
stated that it had identified several misstatements from
management and lost confidence in management. They pointed out
that the SFBC Investigation revealed that SFBC received seven
FDA Form 483 citations between 1998 and 2005 at its Miami,
Florida facility, when management previously communicated to
Robert W. Baird & Co. that it only received three such letters.
According to Robert W. Baird & Co., one such letter, received in
June 2002, related to SFBC's informed consent process.
Additionally, the report stated that SFBC management informed
them on December 6, 2005, that SFBC had not lost any existing
business; however, on December 15, 2005, in a conference call
with analysts, SFBC announced that one of its clients cancelled
its drug testing studies in late November and that the Company
expected slower demand for its services in the future. On news
of this, shares of SFBC fell $2.64 per share, or 16.73 percent,
to close at $13.14 per share on December 16, 2005.

Since November 1, 2005, the day before Bloomberg News reported
that bioethicists said the company's consent process
inadequately warned drug trial participants of the risks of
injury and death, through December 16, 2005, SFBC stock fell
from $41.49 per share to $13.14 per share, a drop of 68.3
percent.

On December 19, 2005, SFBC announced that Gerald Seifer had
resigned from his position with the Company. Then on January 3,
2006, SFBC announced that its board of directors had appointed
Jeffrey P. McMullen as chief executive officer replacing
defendant Hantman, who was retiring. The Board also had accepted
the resignation of defendant Krinsky, who served as the
Company's president and chairman.

Then on January 10, 2006, the Company stated that the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission has initiated an informal,
non-public request for records primarily relating to the duties,
compensation and expenses of two former employees, Lisa Krinsky
and Gerald Seifer. SFBC intends to fully cooperate regarding
this request.

For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. and Richard A.
Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia
Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706,
E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.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  * * *