CAR_Public/060124.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, January 24, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 17

                            Headlines

ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: LA Resident Files Suit V. Insurance Coverage  
ARCHON CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Plan to Appeal Dismissal of Case
AVONDALE INC.: NC Court Nixes Dismissal Motion V. Antitrust Suit
CARNIVAL CRUISE: Facing $20M Suit for 2005 Passenger Death
DANA CORPORATION: Investors Call for Lawsuit Against Executives

DANIEL BORTNICK: Sued for 'Improper' Disposal of Medical Records
DRESDNER KLEINWORT: Could Face Sex Discrimination Case in U.K.
GMAC MORTGAGE: Court Rejects "Professional Plaintiff" Rationale
I2 TECHNOLOGIES: SEC Orders Return of $10M to Shareholders
IMMUCOR INC.: Plaintiffs Plan to File Amended, Consolidated Suit

INTERVOICE-BRITE INC.: Fifth Circuit Modifies Ruling in TX Suit
INTRAWARE INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
LAFARGE NORTH: Faces Flood Damages Suit in LA over Runaway Barge
LIBERTY MUTUAL: LA Resident Files Suit Over Insurance Coverage  
LOUISIANA: Firms Face Damages Suit over Years of Canal Dredging

MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Paying $12M to Amicably Settle Zicam Suit
MERCK & CO.: Appeals Court Affirms MO Court's Vioxx/CAFA Ruling
MERCK & CO.: Lawsuit Filed Against Bone-Strengthening Drug
MOSANTO CO.: Court Denies Class Status Motion for Growers' Suit
MONSANTO CO.: Trial Date Slated For American Seed Lawsuit in DE

NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit over Aredia, Zometa Drugs
OHIO: Judge Allows Lawsuit Against Traffic Camera to Proceed
OREGON STATE: Approval of $9M Funding to End Advocates' Lawsuit
PPL CORPORATION: Faces Additional Complaint over Fly Ash Spill
STATE FARM: LA Residents Lodge Suit over Excess Flood Coverage

TIV TAAM: Israeli Meat Retailer Sued for Selling Rotten Products
UBS GLOBAL: BP Amoco Employees File Lawsuit to Recover $22M
WAL-MART STORES: Accused of Not Paying Overtime Wage in Utah
WESTHAVEN GROUP: Homeowners Mull Lawsuit to Keep Properties
WORKSTREAM INC.: Files Motion to Dismiss NY Securities Suit

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

IMPAC MORTGAGE: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
MIKOHN GAMING: Berman DeValerio Files NV Securities Fraud Suit
MILLS CORPORATION: Finkelstein, Thompson Files Fraud Suit in VA
SFBC INTERNATIONAL: Klafter Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                            *********


ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: LA Resident Files Suit V. Insurance Coverage  
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Orleans Parish, Louisiana resident initiated a purported
federal class action lawsuit against the Allstate Indemnity
Company over its insurance coverage in the wake of Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita.

Doris L. Huntley filed the suit on behalf of all insured
property owners in Louisiana, who suffered a "total loss," at
least partially from wind damage, as a result of the hurricanes.  
The suit alleges that although the covered property is a "total
loss," the Company failed to timely adjust/ appraise its
insureds' losses, including failing to pay face value of the
policy.

The suit was based on Louisiana's "Valued Policy Law," La. R.S.
22:695(a).  That statute requires insurers to pay the entire
amount of loss on any insured structures, as long as any portion
of the loss resulted from a covered peril.  

Specifically, the statute provides that "if the insurer places a
valuation upon covered property and uses such valuation for
purposes of determining the premium charge to be made under the
policy, in case of total loss the insurer shall compute and
indemnify or compensate any covered loss of, or damage to, such
property which occurs during the term of the policy at such
valuation without deduction or offset, unless a different method
is to be used in the computation of loss, in which latter case,
the policy, and any application therefore, shall set forth in
type of equal size, the actual method of such computation by the
insurer."  

In other words, the insurer must pay the policy limits for a
"total loss" unless a different method of computation was
clearly set forth in the application and policy.  The suit
relies on this statute for recovery of the full value of loss.  

To view the case visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?47f.

The suit is styled, "Huntley v. Allstate Indemnity Company, Case
No. 2:05-cv-06887-LMA-DEK," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana, under Judge Lance M Africk
with referral to Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III.  Representing the
Plaintiff/s are, Andre Phillip LaPlace of Law Offices of Andre
P. LaPlace, 2762 Continental Dr., Suite 103, Baton Rouge, LA
70808-3240, Phone: 225-924-6898, E-mail: alaw@andrelaplace.com;
and Gregory Michael Porobil of Gregory Porobil, Attorney at Law,
3300 Bienville St., New Orleans, LA 70119, Phone:
(504) 822-3600, E-mail: greg1excell@bellsouth.net.


ARCHON CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Plan to Appeal Dismissal of Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against the Archon
Corporation are seeking to appeal the dismissal of their case to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit originally
filed in the United States District Court of Florida, Orlando
Division in 1994, entitled "Poulos v. Caesar's World, Inc., et
al., Ahern v. Caesar's World, Inc., et al., and Schrier v.
Caesar's World, Inc., et al.," along with a fourth action
against cruise ship gaming operators and which have been
consolidated in a single action now pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada.

Also named as defendants in these actions are many of the
largest gaming companies in the United States and certain gaming
equipment manufacturers.  Each complaint is identical in its
material allegations.  The actions allege that the defendants
have engaged in fraudulent and misleading conduct by inducing
people to play video poker machines and electronic slot machines
based on false beliefs concerning how the machines operate and
the extent to which there is actually an opportunity to win on a
given play.

The complaints also allege that the defendants' acts constitute
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act and also give rise to claims for common law fraud and unjust
enrichment, and seek compensatory, special consequential,
incidental and punitive damages of several billion dollars.

In response to the complaints, all of the defendants, including
the Company, filed motions attacking the pleadings for failure
to state a claim. They war seeking to dismiss the complaints for
lack of personal jurisdiction and venue.

As a result of those motions, the Court has required the
Plaintiffs in the four consolidated cases to file a single
consolidated amended complaint.  Subsequent to Plaintiffs'
filing of their consolidated amended complaint, the defendants
filed numerous motions attacking the amended complaint upon many
of the bases as the prior motions.  

The Court heard the arguments on those motions and ultimately
denied the motions.  Plaintiffs then filed their motion to
certify a class.  Defendants have vigorously opposed the motion.

In June 2002, the court denied the motion to certify the class.
Plaintiffs then sought discretionary review by the Ninth Circuit
of the order denying class certification.  In August 2002, the
Ninth Circuit granted review.  

The briefing is complete and an oral hearing took place in
January 2004.  In September 2005, the federal district court
granted the defendants motion for dismissal.  On October 19,
2005, the plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit.


AVONDALE INC.: NC Court Nixes Dismissal Motion V. Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avondale, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated antitrust
class action filed against it and other defendants was denied by
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina.

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

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

On November 9, 2005, the court denied the defendants' motion and
ordered the case to go forward.  On December 7, 2005, the
Company filed its notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court
of Appeals seeking to reverse the trial court's order.  


CARNIVAL CRUISE: Facing $20M Suit for 2005 Passenger Death
----------------------------------------------------------
Miami-based Carnival Cruise Lines is being sued for the death of
a Michigan man who died of a Norovirus infection two days after
returning from the ship's Caribbean cruise in 2005, according to
Sun-Sentinel.com.  

Kenneth Hardin II is bringing a class action on behalf of
Jonathan Kallas, and other passengers who became ill on a
January 2005 trip of the Carnival Miracle.  The case filed in
Miami federal court is claiming $20 million in compensation.

The suit said several passengers developed flu-like symptoms
after consuming food or water aboard the Norovirus-contaminated
ship. Jennifer de la Cruz, spokeswoman for Carnival, said in a
statement that the company had not yet reviewed the lawsuit.  
She also defended the cruise line's health record saying it "has
very low incidence of gastro-intestinal outbreaks," for its
record 3 million guests per year.  

Carnival's Miracle is not on the list of 17 ships found to have
cases of gastrointestinal illnesses outbreaks by the industry's
Centers for Disease Control in 2005.  Mr. Hardin's party said
Carnival did not report an outbreak on the Miracle.  The Miracle
returned to Florida from a week-long Caribbean cruise on Jan.
30, 2005.


DANA CORPORATION: Investors Call for Lawsuit Against Executives
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Corp. said at a regulatory filing it received from five
shareholders letters demanding that the company commence legal
proceedings against its directors and senior officers for
alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties to Dana arising from
the same facts on which previous federal securities law class
actions are based. The claims in these letters, as well as the
derivative action described above, are being reviewed by the
Audit Committee of Dana's Board.

Dana, its chief executive and chief financial officer have been
named as defendants in five purported class actions filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio:

     (1) John Johnson v. Dana Corporation, et al. (filed October
         5, 2005);

     (2) Howard Frank v. Dana Corporation, et al. (filed October
         12, 2005);

     (3) Amalgamated Workers Union Local 88 Welfare Fund v. Dana
         Corporation, et al. (filed October 21, 2005);

     (4) Donald J. Doty v. Dana Corporation, et al. (filed
         November 2, 2005); and

     (5) Alvin Greenberg v. Dana Corporation et al. (filed
         December 5, 2005).

The complaints in these actions allege violations of the U.S.
securities laws arising from the issuance of false and
misleading statements about Dana's financial performance and
failures to disclose material facts necessary to make these
statements not misleading, the issuance of financial statements
in violation of generally accepted accounting principles and SEC
rules, and the issuance of earnings guidance that had no
reasonable basis.

The plaintiffs allege that the price at which Dana's shares
traded at various times was artificially inflated as a result of
the defendants' alleged wrongdoing. A sixth action, Kent Bates
v. Dana Corporation, et al., was filed in the same court on
October 19, 2005, and voluntarily dismissed on December 5, 2005.

Dana Corp., our CEO, our CFO, and "Dana Corporation Investment
Committee" have been named as defendants in a separate purported
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio: Jane Johnson v. Dana Corporation, et al.
(filed November 15, 2005). This complaint alleges violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) on behalf of
persons who participated in the "Dana Employee Stock Option
Plan." The claims at issue in this case arise out of the same
facts on which the federal securities law class actions are
based. The plaintiff cites ERISA Sections 404(a)(1) and 405(a)
for alleged breaches of the defendants' ERISA fiduciary duties
to the plan and plan participants.

Dana and the other defendants believe the allegations in the
above actions are without merit and will defend these lawsuits
vigorously.

Dana CEO, CFO, and the members of the Board of Directors have
been named as defendants in a derivative action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio: Traute
Weidman, derivatively on behalf of Dana Corporation v. Michael
J. Burns, et al. (filed December 8, 2005). This complaint
alleges breaches of the defendants' fiduciary duties to Dana
arising from the same facts on which the federal securities law
class actions are based. The complaint also asserts a common law
claim for unjust enrichment and asserts a claim under Section
304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 against our CEO and CFO.


DANIEL BORTNICK: Sued for 'Improper' Disposal of Medical Records
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patients of Daniel Bortnick filed a class action l against the
physician and his practice, according to I-Newswire.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for negligence, invasion
of privacy and breach of fiduciary duty in relation to the
doctor's disposal of a computer with private patient records.  
The patient expressed dismay that their records, assumed were
confidential had been treated so carelessly (by being disposed
in the trash).


DRESDNER KLEINWORT: Could Face Sex Discrimination Case in U.K.
--------------------------------------------------------------
More female employees of Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein
Securities, LLC, particularly in London, are raising allegations
of sex discrimination against the German bank, according to The
Observer.

"There is a high probability that we will file a separate action
against Dresdner in the British court," said Douglas Wigdor, the
US attorney piloting the case, who is also a qualified solicitor
in the U.K.  Mr. Wignor did not name any of the potential new
claimants.

Earlier this month, current and former female employees of the
bank initiated a $1.4 billion lawsuit in the U.S. claiming that
the Company discriminates against women, preventing advancement
and fair treatment, The Cay Compass reports (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 11, 2006).

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, offered
a slew of statistics to back up their claims, noting for
instance that only four of 258 women in the Company's Capital
Markets Division are managing directors, positions held by 15
percent of men. The suit further alleges, "Although we live in
2006, the 'glass ceiling' is alive and well at this German
investment bank where women are treated as second class citizens
with respect to all of the terms and conditions of their
employment." It goes on to state, "This class action seeks to
put an end to these intolerable and discriminatory practices."

According to the six women, who were named as plaintiffs in the
lawsuit, they sought for an end to the unlawful denial of
promotions as well as compensation equal to male employees and
equality in other conditions of employment. They alleged in
their suit that women couldn't advance to senior levels at the
company. The women also claims that in addition to barriers to
advancement to the highest executive level, managing director,
there also were barriers at the lower levels.

As of May 2005, women comprised only 99, or less than 15
percent, of 775 positions as directors, the second highest
executive level in the company's Capital Markets Division,
according to the lawsuit. It said that 20 percent of the 500
female employees in the Capital Markets Division were directors
compared to 40 percent of their male colleagues.

In addition, the suit pointed out that about 300, or 60 percent,
of the 500 women in the department were associates while only
379, or 22 percent, of the 1,700 male employees in the division
were associates. It notes that the statistics reveal "a telling
picture ... in which women are subjected to the lowest pay and
rank." The suit also pointed out that the results were similar
in the Company's other divisions, leaving "a remarkable lack of
women in the highest executive levels" throughout the Company.


GMAC MORTGAGE: Court Rejects "Professional Plaintiff" Rationale
---------------------------------------------------------------
In an opinion regarding the case entitled, "Murray v. GMAC
Mortgage, 05-8035," the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit rejected an Illinois federal court's rationale
that the plaintiff in the case is not an appropriate class
representative because she is a "professional plaintiff."

The Fair Credit Reporting Act case involves plaintiff, Nancy
Murray, whose motion to grant class action status to her claim
against the Company was denied by the district court. In its
opinion, the appeals court agrees that Ms. Murray and her
family, who collectively are participating in fifty FCRA
lawsuits, "are in this big time."

However, "professional" is not necessarily a dirty word: "It
implies experience, if not expertise." The Court thus concludes
that there is no basis for finding that a plaintiff is not an
adequate class representative simply because she is experienced.
If anything, Ms. Murray will be a better representative because
she will be in more frequent contact with her attorneys, "who as
a practical matter are the class's real champions."

In addition, the Court also noted in its opinion that the
district judge's apparent antagonism toward class actions in
general and chastised him for failing to apply faithfully the
statutes enacted by Congress.

According to court documents, shortly after her debts had been
discharged in bankruptcy, Ms. Murray received a credit
solicitation from the Company, which had learned her name and
address by asking credit bureaus to forward information about
potential borrowers who met specified criteria.  The Company
offered Ms. Murray a loan to be secured by a mortgage on her
home.  

Deluged by offers, Ms. Murray showed them to a lawyer, who
concluded that the Company had violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act in two ways: first, it had not made the "firm
offer of credit" that is essential when a potential lender
accesses someone's credit history without that person's consent;
and second, the Company's offer did not include a "clear and
conspicuous" notice of the recipient's right to close her credit
information to all who lacked her prior consent.

Ms. Murray filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, proposing to
represent a class of about 1.2 million recipients of similar
offers from the Company and demanding statutory damages, which
range from $100 to $1,000 per person.  A recent amendment to the
Act abolishes private remedies for violations of the clear-
disclosure requirement, which in the future will be enforced
administratively, but that change does not apply to offers made
before its effective date and thus does not affect this
litigation.

While waiting for Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan to decide whether
the suit could proceed as a class action, the parties reached a
tentative settlement, which the district judge refused to read.  
The judge pointed out that that this would be a waste of time
because he had decided that Ms. Murray could not represent a
class.

The district court judge gave four reasons for declining to
certify a class:

     (1) Counsel did not try to cut a deal for Ms. Murray
         personally.

     (2) The complaint seeks statutory but not compensatory
         damages.

     (3) Statutory damages, if awarded to a class, would be
         ruinously high.

     (4) Ms. Murray is a "professional plaintiff" unfit to
         represent a class.

In an effort to save the availability of class-wide relief, Ms.
Murray proposes an interlocutory appeal, which the appeals court
had discretion to allow.  The Company, seeing an opportunity to
avoid liability (at least until another recipient of its offer
files suit), opposed her petition.

To view the decision visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?483.

The suit is styled, "Murray v. GMAC Mortgage Corporation, Case
No. 1:05-cv-01229," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
northern District of Illinois, under Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan.  
Representing the Plaintiff/s is Daniel A. Edelman of Edelman,
Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, 120 South LaSalle St., 18th
Floor, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 739-4200, E-mail:
courtecl@aol.com.  Representing the Defendant/s is Thomas Justin
Cunningham of Lord Bissell & Brook, 111 South Wacker Drive,
Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 443-0700, E-mail:
tcunningham@lordbissell.com.


I2 TECHNOLOGIES: SEC Orders Return of $10M to Shareholders
----------------------------------------------------------
On Jan. 6, 2006, the Securities and Exchange Commission asked
the court overseeing the accounting fraud case against i2
Technologies, Inc. to authorize distribution of the $10 million
civil penalty and disgorgement that i2 paid to settle the
Commission's charges. The Commission asked the court to
establish a Fair Fund under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to
hold the civil penalty, disgorgement and accrued interest.

The Commission has further requested that, after a tax
administrator files any reports on the Fair Fund required by
law, the Fair Fund be transferred to and joined for distribution
with an approximate $85 million settlement fund previously
established in the private securities class action against i2
arising from the same events. The Commission proposes that no
part of the Fair Fund be used to pay the private class
attorneys' fees or the distribution agent's fees.

Katherine Addleman, Associate District Administrator of the
Commission's Fort Worth office, said, "We are pleased to return
these funds to investors injured by i2's wrongdoing, as
contemplated by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We believe that
distributing these funds through the existing private class
action settlement fund is the most efficient way to do this
under the circumstances of this case."

In its civil suit and related administrative proceeding against
i2, the Commission alleged that, for the four years ended Dec.
31, 2001, and the first three quarters of 2002, i2 misstated
approximately $1 billion of software license revenues. As a
result, i2's periodic filings with the Commission and earnings
releases during this period materially misrepresented i2's
revenues and earnings. The Commission further alleged that i2's
conduct violated the antifraud, reporting, record-keeping and
internal controls provisions of the federal securities laws. In
June 2004, i2 settled these charges without admitting or denying
the Commission's substantive findings or allegations. As part of
that settlement, i2 paid a $10 million civil penalty and nominal
$1 disgorgement. It also consented to a Commission order to
cease-and-desist from such violations. See Litigation Rel. No.
18741 (June 9, 2004).

The court has granted the Commission's request to publish notice
of its proposal to distribute to injured investors. Investors
injured by the wrongdoing alleged in the Commission's complaint
against i2 have until Feb. 17, 2006, to file written objections
with the court and the Commission's counsel. The Commission's
Web site: http://www.sec.gov.

The Commission's case is styled "SEC v. i2 Technologies, Inc.,
Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-1250, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division)."


IMMUCOR INC.: Plaintiffs Plan to File Amended, Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs involved in the ten securities class action lawsuits
against Immucor, Inc., which are currently pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, informed
the court that they intend to file an amended and consolidated
compliant.

The lawsuits are alleging violations of the securities laws by
the Company and certain of its current and former directors and
officers.  Filed by former shareholders of the Company, they are
seeking damages on behalf of themselves individually and on
behalf of an alleged class of former shareholders who either
purchased or sold the Company's stock between January 7 and
August 29, 2005.

The lawsuits allege that the Company's stock prices during that
time were inflated as a result of material misrepresentations or
omissions in the Company's financial statements.  The cases are
at a very early stage.  

The plaintiffs have informed the court that they intend to file
an amended and consolidated complaint.  As a consequence,
discovery has not yet begun, the Company has not been required
to file an answer or other defenses to the actions, nor has the
court made any determination whether any of the cases have merit
or should be allowed to proceed as class actions.


INTERVOICE-BRITE INC.: Fifth Circuit Modifies Ruling in TX Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals modified its
opinion upholding in part the dismissal of the class action
filed against InterVoice-Brite, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, styled "David Barrie, et al., on Behalf of Themselves
and All Others Similarly Situated v. InterVoice-Brite, Inc., et
al., No. 3-01CV1071-D."

Several related class action lawsuits were filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on
behalf of purchasers of common stock of the Company during the
period from October 12, 1999 through June 6, 2000.  Plaintiffs
have filed claims, which were consolidated into one proceeding,
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 against
the Company as well as certain of its current and former
officers and directors on behalf of the alleged class members.

In the complaint, plaintiffs claim that the Company and the
named current and former officers and directors issued false and
misleading statements during the Class Period concerning the
financial condition of the Company, the results of the merger
with Brite Voice Systems, Inc. and the alleged future business
projections of the Company.  Plaintiffs have asserted that these
alleged statements resulted in artificially inflated stock
prices.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in the
consolidated proceeding, asserting that the complaint lacked the
degree of specificity and factual support to meet the pleading
standards applicable to federal securities litigation.  On this
basis, the Company requested that the court dismiss the
complaint in its entirety.  Plaintiffs responded to the
Company's request for dismissal.  On August 8, 2002, the Court
entered an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the
class action lawsuit. In the order dismissing the lawsuit, the
Court granted plaintiffs an opportunity to reinstate the lawsuit
by filing an amended complaint.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that the Court dismissed
on September 15, 2003.  Plaintiffs appealed the District Court
decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  On January 12,
2005, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in
which it affirmed, in part, the District Court's order of
dismissal.  The Court of Appeals' opinion also reversed a
limited number of issues in the District Court's proceedings.  
On February 25, 2005, the Company filed a motion for rehearing
with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals requesting the Court to
modify its opinion.  On May 12, 2005, the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals denied the Company's petition for rehearing but modified
its opinion to clarify the Court's decision.  The case has been
remanded to the District Court for further proceedings
consistent with the Fifth Circuit's opinion.

The suit is styled "Barrie, et al v. Intervoice Brite Inc, et
al., Case No. 3:01-cv-01071," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, under Judge Ed Kinkeade.  Representing the Plaintiff/s
are Marc R. Stanley, Stanley Mandel & Iola, 3100 Monticello Ave,
Suite 750, Dallas, TX 75205, Phone: 214/443-4301, Fax:
214/443-0358, E-mail: mstanley@smi-law.com; and Lauren M.
Winston, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins- San
Francisco, 100 Pine St, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111,
Phone: 415/288-4545.  Representing the Defendant/s is Timothy R.
McCormick, Thompson & Knight, 1700 Pacific Ave, Suite 3300,
Dallas, TX 75201-4693, Phone: 214/969-1103, Fax: 214/880-3253,
E-mail: timothy.mccormick@tklaw.com.


INTRAWARE INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Intraware,
Inc., styled "In re Intraware, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9349 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.),"
related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)."

The amended complaint is brought purportedly on behalf of all
persons who purchased the Company's common stock from February
25, 1999 (the date of the Company's initial public offering)
through December 6, 2000.  It names as defendants the Company,
three of its present and former officers and directors, and
several investment banking firms that served as underwriters of
its initial public offering.  The complaint alleges liability
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, on the grounds that the registration statement for the
offerings did not disclose that the underwriters had agreed to
allow certain customers to purchase shares in the offerings in
exchange for excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and
the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to purchase
additional shares in the aftermarket at predetermined prices.
The amended complaint also alleges that the underwriters misused
their securities analysts to manipulate the price of Company
stock.  No specific damages are claimed.

Lawsuits containing similar allegations have been filed in the
Southern District of New York challenging over 300 other initial
public offerings and secondary offerings conducted in 1999 and
2000. All of these lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial
purposes before United States District Court Judge Shira
Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York.

On July 15, 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss was filed in the
coordinated litigation on behalf of the issuer defendants, of
which the Company and its three named current and former
officers and directors are a part, on common pleadings issues.
On or about October 9, 2002, the Court entered and ordered a
Stipulation of Dismissal, which dismissed the three named
current and former officers and directors from the litigation
without prejudice. On February 19, 2003, the Court entered an
order denying in part the issuer defendants' omnibus motion to
dismiss, including those portions of the motion to dismiss
relating to Intraware.

In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement for the claims against
the issuer defendants, including the Company, was submitted to
the Court.  The underwriter-defendants in the " In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation," including the
underwriters of our initial public offering, are not parties to
the stipulation of settlement.  The settlement provides that, in
exchange for a release of claims against the settling issuer-
defendants, the insurers of all of the settling issuer-
defendants will provide a surety undertaking to guarantee
plaintiffs a $1 billion recovery from the non-settling
defendants, including the underwriter-defendants.  The amount
the Company's insurers would be required to pay to the
plaintiffs could range from zero to approximately $3.5 million,
depending on plaintiffs' recovery from the underwriter-
defendants and from other non-settling parties. If the
plaintiffs recover at least $1 billion from the underwriter-
defendants, the Company's insurers would have no liability for
settlement payments under the terms of the settlement. If the
plaintiffs recover less than $1 billion, the Company believes
its insurance will likely cover its share of any payments
towards satisfying plaintiffs' $1 billion recovery deficit.  
There is no guarantee the settlement will become final, as it is
subject to a number of conditions, including the final approval
of the Court.

The suit is styled "In re: Intraware, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9349 (SAS)," filed
in relation to "IN RE: INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in
this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


LAFARGE NORTH: Faces Flood Damages Suit in LA over Runaway Barge
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several plaintiffs suing Lafarge North America, Inc. are asking
to represent residents of the New Orleans area who suffered
damage or injury from Hurricane Katrina-related flooding,
including heirs of those who died.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana, Case No. 05-5531.  Its named plaintiffs
are Blair Boutte, Doris Shants and Herbert Warren, Jr.

The suit is claiming that the Company caused post-Hurricane
Katrina flooding by failing to secure a barge, and that poor
mooring caused the barge to break loose and ram into the
Industrial Canal.  Plaintiffs claim that the runaway barge
caused the Industrial Canal to fail and flood New Orleans.  

In addition to seeking class certification, the plaintiffs claim
compensatory and exemplary damages as well as attorneys' fees.

To view this case, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?485.

The suit is styled, "Boutte et al v. Lafarge North America,
Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-05531-ILRL-ALC," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, under
Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle with referral to Judge Alma L. Chasez.  
Representing the Plaintiff/s is Robert B. Evans, III of Burgos &
Evans, LLC, 3632 Canal St., New Orleans, LA 70119-6135, Phone:
504-488-3722, E-mail: revans@burgosevans.com.  Representing the
Plaintiff/s is Robert Burns Fisher, Jr. of Chaffe McCall, LLP,
(Baton Rouge) 202 Two United Plaza, 8550 United Plaza Blvd.,
Baton Rouge, LA 70809, Phone: 225-922-4300, E-mail:
fisher@chaffe.com.


LIBERTY MUTUAL: LA Resident Files Suit Over Insurance Coverage  
--------------------------------------------------------------
A St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana resident initiated a purported
federal class action lawsuit against the Liberty Mutual
Insurance Fire Insurance Company over its insurance coverage in
the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Dani Babineaux filed the suit on behalf of all insured property
owners in Louisiana, who suffered a "total loss," at least
partially from wind damage, as a result of the hurricanes.  The
suit alleges that although the covered property is a "total
loss," the Company failed to timely adjust/ appraise its
insureds' losses, including failing to pay face value of the
policy.

The suit was based on Louisiana's "Valued Policy Law," La. R.S.
22:695(a).  That statute requires insurers to pay the entire
amount of loss on any insured structures, as long as any portion
of the loss resulted from a covered peril.  

Specifically, the statute provides that "if the insurer places a
valuation upon covered property and uses such valuation for
purposes of determining the premium charge to be made under the
policy, in case of total loss the insurer shall compute and
indemnify or compensate any covered loss of, or damage to, such
property which occurs during the term of the policy at such
valuation without deduction or offset, unless a different method
is to be used in the computation of loss, in which latter case,
the policy, and any application therefore, shall set forth in
type of equal size, the actual method of such computation by the
insurer."  

In other words, the insurer must pay the policy limits for a
"total loss" unless a different method of computation was
clearly set forth in the application and policy.  The suit
relies on this statute for recovery of the full value of loss.

To view the case visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?47e.

The suit is styled, "Babineaux v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance
Company, Case No. 2:05-cv-06888-ILRL-JCW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, under
Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle with referral to Judge Joseph C.
Wilkinson, Jr.  Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Andre Phillip
LaPlace of Law Offices of Andre P. LaPlace, 2762 Continental
Dr., Suite 103, Baton Rouge, LA 70808-3240, Phone: 225-924-6898,
E-mail: alaw@andrelaplace.com; and Gregory Michael Porobil of
Gregory Porobil, Attorney at Law, 3300 Bienville St., New
Orleans, LA 70119, Phone: (504) 822-3600, E-mail:
greg1excell@bellsouth.net.


LOUISIANA: Firms Face Damages Suit over Years of Canal Dredging
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several pipelines and oil and gas exploration and production
companies were named as defendants in a federal class action
lawsuit that alleges that they should be held liable for damages
caused by hurricane winds and storm surge.  CASE No. 05-4161

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana, maintains that canals dredged for oil and
gas exploration over past decades degraded the protection that
marsh property otherwise would have provided against the effects
of the hurricane.  Named as plaintiffs in the case are George
Barasich, Benny J. Borden, Courtney Foxworth, Darin Tircuit, and
Ralph H. Long, Jr.

The suit is filed against a number of companies identified as
representatives of two classes of defendants, all oil and gas
companies and all pipeline companies operating in South
Louisiana.  These companies include:

     (1) Columbia Gulf Transmission Co.;

     (2) Koch Pipeline Company, L.P.;

     (3) Gulf South Pipeline Company, L.P.;

     (4) Shell Pipeline Company, L.P.;

     (5) Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co.;

     (6) Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp.;

     (7) Shell Oil, Co.;  

     (8) ExxonMobil Corp.;

     (9) Exxon Mobil Corp.;

    (10) Chevron Corp.; and

    (11) BP Corp. N.A., Inc.

To view this case: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?486.

The suit is styled, "Barasich et al v. Columbia Gulf
Transmission Company et al. Case No. 2:05-cv-04161-SSV-DEK,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana, under Judge Sarah S. Vance with referral to Judge
Daniel E. Knowles, III.  Representing the Plaintiff/s is Conrad
S.P. Williams, III of St. Martin & Williams, 4084 Highway 311,
P.O. Box 2017, Houma, LA 70361-2017, Phone: 985-876-3891, E-
mail: duke525@msn.com. Representing the Defendant/s is Thomas R.
Blum of Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Energy Centre,
1100 Poydras St., 30th Floor, New Orleans, LA 70163-3000, Phone:
(504) 569-2030, E-mail: trblum@spsr-law.com.


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Paying $12M to Amicably Settle Zicam Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to product liability suits against Matrixx Initiatives,
Inc. and Zicam LLC in Arizona have reached an amicable agreement
which ends the litigation.  Under the agreement, approximately
340 plaintiffs who alleged loss of smell arising out of their
use of the Zicam(R) Cold Remedy Nasal Gel product will dismiss
their cases with prejudice in return for participating in a
voluntary Settlement Program, which will determine how each
plaintiff's claim should be resolved in accordance with a
medical protocol.  The Company will be paying $100,000 to
administer the Program and $11,900,000 to fund the awards which
will be made.

The cases that have been filed against the company, according to
an earlier Class Action Reporter story (Nov. 16, 2005) are:

     (1) Abramsen, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed March 8, 2004, in the Superior Court of Arizona
         (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-04415, consolidated
         under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product Liability Cases,
         Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No.
         CV2004-001338;

     (2) Adams, et al., vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed May 6, 2004, in the Superior Court of Arizona
         (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-008929, consolidated
         under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product Liability Cases,
         Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No.
         CV2004-001338;

     (3) Adamson, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed February 1, 2005, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2005-001880,
         consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product
         Liability Cases, Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa
         County), Case No. CV2004-001338;

     (4) Akers, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed August 20, 2004, in the Superior Court of Arizona
         (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-016010, consolidated
         under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product Liability Cases,
         Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No.
         CV2004-001338;

     (5) Alexander, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed June 30, 2005, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2005-051224;

     (6) Benkwith, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed May 3, 2004, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery
         County, Alabama, Case No. CV04-1180 CNP; removed to
         United States District Court for the Middle District of
         Alabama, Case No. 2:04 CV-00623-F;

     (7) Bentley, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed January 23, 2004, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-001338,
         consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product
         Liability Cases, Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa
         County), Case No. CV2004-001338;

     (8) Bourgeois, Deborah vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed February 22, 2005, in the United States
         District Court for the Northern District of Alabama,
         Middle Division, Case No. CV-05-PT-0393-M;

     (9) Bryant vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed
         June 9, 2004, in the District Court, Boulder County,
         Colorado, Case No. 04CV808, removed to United States
         District Court for the District of Colorado, Case No.
         04-MK-2317 (BNB);

    (10) Cappy, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed November 17, 2004, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-021668,
         consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product
         Liability Cases, Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa
         County), Case No. CV2004-001338;

    (11) Cash, Katie and David vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed January 13, 2005, in the Superior Court of
         California (Fresno County, Central Division), Case No.
         05 CE CG 00124;

    (12) Cheney, Sharon vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed April 20, 2005, in the Superior Court of Arizona
         (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2005-050458;

    (13) Connolly, Gay vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed October 22, 2004, in the State Court of Georgia
         (Cobb County), Case No. 2004A 9564-5;

    (14) Douillard, John R. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed May 6, 2004, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-008950,
         consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product
         Liability Cases, Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa
         County), Case No. CV2004-001338;

    (15) Flores vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed on
         December 30, 2004, in the Superior Court of California
         (Santa Clara County), Case No. 1:04-CV033194; removed
         to United States District Court Northern District of
         California (San Jose Division), Case No. C05 01090 PVT;

    (16) Flynn, Richard vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed May 20, 2005, in the Superior Court of California
         (Orange County), Case No. 05CC06403;

    (17) Gillespie, Julie vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed December 8, 2004, in the Superior Court of
         California (Orange County), Case No. 04CC11976; removed
         to United States District Court Central District of
         California (Southern Division), Case No. SACV 05-0047-
         DOC(ANx);

    (18) Goetz, Linda vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed May 18, 2005, in the Superior Court of Arizona
         (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2005-050298;

    (19) Hans, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed September 13, 2004, in the United States District
         Court, Western District of Kentucky, Case No.
         3:04CV540-R;

    (20) Hilton, Heather vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed June 17, 2004, in the State of Texas District
         Court, Tarrant County, Case No. 048-206162-04; removed
         to the United States District Court for the Northern
         District of Texas Fort Worth Division, Case No. 04CV-
         519-Y;

    (21) Hood, Michael and Terri vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.,
         et al., filed April 14, 2004, in the Circuit Court of
         the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County,
         Florida, General Jurisdiction Division, Case No.
         04006193;

    (22) Horvat, Diane vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed February 28, 2005, in Circuit Court of Cook
         County, Illinois County Department, Law Division, Case
         No. 2005L02324;


    (23) Hudson, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed February 11, 2005, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2005-002569,
         consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product
         Liability Cases, Case No. CV 2004-001338;

    (24) Hunter, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed June 4, 2004, in the Superior Court of Arizona
         (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-010830, consolidated
         under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product Liability Cases,
         Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No.
         CV2004-001338;

    (25) Hurst, Janet vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed May 13, 2005, in the Superior Court of the State
         of California (Orange County), Case No. 05CC06195;

    (26) Kalfian, Carol A. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed April 20, 2004, in the United States
         District Court for the District of Rhode Island, Case
         No. 04-119-ML;

    (27) Lusch, Barbara A. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed January 14, 2005, in the Circuit Court of
         the State of Oregon, Case No. 0501-00588; removed to
         the United States District Court for the District of
         Oregon, Case No. 3:05-CV-292-HA;

    (28) Lutche, Lucy B. vs. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed May 7, 2004, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-008704,
         consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product
         Liability Cases, Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa
         County), Case No. CV2004-001338;

    (29) Mayo, Derek vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed May 26, 2004, in the Superior Court of New
         Jersey, Law Division: Essex County, Docket No. ESX-L-
         3551-04; removed to the United States District Court
         for the District of New Jersey, Case No. 2:04-cv-3197;

    (30) Nelson, Tommy Ray and Sherry vs. Matrixx Initiatives,
         Inc., et al., filed February 28, 2005, in the Circuit
         Court for Roane County, Tennessee, Case No. 13328,
         removed to the United States District Court for the
         Eastern District of Tennessee Northern Division, Case
         No. 3:05-CV-193;

    (31) O'Hanlon, Dennis and Bonnie vs. Matrixx Initiatives,
         Inc., et al., filed October 29, 2004, in the Superior
         Court of California (Los Angeles County), Case No.
         BC322039; removed to United States District Court
         Central District of California (Los Angeles), Case No.
         CV04-10391 AHM(JTLx);

    (32) Orlansky, Robin vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed February 9, 2005, in the Superior Court of
         California (San Diego County), Case No. GIC 842519;

    (33) Ringbauer, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed February 11, 2004, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-002822,
         removed to the United States District Court for the
         District of Arizona, Case No. CIV04-0513-PHX-EHC;
         remanded to the Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa
         County), consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam
         Product Liability Cases, Superior Court of Arizona
         (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-001338;

    (34) Rostron, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed November 4, 2004, in the United States District
         Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle
         Division, Case No. CV-04-AR-3136-M, originally
         involving plaintiffs Rostron and McCune, was severed,
         Rostron was transferred to the United States District
         Court for the District of New Jersey by Order filed on
         March 15, 2005, Case No. 05-1547, and McCune continues
         in the United States District Court for the Northern
         District of Alabama, Middle Division, under Case No.
         CV-04-AR-3136-M;

    (35) Sutherland, Janie vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed December 18, 2003, in the Circuit Court of
         Etowah, Alabama, Case No. CV-2003-1635-WHR; removed to
         United States District Court for the Northern District
         of Alabama, Middle Division, Case No. CV-04-AR-0129-M;

    (36) Swanbeck, Steven vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed November 18, 2004, in the Superior Court of New
         Jersey Law Division: Morris County, Dock No. L-3096-04;

    (37) Wagner, Nicole vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed February 24, 2005, in Superior Court of
         California, County of San Diego, Case No. GIC 843335;

    (38) Williams, Rose Mary et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives,
         Inc., et al., filed December 29, 2004, in the United
         States District Court for the Northern District of
         Alabama, Middle Division, Case No. 4:04cv-3548-UWC; and

    (39) Wyatt, Susan vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed June 15, 2004, in the United States District
         Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern
         Division, Case No. CV-04-AR-1230-S.

    (40) Dobson, Donald and Jeannette vs. Matrixx Initiatives,
         Inc., et al., filed September 23, 2005, in the Circuit
         Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm
         Beach County, Florida, Case No. 50 2005CA 009059 XXXX
         MB;

    (41) Spiegel, Sylvia vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed September 1, 2005, in the Superior Court of Los
         Angeles, South District, Long Beach, Case No. NC037418

Generally, the cases filed in the Superior Court of Arizona have
been or the company expects will be consolidated under "In Re
Consolidated Zicam Product Liability Cases, Case No. CV
2004-001338."  A lawsuit styled "Alexander, et al., vs. Matrixx
Initiatives, Inc., et al.," filed June 30, 2005, in the Superior
Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2005-051224 has
been consolidated under the above litigation.  Various
defendants in the lawsuits, including manufacturers and
retailers, have sought indemnification or other recovery from us
for damages related to the lawsuits.

On August 9, 2005, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement to resolve the claim with respect to the case "Nelson
vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed December 8, 2003,
in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles, Case No. YC048136."  The terms of the settlement
agreement are confidential.

Various defendants in the lawsuits, including manufacturers and
retailers, have sought indemnification or other recovery from
the Company for damages related to the lawsuits. These cases are
generally in the early stages and the Company expects the first
trial to begin in August 2005, the Company said in a disclosure
to the Securities and Exchange Commission.  Also, plaintiffs'
law firms continue to solicit potential claimants through the
Internet and other media.

In its filing, the Company said it believes the allegations
relating to Zicam Cold Remedy are unfounded. Zicam Cold Remedy
has been studied in two independent, placebo-control studies. In
those studies, there was no statistically significant difference
in adverse events between the placebo and non-placebo group, and
there was no indication in either group of impairment to the
sense of smell. Further, the incidence of smell disorders is
reported at 1% to 2% of the population on average, and is very
common in those over age 50. Upper respiratory infections are
among the most common causes of impairment to sense of smell.
Therefore, any product such as Zicam Cold Remedy designed to
treat upper respiratory illnesses may be mistakenly associated
with distortion of sense of smell. The rate of reported
complaints of distortion of sense of smell associated with Zicam
Cold Remedy is well below these national incidence levels, the
Company said in the filing.

The Company also convened a two-day meeting of its Scientific
Advisory Board in September 2004 to review the findings of
studies initiated in the first quarter of fiscal 2004. The
Scientific Advisory Board is comprised of medical doctors and
researchers that are independent of the Company.  The Company
provided honorariums for members' attendance at meetings, travel
expenses, and funded grants to design and perform research
studies investigating the contention that Zicam Cold Remedy zinc
gluconate nasal gel is associated with disorders of smell.  
Members of the Scientific Advisory Board presented the results
of their studies on the epidemiology, anatomy, and physiology of
smell disorders. It was the unanimous opinion of the Scientific
Advisory Board that the cumulative scientific evidence does not
support the contention that Zicam Cold Remedy zinc gluconate
nasal gel is associated with disorders of smell. The Scientific
Advisory Board plans to do further testing of the zinc gluconate
nasal gel on human volunteers and animal models.  The Company
said in the filing that it anticipates the Scientific Advisory
Board will reconvene from time to time to review the findings of
ongoing studies.

For information, contact Charles S. Zimmerman on behalf of the
Plaintiffs' Settlement Group, Phone; 602-300-9707 or
800-755-0098; or on behalf of Matrixx, contact William Hemelt,
Chief Financial Officer, Phone: 602-385-8888, or Bill Barba,
Manager of Investor Relations, Phone: 602-385-8881.


MERCK & CO.: Appeals Court Affirms MO Court's Vioxx/CAFA Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a ruling for the case entitled, "Mary Plubell v. Merck & Co.,
Inc., No. 05-4217," the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit limited the scope of the Class Action Fairness
Act of 2005 (CAFA) and reaffirmed the decision of a Missouri
federal court.

The ruling stems from a dispute over CAFA, which gives the
federal courts jurisdiction over certain class actions involving
more than 100 class members and $5 million in damages.  The case
in question was filed in state court before the effective date
of CAFA, but the complaint was amended to change the named
plaintiff after the effective date.  CAFA applies to civil
actions commenced on or after February 18, 2005.

Specifically, the case involves a putative class action filed in
Missouri State Court against Merck & Co., Inc., manufacturer of
the prescription drug Vioxx.  The Company sought to remove the
case to federal court under the CAFA, arguing that a new action
was commenced when Mary Plubell replaced Carol Green Richardson
as class representative.

In essence, the Company argues that the amendment meant that the
complaint was commenced after the effective date of CAFA.
However, the U.S. District for the Western District of Missouri
disagreed and thus remanded the case back to state court.

On December 13, 2004, Carol Green Richardson, as class
representative, filed a class action lawsuit against the Company
in Missouri state court, alleging deceptive trade practices in
the development and marketing of Vioxx.  The state court had
exclusive jurisdiction over the class action at the time of
filing.  

During discovery, plaintiff's counsel learned that Ms.
Richardson was mistaken about the manufacturer of the pain
medication prescribed by her doctors.  Plaintiff's counsel
sought leave to amend the petition, substituting a new class
representative, Mary Plubell, for Ms. Richardson.  

On August 29, 2005, the state court granted the amendment. A
week later, the state court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss the class action, which alleged that Richardson could
not possibly state a claim (and which was filed before the
motion for leave to amend the petition).  Currently, the class
was not yet certified.

Between the filing and the amendment of the petition, Congress
passed the CAFA, which confers federal jurisdiction over class
actions where, among other things:

     (1) there is minimal diversity;

     (2) the proposed class contains at least 100 members; and

     (3) the amount in controversy is at least $5 million in the
         aggregate.

In its own ruling, the Eighth Circuit draws upon the "relation-
back" doctrine to affirm the district court's decision.  It
explains that the amended complaint relates back to the original
complaint, and thus gets the benefit of the earlier filing date.
The court further pointed out that there is no prejudice to the
Company, since it was already on notice of the claims set forth
in the complaint, and the new named plaintiff was already a
member of the putative class.

To view the decision visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?480.

The federal suit is styled, "Plubell v. Merck & Co, Inc., Case
No. 4:05-cv-00831-HFS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri under Judge Howard F. Sachs.  
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Don M. Downing of Gray, Ritter
& Graham, PC, 701 Market St., Suite 800, St. Louis, MO 63101,
Phone: (314) 241-5620, Fax: (314) 241-4140, E-mail:
ddowning@grgpc.com; and Todd Eugene Hilton, Norman Eli Siegel
and Patrick J. Stueve of Stueve, Siegel, Hanson, Woody, LLP, 330
West 47th St., Suite 250, Kansas City, MO 64112, Phone:
(816) 714-7118, (816) 714-7112 and (816) 714-7110, Fax: (816)
714-7101, E-mail: hilton@sshwlaw.com.  Representing the
Defendant/s are, John Christian Aisenbrey and George Francis
Verschelden of Stinson, Morrison, Hecker, LLP, 1201 Walnut St.,
Suite 2800, Kansas City, MO 64106, Phone: (816) 691-3111,
(816) 842-8600 and (816) 691-3495, Fax: (816) 691-3795, E-mail:
jaisenbrey@stinsonmoheck.com and gverschelden@stinsonmoheck.com.


MERCK & CO.: Lawsuit Filed Against Bone-Strengthening Drug
----------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co. Inc. is facing a lawsuit filed by a group of
plaintiffs claiming to have suffered "dead jaw" after taking its
bone-strengthening drug Fosamax, NewsOK.com reports.  "Dead jaw"
is a condition when jaw tissues dies.  

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. is also facing similar lawsuits
over its bone-strengthening drug Aredia and Zometa.  Fosamax
generates $3.2 billion in annual sales for Merck & Co.


MOSANTO CO.: Court Denies Class Status Motion for Growers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri denied class certification motion for the case
entitled, "McIntosh, et al. v. Monsanto Company, et al."

The suit was originally styled, "Randy Blades, et al v. Monsanto
Company, Case No. 00-403JLF," and filed on Feb. 14, 2000 in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. It was
brought on behalf of five farmers purporting to represent
various classes of Farmers and alleging that we and others
violated antitrust laws by allegedly fixing the price of seed
containing biotech traits and violated tort and international
law through the commercialization of biotech traits.  

After the lawsuit was transferred to Missouri federal court, the
District Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment
on all the plaintiffs' tort claims, including all claims
relating to alleged violations of law. The District Court also
denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify for class action status
the plaintiffs' claims that the Company and the other defendants
have violated various antitrust laws, a decision that was
affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.  

On Nov. 9, 2005, the District Court denied the plaintiffs'
motion seeking to certify a class only of growers of glyphosate-
tolerant soybeans from the states of Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois
and Indiana.

The suit is styled, "McIntosh, et al. v. Monsanto Company, et
al., Case No. 4:01-cv-00065-RWS," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri under Judge Rodney W.
Sippel.  Representing the Plaintiff/s is John W. Barrett of
BARRETT LAW OFFICE, 404 Courthouse Square, North, P.O. Box 987,
Lexington, MS 39095, Phone: 662-834-2376, Fax: 662-834-2628, E-
mail: dbarrett@barrettlawoffice.com.  Representing the
Defendant/s is Philip D. Bartz of MCKENNA AND LONG, 1900 K.
Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006, Phone: 202-496-7500, Fax:
202-496-7756, E-mail: pbartz@mckennalong.com.


MONSANTO CO.: Trial Date Slated For American Seed Lawsuit in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 15, 2007 trial was slated for a class action lawsuit
filed by the American Seed Company against Monsanto Co.

American Seed filed the purported class action against the
Company in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware on July 26, 2005, supposedly on behalf of direct
purchasers of corn seed containing the Company's transgenic
traits.  American Seed essentially alleges that the Company have
monopolized or attempted to monopolize markets for glyphosate-
tolerant corn seed, European corn borer-protected corn seed and
foundation corn seed.  

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages and injunctive
relief.  On Dec. 6, 2005, the court denied the Company's motion
to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri and to consolidate it with an action we
already have pending against American Seed for unpaid royalties.
The case was set for trial on Oct. 15, 2007.

The suit is styled, "American Seed Co Inc. v. Monsanto Company
et al. Case No. 1:05-cv-00535-SLR," filed in U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware, under Judge Sue L. Robinson.  
Representing the Plaintiff/s is Richard L. Horwitz of Potter
Anderson & Corroon, LLP, 1313 N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, 6th
Flr., P.O. Box 951, Wilmington, DE 19899-0951, Phone:
(302) 984-6000, E-mail: rhorwitz@potteranderson.com.  
Representing the Defendant/s are Steven D. De Salvo, Peter E.
Moll and John J. Rosenthal, Pro Hac Vice, E-mail:
desalvos@howrey.com, Mollp@howrey.com and rosenthalj@howrey.com.


NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit over Aredia, Zometa Drugs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys of a Midwest City man are seeking class action status
for its lawsuit against Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.'s bone-
strengthening drugs, NewsOK.com reports.  

The case is filed in the U.S. District Court in Middle District
of Tennessee. Lawyers of James Patton, who is among 15
plaintiffs in the lawsuit, claim that Novartis' Aredia and
Zometa drugs cause "dead jaw" condition when administered to
patients with a history of bisphosphonate therapy used both to
prevent and to treat osteoporosis.  Novartis defended its drug
saying no scientific evidence supports the allegation. "Dead
jaw" is a condition when tissues in the jaw dies.  

Mr. Patton and other plaintiffs are seeking an award for
damages, as well as having the drugs declared "unreasonably
dangerous or defective," and a dental monitoring program
established for the class members, according to the report.  
Attorney Robert Germany of Jackson, Mississippi represents him.  

Aredia and Zometa are used to treat multiple mylenoma, breast
cancer or prostate cancer.  Since 1991, approximately 1.9
million people have taken Aredia and since 2001 more than 1
million have taken Zometa, plaintiff's attorneys said.  

The suit is styled, "Anderson et al v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals
Corporation, Case No. 3:05-cv-00718," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee under Judge Todd J.
Campbell with referral to Judge E. Clifton Knowles.  
Representing the Plaintiff/s is Andy L. Allman of Kelly, Kelly &
Allman, 629 E. Main St., Hendersonville, TN 37075, Phone:
(615) 824-3703, E-mail: kellykellyallman@comcast.net.  
Representing the Defendant/s is Andrew L. Colocotronis of Baker,
Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, 900 South Gay St.,
2200 Riverview Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902, Phone:
(865) 549-7000, E-mail: acolocotronis@bakerdonelson.com.


OHIO: Judge Allows Lawsuit Against Traffic Camera to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John Stuard of Trumbull County Common Pleas Court
certified as class action a suit seeking to ban the use of a
camera for catching speeders in Girard, the Youngstown
Vindicator reports.  The judge allowed authorities to continue
using the camera, but ordered that fines collected from the date
of his ruling be put into an interest-bearing escrow account,
and not into the city's coffers.  

$60 of the $85 fine goes to the city, and the remaining goes to
Traffipax of Columbia, MD, the company contracted to install and
operate the device.  Judge Stuard ordered that Traffipax's
portion of the fine also be placed in escrow.  He allowed the
city and Traffipax to sue those who refused to pay the tickets,
but prohibits them from doing so until the issues questioning
the legality of the camera have been settled.

Councilman Daniel Moadus, who is represented by Jim Denney, and
co-counsel Kim Kohli, filed the lawsuit.  John Solomon
represents the city of Girard.  Mr. Solomon said a motion by the
city to exclude Traffipax from the lawsuit was not ruled on
because the plaintiffs had not responded to that motion.


OREGON STATE: Approval of $9M Funding to End Advocates' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mental health advocates are planning to withdraw a suit filed
against the state after the approval of a $9.2 million fund to
help improve conditions at the Oregon State Hospital, according
to Associated Press.  

The Oregon Advocacy Center filed the suit last month on behalf
of patients, whom advocates said endured unsafe conditions due
to negligence of state officials.  A federal court hearing for
the suit was set Jan. 31, 2006, but Bob Joondeph, the executive
director of OAC said, the case may settle before the hearing
should the funding be approved.  In a recent report, Mr.
Joondeph said the center would work with the Oregon Department
of Justice to draft a settlement agreement.

The suit is styled, "Jeanniton v. Oregon State Hospital, Case
No. 3:05-cv-00656-HA," filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon, under Judge Ancer L. Haggerty.  
Representing the Plaintiff/s is D. Michael Dale of Law Offices
of D. Michael Dale, P.O. Box 1032, Cornelius, OR 97113, Phone:
(503) 357-8290, Fax: (503) 357-8290, E-mail:
michaeldale@dmichaeldale.net.  Representing the Defendant/s is
Marc Abrams, State of Oregon, Department of Justice, 1162 Court
St., NE Salem, OR 97301, Phone: (503) 947-4700, Fax:
(503) 947-4791, E-mail: marc.abrams@state.or.us.


PPL CORPORATION: Faces Additional Complaint over Fly Ash Spill
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two groups affected by the fly ash spill at PPL Corporation's
Martins Creek power plant in August wants to file a class
action, and intervene in the Pennsylvania's court case against
the firm, the Allentown Morning Call reports.

The Delaware Riverside Conservancy Inc. and about a dozen
riverfront property owners filed a complaint in the Commenwealth
Court on Jan. 20, asking to be part of the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection's November suit against
PPL.  The state filed a suit in November, alleging numerous
violations of environmental and dam safety laws.

The complaint filed by the group and the residents said the
spill caused 'overwhelming' damage to a number of property
owners and recreational users of the Delaware River.  
Phillipsburg attorney Jeffrey M. Russo said they plan to file
the class action in another court should the Commonwealth Court
denies the request to intervene.

Water containing fly ash, a byproduct of coal combustion, leaked
from PPL's basin late on Aug. 23 due to a mechanical failure.  
The flow continued until Aug. 27, coating the land near the
basin with ash slurry, and polluting the nearby Oughoughton
Creek and Delaware River.  The complaint criticized PPL for not
using low river flows to clean up more of the fly ash out of the
river weeks after the spill.  Another group, the Delaware
Riverkeeper Network, has also complained about the pace of the
cleanup, the report said.

PPL restarted use of the fly ash basin after installing state-
required precautionary measures to prevent another spill.  Mr.
Ruso's complaint demands immediate shutdown of the coal-fired
units and for a residential well testing and remediation program
for anyone affected, according to the report.


STATE FARM: LA Residents Lodge Suit over Excess Flood Coverage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two Orleans Parish, Louisiana residents initiated a lawsuit
against State Farm Fire And Casualty Insurance Company as well
as its agents doing business in Louisiana, claiming that their
uninsured losses are the result of a failure to receive
information about, and access to, excess flood insurance
coverage.

The petition, filed with the Civil District Court for the Parish
of Orleans, asks for certification of the suit as a bilateral
class action, seeking class status for plaintiffs as well as for
a defendant class of Louisiana State Farm agents. The suit also
specifically, names as a defendant F.J. Dennis, a local
insurance agent for the Company.  

The plaintiffs in this case are, Dr. Scott Sullivan and Dr.
Michelle Cooper, both residents of Orleans Parish. They are
asking the court to have them named as class representatives for
the putative class of individuals/property owners, who purchased
flood insurance through the Defendant/s and were not appraised
of the availability of and/or excess flood coverage.
   
The suit alleges that the Defendant/s breached their fiduciary
duty to inform insurance customers of the availability and
option to purchase excess flood insurance.  It also alleges they
informally failed to provide petitioners and members of the
putative class with access to flood insurance above and beyond
primary flood insurance available.

To view this case, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?484.

The suit is styled, "Sullivan v. State Farm Fire and Casualty
Insurance Company, No. 05-12598," filed in Orleans Parish Civil
District Court, Louisiana.


TIV TAAM: Israeli Meat Retailer Sued for Selling Rotten Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Israeli retail chain Tiv Taam is facing a class action at the
Tel Aviv District Court for knowingly selling rotten meat to
customers, according to Ha'aretz.

Attorney Yehiel Geva filed the suit in behalf of Max Clemenson,
who claimed he felt ill after eating meat purchased at Tiv
Taam's Rishon Letzion store.  He said he did not realize he was
suffering from food poisoning until he saw the TV program of
Kolbotek producer and host Rafi Ginat.  The expose created a
furor never before experienced by an Israeli retail chain, the
report said.  The program presented footage from candid cameras
showing butcher departments of three Tiv Taam branches using
spices in an attempt to conceal the odor of the spoiling meat.

Tiv Taam hired PR expert Yuval Arad after the discovery.  He
apologized for the fiasco, assuring that happened only in a few
isolated cases.


UBS GLOBAL: BP Amoco Employees File Lawsuit to Recover $22M
-----------------------------------------------------------
Current and former BP Amoco employees are suing Chicago firm UBS
Global Management Inc. for its decision to invest in a 401(k)
market fund that lent money to defunct Enron Corp.

The Collins Law Firm of Naperville filed a complaint on behalf
of James Nelson on Jan. 13.  The case is being heard by U.S.
District Court Chief Judge Charles Kocoras.  The complaint says
BP Amoco employees lost as much as $22 million after Enron went
bankrupt and was unable to pay the loan made around October
2001.  At least 10,000 current and former BP Amoco employees are
affected, according to Aurora Beacon News.

"UBS is the only defendant in the case," said Shawn Collins of
The Collins Law Firm.  UBS, which was fired as fund manager
after lending money to Enron, is not accused of fraud in the
lawsuit.  Enron filed for bankruptcy about seven weeks after it
made the loan.  UBS attorneys said they did not know about
Enron's internal troubles prior to its collapse.


WAL-MART STORES: Accused of Not Paying Overtime Wage in Utah
------------------------------------------------------------
A former employee of a Utah Wal-Mart is suing the retailer for
non-payment of wages, or compelling workers to work off the
clock, according to Associted Press.  

Norma Jean Williams, who worked in a Salt Lake City Wal-Mart,
between 1997 and the present, filed the case as lone-plaintiff
on Jan. 20 in the U.S. District Court for Utah.  The suit seeks
unspecified damages, restitution, fees and other injunctive
relief.

The lawsuit says the company did not properly pay Ms. Williams,
and the class members for overtime work, whose records were
subsequently deleted by managers without authorization.  It also
alleges that the firm deliberately covered up the scheme.  
According to the report, the lawsuit didn't say whether Ms.
Williams, who is now a resident of Wyoming, was dismissed in
connection with the allegations.  

Wal-Mart spokesman Dan Fogleman said company attorneys had not
seen the lawsuit.  She said Wal-Mart pays hourly associates for
every minute they work, and that it's against company policy and
labor laws for managers to require off-the-clock work.

The suit is styled, "Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores et al., Case
No. 2:06-cv-00061-DAK," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Utah under Judge Dale A. Kimball.  
Representing the Plaintiff/s is Glen W. Neeley of BURDETT,
NEELEY & DAVIS, PLLC, 863 E 25TH ST., OGDEN, UT 84401, Phone:
(801) 612-1511.


WESTHAVEN GROUP: Homeowners Mull Lawsuit to Keep Properties
-----------------------------------------------------------
Officials are being urged to file a class action against
Westhaven Group on behalf of homeowners intent on protecting
their interest in the wake of the real property group's
bankruptcy.

The Lagrange Village Council raised the demand at a meeting of
about 90 people, who recently met to discuss the situation,
according to the Toledo Blade.  The group and its affiliates
were closed down last month for securities fraud at the order of
the Ohio Department of Commerce.  The council, one of the
meeting's organizers, also asked prosecutors to file criminal
charges against John Ulmer, Westhaven's founder.  With the
company run by court-appointed receivers, a lawsuit might be the
only course of action to protect the interests of homeowners,
the report said.

John Czarnecki, one of the receivers and his partner Gerry
Kowalski assured all the land contracts that were used to
purchase homes will be honored. They continue to collect monthly
payments from homeowners.  


WORKSTREAM INC.: Files Motion to Dismiss NY Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Workstream, Inc., which along with its Chief Executive Officer
and its former Chief Financial Officer, faces a securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, recently filed a motion to
dismiss the case.

The action, brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of the Company's common shares during the period from January
14, 2005 to and including April 14, 2005, alleges, among other
things, that management provided the market misleading guidance
as to anticipated revenues for the quarter ended February 28,
2005, and failed to correct this guidance on a timely basis.  
The action claims violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
and Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well
as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and seeks compensatory
damages in an unspecified amount as well as the award of
reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel and expert fees
and costs.

In December 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which added an additional plaintiff and sought to elaborate on
the allegations contained in the complaint.  The Company's
counsel has advised the court and opposing counsel of its
intention to file a motion to dismiss.  The court has scheduled
dates by which the motion and briefs are to be filed and has
scheduled April 21, 2006 as the date on which it will hear
argument on the motion.  

The suit is styled "Schottenfeld Qualified Associates LP et al
v. Workstream, Inc. et al., Case No. 7:05-cv-07092-CLB," filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, under Judge Charles L. Brieant.  Representing the
Plaintiff/s are Ronen Sarraf of Sarraf Gentile, LLP, 485 Seventh
Avenue, New York, NY 10018, Phone: (212) 868-3610, Fax: (212)
918-7967, E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com and Ralph M. Stone of
Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP, 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000, New
York, NY 10018, Phone: (212) 239-4340, Fax: (212) 239-4310, E-
mail: rstone@lawssb.com.



                  New Securities Fraud Cases

IMPAC MORTGAGE: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a class action in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Impac
Mortgage Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:IMH) between May 13, 2005 and
August 9, 2005.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (http://www.glancylaw.com),Phone:  
(310) 201-9150, (888) 773-9224 (toll free); E-mail:
info@glancylaw.com.

The Complaint charges Impac 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 Impac's operations and prospects caused
the Company's stock price to become artificially inflated,
inflicting damages on investors. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.
operates as a mortgage real estate investment trust (REIT),
which engages in the acquisition, origination, sale, and
securitization of nonconforming Alt-A mortgages.

The Complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and
misleading statements during the Class Period which:

     (1) concealed adverse facts that were known to the
         defendants, including that the Company was suffering
         from significant margin pressure because of a rise in
         short-term rates, and that it was unavoidable the
         Company would suffer tremendous losses in future
         quarters;

     (2) concealed that the Company's internal controls were not
         operating effectively;

     (3) issued opinions, projections and forecasts concerning
         the Company and its operations that were lacking in a
         reasonable basis; and

     (4) concealed that Company insiders were intentionally
         concealing or misrepresenting material adverse
         information to maintain artificial inflation of the
         stock price, so they could sell their own shares at a
         significant profit.

On August 9, 2005, the Company stunned the market, announcing
that it would report a net loss of $55 million, or $0.78 per
share, compared to the prior-year profit of $143.2 million, or
$2.17 per share, and forecasting a reduced dividend of $0.50 to
$0.60 per share in the third quarter. As a result of this news,
Impac shares dropped approximately 40% from their Class Period
high of $22.32, to close at $13.46 on August 10, 2005, on
trading volume of nearly 6.5 million shares - almost 13 times
greater than the average daily 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); Email: info@glancylaw.com.


MIKOHN GAMING: Berman DeValerio Files NV Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a class
action against Mikohn Gaming Corporation d/b/a Progressive
Gaming International Corporation (Nasdaq: PGIC) for violations
of federal securities laws.  The suit is filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada as Case No. 2:06-cv-
00074. The complaint seeks damages for violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased PGIC
common stock between Jan. 23, 2005 and Oct. 19, 2005, inclusive.  
To see complaint: http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/Mikohn-Cplt.pdf.

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

Las Vegas-based PGIC develops, supplies and markets technology-
based products for the gaming industry. On January 23, 2005, the
Company said it will acquire VirtGame Corp., a gaming software
company, in a stock-to-stock swap. The complaint accuses the
defendants of misleading investors in a nine-month effort to
artificially boost PGIC's stock price so that VirtGame's
stockholders would approve the deal.

Specifically, the complaint maintains that the defendants issued
positive financial results and enthusiastic future forecasts
during the Class Period.  At the same time, however, they failed
to disclose their improper accounting for two large non-monetary
transactions in accordance with the Financial Accounting
Standards Board's Accounting Standard (SFAS) 153. In addition,
the defendants issued false financial projections for the third
quarter of 2005 that did not reflect the two non-monetary
transactions in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles (GAAP). Thus, the Company was able to complete a $20
million acquisition of VirtGame with artificially inflated
stock, the complaint alleges.

On Oct. 20, 2005, just 10 days after the VirtGame transition was
completed, the defendants announced their failure to properly
account for the non-monetary transactions in accordance with
SFAS 153 and GAAP. Instead of a gain for the third quarter, as
defendants had predicted before the merger, the Company
announced it expected to lose $.09 per share. The next day, the
complaint says, PGIC's stock fell 30%, dropping from a close of
$13.03 on October 19, 2005, to a low of $8.87 on October 20,
2005, before closing at $9.28.

For more information, contact Nicole Lavallee, Esq., or James
Magid, Esq. of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo,
425 California Street, Suite 2100, San Francisco, CA 94104,
Phone: (415) 433-3200; E-mail: sflaw@bermanesq.com; Web site:
http://www.bermanesq.com/Securities/Signup1.asp?caseid=565.


MILLS CORPORATION: Finkelstein, Thompson Files Fraud Suit in VA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran initiated a
putative class action in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia against The Mills Corporation,
The Mills Limited Partnership, and certain of its officers, on
behalf of persons who purchased Mills common stock between
August 14, 2003 through and including January 6, 2006.

The lawsuit alleges that Mills violated federal securities laws
by issuing false or misleading public statements. Specifically,
the complaint alleges that Mills and various of its officers,
throughout the class period, overstated the Company's net income
and funds from operations in violation of Generally Accepted the
Exchange Accounting Principles (GAAP), and misrepresented the
adequacy and quality of its internal controls over financial
reporting.

On October 31, 2005, Mills announced that its third quarter
results would be delayed because the company needed additional
time to review its accounting, and further announced the Company
expected results to be lower than initially anticipated. On
January 6, 2006, Mills announced that:

     (1) it needed to restate its financial results for fiscal
         year 2000 through the third quarter of 2005;

     (2) that it had internal control weaknesses and
         deficiencies in regards to its accounting practices;

     (3) that it would write off ten predevelopment business
         projects, constituting a $71 million charge;

     (4) that 17 executives and/or officers were either
         terminated or retired;

     (5) that a $4.1 million dollar loan would not be repaid and
         that Mills had facts available in 2000 sufficient to
         make this determination, but that the $4.1 million loan
         had been improperly reported in all of Mills'
         financials from 2000 through the third quarter of 2005;

    (6) that Mills was in default of certain provisions of its
        line of credit and other project-related loans;

    (7) that Mills had entered into a new $150 million credit
        line to provide short term liquidity; and

    (8) disclosed that investors should no longer rely on its
        financial statements for the period from fiscal year
        2000 through the third quarter of 2005. Thereafter, on
        January 12, 2006, Mills announced that the Securities
        and Exchange Commission (the SEC) had launched an
        informal investigation into its earlier announcement
        that a restatement of its financials for nearly five
        years would be required.

In response to the October 31, 2005 announcement, the price of
Mills common stock dropped from a closing price of $53.50 on
October 31, 2005 to close at $45.68 per share on November 1,
2005 -- a dramatic drop of nearly 15%. As a result of the
subsequent January 6, 2006 announcement, the price of Mills
common stock further dropped from a close of $42.23 on January
6, 2006 to a close of $41.05 on January 10, 2006, constituting
an additional decline of 3%.

For more information, contact Finkelstein, Thompson and
Loughran's Washington, D.C. office, Phone: (866)592-1960, E-
mail: contact@ftllaw.com.


SFBC INTERNATIONAL: Klafter Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Klafter & Olsen LLP initiated a securities fraud class action
against SFBC International Inc. (Nasdaq: SFCC), on behalf of a
class of persons who purchased SFBC securities between February
17, 2004 and December 15, 2005, inclusive against SFBC and
certain of its officers.

The action concerns alleged violations of the federal securities
laws. It is alleged that during the Class Period, defendants
misrepresented SFBC's ability to perform large-scale drug trials
on behalf of pharmaceutical companies. Rather than conduct those
trials in an ethical and proper manner, SFBC allegedly coerced
immigrants to participate in its trials, lacked adequate quality
controls to ensure the safety of participants in its trials and
failed to advise test participants on the risks involved. Most
of the participants are immigrants in Florida. The SEC and U.S.
Senate have commenced investigations concerning these
allegations.

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

For more information, contact: Kurt B. Olsen of Klafter & Olsen
LLP 2121 K St., N.W., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20037 at
http://www.klafterolsen.com,Phone: 202/261-3553.


                            *********


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  * * *