CAR_Public/060214.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, February 14, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 32

                            Headlines

ALABAMA: Court Drops Hoover Officials from Immigration Lawsuit
ALLIANCE PHARMACEUTICAL: Stock Suit Settlement Trial Set Feb. 25
APPLE COMPUTER: Facing Lawsuit over iPod Nano Player in Calif.
AQUILA INC.: Kan. Judge Approves $1M Settlement in Merger Suit
ASIA PULP: Litigation Settlement Hearing Set February 27, 2006

AWB LTD.: Shares Drop on Cole Investigation; Could Face Lawsuit
BANK OF AMERICA: Parmalat Commissioner Has RICO Claims vs. BofA
CARDINAL HEALTH: Calif. Court Dismisses Consolidated ERISA Suit
CORNELL COMPANIES: Settles Tex. Securities Litigation for $7M
DIEBOLD INC.: Scott+Scott Filing Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Motions

EXXON MOBIL: Plaintiff Objects to Dismissal of Baton Rouge Suit
FRANKLIN TEMPLETON: Faces Market Timing Litigations in Canada
GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
GOLDMAN SACHS: D.C. Certifies Subclasses in Iridium World Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Calif. Lawsuit over 2001 Exodus Offering

GOLDMAN SACHS: Settles Mass. Suit Over Owens Corning Offering
HAWAII: Part-time Teacher Files Suit for 10-Year Back Salaries
ISRAEL: Suit Filed over Construction Work at Ancient Graveyard
LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS: Tenn. Court Approves ADA Lawsuit Settlement
MAINE: Defendants Argue Court's November Strip Search Ruling

MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Calif. Lawyer Derails $1.1B Settlement
NELLCOR PURITAN: Faces 12 Consumer Fraud Suits in C.D. Calif.
OMNICOM GROUP: Furnishes Documents in N.Y. Securities Fraud Case
PANTRY INC.: Plaintiffs Seek Remand of NC Lawsuit to State Court
PIP/USA INC.: Ill. Court Dismisses Four Consumer Fraud Suits

REFCO, INC.: Bankruptcy Judge Appoints Lead Lawyers in Suits
SFC AMERICA: Recalls Fire Extinguishers on Risk of Malfunction
STAR GAS: Awaits Conn. Court Decision in Consolidated Stock Suit
VSM SEWING: Swedish Firm Recalls Sewing Machines on Fire Hazard
SYNCOR INT'L: Awaits Calif. Appellate Ruling for Securities Suit

TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Face Securities Lawsuit in N.J.

                   New Securities Fraud Cases       

JARDEN CORP.: Stull, Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
NASH FINCH: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline Set Feb. 17
SERACARE LIFE: Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Filing Set Feb. 21


                            *********


ALABAMA: Court Drops Hoover Officials from Immigration Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge removed the Hoover Police Department, Mayor Tony
Petelos and all seven City Council members as defendants from an
immigration lawsuit filed by a former Vestavia Hills resident.

The suit was filed on Dec. 28, 2005 by attorney George
Huddleston, III, in the U.S. District Court in Alabama on behalf
of Anel Mancera-Ramirez, who is now living in Mexico.  The suit
continues against the city of Hoover, Police Chief Nick Derzis
and Jefferson County District Judge Robert Cahill.  A dismissal
motion has been filed on behalf of the defendants.

The suit asks to include at least 500 legal or illegal Hispanic
immigrants who have or might have been coerced into pleading
guilty to possessing forged instruments.  It would also include
those who have been subjected to illegal stops, searches,
arrests, charges, convictions and sentences (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 3, 2006).  Ms. Mancera-Ramirez has pleaded guilty
to second-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument, a
felony, leading to her deportation, Mr. Huddleston said.  

The suit was styled, "Mancero-Ramirez v. Hoover, Alabama, City
of et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-02618-KOB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, under Judge
Karon O. Bowdre.  Representing the Defendants is George
Huddleston, III, 5133 Selkirk Drive, Birmingham, AL 35242,
Phone: 991-1567, E-mail: hooaah@bellsouth.net.


ALLIANCE PHARMACEUTICAL: Stock Suit Settlement Trial Set Feb. 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $4,750,000
settlement in the matter, "In re Alliance Pharmaceutical Corp.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-1674 (SCR)."  

The case was brought on behalf of all persons and entities,
which exchanged the common stock of Molecular Biosystems, Inc.
(MBI) for the common stock of Alliance Pharmaceutical Corp.
pursuant to a merger of MBI and a subsidiary of Alliance on or
about December 29, 2000.

The hearing will be held on February 25, 2006, at 3:00 p.m. in
the U.S. District Courthouse, 300 Quarropas St., White Plains,
NY 10601.

Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is on April 14, 2006.
Any objections to the settlement must be filed by February 1,
2006.

For more details, contact Berdon Claims Administration, LLC,
P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, NY 11753-8914, Phone: (800) 766-330,
Telecopier: (516) 931-0818 or Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison
Ave., 8th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (877) 935-7400, Web
site: http://www.whesq.com.  


APPLE COMPUTER: Facing Lawsuit over iPod Nano Player in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Los Angeles consumer group is suing Apple Computer Inc. for
alleged defects on its iPod nano player, and breach of warranty
conditions, Associated Press reports.

The suit filed by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer
Rights with the San Mateo County Superior court alleged that the
screen is easily scratched, and that Apple breached product
warranty by charging $25 for replacements.  It is seeking class-
action certification to cover an unspecified number of iPod nano
player buyers.  Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy of Burlingame
is acting on behalf of the consumer group.

The plaintiffs want Apple to recall or repair the defective
products for free, or refund the purchase price to customers
should, and warn users accordingly in its warranty coverage
terms.

The original iPod nano player debuted in 2001.  The Company sold
more than 30 million units last year.  Recently, the iPod has
been the subject of several lawsuits.  One pending case claims
it can cause hearing loss, another alleged the design of the
iPod nano screen is inherently flawed.  


AQUILA INC.: Kan. Judge Approves $1M Settlement in Merger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Gaitan Jr. in Kansas City
approved a $1 million settlement of five class action lawsuits
against Aquila Inc., according to The Kansas City Star.

The report said attorney fees will take $288,458 of the $1
million settlement.  A company that will administer claims is
being paid $102,200.  The remaining amount will be distributed
to approximately 18,000 investors who filed claims against the
firm.

The litigation stemmed from a 2002 stock buyback by Aquila,
which was then known as UtiliCorp United Inc.  It specifically,
focused on the company's failure to form an independent audit
committee after it spun off 20% of its energy trading
subsidiary's stock in April 2001.  The lawsuits alleged that the
failure to form an audit committee allowed UtiliCorp to buy back
the stock at a less-than-optimum price per share (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 2, 2005).

The companies recombined nine months later, when UtiliCorp
officials decided the subsidiary needed the help of UtiliCorp's
balance sheet and UtiliCorp reacquired the shares.  UtiliCorp
then changed its name to Aquila, the name of the subsidiary.   

In an attempt to end litigation over its buyback of shares in
early 2002, Aquila Inc. settled five securities class action
lawsuits for $1 million in cash, The Kansas City Star reports.  

The settlement recently received preliminary approval from Judge
Fernando Gaitan in October.  Back in March, Judge Gaitan threw
out the suits, finding that the shareholder-plaintiffs were
unable to show that Aquila's alleged misrepresentations had
caused them damages.  The plaintiffs though appealed, and Aquila
agreed to the settlement to end the appeal.  Judge Gaitan's
March ruling was a major legal victory for the Kansas City-based
utility, which had faced a host of copycat actions seeking
damages of at least $174 million.  The suits were later
consolidated into one action (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2,
2005).


ASIA PULP: Litigation Settlement Hearing Set February 27, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness haring for the proposed $46 million
settlement in the matter, "In re: Asia Pulp & Paper Securities
Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-7351 (JES)."  

The case was brought on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired any of the publicly traded
securities of the Asia Pulp & Paper Company Ltd. and its
subsidiaries during the period between August 28, 1998 and April
4, 2001.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable John E. Sprizzo in
the U.S. District Court, 40 Centre St., New York, NY 10007, at
3:00 p.m., on February 27, 2006.

Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is on March 6, 2006.
Any objections to the settlement must be filed by February 6,
2006.

For more details, contact In re: Asia Pulp & Paper Securities
Litigation, c/o Analytics Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box
2002, Chanhassen, MN 55317-2002, Phone: (866) 314-5805, Web
site: http://www.appsecuritieslitigation.com;Paul D. Young,  
Esq. of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, Phone:
(212) 594-5300; and Joshua N. Rubin, Esq. of Abbey Gardy, LLP,
Phone: (212) 889-3700.


AWB LTD.: Shares Drop on Cole Investigation; Could Face Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman is considering class action
against Australian wheat exporter AWB Ltd. on behalf of
shareholders who lost money in the wake of an inquiry into the
firm's business deal with Saddam Hussein's government, The
Australian reports.

Shares in AWB fell 30% since the first revelations that retired
Judge Terence Cole is investigating the firm for payments it
made in Iraq through the United Nations' oil-for-food program.  
A United Nations report last year found out that AWB paid
US$221.7 million in kickbacks to a trucking company linked to
Saddam Hussein's deposed government.  The Cole inquiry began
public hearings on Jan. 16.

According to the report, Maurice Blackburn said it was clear
that shareholders had been victims of the company's failure to
disclose its true dealings with the Iraqi government.

The report came as the company indicated it is reorganizing its
corporate governance structure.  It hired professional services
firm KPMG to review the governance, internal reporting
structures and practices of the company.

AWB Ltd on the Net: http://www.awb.com.au/growers/;Maurice  
Blackburn on the Net: http://www.mauriceblackburncashman.com.au/


BANK OF AMERICA: Parmalat Commissioner Has RICO Claims vs. BofA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York rules that Dr. Enrico Bondi,
extraordinary commissioner of Parmalat Finanziaria and its
debtor-affiliates, has valid claims under the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the North Carolina
RICO Act against Bank of America and certain of its affiliates
for the bank's role in Parmalat's collapse.

Specifically, Judge Kaplan says BofA is liable for its role in a
December 1996 loan to Parmalat Argentina, and a December 1997
Parmalat Venezuela transaction.

BofA loaned $60,000,000 to Parmalat Argentina, which was
guaranteed by Parmalat SpA.  As previously reported, Dr. Bondi's
first amended complaint alleged that a side letter concealed the
actual interest rate, making it appear that the loan terms were
typical of a healthier company.  Dr. Bondi said the transaction
was a rollover of debt by corrupt Parmalat insiders.  In October
1997, he said, BofA facilitated a $150,000,000 private placement
by Parmalat Trust, the proceeds of which were used to pay off
the $60,000,000 loan.

BofA also entered into an $80,000,000 five-year credit agreement
with one of Parmalat's Venezuelan subsidiaries in 1997.  The
First Amended Complaint alleged that a side letter gave BofA
additional guarantees, a $120,000 "arrangement fee," and
interest beyond the publicly disclosed rate.  Dr. Bondi said the
loan proceeds were used to roll over maturing loans into new
ones, which hid "the deteriorating credit and poor liquidity of
Parmalat and its subsidiaries, caused by the managers' looting
scheme."

Dr. Bondi said BofA failed to disclose (1) the true interest
rate of the December 1996 loan to Parmalat Argentina, and (2)
its real exposure in the December 1997 Parmalat Venezuela
transaction.

BofA sought dismissal of the First Amended Complaint, arguing
that the Parmalat Debtors are bound by their admissions in the
original complaint and that Dr. Bondi "may not file an amended
complaint that contradicts the factual allegations in the
[o]riginal [c]omplaint."

Judge Kaplan, however, finds BofA's argument meritless.  While
prior inconsistent pleadings normally are admissible against a
party, they ordinarily are "controvertible, not conclusive"
admissions, he says.

Judge Kaplan notes that the First Amended Complaint tells a
different story as to the motivations and actions of the main
players.  In contrast to the original complaint, the Amended
Complaint alleges that Parmalat itself did not benefit from sham
transactions BofA designed.

Dr. Bondi's claim for vicarious liability under federal and
North Carolina law, however, is dismissed.  Judge Kaplan points
out that vicarious liability is a theory of liability -- in Dr.
Bondi's case under RICO -- not a separate cause of action.  The
claim is redundant of the RICO claims.

A full-text copy of the District Court's opinion is available at
no charge at:

    http://www.parmalat.net/en/doc/show_case_doc%5B1%5D.pdf

                       Parmalat's Statement

Collecchio (Parma), Italy -- February 2, 2006 -- A U.S.
Federal District Judge, in a ruling published on Tuesday, 31
January 2006, confirmed Parmalat's right to pursue its action
for damages against Bank of America in relation to Europe's
largest ever corporate fraud.

The Judge also ruled that a claim under the provisions of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) laws of
the U.S. can be pursued by Parmalat.  Claims under such
provisions could be subject to trebling.  This claim is
additional to the aiding and abetting, breach of fiduciary duty
and civil conspiracy claims that the same Judge had already
sustained.

Parmalat clarifies that as a result of this ruling the scope of
the claims in the case has been substantially increased and that
in the event that anyone of its claims against Bank of America
under this civil action were to succeed at trial, the Court
would be entitled to award full damage relief in Parmalat's
favor.  (Parmalat Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 69, Febr. 11,
2006, Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 Fax: 215-
945-7001)

The case is styled "Bondi v. Bank of America Corp. et. al (1:05-
cv-04015-LAK)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.  
Representing the plaintiff(s) are: J. Mitchell Aberman of James,
McElroy & Diehl, 600 S. College Street, Charlotte, NC 28202,
Phone: (704) 372-9870; Fax: (704) 333-5508; and Philip S.
Anderson of Long, Parker & Warren, P.A., P.O. Box 7216,
Asheville, NC 28802, Phone: (828) 258-2296.

Representing the defendant(s) are E. Osborne Ayscue, Jr. of
Helms, Mulliss & Wicker, PLLC, 201 North Tryon Street,
Charlotte, NC 28202, Phone: (704) 343-2000; Fax: (704) 343-2300;
and John H. Cobb of Helms, Mulliss & Wicker, PLLC, 201 North
Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC 28202; Phone: (704) 343-2000; Fax:
(704) 343-2300.


CARDINAL HEALTH: Calif. Court Dismisses Consolidated ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
dismissed the consolidated class action filed against Cardinal
Health, Inc., Syncor International Corporation and certain
officers and employees of the Company.

A purported class action complaint captioned, "Pilkington v.
Cardinal Health, et al," was filed on April 8, 2003, against the
Company, Syncor and certain officers and employees of the
Company by a purported participant in the Syncor Employees'
Savings and Stock Ownership Plan (the "Syncor ESSOP").  A
related purported class action complaint captioned, "Donna
Brown, et al. v. Syncor International Corp, et al.," was filed
on September 11, 2003, against the Company, Syncor and certain
individual defendants.

Another related purported class action complaint captioned,
"Thompson v. Syncor International Corp., et al.," was filed on
January 14, 2004, against the Company, Syncor and certain
individual defendants.  Each of these actions was brought in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  A
consolidated complaint was filed on February 24, 2004 against
Syncor and certain former Syncor officers, directors and/or
employees alleging that the defendants breached certain
fiduciary duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) based on the same underlying allegations of
improper and unlawful conduct alleged in the federal securities
litigation.

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified money damages and
other unspecified relief against the defendants.  On April 26,
2004, the defendants filed Motions to Dismiss the consolidated
complaint.  On August 24, 2004, the Court granted in part and
denied in part Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.

The Court dismissed, without prejudice, all claims against
defendants Ed Burgos and Sheila Coop, all claims alleging co-
fiduciary liability against all defendants, and all claims
alleging that the individual defendants had conflicts of
interest precluding them from properly exercising their
fiduciary duties under ERISA.  A claim for breach of the duty to
prudently manage plan assets was upheld against Syncor, and a
claim for breach of the alleged duty to "monitor" the
performance of Syncor's Plan Administrative Committee was upheld
against defendants Monty Fu and Robert Funari.  Trial of these
claims was scheduled for January 7, 2006.

On January 10, 2006, the Court entered summary judgment in favor
of all defendants on all remaining claims.  Consistent with that
ruling, on January 11, 2006, the Court entered a final order
dismissing this case.

The suit is styled, "Carol Pilkington v. Cardinal Health Inc, et
al., Case No. 2:03-cv-02446-RGK-RC," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, under Judge R.
Gary Klausner.  Representing the Defendant/s is Ted Allan
Gehring, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, 333 S Grand Ave, 45th Fl., Los
Angeles, CA 90071-3197, Phone: 213-229-7000.   Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Christopher Kim, Lisa J. Yang, Lim Ruger & Kim, 1055 W
         7th St, Ste 2800, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone: 213-
         955-9500 Email: christopher.kim@lrklawyers.com or
         lisa.yang@lrklawyers.com  

     (2) Edward Chang, Joseph H. Meltzer, Schiffrin and
         Barroway, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087,
         Phone: 610-667-7706, E-mail: echang@sbclasslaw.com or
         jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com  

     (3) Edward W Ciolko, Richard S. Schiffrin, Schiffrin &
         Barroway, 3 Bala Plaza E, Ste 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA
         19004, Phone: 610-667-7706, Email:
         eciolko@sbclasslaw.com

     (4) Elizabeth A Leland, Lynn Lincoln Sarko, T. David
         Copley, Tobias Kammer, Keller Rohrback, 1201 3rd Ave,
         Ste 3200 Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-1900, Email:
         bleland@kellerrohrback.com, lsarko@kellerrohrback.com,
         dcopley@kellerrohrback.com   

     (5) Gary A Gotto, Dalton Gotto Samson & Kilgard, National
         Bank Plz, 3101 N Central Ave, Ste 900, Phoenix, AZ
         85012-2600, Phone: 602-248-0088, Fax: 602-230-6360

     (6) Ron Kilgard, Keller Rohrback, 3101 North Central
         Avenue, Suite 900, Phoenix, AZ 85012, Phone: 602-248-
         0088, Email: rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com  


CORNELL COMPANIES: Settles Tex. Securities Litigation for $7M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cornell Companies, Inc. (CRN: Cornell Corrections, Inc.) settled
a securities class action for $7.0 million.  The suit -- "In re
Cornell Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation" -- was originally
filed by certain Cornell stockholders in March 2002 on behalf of
all purchasers of Cornell's common stock from March 6, 2001 to
March 5, 2002.

The settlement amount will be funded through the Company's
directors' and officers' liability insurance and will have no
impact on the Company's financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.  Under the terms of the settlement,
Cornell has not admitted to any wrongdoing.

                         Case Background

In March and April 2002, the company, Steven W. Logan (its
former President and Chief Executive Officer), and John L.
Hendrix (its former Chief Financial Officer), were named as
defendants in four federal putative class action lawsuits
styled:

     (1) Graydon Williams, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
         Similarly Situated v. Cornell Companies, Inc, et al.,
         case no. H-02-0866, in the U.S. District
         Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
         Division;

     (2) Richard Picard, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
         Similarly Situated v. Cornell Companies, Inc., et al.,
         case no. H-02-1075, in the U.S. District
         Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
         Division;

     (3) Louis A. Daly, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
         Similarly Situated v. Cornell Companies, Inc., et al.,
         case No. H-02-1522, in the U.S. District Court
         for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division,
         and

     (4) Anthony J. Scolaro, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
         Similarly Situated v. Cornell Companies, Inc., et al.,
         case No. H-02-1567, in the U.S. District Court
         for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division

The lawsuits were putative class action lawsuits brought on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between
March 6, 2001 and March 5, 2002 and relate to the Company's
restatement in 2002 of certain financial statements (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 9, 2005).  

The lawsuits involved disclosures made concerning two prior
transactions executed by the Company: the August 2001 sale
leaseback transaction and the 2000 synthetic lease transaction.  
These four lawsuits were consolidated into the "Graydon
Williams" action and Flyline Partners, LP was appointed lead
plaintiff.  As a result, a consolidated complaint was filed by
Flyline Partners, LP.  Richard Picard and Anthony Scolaro were
also named as plaintiffs (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 9, 2005).

The court previously allowed plaintiffs to file an amended
consolidated complaint.  The amended consolidated complaint
alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated under
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and/or Section 15
of the Securities Act.  The amended consolidated complaint
seeks, among other things, restitution damages, compensatory
damages, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, costs,
expenses, attorneys' fees and expert fees (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 9, 2005).

In an order entered April 1, 2005, the court granted the motion
to dismiss with respect to the plaintiffs' securities fraud
claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5.  The court denied the motion to dismiss as to
the remaining claims covering the Company's secondary offering
in 2001 (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 9, 2005).  

Cornell Companies, Inc. -- http://www.cornellcompanies.com--
provides corrections, treatment and educational services
outsourced by federal, state and local governmental agencies.


DIEBOLD INC.: Scott+Scott Filing Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Motions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, LLC, which initiated the first securities fraud
class action against Diebold, Inc. (DBD) and certain of its
officers and directors on Dec. 13, 2005, is filing a Motion for
Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel.

The action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio (No. 05CV2873).  The Class is defined
in the complaint drafted by Scott+Scott as those who purchased
Diebold securities between October 22, 2003, and September 21,
2005, inclusive.  However, any purchaser of Diebold securities
can contact the firm as the Class Period may change as
information is revealed.

Diebold develops, manufactures, sells, and services systems,
software, and various products used to equip bank facilities
such as automatic teller machines.  The Firm has offices in
Ohio, Connecticut, and California.

On February 7, 2006, M.R. Kropko, an Associated Press business
writer quoted Diebold CEO Thomas Swidarski as stating: "there's
pieces and aspects of each of our businesses that I'm going to
be looking at with a very critical eye in terms of what the
future holds for us."

Mr. Kropko also wrote in his article that "Diebold's former
chairman and CEO, Walden O'Dell, resigned Dec 12. after several
years of controversy surrounding Diebold's touch-screen voting
machines and Mr. O'Dell's financial contributions to President
Bush's campaign."

The complaint alleges that defendants violated provisions of the
U.S. securities laws, causing artificial inflation of the
Company's stock price.  According to the complaint, during the
Class Period, the Company lacked a credible state of internal
controls and corporate compliance and remained unable to assure
the quality and working order of its voting machine products.

It is further alleged that the Company's false and misleading
statements served to conceal the dimensions and scope of
internal problems at the Company, impacting product quality,
strategic planning, forecasting and guidance and culminating in
false representations of astonishingly low and incredibly
inaccurate restructuring charges for the 2005 fiscal year, which
grossly understated the true costs and problems defendants faced
to restructure the Company.  The complaint also alleges over
$2.7 million of insider trading proceeds obtained by individual
defendants during the Class Period.

Finally, investors learned the truth about the adverse impact of
the Company's alleged defective and deficient inventory-related
controls and systems on Diebold's financial performance.  As a
result of defendants' shocking news and disclosures of September
21, 2005, the price of Diebold shares plunged 15.5% on unusually
high volume, falling from $44.37 per share on September 20,
2005, to $37.47 per share on September 21, 2005, for a one-day
drop of $6.90 per share on volume of 6.1 million shares --
nearly eight times the average daily trading volume. The stock
is currently trading at about $39.04.

For more information, contact partner David R. Scott of
Scott+Scott (http://www.scott-scott.com);E-mail:  
drscott@scott-scott.com; Phone: at 800/404-7770 or 800/332-2259.  

For Diebold investors: DieboldSecuritiesLitigation@scott-
scott.com.


EXXON MOBIL: Plaintiff Objects to Dismissal of Baton Rouge Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff attorneys filed objection to a magistrates'
recommendation to dismiss injury claims arising from an Exxon
Mobil chemical plant fire 12 years ago, according to Team 4
News.

In January, U.S. Magistrate Stephen Riedlinger in Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, recommended dismissing the suit saying none of those
in the class action have proven the plaintiffs were injured by a
smoke plume.  U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn of Dallas is to
give a final ruling on the case.

Plaintiff attorneys are disputing the magistrates' ruling.  They
said the recommendation was riddled with legal errors.  A
hearing on the objections is set Feb. 21, 2006 in Baton Rouge.

The suit was filed on behalf of people who are claiming property
damage and physical, mental and emotional injuries due to an
August 1993 fire at the Exxon plant in Baton Rouge.


FRANKLIN TEMPLETON: Faces Market Timing Litigations in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Templeton Investments Corp., a subsidiary of Franklin
Resources Inc. and the investment manager of Franklin
Templeton's Canadian mutual funds, was named in two class action
market timing lawsuits in Canada.

The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, monetary damages, an
order barring any increase in management fees for a period of
two years following judgment, and/or attorneys' fees and costs.

The suits are:

     (1) Huneault v. AGF Funds, Inc., et al., Case No. 500-06-
         000256-046, filed on October 25, 2004 in the Superior
         Court for the Province of Quebec, District of Montreal,
         and  

     (2) Heinrichs, et al. v. CI Mutual Funds, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 04-CV-29700, filed on December 17, 2004 in the
         Ontario Superior Court of Justice.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman, Sachs & Co. and its chief executive, Henry M. Paulson,
Jr. were named as defendants in a purported class action filed
originally on July 18, 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada on behalf of purchasers of The Goldman Sachs
Group, Inc. stock from July 1, 1999 through May 7, 2002.

The complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties and violated the federal securities laws in connection
with the firm's research activities.  The complaint seeks, among
other things, unspecified compensatory damages and/or
rescission.  The action was transferred on consent to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, defendants
moved to dismiss the amended complaint on August 30, 2004, and
the district court granted the motion with leave to amend by
order dated February 17, 2005.  Plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint on February 25, 2005, and defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on March 24, 2005.

The suit is styled, "Lapin v. Goldman Sachs & Co., Case No.
1:04-cv-02236-KMK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Kenneth M. Karas.  
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Ira M. Press of Kirby
McInerney & Squire, LLP, 830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York,
NY 10022, Phone: (212) 371-6600, Fax: (212) 751-2540, E-mail:
ipress@kmslaw.com; Richard J. Pocker of Dickerson, Dickerson,
Consul & Pocker, Rainbow Corporate Center, 777 N. Rainbow Blvd.,
Las Vegas, NV 89107, Phone: (702) 388-8600; and Howard G. Smith
of Smith & Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Bensalem, PA 19020, Phone:
(215) 638-4848.  Representing the Defendant/s is Sullivan and
Cromwell, LLP (NYC), 125 Broad Street, NY, NY 10007, Phone:
212-558-7384, Fax: 212-558-3588, E-mail: wheelers@sullcrom.com.


GOLDMAN SACHS: D.C. Certifies Subclasses in Iridium World Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a
motion that certifies two subclasses in an action captioned,
"Maytorena v. Iridium World Comm., et al.," which names Goldman,
Sachs & Co. as defendant.

The Company was named on May 26, 1999 as defendant in two
purported class action lawsuits commenced in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia brought on behalf of
purchasers of Class A common stock of Iridium World
Communications, Ltd.  The transaction relates to a January 1999
underwritten secondary offering of 7,500,000 shares of Class A
common stock of Iridium World at a price of $33.50 per share, as
well as in the secondary market.  

The defendants in the actions include:

     (1) Iridium, certain of its officers and directors,

     (2) Motorola, Inc. (an investor in Iridium),

     (3) and the lead underwriters in the offering, including
         Goldman, Sachs & Co.

The complaints in both actions allege violations of the
disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws and seek
compensatory and/or rescissory damages.  On May 13, 2002,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging
substantively identical claims as the original complaints.  The
consolidated suit arose out of alleged misrepresentations or
omissions regarding the Iridium satellite communications
business.  The suit was originally filed on April 22, 1999.

On July 15, 2002, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, and by a decision dated August
31, 2004, the motion was denied. On September 30, 2005, the
underwriter defendants moved for summary judgment.  On April 15,
2005, plaintiffs moved for class certification, and the district
court granted the motion, certifying two subclasses, by a
decision dated January 9, 2006.  Goldman, Sachs & Co. underwrote
996,500 shares of common stock and Goldman Sachs International
underwrote 320,625 shares of common stock for a total offering
price of approximately $44 million.

The suit is styled, "maytorena v. Iridium World Comm., et. al,
Case No. 1:99-cv-01333," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia under Judge Nanette K. Laughrey.  
Representing the Plaintiff/s is Andrew N. Friedman of Cohen
Milstein Hausfield & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Avenue, West
Tower, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005-3964, Phone:
(202) 408-4600, Fax: (202) 408-4699, E-mail: afriedman@cmht.com.  
Representing the Company are, Thomas Russell Leuba of Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20006-5866, Phone: (202) 956-7560, Fax: (202) 293-6330, E-mail:
leubat@sullcrom.com; and James B. Weidner and James F. Moyle of
Clifford Chance US LLP, 31 West 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019-
6131, Phone: (212) 878-8000 or (212) 878-8508, Fax:
212-878-8375, E-mail: james.weidner@cliffordchance.com and
james.moyle@cliffordchance.com.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Calif. Lawsuit over 2001 Exodus Offering
-------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman, Sachs & Co. continues to faces a class action for the
February 2001 offering of 13,000,000 shares of common stock and
$575,000,000 of convertible subordinated notes of Exodus
Communications, Inc.  

By an amended complaint dated July 11, 2002, the Company and the
other lead underwriters for the February 2001 offering were
added as defendants in a purported class action pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  
The complaint, which also names as defendants certain officers
and directors of Exodus Communications, Inc., alleges violations
of the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws
and seeks compensatory damages.

On September 26, 2001, Exodus Communications, Inc. filed for
protection under the U.S. bankruptcy laws.  On October 23, 2002,
the underwriter defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.  By a
decision dated August 19, 2003, the district court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to replead, and the
plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on January 15, 2004.
On March 12, 2004, the underwriter defendants moved to dismiss
the third amended complaint, and by a decision dated August 5,
2005, the district court denied the motion.

The underwriter defendants moved for reconsideration and
clarification on August 30, 2005, but the motion was denied by
an order dated September 12, 2005.  Goldman, Sachs & Co.
underwrote 5,200,000 shares of common stock for a total offering
price of approximately $96,200,000, and $230,000,000 principal
amount of the notes.

The suit is styled, "In re Exodus Communications, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:01-cv-02661-MMC," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
under Judge Maxine M. Chesney with referral to Judge Maria-Elena
James.  Representing the Plaintiff/s is John K. Grant of Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman Robbins LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite
2600, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax: 415-
288-4534, E-mail: johnkg@lerachlaw.com.  Representing the
Defendant/s are, Paul J. Collins and Jonathan C. Dickey of
Gibson, Dunn, Crutcher LLP, 1530 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA
94404, Phone: (650) 849-5300, Fax: (650) 849-5333, E-mail:
pcollins@gibsondunn.com and jdickey@gibsondunn.com.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Settles Mass. Suit Over Owens Corning Offering
-------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman, Sachs & Co. will contribute an estimated $2.5 million
to the settlement of a class action lawsuit arising from a 1998
offering by Owens Corning of two series of its notes.

The Company was named as a defendant in a purported class action
captioned, "Hancock Mutual Life, et al v. Goldman Sachs & Co.,
et al," which was filed on April 27, 2001 in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.  The defendants include
certain of Owens Corning's officers and directors and the
underwriters for the offering (including the Company, which was
the lead manager in the offering).  The offering included a
total of $550 million principal amount of notes, of which the
Company underwrote $275 million.  On October 5, 2000, Owens
Corning filed for protection under the U.S. bankruptcy laws.

The lawsuit, brought by certain institutional purchasers of the
notes, alleges that the prospectus issued in connection with the
offering was false and misleading in violation of the disclosure
requirements of the federal securities laws.  The plaintiffs are
seeking, among other things, unspecified damages.  The
underwriter defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on
November 14, 2001.  

By a decision dated August 26, 2002, the federal district court
denied the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss, and by a
decision dated March 9, 2004, granted plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  On November 4, 2005, the underwriter
defendants reached an agreement in principle to settle all
claims against them for an aggregate payment of $8.25 million,
of which Goldman, Sachs & Co. will contribute approximately $2.5
million.  The settlement remains subject to, among other things,
documentation and court approval.

The suit is styled, "Hancock Mutual Life, et al v. Goldman Sachs
& Co., et al, Case No. 1:01-cv-10729-RWZ," filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts under
Judge Rya W. Zobel.  Representing the Defendant/s are, David A.
Bunis, Daniel J. Cloherty and William H. Kettlewell, Dwyer &
Collora, LLP, 12th Floor, 600 Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA 02210-
2211, Phone: 617-371-1000, Fax: 617-371-1037, E-mail:
dbunis@dwyercollora.com, dcloherty@dwyercollora.com and
wkettlewell@dwyercollora.com; and Richard L. Stone and Mark A.
Strauss of Kirby, McInerney & Squire, LLP, 830 Third Ave., 10th
Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-371-6600, Fax:
212-751-2540.  

Representing the Defendant/s are, Timothy C.
Blank, Joseph A. Tate and Kevin T. Kerns of Dechert, LLP, 200
Clarendon St., 27th Floor, Boston, MA 02116, Phone:
617-728-7100, Fax: 617 426-6567, E-mail:
timothy.blank@dechert.com; and
John D. Donovan, Jr. of Ropes & Gray, LLP, One International
Place, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-951-7566, Fax: 617-951-7050,
E-mail: jdonovan@ropesgray.com.


HAWAII: Part-time Teacher Files Suit for 10-Year Back Salaries
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Honolulu woman has accused the Department of Education of
underpaying part-time teachers like her, according to the
Honolulu Advertiser.

Dianne Kawashima, part-time teacher since 2001, filed a suit in
Circuit Court in behalf of other part-time teachers she alleged
are owed millions of dollars in back pay.  She is seeking
unspecified damages for hours worked between July 1996 and July
1, 2005.

DOE spokesman Greg Knudsen said his department had not seen the
lawsuit, according to the report.

Ms. Kawashima's attorney, Paul Alston, said the suit is similar
to one filed in 2002 by 9,000 substitute teachers.  The 2002
suit accused the state of failing to follow a pay scale that
linked daily wages for substitute teachers with salaries of
regular teachers.  The plaintiffs won a positive ruling in
December from Circuit Judge Karen Ahn, but the judge awarded
them back pay dating back only to November 2000 because of
statute of limitations.  The state has yet to decide if it will
appeal Judge Ahn's ruling.

According to Mr. Alston, it follows that the part-time teachers
were underpaid because their pay is also tied to the substitute
teacher scale.  He said the hourly rate for part-time teachers
is one-seventh of the daily rate for a substitute.


ISRAEL: Suit Filed over Construction Work at Ancient Graveyard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Three Palestinian families filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the
excavation of Jerusalem's oldest Muslim cemetery, according to
the International Middle East Media Center.

Lawyer Durragham Saif filed a class type petition to the Israeli
High Court on behalf of the families of Al Dijani, Nusseibeh and
Bader Elzain, all of whom have family members buried at the
Ma'man Allah graveyard.  The site is being excavated for the
construction of a 'Museum of Tolerance' aimed at promoting
mutual understanding between Judaism and other world religions.  
It is sponsored by the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal
Centre, in partnership with the Israeli Jerusalem municipality
and the Israeli government.

According to the report, contractors for the museum continue
excavating the site, which was a cemetery for at least 1,000
years, despite a temporary ban on work granted by the Islamic
Court, a division of Israel's justice system.

Ikrama al-Sabri, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the
Palestinian Territories, has called on Israeli Authorities to
stop what he calls a "desecration" of the place.


LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS: Tenn. Court Approves ADA Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
approved the settlement of the class action filed against
Lifepoint Hospitals, Inc. in relation to ten of its facilities,
alleging violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act
(ADA).

On January 12, 2001, Access Now, Inc., a disability rights
organization, filed a class action lawsuit against each of the
Company's hospitals alleging non-compliance with the
accessibility guidelines under the ADA.  The suit seeks
injunctive relief requiring facility modification, where
necessary, to meet the ADA guidelines, along with attorneys'
fees and costs.

In January 2002, the Court certified the class action and issued
a scheduling order that requires the parties to complete
discovery and inspection for approximately six facilities per
year.  As of June 30, 2005, the plaintiffs have conducted
inspections at 22 of the Company's hospitals.  

The District Court approved the settlement agreements between
the parties relating to ten of the Company's facilities. The
Company is now moving forward in implementing facility
modifications in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
The Company currently anticipates that the costs associated with
modifying three of these facilities will be approximately $1.0
million, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

As of December 31, 2005, the plaintiffs conducted inspections at
22 of Historic LifePoint hospitals.  To date, the District Court
approved the settlement agreements between the parties relating
to ten of our facilities.

The suit is styled, "Access Now Inc v. Lifepoint Hospitals, et
al, Case No. 4:01-cv-00002," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee under Judge James H.
Jarvis.  Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Linda F. Burnsed and
Stanley M. Chernau of Chernau, Chaffin & Burnsed, PLLC, One
American Center, 3100 West End Avenue, Suite 550, Nashville, TN
37203, Phone: 615-460-7478, Fax: 615-460-7484, E-mail:
schernau@ccblaw.net; and Charles D. Ferguson of de la O & Marko,
3001 S.W. 3rd Avenue, Miami, FL 33129, Phone: 305-285-2000, Fax:
305-285-5555, E-mail: ferguson@delao-marko.com.  Representing
the Defendant/s are, Andrew S. Naylor and Paula D. Walker of
Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, P.O. Box 198966, 511 Union
Street, Suite 2700, Nashville, TN 37219-8966, Phone:
615-244-6380, Fax: 615-2446804, E-mail: anaylor@wallerlaw.com
and pwalker@wallerlaw.com.


MAINE: Defendants Argue Court's November Strip Search Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys of Knox County and Sheriff Dan Davey asked a federal
judge to overturn a November ruling that allowed a class action
to proceed against their clients.

Senior U.S. Justice Gene Carter in November cleared the way for
a major class action against the county to continue in response
to a motion for summary judgment brought by Laurie Tardiff, a
Thomaston woman who filed suit against the jail, jail personnel
and Sheriff Davey in December 2002 (Class Action Reporter, Nov.
4, 2005).  

Ms. Tardiff, who is represented by Dale Thistle of Newport,
claimed the county violated the rights of hundreds of detainees
by conducting unconstitutional, and humiliating, strip searches
(Class Action Reporter, Nov. 4, 2005).

The suit was certified class action in November 2003, allowing
certain detainees booked into the Knox County Jail since 1996 to
pursue damages against the county.  In 1994 and again in 2000,
state jail inspector John Hinkley, now the Knox County Jail
administrator, found the jail noncompliant with Maine standards
for strip-searching every detainee booked into the jail (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 4, 2005).

Claims against Sheriff Davey as an individual were also upheld
by Judge Carter, who rebuked the sheriff for his "reckless
indifference of the constitutional rights" of Knox County Jail
detainees charged with misdemeanor crimes and his toleration of
the practice (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 4, 2005).  

The defendant lawyers' recent filing argues that the number of
illegal strip searching that Judge Carter noted in his November
decision failed to prove the practice of illegal strip searches
was "pervasive and widespread," according to the report.  The 17
confirmed strip searches of inmates in six sample months between
1998 and 2002 were just a fraction of the overall inmate
population considering there are approximately 30 such inmates
are booked into the county jail each month, they said.

The county also argues that the state inspections of the jail in
1994 and 2000, which deemed the jail noncompliant with state
strip-search laws, are just "snapshots in time" of the jail's
activity during the past years.

The case is scheduled for an April trial in U.S. District Court
in Portland.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Calif. Lawyer Derails $1.1B Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Q. Jakob, an obscure lawyer from Sacramento single-
handedly held Microsoft Corporation's settlement of an antitrust
case with California residents, The Forbes Magazine reports.

In the first of 15 deals that the Redmond, Washington-based
software giant struck with other state groups, which claimed the
Company was bullying people to buy its products, it settled the
California lawsuit back in 2003.  Under that deal, consumers,
businesses and the state's poorest schools would supposedly
receive $1.1 billion worth of vouchers for software and other
tech products.  Up to the present day though Californians are
still waiting for that windfall.

Previously, Mr. Jakob filed an objection, an appeal and a
request for review to thwart the settlement, arguing it merely
puts money in the Company's pocket.  A solo business litigator,
Mr. Jakob pointed out, "Microsoft wants young people to get
hooked on Windows.  These kids should be learning how to think,
not how to use Microsoft Office."

Since the settlement, the vouchers have lost 6% of their value
to inflation.  On the other hand, Mr. Jakob is echoing a
familiar complaint about voucher settlements: Many people in the
class never bother to redeem them, and they only end up aiding a
Company that was ostensibly penalized.  Meanwhile, the lawyers
who concoct these settlements get paid in cash.

The Company was beleaguered with 206 class actions around the
same time that Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia deemed the Company's
alleged bullying as a monopoly six years ago.  The legal gold
rush started in California, where the San Francisco law firm of
Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP filed the first class action
against the Company in February 1999.  The eventual settlement
in that state quickly became the template for how to settle
other cases.

State residents who bought Company products between 1995 and
2001 would get $5 to $29 per purchase, good for software and
some types of hardware.  Mr. Jakob contends that most of the
California class (14 million consumers and businesses) will end
up with little or nothing at all.  If California computer users
are like other typical members in class actions, most won't
claim their vouchers.  In fact, it appears that so far only 5%
have filed the paperwork.

The Company gets back a third of the value of any unclaimed
vouchers, while the remainder goes to schools with needy
populations in the form of vouchers worth various sums to buy
software and hardware.  Among the suggested software purchases
for the schools are a deluge of Company products: Windows, Excel
and PowerPoint.  Schools aren't prohibited from purchasing non-
Microsoft software, however they are encouraged not to with the
lure of "reasonable access" to the Microsoft Help Desk.  Half of
voucher amounts can be used to buy hardware and just like the
software purchases, the Company pushes its own wares, such as
MSNTV units (for Web surfing on a television set) and tablet
computers, a handheld device Bill Gates has been touting for
years.

In short, Mr. Jakob argues that the settlement will essentially
force schools to buy technology from the same vendor the
Townsend law firm so fervently argued had ripped off their
class: Microsoft.  He's seeking review with the California
Supreme Court in February after being rebuffed last month by a
lower appellate court.  Mr. Jakob is proposing to link lawyer
fees to the number of vouchers claimed, which gives more
incentive to serve the class.  In addition, he also wants
leftover funds to go to the government's antitrust arms or to be
distributed only to those who file, pro rata.  "Right now the
transaction costs exceed the expected benefits," he pointed out.

However, the Company's lawyer, Robert Rosenfeld told Forbes
Magazine, "The settlement is great for schools in California
that are starved for resources."

According to Spectrum Settlement Recovery, a San Francisco firm
that was founded to help Microsoft class members file claims,
seven states have mailed vouchers so far.  Response is typically
lackluster, for example in New Mexico only 3% of the class filed
for their vouchers.

The Townsend law firm, which attempted, unsuccessfully, to
separate Mr. Jakob from the rest of the class, still defends the
settlement, however lead partner Eugene Crew sees Mr. Jakob's
broader point.  He told The Forbes Magazine, "Class action is a
noble concept that has been completely perverted in practice."  
He adds, "I wouldn't do this again."

For more details, contact Eugene Crew, Richard Grossman and
Daniel Furniss of Townsend and Townsend and Crew, LLP, Two
Embarcadero Center, Eighth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111,
Phone:(415) 576-0200, E-mail: ecrew@townsend.com,
rlgrossman@townsend.com and djfurniss@townsend.com or visit,
http://www.townsend.com/news/pressrelease.asp?o=4308.   


NELLCOR PURITAN: Faces 12 Consumer Fraud Suits in C.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Twelve consumer class actions have been filed against Nellcor
Puritan Bennett, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California after the suit "Natchitoches Parish
Hospital Service District v. Tyco International, Ltd." was filed
in Aug. 29, 2005.

The complaints seek to recover overcharges the plaintiffs allege
they paid for pulse oximetry products as a result of
anticompetitive conduct by the Company in violation of the
federal antitrust laws.  The remaining eleven actions are:

     (1) Allied Orthopedic Appliances, Inc. v. Tyco Healthcare
         Group, LP, and Mallinckrodt, Inc. filed on August 29,
         2005,

     (2) Scott Valley Respiratory Home Care v. Tyco Healthcare
         Group LP and Mallinckrodt, Inc. filed on October 27,
         2005,

     (3) Brooks Memorial Hospital et al v. Tyco Healthcare Group
         LP filed on October 18, 2005,

     (4) All Star Oxygen Services, Inc. et al v. Tyco Healthcare
         Group, et al filed on October 25, 2005,

     (5) Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center, et al v. Tyco
         Healthcare Group LP filed on October 28, 2005,   
       
     (6) Nicholas H. Noyes Memorial Hospital v. Tyco Healthcare
         and Mallinckrodt filed on November 4, 2005,

     (7) North Bay Hospital, Inc. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, et
         al filed on November 15, 2005,

     (8) Stephen Skoronski v. Tyco International Ltd, et al
         filed on November21, 2005

     (9) Abington Memorial Hospital v. Tyco Int'l Ltd., Tyco
         Int'l (US) Inc.; Mallinckrodt, Inc., Tyco Healthcare
         Group LP filed on November 22, 2005.

    (10) South Jersey Hospital, Inc. v. Tyco International,
         Ltd., et al filed on January 24, 2006;

    (11) Deborah Heart and Lung Center v. Tyco International,
         Ltd., et al filed on January 27, 2006.


OMNICOM GROUP: Furnishes Documents in N.Y. Securities Fraud Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Omnicom Group, Inc. provided documents in a securities fraud
class action pending in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan.  
The suit was filed on behalf of a class of purchasers of Company
common stock from February 20, 2001 through and including June
11, 2002.

The complaint alleges that the Company defrauded investors by
failing to record significant losses and write-downs that it had
suffered in connection with a number of its investments in
Internet services companies.  Specifically, in the mid to late
1990's, the Company made significant investments in Internet
services companies hoping to benefit from the dot-com craze.

When the Internet market collapsed in mid-2000, however, those
investments became essentially worthless.  At that point, the
Company and its senior management were faced with a choice:
either they could admit that Omnicom's Internet strategy had
failed and record the impairment charges that were required
under generally accepted accounting principles, or they could
perpetrate a scheme to defraud investors into believing that
Omnicom had not suffered a loss on these investments and that it
had continued to meet or exceed Wall Street's estimates when
they knew that this was simply not the case.  

Omnicom chose the latter course.  At year-end 2000 and then
again in the first quarter of 2001, The Company fraudulently
avoided required impairment charges.  Then, in May 2001, it
orchestrated a sham transaction, the Seneca transaction, to
remove its failed Internet investments from its books without
recording any loss.

The truth about these events did not come to light until a year
later when the Chairman of the Company's Audit Committee
resigned and The Wall Street Journal ran an article revealing
that Omnicom had orchestrated the Seneca transaction to
improperly avoid required write-offs.  In response to these
disclosures, Omnicom's stock price plummeted.

On February 2, 2003, the Court appointed the New Orleans
Employees' Retirement System ("NORS") as Lead Plaintiff and
Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman, LLP, NORS' counsel, as
Lead Counsel.  NORS filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint on
May 19, 2003.

On July 15, 2005, NORS made a motion for class certification
before Judge Richard Conway Casey.  That motion is now fully
briefed and remains sub judice before the Court.  The on March
28, 2005, Judge Casey sustained the Amended Consolidated
Complaint.  According to the judge, the complaint adequately
stated a claim of fraud with respect to the Company's valuation
and accounting for its Internet investments and the Seneca
transaction it utilized to remove those assets from its books.

Since that time, the Parties have been engaged in fact discovery
and have raised several discovery disputes with the Court. On
August 4, 2005, Hon. Michael H. Dolinger, U.S. Magistrate Judge,
ordered the defendants to produce documents concerning other
internet-related assets the Company held, but did not transfer
to Seneca.  On September 9, 2005, NORS made a motion before
Magistrate Judge Dolinger challenging the defendants' assertion
of the attorney-client privilege based on numerous grounds,
including the crime-fraud exception.  That motion is now fully
briefed and remains sub judice before the Court.  

On January 10, 2006, the Court ordered that the defendants
submit certain of the purportedly privileged documents for in
camera review.  On that same day, Magistrate Judge Dolinger
modified the terms of the Confidentiality Order and ordered that
numerous documents the defendants claimed were confidential be
made publicly available.  In addition, the Court also issued on
that day an order rejecting the defendants' argument to have
expert discovery commence before the completion of fact
discovery.

The Company's lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell maintain in court
filings that the transfer of assets to Seneca was properly
accounted for and no write down was needed, as confirmed by two
independent auditing firms namely: Arthur Andersen and KPMG, and
that an informal Securities and Exchange Commission inquiry
hasn't resulted in action.  

The suit is styled, "In Re: Omnicom Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Richard C. Casey with referral
to Michael H. Dolinger.  Representing the Plaintiff/s Max W.
Berger and Douglas M. McKeige of Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger &
Grossmann, L.L.P., Phone: (212) 554-1400 and (212) 554-1481; and
David Avi Rosenfeld and Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach,
Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 58 South Service
Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100 and
631-367-1173, E-mail: drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com and
srudman@lerachlaw.com.  Representing the Defendant/s are, David
Harold Braff and Stacey Rubin Friedman of Sullivan and Cromwell,
LLP, 125 Broad Street, NY, NY 10007, Phone: 212-558-4705 and
212-558-4000, Fax: 212-558-3333 and 212-558-3588, E-mail:
braffd@sullcrom.com and friedmans@sullcrom.com.


PANTRY INC.: Plaintiffs Seek Remand of NC Lawsuit to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina to remand amended class action against Pantry,
Inc. to the state court.

The suit is styled "Constance Barton, Kimberly Clark, Wesley
Clark, Tracie Hunt, Eleanor Walters, Karen Meredith, Gilbert
Breeden, LaCentia Thompson, and Mathesia Peterson, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of classes of those similarly situated
vs. The Pantry, Inc."

The suit, filed in June 2004, seeks class action status and
asserts claims on behalf of the Company's North Carolina present
and former employees for unpaid wages under North Carolina Wage
and Hour laws. The suit also seeks an injunction against any
unlawful practices, damages, liquidated damages, costs and
attorneys' fees.

The suit originally was filed in the Superior Court for Forsyth
County, State of North Carolina. On August 17, 2004, the case
was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina and on July 18, 2005, plaintiffs filed an
Amended Complaint asserting certain additional claims under the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of present and former
store employees in the southeastern U.S. and adding one
additional named plaintiff, Chester Charneski.  
The Plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand the case to the
Superior Court for Forsyth County, which is presently pending
before the federal district court.

The suit is styled, "Barton, et al v. The Pantry, Inc., case no.
1:04-cv-00748-NCT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina, under Judge N.C. Tilley, Jr.  
Representing the plaintiffs are Robert M. Elliot and J. Griffin
Morgan of Elliot Pishko Morgan, P.A., 426 Old Salem Road,
Winston-Salem, NC 27101, Phone: 336-724-2828, Fax: 336-714-4499,
E-mail: rmelliot@epmlaw.com; and Charles Joseph, Joseph &
Herzfeld, LLP, 757 Third Ave., 25th Floor, New York, NY 10017,
Phone: 212-688-5640.  Representing the Company are
Kimberly Jo Korando, Kirk Alan Parry, Jr., Carl N. Patterson,
Kerry A. Shad, Donald Hugh Tucker, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett
Mitchell & Jernigan, POB 2611, Raleigh NC 27602-2611, Phone:
919-821-6671, Fax: 919-821-6800, E-mail: kkorando@smithlaw.com,
aparry@smithlaw.com, cpatterson@smithlaw.com,
kshad@smithlaw.com, dtucker@smithlaw.com.  


PIP/USA INC.: Ill. Court Dismisses Four Consumer Fraud Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery, dismissed
almost all counts in a consolidated amended class action against
the PIP/USA, Inc., which is alleging violations of the state's
Consumer Fraud Act.   

The initial five lawsuits filed were styled:

     (1) "Peggy Williams v. PIP/USA, Inc., Case No. 03 CH 9654,"

     (2) "Jessica Fischer Schnebel, et al. v. PIP/USA, Inc.,    
         Case No. 03CH07239,"

     (3) "Dawn Marie Cooper, et al. v. PIP/USA, Inc., Case No.
         03CH11316,"

     (4) "Miriam Furman, et al. v. PIP/USA, Inc., Case No.
         03CH10832" and  

     (5) "Karen S. Witt, et al. v. PIP/USA, Inc., Case No.
         03CH12928"

Counsel for Jessica Fischer Schnebel, et al. v. PIP/USA, Inc.
amended her complaint to include plaintiffs from the other four
cases, and each of the others has been voluntarily dismissed.  
The consolidated amended complaint contains counts alleging
product liability, breach of the implied warranties of
merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, violation
of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and third-party beneficiary
status.  Unspecified monetary damages, exemplary damages and
attorneys fees and costs are sought.  The Company and
PIP.America filed motions to dismiss the suit, the motion
remains pending.  Discovery is underway.  The plaintiffs have
not sought to date to certify any putative class.  

On January 26, 2006, PIP.America won dismissal of all counts in
these cases but the third-party beneficiary claims.  Plaintiffs
have until March 9, 2006 to file new complaints against
PIP.America.  If new complaints are held valid, and a judgment
or settlement against PIP.America results, Poly Implants
Protheses, S.A., a defendant in the Schnebel litigation, has
agreed that it will indemnify PIP.America for any losses it may
suffer as a result of the Illinois litigation.


REFCO, INC.: Bankruptcy Judge Appoints Lead Lawyers in Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
The court overseeing the bankruptcy proceedings of Refco, Inc.
has appointed lead attorneys in a class action against its
directors and underwriters, InstitutionalInvestor.com reports.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain of New York named PIMCO and
RH Capital Associates as lead plaintiffs, and the law firms of
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann and Grant & Eisendorfer as
lead counsel in the litigation.

Several lawsuits were filed against Refco after the company went
bankrupt just two months after its IPO in 2004.  The suits
seeking class action status allege violations of disclosure
requirements.  

Separately, the Company said that a shareholder derivative
action was filed in New York on behalf of Goldman Sachs against
some of the firm's officers and directors.  According to the
firm's filing, the suits allege that certain individuals failed
to ensure adequate due diligence was conducted before Refco's
$583 million IPO in 2004.  The lawsuits also name Refco, Inc.
and its affiliates, some Refco officers and directors, majority
investor Thomas H. Lee Partners LP and outside auditor Grant
Thornton as defendants.

Bernstein Litowitz on the Net: http://www.blbglaw.com/.  


SFC AMERICA: Recalls Fire Extinguishers on Risk of Malfunction
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Strike First Corp., of Scarborough, Ontario, Canada, is
recalling 50,900 dry chemical fire extinguishers.  Consumers are
advised to stop using the recalled products immediately.  The
fire extinguishers are imported by Strike First Corporation of
America (SFC America) of Front Royal, Virginia.

The company said the fire extinguishers can fail to discharge
properly when the trigger is activated, which puts consumers at
risk of fire-related injuries.  SFC America has received three
reports of the fire extinguishers failing to discharge properly
when activated.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall includes Strike First 2.5 lb. and 5 lb. dry chemical
fire extinguishers with model numbers WBSF-ABC110AP, WBSF-
ABC210AP, and WBSF-ABC340AP.  The model number is located under
the manufacturer's address on the far right hand side of the
instruction label.  The recalled fire extinguishers have serial
numbers:

Model Number  Serial Number Range
WBSF-ABC110AP  TC101566 through TC108819
WBSF-ABC210AP  TC114969 through TC135000
VV822001 through VV832000
WH161001 through WH167622
WBSF-ABC340AP  TC135894 through TC142345

The serial number is located on the extinguisher's label, below
the "UL" mark.  The fire extinguishers are red, and designed for
commercial, industrial, multi-residential and vehicle
applications.

The fire extinguishers, which were made in Canada, are sold at
fire extinguisher dealers nationwide from December 2002 through
April 2004 for between $13 and $21.

Consumers with fire extinguishers included in the recall are
advised to immediately contact SFC America for information on
how to arrange to have their extinguishers repaired.

Consumer Contact: SFC America, Phone: (800) 255-5515 between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday; SFC America on the
Net: http://www.strikefirstusa.com.


STAR GAS: Awaits Conn. Court Decision in Consolidated Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Star Gas Partners, L.P. is still awaiting the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut's decision to its motion
to dismiss a consolidated amended securities class action
styled, "In re Star Gas Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:04cv01766 (JBA)."  

The suit also names as defendants certain of the Company's
subsidiaries and officers and directors.  Initially several
lawsuits were filed, each styled:

     (1) Carter v. Star Gas Partners, L.P., et al, No 3:04-cv-
         01766-IBA, et. al

     (2) Feit v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1832
         (filed on 10/29/2004),

     (3) Lila Gold v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1791
         (filed on 10/22/2004),

     (4) Jagerman v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1855
         (filed on 11/3/2004),

     (5) McCole, et al v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-
         1859 (filed on 11/3/2004),

     (6) Prokop v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1785
         (filed on 10/22/2004),

     (7) Seigle v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1803
         (filed on 10/25/3004),

     (8) Strunk v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1815
         (filed on 10/27/2004),

     (9) Harriette S. & Charles L. Tabas Foundation v. Star
         Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1857 (filed on
         11/3/2004),

    (10) Weiss v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1807
         (filed on 10/26/2004),

    (11) White v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1837
         (filed on 10/9/2004),

    (12) Wood v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1856
         (filed on 11/3/2004)

    (13) Yopp v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1865
         (filed on 11/3/2004),

    (14) Kiser v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1884
         (filed on 11/9/2004),

    (15) Lederman v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1873
         (filed on 11/5/2004),

    (16) Dinkes v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No.04-1979
         (filed 11/22/04) and

    (17) Gould v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-2133
         (filed on 12/17/2004)

The Class Action plaintiffs generally allege that the
Partnership violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by purportedly
failing to disclose, among other things:

     (i) problems with the restructuring of the Company's
         dispatch system and customer attrition related thereto;

    (ii) that the Company's heating oil division's business
         process improvement program was not generating the
         benefits allegedly claimed;

   (iii) that Star Gas was struggling to maintain its profit
         margins in its heating oil division;

    (iv) that Star Gas' second quarter 2004 profit margins were
         not representative of its ability to pass on heating
         oil price increases; and

     (v) that Star Gas was facing an inability to pay its debts
         and that, as a result, its credit rating and ability to
         obtain future financing was in jeopardy.

The Class Action plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages including interest against the defendants
jointly and severally and an award of reasonable costs and
expenses.

On February 23, 2005, the Court consolidated the Class Action
Complaints and heard argument on motions for the appointment of
Lead Plaintiff.  On April 8, 2005, the Court appointed the Lead
Plaintiff.  Pursuant to the Court's order, the lead plaintiff
filed a consolidated amended complaint on June 20, 2005.  The
Consolidated Amended Complaint named as defendant:

     (a) Star Gas Partners, L.P.;

     (b) Star Gas LLC;

     (c) Irik Sevin;

     (d) Audrey L. Sevin;

     (e) Hanseatic Americas, Inc.;

     (f) Paul Biddelman;

     (g) Ami Trauber;

     (h) A.G. Edwards & Sons Inc.;

     (i) UBS Investment Bank; and

     (j) RBC Dain Rauscher Inc.

The Consolidated Amended Complaint added claims arising out of
two registration statements, the same transactions under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The
defendants have until August 19, 2005 to file an answer or
otherwise move to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint.

On September 23, 2005, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim
under the federal securities laws and failure to satisfy the
applicable pleading requirements of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 or PSLRA, and the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.  Plaintiffs filed their response to defendants'
motions to dismiss on or about November 23, 2005 and defendants
filed their reply briefs on December 20, 2005.  The motion is
now pending decision by the Court.  In the interim, discovery in
the matter remains stayed pursuant to the mandatory stay
provisions of the PSLRA.  

The suit is styled, "In re Star Gas Securities Litigation, Case
No. 3:04-cv-01766-JBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut under Judge Janet Bond Arterton.  
Representing the Defendant/s are, Terence J. Gallagher, III of
Day, Berry & Howard, One Canterbury Green, Stamford, CT 06901-
2047, Phone: 203-977-7300, Fax: 203-977-7301, E-mail:
tjgallagher@dbh.com; and Elizabeth K. Andrews of Tyler, Cooper &
Alcorn - NH, 205 Church St., P.O. Box 1936, New Haven, CT 06509-
1910, Phone: 203-784-8200, Fax: 203-777-1181, E-mail:
eandrews@tylercooper.com.  Representing the Plaintiff/s are:  

     (1) Jonathan F. Andres of Green Schaaf & Jacobson, P.C.,
         7733 Forsyth, Suite 700, St. Louis, MO 63105, Phone:
         314-862-6800, Fax: 314-862-1606, E-mail:
         andres@stlouislaw.com

     (2) David L. Belt of Jacobs, Grudberg, Belt, Dow & Katz,
         P.C., 350 Orange St., P.O. Box 606, New Haven, CT
         06503-0606, Phone: 203-772-3100, Fax: 203-772-1691, E-
         mail: dbelt@jacobslaw.com

     (3) Stuart L. Berman of Schiffrin & Barroway, 280 King of
         Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706,
         Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail: sberman@sbclasslaw.com

     (4) Joel H. Bernstein of Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP,
         100 Park Ave., 12th Fl., New York, NY 10017, Phone:
         212-907-0869, Fax: 212-818-0477, E-mail:
         jbernstein@labaton.com


VSM SEWING: Swedish Firm Recalls Sewing Machines on Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
VSM Group AB of Husqvarna, Sweden, and its subsidiary VSM Sewing
Inc. (Husqvarna Viking), of Westlake, Ohio, is recalling 55,000
Husqvarna Viking Designer I sewing and embroidery machines
following consumer product.  Consumers are advised to stop using
the recalled products immediately.

The companies said electrical arcing can occur in the machine's
power supply, posing a risk of fire.  The firm reports three
incidents of these machines overheating and catching fire.  One
incident resulted in extensive smoke damage to a consumer's
home, and the other two incidents resulted in minor property
damage.

The Husqvarna Viking Designer I sewing and embroidering machines
have white plastic exterior and contain the words "Husqvarna
Viking" and "Designer I."  The recall involves units with serial
number, which are located on the bottom of the machine, in the
following ranges:

Beginning with  Ending with
0               0 or 6
1                 9
2               3
3               1
4               2
5                0, 1, 3, 4 or 9
6               1, 3 or 4
7               1, 2 or 4
8               2 or 4
9                1 or 5

The sewing machines, which were made in Sweden, are sold at
independent sewing machine dealers nationwide from January 1999
through December 2004 for between $5,500 and $6,000.

Consumers are advised to stop using these sewing machines, and
return them to the dealer where purchased for a free repair.

Consumer contact: Husqvarna Viking, Phone:(800) 446-2333 between
9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday; On the Net:
http://www.husqvarnaviking.com.


SYNCOR INT'L: Awaits Calif. Appellate Ruling for Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Syncor International Corp. is expecting a California appellate
court's decision on the plaintiff's appeal of the third amended
consolidated securities complaint filed against the Company.

Purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company
and certain of its officers and directors, asserting claims
under the federal securities laws (collectively referred to as
the "Syncor federal securities actions").  All of these actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California. These cases include:

     (1) Richard Bowe v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., No. CV 02-
         8560 LGB (RCx) (C.D. Cal.),

     (2) Alan Kaplan v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., No. CV 02-
         8575 CBM (MANx) (C.D. Cal),

     (3) Franklin Embon, Jr. v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al.,
         No. CV 02-8687 DDP (AJWx) (C.D. Cal),

     (4) Jonathan Alk v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., No. CV 02-
         8841 GHK (RZx) (C.D. Cal),

     (5) Joyce Oldham v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., CV 02-8972
         FMC (RCx) (C.D. Cal),

     (6) West Virginia Laborers Pension Trust Fund v. Syncor
         Int'l Corp., et al., No. CV 02-9076 NM (RNBx) (C.D.
         Cal),

     (7) Brad Lookingbill v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., CV
         02-9248 RSWL (Ex) (C.D. Cal),

     (8) Them Luu v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., CV 02-9583 RGK
         (JwJx) (C.D. Cal),

     (9) David Hall v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., CV 02-9621
         CAS (CWx) (C.D. Cal),

    (10) Phyllis Walzer v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., CV 02-
         9640 RMT (AJWx) (C.D. Cal), and  

    (11) Larry Hahn v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., CV 03-52 LGB
         (RCx) (C.D. Cal.).

The Syncor federal securities actions purport to be brought on
behalf of all purchasers of Company shares during various
periods, beginning as early as March 30, 2000 and ending as late
as November 5, 2002. The actions allege, among other things,
that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by issuing a series of press releases and public
filings disclosing significant sales growth in the Company's
international business, but omitting mention of certain
allegedly improper payments to the Company's foreign customers,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Syncor shares.  

The Court in the Syncor federal securities actions has appointed
a lead plaintiff, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed
May 19, 2003, naming the Company and 12 individuals, all former
Company officers, directors and/or employees, as defendants.  
The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified money damages and
other unspecified relief against the defendants.  The Company
filed a Motion to Dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on
August 1, 2003, and on December 12, 2003, the Court granted the
Motion to Dismiss without prejudice.  

A second amended consolidated class action complaint was filed
on January 28, 2004, naming the Company and 14 individuals, all
former Company officers, directors and/or employees, as
defendants.  The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the second
amended consolidated class action complaint on March 4, 2004.  
On July 6, 2004, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
without prejudice as to defendants Syncor, Monty Fu, Robert
Funari and Haig Bagerdjian.  As to the other individual
defendants, the Motion to Dismiss was granted with prejudice.  
On September 14, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed a Motion for
Clarification of the Court's July& 6, 2004 dismissal order.  The
court clarified its July 6, 2004 dismissal order on November 29,
2004 and the lead plaintiff filed a third amended consolidated
complaint on December 29, 2004.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the third amended
consolidated complaint on January 31, 2005.  On April 15, 2005,
the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss with prejudice.  The
lead plaintiff has appealed this decision.  Both parties have
filed their appellate briefs and are awaiting further action
from the Appellate Court.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case include:

     (i) Abbey Gardy, LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY,
         10016, Phone: 212.889.3700, E-mail: info@abbeygardy.com

    (ii) Brian Felgoise, 230 South Broad Street, Suite 404,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215.735.6810, Fax:
         215/735.5185

   (iii) Chitwood & Harley, 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2900
         Promenade II, Atlanta, GA, 30309, Phone: 888.873.3999

    (iv) Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, 320 East 39th Street, New York,
         NY, 10016, Phone: 212.983.9330, Fax: 212.983.9331, E-
         mail: Nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com

     (v) Levy & Levy

    (vi) Shapiro, Haber & Urmy LLP, 75 State Street, Boston, MA,
         02109, Phone: 617.439.3939, Fax: 617.439.0134, E-mail:
         info@shulaw.com

   (vii) Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY,
         10022-6689, Phone: 877.370.7703, Fax: 212.486.2093, E-
         mail: IRRep@wolfpopper.com.


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Face Securities Lawsuit in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd. answers consolidated securities fraud
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

Previously, the court granted one plaintiff's motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff in "Stumpf v. Tyco International
Ltd.," an action originally filed on July 28, 2003 and "Loughlin
v. Tyco International Ltd., an action originally filed on
September 26, 2003.  

On December 13, 2004, lead plaintiff Mark Newby filed a
consolidated securities class action complaint purporting to
represent a class of purchasers of TyCom securities between July
26, 2000 and December 17, 2001.  Plaintiff names as defendants
Tyco International Ltd., TyCom, Ltd., Goldman Sachs & Co.,
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated and
Citigroup, Inc., (the "Underwriters") along with certain former
Tyco and TyCom executives.

The complaint asserts causes of action under Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder against Tyco, TyCom, Goldman Sachs,
Merrill Lynch, Citigroup and certain former Tyco and TyCom
executives.  The complaint alleges the TyCom registration
statement and prospectus relating to the sale of TyCom
securities were inaccurate, misleading and failed to disclose
facts necessary to make the registration statement and
prospectus not misleading.

The complaint also alleges the defendants violated securities
laws by making materially false and misleading statements and
omissions concerning, among other things, executive
compensation, Tyco's and TyCom's finances and TyCom's business
prospects.

On February 18, 2005, the Company moved to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action complaint.  On September 2,
2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire
granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to
dismiss.  The Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
allegations that the TyCom registration statement and prospectus
were misleading to the extent that they failed to disclose
alleged looting of Tyco by former senior executives, accounting
fraud, analyst conflicts and the participation by James Brennan
in the offering, because plaintiff failed to plead that those
alleged omissions were disclosed during the class period, with a
resultant drop in the value of TyCom stock.

However, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss with
respect to other allegations.  On September 19, 2005, plaintiff
filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's September 2,
2005 ruling with respect to Goldman Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated and Citigroup. Inc.

On January 6, 2006, the Court held that the Goldman Sachs & Co.,
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated and
Citigroup, Inc. should remain in the case on the claim
concerning TyCom's business prospects, but that the Section 11
claim related to alleged looting of Tyco by former senior
executives was dismissed as to both the Tyco defendants and the
Underwriters because the affirmative defense of lack of loss
causation was apparent on the face of the complaint.  On January
13, 2006, Tyco International Ltd. and TyCom answered the
consolidated securities class action complaint.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases       


JARDEN CORP.: Stull, Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody initiated class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons who purchased or acquired the publicly traded securities
of Jarden Corp. from June 29, 2005 through January 11, 2006
inclusive.

The complaint alleges defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false statements
regarding Jarden's financial condition.  Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose the following: (i) that the merger
between Jarden and Holmes was plagued by integration problems;
(ii) 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 millions of dollars in revenue from a deal Holmes had
with Procter & Gamble; and (iii) that Jarden's statements
concerning the Holmes acquisition were based on overly
optimistic forecasts.

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.  On this news, shares of Jarden fell
$3.37 per share, or 11%, to close at $27.05 per share on January
12, 2006.  Appointment for lead plaintiff is set no later than
April 4, 2006.

For more information, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. at Stull, Stull
& Brody, Stull, Stull & Brody (http://www.ssbny.com),6 East  
45th Street, New York, NY 10017 E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com, Phone: 1-
800-337-4983 (toll-free); Fax: at 212/490-2022.


NASH FINCH: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline Set Feb. 17
-----------------------------------------------------------
The deadline to file as lead plaintiff in the securities class
action filed against Nash Finch Company (NAFC) is Feb. 17, 2006.  

The suit, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota, was filed on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the common stock of NAFC between Feb. 24, 2005 and
Oct. 20, 2005.  

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 operations and financial performance,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Nash Finch Company
securities.  No class has yet been certified in the above
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.


SERACARE LIFE: Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Filing Set Feb. 21
-------------------------------------------------------------
All persons and institutions who purchased securities of
SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc. (Nasdaq:SRLS)(SRLSE) between Feb.
9, 2005 and Dec. 19, 2005, may move not later than February 21,
2006, to serve as lead plaintiff.

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

SeraCare manufactures biological products and services for the
diagnostic, therapeutic, drug discovery, and research
organizations worldwide.  The Complaint alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants orchestrated and actively
participated in improper accounting practices in direct
violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

In doing so, defendants (i) used improper revenue recognition
policies and practices; (ii) did not properly account for and
value inventory; (iii) failed to prevent certain Board members
from exerting undue influence on the financial reporting process
of the audit process; and (iv) neglected to maintain adequate
internal controls.  As a result, defendants were unable to
ascertain the true financial condition of the Company.

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

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

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



                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

Copyright 2006.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *