CAR_Public/060117.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, January 17, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 12

                          Headlines

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Reaches $2M Settlement for CA Overtime Suit
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: Armenian Heirs Sue Dresdner, Deutsche Bank
CANADA: Quebec Court to Hear $15M Suit for Unpaid Abortion Fees
COMDISCO INC.: Hearing Held For Suit Over Shared Investment Plan
DOUBLEDAY BOOKS: Dale and Pakenas Seeking Class Action for Suit

DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL: Faces Lawsuit in DC Over "Plan Colombia"
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Court Partially Dismisses Mutual Fund Suit
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: IL Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suits
MAXIM PHARMACEUTICALS: CA Court Dismisses Shareholder Lawsuit
MAXIM PHARMACEUTICALS: CA Court Rejects Amended Derivative Suit

MICROMUSE INC.: CA Court Gives Final OK to Lawsuit Settlements
MICROMUSE INC.: Faces Derivative Lawsuit in CA, Seeks Dismissal
NAVAJO TRUST: Utah May Have to Pay $35 Mil for Missing Fund
NETWORK ENGINES: Discovery For MA Suits Set to Conclude in March
PEOPLE GAS: Faces Suit in IL Over Gas Reconciliation Procedures

ROBERT'S AMERICAN: Recalls 153 Snack Mixes For Undeclared Wheat
ROCK HILL: Employee Misconduct Suit Discovery Phase Continues
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in WI, GA
TARGET: Recalls 861T Light Sets Due to Electrical, Fire Hazard

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

EVCI CAREER: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in FL
FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Binkow Files FL Securities Fraud Suit
HELEN OF TROY: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in TX
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit

IMPAC MORTGAGE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
NASH FINCH: Federman & Sherwood Launches Securities Suit in MN
SERACARE LIFE: Ann D. White Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
SERACARE LIFE: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
WELLS FARGO: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA


                            *********


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Reaches $2M Settlement for CA Overtime Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
More than 250 managers who worked for Abercrombie & Fitch stores
across California between July 10, 1998, and April 30, 2004,
will share in a $2 million settlement approved on January 12, by
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Kenneth R. Freeman.  The case
was filed in July 2002, and the class was certified on September
14, 2004.

"We are pleased to have obtained such a substantial settlement
for our class members," said John N. Quisenberry of The
Quisenberry Law Firm, which represents the plaintiff class.

"During these days of tort reform, you often hear complaints
about class action lawsuits.  The tort reformers argue that
class members don't get enough money to compensate them for
their damages.  But in this case, class members will be paid for
each week that they worked as an Abercrombie & Fitch Store
Manager during the claim period.  For some, this could add up to
thousands, even tens of thousands of dollars."

The complaint charged that Abercrombie improperly classified its
Store Managers as exempt to avoid paying overtime, even though
their duties entitle them to overtime pay.  "For many of these
managers, this was their first job.  Some didn't know they were
entitled to overtime and others were too afraid of losing their
first job to speak up.  Abercrombie took advantage and made its
managers do the same job as hourly sales clerks who are paid
overtime.  But the managers received no extra compensation
although they worked well over 8 hours a day and 40 hours a
week," stated Robert J. Drexler, a Senior Associate with The
Quisenberry Law Firm.

"As a plaintiff's attorney, it's a great feeling to help a group
of people get paid for the long hours they worked for their
employer."

The Quisenberry Law Firm settled a number of similar lawsuits
for overtime compensation against corporate employers such as
Big Lots, Coca Cola, Seven Up, Bed, Bath & Beyond and others.
They are currently prosecuting class actions for overtime
against Wal-Mart, Ikea, Claim Jumper and other large
corporations.


ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: Armenian Heirs Sue Dresdner, Deutsche Bank
-------------------------------------------------------------
Descendants of the Armenian Genocide filed a class action
lawsuit against two German banks (Turkish branches of Deutsche
Bank and Dresdner Bank) on Jan. 13, according to Kabateck Brown
Kellner LLP.  The lawsuit seeks the recovery of millions of
dollars of Armenian money and property wrongfully withheld by
the defendant German banks following the Armenian Genocide.  The
lawsuit charges that the banks have maintained possession of
Armenian families' money and assets deposited by Armenian
families prior to 1915 as well as assets looted by the Ottoman
Turkish government.  The lawsuit states that the banks profited
from the atrocities committed against the Armenian people in the
Ottoman Turkish Empire by concealing and preventing the recovery
of assets rightfully belonging to Armenian families.  The case
is entitled Varoujan Deirmenjian, et. al. v. Deutsche Bank,
A.G., Dresdner Bank, A.G., et. al., filed in the Los Angeles
Superior Court.

Brian Kabateck, Vartkes Yeghiayan and Mark Geragos, all of
Armenian decent, represent the plaintiffs. "Many Armenians
living in the Ottoman Empire during the early part of the last
century deposited money, gold and other assets into Turkish
branches of Deutsche Bank and Dresdner Bank," says Mr. Kabateck,
partner with Kabateck Brown Kellner.  "Armenians felt a European
bank was a safer place to put their money as the turbulence of
the times increased.  Unfortunately, they were wrong.  Deutsche
Bank, Dresdner Bank and, in fact, Germany betrayed the
Armenians' trust.  We now know that the Germans were complacent
and present in Turkey while Armenians were being killed during
the Genocide.  Almost 25 years later, it was Hitler who said,
'Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the
Armenians?' as his troops were about to invade Poland.  It is
surprising that the Germans today would not want to right this
wrong."

"Deutsche Bank and Dresdner Bank deliberately hid the
whereabouts of Armenian assets for 90 years," says Mr. Geragos
of Geragos & Geragos.  "For decades, Armenians have been trying
to retrieve their money and property, but the banks have refused
to cooperate.  Their full misconduct was recently uncovered when
archival documents in the U.S. and Turkey came to light."  Mr.
Geragos indicated that there is no statute of limitations on
claims to recover money and other property deposited in a bank.

In January 1916, nine months after the Genocide began that
killed approximately 1.5 million Armenians in the Ottoman
Empire, a decree from the Ottoman Minister of Commerce and
Agriculture ordered all financial institutions operating within
the country's borders to turn over Armenian assets to the
government.  Records show that as much as six million Turkish
gold pounds were seized along with real property, cash, bank
deposits and jewelry.  The assets were eventually funneled to
European banks, including Deutsche and Dresdner banks.  "The
banks accepted these assets from the Ottoman government knowing
full well that they were looted from Armenians," says Mr.
Yeghiayan, partner with Yeghiayan & Associates.  "The stolen
assets helped finance the Turkish government's war effort."  Mr.
Yeghiayan says the class action is seeking reparations similar
to those made by Swiss banks to Jewish Holocaust victims in
1998.

Mr. Kabateck, Mr. Yeghiayan and Mr. Geragos represented heirs of
Armenians who purchased insurance in the Ottoman Empire prior to
the Armenian Genocide, but whose heirs never received benefits.
The attorneys settled lawsuits earlier this year with New York
Life and AXA for US$37.5 million.

For more information, contact Brian Kabateck of Kabateck Brown
Kellner LLP, Phone: 213-217-5000; E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com; or
Diane Zakian Rumbaugh of Rumbaugh Public Relations, Phone: 805-
493-2877; Mobile: 805-407-1888; E-mail: rumbaugh@earthlink.net;
or Mark Geragos of Geragos & Geragos, Phone: 213-625-3900; E-
mail: geragos@geragos.com.


CANADA: Quebec Court to Hear $15M Suit for Unpaid Abortion Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting Jan. 16, 2006, Quebec's Superior Court will hear a
class action filed by the Association for Access to Abortion
(AAA) against the Quebec Government.

The class action was certified by the Superior Court in June
2003.  The AAA alleges that the Province of Quebec violates its
own legislation by paying only partially for abortions, a
service covered under the Quebec's Health Insurance Act.  For
many years, women who require an abortion have had to pay to
obtain it when carried out in certain women's or specialized
clinics.  The class action seeks recovery of the amounts paid by
these women.  The amount at stake is about $15 million.

The Federal Government has allegedly suspected that this
situation constitutes a violation of the Canadian Health Act for
many years, but has taken no steps to correct it.

The AAA is a non-profit organization dedicated to insuring that
abortion services are accessible and free for the women of
Quebec.

A copy of the proceedings is at: http://www.trudeljohnston.com.

For more information, contact: Me Bruce Johnston, Me Philippe
Trudel, Trudel & Johnston, Phone: (514) 871-8385.


COMDISCO INC.: Hearing Held For Suit Over Shared Investment Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
A status hearing was held on January 12, 2006 for a class action
lawsuit, "Coons v. Pontikes, et al., Case No. C 04 5518 CRB,"
against specific former members of Comdisco, Inc.'s board of
directors that was originally filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, but was
later transferred to an Illinois federal court.

David Coons filed the suit on December 30, 2004, in which he
seeks class action status on behalf of himself and certain other
former Company employees who participated in the Company's
Shared Investment Plan (SIP). On March 18, 2005, Mr. Coons filed
a First Amended Class Action Complaint in the same proceedings.
In an order entered on July 25, 2005, the court transferred the
purported class action from California federal court to the
Northern District of Illinois. The case is now styled, "Coons v.
Pontikes et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04386," under Judge Wayne R.
Andersen.

The case, which was filed by certain SIP Participants, against
certain former directors of the Company and JP Morgan Chase,
seeks class action status. On November 17, 2005, Judge Andersen,
to whom the case was assigned, held a hearing at which he
allowed the plaintiff until December 30, 2005 to file a Second
Amended Complaint and set a further status hearing for January
2006.

The Company referred the complaint to its insurance carriers.
However, under the terms and provisions of its First Amended
Joint Plan of Reorganization certain of the named defendants may
be entitled to indemnification. If the insurance carriers do not
provide for the defense of the complaint, then the Company may
have to provide for the payment of legal fees and other expenses
related to defending some of the defendants under the
indemnification obligation.

The suit is styled, "Coons v. Pontikes et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-
04386," filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Wayne R. Andersen.
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Champ W. Davis, Jr., Gini S.
Marziani and Barbara J. Mulvanny of Davis McGrath, LLC, 125
South Wacker Drive, Suite 1700, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone:
(312) 332-3033, E-mail: cdavis@davismcgrath.com,
gsmarziani@davismcgrath.com and bmulvanny@davismcgrath.com; and
Erick Charles Howard, Jahan P. Raissi and Arthur J. Shartsis of
Shartsis Fries, LLP, One Maritime Plaza, 18th Floor, San
Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 421-6500, Fax: (415) 421-2922.
Representing the Defendant/s are:

     (1) David E. Bennett of Vedder, Price Kaufman & Kammholz,
         P.C., 222 North LaSalle St., Suite 2600, Chicago, IL,
         60601, US, Phone: (312) 609-7714, Fax: (312) 609-5005,
         E-mail: dbennett@vedderprice.com;

     (2) Nathan P. Eimer of Eimer Stahl Klevorn & Solberg, LLP,
         224 South Michigan Ave., Suite 1100, Chicago, IL 60604,
         Phone: (312) 660-7600, E-mail: neimer@eimerstahl.com;
         and

     (3) Daniel Arlen Zazove of Perkins Coie, LLP, 131 South
         Dearborn, Suite 1700, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312)
         324-8605, E-mail: dzazove@perkinscoie.com.


DOUBLEDAY BOOKS: Dale and Pakenas Seeking Class Action for Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago law firm Dale and Pakenas is suing publishing company
Doubleday Books in a Cook County, Illinois court, alleging
consumer fraud.  The company is acting on behalf of Pilar More,
who said she felt cheated after knowing key details of the
memoirs of James Frey in a book "A Million Little Pieces" were
just fabricated.  The book tells of Mr. Frey's recovery from
alcohol and drug addiction.  Doubleday is a division of the
Random House group, a unit of German media conglomerate
Bertelsmann AG.

The suit is seeking status as a class action.  Lawyer Thomas
Pakenas said it might take up to 60 days to get a decision,
according to Herald News.  The suit did not specify how much it
is seeking for damages.

Mr. Frey admitted on Wednesday's edition of "Larry King Live" at
CNN he added some details to his story, but insisted it is part
of memoir-writing.


DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL: Faces Lawsuit in DC Over "Plan Colombia"
---------------------------------------------------------------
DynCorp International, LLC, faces a class action alleging
personal injury, property damage and wrongful death as a
consequence of the spraying of narcotic crops along the
Colombian border adjacent to Ecuador, which is also known as
"Plan Colombia."

The suit, which was filed on September 11, 2001 in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia, is seeking
$100,000 on behalf of approximately 10,000 citizens of Ecuador.
Ecuadorian Indians are charging that the Virginia-based Company
was contracted to carry out fumigation of illicit crops in
neighboring Colombia recklessly sprayed their homes and farms,
causing illnesses and deaths, and destroying food crops.

The legal complaint is the latest in a series of actions brought
under the Alien Tort Claims Act, which allows foreign citizens
to sue U.S. companies in courts here over acts committed abroad.
"The spraying of a toxic herbicide over people and land is a
stupid and reckless action," according to Terry Collingsworth of
the International Labor Rights Fund here, one of the lead
counsels in the case.

In addition to charging the Company with violating the Alien
Tort Claims Act, the complaint alleges the company also breached
the U.S. Torture Victim Protection Act, among others. It seeks
millions of dollars in compensation and an immediate halt to
spraying that allegedly affects Ecuador. The complaint also
calls into question Plan Colombia, the U.S.-funded strategy to
combat narcotics launched last year by Colombian President
Andres Pastrana. Plan Colombia involves $7.5 billion for social
and economic development and $1.3 billion, pledged by the United
States, mostly for military equipment and training, and aerial
fumigation of illicit coca, marijuana, and poppy crops.
Colombian politicians and officials have said that although they
favor eradicating narcotics crops, a new strategy is needed
because fumigation with the herbicide glyphosate is causing
illness, destroying pastures and food crops, poisoning
livestock, and displacing thousands of small farmers, an earlier
Inter Press Service story (September 21, 2002) reports.

In March and July 2002, Colombian legislators and governors came
to Washington and told reporters that fumigation was not hurting
the narcotics industry but severely harming poor farming
families. They said planes spraying the crops blanket entire
communities with the herbicide and cause poor farmers to suffer
illnesses and skin problems, an earlier Inter Press Service
story (September 21, 2002) reports.

Indigenous leaders in Colombia also have voiced opposition to
the spraying. Last year, Emperatriz Cahuache, president of the
Organization of Indigenous Peoples of the Colombian Amazon, came
to Washington and showed reporters a map illustrating how the
areas of coca and marijuana cultivation overlaps with indigenous
territories and the areas that have been fumigated. "These
fumigations are contaminating the Amazon and destroying the
forest," Mr. Cahuache said, an earlier Inter Press Service story
(September 21, 2002) reports.

Proponents of Plan Colombia said glyphosate, marketed by the
U.S.-based Monsanto company under the trade name Roundup, is as
safe as salt. Critics countered that directions on glyphosate
labels warn users not to allow the product to come into contact
with people or water sources, an earlier Inter Press Service
story (September 21, 2002) reports.

The lawsuit marks the second time that indigenous communities in
the Ecuadorian Amazon have used the Alien Tort Claims Act to sue
a U.S. company in U.S. court for allegedly endangering human
health and destroying crops. Cristobal Bonifaz, a Massachusetts-
based attorney originally from Ecuador, is representing his
fellow Ecuadorians in the case. Mr. Bonifaz said he became aware
of the alleged fumigation in Ecuador after communication with
his clients in the lawsuit against the oil company. "In the same
region where Texaco devastated the environment and caused untold
suffering to the people of the rainforest, a new enemy now comes
from the air, poisoning the people, killing their crops, and
destroying their land," according to Mr. Bonifaz, an earlier
Inter Press Service story (September 21, 2002) reports.

The terms of the contract with the client, the U.S. State
Department, provide that the State Department will indemnify the
Company against all third-party claims and liabilities arising
out of the contract that are not otherwise covered by insurance,
subject to certain specified funding ceilings. The Company is
also entitled to indemnification by CSC in connection with this
lawsuit, subject to certain limitations. In addition, the
Company expects to be protected by the government contractor
immunity defense.

For more details, contact Terry Collingsworth (DC Bar No.
471830) and Natacha Thys (DC Bar No. 458143) of INTERNATIONAL
LABOR RIGHTS FUND, 733 15 Street, N.W., Suite 920, Washington,
DC 20005, Phone: (202) 347-4100, Fax: (202) 347-4885; and
Crist˘bal Bonifaz (MA BBO 548-405) and John C. Bonifaz (MA BBO
562-478) of THE LAW OFFICES OF CRISTOBAL BONIFAZ, 48 North
Pleasant St., P.O. Box 2488, Amherst, MA 01004, Phone:
(413) 253-5626, Fax: (413) 253-7475, Web site:
http://www.laborrights.org/projects/dyncorp/dyncorpcomplaint.doc


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Court Partially Dismisses Mutual Fund Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
partially granted Franklin Resources, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against it,
certain of its current and former officers, employees, and
directors, styled "In re Franklin Mutual Funds Fee Litigation."

Multiple lawsuits were initially filed, alleging violations of
various securities laws and pendent state law claims relating to
the disclosure of directed brokerage payments and/or payment of
allegedly excessive advisory, commission, and distribution fees.
These lawsuits are styled as class actions and derivative
actions brought on behalf of certain Funds.

The suits are:

     (1) Stephen Alexander IRA v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et
         al., Case No. 04-982 JLL, filed on March 2, 2004 in the
         United States District Court for the District of New
         Jersey;

     (2) Strigliabotti v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case
         No. C 04 0883 SI, filed on March 4, 2004 in the United
         States District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

     (3) Tricarico v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.
         CV-04-1052 JAP, filed on March 4, 2004 in the United
         States District Court for the District of New Jersey;

     (4) Miller v. Franklin Mutual Advisors, LLC, et al., Case
         No. 04-261 DRH, filed on April 16, 2004 in the United
         States District Court for the Southern District of
         Illinois and transferred to the United States District
         Court for the District of New Jersey on August 5, 2004
         (plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this action, without
         prejudice, on October 22, 2004);

     (5) Wilcox v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.
         04-2258 WHW, filed on May 12, 2004 in the United States
         District Court for the District of New Jersey;

     (6) Bahe, Custodian CGM Roth Conversion IRA v.
         Franklin/Templeton Distributors, Inc. et al., Case No.
         04-11195 PBS, filed on June 3, 2004 in the United
         States District Court for the District of
         Massachusetts

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
consolidated for pretrial purposes three of the above lawsuits
(Stephen Alexander IRA, Tricarico, and Wilcox) into a single
action, entitled "In re Franklin Mutual Funds Fee Litigation."
Plaintiffs in those three lawsuits filed a consolidated amended
complaint on October 4, 2004. Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Complaint on November 19, 2004.

On September 9, 2005, the court granted defendants' motion and
dismissed the Complaint, with leave to amend certain claims.
Separately, in the Strigliabotti lawsuit, the court entered its
order denying defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the
alternative, for judgment on the pleadings on November 9, 2005.


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: IL Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois dismissed the three remaining class actions filed
against various subsidiaries of Franklin Resources, Inc. as well
as certain Templeton Fund registrants, alleging breach of duty
with respect to the valuation of the portfolio securities of
certain Templeton Funds managed by such subsidiaries and
seeking, among other relief, monetary damages and attorneys'
fees and costs.

Several suits were initially filed in Illinois state courts,
styled:

     (1) Bradfisch v. Templeton Funds, Inc., et al., Case No.
         2003 L 001361, filed on October 3, 2003 in the Circuit
         Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County,
         Illinois;

     (2) Woodbury v. Templeton Global Smaller Companies Fund,
         Inc., et al., Case No. 2003 L 001362, filed on October
         3, 2003 in the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial
         Circuit, Madison County, Illinois;

     (3) Kwiatkowski v. Templeton Growth Fund, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 03 L 785, filed on December 17, 2003 in the
         Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St.
         Clair County, Illinois;

     (4) Parise v. Templeton Funds, Inc., et al., Case No. 2003
         L 002049, filed on December 22, 2003 in the Circuit
         Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County,
         Illinois

In April 2005, defendants removed these lawsuits to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  On
July 12, 2005, the court dismissed the Bradfisch case, on the
ground of preemption. Defendants' motions to dismiss the
remaining three lawsuits on the same ground are pending.

On August 25, 2005, the court granted that dismissal motion.
Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissals to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ("Bradfisch v.
Templeton Funds, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-3390," "Woodbury v.
Templeton Global Smaller Companies Fund, Inc., et al., Case No.
05-3559," "Kwiatkowski v. Templeton Growth Fund, Inc., et al.,
Case No.05-3558,"  "Parise v. Templeton Funds, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 05-3586").


MAXIM PHARMACEUTICALS: CA Court Dismisses Shareholder Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maxim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. reports that a California federal
court recently dismissed a purported shareholder class action
lawsuit filed by Dr. Richard Bassin on behalf of himself and a
class of other similarly situated shareholders.

The suit, which was filed on September 21, 2004, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California,
names the Company, one officer and one former officer of the
Company as defendants. It is alleging violations of federal
securities laws related to declines in the Company's stock price
in connection with various statements and alleged omissions to
the public and to the securities markets during the class period
from November 11, 2002 to September 17, 2004, and seeking
damages therefore. Thereafter, two similar complaints were filed
in the same court.

In March 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint
that sought to bundle the three cases. No discovery though has
been conducted. In October 2005, the court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, but
allowed plaintiffs leave to amend.

The Company said that it is possible that the plaintiffs will
exercise their right to file an amended complaint. The case was
recently tendered to the Company's insurance carrier, which has
denied coverage. The Company disputes the position taken by the
insurance carrier and fully intends to enforce its right under
the policy.

The suit is styled, "Bassin, et al. v. Maxim, et al., Case No.
04-CV-1900," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (San Diego), under Judge Dana M. Sabraw.
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, William S. Lerach of Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins, LLP, 401 B. St., Suite
160, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058; and Stuart L.
Berman, Marc I. Willner, Katharine M. Ryan and Heather Tashman
of Schiffrin and Barroway, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA
19087-3481, Phone: (610) 667-7706 or (610) 667-7056.
Representing the Defendant/s is, Philip C. Tencer of Cooley
Godward, 4401 Eastgate Mall, San Diego, CA 92121-1909, Phone:
(858) 550-6000 and (858) 550-6420.


MAXIM PHARMACEUTICALS: CA Court Rejects Amended Derivative Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maxim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. reports that a California court
rejected an amended derivative complaint over a definitive
merger agreement with EpiCept Corporation.

Plaintiff Jesus Putnam, purportedly on behalf of the Company,
filed the complaint on October 7, 2004 in the Superior Court for
the State of California, County of San Diego. The derivative
complaint names as defendants: one current and two former
officers of the Company as well as the Company's entire Board of
Directors. It is alleging breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of
control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, unjust
enrichment and violations of the California Corporations Code,
all of which arise from allowing purported violations of federal
securities laws related to declines in the Company's stock price
in connection with various statements and alleged omissions to
the public and to the securities markets, and seeking damages
therefore. No discovery has been conducted, and the parties have
entered into a stipulation to stay the action pending resolution
of the motion to dismiss the federal actions in California.

In October 2005, the plaintiff attempted to file an amended
complaint to include class action allegations that defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger. In
addition, the plaintiff requested that the court enjoin the
Company's directors from completing the merger as presently
proposed. However, the court, pending the lifting of the stay,
rejected the amended complaint.

The Company expects the plaintiff to re-file the amended
complaint once the stay is lifted, in or about December 2005. If
the court were to grant plaintiff request for an injunction, the
merger could be delayed indefinitely. The case was recently
tendered to the Company's insurance carrier, which has denied
coverage. The Company disputes the position taken by the
insurance carrier and fully intends to enforce its right under
the policy.


MICROMUSE INC.: CA Court Gives Final OK to Lawsuit Settlements
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California entered an order giving final approval to the
settlements of a consolidated federal securities class action
lawsuit and a federal derivative lawsuit filed against Micromuse
Inc. and certain of its officers.

On June 27, 2005, the Company reached settlement agreements
relating to the suits with no admission of liability or
wrongdoing by any party. The consolidated securities class
action styled, "In Re: Micromuse Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. C-04-0136 SBA," was pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California against the Company and
a number of the Company's current and former officers and
related to the Company's restated financial statements filed May
17, 2004. The related shareholder derivative suit styled,
"Sutterfield v. Carney et al., Case No. C-04-0893 SBA," is also
pending in the same court. Under the proposed settlement, the
lawsuits will be terminated in exchange for a payment that will
have no material adverse financial impact on the Company, as it
will be covered largely by the Company's insurance policies.

Between January 12, 2004 and March 5, 2004, individuals who
allege that they purchased the Company's common stock during a
purported class period and seek an unspecified amount of damages
filed seven securities class action complaints. The complaints
assert causes of action for alleged violations of Section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule
10b-5, arising out of the Company's decision to restate its
previously issued financial statements for the fiscal years
ended September 30, 2001 and 2002 and for the quarters ended
December 31, 2000 through June 30, 2003 and the Company's
decision to adjust its preliminary consolidated financial
statement information for the quarter and fiscal year ended
September 30, 2003, as initially announced on October 29, 2003.
The court later granted plaintiffs' motion to consolidate these
complaints and name the law firm of Berman, DeValerio, Pease,
Tabacco, Burt & Pucillo as lead plaintiffs' counsel. In
accordance with the court's order, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (September 8, 2005) reports.

The Sutterfield case was brought by plaintiffs derivatively on
behalf of (and for the benefit of) the Company, to remedy
defendants' violations of California law, including breaches of
fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste
of corporate assets, unjust enrichment and violations of the
California Corporations Code (including illegal insider trading)
that occurred between October 1, 1999 and the present (the
"Relevant Period") and that have caused substantial losses to
the Company and other damages, such as to its reputation and
goodwill. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, to recover
$189 million in illegal insider trading proceeds from
defendants. The claim for $189 million in illegal insider
trading proceeds was not brought in the consolidated federal
suit, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (September 8, 2005)
reports.

On December 7, 2005, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California held a final approval hearing
for both settlements. On the next day, the court entered its
order approving the settlements as fair and reasonable and
dismissing with prejudice all the lawsuits.


MICROMUSE INC.: Faces Derivative Lawsuit in CA, Seeks Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Micromuse Inc. was named as a nominal defendant along with
certain of its current and former officers and directors in
three derivative actions, purportedly brought by shareholders on
the Company's behalf.

Filed between February 2, 2004 and March 16, 2004 in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, those
actions were later consolidated on April 21, 2004. The
consolidated case is still pending.

The derivative complaints allege that as a result of the events
underlying the restatement in early 2004 certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors breached
their fiduciary duties to the Company, and that certain current
and former officers and directors engaged in insider trading in
violation of California law. The plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages on the Company's behalf from the defendants.

As a result of the stipulated settlement and dismissal with
prejudice of the federal derivative suit styled, "Sutterfield v.
Carney et al., Case No. C-04-0893 SBA," the Company and other
defendants intend to seek dismissal of this action.


NAVAJO TRUST: Utah May Have to Pay $35 Mil for Missing Fund
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell ordered an investigation into
the accounting records of the Navajo Trust Fund to look for some
$35 million intended for tribal members in San Juan County,
Utah.  Judge Campbell said the state will have to repay the
trust if it cannot account for the money, according to the
Associated Press.  The probe will have to deal with records
spanning five decades.

Utah holds the US$150 million oil trust intended to be used for
projects health, education and general tribal welfare.  The
trust, which was created by Congress in 1933, receives 37.5% of
royalties from oil-and-gas exploration on the Navajo
reservation.

According to the report, Attorney Brian Barnard, who represents
the families, suggests there is evidence that some of the trust
money was embezzled by those entrusted with it.  The Arizona
Daily Sun reports that Mr. Barnard fears there will be
difficulty tracking the funds, given that the Utah Navajo
Development Council and Utah Navajo Industries have both
disbanded after declaring bankruptcy.  UNDC, a New Mexico non-
profit group, received US$35 million to create UNI, a for-profit
company that developed small businesses.

The lawsuit represents a class of about 8,500 Navajos, according
to a previous Class Action Reporter story (June 14, 2002).
Included in disputed issues is how much oversight authority the
state had over the fund operation before a state board took it
over in 1992.  The Utah Navajos contend the state owes the fund
at least $142 million, including $50 million allegedly misspent
from 1960 to 1992, plus interest.  The state disputes these
claims.  The sides also have argued over how much documentation
the state must produce to prove where trust-fund money was
spent.


NETWORK ENGINES: Discovery For MA Suits Set to Conclude in March
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery for the consolidated class action lawsuits filed
against Network Engines, Inc. and certain individual Company
defendants is set to conclude on or before March 31, 2006.

On March 17, 2004, the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts consolidated a number of purported
class action lawsuits filed against the Company and other
defendants. These suits generally concern the timing of the
announcement of an amendment to Network Engines' agreement with
EMC Corporation regarding the resale of EMC-approved Fibre
Channel HBAs.

In its March 2004 order, the court selected Wing Kam Yu, Blake
Kunkel, and Thomas Cunningham as lead plaintiffs and appointed
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (now Milberg Weiss
Bershad & Schulman, LLP) as plaintiffs' lead counsel. The lead
plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on June 4,
2004. The defendants on August 13, 2004 filed a motion to
dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. The plaintiffs on
October 12, 2004 filed an opposition to the defendants' motion
to dismiss. The defendants filed a reply to the plaintiff's
opposition on November 12, 2004. The court on November 22, 2004
denied the Company's motion to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (January 3,
2005) reports.

On December 9, 2004, the defendants filed an answer to the
amended consolidated complaint. Since that time the parties have
engaged in some informal discovery and, more recently, have
exchanged formal discovery requests. As of the moment, both
parties are actively pursuing a settlement.

The suit is styled "Morgan v. Network Engines Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:03-cv-12529-JLT," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, under Judge Joseph L.
Tauro. Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Rachel S. Fleishman and
Carlos F. Ramirez of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212-594-
5300. Representing the defendants are, Robin L. Alperstein of
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, 399 Park Avenue, New
York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-230-8800, Fax: 212-230-8888; and
Daniel W. Halston and John A. Litwinski, Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr, LLP, 60 State St., Boston, MA 02109, Phone:
617-526-6654, Fax: 617-526-5000, E-mail:
daniel.halston@wilmerhale.com or john.litwinski@wilmerhale.com.


PEOPLE GAS: Faces Suit in IL Over Gas Reconciliation Procedures
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peoples Gas Light and Coke, Co. faces a purported class action
in Illinois alleging, among other things, violation of the
state's Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act in
relation to matters at issue in the Company's gas reconciliation
proceedings.

The suit, filed in February 2004, was brought on behalf of all
customers in Illinois who were allegedly defrauded of tens of
millions of dollars by the Illinois energy giant. It
specifically, accuses the Company of unlawfully charging fees
and deposits that were never approved by the Illinois Commerce
Commission.

According to the suit, the customers (generally builders and
contactors), who are represented by the Chicago office of
Halunen & Associates, were wrongfully charged for connection,
reconnection and disconnection services associated with gas main
and service pipe installation.

For more details, contact Halunen & Associates, 415 North
LaSalle St., Suite 203, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone: 312-222-0660,
Web site: http://youhaverights.lawoffice.com/CM/Custom/Peoples-
Gas-Class-Action-IL.asp.


ROBERT'S AMERICAN: Recalls 153 Snack Mixes For Undeclared Wheat
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert's American Gourmet of Sea Cliff, NY is recalling 153
cases (12 packages per case) of Robert's American Gourmet WHEAT
FREE CHAOS Snack Mix as a precaution because a small number of
packages may contain undeclared wheat (wheat pretzels). People
who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to wheat run the risk
of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
this product.

Robert's American Gourmet WHEAT FREE CHAOS was distributed to
distributors located in NJ, MA, CT, ME, NH, IN, CA, GA, and PA.

The product was sold in 6 oz. plastic bags with a "SELL BY DATE"
MAR2806 (corresponds to March 28, 2006), and UPC # 15665 41025
5. No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that some
packages of the WHEAT FREE CHAOS actually contain wheat
pretzels, which were not listed on the label. Subsequent
investigation indicates the problem was caused by a scheduling
error at the manufacturing plant. Production was temporarily
ceased and the problem has been corrected.

Consumers who have purchased Robert's American Gourmet WHEAT
FREE CHAOS, GLUTEN FREE Snack Mix are urged to return it to the
place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions
may contact the company at 1-800-626-7557.


ROCK HILL: Employee Misconduct Suit Discovery Phase Continues
-------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the class action suit against some executives of
the defunct Rock Hill Bank & Trust is set this spring, possibly
in early May, according to The Herald.  The trial will be
presided over by 5th Circuit Judge Ernest Kinard Jr. of Camden,
and is expected to last two weeks, the report said.

The defendants include officers and eight directors of the bank,
former bank president Rob Herron, and the accounting firm of
Tourville Simpson and Caskey.

Attorneys of the shareholders who are suing the company are
preparing a letter informing their clients of the upcoming
trial.  Robert Knowlton of Columbia, who represents bank
directors, said attorneys are still taking depositions.  The
discovery phase is expected to end this month, according to him.

Circuit Court Judge Cordell Maddox Jr. granted class status to
the case in 2003.  The shareholders estimate they have lost in
excess of $12 million, according to English McCutchen, a
Columbia, South Carolina attorney, who is lead counsel for the
stockholders, a previous Class Action Reporter story said (May
13, 2003).  Two civil suits filed by the shareholders in
September 2002, have been combined into one that represented
about 84,700 shares, or 7-1/2 percent of the stock.  The
lawsuits state the bank had losses two years in a row because of
employee misconduct.  The suits also claim officers and
directors were derelict in their duties to monitor employees and
loan activity.

Rock Hill was subsequently sold to the South Financial Group,
which held 22% of RHB&T's stock at the time, for $8.8 million as
part of a recovery plan.


SPECTRUM BRANDS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in WI, GA
------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Brands Inc. reports that it is currently facing several
securities fraud class action lawsuits in the states of Georgia
and Wisconsin.

On September 26, 2005, the Company along with its Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer David A. Jones, and Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer Randall J. Steward, were
named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit
captioned, "Jain v. Spectrum Brands Inc., David A. Jones and
Randall J. Steward, Civil Action No. 05-2494-WSD," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

That complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
action is purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's publicly traded securities between January 4, 2005 and
September 6, 2005. The plaintiff generally alleges that the
Company and the individually named defendants made materially
false and misleading public statements concerning the Company's
operational and financial condition, thereby allegedly causing
the plaintiff to purchase the Company's securities at
artificially inflated prices. The plaintiff seeks unspecified
damages, as well as interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

Substantially similar actions, captioned, "Dague v. Spectrum
Brands Inc., David A. Jones and Randall J. Steward, Civil
Action No. 05-0580-C (filed October 3, 2005 in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin)" and "Davies v.
Spectrum Brands Inc., David A. Jones and Randall J. Steward,
Civil Action No. 05-2814 (filed October 31, 2005 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia)" were filed
by other purported class representatives.

In addition, a further action captioned "Hunkapiller v. Spectrum
Brands Inc., David A. Jones and Randall J. Steward, Civil Action
No. 05-2911-WSD," was filed November 14, 2005 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and
purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
publicly-traded securities between January 4, 2005 and November
11, 2005.

In an order dated November 18, 2005, all cases pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia were
consolidated. Defendants are not required to answer, move or
otherwise respond until 30 days after service of a consolidated
amended complaint.

On November 28, 2005, a motion was filed to appoint lead
plaintiffs and approve selection of lead counsel. The court has
not yet ruled on that motion. The Company believes that these
actions are without merit.


TARGET: Recalls 861T Light Sets Due to Electrical, Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Target, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, is voluntarily
recalling about 861,000 units of Mini Light and Chasing Light
Sets.

According to the Company, these lights have undersized and
exposed wires, which pose a risk of electric shock and fire
hazards.

The recall includes 50-count multi-color mini light sets, 100-
count blue mini light sets, and 140-count chasing light sets.
"Mini Light Set" or "Chasing Light Set" is written on the
packaging. The 100-count light sets have UL number E254698 or
E182192, or there is no UL number written on the tag attached to
the light string. The 50-count light sets have UL number E254698
or E182192, or no UL number. The chasing light sets have UL
number E254698 or there is no UL number written on the tag.
Picture of recalled products:

     (1) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06067.jpg

Manufactured in China, the light sets were sold at target Stores
nationwide from September 2005 through December 2005 for $1.50
for the 50-count set; $2 for the 100-count set; and $10 for the
140-count chasing light set.

Remedy: Consumers should stop using the lights and return them
to the nearest Target store for a Target Gift Card in the amount
of a full refund.

Consumer Contact: For more information, consumers can contact
Target at (800) 440-0680 between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT Monday
through Friday, or log on to the firm's Web site at
http://www.Target.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

EVCI CAREER: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP initiated a
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of EVCI
Career Colleges Holding Corp. (NASDAQ:EVCI) common stock between
August 14, 2003 and December 5, 2005.

The complaint -- http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/evci/-- charges
EVCI and certain of its officers and directors with violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  EVCI, through its
subsidiary, Interboro Institute, Inc., provides on-campus career
college education.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's earnings and enrollment growth.  On
October 19, 2005, EVCI disclosed that it had received a draft
report from the New York State Education Department (NYSED)
concerning whether Interboro was in compliance with the
applicable rules and regulations governing degree-granting
institutions.  The report followed the Company's application for
approval to use its Yonkers site as an extension center and due
to the Company's growth in enrollment.  As a result of the
October 19, 2005 announcement, the Company's stock price fell
$3.08, or 56%, to close at $2.45.

Then, on the morning of December 6, 2005, the NYSED final report
was published revealing that a Company employee had advised an
undercover agent to falsify income for purposes of qualifying
for financial aid, that the school changed answers on a
federally approved exam to receive financial aid, and that
during a test, Company employees left test booklets with
indications as to the proper answers while a proctor left a
testing room for the students to obtain the answers in his
absence.  Finally, the NYSED report denied extension center
status for Interboro's Yonkers site and instead required
Interboro to reduce the enrollment at all sites, thereby
preventing the Company from increasing its enrollment or
achieving earlier-stated projections.  As a result of the
December 6, 2005 announcement, including the revelations above,
the Company's stock plummeted another 30% to close at $1.80 per
share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of EVCI common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Lerach Coughlin -- http://www.lerachlaw.com--  
which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and
extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.

Lerach Coughlin is a 160-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego,
San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Boca Raton, Washington,
D.C., Houston, Philadelphia and Seattle.

For more details, contact plaintiff's counsel, William Lerach or
Darren Robbins of Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800-449-4900 or
619-231-1058; E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com.


FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in FL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, initiated
a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of FARO Technologies Inc.
("FARO" or the "Company") (NasdaqNM: FARO), between May 6, 2004,
and November 3, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

The action, case no. 05-CV-1810, is pending before the Honorable
Anne C. Conway in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida against defendants FARO, Simon Raab
(CEO and Chairman), Gregory A. Fraser (Executive VP, Secretary,
Treasurer and a director), and Barbara R. Smith (CFO). According
to the complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market during the Class
Period.

The complaint alleges that FARO and its subsidiaries develop and
market software and devices for manufacturers in the automotive,
aerospace, power generation, heavy equipment, and electronics
industries to meet precision measurement requirements. The
Company claimed that its products could increase productivity
and profitability by eliminating manufacturing errors. At or
about the beginning of the Class Period, the Company represented
that it had implemented "lean manufacturing" principles that
purportedly increased the Company's production capacity, among
other improvements, by "eliminating wastes," such as
overproduction, wait time, inefficient processes, and product
defects. During the Class Period, defendants issued strong
results and positive guidance which defendants attributed to, in
material part, the Company's purported implementation of
adequate controls and efficient practices. Unbeknownst to
investors, however, these statements were materially false and
misleading, and known or recklessly disregarded by defendants as
such, 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. On
November 3, 2005, after the market closed, the Company announced
that it had incurred $1.6 million in "inventory costing and
consumption variances . . . due to processing problems relating
to the implementation of our new accounting and inventory
management systems." Defendant Simon Raab later admitted that
the Company had not been able to keep up with customer orders,
in particular, "late arriving Asian orders in Q2," resulting 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 volume.
As a result of defendants' materially false and misleading
statements, the price of FARO securities became artificially
inflated during the Class Period. Defendants were motivated to
engage in the wrongful and fraudulent conduct alleged in the
complaint to sell over 1.48 million of their personally held
FARO shares for profits of over $40.9 million, and to complete
the acquisition of iQvolution AG using FARO stock.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman
and Andrei V. Rado of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone:
(800) 320-5081, E-mail: sfeerick@milbergweiss.com, Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com.


FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Binkow Files FL Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a class action in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of FARO Technologies,
Inc. (Nasdaq:FARO) between May 6, 2004 and Nov. 3, 2005,
inclusive.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (http://www.glancylaw.com).

The Complaint charges FARO and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning FARO's financial performance caused the
Company's stock price to become artificially inflated,
inflicting damages on investors.

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 alleges that at or about the
beginning of the Class Period, the Company represented that it
had implemented principles that purportedly increased the
Company's production capacity, among other improvements, by
eliminating overproduction, wait time, inefficient processes,
and product defects, among others. During the Class Period,
defendants issued strong results and positive guidance, which
they attributed to, in material part, the Company's purported
implementation of adequate controls and efficient practices.

However, the complaint alleges that defendants' Class Period
representations regarding its 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.

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 volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members
and is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP.

For more information, contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire of
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite
311, Los Angeles, California 90067; Phone: (310) 201-9150,
(888) 773-9224 (toll free); E-mail: info@glancylaw.com.


HELEN OF TROY: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in TX
-------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired
the securities of Helen of Troy, Ltd. (Nasdaq:HELE) between Oct.
12, 2004 through Oct. 10, 2005, inclusive.  Helen of Troy,
Gerald J. Rubin, and Thomas J. Benson are named defendants.

Helen of Troy designs, develops, produces, and distributes
personal care and household consumer products.  The complaint
charges Helen of Troy and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made
materially false and misleading statements to the investing
public regarding its financial performance and prospects in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleges that defendants engaged in a scheme to
defraud shareholders and cause the Company's stock to be
artificially inflated through the issuance of statements
misrepresenting the Company's business performance and the
issuance of positive earnings guidance for which their was no
reasonable basis.  Coinciding with the price inflation,
defendant Rubin sold 393,350 shares of his personally held
shares of the Company's common stock near its peak price of
$33.00 per share resulting in net proceeds of almost $13
million.  On October 11, 2005, the Company substantially lowered
its unattainable guidance for 2006 and reported a year over year
decline in revenues during its second quarter.  On this news,
the stock dropped 21%, falling to $15.55 per share.

Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP and its predecessor firms have
devoted their practice to shareholder class actions and complex
commercial litigation for more than fifteen years and have
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders in
class actions throughout the United States.

For more information, contact plaintiff's counsel Eric J. Belfi
or Christopher S. Hinton of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
(http://www.murrayfrank.com/CM/NewCases/NewCases.asp)


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Charles J. Piven, P.A. filed a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Impac
Mortgage Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: IMH) between May 13, 2005 and
Aug. 9, 2005, inclusive.

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

For more information, contact Charles J. Piven, P.A., The World
Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525,
Baltimore, Maryland 21202, E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com; Phone:
410/986-0036.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf
of all securities purchasers of Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.
(NYSE: IMH) between May 13, 2005 and Aug. 9, 2005, inclusive.

The complaint charges Impac and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Impac operates as a mortgage real estate investment trust
(REIT), which engages in the acquisition, origination, sale, and
securitization of nonconforming Alt-A mortgages.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented these material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them: that the Company's operating margins were significantly
and negatively affected by the rise in short-term interest
rates; given this Impac could not sustain its high dividend
payments; that the Company lacked adequate internal controls;
and that the Company's statements with respect to its current
condition and future prospects lacked in all reasonable basis
when made.

On August 9, 2005, Impac shocked the market when it revealed
that the Company posted a net loss of $55 million, or 78 cents
per share, compared to a profit of $143.2 million, or $2.17 per
share.  The Company also 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, shares of Impac fell
$2.39 per share, or 14.60 percent, on August 10, 2005, to close
at $13.98 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members
and is represented by the law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway
(http://www.sbclasslaw.com).

For more information, contact Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP (Darren
J. Check, Esq. or Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.), Phone:
1-888-299-7706 (toll-free) or 1-610-667-7706; E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com.


NASH FINCH: Federman & Sherwood Launches Securities Suit in MN
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood filed a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
against Nash Finch Company (Nasdaq: NAFC).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from February 24, 2005 through October 20, 2005.

For more details, contact William B. Federman, FEDERMAN &
SHERWOOD, by Mail: 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City,
OK 73102, by Phone: (405) 235-1560 by Fax: (405) 239-2112,
Email: wfederman@aol.com, or visit the Website:
http://www.federmanlaw.com.


SERACARE LIFE: Ann D. White Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ann D. White Law Offices, P.C., initiated class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the
securities of SeraCare Life Sciences (NYSE:SRLSE) between May 3,
2005 and Dec. 19, 2005, inclusive.

The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities law.
On Dec. 14, 2005 SeraCare filed a Form 8-K stating it would not
be able to file its Form 10-K for fiscal year ending September
30, 2005.  On Dec. 20, 2005 the Company said its outside
auditors had sent a letter to SeraCare's audit committee
expressing concerns with respect to SeraCare's financial
statements, accounting documentation and the ability of the
auditors to rely on the representations of SeraCare's
management.  Immediately following this announcement, SeraCare's
stock dropped as much as 62.4%, from a closing price of $19.30
on December 19, 2005 to a low of $7.25 on December 20, 2005.

For more information, contact Ann White, Mandy Roth or Ronald
Lopit, Phone: 866-389-0274 (toll-free); E-mail:
awhite@awhitelaw.com.


SERACARE LIFE: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
initiated a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on behalf of its client and
other similarly situated purchasers of SeraCare Life Science,
Inc. (Nasdaq:SRLS)(Nasdaq:SRLSE) common stock between May 3,
2005, through and including Dec. 19, 2005.

The Complaint charges SeraCare and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The Complaint alleges that
defendants omitted or misrepresented material adverse facts
about the Company's financial condition, business prospects, and
revenue expectations during the Class Period.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants directly participated in an accounting fraud, which
materially overstated the Company's financial results in
violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

Specifically, the complaint charges that throughout the Class
Period, defendants orchestrated and actively participated in the
following improper accounting practices in direct violation of
GAAP: defendants used improper revenue recognition policies and
practices; defendants failed to properly account for and value
inventory; defendants failed to prevent certain Board members
from exerting undue influence on the financial reporting
process; and defendants failed to maintain adequate internal
controls and were, therefore, unable to ascertain the true
financial condition of the Company.

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

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

For more information, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq., Scott Evans
of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
(http://www.cmht.com),1100 New York Avenue, N.W., West Tower,
Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20005; Phone: 888-240-0775 or
202-408-4600; E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or sevans2@cmht.com.


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

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

Dreyfus A Bonds Plus (NASDAQ: DRBDX)
Dreyfus Appreciation (NASDAQ: DGAGX)
Dreyfus Balanced Fund, Inc. (NASDAQ: DRBAX)
Dreyfus Basic S&P 500 Stock Index (NASDAQ: DSPIX)
Dreyfus Basic US Mortgage Securities (NASDAQ: DIGFX)
Dreyfus Bond Market Index (NASDAQ: DBIRX) (NASDAQ: DBMIX)
Dreyfus CA Intermediate Muni Bond (NASDAQ: DCIMX)
Dreyfus California Municipal Income Inc. (NASDAQ: XDCGX)
Dreyfus CT Intermediate Muni Bond (NASDAQ: DCTIX)
Dreyfus Disciplined Stock (NASDAQ: DDSTX)
Dreyfus Emerging Leaders (NASDAQ: DRELX)
Dreyfus FL Intermediate Muni Bond (NASDAQ: DFLIX)
Dreyfus Founders Balanced (NASDAQ: FRIDX) (NASDAQ: FRIBX)
(NASDAQ: FRICX)
(NASDAQ: FRINX) (NASDAQ: FRIRX) (NASDAQ: FRIUX)
Dreyfus Founders Discovery (NASDAQ: FDIDX) (NASDAQ: FDIEX)
(NASDAQ: FDICX)
(NASDAQ: FDISX) (NASDAQ: FDIRX) (NASDAQ: FDITX)
Dreyfus Founders Equity Growth (NASDAQ: FRMAX) (NASDAQ: FRMEX)
(NASDAQ: FRMDX) (NASDAQ: FRMUX) (NASDAQ: FRMRX) (NASDAQ: FRMVX)
Dreyfus Founders Government Secs (NASDAQ: FGVSX)
Dreyfus Founders Growth (NASDAQ: FRGDX) (NASDAQ: FRGEX) (NASDAQ:
FRGFX)
(NASDAQ: FRGRX) (NASDAQ: FRGYX) (NASDAQ: FRGZX)
Dreyfus Founders International Eq (NASDAQ: FOIAX) (NASDAQ:
FOIDX)
(NASDAQ: FOICX) (NASDAQ: FOIEX) (NASDAQ: FOIRX) (NASDAQ: FOIUX)
Dreyfus Founders Mid-Cap Growth (NASDAQ: FRSDX) (NASDAQ: FRSFX)
(NASDAQ: FRSCX) (NASDAQ: FRSPX) (NASDAQ: FRSRX) (NASDAQ: FRSVX)
Dreyfus Founders Passport (NASDAQ: FPSAX) (NASDAQ: FPSBX)
(NASDAQ: FPSCX)
(NASDAQ: FPSSX) (NASDAQ: FPSRX) (NASDAQ: FPSTX)
Dreyfus Founders Worldwide Growth (NASDAQ: FWWAX) (NASDAQ:
FWWBX)
(NASDAQ: FWWCX) (NASDAQ: FWWGX) (NASDAQ: FWWRX) (NASDAQ: FWWTX)
Dreyfus General California Muni (NASDAQ: GCABX)
Dreyfus General Municipal Bond (NASDAQ: GMBDX)
Dreyfus GNMA (NASDAQ: DRGMX)
Dreyfus Growth & Income (NASDAQ: DGRIX)
Dreyfus Growth Opportunity (NASDAQ: DREQX)
Dreyfus High Yield Strategies Fund (NASDAQ: XDHFX)
Dreyfus Inflation-Adjusted Sec (NASDAQ: DIASX) (NASDAQ: DIAVX)
Dreyfus Instl Yield Advantage Inst (NASDAQ: DIYAX)
Dreyfus Instl Yield Advantage Inv (NASDAQ: DYAIX)
Dreyfus Insured Municipal Bond (NASDAQ: DTBDX)
Dreyfus Intermediate Municipal Bond (NASDAQ: DITEX)
Dreyfus Intermediate-Term Inc (NASDAQ: DITIX) (NASDAQ: DRITX)
Dreyfus Intl Stock Index (NASDAQ: DIISX)
Dreyfus LifeTime Growth & Income (NASDAQ: DGIIX) (NASDAQ: DGIRX)
Dreyfus LifeTime Growth (NASDAQ: DLGIX) (NASDAQ: DLGRX)
Dreyfus LifeTime Income (NASDAQ: DLIIX) (NASDAQ: DLIRX)
Dreyfus MA Intermediate Muni Bond (NASDAQ: DMAIX)
Dreyfus Massachusetts Tax Exemp (NASDAQ: DMEBX)
Dreyfus MidCap Index (NASDAQ: PESPX)
Dreyfus Midcap Value (NASDAQ: DMCVX)
Dreyfus Municipal Bond (NASDAQ: DRTAX)
Dreyfus Municipal Income Inc. (NASDAQ: XDMFX)
Dreyfus New York Municipal Income Inc. (NASDAQ: XDNMX)
Dreyfus NJ Intermediate Muni Bond (NASDAQ: DNJIX)
Dreyfus NY Tax-Exempt Bond (NASDAQ: DRNYX)
Dreyfus NY Tax-Exempt Interm Bond (NASDAQ: DRNIX)
Dreyfus PA Intermediate Muni Bond (NASDAQ: DPABX)
Dreyfus Premier Alpha Growth (NASDAQ: DPWAX) (NASDAQ: BSFBX)
(NASDAQ: BSFCX) (NASDAQ: DPARX) (NASDAQ: BSFAX)
Dreyfus Premier Balanced (NASDAQ: PRBAX) (NASDAQ: PRBBX)
(NASDAQ: DPBCX)
(NASDAQ: PDBLX) (NASDAQ: DBFTX)
Dreyfus Premier Balanced Opportunity (NASDAQ: DBOAX) (NASDAQ:
DBOBX)
(NASDAQ: DBOCX) (NASDAQ: THPBX) (NASDAQ: DBORX) (NASDAQ: DBOTX)
(NASDAQ: DBOZX)
Dreyfus Premier Blue Chip (NASDAQ: DBCAX) (NASDAQ: DBCBX)
(NASDAQ: DBUCX)
(NASDAQ: TPBCX) (NASDAQ: DBCRX) (NASDAQ: DBCTX)
Dreyfus Premier CA Tax Exempt Bond (NASDAQ: DCAAX) (NASDAQ:
DCABX)
(NASDAQ: DCACX) (NASDAQ: DRCAX)
Dreyfus Premier California Muni (NASDAQ: DPACX) (NASDAQ: PRCAX)
(NASDAQ: PRCBX)
Dreyfus Premier Core Bond (NASDAQ: DSINX) (NASDAQ: DRCBX)
(NASDAQ: DRCCX)
(NASDAQ: DRCRX)
Dreyfus Premier Core Equity (NASDAQ: DLTSX) (NASDAQ: DPEBX)
(NASDAQ: DPECX)
(NASDAQ: DPERX) (NASDAQ: DCETX)
Dreyfus Premier Core Value (NASDAQ: DCVIX) (NASDAQ: DBCVX)
(NASDAQ: DCVCX)
(NASDAQ: DCVFX) (NASDAQ: DTCRX) (NASDAQ: DCVTX)
Dreyfus Premier Corporate Bond (NASDAQ: DCBAX) (NASDAQ: DCBBX)
(NASDAQ: DCBCX) (NASDAQ: DCBRX)
Dreyfus Premier Emerging Markets (NASDAQ: DRFMX) (NASDAQ: DBPEX)
(NASDAQ: DCPEX) (NASDAQ: DRPEX) (NASDAQ: DTPEX)
Dreyfus Premier Enterprise (NASDAQ: DPMGX) (NASDAQ: DMCGX)
(NASDAQ: DMCCX)
(NASDAQ: DMCTX)
Dreyfus Premier Financial Services (NASDAQ: DFSFX) (NASDAQ:
DFSBX)
(NASDAQ: DFVCX) (NASDAQ: DFVRX) (NASDAQ: DFVTX)
Dreyfus Premier Future Leaders (NASDAQ: DFLAX) (NASDAQ: DFLBX)
(NASDAQ: DPFCX) (NASDAQ: DFLRX) (NASDAQ: DFLTX)
Dreyfus Premier GNMA (NASDAQ: PSGNX) (NASDAQ: PGMBX) (NASDAQ:
DPGCX)
Dreyfus Premier Greater China (NASDAQ: DPCAX) (NASDAQ: DPCBX)
(NASDAQ: DPCCX) (NASDAQ: DPCRX) (NASDAQ: DPCTX)
Dreyfus Premier Growth & Income (NASDAQ: PEGAX) (NASDAQ: PEGBX)
(NASDAQ: DGICX) (NASDAQ: DRERX) (NASDAQ: DGITX)
Dreyfus Premier Health Care (NASDAQ: DHCAX) (NASDAQ: DHCBX)
(NASDAQ: DHCCX)
(NASDAQ: DHCRX) (NASDAQ: DHCTX)
Dreyfus Premier High Income (NASDAQ: DIMAX) (NASDAQ: DIMBX)
(NASDAQ: DIMCX)
(NASDAQ: DIMRX)
Dreyfus Premier International Eq (NASDAQ: DIEAX) (NASDAQ: DIEBX)
(NASDAQ: DIECX) (NASDAQ: DIERX) (NASDAQ: DIETX)
Dreyfus Premier International Gr (NASDAQ: DRGLX) (NASDAQ: DGLBX)
(NASDAQ: DIGCX) (NASDAQ: DIGRX) (NASDAQ: DPITX)
Dreyfus Premier International Opp (NASDAQ: DPAVX) (NASDAQ:
DPBVX)
(NASDAQ: DPCVX) (NASDAQ: DPRVX) (NASDAQ: DPVTX)
Dreyfus Premier International Sm-Cp (NASDAQ: DSMAX) (NASDAQ:
DSMBX)
(NASDAQ: DSMCX) (NASDAQ: DSMRX) (NASDAQ: DSMTX)
Dreyfus Premier International Value (NASDAQ: DVLAX) (NASDAQ:
DIBVX)
(NASDAQ: DICVX) (NASDAQ: DIRVX) (NASDAQ: DITVX)
Dreyfus Premier Japan Fund Class (NASDAQ: DPJAX) (NASDAQ: DPJBX)
(NASDAQ: DPJCX) (NASDAQ: DPJRX) (NASDAQ: DPJTX)
Dreyfus Premier Intrinsic Value (NASDAQ: DPVAX) (NASDAQ: BLCBX)
(NASDAQ: BLCCX) (NASDAQ: BSLYX) (NASDAQ: BLCAX)
Dreyfus Premier Large Company Stock (NASDAQ: DRDEX) (NASDAQ:
DRLBX)
(NASDAQ: DLCCX) (NASDAQ: DEIRX) (NASDAQ: DLSTX)
Dreyfus Premier Limited-Term Income (NASDAQ: DPIAX) (NASDAQ:
DPIBX)
(NASDAQ: DPICX) (NASDAQ: PLTIX)
Dreyfus Premier Ltd-Term High Yld (NASDAQ: DPLTX) (NASDAQ:
DLTBX)
(NASDAQ: PTHIX) (NASDAQ: DLHRX)
Dreyfus Premier Managed Income (NASDAQ: PMNIX) (NASDAQ: DTMBX)
(NASDAQ: DTMCX) (NASDAQ: DTMRX)
Dreyfus Premier Midcap Stock (NASDAQ: DPMAX) (NASDAQ: DMSBX)
(NASDAQ: DMSCX) (NASDAQ: DDMRX) (NASDAQ: DMSTX)
Dreyfus Premier MidCap Value (NASDAQ: DMVPX) (NASDAQ: DMVBX)
(NASDAQ: DMVCX) (NASDAQ: DMVRX) (NASDAQ: DMVTX)
Dreyfus Premier Municipal Bond (NASDAQ: PTEBX) (NASDAQ: PMUBX)
(NASDAQ: DMBCX) (NASDAQ: DMBZX)
Dreyfus Premier Natural Leaders (NASDAQ: DNLAX) (NASDAQ: DLDBX)
(NASDAQ: DLDCX) (NASDAQ: DLDRX) (NASDAQ: DLDTX)
Dreyfus Premier New Leaders (NASDAQ: DNLDX) (NASDAQ: DNLBX)
(NASDAQ: DNLCX) (NASDAQ: DNLRX) (NASDAQ: DNLTX)
Dreyfus Premier NJ Municipal Bond (NASDAQ: DRNJX) (NASDAQ:
DBNJX)
(NASDAQ: DCNJX)
Dreyfus Premier NY Municipal Bond (NASDAQ: PSNYX) (NASDAQ:
PRNBX)
(NASDAQ: PNYCX)
Dreyfus Premier Consumer Fd Cl (NASDAQ: DCOAX) (NASDAQ: DCOBX)
(NASDAQ: DCOCX) (NASDAQ: DCORX) (NASDAQ: DCOTX)
Dreyfus Prem NexTech Fd (NASDAQ: DPNTX)
Dreyfus Premier S&P Stars (NASDAQ: DPPAX) (NASDAQ: BSPBX)
(NASDAQ: BSPCX)
Dreyfus Premier S&P Stars Opp (NASDAQ: DPOAX) (NASDAQ: BSOBX)
(NASDAQ: BSOCX) (NASDAQ: DSORX) (NASDAQ: BSOAX) (NASDAQ: BSSPX)
(NASDAQ: BSPAX)
Dreyfus Premier Sel Intm Muni Bond (NASDAQ: DPASX) (NASDAQ:
DPBSX)
(NASDAQ: DPCSX) (NASDAQ: DBIMX)
Dreyfus Premier Sel Mid-Cap Growth (NASDAQ: DASMX) (NASDAQ:
DBSMX)
(NASDAQ: DCSMX) (NASDAQ: DRSMX) (NASDAQ: DMGTX)
Dreyfus Premier Sel Municipal Bond (NASDAQ: DMUAX) (NASDAQ:
DMUBX)
(NASDAQ: DMUCX) (NASDAQ: DRMBX)
Dreyfus Premier Select Growth Fund (NASDAQ: DASGX) (NASDAQ:
DBSGX)
(NASDAQ: DCSGX) (NASDAQ: DRSGX) (NASDAQ: DGRTX)
Dreyfus Premier Select (NASDAQ: DSLAX) (NASDAQ: DSLBX) (NASDAQ:
DSLCX)
(NASDAQ: THPSX) (NASDAQ: DSLRX) (NASDAQ: DSLTX)
Dreyfus Premier Short Term Income (NASDAQ: DSHAX) (NASDAQ:
DSHBX)
(NASDAQ: DSTIX) (NASDAQ: DSHPX)
Dreyfus Premier Sht-Intm Muni Bond (NASDAQ: DSBAX) (NASDAQ:
DSBBX)
(NASDAQ: DSIBX) (NASDAQ: DSBPX)
Dreyfus Premier Small Cap Equity (NASDAQ: DSEAX) (NASDAQ: DSEBX)
(NASDAQ: DSECX) (NASDAQ: DSERX) (NASDAQ: DSETX)
Dreyfus Premier Small Cap Value (NASDAQ: DSVAX) (NASDAQ: DSVBX)
(NASDAQ: DSVCX) (NASDAQ: DSVRX) (NASDAQ: DSVTX)
Dreyfus Premier Small Company Gr (NASDAQ: DSGAX) (NASDAQ: DSGBX)
(NASDAQ: DSGCX) (NASDAQ: DSGRX) (NASDAQ: DSGTX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond CT (NASDAQ: PSCTX) (NASDAQ:
PMCBX)
(NASDAQ: PMCCX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond FL (NASDAQ: PSFLX) (NASDAQ:
PSFBX)
(NASDAQ: PSFCX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MA (NASDAQ: PSMAX) (NASDAQ:
PBMAX)
(NASDAQ: PCMAX) (NASDAQ: PMAZX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MD (NASDAQ: PSMDX) (NASDAQ:
PMDBX)
(NASDAQ: PMDCX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MI (NASDAQ: PSMIX) (NASDAQ:
PMIBX)
(NASDAQ: PCMIX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MN (NASDAQ: PSMNX) (NASDAQ:
PMMNX)
(NASDAQ: PMNCX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond NC (NASDAQ: PSNOX) (NASDAQ:
PMNBX)
(NASDAQ: PNCCX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond OH (NASDAQ: PSOHX) (NASDAQ:
POHBX)
(NASDAQ: POHCX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond PA (NASDAQ: PTPAX) (NASDAQ:
PPABX)
(NASDAQ: PPACX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond TX (NASDAQ: PTXBX) (NASDAQ:
PSTBX)
(NASDAQ: PTXCX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond VA (NASDAQ: PSVAX) (NASDAQ:
PVABX)
(NASDAQ: PVACX)
Dreyfus Premier Strategic Value (NASDAQ: DAGVX) (NASDAQ: DBGVX)
(NASDAQ: DCGVX) (NASDAQ: DRGVX) (NASDAQ: DTGVX)
Dreyfus Premier Structured Lg Cp Val (NASDAQ: DLVAX) (NASDAQ:
DLVBX)
(NASDAQ: DLVCX) (NASDAQ: DLVRX) (NASDAQ: DLVTX)
Dreyfus Premier Structured Midcap (NASDAQ: DPSAX) (NASDAQ:
DPSBX)
(NASDAQ: DPSCX) (NASDAQ: DPSRX) (NASDAQ: DPSTX)
Dreyfus Premier Tax-Managed Growth (NASDAQ: DTMGX) (NASDAQ:
DPTMX)
(NASDAQ: DPTAX) (NASDAQ: DPTRX) (NASDAQ: DPMTX)
Dreyfus Premier Technology Growth (NASDAQ: DTGRX) (NASDAQ:
DTGBX)
(NASDAQ: DTGCX) (NASDAQ: DGVRX) (NASDAQ: DPTGX)
Dreyfus Premier Third Century (NASDAQ: DTCAX) (NASDAQ: DTCBX)
(NASDAQ: DTCCX) (NASDAQ: DRTCX) (NASDAQ: DTCTX) (NASDAQ: DRTHX)
Dreyfus Premier Value (NASDAQ: DRSIX) (NASDAQ: DSTBX) (NASDAQ:
DPVCX)
(NASDAQ: DPVRX) (NASDAQ: DTPVX)
Dreyfus Premier Worldwide Growth (NASDAQ: PGROX) (NASDAQ: PGWBX)
(NASDAQ: PGRCX) (NASDAQ: DPWRX) (NASDAQ: DPWTX)
Dreyfus Premier Yield Advantage (NASDAQ: DPYAX) (NASDAQ: DPYBX)
(NASDAQ: DYADX) (NASDAQ: DPYPX) (NASDAQ: DPYSX)
Dreyfus S&P 500 Index (NASDAQ: PEOPX)
Dreyfus Short-Intermediate Government (NASDAQ: DSIGX)
Dreyfus Small Cap Stock Index (NASDAQ: DISSX)
Dreyfus Small Company Value (NASDAQ: DSCVX)
Dreyfus Strategic Municipal Bond Fund Inc. (NASDAQ: XDSMX)
Dreyfus Strategic Municipals Inc. (NASDAQ: XLEOX)
Dreyfus U.S. Treasury Intrm-Term (NASDAQ: DRGIX)
Dreyfus U.S. Treasury Long-Term (NASDAQ: DRGBX)

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

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

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

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

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

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



                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Teena Canson 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  * * *