CAR_Public/060119.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, January 19, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 14

                            Headlines

AQUILA INC.: Securities Settlement Hearing Set February 3, 2006
ATLAS AMERICA: Discovery Continues in NY Lawsuit V. Subsidiary
CENDANT PRIDES: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set January 27, 2006
CLEARONE COMMUNICATIONS: UT Suit Settlement Obligations Met
CONCORD CAMERA: Amended Consolidated Stock Suit Continues in FL

DUPONT CO.: Wrapping up Work on $10M Filter for C8 Contaminant
EASYLINK SERVICES: Settles Third Party Claim in Steven Brin Case
GAMA CONSTRUCTION: Former Workers Bring Labor Case to Turkey
GANDER MOUNTAIN: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action in MN
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Claim Forms to Replace Refrigerators Now Out

HIENERGY TECHNOLOGIES: Pre-Trail Conference Scheduled in CA Suit
INTERMIX MEDIA: CA Judge Allows Adware Suit to Proceed
LOUISIANA: School Staff's Labor Suits Miss Certification Date
MCKESSON HBOC INC.: Suit Settlement Hearing Set January 27, 2006
MISSISSIPPI NATIONWIDE: Property Owners Pursue Damages Claims

MORGANS HOTEL: Shore Club Owner Files Fraud Complaint in NY
NUI CORPORATION: Suit Settlement Hearing Set January 20, 2006
PALMONE, INC.: Claims Against Faulty Handhelds Due Feb. 22
ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls Thousands of Blood Glucose Meters
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Labor Suit

SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Judge Dismisses Claims of Deceptive Marketing
SHOPKO STORES: Shareholders Suits Over Merger Consolidated
TEXAS: Lawyer's Fee Sharing Agreement May Defy State Bar Laws
TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: CA Court Sets April 11 Settlement Hearing
TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: Case Management Conference set for CA Suit

TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: February Trial Scheduled for "Langley" Case
WASHINGTON: Court Sides with Plaintiffs in Pershing Park Case

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

IMPAC MORTGAGE: Federman Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Suit
PATTERSON-UTI: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Schiffrin Barroway Files Fraud Suit in CA
SERACARE LIFE: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
SFBC INTERNATIONAL: Stull Stull Files FL Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


AQUILA INC.: Securities Settlement Hearing Set February 3, 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, Western Division, will hold a fairness hearing for the
proposed $1,000,000 settlement in the matter: "Robert Carpe, et
al. v. Aquila, Inc., et al., No. 02-0388-CV-W-FJG." The case was
filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Class A common stock of Aquila, Inc. (NYSE ticker:
ILA; CUSIP 918005109) during the period from April 24, 2001 to
December 3, 2001, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby (the
"Class").

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Fernando J.
Gaitan, Jr. in the Charles Evans Whittaker Courthouse, 400 E.
9th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, at 8:30 a.m., on
February 3, 2006 to determine whether the proposed settlement
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and to consider the application of Plaintiffs' Counsel
for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

For more details, contact Aquila, Inc. Securities Litigation,
c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, Post
Office Box 9000 #6301, Merrick, NY 11566-9000, Phone:
(800) 408-9856, Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com;
Jeffrey M. Haber, Esq. of BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD & LIFSHITZ, LLP, 10
East 40th St., New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 779-1414; Robert
A. Wallner, Esq. of MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN, LLP, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone:
(212) 594-5300; and Andrew Zivitz, Esq., SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY,
LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA  19087, Phone:
(610) 667-7706.


ATLAS AMERICA: Discovery Continues in NY Lawsuit V. Subsidiary
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in a class action suit filed in the New York
Supreme Court, Chautauqua County against a subsidiary of Atlas
America Inc. that was brought by individuals, putatively on
their own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, who leased property to Resource Energy, Inc. along
with Resource America, Inc.

The complaint alleges that the defendant is not paying
landowners the proper amount of royalty revenues derived from
the natural gas produced from the wells on leased property.  The
complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount for the alleged
difference between the amount of royalties actually paid and the
amount of royalties that allegedly should have been paid.  
Plaintiffs were certified as a class in December 2003, but an
appeal of that certification is pending.


CENDANT PRIDES: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set January 27, 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the
matter Cendant PRIDES Litigation II.  The case was filed on
behalf of all persons and entities, who purchased Cendant Income
PRIDES of Cendant Growth PRIDES during the period April 16, 1998
through August 28, 1998, and who were injured thereby.

The hearing will be held before Hon. William H. Walls, in
Courtroom 4D of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Building &
U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, NJ, at 10:00 a.m., on
January 27, 2006 to determine whether the proposed Settlement of
the above-captioned class action should be approved by the
District Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and to
consider the application of Lead Counsel for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses.

For more details, contact Cendant PRIDES Litigation II c/o
Valley Forge Administrative Services, One Aldwyn Center -- P.O.
Box 220, Villanova, PA 19085-0220, Phone: (877) 965-3300 or
(610) 520-0866, Fax: (610) 520-0854; and Roger W. Kirby, Esq.
and Randall K. Berger, Esq. of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP,
830 Third Ave., New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 371-6600.


CLEARONE COMMUNICATIONS: UT Suit Settlement Obligations Met
-----------------------------------------------------------
ClearOne Communications, Inc. completed it obligations to an
amended settlement for the consolidated securities class action
filed against it, eight of its present or former officers and
directors, and its former auditor, Ernst & Young, in the United
States District Court for the District of Utah, on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from
April 17, 2001 through January 15, 2003.

The complaints charged the Company and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The complaints alleged that during the class period,
defendants caused Company shares to trade at artificially
inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading
financial statements.

As a result of this inflation, ClearOne was able to complete a
private offering of 1.2 million shares, raising proceeds of
$25.5 million on December 11, 2001.  On January 15, 2003, the
Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Utah seeking a
temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent
injunctions against ClearOne, Frances M. Flood, the Company's
Chairman, CEO and President, and Susie S. Strohm, the Company's
CFO and Vice President of Finance.  The stock dropped below
$1.50 per share on this news, more than 90% lower than its class
period high, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (February
27,2003) reports.

On December 4, 2003, the Company and all other defendants with
the exception of Ernst & Young, entered into a settlement
agreement with the class, pursuant to which they agreed to pay
the class $5.0 million and issue the class 1.2 million shares of
the Company's common stock.  The cash payment was made in two
equal installments, the first on November 10, 2003 and the
second on January 14, 2005.  On May 23, 2005, the court order
was amended to provide that odd-lot numbers of shares (99 or
fewer shares) would not be issued from the settlement fund and
claimants who would otherwise be entitled to receive 99 or fewer
shares would be paid cash in lieu of such odd-lot number of
shares.  On September 29, 2005, the Company completed its
obligations under the settlement agreement by issuing a total of
1,148,494 shares of common stock to the plaintiff class,
including 228,000 shares previously issued in November 2004, and
paid an aggregate of $126,705 in cash in lieu of shares to those
members of the class who would otherwise have been entitled to
receive an odd-lot number of shares or who resided in states in
which there was no exemption available for the issuance of
shares.  The cash payments were calculated on the basis of $2.46
per share which was equal to the higher of the closing price for
common stock as reported by the Pink Sheets on the business day
prior to the date the shares were mailed or the average closing
price over the five trading days prior to such mailing date.

The suit was styled "In re ClearOne Communications, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:03-cv-00062-PGC," filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Utah, under
Judge Paul G. Cassell.  Representing the plaintiffs is William
S. Lerach, LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS (SAN
DIEGO), 655 W. Broadway Ste 1900, San Diego CA 92101, Phone:
(619) 231-1058.  Representing the Company are Raymond J.
Etcheverry and Kent O. Roche of PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER, 201 S.
Main St., Ste 1800, PO Box 45898, Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0898,
Phone: (801) 532-1234, E-mail: ecf@parsonsbehle.com.  


CONCORD CAMERA: Amended Consolidated Stock Suit Continues in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
An amended consolidated complaint was filed in August 2005
against Concord Camera Corporation and certain of its officers
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida by individuals purporting to be shareholders of the
Company.  

Previously, the Company said that if not dismissed by the court,
it expects the litigation to be consolidated into one case. The
plaintiffs in these class actions originally sought to act as
representatives of a class consisting of all persons who
purchased the Company's Common Stock during either the period
from August 14, 2003 through May 10, 2004, inclusive, or the
period from August 14, 2003 through October 4, 2004, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), and who were allegedly damaged thereby.

The allegations in the complaints are centered around claims
that the Company failed to disclose, in periodic reports it
filed with the SEC and in press releases it made to the public
during the Class Period regarding its operations and financial
results, the full extent of the Company's excess, obsolete and
otherwise impaired inventory, and claims that such failures
artificially inflated the price of the Common Stock.  The
complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
costs of suit and unspecified other and further relief from the
court.

In August 2005, an amended consolidated complaint (the "Amended
Complaint") was filed, adding a former officer of the Company as
a defendant.  The lead plaintiff in the Amended Complaint seeks
to act as a representative of a class consisting of all persons
who purchased the Company's Common Stock during the period from
August 14, 2003 through August 31, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), and who were allegedly damaged thereby.  The
allegations in the Amended Complaint are centered around claims
that the Company failed to disclose, in periodic reports it
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and in
press releases it made to the public during the Class Period
regarding its operations and financial results:

     (1) the full extent of the Company's excess, obsolete and
         otherwise impaired inventory;
  
     (2) the departure of a former officer from the Company
         until several months after his departure; and

     (3) that Kodak would cancel its DMS contracts with the
         Company due to the Company's alleged infringement of
         Kodak's patents.

The Amended Complaint also alleges that the Company improperly
recognized revenue contrary to GAAP due to an inability to
reasonably estimate digital camera returns.  The Amended
Complaint claims that such failures artificially inflated the
price of the Common Stock.  The Amended Complaint seeks
unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs of suit
and unspecified other and further relief from the court.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Martin Brustein, et al. v. Concord Camera Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 04-CV-61159," filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge Andrea M.
Simonton.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone: 800.424.6690, Fax:
         215.875.4604, E-mail: investorprotect@bm.net;

     (2) 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;

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

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

     (6) Vianale & Vianale LLP, The Plaza - Suite 801, 5355 Town
         Center Road, Boca Raton, FL, 33486, Phone:
         561.391.4900, Fax: 561.368.9274, E-mail:
         info@vianalelaw.com.


DUPONT CO.: Wrapping up Work on $10M Filter for C8 Contaminant
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dupont Co. will soon complete the installation of filtering
systems for removing C8 from drinking water supplies in West
Virginia as part of a $343 million class action settlement,
Chemical Business Newsbase reports.  

Residents living near the plant, located on the Ohio River about
7 miles southwest of Parkersburg, West Virginia sued Dupont in
August 2001 claiming their drinking supply was contaminated with
perfluorooctonoate (a.k.a. C8, C-8, PFOA, APFO, FC143, FC-143),
an earlier Class Action Reporter story (August 23, 2004)
reports.  The suit is Civil Action No. 01-C-608.  The chemical
is used to produce Teflon at the plant in Washington, West
Virginia, along the Ohio River.  The communities affected are
residents of Belpre, Little Hocking, Lubeck, Pomeroy, Tuppers
Plains, and Mason County.

Wood County Circuit Judge George W. Hill subsequently approved a
settlement, which DuPont decided to enter into because of the
time and expense of litigation.  The judge noted that the
settlement was finalized without any evidence that the chemical
caused any disease, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(March 2, 2005) reports.  The settlement, in which the company
agreed to pay at least $107.6 million, covers the medical
monitoring, water treatment, attorney's fees, and general
payments to the class.

Since August, more than 17,000 residents of the six Ohio and
West Virginia water districts covered by the settlement have
taken part in the study to find out if a chemical used to make
Teflon at a DuPont Co. chemical plant might harm their health,
an earlier Class Action Reporter story (Nov. 15, 2005) reports.

Though the long-term effects of C8 on people are unknown, the
screenings and analysis will try to determine if the chemical
has any link to cancer, heart disease and birth defects.  


EASYLINK SERVICES: Settles Third Party Claim in Steven Brin Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
EasyLink Services Corporation (NASDAQ: EASYE) settled the third
party claim against it for implied indemnification and/or
contribution arising out of a putative class action against
Steven Brin and other defendants in an Illinois court.

According to the suit, defendants were allegedly sending or
causing to be sent unsolicited advertisements to telephone
facsimile machines in violation of the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. ss. 227, the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and common
law conversion and trespass.

The claims were dismissed with prejudice on August 18, 2005.
Under the signed settlement agreement, the Company contributed
$1,500 to a $22,000 overall settlement of the underlying action
against Mr. Brin and the other defendants.


GAMA CONSTRUCTION: Former Workers Bring Labor Case to Turkey
------------------------------------------------------------
Some 80 former workers of Gama Construction in Ireland are
filing a class action against the company in Turkish courts to
seek settlement for unpaid wages, Midlands 103 reports.  About
400 workers left Ireland before the May Labor Court settlement
that saw those who stayed behind being compensated exactly  
$15,762.13 (EUR13,000).  The employees left the company on
allegations of intimidation and harassment.   

According to an April issue of the Independent Media Center, the
High Court in England heard that during an investigation into
Gama Ireland, the company admitted to a number of serious
breaches of employment rights that could lead to criminal
prosecution.


GANDER MOUNTAIN: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action in MN
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed
in its entirety and with prejudice the consolidated securities
class action complaint filed against outdoor lifestyle retailer
Gander Mountain Company and certain of its officers and
directors.  Plaintiffs have 30 days from the date judgment is
entered in which to file a notice of appeal.

Suits initially filed (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 13, 2006):

     (1) Joseph Merrelli v. Gander Mountain Company, et al.,

     (2) George Patchan v. Gander Mountain Company, et al.

     (3) John Stainbrook v. Gander Mountain Company, et al.

     (4) Robert Schuck v. Gander Mountain Company, et al.,

     (5) William C. Fernalld, Jr. v. Gander Mountain Company, et
         al., and

     (6) Sean Peter Sloan v. Gander Mountain Company, et al.

Each action is a purported class action brought on behalf of all
persons (except defendants) who purchased stock in the Company's
initial public offering on April 20, 2004, or in the open market
between April 20, 2004 and January 13, 2005.  The complaints
allege that the defendants made false and misleading public
statements about the company, and its business and prospects, in
the registration statement and prospectus for the Company's
initial public offering, and in filings with the SEC and press
releases issued thereafter, and that the market price of the
Company's stock was artificially inflated as a result.

The complaints allege claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiffs in all
six cases seek compensatory damages on behalf of the alleged
class, an award of attorneys' fees and costs of litigation, and
unspecified equitable/injunctive relief.

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint was filed on August 9,
2005.  The Company has moved to dismiss the Consolidated Class
Action Complaint. The Court heard the Company's motion on
December 2, 2005.

The suit is styled, "In Re: Gander Mountain Company Securities
Litigation, Case No. 0:05-cv-00183-DWF-AJB," filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota, under Judge
Donovan W. Frank with referral to Judge Arthur J. Boylan.
Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. of Reinhardt Wendorf &
         Blanchfield, 332 Minnesota St Ste E-1250, St. Paul, MN
         55101, Phone: 651-287-2100, E-mail:
         g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com;

     (2) David J. Goldsmith of Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP,
         100 Park Ave., 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
         202-907-0879, E-mail: dgoldsmith@labaton.com; and

     (3) John K. Grant of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
         Robbins, LLP, 100 Pine St., Ste. 2600, San Francisco,
         CA 94111, Phone: 415-676-4409, E-mail:
         johng@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the Defendant/s are, Timothy J. Becker of Zimmerman
Reed, PLLP, 651 Nicollet Mall, Ste. 501, Minneapolis, MN 55402-
4123, Phone: 612-341-0400, Fax: 612-341-0844, E-mail:
tjb@zimmreed.com.

For more details, contact Shannon Burns, Director of Investor
Relations and Corporate Communications of Gander Mountain,
Phone: +1-651-325-4337; E-mail:
Shannon.burns@gandermountain.com, Web site:
http://www.GanderMountain.com.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Claim Forms to Replace Refrigerators Now Out
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric claim forms for defective refrigerators are now
being distributed in Southwest Florida.  The claim form is also
available at http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?45a. There are  
more than 300 model numbers on the settlement list, which
includes both GE and Hotpoint brands, 20, 22 and 25 cubic foot
side-by-side refrigerators, according to NBC2.

A nationwide lawsuit against General Electric Co. (NYSE:GE) that
started in Southwest Florida was concluded in December with GE
agreeing to replace thousands of faulty refrigerators or
reimburse its customers, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(Dec. 16, 2005) reports.  William Turner, the 77-year-old Naples
resident who filed the class action lawsuit back in April, told
The News-Press that he got what he wanted in the proposed
settlement.  

Mr. Turner, who worked in television news for 50 years, filed
the suit on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of persons
in the State of Florida who purchased and/or own the makes and
models of Refrigerator manufactured, marketed, advertised,
warranted and/or sold by GE, under the "General Electric" and
"Hotpoint" brands, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (July
26, 2005) reports.

The suit asserted breach of express warranty and implied
warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment/restitution and
negligence in connection with the defective refrigerators. The
suit alleged that the Company designed, manufactured, marketed,
advertised, warranted and/or sold to Plaintiff and the Class the
refrigerators. In conjunction with each sale, the Company
marketed, advertised and warranted that each refrigerator was
fit for the ordinary purpose for which such goods were used and
was free from defects in materials and workmanship, the suit
states, a July 26, 2005 Class Action Reporter story reports.

The suit further alleged that the Company knew or should have
known that the refrigerators were defective in design, were not
fit for their ordinary and intended use, and did not perform in
accordance with the advertisements, marketing materials and
warranties disseminated by the Company, nor with the reasonable
expectations of ordinary consumers.

The suit specifically alleged that at the time of sale, the
refrigerators contained a defect that resulted in the formation
of excessive moisture, especially in the icemaker compartment,
which caused, among other things, development of iron oxide or
rust, puddling on the floor beneath the refrigerator and rust or
water running down the side of the refrigerator. The
refrigerators' defect also created the metal shavings and shards
of plastic frequently found in the ice created in the freezer
section of the refrigerators. In addition, the defect caused the
refrigerators to suffer from wavering temperature controls and
excessive frost. "The defect reduces the effectiveness and
performance of the Refrigerators and renders them unable to
perform the ordinary purposes for which they are used," the suit
alleged, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 26, 2005)
reported.

In many instances, the suit states, the class members' food
spoiled due to the refrigerator's failure to maintain proper
temperatures.  The defect also caused water damage and other
property damage to the floor and/or walls in the area(s) where
the refrigerators were located.

The suit further stated that the Company knew and has admitted
that the Refrigerators were defectively designed, and that it
instituted a program whereby it would, under certain
circumstances, replace the refrigerators with non-defective
ones. However, the suit asserted the replacement program was
inadequate.

According to the suit, the Company did not publicize it to all
persons who purchased the refrigerators. In addition, the
Company stated, "GE will only replace a Refrigerator under
certain limited circumstances. And, there is no indication that
GE will reimburse consumers who have paid for repairs to their
Refrigerator, nor is there any indication that GE will reimburse
consumers who have paid to replace their defective
Refrigerator," the suit states, the July 26, 2005 Class Action
Reporter story reported.

The suit specifically affected GE and Hotpoint 20-, 22- and 25-
cubic-foot refrigerators. It was amended three times since its
filing, and it now includes more than 300 refrigerator models.
"Consumers screamed and GE heard them," according to Scott
Weinstein, who represented Mr. Turner in the class action suit.

Kim Freeman, a spokeswoman with GE, did not provide an estimate
on how much Mr. Turner's lawsuit will cost GE. She only told The
News-Press, "That information is proprietary, but we'll spend
whatever it costs to take care of our customers."

Under the suit, GE must:

     (1) Reimburse owners for moisture-related service calls,

     (2) Give owners an additional year of warranty protection
         from the time the court gives the settlement a
         preliminary approval, possibly in January,

     (3) Or replace refrigerators that have required three
         unsuccessful repair attempts.

With regards to residents who got tired of problems with their
refrigerators, even after three service calls, and decided to
buy a new one, GE has agreed to refund the cost of the faulty
refrigerator. GE tried to fix the problem after hearing about it
this spring, creating a hot line to expedite service calls.

The suit is styled "WILLIAM F. TURNER, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC
CO., Case No. 2:05-CV-186-FtM-33 DNF," filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort
Myers Division. Representing the plaintiff are:

     (1) William M. Audet of Alexander Hawes & Audet, L.L.P.,
         300 Montgomery St., Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94104,
         Phone: 415/921-1776, Fax: 415/576-1776;

     (2) Alexander E. Barnett of The Mason Law Firm, P.C., P.O.
         Box 230758, 144 West 72nd St., #3D, New York, NY 10023,
         US, Phone: 202/408-4600, E-mail:
         abarnett@masonlawdc.com;  

     (3) Gary E. Mason of The Mason Law Firm, P.C., 1225 19th
         St., N.W., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036, US, Phone:
         202/429-2290, Fax: 202/429-2294, E-mail:
         gmason@masonlawdc.com;   

     (4) Jordan Lucas Chaikin and Scott Wm. Weinstein of
         Weinstein, Bavly & Moon, P.A., 2400 First St., Suite
         303, Ft. Myers, FL 33901, Phone: 239/334-8844, Fax:
         239/334-1289, E-mail: jordan@weinsteinlawfirm.com and
         scott@weinsteinlawfirm.com; and

     (5) Jonathan W. Cuneo and Charles J. LaDuca of Cuneo
         Gilbert & LaDuca, 507 C. St., NE, Washington, DC 20002,
         Phone: 202/789-3960, Fax: 202/789-1813, E-mail:
         jonc@cuneolaw.com and charlesl@cuneolaw.com.  

Representing the Defendant is Charles Wachter of Fowler White
Boggs Banker, P.A., 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. Suite 1700, P.O. Box
1438, Tampa, FL 33601-1438, Phone: 813/228-7411 ext. 1136, Fax:
813/229-6679, E-mail: cwachter@fowlerwhite.com.


HIENERGY TECHNOLOGIES: Pre-Trail Conference Scheduled in CA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A September 11, 2007 pre-trial conference was scheduled for the
second amended securities class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California
against Hienergy Technologies, Inc. and certain of its officers.

In January 2005, the Company was served with a Summons and Class
Action Complaint For Violations of Federal Securities Laws.  The
Complaint named the Company, its Chairman, among other named
defendants on behalf of a class of persons who acquired the
stock of the Company during the period from February 22, 2002
through July 8, 2004.  In February 2005, plaintiff's counsel
filed a First Amended Complaint entitled and styled, "In re:
HiEnergy Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation," Master File
No. 8:04-CV-01226-DOC (JTLx), alleging various violations of the
federal securities laws, generally asserting the same claims
involving Philip Gurian, Barry Alter, and the Company's failure
to disclose their various securities violations including,
without limitation, allegations of fraud.  The First Amended
Complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages,
attorney's fees, costs, and declaratory relief.

On Friday, March 25, 2005, the Company timely filed responsive
pleadings as well as Motions to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' First
Amended Complaint arguing that the Complaint failed to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.  On June 17, 2005, the
Court issued an Order Granting the Motions to Dismiss (the
"Order"), finding that the First Amended Complaint failed to
allege causation of loss resulting from any alleged omissions
and/or misrepresentations of the Company or Dr. Maglich, to
sustain a cause of action for securities fraud under Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC), that the Plaintiffs had failed to
plead actual reliance on any allegedly false or misleading
filings of the Company to sustain a claim under ss.18 of the
Exchange Act, and that the Plaintiffs had failed to allege a
primary violation of any securities laws to sustain a claim for
a violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On July 5, 2005, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint
in compliance with the Court's Order, as anticipated.  On
October 24, 2005, the Court issued a Minute Order granting in
part and denying in part Motions to Dismiss filed by the
Company, finding that the Plaintiffs failed in the Second
Amended Complaint to sustain a cause of action for securities
fraud under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 of
the SEC against Dr. Maglich and for claims that the Company
filed false and misleading financial statements and executed
suspicious stock sales.  On November 14, 2005, the Court held a
scheduling conference at which the Plaintiff informed the
Company that it would not file a Third Amended Complaint.  In
accordance with the Scheduling Order from the Court, class
representative motions are to be filed within 90 to 120 days and
pre-trial conference was scheduled for September 11, 2007.

The suit is styled "In re: HiEnergy Technologies, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 8:04-CV-01226-DOC
(JTLx)," filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, under Judge David O. Carter.  
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Kenneth J Catanzarite and Jim
T. Tice, Catanzarite Law Offices 2331 W Lincoln Ave Anaheim, CA
92801 Phone: 714-520-5544 E-mail: kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com,
jtice@catanzarite.com; and Laurence M. Rosen, Rosen Law Firm 350
Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508 New York, NY 10118 Phone: 212-686-1060
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com.  Representing the Company are,
Jason D. Annigian, Robert J. Feldhake, Daniel M. Hawkins, and
Lisa A. Roquemore, Feldhake and Roquemore, 19900 MacArthur
Boulevard, Suite 850 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949-553-5000 E-
mail: jannigian@far-law.com, rfeldhake@far-law.com; and C.
William Kircher, Jr., C William Kircher Jr Law Offices 2 Park
Plaza, Ste 300 Irvine, CA 92614-8513 Phone: 949-474-2310 Fax:
949-261-1085.


INTERMIX MEDIA: CA Judge Allows Adware Suit to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------
A California judge recently refused Intermix Media's motion to
dismiss claims suggesting trespassing and computer crime lodged
against it by Thomas Kerrins.  The ruling effectively allows a
class action against the adware firm to proceed, according to
News.com.

Mr. Kerrins alleged that Intermix placed pop-up advertising
software on his computer without permission, causing his PC to
collapse.  He previously lost claims of "unjust enrichment"
against Intermix.

Intermix, now owned by media giant Newscorp., distributes
downloadable advertising software via the Internet as one of its
services.


LOUISIANA: School Staff's Labor Suits Miss Certification Date
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge John Parker recently barred any collective
claim on the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of workers of
three south Louisiana school systems claiming they were not paid
for overtime work.  The move means similar lawsuits may lose
their bid for class action status, and only the cases of workers
in East Baton Rouge, St. Helena and Iberville parishes will be
considered, according to The Advocate.  

Judge Parker issued the ruling basing on the recommendation of
U.S. Magistrate Stephen Riedlinger in December saying lawyers
missed the deadline to have their cases certified as class
actions.  The lawsuits were filed in February 2004.

Jack Harang of New Orleans is representing the plaintiffs,
replacing Baton Rouge lawyer Cleo Fields who withdrew from the
cases in November.


MCKESSON HBOC INC.: Suit Settlement Hearing Set January 27, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division will hold a fairness hearing for
the proposed settlement in the matter, "In re McKesson HBOC,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 99-CV-20743 RMV
(PVT)."  The case was filed on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities
of HBOC during the period from January 20, 1997 through and
including January 12, 1999; purchased or otherwise acquired call
options or sold put options of HBOC during the period from
January 20, 1997 through and including April 27, 1999; purchased
or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities or call
options, or who sold put options, of McKesson Corporation or of
McKesson HBOC, Inc. during the period from October 18, 1998
through and including April 27, 1999; or held McKesson common
stock on November 27, 1998 and still held those shares on
January 12, 1999, and were injured thereby.

The hearing will be held on January 27, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.,
before the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte in the United States
Courthouse, Courtroom 6, 4th Floor, 280 South First Street, San
Jose, California 95113; for the purpose of determining:

     (1) whether the proposed settlement of the claims in the
         Litigation against McKesson, HBOC and Defendants'
         Released Persons for the sum of $960 million in cash,
         plus interest earned from 15 days after District Court
         Approval, should be approved as fair, reasonable and
         adequate to the Settlement Class, and whether an order
         should be entered dismissing on the merits and with
         prejudice the claims that are, or ever have been,
         asserted in the Litigation by Lead Plaintiff and the
         Settlement Class against McKesson, HBOC and Defendants'
         Released Persons who are, or have been, named as
         defendants in the Litigation;

     (2) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair and equitable
         and therefore should be approved; and

     (3) whether the application of Lead Counsel for the payment
         of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses and
         interest thereon should be approved.

For more details, contact In re McKesson HBOC Securities
Litigation, c/o Analytics Incorporated, Claims Administrator,
P.O. Box 2005, Chanhassen, MN 55317-2005; Alan Schulman or David
Stickney of BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN, LLP, 12544
High Bluff Drive, Suite 150, San Diego, CA 92130, Phone:
(858) 793-0070, Fax: (858) 793-0323; and Leonard Barrack or M.
Richard Komins of BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE, 3300 Two Commerce
Square, 2001 Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone:
(215) 963-0600, Fax: (215) 963-0838.


MISSISSIPPI NATIONWIDE: Property Owners Pursue Damages Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Maples of New Orleans, Louisiana filed a case (No.
1:05CV00436-LG-RHW) on behalf of Ned Comer and all other
similarly situated persons residing in the state of Mississippi
against Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, et al.   The suit
was filed on September 20, 2005 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

The Plaintiffs seek the certification of a Plaintiffs' class
consisting of all persons who are property owners in the State
of Mississippi, who purchased insurance coverage with the intent
to insure against any and all damages caused by hurricanes, who
suffered a loss as a result of Hurricane Katrina, and who will
not be paid by an insurance proceed.

Plaintiffs also seek the certification of several Defendants'
classes, including an "Insurance Defendant Class," an "Oil
Company Defendant Class," and a "Mortgage Lending Defendant
Class." The Insurance Defendant Class consists of entities that
issued insurance policies insuring property in the State of
Mississippi against losses caused by hurricanes, which contain
exclusion provisions that exclude coverage for damages caused by
water. The Oil Company Defendant Class consists of entities that
contributed to the rise and global warming as a result of their
oil expiration, development, refining, and production
activities. The Mortgage Lending Defendant Class consists of
entities that held a mortgage interest allowing them to secure
and purchase insurance up to the value of their mortgage
interest but failed to do so.

The claims asserted against the Insurance Defendant Class are
based upon alleged violations of the Mississippi Consumer
Protection Act, common law torts, breach of contract, and breach
of certain duties associated with an insurance contract.

With respect to the Oil Company Defendant Class, the Plaintiffs
claim that their activities led to the development and increase
of "global warming" which produced the conditions favorable for
the formation of a storm of the size and strength of Hurricane
Katrina.

With respect to the Mortgage Lending Defendant Class, the
Plaintiffs allege that its members had the right to obtain
insurance on mortgaged properties but failed to do so. The
Plaintiffs asked for a declaratory judgment against the Mortgage
Lending Defendant Class that its members are stopped from suing
or claiming that they are owed any sums from the Plaintiffs for
the value of mortgage property that was uninsured or under-
insured.

The suit is styled, "Comer, et al. vs. Nationwide Mutual
Insurance Company, Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-JMR," filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi, under Judge L. T. Senter Jr. Representing the
Plaintiff/s is F. Gerald Maples of F. GERALD MAPLES, PA, 902
Julia St., New Orleans, LA 70113, Phone: 504/569-8732, E-mail:
federal@geraldmaples.com. Representing the Defendant/s are:

     (1) Charles Greg Copeland of COPELAND, COOK, TAYLOR & BUSH,
         P. O. Box 6020, Ridgeland, MS 39158-6020, Phone:
         601/856-7200, E-mail: gcopeland@cctb.com;

     (2) H. Mitchell Cowan and Laura Limerick Gibbes of WATKINS
         LUDLAM WINTER & STENNIS, P.A., P.O. Box 427, Jackson,
         MS 39205-0427, Phone: (601) 949-4900, Fax: (601) 949-
         4804, E-mail: mcowan@watkinsludlam.com and
         lgibbes@watkinsludlam.com;

     (3) Ross F. Bass, Jr. of PHELPS DUNBAR, P.O. Box 23066,
         Jackson, MS 39225-3066, Phone: 601/360-9332, Fax:
         601/360-9777, E-mail: bassr@phelps.com;

     (4) Robert C. Galloway and John C. Henegan of BUTLER, SNOW,
         O'MARA, STEVENS & CANNADA, PLLC, P.O. Drawer 4248,
         Gulfport, MS 39502-4248, Phone: 228864-1170 and (601)
         948-5711, E-mail: bob.galloway@butlersnow.com and
         john.henegan@butlersnow.com; and  

     (5) William Kurt Henke of HENKE BUFKIN, P.O. Box 39,
         Clarksdale, MS 38614, Phone: 662/624-8500, E-mail:
         wkh@henke-bufkin.com.


MORGANS HOTEL: Shore Club Owner Files Fraud Complaint in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------
Philips South Beach, LLC, owner of the Shore Club Hotel in Miami
Beach, Florida, filed a multi-million dollar suit on Jan. 17
against:

(a) Morgans Hotel Group Management, LLC, formerly Ian Schrager
    Hotel Management, and Ian Schrager, former CEO of Morgans;

(b) W. Edward Scheetz, the chief executive officer of Morgans
    Hotel who directed the management of Morgans; and

(c) David T. Hamamoto, who served as chairman of Morgans Hotel   
    and also directed the management of Morgans.

The complaint alleges fraudulent and other improper actions by
Morgans to siphon income, resources and celebrity cachet from
the Shore Club for the benefit of the nearby Delano hotel,
wholly owned by Morgans' affiliate, Morgans Hotel Group.  Shore
Club attorneys Ben Brafman of Brafman & Associates and co-
counsel Kenneth A. Zitter filed the suit in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of New York.

Over more than a three-year period, according to the complaint,
Morgans engaged in a deliberate, fraudulent scheme to transfer
Shore Club income to the Delano and Delano expenses to the Shore
Club. Among other actions, Philips asserts that Morgans
redirected guests from the Shore Club to the Delano, falsely
advised guests that rooms were not available at the Shore Club
in order to book them at the Delano, and directed Morgans'
employees to change the venue of high-profile special events
from the Shore Club to the Delano. In facilitating this, Philips
claims that Morgans covered up its actions by destroying
documents that proved the shifting of revenues and expenses,
specifically altering information in monthly management reports.

Since its opening in August 2001, the Shore Club has become a
highly coveted destination in South Beach with such restaurant
and club assets as Nobu, Ago and Skybar Miami Beach, as well as
a reputation for singular elegance and sophistication. In July
2002, Philips hired Ian Schrager Hotel Management, LLC
(subsequently known as Morgans Hotel Group Management, LLC) to
manage the Shore Club.

For more information on Shore Club, contact Larry Winokur,
Phone: 310-550-7776, E-mail: lwinokur@bwr-la.com.


NUI CORPORATION: Suit Settlement Hearing Set January 20, 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $3,500,000
settlement in the matter, "In re: NUI Securities Litigation,
Civil Action No. 02-5220 (MLC)." The case was filed on behalf of
all persons whon purchased or otherwise acquired securities of
NUI Corporation between November 8, 2001 and October 17, 2002.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Mary L. Cooper on
January 20, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. in the United States District
Courthouse, 402 East State St., Trenton, NJ 08608.

For more details, contact In re NUI Securities Litigation, c/o
The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 9000
#6322, Merrick, NY 11566-9000, Phone: 1-800-294-3992 or Katherin
M. Ryan, Esq. or Kay E. Sickles, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway,
LLP by Mail: 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087 or by
Phone: (610) 667-7706.


PALMONE, INC.: Claims Against Faulty Handhelds Due Feb. 22
----------------------------------------------------------
Claims in relation to the suit filed over defective handhelds
manufactured by PalmOne, Inc. (formerly known as Palm, Inc.) are
due Feb. 22, 2006, Palminfo Center reports.  Elihu Berle, Judge
of the Superior Court of the State of California finally
approved in November the settlement in the case styled "Chet
Taylor V. Palm, Inc.," which involves the m100, m105 and m125
handhelds/Personal Digital Assistants (PDA).

The Los Angeles Superior Court in California approved the
proposed settlement of the class action filed against PalmOne,
Inc. (formerly known as Palm, Inc.), styled "Chet Taylor V.
Palm, Inc.," which involves the m100, m105 and m125
handhelds/Personal Digital Assistants (PDA).

The suit alleged that the PDAs might be defective in that they
sometimes lose data during the process of replacing batteries
even when the user follows Palm's recommended procedure. The
problem stemmed from bad backup capacitors in the affected
units, a previous Class Action Reporter story says (Oct. 7,
2005).  In addition, the suit alleged that Palm failed to
communicate and disclose certain facts and circumstances in
connection with data loss. The suit represents anyone who owned
any of the three models for their own use and not for resale
from June 1, 1999 to the present.

Under the settlement terms anyone with a dead PDA and who has
filed the appropriate paperwork can send his or her unit to Palm
and the firm will replace with a new or refurbished Palm PDA of
the same or higher model. The settlement only applies to U.S.
citizens.

The suit is styled, "Chet Taylor V. Palm, Inc., Case No. BC
299134," filed in the in the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles. The Lead Plaintiff and Class
Representative, Chet Taylor was represented by Hector Gancedo of
Gancedo & Nieves, LLP, 144 W. Colorado Blvd., Pasadena, CA,
91105, Phone: (626) 685-9800, Fax: (626) 685-9808. The
Defendant, Palm, Inc., was represented by Kenneth R. Chiate,
Esq. of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP, 865 S.
Figueroa St., 10th Floor, Los Angeles, CA, 90017, Phone:
(213) 443-3000, Fax: (213) 624-0643.  

For more details, visit http://www.taylorsettlement.com/.


ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls Thousands of Blood Glucose Meters
------------------------------------------------------------
Roche Diagnostics started a worldwide voluntary recall of
specific ACCU-CHEK Aviva Meters because of the potential for an
electronic malfunction, which can cause the meter to report an
erroneous result or shut down and no longer be used.

The recall includes U.S. serial numbers 52500000000 through
52510999999. In the U.S. people with diabetes, health care
professionals, pharmacists, and distributors have been
instructed that if they have a meter with these serial numbers,
they should contact 1-888-591-5084 for a product replacement.
The recall does not apply to meters with U.S. serial numbers
52511000000 and higher or ACCU-CHEK Aviva test strips. This
information is also available at http://www.accu-chek.com.

Outside the U.S., the recall includes serial numbers 52600000000
through 52610999999, 52700000000 through 52710999999, and
52800000000 through 52810999999. Customers outside the U.S. have
also been notified.

Roche Diagnostics launched the ACCU-CHEK Aviva meter in the U.S.
in August of 2005. It is estimated that there are 150,000 ACCU-
CHEK Aviva meters with these serial numbers currently in the
U.S. market, and that only these recalled ACCU-CHEK Aviva meters
have the potential to experience this electronic malfunction. To
date, 3 customer meter malfunctions have been confirmed in the
U.S., in relation to this issue and 5 outside the U.S.. The FDA
and foreign governments have been apprised of this voluntary
recall.

Accu-Chek Aviva meters were distributed to wholesale and retail
distributors throughout the U.S. They can be identified by
reviewing the serial number located on the back of the meter. If
the serial number falls within the range of 52500000000 through
52510999999, it is potentially affected and therefore subject to
this recall.

Roche Diagnostics has notified its distributors and registered
customers in the U.S. by mail and is arranging for replacement
of the recalled products.

In the U.S., consumers with general questions may contact the
ACCU-CHEK Customer Care Service Center at 1-800-858-8072 and
health care professionals may contact the ACCU-CHEK Customer
Care Service Center at 1-800-440-3638.


SCIENCE APPLICATIONS: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a class action suit against Science Applications
International Corporation voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice their case on September 21, 2005.

The lawsuit styled, "Gracian v. SAIC," was filed in the
California Superior Court for the County of San Diego.  A former
employee filed it on March 4, 2005 on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated.  The suit alleged that the Company
improperly required exempt salaried and professional employees
in the State of California to utilize their paid leave balances
for partial day absences.  The plaintiffs contend that the
Company's policy violates California law and seeks, among other
things, the unpaid vacation balance allegedly owed to
plaintiffs, overtime compensation, penalties, interest, punitive
damages and attorney fees.  The Company is analyzing the lawsuit
and the underlying issues.

On May 31, 2005, the California Labor Commissioner issued a
memorandum to the California Division of Labor Standards
Enforcement Staff that interprets California law in a way that
supports the Company's legal positions in this case.  The May
31, 2005 memorandum removes a prior California Labor
Commissioner opinion letter that interpreted California law in a
way that had supported the plaintiffs' legal position.

A California Court of Appeals, in another matter, published an
opinion on July 21, 2005, which supports the Company's position
regarding charging comprehensive leave balances for partial day
absences, although this opinion will not become final until 60
days after initial publication, the Company stated in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission. If the
decision does not become final, it would have no precedential
force.  Plaintiffs' counsel may argue that the Court of Appeals
decision is wrongly decided and continue to pursue the case.  On
September 21, 2005, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
class action lawsuit without prejudice.


SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Judge Dismisses Claims of Deceptive Marketing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Siebel Systems, Inc. (SEBL) said that on December 28, 2005, U.S.
District Judge Charles R. Breyer dismissed with prejudice a
shareholder suit filed in 2004 against both Siebel Systems, Inc.
and a number of its executive officers.

The plaintiffs alleged that various false and misleading
statements were made by Siebel Systems concerning high customer
satisfaction levels and the release of the Siebel 7 product. The
Court rejected the plaintiffs' allegations in their entirety.
Judge Breyer ruled that the plaintiffs' allegations "taken
individually or as a whole" did not indicate any false statement
or any intent to defraud.

By dismissing the complaint in its entirety and with prejudice,
Judge Breyer entered judgment in favor of Siebel Systems and its
executive officers. Siebel Systems will seek to recover its
costs in this matter from the plaintiffs.

Plaintiff firms involved in this or similar cases:

     (1) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (Main office, Philadelphia)
         3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market St.,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone: 215.963.0600, Fax:
         215.963.0838, E-mail: info@barrack.com;

     (2) Bernard M. Gross, 1500 Walnut St., Suite 600,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215.561.3600, Fax:
         215.561.3000, E-mail: bmgross@BernardMGross.com;

     (3) Cauley Geller, Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton,
         FL), One Boca Place, 2255 Glades Road, Suite 421A, Boca
         Raton, FL, 33431, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax:
         561.750.3364;

     (4) Geller Rudman, PLLC, 197 South Federal Highway, Suite
         200, Boca Raton, FL, 33432, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax:
         888.262.3131, E-mail: info@geller-rudman.com;

     (5) Glancy and Binkow, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, suite 311,
         Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, E-mail:
         info@glancylaw.com;

     (6) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (San Francisco, CA), 100
         Pine St., 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94111, Phone:
         415.772.4700, Fax: 415.677.1233, E-mail:
         info@kaplanfox.com;

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

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

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

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

    (11) Stull, Stull & Brody (Los Angeles), 10940 Wilshire
         Boulevard - Suite 2300, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, Phone:
         310.209.2468.

For more information, contact Steve Diamond of Siebel Systems,
Inc., Phone: 650-477-4743; E-mail: steve.diamond@siebel.com.


SHOPKO STORES: Shareholders Suits Over Merger Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
The six shareholder class actions that were filed in the Circuit
Court for Brown County, Wisconsin, against ShopKo Stores, Inc.
over its announcement on April 8, 2005 that it had signed a
definitive merger agreement to be acquired by an affiliate of
Goldner Hawn Johnson & Morrison Incorporated (Goldner Hawn) was
recently consolidated.  Before there consolidation, the suits
were styled:

     (1) Thomas Zwicker v. ShopKo Stores, Inc., et al., Case No.
         05-CV-677;

     (2) Robert Farer v. ShopKo Stores, Inc., et al., Case No.
         05-CV-678;

     (3) Market Street Investments, L.P. v. ShopKo Stores, Inc.,
         et al., Case No. 05-CV-688;

     (4) City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement Systems
         v. ShopKo Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-692;

     (5) Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 51 Pension Fund v.
         ShopKo Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-753; and

     (6) Strongbow Capital Ltd. v. ShopKo Stores, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 05-CV-781.

The complaint in each action purports to have been filed by a
shareholder of the Company who seeks to maintain the suit as a
class action on behalf of all holders of the Company's stock,
excluding those related to or affiliated with any of the
defendants. In addition to the Company, each complaint names the
Company's directors as defendants.  Goldner Hawn is a defendant
in one of the lawsuits.

The complaints all assert claims arising out of the Company's
April 8, 2005 announcement, and allege that the Company and its
directors breached fiduciary duties to the Company's
shareholders by negotiating and agreeing to the Transaction at a
price that the plaintiffs claim to be inadequate.  The
plaintiffs seek, among other things, to enjoin or to rescind the
Transaction, and/or to establish a constructive trust over any
benefits received by the defendants, damages and other monetary
relief.

Consolidated under the caption, "In re ShopKo Shareholder
Litigation, Case No. 05-CV-677, (Brown County Circuit Court),"
the suit named the Company, each member of the Company's board
of directors and Goldner Hawn as defendants.  It alleges, among
other things, that the Company and its directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders by negotiating
the Badger merger at a price that the plaintiffs allege to be
inadequate, by supporting the Badger merger rather than
effecting a recapitalization and by failing to disclose all
material information concerning the Badger merger agreement, the
transactions contemplated thereby and the background of and
reasons for the Badger merger.  In addition, the consolidated
complaint alleges that Goldner Hawn aided and abetted the
directors' breach of their fiduciary duties.  The consolidated
complaint sought, among other relief, rescission of the Badger
merger, an injunction requiring disclosure of all material
information and preventing completion of the Badger merger, and
compensatory damages.  On August 16, 2005 the plaintiffs filed a
motion seeking a preliminary injunction.  The hearing on the
motion was held on September 1 and September 2, 2005.  Following
oral argument, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion, which
would have allowed the Company's shareholders to vote on the
Badger merger had the Badger merger not been later terminated in
favor of the merger with SKO Group Holding and SKO Acquisition.

On November 30, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion claiming
that their attorneys are entitled to $2,000,000 in fees and
expenses because they have benefited ShopKo and its shareholders
through this litigation.  At the same time, the plaintiffs filed
a motion to temporarily enjoin the SKO merger if their motion
for fees and expenses cannot be finally decided by December 23,
2005, the date of the special meeting of ShopKo shareholders
called to consider approval of the SKO merger, so that any fees
and expenses awarded to them could be satisfied from the SKO
merger consideration.


TEXAS: Lawyer's Fee Sharing Agreement May Defy State Bar Laws
-------------------------------------------------------------
An agreement between a lawyer and a Mission resident involved in
the call for compensation in connection with contamination at
the former Hayes-Sammons chemical plant appeared to have
violated state bar regulations, according to The Monitor.  

The Texas State Bar prohibits the signed deal between lawyer
Mauro Reyna III and Ester Salinas regarding sharing of attorney
fees, because Ms. Salinas is not an attorney, the report said.  
The agreement was sealed in 1999.

Under the rules, lawyers cannot repay a non-lawyer, or share
attorney fees.  Violations could result in disciplinary action,
according to Texas Bar Association spokeswoman Kim Davey.

Mr. Reyna is one of 11 attorneys who work on Hayes-Sammons cases
with Hidalgo County Judge Ramon Garcia, a lawyer who is leading
one of the class action lawsuits.  The judge was not party to
the agreement, although he was mentioned at the document.

Mr. Reyna said he only realized the agreement was illegal after
signing it.  He considers the deal void, and refused to follow
it.  According to him, he instead offered to pay Ms. Salinas on
an hourly basis and reimburse her for expenses in return for
help in signing up people to join the lawsuit.  He did not say
how much money was involved.

Ms. Salinas began a class action suit against about 25 chemical
companies in 1998 after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
filed a lawsuit against certain chemical companies to clean up
the Hayes-Sammons plant in the early 1980s.

The residents who are involved in the case are seeking
compensation for negligence, medical bills and devalued
property, according to attorney Linda Laurent of Houston-based
Reich and Binstock, one of several lawyers for the plaintiffs,
according to a previous Class Action Reporter story (Nov. 21,
2005).  

The defendants in the case, which include Union Pacific Railroad
Company, URS Corporation and Chevron Chemical Corporation,
appealed to the State Supreme Court, asking them to order the
332nd District Court to reverse the trial date it set in May
2004.  The Texas Supreme Court though has not yet decided the
case (CAR Story, Nov. 21, 2005).  

The defendants, represented by Richard Newman of San Antonio-
based Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., claim that they haven't been
given sufficient evidence to prepare their defense. Setting a
court date without this information was an abuse of discretion
by the trial court, Mr. Newman argues.

Ms. Laurent told The Daily Texan that while the five plaintiffs
in the case provided causal evidence linking their injuries to
chemicals in the area, the defendants have requested such
evidence for several hundred others who also claim to have
chemical-related illnesses. Ms. Laurent represents the five
plaintiffs listed, each of whom have been diagnosed with non-
Hodgkins lymphoma. This form of cancer has been linked to
exposure to chlordane, one of the chemicals found in Mission,
according to Mrs. Salinas.

According to Ms. Laurent, the chemical plant ceased operations
about 30 years ago. However, many chemicals take years to break
down. For example, dioxin takes decades to break down and makes
up one-third of the herbicides used in Agent Orange, the
Pesticide Action Network North America website revealed.

The Hayes-Sammons Chemical Co., which processed and stored
chemicals for the companies involved in the class action suit,
is classified as a Superfund toxic waste site by the
Environmental Protection Agency. Superfund sites are
"uncontrolled hazardous waste sites," according to the EPA Web
site.

If the Texas Supreme Court denies the defendant's request, then
the lower court will hear the Mission residents' case. However
if the request is granted, the plaintiffs may have to provide
in-depth medical reports for the other claims, which will take
much more time and money, Ms. Laurent told The Daily Texan.


TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: CA Court Sets April 11 Settlement Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tripath Technology, Inc. reports that the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California set an April 11,
2006 final approval hearing for a settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
officers and directors.

Four suits were initially filed, alleging that the Company and
certain of its officers and/or directors violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Plaintiffs purport to represent
a putative class of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Company securities between January 29, 2004 and October
22, 2004. The complaints contain varying allegations, including
that the Company and the individual defendants made materially
false and misleading statements with respect to the Company's
financial results and with respect to its business, prospects
and operations in the its filings with the SEC, press releases
and other disclosures.  The complaints sought unspecified
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, expert witness fees,
costs and such other relief as may be awarded by the Court.

On December 22, 2004, the Court entered a stipulation and order
consolidating all of these complaints and ordering that the
defendants need not respond to any of these complaints until
after plaintiffs file a consolidated complaint.  On January 4,
2005, plaintiffs filed motions for the appointment of lead
plaintiff. The Court, by Order dated January 28, 2005, appointed
Robert Poteet as the sole lead plaintiff and approved Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP as lead counsel.

On July 11, 2005, the Company entered into a Stipulation and
Settlement Agreement, which was filed with the Court on July 12,
2005.  The settlement class consists of all persons who
purchased the securities of the Company between January 29, 2004
and June 13, 2005, inclusive.  Under the terms of the
Stipulation, the parties agreed that the class action will be
dismissed in exchange for a payment of $200,000 in cash by the
Company and the issuance of 2.45 million shares of Company
common stock which shall be exempt from registration pursuant to
Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933. The Stipulation
remains subject to the satisfaction of various conditions,
including without limitation (1) final approval of the
Stipulation by the Court, including a finding that the 2.45
million shares of the Company's common stock to be issued are
exempt from registration pursuant to Section 3(a)(1) of the
Securities Act of 1933 and (2) notification to members of the
settlement class in the Class Action.

On October 20, 2005, the Court entered a Preliminary Order for
Notice and Hearing in Connection with Settlement Proceedings.
The hearing for final approval of the settlement is scheduled
for January 24, 2006.  However, on December 14, 2005, the
parties submitted a stipulation and proposed order, revising
dates for class notice and final approval of settlement to the
Court, which contemplates that the hearing for final approval of
the settlement would be held on April 11, 2006.  The stipulation
and proposed order is pending before the Court.  Approximately
$1.8 million was accrued by the Company in the matter.

The suit is styled, "In re: Tripath Technology Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. C 04 4681 SBA," filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
(Oakland) under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong.  Representing the
Plaintiff/s is Robert S. Green, Green Welling LLP, 595 Market
Street, Suite 2750, San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415/477-6700,
Fax: 415-477-6710, Email: RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM.  Representing
the Defendant/s is Gilbert R. Serota, Howard Rice Nemerovski
Canady Falk, Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor, San Franciso,
CA 94111-4065, Phone: 415-434-1600, Fax: 415-217-5910, E-mail:
gserota@hrice.com.


TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: Case Management Conference set for CA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tripath Technology, Inc. reports that a Case Management
Conference scheduled for February 7, 2006 was set for a
purported derivative action in Santa Clara Superior Court in
California that appears to be based upon the same facts and
circumstances as the consolidated federal class action suit, "In
re: Tripath Technology Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File
No. C 04 4681 SBA."

On December 7, 2004, plaintiff Mildred Lyon filed a purported
derivative action against the Company and the following present
or former officers and/or directors: Dr. Adya S. Tripathi, David
P. Eichler, Graham K. Wright, A.K. Acharya, Andy Jasuja and Y.S.
Fu.

The suit specifically claims violation of Section 25402 of the
California Corporations Code, breach of fiduciary duty and
misappropriation of information, abuse of control, gross
mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment.
Based on those claims, the complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, treble damages under Section 25502.5(a) of
the California Corporations Code, extraordinary equitable and/or
injunctive relief, restitution and disgorgement, attorneys'
fees, expert witness fees, costs, and such other relief as may
be ordered by the Court.

On December 27, 2004, the Court entered a stipulation and order
extending the time for the Company to respond to the complaint
to February 23, 2005.  On February 16, 2005, the Court entered
an order further extending the time for the Company to respond
to the complaint to March 25, 2005.  On March 10, 2005, the
Court ordered that the individual defendants shall have through
and including April 25, 2005 to file any motions to quash and/or
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and that all
defendants shall have thirty (30) days from the date the court
issues a ruling on any motions to quash and/or dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction to respond to the complaint, or in the
event that no such motions are brought, extended the time for
all defendants to respond to the complaint to April 25, 2005.

On April 4, 2005, the Court ordered that all deadlines shall be
stayed for Defendants filing any motions to quash and/or dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdictions, or otherwise respond to the
Complaint, until such date as the parties mutually designate to
the Court for the Court's approval.  A Case Management
Conference is scheduled for February 7, 2006 before the Court.  
The parties currently are engaged in settlement discussions.


TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: February Trial Scheduled for "Langley" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tripath Technology, Inc., which faces a securities class action
entitled, "Langley Partners, L.P. v. Tripath Technology, Inc. et
al.," reports that the case was recently transferred to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California and is set for a February 10, 2006 hearing.

The suit was originally filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on or about June 2,
2005 against the Company, Dr. Adya Tripathi, the Company's
President and Chief Executive Officer, and David Eichler, the
Company's former Chief Financial Officer.  It alleges that the
Company entered into a stock purchase agreement with the Company
on or about August 2, 2004 in which Langley purchased 1 million
shares of Company common stock at a purchase price of $2.00 per
share.  Langley also alleges that it consented to the receipt of
the Company's Prospectus dated August 2, 2004 and the
accompanying Prospectus dated June 1, 2004, which specifically
incorporated, certain of the Company's filings with the SEC from
March through July 2004.

The complaint generally alleges that the Company and the
individual defendants made materially false and misleading
statements with respect to the Company's financial results and
with respect to its business, prospects, internal accounting
controls and design wins on Godzilla products in the Company's
filings with the SEC, press releases and other documents.  The
complaint alleges claims against the Company and the individual
defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and
money had and received, rescission and violations of Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act.  On this basis, the complaint
seeks unspecified compensatory damages and restitution in an
amount in excess of $2 million, rescission of the purchase
agreement and a return of $2 million, unspecified punitive
damages, costs and such other relief as may be awarded by the
Court.

On July 12, 2005, the Company served a motion to transfer this
action from the Southern District of New York to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
plaintiff. The Company filed this motion with the Court on July
20, 2005. This motion has not yet been fully briefed. On June
29, 2005, the Court entered a stipulation and order extending
the time for all defendants to respond to the complaint until
August 2, 2005. On July 28, 2005, the Court entered a further
stipulation and proposed order extending the time for all
defendants to respond to the complaint until 14 days after the
Court's ruling on the motion to transfer or 40 days after all
briefing on the motion to transfer is filed, whichever is
earlier. A Pre-Trial Conference was scheduled before the Court
on August 25, 2005.

On October 6, 2005, the Court entered an Order granting the
Company's motion to transfer this action from the Southern
District of New York to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  On October 18, 2005, the
action was transferred to the Northern District of California.
On December 9, 2005, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, which
was scheduled for a hearing before the Court on February 10,
2006.

The suit is styled, "Langley Partners, L.P. v. Tripath
Technology, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-04194-SC," filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, under Judge Samuel Conti. Representing the
Plaintiff/s is, Caryn G. Mazin of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary,
LLP (NYC), 1251 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020, US,
Phone: (212) 896-2983, Fax: (212) 835-6001, E-mail:
caryn.mazin@dlapiper.com. Representing the Defendant/s are,
Sarah A. Good of Howard, Rice, et al., Three Embarcadero Center,
7th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 434-1600, Fax:
(415) 217-5910, E-mail: sgood@hrice.com; and Steven Richard
Popofsky of Gerstsen, Savage, Kaplowitz, Wolf & Marcus, LLP, 600
Lexington Ave., New York, NY 10022, US, Phone: (212) 752-9700,
Fax: (212) 980-5192, E-mail: spopofsky@gskny.com.


WASHINGTON: Court Sides with Plaintiffs in Pershing Park Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington D.C. Circuit considered the September 2002 mass
arrest at Pershing Park illegal, and suggested that the city
police chief may be held personally liable for constitutional
rights violations.  On Sept. 27, 2002, the District of Columbia
Metropolitan Police Dept., as well as the federal law
enforcement authorities, arrested nearly 400 people in the
vicinity of the First Amendment protest activities against the
IMF and World Bank and the war in Iraq.  

According to JusticeOnline, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the mass
arrest " violated the clearly established Fourth Amendment
rights of plaintiffs. . ."  The Court of Appeals ruling rejects
the appeal by Chief of Police Charles H. Ramsey that he be freed
of liability for constitutional rights violation.  The Court
also upheld the District Court's denial of qualified immunity to
Assistant Chief of Police Peter Newsham who also commanded the
arrests.

The Partnership for Civil Justice filed several lawsuits against
the District of Columbia M.P.D., the F.B.I., and other law
enforcement agencies for unconstitutional mass arrests.  
Plaintiffs, who are representatives of a certified class action,
are represented by Mara Verheyden-Hilliard and Carl Messineo of
the PCJ.  PCJ is also litigating on behalf of the National
Lawyers Guild Mass Defense Committee.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Federman Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated class action in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California against
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. (IMH).  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 May 13, 2005 through
August 9, 2005.  Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of
the Class.

For more information, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood -- http://www.federmanlaw.com-- 120 N. Robinson, Suite  
2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: (405) 235-1560/Fax:
(405) 239-2112; E-mail: wfederman@aol.com.


PATTERSON-UTI: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel says that a class action
lawsuit is being filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas on behalf of all persons who
purchased securities Patterson-UTI Energy Inc. (Nasdaq: PTEN)
between Feb. 25, 2002 thru December 22, 2005 inclusive, (the
"Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

A U.S. District Court judge froze the assets of the former chief
financial officer of Patterson-UTI Energy Inc. after the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission complained that the executive
had embezzled $69 million from the company.  According to the
SEC statement, Jonathan Nelson, 36, fraudulently moved the money
to a phony vendor he controlled and then moved the money to
other entities he controlled.  The SEC alleged that Nelson used
the funds to buy an airplane, a cattle ranch, homes, vehicles
and a truck stop.

The company said it will restate its financial statements for
the years ended Dec. 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, and for the first
three quarters of 2005 due to the embezzlement by its former
chief financial officer.

In November 2005, Patterson-UTI Energy Inc. said it was
investigating "unauthorized payments" the company made for
assets that were never delivered, but cautioned it was too early
to tell how the inquiry would affect its previous financial
results.  Mr. Nelson, who resigned from the Snyder, Texas-based
oil drilling rig company on November 3, confessed to embezzling
$29 million on November 9.

The alleged fraud "begs the question of whether other
irregularities such as classifying operating expenses as capital
expenditures might be discovered".  The company's stock price
may face continued pressure due to the uncertainty of the
possible restatement, other potential accounting missteps and
the risk of lawsuits.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law
Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, Phone (888) 643-6735 or (610) 660-8000,
Fax: (610) 660-8080, E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com, Web site:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Schiffrin Barroway Files Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP corrects an earlier statement saying
the firm filed a class action against Impac Mortgage Holdings,
Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey to:

Notice is given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of all securities purchasers of Impac
Mortgage Holdings, Inc. (IMH) between May 13, 2005 and August 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 the following 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.

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).


SERACARE LIFE: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc.
(SRLS) between February 9, 2005 and December 19, 2005,
inclusive.  

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

For more information, contact Evan J. Smith, Esquire or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esquire of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite
602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, E-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com;
Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 (toll free).


SFBC INTERNATIONAL: Stull Stull Files FL Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded
securities of SFBC International, Inc. between February 17, 2004
and December 15, 2005, inclusive.  Also included are all those
who acquired SFBC's shares through the acquisitions of Taylor
Technology or PharmaNet and those who purchased in the secondary
offering on March 10, 2005.

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

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

For more information, contact, Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull,
Stull & Brody, Tzivia Brody, Esq. at Stull, Stull & Brody --
http://www.ssbny.com-- E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com; Phone:  
1-800-337-4983 (toll-free); Fax: 212/490-2022.


                            *********


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  * * *