CAR_Public/060213.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, February 13, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 31

                             Headlines

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Settles Labor Suit with Former Workers
AOL TIME: Feb. 22 Trial on $2.65B Securities Suit Settlement Set
APPLE CANADA: Faces Suits in Quebec, Ontario over Faulty Nanos
APPLE CANADA: Suit over iPod Battery Life Dismissed, Two Remain
APPLE CANADA: Begins iPod Levy Refund Program in St-Germain Case

APPLE COMPUTER: Calif. Court Approves Power Adapters Settlement
APPLE COMPUTER: Consumers Launch Powerbook G4 Fraud Suit in Ark.
APPLE COMPUTER: Discovery Proceeds in Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit
APPLE COMPUTER: Discovery Proceeds in Calif. Powerbook G4 Suit
APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Calif. Consumer Suit for Wireless Products

APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Calif. Lawsuit over Hard Drive Capacity
APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Lawsuit in Canada over iPod Hearing Loss
APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Suit in La. over Alleged iPod Hearing Loss
APPLE COMPUTER: Files Demurer V. Amended Calif. Consumer Lawsuit
APPLE COMPUTER: Denies Claims in Amended Calif. Hard Drive Suit

APPLE COMPUTER: Parties Withdraw Calif. iPod Settlement Appeal
APPLE COMPUTER: Settles Calif. Consumer Suit V. Mail-In Rebates
APPLE COMPUTER: Wants iPod Nano Lawsuits Consolidated in Calif.
ASHWORTH INC.: Calif. Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
BIOMEDICAL TISSUE: Pa. Hospitals Test Tissue Transplant Patients

BRISTOL-MYERS: $185M Deal in Vanlev Suit Gets Initial Approval
CENTRAL GARDEN: Settles Lawsuit over August 2000 Fire in Ariz.  
CHOLESTECH CORPORATION: Claims in Ill. Suit Settled, Case Closed
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Expects Final Approval of IPO Suit Settlement
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Plans Amended Dismissal Motion V. Fraud Suit

CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Slated to File Response in N.J. ERISA Lawsuit
COTTON YARN: Antitrust Settlement Hearing set February 14, 2006
DUKE ENERGY: Employees File Pension Violation Suit in S.C. Court
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Awaits Appeals Court's Decision in Poulos
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Canadian Subsidiary Faces Lawsuit in Quebec

INTERNATIONAL GAME: Nev. Court Deliberates on Securities Lawsuit
KMART CORPORATION: Judge Backs $11.75M Pension Suit Settlement
KPMG LLP: Court Defers Approval of $195M Deal Pending Revision
MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Amended Consolidated Suit in N.J.
MCKESSON CORPORATION: Calif. Pact Hearing Reset to Feb. 2006

MOLEX INC.: Faces Consolidated Amended Securities Suit in Calif.
PEKIN INSURANCE: Agrees to Chiropractor Lawsuits' Consolidation
PERRIGO CO.: Faces Lawsuits over 1998 Agreement with Alpharma
QUANTUM CORPORATION: Settles DLT Tape Antitrust Suit in Calif.
RANDOM HOUSE: Lawsuit V. James Frey's Memoir Filed in Quebec

SIPEX CORPORATION: Settles Calif. Securities Fraud Suit for $6M
UNIFI INC.: Reaches Settlement for N.C. Cotton Antitrust Lawsuit
UNITRIN INC.: Warns of Several Suits that Could Damage Finances
VICORP RESTAURANTS: Reaches Settlement on Calif. Employee Suits
WEIL-MCLAIN: Recalls GV Series Boilers due to Explosion Hazard

WESTPOINT CORPORATION: Investors Sue over Failed Hotel Project

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ANDRX CORPORATION: Fla. Names Lead Attorneys in Securities Suit
DIEBOLD, INC.: Feb. 13 Deadline to File as Lead Plaintiff Set
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
JARDEN CORPORATION: Stock Fraud Suit Filed over Holmes Merger
ROYAL GROUP: Charles Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.

SONUS NETWORKS: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in Mass.


                            *********


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Settles Labor Suit with Former Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. reached agreement with former
employees Peter Yu and William Jarosz to resolve all outstanding
disputes between them.  

While AIG is not at liberty to discuss all of the details of the
settlement, AIG noted that Mr. Yu and Mr. Jarosz previously
claimed they were owed money under their employment contracts.  
The settlement involves no payment of money to Mr. Yu or Mr.
Jarosz.

Mr. Yu and Mr. Jarosz stated in connection with the settlement:
"We have determined after review of internal documents that our
terminations were not retaliatory."  That statement confirms the
Department of Labor's dismissal last November of a claim
initiated against AIG and others by Mr. Yu and Mr. Jarosz
alleging that the termination of their employment had been
retaliatory.

"We are very pleased with the outcome," said Robert Thompson,
Senior Managing Director and Head of Alternative Investments at
AIG Global Investment Group.  "This settlement ensures that our
AIG Capital Partners teams can continue to focus all of their
energies on private equity investing and to maintain their
leadership position in emerging markets."

AIG is an international insurance organization with operations
in more than 130 countries and jurisdictions. Its common stock
is listed in the U.S. on the New York Stock Exchange and ArcaEx,
as well as the stock exchanges in London, Paris, Switzerland and
Tokyo.


AOL TIME: Feb. 22 Trial on $2.65B Securities Suit Settlement Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York will
hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $2.65 billion
settlement in the matter, "In re: AOL Time Warner, Inc.
Securities & 'ERISA' Litigation, Case No. 02 Civ. 5575 (SWK)."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired publicly traded
common stock of AOL, and/or bought or sold options on AOL common
stock during the period January 27, 1999 through January 11,
2001, and/or purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired publicly
traded common stock and bonds of Time Warner and/or bought or
sold options on Time Warner common stock during the period
January 11, 2001 through and including August 27, 2002, and were
damaged thereby.

The hearing will be held on February 22, 2006, at 10:30 a.m.,
before the Honorable Shirley Wohl Kram at United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, 40 Centre Street,
Courtroom 619, New York, New York 10007-1581 (the "Final
Approval Hearing") to determine:

     (1) whether the settlement of claims in the class action
         against the Defendants should be approved as fair,
         reasonable and adequate to all members of the
         Securities Class;

     (2) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair,
         reasonable and adequate;

     (3) whether Lead Securities Counsel's application for an
         award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be
         approved; and

     (4) whether the class action should be dismissed with
         prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation that was
         filed with the Court.

Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is on February 21,
2006.  Any objections to the settlement must be filed by January
9, 2006.

For more details, contact AOL Time Warner, Inc. Securities
Litigation, c/o Gilardi & Co., Settlement Administrator, P.O.
Box 808061, Petaluma, CA 949475-8061, Phone: (877) 800-7852, E-
mail: aoltimewarnersettlement@gilardi.com, Web site:
http://www.aoltimewarnersettlement.com/.  


APPLE CANADA: Faces Suits in Quebec, Ontario over Faulty Nanos
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Canada, Ins. is facing three lawsuits Quebec and Ontario,
which are alleging that the Company's iPod nano was defectively
designed so that it scratches excessively during normal use
which renders the screen unreadable.

Two similar complaints, styled "Carpentier v. Apple Canada,
Inc.," and "Royer- Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple
Canada, Inc.," were filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on
October 27, 2005 and November 9, 2005, respectively, seeking
authorization to institute a class action on behalf of iPod nano
purchasers in Quebec.

Another complaint, entitled, "Mund v. Apple Canada Inc. and
Apple Computer, Inc.," was filed in Ontario, Canada on January
9, 2006 seeking authorization to institute a class action on
behalf of iPod nano purchasers in Canada.


APPLE CANADA: Suit over iPod Battery Life Dismissed, Two Remain
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Canada, Inc. reports that it faced three purported class
actions in Quebec and Ontario over alleged misrepresentations by
the Company regarding the battery life of its popular iPod mp3
player, though one of the complaints was recently dismissed.  

The dismissed action is styled, "Lenzi v. Apple Canada, Inc.,"
was filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on June 7,
2005, seeking authorization to institute a class action on
behalf of Generations 1, 2 and 3 iPod owners in Quebec.  On
February 2, 2006, the Court dismissed plaintiff's motion for
authorization to institute a class action (motion for
certification).

Two similar complaints relative to iPod battery life, entitled,
"Wolfe v. Apple" and "Hirst v. Apple," were filed in Toronto,
Ontario, Canada on August 15, 2005 and September 12, 2005,
respectively.  Both actions define the purported class as a
national class consisting of all persons in Canada who have
purchased or who own an iPod.  A motion for certification of the
class proceeding has been scheduled for the Spring of 2006.


APPLE CANADA: Begins iPod Levy Refund Program in St-Germain Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Canada, Inc. is launching a refund program in the suit
entitled, "St-Germain v. Apple Canada, Inc."

Plaintiff filed the case in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on August
5, 2005, seeking authorization to institute a class action for
the refund by the Company of the Canadian Private Copying Levy
that was applied to the iPod purchase price in Quebec between
December 12, 2003 and December 14, 2004 but later declared
invalid by the Canadian Court.  A class certification hearing
took place January 13, 2006 and the Company awaits a ruling.  
The Company is in the process of completing a refund program for
this levy.


APPLE COMPUTER: Calif. Court Approves Power Adapters Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Santa Clara Superior Court in California granted final
approval to the settlement of the class action filed against
Apple Computer, Inc., styled "Clark v Apple Computer, Inc."  

Plaintiff filed the purported class action, alleging defects in
the Company's "yo-yo" power adapters.  Plaintiffs request
unspecified damages and other relief.

The parties have reached a tentative settlement in this matter.  
The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
April 19, 2005.  On November 29, 2005, the Court continued the
hearing on final settlement approval until January 10, 2006,
when all claims will have been received and completely processed
and relevant claim information has been reported to the Court.

On January 10, 2006, the Court gave final approval of the
settlement.  The matter is concluded. Settlement of this matter
on the terms preliminarily approved by the Court will not have a
material effect on the Company's financial position or results
of operation.


APPLE COMPUTER: Consumers Launch Powerbook G4 Fraud Suit in Ark.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United
State District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas,
entitled, "Wirges v. Apple Computer, Inc."

The Wirges action was filed on January 20, 2006 on behalf of a
purported nationwide class of all purchasers of the Company's
PowerBook G4 portable computers.  The complaint alleges that
this purported defect extends to other series of the Company's
portables and states that plaintiffs reserve the right to amend
the complaint to include these other series.
  
Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of warranties, violation of
Magnuson Moss Act, strict products liability and unjust
enrichment.  The complaint seeks restitution, damages and other
remedies.

The suit is styled, "Wirges v. Apple Computer Inc., Case No.
4:06-cv-00096-JMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas under Judge James M. Moody.  
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, W. Howard Mowery of Mowery Law
Firm, 2801 Richmond Road, Post Office Box 38, Texarkana, TX
75503, US, Phone: 903-823-0101; and Jack Thomas Patterson, II,
Sean Fletcher Rommel, Michael Robert Unger and James Clark Wyly
of Patton, Roberts, McWilliams & Capshaw, Phone: 501-372-3480
and 903-334-7000, E-mail: jpatterson@pattonroberts.com,
srommel@pattonroberts.com, munger@pattonroberts.com and
jwyly@pattonroberts.com.


APPLE COMPUTER: Discovery Proceeds in Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in an amended consumer fraud class action
lawsuit pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court in California
against Apple Computer, Inc., styled, "Allen v. Apple Computer,
Inc."  

The purported nationwide class action, which was filed in
January 28, 2005, initially alleged that a defect in the
Company's 17" Studio Display monitors results in dimming of half
of the screen and constant blinking of the power light.  An
amended complaint in the Allen case was filed on October 24,
2005, adding additional named plaintiffs and expanding the
alleged class to include purchasers of the 20-inch Apple Cinema
Display and the 23-inch Apple Cinema HD Display.  The amended
complaint alleges that the displays have a purported defect that
causes dimming of one-half of the screen, and that the Company
misrepresented the quality of the displays and/or concealed the
purported defect. Plaintiffs assert claims under California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition);
California Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (false
advertising) and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  The amended
complaint seeks remedies including damages and equitable relief.

On November 14, 2005, the Company filed an answer to the amended
complaint as to the allegations regarding the 17-inch display
and a demurrer/motion to strike as to the allegations regarding
the 20-inch and 23-inch displays on the ground that plaintiffs
failed to allege that they purchased those displays. At a status
conference on November 21, 2005, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to
amend their complaint. The Company's demurrer is off calendar
pending this amendment.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 12, 2005, and
the Company answered on January 5, 2006 denying all allegations
and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.  The case is in
discovery.


APPLE COMPUTER: Discovery Proceeds in Calif. Powerbook G4 Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in a class action against Apple Computer,
Inc. that was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, styled "Butzer, et al., v.
Apple Computer, Inc."

Plaintiffs filed this action on August 23, 2005 on behalf of a
purported nationwide class of all purchasers of the Company's
PowerBook G4 portable computers.  The complaint alleges defects
in the memory of the computers.  The complaint alleges that this
purported defect extends to other series of the Company's
portables and states that plaintiffs reserve the right to amend
the complaint to include these other series.  Plaintiffs assert
claims for alleged violations of California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), California
Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (false advertising),
the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act.  The complaint seeks remedies including
restitution and/or damages and injunctive relief.

The Company filed an answer to the on October 19, 2005 denying
the material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative
defenses.  A class certification hearing is set for June 23,
2006.  The case is in discovery.

The suit is styled, "Butzer et al v. Apple Computer, Inc., case
no. 5:05-cv-03414-RMW," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Ronald
M. Whyte.  Representing the Company is Penelope A. Preovolos of
Morrison & Foerster LLP, 425 Market Street, San Francisco, CA
94105, Phone: 415-268-7187, E-mail: ppreovolos@mofo.com.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Blake M. Harper of Hulett Harper
LLP, 550 West C Street, Suite 1600, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
619-338-1133, Fax: 619-338-1139, E-mail:
office@hulettharper.com.  


APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Calif. Consumer Suit for Wireless Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. faces a purported class action lawsuit over
the transmission rates of certain of its wireless products,
which is pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Plaintiffs filed this action styled, "Baghdasarian, et al. v.
Apple Computer, Inc.," on October 31, 2005, on behalf of a
purported nationwide class of all purchasers of all Apple
wireless products (router, modem, or adaptor) sold at any time.  
The complaint alleges that the Company misrepresented the
transmission rates of these products.

The complaint alleges causes of action for breach of express
warranty and for violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
California Business Professions Code 17200 (unfair competition)
and California Business Professions Code 17500 (false
advertising).  It seeks damages and equitable remedies.

The Company filed an answer denying all allegations and
asserting numerous affirmative defenses to the complaint on
December 15, 2005.


APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Calif. Lawsuit over Hard Drive Capacity
-------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action was filed against Apple Computer, Inc.
in the San Diego County Superior Court in California, styled,
"Gillis et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc."

Plaintiffs filed the suit on December 23, 2005 alleging that the
Company has misrepresented the hard drive capacity of two
Powerbook G4 computers: the 12-inch, 1.5 GHz computer with 512
MB of memory and a 100GB hard drive; and the 15-inch, 1.67 GHz
computer with 1GB of memory and 100GB hard drive.  Plaintiffs
allege that the Company's standard disclosure on its packaging
regarding hard drive size was not present on the packaging for
these two models.

The complaint alleges violations of the California Business &
Profession Code sections 17200 (unfair competition), California
Business & Profession Code 17500 (false advertising), the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and causes of action for deceit and
negligent misrepresentation.  Plaintiffs seek restitution and
other relief. The Company's response is not yet due.


APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Lawsuit in Canada over iPod Hearing Loss
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. faces a lawsuit in Montreal, Quebec,
Canada, alleging that the Company's iPod music players, and the
ear bud headphones sold with them, are inherently defective in
design and are sold without adequate warnings concerning the
risk of noise-induced hearing loss by iPod users.

Styled, "Royer-Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada,
Inc.," the suit was filed on February 1, 2006, seeking
authorization to institute a class action on behalf of iPod
purchasers in Quebec.


APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Suit in La. over Alleged iPod Hearing Loss
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. faces a federal lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
styled "Joseph Birdsong v. Apple Computer, Inc."

Filed on January 30, 2006, the federal court complaints allege
that the Company's iPod music players, and the ear bud
headphones sold with them, are inherently defective in design
and are sold without adequate warnings concerning the risk of
noise-induced hearing loss by iPod users.  The action was
brought on behalf of a purported Louisiana class of iPod
purchasers and alleges violations of the Louisiana Products
Liability Act, breaches of implied warranties, unjust enrichment
and negligent misrepresentation.  

The suit is styled, "Birdsong v. Apple Computers Inc., Case No.
6:06-cv-00159-TLM-MEM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Louisiana under Judge Tucker L. Melancon with
referral to Judge Mildred E. Methvin.  Representing the
Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) John R. Whaley of Neblett Beard & Arsenault, P.O. Box
         1190, Alexandria, LA 71309-1190, Phone: 318-487-9874,
         Fax: 318-561-2591, E-mail: jwhaley@nbalawfirm.com

     (2) Scott Earl Brady of Bohrer Law Firm, 8712 Jefferson
         Hwy., Ste. B, Baton Rouge, LA 70809, Phone: 225-925-
         5297, Fax: 225-231-7000, E-mail:
         scott@bradylawfirmllc.com

     (3) Christopher K. Jones of Keogh Cox & Wilson, P.O. Box
         1151, Baton Rouge, LA 70821, Phone: 225-383-3796, Fax:
         225-343-9612, E-mail: cjones@kcwlaw.com


APPLE COMPUTER: Files Demurer V. Amended Calif. Consumer Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. filed a demurrer to the amended complaint
entitled, "Branning et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc.," which is
violations of the California's trade laws.

Plaintiffs originally filed the purported class action in San
Francisco County Superior Court on February 17, 2005.  The
initial complaint alleged violations of California Business
Professions Code 17200 (unfair competition) and violation of the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) regarding a variety of
purportedly unfair and unlawful conduct including, but not
limited to, allegedly selling used computers as new and failing
to honor warranties.  Plaintiffs also brought causes of action
for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and
violation of the Song Beverly Act.  Plaintiffs requested
unspecified damages and other relief.

On May 9, 2005, the Court granted the Company's motion to
transfer the case to Santa Clara County Superior Court.  On May
2, 2005, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding two new
named plaintiffs and three new causes of action including a
claim for treble damages under the Cartwright Act (California
Business and Professions Code 16700 et seq.), and a claim for
false advertising.  The Company filed a demurrer to the amended
complaint, which the Court sustained in its entirety on November
10, 2005.  The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend and they
filed an amended complaint on December 29, 2005.

Plaintiffs' amended complaint adds three additional plaintiffs
and alleges many of the same factual claims as the previous
complaints such as alleged selling of used equipment as new,
alleged failure to honor warranties and service contracts for
the consumer plaintiffs, and alleged fraud related to the
opening of the Apple Retail stores.  Plaintiffs continue to
assert causes of action for unfair competition (17200),
violations of the CLRA, breach of contract, misappropriation of
trade secrets, violations of the Cartwright Act and allege new
causes of action for fraud, conversion and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  The Company filed a
demurrer to the amended complaint on January 31, 2006.


APPLE COMPUTER: Denies Claims in Amended Calif. Hard Drive Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. recently filed an answer essentially
denying all allegations in an amended class action in the Los
Angeles Superior Court in California against the Company and
other members of the computer industry, styled "Goldberg, et al.
v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al. (formerly known as "Dan v. Apple
Computer, Inc.")

Plaintiffs filed the purported class action on September 22,
2003 on behalf of an alleged nationwide class of purchasers of
certain computer hard drives.  The case alleges violations of
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair
competition), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and false
advertising related to the size of the drives.  Plaintiffs
allege that calculation of hard drive size using the decimal
method misrepresents the actual size of the drive.  The
complaint seeks restitution and other relief.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 30, 2004 and the
Company filed an answer on September 23, 2004, denying all
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.  
Defendants filed a motion to strike portions of the complaint
based on sales by resellers and filed a motion for judgment on
the pleadings based upon Proposition 64.  The Court granted both
motions at a hearing on April 6, 2005.  Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on May 6, 2005.  The Defendants filed a
demurrer on June 6, 2005, which will be heard on August 22,
2005.  The Court granted the demurrer in part and denied it in
part.  Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and the Company
filed an answer on December 15, 2005 denying all allegations and
asserting numerous assertive defenses.


APPLE COMPUTER: Parties Withdraw Calif. iPod Settlement Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal against the San Mateo Superior Court for the State of
California's ruling granting final approval to the settlement of
the consolidated class action cases filed against Apple
Computer, Inc., over alleged misrepresentations by the Company
over the battery life of its popular iPod mp3 player, was
withdrawn by the parties that filed it.  

Eight suits were initially filed, entitled:

     (1) Craft v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed December 23,
         2003, Santa Clara County Superior Court);

     (2) Chin v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed December 23, 2003,
         San Mateo County Superior Court);

     (3) Hughes v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed December 23,
         2003, Santa Clara County Superior Court);

     (4) Westley v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed December 26,
         2003, San Francisco County Superior Court);

     (5) Keegan v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed December 30,
        2003, Alameda County Superior Court);

     (6) Wagya v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed February 19,
         2004, Alameda County Superior Court);

     (7) Yamin v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed February 24,
         2004, Los Angeles County Superior Court);

     (8) Kieta v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed July 8, 2004,
         Alameda County Superior Court)

Eight separate plaintiffs filed purported class action cases in
various California courts alleging misrepresentations by the
Company relative to iPod battery life.  The complaints include
causes of action for violation of California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), the
Consumer Legal Remedies Action (CLRA) and claims for false
advertising, fraudulent concealment and breach of warranty. The
complaints seek unspecified damages and other relief.

The cases were consolidated in San Mateo County and Plaintiffs
thereafter filed a consolidated complaint.  On August 25, 2004,
the Company filed an answer denying all allegations and
asserting numerous affirmative defenses.  The parties have
reached a tentative settlement and the Court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement on May 20, 2005.  The trial court
entered an order granting final approval to the settlement on
August 25, 2005.  An appeal challenging the trial court's
approval of the settlement was filed on October 24, 2005, but
was subsequently withdrawn.  The settlement is now final.

A similar complaint relative to iPod battery life, styled
"Mosley v. Apple Computer, Inc.," was filed in Westchester
County, New York on June 23, 2004 alleging violations of New
York General Business Law Sections 349 (unfair competition) and
350 (false advertising). The Company removed the case to Federal
Court and Plaintiff filed a motion for remand, which the Court
has not yet decided.  This case is stayed and is part of the
tentative settlement referred to above.


APPLE COMPUTER: Settles Calif. Consumer Suit V. Mail-In Rebates
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against Apple Computer, Inc. in the Los
Angeles Superior Court in California, styled "Cagney v. Apple
Computer, Inc.," was recently settled.

The class action was originally filed on January 9, 2004,
alleging improper collection of sales tax in transactions
involving mail-in rebates.  The complaint alleges violations of
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair
competition) and seeks restitution and other relief.

The Company filed an answer on February 20, 2004, denying all
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses The
Company filed a motion to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel, which
the Court denied.  The Company filed a petition for a writ of
mandate with respect to this ruling and the Court of Appeal
issued an order to show cause as to why the writ should not
issue.  Plaintiff's lead counsel subsequently withdrew.

On February 17, 2005, the Court ruled that the trial court
abused its discretion in failing to grant the Company's motion
to disqualify and ordered the trial court to disqualify both of
Plaintiff's law firms upon remand.  The opinion was designated
for publication and Plaintiff has asked the Court to de-publish
it.  The Company has opposed that request. The trial court
issued the disqualification order on May 12, 2005. On May 9,
2005, Plaintiff substituted new counsel.  The Company has
obtained an opinion on the tax issue from the State Board of
Equalization.  Discovery is stayed.

The Company has obtained an opinion on the tax issue from the
State Board of Equalization.  The parties have reached a
settlement and the matter is concluded.  Settlement of the case
did not have a material effect on the Company's financial
position or results of operation.


APPLE COMPUTER: Wants iPod Nano Lawsuits Consolidated in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc., which faces several class actions filed in
California state and federal courts, alleging that the Company's
iPod nano was defectively designed so that it scratches
excessively during normal use which renders the screen
unreadable, recently filed a motion for transfer and
consolidation before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) to have all of the federal cases transferred to
the Northern District of California and consolidated for pre-
trial purposes.

The suits are styled:

     (1) Wimmer v. Apple Computer, Inc., filed as Tomczak v.
         Apple Computer, Inc. on October 19, 2005 in the United
         States District Court for the Northern District of
         California, San Jose Division; amended complaint filed
         October 26, 2005;

     (2) Moschella, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc., filed
         October 26, 2005 United States District Court for the
         Northern District of California, San Jose Division;

     (3) Calado, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., filed October
         26, 2005, Los Angeles County Superior Court;

     (4) Kahan, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc., filed October
         31, 2005, United States District Court for the Southern
         District of New York;

     (5) Jennings, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc., filed
         November 4, 2005, United States District Court for the
         Northern District of California, San Jose Division

The Wimmer and Moschella actions were brought on behalf of
purported nationwide classes of iPod nano purchasers, with the
exception of California purchasers, and allege violations of the
consumer protection, express and implied warranty statutes of
each state covered by the putative class definition, as well as
negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment under the
common laws of these jurisdictions.

The Calado action was brought on behalf of a purported
California class of iPod nano purchasers and asserts claims for
alleged violation of California Business & Professions Code
Section 17200 (unfair competition), California Business &
Professions Code Section 17500 (false advertising), the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, breaches of express and implied warranties,
negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.

The Jennings action was filed on behalf of a purported class of
all iPod nano purchasers outside of the United States, based
upon alleged violations of the same California statutes as in
the Calado complaint.

The Kahan action was brought on behalf of a purported New York
class of iPod nano purchasers and alleges claims under the New
York unfair competition law, breach of express warranty and
unjust enrichment. The complaints seek damages and various other
remedies. The Company's responses to these complaints are not
yet due.  

The Company filed a motion for transfer and consolidation before
the MDL panel to have all of the federal cases transferred to
the California court and consolidated for pre-trial purposes.  
The motion is unopposed and the Company awaits a ruling.  Five
of the actions are stayed pending a ruling on the Company's
MDL motion.  The Company is seeking stays in the remaining
actions.


ASHWORTH INC.: Calif. Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California granted final approval to the settlement of the
securities class action filed against Ashworth, Inc. on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period
between September 4, 1997 and July 15, 1998.

The action was subsequently consolidated with two similar suits
and plaintiffs filed their Amended and Consolidated Complaint on
December 17, 1999.  Upon the Company's motion, the court
dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend on July 18, 2000.  
On September 18, 2000, plaintiffs served their Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint.  On November 6, 2000, the
Company filed its motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint, which the court granted, in part, and denied, in
part.  

The remaining portions of the Second Amended Complaint alleged
that, among other things, during the class period and in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Company's
financial statements, as reported, did not conform to generally
accepted accounting principles with respect to revenues and
inventory levels.  It further alleged that certain Company
executives made false or misleading statements or omissions
concerning product demand and that two former executives engaged
in insider trading.

On November 8, 2004, the Court entered a Final Approval of
Settlement.  Under the settlement, all claims will be dismissed
and the litigation will be concluded in exchange for a payment
of $15.25 million, approximately 82% of which will be paid by
the Company's insurance carriers.  As part of the settlement,
the Company also agreed to adopt modifications to certain
corporate governance policies.  

The suit is styled, "In Re: Ashworth, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no 99-CV-00121," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, under Judge M.
James Lorenz.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

     (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San
         Francisco), 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco,
         CA, 94111, Phone: 415.288.4545, Fax: 415.288.4534, E-
         mail: info@lerachlaw.com

     (3) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (San
         Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101,
         Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com

     (4) Olsen Law Firm, 2121 K Street, N.W. Suite 80,
         Washington, DC, 20037, Phone: 703.351.5199,


BIOMEDICAL TISSUE: Pa. Hospitals Test Tissue Transplant Patients
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fourteen patients who received tissue and bone transplants from
a New Jersey tissue-recovery firm that is under investigation by
state authorities have been tested for diseases at two
Pennsylvania hospitals, according to Allentown Morning Call.  

Lehigh Valley Hospital-Cedar Crest in Salisbury Township and St.
Luke's Hospital-Fountain Hill conducted the test.  LVH is yet to
test the remaining three who underwent surgeries in the
hospital.  The report did not mention results of the tests.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration ordered Biomedical Tissue
Services Ltd. to stop manufacturing operations after an
investigation by the agency revealed "serious and widespread"
deficiencies in the firm's activities.

Authorities, including New Jersey, New York and federal health
officials, are investigating the Fort Lee, New Jersey firm after
allegations emerged it used harvested tissue taken from funeral
homes without proper permission.  Also under investigation are
Biomedical Tissue founder Michael Mastromarino, and a number of
New York funeral homes, according to the report.  

Allentown Morning Call also mentioned in its report that Ken
Andres Jr., a New Jersey lawyer, filed a class action in
December in Superior Court in Atlantic County against Mr.
Mastromarino, Biomedical, five tissue processors and a
distributor.  No hospitals are named defendants in the suit.

                          Indiana Case

Brian Springer who received bone transplant from Biomedical
Tissue has also filed a suit seeking class-action status in
Marion Superior Court, Indiana earlier this month, according to
the Indianapolis Star (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 10, 2006).  
He is accusing Biomedical Tissue of intentionally acquiring
human tissue harvested from bodies entrusted to New York funeral
homes without obtaining consent from families of the deceased,
according to the report.  He is also claiming that the company
failed to test the bone, skin and tendons for diseases.

Mr. Springer, who had surgery to repair a herniated disk, did
not test positive for any disease, but his attorney, Richard E.
Shevitz, said his client is worried.  The suit is thus seeking
damages for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional
distress.  The suit did not specify damages claims.  Mr.
Springer is requesting a jury trial before Marion Superior Court
Judge Cale Bradford.  He is advised by the law firm of Cohen &
Malad.


BRISTOL-MYERS: $185M Deal in Vanlev Suit Gets Initial Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler grants preliminary approval
to a settlement in the consolidated securities class action,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, relating to the Bristol-Myers Squibb investigational
compound, omapatrilat (VANLEV(TM)).

Under the proposed settlement, Bristol-Myers Squibb will pay
$185,000,000 to create a Settlement Fund to pay the claims of
certain investors who purchased Bristol-Myers Squibb common
stock during the period from October 19, 1999 through March 20,
2002.

As previously disclosed, the Company has established a reserve
in the amount of the Settlement Fund. The settlement also
includes provisions regarding the Company's commitment to the
public disclosure of the results of certain clinical trials, and
the registration of trials on an appropriate publicly-accessible
database.

The settlement was entered into without any admission of
wrongdoing by the Company.  Notice to potentially eligible
claimants will be mailed out in early March 2006.  The
settlement is subject to certain conditions, including the
District Court's review and final approval at a fairness
hearing, which is scheduled for May 11, 2006.  There is no
assurance that such conditions will be satisfied.

Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMY:BMY) is a global pharmaceutical and
related health care products company.

The suit was styled "In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:00-cv-01990-SRC-JJH," filed in the United
States District of District of New Jersey (Trenton), under Judge
Stanley R. Chesler.  Representing the plaintiffs are Allyn
Zissel Lite and Michael A. Patunas, LITE, DEPALMA, GREENBERG AND
RIVAS, LCC, Two Gateway Center 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-
5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail: alite@ldgrlaw.com, and
mpatunas@ldgrlaw.com; and Robert J. Berg, BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD &
LIFSHITZ, LLP, 2050 Center Ave. Suite 200, Fort Lee, NJ 07024 by
Phone: 201-592-3201, by E-mail: berg@bernlieb.com.  

Representing the Company is William J. O'Shaughnessy of MCCARTER
& ENGLISH, ESQS., Four Gateway Center, 100 Mulberry Street, PO
Box 652, Newark NJ, 07101-0652, Phone: (973) 622-4444, E-mail:
woshaughnessy@mccarter.com.


CENTRAL GARDEN: Settles Lawsuit over August 2000 Fire in Ariz.  
--------------------------------------------------------------
Central Garden & Pet Company reached a settlement for a class
action filed against it in the Superior Court of Arizona,
Maricopa County, related to an August 2, 2000 fire that
destroyed its leased warehouse space in Phoenix, Arizona, and an
adjoining warehouse space leased by a third party.

On July 31, 2001, the adjoining warehouse tenant filed a lawsuit
styled, "Cardinal Health Inc., et al. v. Central Garden Pet
Company, et al., Civil Case No. CV2001-013152."  Filed in the
Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, it named the Company
and other parties as defendants and sought to recover $47
million for property damage from the fire.  

Local residents also filed a purported class action lawsuit
alleging claims for bodily injury and property damage as a
result of the fire.  That class action lawsuit has now been
settled as to all parties, and has received Court approval.  As
part of the settlement, the company's liability insurers paid
$7,825,000 on behalf of the Company in May 2004.

The building owner and several nearby businesses have also filed
lawsuits for property damage and business interruption, which
are being coordinated with the remaining tenant lawsuit.  Each
of these lawsuits is currently pending in the Superior Court of
Arizona, Maricopa County.  The trial for the remaining cases is
currently scheduled for March 2006.


CHOLESTECH CORPORATION: Claims in Ill. Suit Settled, Case Closed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cholestech Corporation reports that as of January 6, 2006 all
claims in the class action, styled, "Northshore Dermatology
Center, S.C. v. Cholestech Corporation, and Does 1-10, Case No.
04CH05342," were recently settled and that the matter is now
closed.

The Company was served with the complaint and summons on March
31, 2004.  The complaint, which was filed at the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois, alleged that the Company violated the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act and various Illinois
state laws by sending unsolicited advertisements via facsimile
transmission to residents of Illinois.  The complaint sought
class certification and statutory damages of $500 to $1,500 each
on behalf of a class that would include all residents of
Illinois who received an unsolicited facsimile advertisement
from the Company.

On January 18, 2005 the parties entered into an agreement to
settle all claims on behalf of a nationwide class.  Under the
terms of the settlement, the Company paid $625,000 in cash to
settle all claims, $600,000 of which was funded by insurance.
The Company also agreed to pay up to $50,000 for providing
notice to the class and for processing claims.  The Court gave
final approval to the settlement on July 11, 2005.

The suit is styled "Northshore Dermatology Center, S.C. v.
Cholestech Corporation, and Does 1-10, Case No. 04CH05342,"
filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, under Judge
John K. Madden.  Representing the plaintiffs is Edelman & Combs,
120 S. Lasalle 18 fl, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 739-4200.  
Representing the Company is BURKE WARREN & MACKAY, 330 N Wabash
22nd Fl., Chicago IL 60611, Phone: (312) 840-7000.


CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Expects Final Approval of IPO Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Conexant Systems, Inc. is awaiting the final approval of a
settlement in the consolidated class action styled, "In Re
Initial Public Offering (IPO) Securities Litigation, Master File
No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," which is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In November 2001, Collegeware Asset Management, LP, on behalf of
itself and a putative class of persons who purchased the common
stock of GlobeSpan, Inc., (GlobeSpan, Inc. later became
GlobespanVirata, Inc., and is now the Company's Conexant, Inc.
subsidiary) between June 23, 1999 and December 6, 2000, filed a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York alleging violations of federal securities laws by
the underwriters of GlobeSpan, Inc.'s initial and secondary
public offerings as well as by certain GlobeSpan, Inc. officers
and directors.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing and selling GlobeSpan, Inc.'s common
stock in the initial and secondary offerings without disclosing
to investors that the underwriters had solicited and received
undisclosed and excessive commissions or other compensation and
entered into agreements requiring certain of their customers to
purchase the stock in the aftermarket at escalating prices.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages.  The complaint was
consolidated with class actions against approximately 300 other
companies making similar allegations regarding the public
offerings of those companies during 1998 through 2000.

In June 2003, Conexant, Inc. and the named officers and
directors entered into a memorandum of understanding outlining a
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs that will, among other
things, result in the dismissal with prejudice of all the claims
against the former GlobeSpan, Inc. officers and directors.  The
final settlement was executed in June 2004.  

On February 15, 2005, the Court issued a decision certifying a
class action for settlement purposes and granting preliminary
approval of the settlement, subject to modification of certain
bar orders contemplated by the settlement.  The bar orders have
since been modified.  The settlement remains subject to a number
of conditions and final approval.  It is possible that the
settlement will not be approved.  Even if the settlement is
approved, individual class members will have an opportunity to
opt out of the class and to file their own lawsuits, and some
may do so.  

In either event, the Company does not anticipate that the
ultimate outcome of the litigation will have a material adverse
impact on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Plans Amended Dismissal Motion V. Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Conexant Systems, Inc. plans to file an amended motion to
dismiss against a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit pending
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, which
is entitled, "Witriol v. Conexant, et al."

December 2004 and January 2005, the Company and certain current
and former officers and directors were named as defendants in
several class actions seeking monetary damages filed on behalf
of all persons who purchased Company common stock during a
specified class period.

These suits were filed in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey
(New Jersey cases) and the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (California cases), alleging that the
defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
allegedly disseminating materially false and misleading
statements and/or concealing material adverse facts.  The
California cases have now been consolidated with the New Jersey
cases so that all of the class action suits are being heard in
the U.S. District Court of New Jersey by the same judge.

The defendants believe these charges are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend the litigation.  On September 1,
2005, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the case.  On
November 23, 2005, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to
file a second amended complaint, which was filed on December 5,
2005.  The defendants plan to file an amended motion to dismiss
the case, which motion will be due by February 6, 2006.

The suit is styled, "WITRIOL v. CONEXANT SYSTEMS INC. et al,
Case No. 3:04-cv-06219-SRC-TJB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R.
Chesler with referral to Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.  
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, peter s. Pearlman of Cohn,
Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf, LLP, Park 80 Plaza West
One, Saddle Brook, NJ 07663, Phone: (201) 845-9600, E-mail:
PSP@njlawfirm.com; and Katrina Blumenkrants and Joseph J.
Depalma of Lite Depalma Greenberg & Rivas, LLC, Phone:
(973) 623-3000, E-mail: kblumenkrants@ldgrlaw.com and
jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com.  Representing the Defendant/s are Gregory
B. Reilly and Deborah A. Silodor of Lowenstein Sandler, PC, 65
Livingston Avenue, Roseland, NJ 07068-1791, Phone:
(973) 597-2500 and (973) 597-2500, E-mail:
greilly@lowenstein.com and
dsilodor@lowenstein.com.


CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Slated to File Response in N.J. ERISA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Conexant Systems, Inc. will respond by February 17, 2006 to the
plaintiff's reply to the Company's motion for dismissal for a
lawsuit styled, "Graden v. Conexant, et al.," which is currently
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

On February 2005, the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and the Company's Employee Benefits Plan
Committee were named as defendants in the lawsuit.  It was filed
on behalf of all persons who were participants in the Company's
401(k) Plan (Plan) during a specified class period.

The suit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA), as amended, to the Plan and the participants in the
Plan. The defendants believe these charges are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend the litigation.  

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 11, 2005.  On
October 12, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this
case.  The plaintiff responded to the motion to dismiss on
December 30, 2005, and the defendants' reply is due on February
17, 2006.

The suit is styled, "GRADEN v. CONEXANT SYSTEMS INC. et al, Case
No. 3:05-cv-00695-SRC-TJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler with
referral to Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.  Representing the
Plaintiff/s is Lisa J. Rodriguez of Trujillo Rodriguez &
Richards, LLP, 8 Kings Highway, West Haddonfield, NJ 08033,
Phone: (856) 795-9002, E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com.   Representing
the Defendant/s is Gregory B. Reilly of Lowenstein Sandler, PC,
65 Livingston Ave., Roseland, NJ 07068-1791, Phone:
(973) 597-2500, E-mail: greilly@lowenstein.com.  


COTTON YARN: Antitrust Settlement Hearing set February 14, 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina, Greensboro Division, will hold a fairness hearing for
the proposed $7,800,000 settlement in the matter, "In re: Cotton
Yarn Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:04MD1622."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons (excluding
governmental agencies, Defendants, their parents, predecessors,
subsidiaries and affiliates) who purchased Cotton Yarn in the
U.S., or from facilities located in the U.S., directly from any
of the Defendants or any of their predecessors, subsidiaries
and/or affiliates, at any time during the period from October 1,
2000 to June 15, 2001.

The hearing will be held on February 14, 2006, at 10:00 a.m., at
the Hiram H. Ward Federal Building, 251 North Main St., Winston-
Salem, NC 27101.

Defendants named in the action are:

     (1) Parkdale America, LLC;

     (2) Parkdale Mills, Inc.;

     (3) Frontier Spinning Mills, LLC;

     (4) Frontier Spinning Mills, Inc.;

     (5) Frontier, Inc.;

     (6) Avondale Mills, Inc.; and

     (7) Avondale Inc.

For more details, contact Steven A. Asher of Weinstein
Kitchenoff & Asher, LLC, 1845 Walnut St., Ste. 1100,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-545-7200, Fax: 215-545-6535;
Anthony J. Bolognese of Bolognese & Associates, LLC, 1617 JFK
Blvd., STE. 650, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-814-6750;
Steven A. Kanner of Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament &
Rubenstein, PC, 191 N. Wacker Dr., STE. 1800, Chicago, IL 60606-
1615, Phone: 312-521-2000; and Joseph C. Kohn of Kohn Swift &
Graf, P.C., one s. Broad ST., STE. 2100, Philadelphia, PA 19107,
Phone: 215-238-1700.



DUKE ENERGY: Employees File Pension Violation Suit in S.C. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Six former and current Duke Energy employees of Duke Energy
Corp. filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination and violation of
pension laws in the federal District Court in South Carolina,
according to The Associated Press.

The suit, which seeks class-action status, claims older workers
lost thousands of dollars when the company changed its
retirement plan in the 1990s.  Plaintiffs, which include North
Carolinian Henry Miller, filed the suit after negotiations to
resolve the conflict fell through.  They are also demanding an
overhaul of the company's retirement plan, according to the
report.

The U.S. Department of Labor requires that changes to pension
plans "cannot reduce benefits that participants have already
earned."

The case is styled "George et. al v. Duke Energy Retirement Cash
Balance Plan et. al (8:06-cv-00373-HFF)," filed in the U.S.
District Court of South Carolina under Judge Henry F. Floyd.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) James Robinson Gilreath
         Gilreath Law Firm
         P.O. Box 2147
         Greenville, SC 29602
         Phone: 864-242-4727
         Fax: 864-232-4395
         E-mail: jim@gilreathlaw.com

     (2) William Mitchell Hogan
         The Gilreath Law Firm
         P.O. Box 2147
         Greenville, SC 29602
         Phone: 864-242-4727
         Fax: 864-232-4395
         E-mail: bhogan@gilreathlaw.com

     (3) Cheryl F Perkins
         Whetstone Myers Perkins and Young LLC
         P.O. Box 8086
         Columbia, SC 29202
         Phone: 803-799-9400
         Fax: 803-799-2017
         E-mail: cperkins@attorneyssc.com

     (4) Mona Lisa Wallace
         Wallace and Graham
         525 North Main Street
         Salisbury, NC 28144
         Phone: 704-633-5244
         Fax: 704-633-9434
         E-mail: mwallace@wallacegraham.com

     (5) Charles W. Whetstone, Jr.
         Whetstone Myers Perkins and Young
         P.O. Box 8086
         Columbia, SC 29202
         Phone: 803-799-9400
         Fax: 803-799-2017
         E-mail: cwhetstone@attorneyssc.com


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Awaits Appeals Court's Decision in Poulos
-------------------------------------------------------------
International Game Technology, Inc. looking forward to the
decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in
the plaintiff's appeal for the suit styled, "William H. Poulos
vs. Caesar's World, Inc, et al."

Along with a number of other public gaming corporations, the
Company was named as a defendant in three class action that were
later consolidated into a single action styled in the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada.  

Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants 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 an opportunity to win on a given play.  The amended
complaint alleges that the defendants' acts constituted
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
(RICO) Act, giving rise to claims for common law fraud and
unjust enrichment, and seeks compensatory, special, incidental
and punitive damages of several billion dollars.

In December 1997, the Court denied the motions that would have
dismissed the Consolidated Amended Complaint or that would have
stayed the action pending Nevada gaming regulatory action.  In
June 2002, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  An appeal of that denial was filed timely with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The class
plaintiffs did not appeal the decision and proceeded with only
their individual claims.

Prior to the scheduled trial date on September 7, 2005, the U.S.
District Court of Nevada granted the defendants' pending motions
for summary judgment.  The plaintiffs timely filed a Notice of
Appeal to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court.

The is styled, "William H. Poulos vs. Caesar's World, Inc, et
al., Case No. 2:94-cv-01126-RLH-RJJ," is on appeal from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada under Judge Roger L.
Hunt with referral to Judge Robert J. Johnston.  Representing
the Plaintiff/s are, Caryl Boies, Mary Boies and Karen C. Dyer
of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1200,
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301, US, Phone: 954-356-0011,
(914) 234-3700 and 407-425-7118, Fax: 954-356-0022,
(914) 234-0929 and 407-425-7047; and Michael Straus of Strauss &
Boies, 1130 22nd Street South, Suite 4400, Birmingham, AL 35205,
US, Phone: 205-324-3800.  Representing the Defendant/s are,
William E. Cooper of Cooper Law Offices, 601 E. Bridger, Las
Vegas, NV 89101, E-mail: wecooper@lvcm.com and Dennis L. Kennedy
of Bailey Merrill, 8691 West Sahara Ave., Suite 200, Las Vegas,
NV 89117-5830, Phone: 702-562-8820, Fax: 702-562-8821, E-mail:
dkennedy@baileymerrill.com.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Canadian Subsidiary Faces Lawsuit in Quebec
---------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of International Game Technology, Inc. faces an
action in warranty in a Canadian court that seeks
indemnification for any damages in a pending class action
lawsuit.

Loto Quebec commenced an action in warranty against VLC, Inc., a
wholly owned subsidiary of International Game Technology, Inc.
(IGT), and another manufacturer of video lottery machines in
October 2003 in the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec,
District of Quebec, seeking indemnification for any damages that
may be awarded against Loto Quebec in a class action suit, also
filed in the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec.

The class action against Loto Quebec, to which neither IGT nor
any of its affiliates are parties, was filed by Jean Brochu on
behalf of himself and a class of other persons who allegedly
developed pathological behaviors through the play of video
lottery machines made available by Loto Quebec in taverns and
other public locations.  In this action, plaintiff seeks to
recover on behalf of the class damages of approximately
CAD$578.7 million, representing CAD$4,863 per class member, and
CAD$119.0 million in punitive damages. Loto Quebec is scheduled
to file its Plea in Defense in the main action in February 2006.

VLC's Plea in Defense in the warranty action is due in April
2006.  The Court has scheduled trial of the entire action
against Loto Quebec to commence in early 2007.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Nev. Court Deliberates on Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clark County, Nevada District Court has yet to rule on
International Game Technology, Inc.'s and Acres Gaming
Incorporated's motion for the dismissal the third amended
complaint filed against them, designated as Case No. 470016.

The complaint, entitled, "Paul Miller v. Acres Gaming
Incorporated, et al," alleged that Acres directors breached
their fiduciary duties to their stockholders in connection with
the approval of the merger transaction between Acres and the
Company and sought to enjoin and/or void the merger agreement
among other forms of relief.  The other defendants named in the
suit are:

     (1) Floyd W. Glisson

     (2) Todd L. Bice

     (3) Roger B. Hammock

     (4) Richard Furash

     (5) David R. Willensky

     (6) Robert W. Brown

     (7) Ronald G. Bennett

On September 19, 2003, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for a
temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent Acres stockholders
from voting on the merger.  On September 24, 2003, plaintiff
petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court to vacate the denial of the
TRO and to enjoin Acres from holding its stockholder vote on the
merger.  The Nevada Supreme Court denied the petition on
September 25, 2003.  The plaintiff's action also seeks damages.

On December 23, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's second amended complaint for failure to state a
claim on which relief may be granted.  On April 29, 2004, the
Court issued a ruling denying defendant's motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint.  On May 12, 2004 the Court issued an
order denying defendants motion to dismiss.  Pursuant to
stipulation of the parties on August 13, 2004, plaintiff filed a
third amended complaint.  Defendants have filed a motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint.  The Court has not yet
ruled on this motion.

The suit is styled "Paul Miller v. Acres Gaming, Inc., et al,
case no. P03-A-470016-C," filed in Clark County Nevada District
Court under Judge Michelle Leavitt.  Representing the lead
plaintiff Paul Miller is Ike L. Epstein, while lawyer for the
defendants is Paul R. Hejmanowski.  


KMART CORPORATION: Judge Backs $11.75M Pension Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn gave preliminary approval to an
$11.75 million settlement of a case filed by former Kmart Corp.
workers against the company over a disastrous pension
investment, The Associated Press reports.

Judge Cohn scheduled a hearing on May 22, 2006 to decide whether
to make the agreement final.  The deal involves 71,000
participants in 401(k) pension plans.  Each claimant will get an
average of $162 each, according to the report.  Their holdings
were worth about $55 million when Kmart filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection Jan. 22, 2002.

Kmart workers lost millions in retirement savings when the
retailer collapsed in 2002.  Court records show that following
the company's bankruptcy, more than 50,000 Kmart employees
suffered combined losses of at least $100 million in their
401(k) plans when Kmart Corporation stock became worthless.

In the suit, the plaintiffs alleged that Kmart executives hid
the dire nature of the retailer's finances, prompting workers to
unwittingly invest in the doomed company.  They also charged
that, despite executive knowledge of the company's poor
prospects, Kmart forced workers to maintain the company-match
portion of their 401(k) in Kmart stock until they reached age 55
(Class Action Reporter, July 27, 2005).

The defendants in the suit includes former Kmart Chairman and
CEO Charles Conaway, former CEO James Adamson, former vice
president Jim Defebaugh and six former members of the board of
directors.

Kmart emerged from bankruptcy in May 2003.  In November, Kmart
announced a merger with Sears, and the company was renamed Sears
Holdings, which operates from Hoffman Estates, Illinois.  
Shareholders of the former Kmart Corporation have no claim on
the stock issued by the new company.


KPMG LLP: Court Defers Approval of $195M Deal Pending Revision
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge postponed approval of a proposed $195 million
settlement between accounting firm KPMG and tax shelter
investors to an indefinite time, according to the International
Herald Tribune.  

The settlement, which was initially reached in September, was
slated to go to court for final approval on Feb. 24, 2006, but
U.S. District Court Dennis Cavanaugh in Newark, New Jersey
rescheduled the hearing to give time for revisions.

According to the report, lawyers did not specify the intended
revisions, but it is understood KPMG wants to reduce the size of
the fund after more than 60 of 284 eligible investors elected
not to take part in the deal.

The settlement reached in September covered four tax shelters
offered by KPMG and is intended to return fees that investors
paid to accounting and law firms for certain shelters that the
U.S. Internal Revenue Service deemed unacceptable.  Sidley
Austin Brown & Wood, the law firm that provided legal opinion
letters supporting the shelters, is paying about 20% of the
settlement.

According to the report, KPMG has the right to call off the deal
if too many investors opt out and could instead challenge the
claims individually.

                         Case Background

The Internal Revenue Service found the tax shelters, which
helped taxpayers who bought them elude $2.5 billion in taxes, to
be "abusive." A grand jury in New York has indicted 19 people,
including KPMG's former chief financial officers, former KPMG
tax professionals and a former lawyer at Sidley, Austin, Brown &
Wood LLP, which worked with KPMG, in connection with the shelter
sales (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2005).

The settlement would provide $195 million compensation to former
clients of KPMG and Sidley Austin who participated in the tax
shelters known as Blips, Flip and Opis, as well as some former
clients who participated in a shelter called Short Option
Strategy (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2005).

Awards which by law cannot cover back taxes and IRS penalties,
will be a portion of the transaction fees that the taxpayers
paid to arrange the shelters. The average payout would be
$750,000, according to Melvyn I. Weiss, a class action lawyer
whose firm negotiated the settlement with KPMG.  He adds that
taxpayers without statute of limitation issues would get about
65 percent of their fees, while those with such issues would get
25 percent. The remaining $30 million would go to Milberg Weiss
Bershad & Schulman, LLP (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2005).

The four shelters were the subjects of KPMG's settlement
agreement with federal prosecutors in New York in August. Under
that agreement, KPMG admitted criminal wrongdoing in creating
fraudulent tax shelters and agreed to pay $456 million in
penalties. However, under that same agreement, KPMG won't face
criminal prosecution as long as it complies with its terms
(Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2005).

The case before Judge Cavanaugh is among dozens of lawsuits
brought by former KPMG clients in state and federal courts
around the nation. According to KPMG's deferred-prosecution
agreement with federal prosecutors, KPMG sold the four shelters
to about 600 wealthy people from 1996 to 2002 (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 2, 2005).

The suit is styled, "SIMON et al v. KPMG LLP et al, Case No.
2:05-cv-03189-DMC-MF," filed in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, under Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh.
Representing the Plaintiff/s are James E. Cecchi and Melissa E.
Flax of CARELLA BYRNE BAIN GILFILLAN CECCHI STEWART & OLSTEIN,
PC, 5 Becker Farm Road, Roseland, NJ 07068, Phone:
(973) 994-1700, Fax: (973) 994-1744, E-mail:
jcecchi@carellabyrne.com and mflax@carellabyrne.com.
Representing the Defendant/s are, Dennis J. Drasco of LUM,
DANZIS, DRASCO & POSITAN, LLC, 103 Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland,
NJ 07068-1049, Phone: (973) 403-9000, E-mail:
ddrasco@lumlaw.com; and Anthony J. Marchetta of Pitney Hardin,
200 Campus Drive, Florham Park, NJ 07932, Phone: 973-966-8032,
E-mail: amarchetta@pitneyhardin.com.


MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Amended Consolidated Suit in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Majesco Entertainment Co. and certain of its officers, and
former officers faces an amended consolidated securities
complaint in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey.  

In July 2005, four purported class action complaints were filed
against the Company and several current and former directors and
officers of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.  On September 12, 2005, a fifth
purported class action complaint was filed in the same court on
behalf of a class of individuals who purchased shares of Majesco
common stock in the January 26, 2005 offering of six million
shares of common stock.  The complaint named as defendants the
Company, several current and former directors and officers of
Company, and certain financial institutions that served as
underwriters with respect to the Offering and the Company's
auditors.

On October 11, 2005, the court consolidated the five cases and
appointed a lead plaintiff.  On December 14, 2005, Lead
Plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint, which is now
the operative complaint.

The suit is styled, "Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Majesco
Entertainment Company et. al, Case No. 2:05-cv-03557-FSH-PS,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
under Judge Faith S. Hochberg with referral to Judge Patty
Shwartz.  Representing the Plaintiff/s is Patrick Louis Rocco of
Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP, 163 MADISON AVE., P.O. BOX 1277,
Morristown, NJ 07962-1277, Phone: (973) 775-8997, E-mail:
procco@lawssb.com.  Representing the Defendant/s is Joseph
Domenick Giacoia of Capuder Fazio Giacoia, 90 Broad Street, New
York, NY 10004, US, Phone: 212-509-9595, E-mail:
jgiacoia@cfgny.com.


MCKESSON CORPORATION: Calif. Pact Hearing Reset to Feb. 2006
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California rescheduled the final fairness hearing for the
settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed
against McKesson Corporation originally set for January 27, 2006
to February 24, 2006.

The Company is seeking preliminary approval for the settlement.  
In a regulatory filing, the Company said that it believes that
the documents address and resolve the Court's objections.

The suit arises out of a merger between McKesson Corporation
(McKesson) and HBO & Company (HBOC) resulting in an entity
called McKesson HBOC, Inc. (McKesson HBOC).  Beginning on June
29, 1999, 53 purported class actions were commenced in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  

These actions were subsequently consolidated, and the plaintiffs
proceeded to file a series of amended complaints. On February
15, 2002, plaintiffs filed their third amended consolidated
complaint, which alleges that Bear Stearns violated Sections
10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with allegedly
false and misleading disclosures contained in a joint proxy
statement/prospectus that was issued with respect to the
McKesson/HBOC merger.

Plaintiffs purport to represent a class consisting of all
persons who either acquired publicly traded securities of HBOC
between January 20, 1997 and January 12, 1999, or acquired
publicly traded securities of McKesson or McKesson HBOC between
October 18, 1998 and April 27, 1999, and who held McKesson
securities on November 27, 1998 and January 22, 1999.  Named
defendants include McKesson HBOC, certain present and former
directors and/or officers of McKesson HBOC, McKesson and/or
HBOC, Bear Stearns and Arthur Andersen LLP. Compensatory damages
in an unspecified amount are sought.

On January 12, 2005, McKesson HBOC announced that it had reached
a settlement with the plaintiff class, which settlement must be
approved by the Court.  Bear Stearns's engagement letter with
McKesson in connection with the merger of McKesson and HBOC
provides that McKesson cannot settle any litigation without Bear
Stearns's written consent unless McKesson obtains an
unconditional written release for Bear Stearns and, under
certain circumstances, is required to provide indemnification to
Bear Stearns.

In his order, Judge Ronald M. Whyte denied "without prejudice"
the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.  The
order expressed the court's objection to two non-monetary
provisions of the settlement.  

The previously reported actions pending in California Superior
Court captioned "Utah and Colorado State Retirement Boards v.
McKesson HBOC, Inc. et al. (Case No. 311269)" and "Minnesota
State Board of Investment v. McKesson HBOC, Inc. et al., (Case
No. 311747)" were settled in July 2005.  

The remaining actions consolidated in California Superior Court,
"Yurick v. McKesson HBOC, Inc. et al. (Case No. 303857)," "The
State of Oregon by and through the Oregon Public Employees
Retirement Board v. McKesson HBOC, Inc. et al. (Case No.
307619)" and "Merrill Lynch Fundamental Growth Fund et al. v.
McKesson HBOC, Inc. et al. (Case No. CGC-02-405792)," have been
assigned a revised trial date of October 31, 2005. The "Merrill
Lynch" plaintiffs have moved for summary adjudication on their
common law fraud claim, and the hearing on that motion was
continued from July 1, 2005, to September 22, 2005.

Two previously-reported actions that were pending in Georgia
state courts, "Suffolk Partners Limited Partnership et al. v.
McKesson HBOC, Inc. et al. (Georgia State Court, Fulton County,
Case No. 00VS010469A)" and "Curran Partners, L.P. v. McKesson
HBOC, Inc. et al. (Georgia State Court, Fulton County, Case No.
00 VS 010801)," were settled in June 2005.

By order dated September 26, 2005, the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte
granted preliminary approval to the settlement agreement. The
settlement remains subject to final approval by the United
States District Court.

As of December 23, 2005, the deadline that the Court imposed for
objecting to final confirmation of the settlement, three
individual class members directed letters to the Court
purporting to object to the settlement.  One of the Company's
co-defendants, Bear Stearns & Co. Inc., also objected to the
settlement.  The Company and Lead Plaintiff responded to these
objections on January 13, 2006.  The Court continued to February
24, 2006, the hearing on the motion of both the Company and Lead
Plaintiff that is seeking final approval of the class action
settlement, which was originally scheduled for January 27, 2006.

The suit is styled, "In Re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 99-CV-20743," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge
Ronald M. Whyte.  Representing the Company are James E. Lyons,
Jonathan J. Lerner of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, Four
Embarcadero Ctr., Ste. 3800, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone:
(415) 984-6400.  Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (New York), 170 E. 61st Street,
         Second Floor, New York, NY, 10021, Phone: 212.688.0782,
         Fax: 212.688.0783, E-mail: info@barrack.com

     (2) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (San Diego), 402 West Broadway,
         San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 619.230.0800, Fax:
         619.230.1874, E-mail: info@barrack.com

     (3) Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New York,
         NY), 1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor, New York,
         NY, 10019, Phone: 212.554.1400, Fax: 212.554.1444, E-
         mail: blbg@blbglaw.com

     (4) Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (San Diego,
         CA), 12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150, San Diego, CA,
         92130, Phone: 858.793.0070, Fax: 858.793.0323, E-mail:
         blbg@blbglaw.com


MOLEX INC.: Faces Consolidated Amended Securities Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Molex, Inc. and certain of its officers and employees faces a
Consolidated Amended Class Action in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois that was filed on
behalf of a class of Company stockholders from July 27, 2004 to
February 14, 2005, alleging violations of federal securities
laws.

Between March 2, 2005 and April 22, 2005, seven suits were
initially filed and later consolidated.  The consolidated
complaint alleges, among other things, that during the period
the named defendants made or caused to be made a series of
materially false or misleading statements about the Company's
business, prospects, operations, and financial statements which
constituted violations of the federal securities laws and rules.  

The stockholders actions were consolidated before Judge Ruben
Castillo in a pending case entitled, "The Takara Trust v. Molex
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 05C 1245."  It also alleges that
certain of the named defendants engaged in insider trading in
violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.

As relief, the complaint seeks, among other things, declaration
that the action be certified as a proper class action,
unspecified compensatory damages (including interest) and
payment of costs and expenses (including fees for legal counsel
and experts).  The individual defendants named in the
Consolidated Amended Complaint are: J. Joseph King, Diane S.
Bullock, John H. Krehbiel Jr., Frederick A. Krehbiel, Ronald L.
Schubel and Martin A. Slark.  

On July 6, 2005, the Court appointed City of Pontiac Group as
lead plaintiff and approved City of Pontiac Group's choice of
lead counsel.  On September 6, 2005, the Court denied the
plaintiff's motion to permit limited discovery.  All named
defendants have moved to dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Complaint.

The suit is styled, "The Takara Trust v. Molex Incorporated, et
al., Case No. 05C 1245," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Ruben Castillo.  
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Carol V. Gilden of Much,
Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Rubenstein, P.C., 191 North
Wacker Drive, Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60605-1615, Phone:
(312) 521-2403, E-mail: (312) 521-2100, Fax:
cgilden@muchshelist.com; and Marc A. Topaz of Schiffrin &
Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087,
Phone: (610) 667-7706.  Representing the Defendant/s are, Harold
C. Hirshman, Jason L. Rubin, Christopher Qualley King and Gerald
E. Fradin of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, LLP, 233 South
Wacker Drive, 8000 Sears Tower, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone:
(312) 876-8000, E-mail: cking@sonnenschein.com and
gfradin@sonnenschein.com.


PEKIN INSURANCE: Agrees to Chiropractor Lawsuits' Consolidation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lakin Law Firm of Wood River filed an amended complaint with the
Madison County Circuit Judge George Moran after fusing three
lawsuits filed by chiropractors against Pekin Insurance,
according to The Madison St. Clair Record.

On Feb. 1, the parties agreed to add Lakin's client Thomas
Kalterbronn to a proposed class suit filed by another Lakin
client, Frank Bemis.  They further named a third plaintiff, Dale
Fischer, doing business as Lebanon Chiropractic. Mr. Fischer had
not been a party to either suit.  The lawsuit accuses Pekin of
improperly reducing payments for treatment of patients who
suffered injuries in accidents that its policies covered.

Dennis Barton of the Lakin firm and Pekin attorney David Osborne
of Chicago believes an amended complaint would not constitute a
new action for purposes of the Class Action Fairness Act.  Mr.
Osborne indicated to keep the case with a U.S. District Court
under the act.

According to the report, Mr. Bemis and the Lakin firm was
previously ordered to answer interrogatories and produce
documents in an almost identical suit against Federated Mutual
Insurance.  The case is presided by Circuit Judge Daniel Stack.
Richard Burke of the Lakin firm represents Mr. Bemis in the
case; Federated Mutual is represented by lawyer Beth Boggs of
Clayton.


PERRIGO CO.: Faces Lawsuits over 1998 Agreement with Alpharma
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Perrigo Company faces lawsuits over allegedly overprices
children's ibuprofen suspension product that was the result of
an agreement between Alpharma, Inc. and the Company.

The Company was named as a defendant in three suits, two of
which are class actions that have been consolidated with one
another, filed on behalf of Company customers (i.e., retailers)
and the other consisting of four class action suits filed on
behalf of indirect Company customers (i.e., consumers), alleging
that the plaintiffs overpaid for children's ibuprofen suspension
product as a result of the Company's 1998 agreement with
Alpharma, Inc.

As the Company defends these claims, it also participated in
settlement negotiations with the plaintiffs.  The most recent
negotiations lead the Company to believe that it may settle all
of the lawsuits for a combination of cash payments and product
donations.

The Company recorded a charge of $4,500 in the fourth quarter of
fiscal 2005 as its best estimate of the combined expected cost
of the settlements.  While the Company believes the estimates
are reasonable, the amount of future payments cannot be assured
and may be materially different than the recorded charge.


QUANTUM CORPORATION: Settles DLT Tape Antitrust Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quantum Corporation settled a class action lawsuit filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco.  Filed back in August 8, 2003, the suit also names as
codefendants:

     (1) Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.,

     (2) Maxell Corporation of America,

     (3) Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd., and

     (4) Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc.

The plaintiff, Franz Inc., alleges violation of California
antitrust law, violation of California unfair competition law,
and unjust enrichment.  Franz Inc. charges, among other things,
that the defendants entered into agreements and conspired to
monopolize the market and fix prices for data storage tape
compatible with DLT tape drives.  

Franz seeks an order that the lawsuit be maintained as a class
action and that defendants be enjoined from continuing the
violations alleged in the complaint.  It also seeks compensatory
damages, treble damages, statutory damages, attorneys' fees,
costs, and interest.

In November 2005, the parties agreed to settle the litigation
for a mixture of cash and product contributions.  The settlement
terms will next be submitted to the Court for approval, which is
expected to occur in subsequent quarters.


RANDOM HOUSE: Lawsuit V. James Frey's Memoir Filed in Quebec
------------------------------------------------------------
A Montreal man is adding another lawsuit to the string of cases
filed against the author and publishers of James Frey's book "A
Million Little Pieces."

Joshua Adam Levy filed a complaint seeking class-status in a
Quebec Superior Court on behalf of Quebec readers who he claims
were defrauded by what they see as a literary fraud, according
to CTV.ca News.

Mr. Levy is suing Mr. Frey, publisher Random House Inc., and its
Canadian arm, Random House of Canada Ltd. for marketing the book
as non-fiction.  He is demanding $2 million as reimbursement for
the class.  Mr. Levy's lawyer is Jeff Orenstein.

Jennifer Cohn, a Manhattan social worker, on Jan. 30 filed a
suit against the author and the publisher claiming she was
'injured' by the book and asking $10 million in compensation.  
Karen Futernick filed a lawsuit in federal court in Manhattan on
Jan. 27, seeking the return of $14.95 she spent for the book
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 2, 2006).

Earlier, a suit was initiated in a Washington federal court
seeking compensation for lost time reading Mr. Frey's story of
recovery from alcohol and drug addiction.  Attorney Mike Myers
filed the suit, which is seeking class action status, on behalf
of two Seattle residents representing more than 2 million people
who bought the novel (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 27, 2006).

Chicago law firm Dale and lawyer Thomas Pakenas previously sued
Doubleday Books in a Cook County, Illinois court, alleging
consumer fraud (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 17, 2006).  The
company acted on behalf of Pilar More, who said she felt cheated
after knowing key details of the memoir were fabricated.  The
suit did not specify how much it is seeking for damages.

Mr. Frey previously admitted on "Larry King Live" at CNN that he
added some details to his story, but insisted that is part of
memoir-writing.


SIPEX CORPORATION: Settles Calif. Securities Fraud Suit for $6M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mel Lifshitz of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, lead counsel
for the plaintiffs in a securities fraud suit against Sipex
Corp. reached a $6 million class-action settlement with Sipex,
former Sipex Chief Executive Officer Walid Maghribi, and former
Sipex Chief Financial Officer Philip Kagel.

The action, which is entitled In re Sipex Corp. Sec. Litig., 05-
CV-00392-WHA, is pending in the Northern District of California.  
The case was brought on behalf of Sipex investors who suffered
losses in connection with their purchase of Sipex shares between
April 10, 2003 and Jan. 20, 2005.

A final hearing to approve the settlement is set April 6, 2006,
at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable William H. Alsup at the U.S.
Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California.  

Representing the defendants are Dale Richard Bish of Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, CA
94304, Phone: 650-804-4018; E-mail: dbish@wsgr.com; and Boris
Feldman of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road,
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050, Phone: 650-493-9300; Fax: 650-565-
5100; E-mail: boris.feldman@wsgr.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are David A. Priebe of DLA Piper
Rudnick Gray Cary U.S., LLP, 2000 University Avenue, East Palo
Alto, CA 94303-2248, Phone: 650-833-2000; Fax: 650-833-2001; E-
mail: david.priebe@dlapiper.com; and Uri Seth Ottensoser of
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (http://www.bernlieb.com)10  
East 40th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-779-1414; Fax:
212-779-3218.


UNIFI INC.: Reaches Settlement for N.C. Cotton Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina, Greensboro Division dismissed the consolidated
class action filed against Unifi, Inc. and certain of its
officers and directors, styled, "In Re Cotton Yarn Antitrust
Litigation."  

The suit is related to the Company's transactions with Parkdale
America, LLC, (PAL) a producer of cotton and synthetic yarns for
sale to the textile and apparel industries primarily within
North America.  

On January 14, 2005 with the consent of the plaintiffs, the
Judge in the case signed a "Notice and Order of Dismissal
Without Prejudice and Stipulation for Tolling of Statute of
Limitations and Tolling Agreement."  The Dismissal provides,
among other things, that:

    (1) the claims against the Company in the litigation are
        dismissed without prejudice;

    (2) the applicable statute of limitations with respect to
        the claims of the plaintiffs shall be tolled during the
        pendency of the litigation;

    (3) if the plaintiffs' counsel elect to rename the Company
        as a defendant in the litigation, for purposes of the
        statute of limitations, the refiling shall relate back
        to the date of the filing of the initial complaint in
        the litigation; and

    (4) the Company agrees to provide discovery in the
        litigation as though it was a party to the litigation,
        including responding to interrogatories, requests for
        production of documents, and notices of deposition.

Effective August 16, 2005, Parkdale Mills, Inc. and PAL signed a
Settlement Agreement with the "Class Representatives" and "Class
Members" (hereinafter collectively referred to as the
"Settlement Class") in the Consolidated Action agreeing to
settle the litigation.  Under the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, Parkdale Mills, Inc., PAL and their "joint venture
partners (with particular reference to Unifi, Inc.)" are
released upon final Court approval of the settlement.

The Court must approve the settlement before it is effective.  
It is believed that it will take quite some time before the
settlement is finally approved.  Until the Court finally
approves the Settlement Agreement, the Company remains unable to
determine the level of damages for which PAL may be liable or
the impact of such liability on the Company.  

On September 7, 2005, the Company and Parkdale Mills, Inc.
signed an Amendment to the PAL Operating Agreement that provides
that the burden of any portion of the settlement amount
contemplated in the Settlement Agreement that is to be borne by
PAL will be allocated to and borne by Parkdale Mills, Inc. as a
Member of PAL.

The suit is styled "In re Cotton Yarn Antitrust, Litigation,
MDL-1622," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, Greensboro Division, under Judge
James A. Beaty, Jr.


UNITRIN INC.: Warns of Several Suits that Could Damage Finances
---------------------------------------------------------------
Financial services company Unitrin, Inc. and its subsidiaries
are defendants in various lawsuits incidental to their
businesses.

The Company believes that there are meritorious defenses to
these lawsuits.  Certain of the lawsuits are pending in
jurisdictions that have a history of awarding damages, including
punitive damages that are disproportionate to the actual
economic damages alleged to have been incurred.

Additionally, some of these lawsuits seek class action status
that, if granted, could expose the Company to potentially
significant liability by virtue of the size of the purported
classes.  The Company believes that resolution of its pending
litigation will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial position.

However, given the unpredictability of litigation, there can be
no assurance that one or more of these lawsuits will not produce
a damage award, which could have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial results for any given period.

Unitrin is a $3 billion financial services company providing
several insurance and consumer finance products and services for
individuals, families, and small businesses.

Among the brands in the Company's Property and Casualty
Insurance business are Kemper Auto and Home, Unitrin Specialty,
and Unitrin Business Insurance, which sell personal and
commercial insurance through a network of independent agents,
and Unitrin Direct, which sells auto insurance directly to
consumers.  The Company's Life and Health businesses bring a
high level of personalized service to their customers. Unitrin's
Consumer Finance subsidiary, Fireside Bank, specializes in
automobile loans for the purchase of pre-owned vehicles.


VICORP RESTAURANTS: Reaches Settlement on Calif. Employee Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vicorp Restaurants, Inc. reached a settlement for two purported
class action claims filed in California State Court, alleging
violations of the state's labor laws.

Two former employees and one current employee brought the first
class action claim in October 2003, while the second class
action claim was brought in May 2004 by two former employees.
The complaints alleged that the Company violated California law
with regard to rest and meal periods, bonus payment calculations
(in the October 2003 complaint), overtime payments (in the May
2004 complaint) and California law regarding unfair business
practices.  The classes and subclasses alleged in the actions
have not been certified by the respective courts at the current
stages of the litigation, but generally are claimed in the 2003
complaint to include persons who have been employed by the
Company in California since October 17, 1999 in the positions of
food server, restaurant general manager and assistant restaurant
manager, and generally are claimed in the 2004 complaint to
include persons who have been employed by the Company in
California since May 21, 2000 in the positions of restaurant
general manager and restaurant associate manager.  No dollar
amount in damages was requested in either complaint, and the
complaints sought statutory damages, compensatory damages,
interest and attorneys' fees in unspecified amounts.

The parties have entered into a settlement agreement, which is
subject to the final approval of the court.  Under the terms of
the proposed settlements, the Company has agreed to pay up to an
aggregate of $6.55 million for the alleged claims and associated
legal fees, subject to partial indemnification.


WEIL-MCLAIN: Recalls GV Series Boilers due to Explosion Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Weil-McLain Company, of Michigan City, Indiana, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, voluntarily
recalled 1,131 units of GV Series Boilers.  Consumers are
advised to stop using the product immediately.

The company said the blower assembly is not properly sealed.  
Gas can leak during operation and accumulate.  If an ignition
source is present, a fire or explosion could occur.  No
incidents or injuries have been reported so far.

The recall affects Weil-McClain GV water boiler Models GV-3, GV-
4, GV-5 and GV-6 with a serial number/date code range of
CP5075477 to CP5221234, built from April 1, 2005 through October
31, 2005.  Serial numbers and date codes are located on the left
side of the jacket above the boiler rating label.

The U.S.-made products are sold at plumbing and heating
wholesale companies, and at independent plumbing heating
contractors.  Price to consumer (not installed) may range from
about $2,200 to $3,200.

Weil-McLain repaired all recalled boilers at no cost to
consumers.

Consumer Contact: Weil-McLain Consumer Relations, Phone:
(219) 879-6561 between 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. CT, Monday through
Friday; or http://www.weil-mclain.comon the Net.


WESTPOINT CORPORATION: Investors Sue over Failed Hotel Project
--------------------------------------------------------------
A group of property investors has filed a class action against
Westpoint Property in relation to its former developments in
Market Street, according to The Age.

Nine investors filed a case before a Victorian Supreme Court on
Dec. 15 to dissolve sales contracts for the group's planned
hotel apartments, lawyer for the group, Tracey Rothwell, said.  
The investors have yet to submit a statement of claim, according
to the report.

The application was filed seven days before the development was
placed in the hands of the receivers, Deloitte partners David
Lombe and Sal Algeri.  Westpoint Corp. is currently being wound
up by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in
the Federal Court.

Property investors bought 280 hotel apartments at 54-60 Market
Street before the development was placed in the hands of
receivers Deloitte on December 22 by the first mortgagee,
Perpetual, which is owed $54 million (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 8, 2006).

Melbourne lawyer Charles Slidders of the firm Jerrard & Stuk,
told The Sydney Morning Herald that five purchasers were
considering a class action against Company, because of concerns
that the contracts did not guarantee rental returns as agreed.  
Mr. Slidders explains that his clients wanted their deposits,
which are being held in a trust account, returned to them (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 8, 2006).

Deloitte partner Sal Algeri told The Sydney Morning Herald that
the firm had not received legal advice about the contracts but
had been told by the law firm representing the Company,
Schetzer, Brott & Appel, that the contracts were legally
enforceable (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 8, 2006).

Deloitte is yet to secure agreement from hotel apartment
operator Pacific International Hotel Group to extend a sunset
clause on its lease agreement, which expires on February 13.  
The Company had an agreement with Pacific International to lease
all the apartments from individual owners (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 8, 2006).

Jerrard & Stuk on the Net: http://www.js.com.au;Westpoint  
Corporation Contact: 45-55 Bay Street, Port Melbourne 3207,
Phone: 03 9646 1133; Fax: 03 9646 1577.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ANDRX CORPORATION: Fla. Names Lead Attorneys in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Order was entered in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Judge William P. Dimitrouleas) appointing
Pioneer Investment Management SGRpa as Lead Plaintiff, and law
firm Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP as Lead Counsel in the
securities case against Andrx Corporation (ADRX). Pioneer
Investment Management SGR SpA is being represented by the law
firm of Avv. Pietro Adami LL.M.

For more information, contact: Eric J. Belfi of Murray, Frank &
Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York
10016; Phone: (800) 497-8076, (212) 682-1818; Fax: (212) 682-
1892; E-mail: info@murrayfrank.com; Pietro Adami of Avv. Pietro
Adami LL.M, Via G. Marconi 60, 37122 Verona, Italy, Phone:
390458000952; Fax: 390458009563; E-mail: veronalaw@iol.it.


DIEBOLD, INC.: Feb. 13 Deadline to File as Lead Plaintiff Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Smith & Smith LLP announces a Feb. 13, 2006, deadline to move to
be a lead plaintiff in the securities class action lawsuit filed
on behalf of shareholders who purchased the securities of
Diebold, Inc. between Oct. 22, 2003 through Sept. 20, 2005.  The
shareholder lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period
concerning the Company's performance and prospects, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Diebold securities. No class
has yet been certified in the action.

For more information, contact Howard Smith, Esquire of Smith &
Smith LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania
19020, Phone: (866) 759-2275 (toll-free); E-mail:
howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law firm Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. filed on Feb. 1 a
class action on behalf of all purchasers of Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc. securities between May 13, 2005, and August 9,
2005.  The action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California against the Company and certain
senior officers and directors.

The Complaint alleges that the Company and the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, when they failed
to disclose or misrepresented these material adverse facts:

     (1) the Company's margins were negatively impacted by the
         rise in short-term interest rates; as a result, Impac
         would not be able to sustain its dividend payouts;

     (2) the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

     (3) the Company's statements with respect to its financial
         condition and future prospects lacked any reasonable
         basis when made.

On August 9, 2005, Impac announced that it had posted a net loss
of $55 million, or $(0.78) per share, versus a profit of $143.2
million or $2.17 per share.  The Company also forecasted a cut
in its dividend from $0.75 per share to $0.50 to $0.60 per share
in the third quarter.  In reaction to this news, shares of Impac
fell $2.39 per share, or 14.6% on August 10, 2005, to close at
$13.98 per share.

For more information, contact Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq. of
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., 100 Washington Avenue South,
Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN  55401; Phone: (612) 339-6900; E-
mail: gmfishbein@locklaw.com.


JARDEN CORPORATION: Stock Fraud Suit Filed over Holmes Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law Firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of all securities purchasers of Jarden Corp. (JAH)
between June 29, 2005 and Jan. 11, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint charges home products maker Jarden and certain of
its officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Jarden operates in three primary business
segments through a number of brands.  

The complaint alleges that defendants' issued a series of false
and misleading statements to the market artificially inflating
the Company's stock.  More specifically, the Defendants failed
to disclose these materially adverse facts to the market:

     (1) that the merger between Jarden and Holmes Group, Inc.
         was plagued by integration problems;

     (2) that the statements concerning growth from the Holmes
         acquisition were inherently unreliable because Holmes
         had no reasonable way to repeat its performance in 2005
         due to the loss of tens of million of dollars in
         revenue from a deal Holmes had with Procter & Gamble;

     (3) that the Company's statements concerning the Holmes  
         acquisition were based on overly optimistic forecasts;
         and

     (4) that as a result of this, the Company's statements
         concerning its financial well-being were lacking in a
         reasonable basis when made.

On January 12, 2006, prior to the opening of the market, Jarden
provided a business update for fiscal 2005 as well as its
outlook for fiscal 2006.  Therein, the Company stated that
Holmes' profit margins and product mix were not what the market
had been led to expect.  

More specifically, Jarden stated: "In hindsight, the original
forecasts for Holmes provided to us at the time of the
acquisition were overoptimistic.  This fact [covered] with the
integration of entrepreneurial business such as Holmes during
the busiest season resulted in a significant burden for the
management and infrastructure of the business.  In short, during
2005, the business did not perform up to the level we expected
it to."  On news of this, shares of Jarden fell $3.37 per share,
or 11.08 percent, to close at $27.05 per share on January 12,
2006.  Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

For more information, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard
A. Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
(http://www.sbclasslaw.com),280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor,  
PA 19087, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706;
E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.


ROYAL GROUP: Charles Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law firm Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated securities class
action on behalf of:

     (1) shareholders who purchased or acquired common stock of
         Royal Group Technologies Limited on the New York Stock
         Exchange (RYG) or,

     (2) U.S. citizens or entities, who purchased or otherwise
         acquired the common stock of Royal Group Technologies         
         Limited on the Toronto Stock Exchange, between Feb. 24,
         2000 and Oct. 18, 2004, inclusive.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against defendant Royal Group and one or
more of its officers and/or directors.  The action charges that
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.
Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel
unless you retain one.

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


SONUS NETWORKS: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law firm Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C. initiated a lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, on
behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of Sonus Networks Inc. (NASDAQ:SONS) between
Dec. 11, 2000 and Jan. 16, 2002, inclusive.  The lawsuit was
filed against Sonus and certain officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  Specifically, it is alleged that
Defendants knowingly or recklessly issued a series of false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's performance,
future prospects, and quality of its products.

On January 16, 2002, Sonus announced fourth quarter and year-end
2001 results.  The Company reported a net loss of $13.4 million
or $0.07 per share for the fourth quarter of 2001 compared to an
actual net loss of $6.3 million or $0.04 per share for the
fourth quarter of 2000.  In reaction to this news, shares of
Sonus dropped below $5 per share, from a Class Period high of
more than $45 on January 31, 2001.

For more information, contact Mark S. Goldman, Esq. of Goldman
Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-753-2796.



                            *********


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  * * *