/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/051027.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, October 27, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 212


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: FDA Withdraws Approval For ADHD Drug Cylert
AK STEEL: Survivors of Employees Sue Over Benefits Calculations
AVON PRODUCTS: Faces Two New Lawsuits For Violations of ERISA
CAISSE DE DEPOT: Denies Charges in Northern Trust Investor Suit
CALIFORNIA: Students With Diabetes File Suit V. Education Bodies

CANADA: Suit Over Legionnaires' Disease Seeks $600M in Damages
DELTA CYCLE: Recalls 3.5T Picasso Bike Racks For Injury Hazard
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Stock Sales by Insiders Triggered Lawsuits
HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Ex-Caesars CEO Sues Over Stock Options
HAWAII: ACLU Files Lawsuit For Abuse, Negligence at Youth Prison

HELLENIC RUG: Recalls 1.8T Shag Leather Rags Due to Fire Hazard
ILLINOIS: City Officials' Objection Results in Less Cash Payment
INTELLIGROUP INC.: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in NJ
INTERIOR DEPARTMENT: Appeals Court Shelves Shutdown of Computers
KRISPY KREME: NC Judge Asked to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit

LITTON LOAN: Faces Lawsuit Over Theft of Personal Information
METROPOLITAN MORTGAGE: $7.25M Settlement Proposed in Summit Case
MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: Plaintiffs Seek NY Stock Suit Certification
NEW YORK: Firefighters Injured in 9/11 Attacks to Sue N.Y. City
OHIO: City Files Suit V. Travel Web Sites Over Inadequate Taxes

PRE-PAID LEGAL: Appeals Court Yet To Rule on OK Suit Dismissal
PRE-PAID LEGAL: Working To Settle Lawsuits For Membership Fraud
PRE-PAID LEGAL: Court Nixes Appeal of OK Certification Ruling
RADIAN GUARANTY: Court Affirms Commercial Nature of Transactions
SEMPRA ENERGY: Gas Utilities Antitrust Suit Goes to Trial Soon

SILICON LABORATORIES: Revised Settlement Submitted To NY Court
STEWART ENTERPRISES: Plaintiffs File Amended CA Consumer Lawsuit
STEWART ENTERPRISES: CA Court Orders Consumer Suits Consolidated
THOROUGHBRED INDUSTRIAL: Competitor Lodges Fraud Lawsuit in KY
TRINITY HEALTH: MI Judge Dismisses Uninsured Patients' Lawsuit

U.S. CHAMBER: To Release Securities Class Action Study at Meet

               New Securities Fraud Cases               

AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Stock Suit in VA
DANA CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in GA
HILB ROGAL: Labaton Sucharow Files Amended Securities Suit in VA
REFCO INC.: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files KY Suit


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: FDA Withdraws Approval For ADHD Drug Cylert
The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) withdrew
approval for Cylert, a drug developed by Abbott Laboratories to
treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), due to
links with liver problems, including death, agency officials
said, the Associated Press reports.

In a statement, the FDA said it received 13 reports of liver
failure resulting in transplant or death among people who took
the drug, which has been available for 30 years. There are
additional reports of less serious problems.  Although that is a
small number, it is well above what the normal rate of such
problems among the general population, the FDA said in the

The move means drug manufacturers will no longer produce generic
versions of pemoline (Cylert).  The Company discontinued the
drug, which acts as a stimulant to the central nervous system,
earlier this year, but generic versions have remained available.

FDA is not recalling the drug, instead allowing pharmacies to
sell their remaining stock as doctors still using it switch
patients to alternative treatments, the agency said in a
statement.  "FDA has concluded that the risk of liver failure
with this drug outweighs the potential benefits," the agency
statement says, noting that alternative treatments for ADD have
come on the market since pemoline was introduced.

The lack of a recall drew fire from the consumer advocacy group
Public Citizen.  "It is reckless and insensitive to the health
and lives of children and adults using this drug for the FDA and
the involved drug companies to fail to institute an immediate
recall of these dangerous products," Drs. Sidney Wolfe and Peter
Lurie, who lead the organization's Health Research Group, in a
letter to the FDA, told the Associated Press.

AK STEEL: Survivors of Employees Sue Over Benefits Calculations
Survivors of deceased AK Steel Corporation employees initiated a
class action lawsuit against the Middletown, Ohio steelmaker for
what they contend are improper survivors' benefits calculations,
The Middletown Journal reports.

Rupert Ruppert, a Franklin attorney and one of four attorneys
representing an as-yet undiscovered number of potential
plaintiffs, said of the improper calculations, "It's potentially
an expensive mistake."

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Cincinnati, Ohio argues that the Company wrongly
calculated benefits due to spouses of deceased workers.
Furthermore, the suit alleges that the Company's benefits plan
gives surviving spouses 50 percent of the monthly base pension
their spouses received before their deaths, minus half of the
surviving spouses' Social Security widows or widowers benefits.  
The suit also states that the Company subtracts a surviving
spouse's Social Security lifetime earnings benefits, in addition
to widows or widowers benefits.

According to the suit, the Company's benefits administrator told
North Heinkel Road resident Judith Patrick, whose husband Bing
Patrick died in October 2001, that she would receive a monthly
surviving spouse benefit of no less than $140 - $556.56 minus
half of her Social Security widow's benefit. The suit recounts
that after receiving information from the Social Security
Administration, AK then cut Mrs. Patrick's benefit by "50
percent of her total Social Security benefit, including the
Social Security benefit she was receiving based on her own
earnings record." It goes on to state, "AK Steel thus computed
Mrs. Patrick's survivor spouse benefit to be -$16.96, but
provided Mrs. Patrick with the minimum benefit of $140 under the
plan." Mrs. Patrick's attorneys told The Middletown Journal that
she should be paid $373 a month.

Mr. Ruppert told The Middletown Journal that he doesn't know if
the Company's benefit administrators are misreading their plan
in using a survivor's "total" Social Security benefits in
calculations. He did point out, "They're reading it way
differently than we're doing, that's for sure."

In addition, Mr. Ruppert also told The Middletown Journal the
discovery process could take several months, estimating that
there could be 500 to 3,000 "similarly situated" plaintiffs.  
The suit states that plaintiffs are seeking for the recovery of
benefits, a clarification of their rights to future benefits and
injunctive relief and restitution.  

The suit is styled, "Patrick et al. v. AK Steel Corporation, et
al., Case No. 1:05-cv-00681-MHW-TSB," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, under Judge
Michael H. Watson, with referral to Judge Timothy S. Black.
Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Rupert Earl Ruppert of Riley & Ruppert - 1, 1063 East
         Second St., P.O. Box 369, Franklin, OH 45005, Phone:
         513-746-3601, Fax: 513-746-3601;

     (2) James Delano Ruppert of Ruppert Bronson & Ruppert - 3,
         1063 East Second St., P.O. Box 369, Franklin, OH 45005,
         Phone: 937-746-2832, E-mail: jdruppert@ruppertlaw.com;  

     (3) Daniel Jerome Buckley of Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease -
         1, Atrium Two, 221 E. Fourth St., Suite 2000,
         Cincinnati, OH 45201-0236, Phone: 513-723-4000, E-mail:
         djbuckley@vssp.com; and

     (4) Mary C. Henkel of Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, 2100
         Atrium Two, P.O. Box 0236, Cincinnati, OH 45201, Phone:
         513-721-4000, E-mail: mchenkel@vssp.com.

AVON PRODUCTS: Faces Two New Lawsuits For Violations of ERISA
Direct selling giant Avon Products, Inc. faces two new class
actions, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA), consumeraffairs.com reports.

The Company, the world's largest direct seller of beauty
products, has been struggling with weak sales and lower
earnings.  One of the class action complaints was filed on
behalf of individuals whose retirement funds were handled by the
Avon Personal Savings Account Plan.  A similar suit was filed
earlier this year on behalf of other Avon employees,
beneficiaries and associates who had retirement and savings
accounts in company plans.

Meanwhile, the New York-based firm announced the retirement of
its Chief Financial Officer and said it had hired Gillette's
former CFO to replace him. Some analysts say Avon, whose brands
include Anew and Skin-So-Soft, is overdue for a reorganization.
It plans to outline its long-term strategy at a meeting with
analysts on November 15, consumeraffairs.com reports.

CAISSE DE DEPOT: Denies Charges in Northern Trust Investor Suit
The Caisse de d,p"t et placement du Qu,bec (the "Caisse") said
the amended motion for authorization to institute a class action
suit, seeking a judgment of $130 million against it and all the
other defendants by holding them responsible for all the
potential losses incurred by investors in the various Evolution
Funds and Norbourg Funds, against it is unfounded.

Shefford resident Jocelyn Desrochers, who invested $270,235 in
now-frozen Groupe Norbourg mutual funds, is seeking to file a
class action against Northern Trust, the Toronto-based company
responsible for the safekeeping of Norbourg assets, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (October 6,2005) states.  Mr.
Desrochers, who estimates at $135,117 his potential losses from
financial irregularities in the Norbourg family of funds,
alleges that Northern Trust, as custodian, wrongfully permitted
$5.1 million to be diverted to the account of a company called
Norbourg International days before provincial regulators shut
down Groupe Norbourg on August 24.

Mr. Desrochers claims that Northern Trust should have had
measures in place to flag inappropriate transfers and designated
personnel to block them.  He asserts that Northern Trust's
ineffectiveness led to a significant reduction in the value of
the mutual fund units held by investors.

In a press statement, the Company said "There are no grounds for
this motion in fact or in law. There are no facts to justify the
motion. There is no reason that the Caisse's depositors can be
obliged indirectly to assume the losses of the unitholders of
the Evolution Funds."

The Company further said, "It is important to note that the
Caisse was never the manager of the Evolution Funds. The funds
were managed by Evolution Funds Inc., a company owned by Teraxis
Capital. It was Teraxis Capital that sold Evolution Funds Inc.
The Caisse is one of the investors in Teraxis Capital, with an
80% interest.   No fact brought to the attention of the Caisse,
directly or indirectly, can connect the Caisse, in fact or in
law, with any responsibility for the investments held by the
unitholders . None of the known facts that have emerged from the
investigation by the Autorit, des march,s financiers connects
the Caisse in any manner whatsoever to the presumed losses of
investors in the Evolution Funds or the Norbourg Funds.

According to the facts brought to the Caisse's attention,
Teraxis Capital Inc. apparently followed an orderly sales
process and carried out the normal diligence required in such
circumstances. The Evolution Funds unitholders received the
notice required under the relevant regulation when there is a
change in management control, in order to enable them to redeem
the units they held if they so desired. Evolution Funds Inc. was
apparently sold by Teraxis Capital Inc. for a cash payment of
about $4 million and assumption of about $2 million of debts.

The Caisse has given its attorneys a mandate to examine the
allegations made in the motion as well as the statements made
publicly to determine whether it can seek a remedy regarding the
comments made in this matter.

CALIFORNIA: Students With Diabetes File Suit V. Education Bodies
Four elementary school-age students, along with the American
Diabetes Association, filed an unprecedented civil rights
complaint today in U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California seeking class action relief against the California
Superintendent of Public Schools, the California Department of
Education, members of the California Board of Education, the San
Ramon Valley Unified School District, the Fremont Unified School
District, and their Superintendents and Boards of Trustees. The
suit asks the Court to compel public school officials to comply
with federal law by providing the assistance that California
students with diabetes require to manage their diabetes during
the school day.

The complaint alleges that the state and the local districts
violate Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and applicable federal
regulations in their failure to ensure the health and safety of
public school students with diabetes in Kindergarten through
12th Grade by providing insulin administration, blood glucose
monitoring, proper care in emergency situations, and other
appropriate diabetes care.

The plaintiffs are represented pro bono by a team of attorneys
in the Oakland and San Francisco offices of Reed Smith LLP, as
well as by attorneys with the Berkeley-based Disability Rights
Education and Defense Fund, Inc. (DREDF). Reed Smith attorneys
participating include James M. Wood, Kenneth J. Philpot, Michael
F. McCabe, Kurtis J. Kearl, Lisa C. Hamasaki, Tita Bell and
Kendra Jue. DREDF attorneys include Arlene Mayerson and Larisa

"Students with type 1 diabetes, and some students with type 2
diabetes, require insulin to survive," said Mr. Wood. "Without
access to regular and ongoing blood glucose testing and insulin
administration during the school day, these youngsters are at
risk of serious and possibly fatal health complications. We
intend to ensure that schools provide the services that are
necessary to protect these children's health and well-being. The
federal government is committed to the idea that no child will
be left behind in public schools. This lawsuit will ensure that
no child is locked out because schools will not provide
fundamental assurances that children with diabetes will be safe
in school."

"The California Department of Education, the San Ramon Valley
and Fremont districts and many other districts across the state
refuse to assign any school personnel to assist students with
the injection of insulin as prescribed by the students' doctors,
even though school personnel can be trained to do so and are
regularly trained and assigned these tasks in some schools,"
explained DREDF`s Ms. Cummings.

DREDF has been representing children with diabetes in California
and across the nation for years. As DREDF attorney Arlene
Mayerson explained, "After several attempts to obtain relief
from the California Department of Education failed, DREDF had no
choice but to file a lawsuit. It is unacceptable and illegal for
the districts and the CDE to ignore their moral and legal
responsibilities to these children."

The complaint asks the Court to require the California
Department of Education and the school districts to establish
policy ensuring that districts will provide a sufficient number
of adequately trained school personnel to check students' blood
glucose levels, monitor students for symptoms of high and low
blood glucose, and assist with administering insulin or glucagon
or other treatment the children require.

"Diabetes must be managed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. A
student with diabetes cannot take a break from diabetes when he
or she boards the school bus in the morning." said L. Hunter
Limbaugh, the Chair of the National Advocacy Committee at the
American Diabetes Association and a parent of a daughter who has
diabetes. "It's vital that all students with diabetes in
California and throughout the nation know they will be in a
medically safe environment that affords them the same
educational opportunities as other students. As is very clear
from the stories of the named plaintiffs in this lawsuit, many
students with diabetes in California are not safe at school.
They do not have access to the basic tools to manage their
diabetes. It is because this situation is intolerable for
students and their families that the American Diabetes
Association has joined this lawsuit."

CANADA: Suit Over Legionnaires' Disease Seeks $600M in Damages
A class action lawsuit seeking $600 million in damages was
launched on behalf of a man who became ill following the deadly
outbreak of legionnaire's disease in an East Toronto nursing
home, The CTV.ca News reports.

According to court papers, Gerald Glover, 58, was infected with
legionnaire's disease earlier this month during the outbreak at
the Seven Oaks Home for the Aged in Scarborough. His family is
baffled because Mr. Glover lives in a building across the
parking lot from the home, and they say he hasn't even been in
Seven Oaks.  Mr. Glover allegedly collapsed on October 5 and was
admitted to hospital with kidney failure, pneumonia and
temporary loss of memory and hearing.

Mr. Glover's daughter, Cheryl Glover, told CTV.ca News that the
suit is aimed at addressing her family's suffering. She said,
"It's never been about the money. We've been to the hospital and
seen what they go through . my dad has been hooked up to IVs in
his arms and a huge one in his neck because of kidney failure,
his stomach is all bruised up from being a pin cushion, and we
still have no answers."

The Glover family's lawyer, Glyn Hotz, who contends that his
client and other residents should have been better protected,
told CTV.ca News that he has received phone calls from others
interested in joining the class action suit. He told CTV.ca
News, "Toronto Public Health should have taken measures to
protect people in the home. They should have had preventative
antibiotics and maybe even have moved people. They certainly
should have shut the ventilation off, and instead they warned

Toronto health officials said droplets of legionnaires' bacteria
were distributed into the air by the cooling system on the roof
of the Seven Oaks Home and then sucked into the ventilation
system's air intake. Upon making the disease's discovery, they
ordered the cooling tower shut down on October 6.  Currently,
the outbreak has killed 21 people, the latest victim being an
89-year-old woman who died this week. In all there have been 127
cases of legionnaires' disease, including 67 residents, 30 staff
and 26 visitors.

Mr. Glover is one of four people who live or work in close
proximity to Seven Oaks Home for the Aged who have also
contracted the disease, likely infected by droplets that escaped
the building through the cooling tower, according to court

DELTA CYCLE: Recalls 3.5T Picasso Bike Racks For Injury Hazard
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Delta Cycle Corporation, of Foxboro, Massachusetts is
voluntarily recalling about 3,500 Picasso Two Bike Folding

According to the Company, the bike racks do not have sufficient
hardware to support its weight on the wall. This can cause the
bike rack to unexpectedly fall, hitting a nearby consumer. There
has been one report of a bike rack falling. No injuries have
been reported.

The recall involves Picasso bike racks with a collapsible shelf.
The bike rack can be mounted on the wall and has slots to
support two bicycles. The metal rack has the Delta logo and name
printed on the front of the rack.  Manufactured in China and
Taiwan, the bike racks were sold at LL Bean, Bike Nashbar and
independent bike shops nationwide from January 2002 through
September 2005 for about $40.

Consumers should contact Delta Cycle immediately to receive
additional hardware and installation instructions.  Consumer
Contact: For additional information, contact Delta Cycle at
(800) 474-6615 between 9:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.deltacycle.com.

GUIDANT CORPORATION: Stock Sales by Insiders Triggered Lawsuits
In recent months, top Guidant Corporation insiders unloaded more
than $100 million in company stock, a move that will blunt the
financial impact they'll feel if the Indianapolis Company and
Johnson & Johnson renegotiate the terms of their $25.4 billion
merger, The Indianapolis Business Journal reports.

Besides softening the financial blow, the recent sales also has
the negative effect of becoming the primary reason for class
action attorneys to file several lawsuits this summer charging
insiders concealed from investors defects in the company's heart

One such class action suit that was filed in federal court in
Indianapolis in June charges that by not promptly disclosing
defects publicly, six executives were able to sell $39 million
in stock at inflated prices.

Since then, sales have continued with four insiders, namely:
Chairman Jim Cornelius, CEO Ronald Dollens, Chief Financial
Officer Keith Brauer and director J.B. King, reaping more than
$91 million from stock sales since December 15, the date New
Jersey-based J&J agreed to buy Guidant for $76 a share.  Many of
the insider sales are at $68 or more, substantially above the
current price. The stock plunged 11 percent October 18, the day
a J&J executive cast doubt on the deal, fueling speculation it
would seek a lower price. Guidant shares were trading on October
20 at $63.68.

Trading records show the executives cashed in many of the shares
immediately after exercising stock options to buy them, a common
practice among U.S. executives. Some of the proceeds from the
sales typically go toward paying capital gains taxes on profit.

Henry Price, an Indianapolis class action attorney who is not
involved in Guidant litigation, told The Indianapolis Business
Journal that it's curious so many insiders decided to sell
shares this year for less than they would have received had they
just waited for the deal to close. He pointed out, "That is a
fact that, if left unexplained, leads to a reasonable inference
that the executives who sold the stock did it on the basis of
negative inside information."

HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Ex-Caesars CEO Sues Over Stock Options
The former chief executive of Caesars Entertainment initiated a
class action lawsuit against Harrah's Entertainment in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, claiming that the
world's largest gambling company owes him and potentially
hundreds of other former Caesars' employees millions of dollars
for their stock options, The Newark Star Ledger reports.

In the suit, Wally Barr claims that Harrah's, which bought
Caesars last summer in a $9 billion deal, refused to pay
employees and executives who held options to purchase Caesars'
stock at the price they were entitled to.  The suit accuses
Harrah's with breach of contract and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages as well as reimbursement for litigation
costs. The case, which was filed on October 21, 2005, has been
assigned to U.S. District Judge Joseph Irenas.

Mr. Barr stated in the suit that Caesars option holders covered
by a 1998 incentive plan should have received the highest share
price paid for Caesars' common stock in connection with the
merger -- $23.76. Instead, they received $21.85.  According to
the suit, even after Mr. Barr contacted Harrah's in June to
alert it of the discrepancy, the company "refused to comply with
the terms of the 1998 plan."

The suit revealed that at the time of the merger, Mr. Barr held
options to purchase 2.15 million shares of Caesars common stock.
At $21.85 a share, he would have been paid more than $47
million. The $1.91 discrepancy would give him an additional $4.1
million.  The former CEO also stated that there could be
hundreds of former Caesars employees who might be covered by the
suit. The 1998 plan made 55 million shares of Caesars' stock
available to full-time officers and employees, according to the
suit. If all 55 million options were granted, Harrah's would owe
other former Caesars employees more than $105 million.

The suit is styled, "BARR v. HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Case
No. 1:05-cv-05056-JEI-AMD," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, under Judge Joseph E.
Irenas, with referral to Judge Ann Marie Donio. Representing the
Plaintiff/s are: J. Llewellyn Mathews and Stephen M. Orlofsky of
BLANK ROME, LLP, 210 Lake Drive East, Suite 200, Cherry hill, NJ
08002, Phone: (856) 779-3600, E-mail: mathews@blankrome.com and

HAWAII: ACLU Files Lawsuit For Abuse, Negligence at Youth Prison
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a class action
against the state of Hawaii, the Associated Press reports.  The
suit alleges that the state failed to protect inmates at the
Hawaii Youth Correctional Facility from being abused, and for
keeping the inmates in overcrowded, unsanitary conditions.

In 2003, the ACLU released a report saying that young inmates
were abused and harassed.  The report resulted in the removal of
the prison's two top administrators.  The state attorney
general's office also launched an investigation.  In August, the
U.S. Justice Department released its own critical report, saying
the young inmates' constitutional and federal statutory rights
were being violated and describing the Kailua facility as
"existing in a state of chaos."

Sharon Agnew, executive director of the state Office of Youth
Services, said then that aggressive changes had been made in
response to the federal investigation, including a new detailed
incident-reporting system, a new housing unit and the hiring of
consultants and additional guards, AP reports.

The class-action lawsuit asks for a federal court-ordered expert
to "design, implement and oversee policies and procedures" at
the Hawaii Youth Correctional Facility, Lois Perrin, legal
director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii, told
AP.  "The state has been aware for over two years of a multitude
of problems," she said. "The state should be embarrassed that
this lawsuit is necessary."

State officials did not return calls seeking comment Monday, AP

HELLENIC RUG: Recalls 1.8T Shag Leather Rags Due to Fire Hazard
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Hellenic Rug Imports Inc., of Brooklyn, New York is
voluntarily recalling about 1,800 Shag Leather Rugs.

According to the Company, the large rugs fail to meet the
federal mandatory standard for flammability under the Flammable
Fabrics Act and could ignite, presenting a risk of burn
injuries. The smaller size rugs are missing labels identifying
them as flammable.

The recall includes only beige and champagne leather shag rugs
with Hellenic's name on the label. Large sizes include 5-feet by
8-feet and 8-feet by 11-feet and small-size rugs include 3-feet
5-inches by 5-feet 5-inches, 2-feet by 3-feet and 2-feet by 8-
feet. A label on the rugs reads, "Hellenic Rug Imports, Inc."

Manufactured in India, the Rugs were sold by Internet and
catalog retailers nationwide from September 2002 through October
2005 for between $50 and $600, depending on the size.

Remedy: Large Rugs - Consumers should stop using the rugs and
contact the manufacturer to arrange for free replacement. Small
Rugs - Consumers should keep these rugs away from sources of
ignition and contact Hellenic Rug Imports to receive a label
that complies with labeling requirements.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Hellenic
Rug Imports at (888) 356-5284 between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. ET
Monday through Friday. Consumers can also visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.flokati.com.

ILLINOIS: City Officials' Objection Results in Less Cash Payment
The city of La Salle, Illinois will pay $31,000 less in a class
action settlement regarding the constitutionality of
telecommunication taxes from 1998 to 2002, The LaSalle News
Tribune reports.

In a hearing last week, La Salle's Mayor, Art Washkowiak, the
city's comptroller and attorney objected to a $36,000 settlement
that the city owed in a suit that challenged nearly 400
municipalities, including La Salle, on the constitutionality of
telecommunication taxes.  The case was brought by
telecommunications parties and taxpayers years ago. It included
taxes on wireless and landlines.

At the recent hearing La Salle's comptroller reviewed the past
five years of documents and reported that the city should owe
around $2,000. Many other cities objected to the large
settlements as well, but did not show up to the hearing.

The mayor told The LaSalle News Tribune, "I think our
participation was very worth the effort we put into it."

La Salle City Council agreed Monday to pay a $2,026 settlement
and more than $2,000 in legal fees - much less than the original
settlement.  Mayor Washkowiak told The LaSalle News Tribune the
money would come from the city's utility tax fund. The mayor
also said that some municipalities that did not appear in court
could have to pay up to $100,000, based on population.

INTELLIGROUP INC.: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in NJ
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
Intelligroup, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.  The suit also names as defendants
certain of the Company's former officers:

     (1) Arjun Valluri,

     (2) Nicholas Visco,

     (3) Edward Carr and

     (4) David Distel (&

Several suits were initially filed, alleging violations of
federal securities laws.  The suit alleges that the defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial condition and that the defendants materially
overstated financial results by engaging in improper accounting
practices. The Class Period alleged is May 1, 2001 through
September 24, 2004.  The suits generally seek relief in the form
of unspecified compensatory damages and reasonable costs,
expenses and legal fees.

In August 2005, the court consolidated the six class actions and
appointed a lead plaintiff.  By agreement of the parties, lead
plaintiff filed the consolidated amended complaint on the second
week of October 2005.

The suit is styled "GARCIA v. INTELLIGROUP, INC. et al., case
no. 2:04-cv-04980-JCL-MF," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, under Judge John C.
Lifland.  Representing the Company is Dennis J. Drasco and Kevin
J. O'Connor, LUM, DANZIS, DRASCO & POSITAN, LLC, 103 Eisenhower
Parkway, Roseland, NJ 07068-1049, Phone: (973) 403-9000, Email:
ddrasco@lumlaw.com or koconnor@lumlaw.com.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (i) Jean-Marc Zimmerman, ZIMMERMAN, LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP,
         226 St. Paul Street, Westfield NJ 07090, Phone: (908)
         654-8000, E-mail: jmzimmerman@zlk.com

    (ii) Lisa J. Rodriguez, TRUJILLO RODRIGUEZ & RICHARDS, LLP,
         8 Kings Highway West Haddonfield, NJ 08033, Phone:
         (856) 795-9002, E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com

    (iii) Gary S. Graifman, KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN,
          ESQS., 210 Summit Avenue, Montvale, NJ 07645, Phone:
          (201) 391-7000, E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com

    (iv) Joseph J. DePalma, LITE, DEPALMA, GREENBERG & RIVAS,
         LLC, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-
         5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail:

INTERIOR DEPARTMENT: Appeals Court Shelves Shutdown of Computers
An appellate court postponed a federal judge's order to
disconnect all Interior Department information technology
systems that access Indian trust fund data, FCW.com reports.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said he ordered the shutdown
because the systems are vulnerable to hacker attacks. However,
Interior officials then requested an administrative stay to
temporarily suspend the shutdown, pending appeal.

Judge Lamberth originally granted American Indian plaintiffs a
motion for a preliminary injunction to shut down any computers,
networks, handheld computers and voice-over-IP equipment that
access trust fund data. In essence the injunction, which the
judge issued on October 20, prohibits Interior employees,
contractors, tribes and other third parties from using those

Though it is not known when or if a shutdown will occur,
Interior spokesman John Wright told FCW.com, "When the court
takes it up, they'll let us know what our status is." He also
told FCW.com that depending on interpretations of the order the
department could be forced to disconnect 5 percent to 10 percent
of its computers. He adds that although this would not harm the
general public, "it would cause significant harm to Indian
[communities], given that we process a lot of data by way of

The department's IT security has been the focus of a nine-year
class action lawsuit that criticizes the department's oversight
of Indian trust funds. Indian plaintiffs accused officials of
failing to properly protect data.

With the appellate court's decision of postpone, the plaintiffs
are expected to contest the delay. Bill McAllister, their
spokesman, told FCW.com that their brief would point out that
Judge Lamberth scrupulously followed the instructions of the

Mr. McAllister emphasizes, "He found the evidence overwhelming
that the conditions were not safe in their computer systems" He
added, "This is another attempt by the Justice and Interior
departments to evade (their) responsibilities to" American

The suit is styled "Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al., on her own
behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. GALE
NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al., case no. 96-1285
(RCL)," filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, under Judge Royce C. Lamberth.  
Representing the defendants are Robert E. Kirschman, Jr. and
Sandra Peavler Spooner of the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 1100 L
Street, NW Suite 10008, Washington, DC 20005, Phone:
(202) 616-0328, E-mail: robert.kirschman@usdoj.gov or
sandra.spooner@usdoj.gov.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (i) Mark Kester Brown, 607 14th Street, NW Washington, DC
         20005-2000, Phone: (775) 542-4938, Fax: 202-318-2372,
         E-mail: mkesterbrown@attglobal.net

    (ii) Dennis M. Gingold, 607 14th Street, NW 9th Floor,
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 824-1448, Fax: 202-
         318-2372, E-mail: dennismgingold@aol.com

   (iii) Richard A. Guest and Keith M. Harper, NATIVE AMERICAN
         RIGHTS FUND, 1712 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-
         2976, Phone: (202) 785-4166, Fax: 202-822-0068, E-mail:
         richardg@narf.org or harper@narf.org

    (iv) Elliott H. Levitas, KILPATRICK STOCKTON, LLP, 607 14th
         Street, NW Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202)
         508-5800, Fax: 202-508-5858, E-mail:

KRISPY KREME: NC Judge Asked to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc. asked a federal judge in North
Carolina to dismiss a lawsuit filed against it and its
executives, which alleges that the company violated securities
laws, The Winston-Salem Journal reports.

Seeking class action status on behalf of shareholders who bought
Krispy Kreme stock between March 8, 2001, and April 18, 2005,
the suit alleges that the company and its top executives issued
false and misleading statements about the company's revenue and
earnings forecasts.  In addition, the shareholder suit alleges
that officials knew that the company's sales were slowing long
before it issued a profit warning in May 2004 that sent its
shares tumbling. It also alleges that the company improperly
recorded revenue and violated accounting rules.

In arguing for the suit's dismissal, Krispy Kreme stated in
court papers "that predictions of future financial performance
cannot be the basis for a securities fraud claim." Krispy Kreme
also said that the plaintiffs "have failed to show any
fraudulent intent behind Krispy Kreme's accounting errors."  

Krispy Kreme also said in court papers that it has restated past
earnings because of what it said are accounting errors, but
pointed out, "The mere fact of a restatement, however, does not
give rise to a strong inference of fraud." Furthermore, Krispy
Kreme stated that it warned investors of potential business
risks that could alter the company's performance and that
shielded it from legal liability.

The company also discounted information from confidential
witnesses that was included in a revised suit filed against the
company saying, "Plaintiffs offer no credible contrary
information from their confidential witnesses, all of whom
worked in low-level positions at individual stores or
franchises, and none of whom would be expected to know the
overall corporate results or forecasts."

Attorneys for Scott Livengood, the former chief executive of
Krispy Kreme and is one of the individual defendants in the
case, criticized the suit in a court filing. They said, "This
case follows an all-too-familiar pattern: a corporation
announces its business prospects may not be as rosy as they once
were, and plaintiffs immediately accuse the company, along with
its officers and directors, of having intentionally lied to the
public in the earlier, more positive announcements."

The first shareholder lawsuit against Krispy Kreme was filed in
May 2004 and was followed by more than 12 others, which were
consolidated into one action. It is unclear when a ruling on the
motions will be made.

LITTON LOAN: Faces Lawsuit Over Theft of Personal Information
A class action suit was filed against Litton Loan Servicing,
accusing it of negligently allowing the theft of personal
information, 9News reports.

The class action affects more than 4,000 Tri-State customers of
the Houston, Texas-based firm, which bought thousands of loans
from Provident Bank.  The suit claims that personal information
from loan customers was stolen in August 2005, but customers
were not notified until October.

METROPOLITAN MORTGAGE: $7.25M Settlement Proposed in Summit Case
Investors in Summit Securities, a failed Metropolitan Mortgage
affiliate would get back up to $7.25 million in a proposed
settlement that would also release most board members from legal
liability, The Associated Press reports.

If approved by creditors, class action plaintiffs and federal
bankruptcy and district court judges, Summit would pay the
investors from an insurance pool that is used to pay legal costs
for former Metropolitan Mortgage and Summit Securities
officials.  Under the agreement, the money would be split among
a trust set up to recover and repay money to creditors in the
bankruptcy case, and investors who filed a class action lawsuit
against the company and its officials.

Metropolitan and its subsidiary Summit filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection in February. The collapse of the
Metropolitan, which was once a $2.7 billion conglomerate of
insurance companies and investment services, cost more than
10,000 investors some $450 million.

Included in the proposed settlement would be most former Summit
Securities board members, who would be dropped as defendants in
the fraud lawsuit. Former company President Tom Turner, who was
indicted last month on seven felony counts of misleading
auditors of the company, would be excluded though. Of special
note, Metropolitan board members, along with executives and
other key employees, are still named in lawsuits.

MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: Plaintiffs Seek NY Stock Suit Certification
MidAmerican Energy Co. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and other firms in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, alleging that the defendants have engaged in unlawful
manipulation of the prices of natural gas futures and options
contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX)
during the period of January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2002.

The Company is mentioned as a company that has engaged in wash
trades on Enron Online (an electronic trading platform) that had
the effect of distorting prices for gas trades on the NYMEX. The
plaintiffs to the class action do not specify the amount of
alleged damages.

The original complaint in this matter, styled "Cornerstone
Propane Partners, L.P. v. Reliant, et al.," was filed on August
18, 2003 in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York naming the Company.  On October 1, 2003, a second
complaint, styled "Roberto, E. Calle Gracey, et al. v. Reliant,
et al.," was filed in the same court but did not name the
Company.  On November 14, 2003, a third complaint, styled
"Dominick Viola (Viola), et al.," was filed in the same court
and named the Company as a defendant.  On December 5, 2003, the
court entered Pretrial Order No. 1, which among other procedural
matters, ordered the consolidation of the Cornerstone, Calle
Gracey and Viola complaints and permitted plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint in this matter.  On January 20, 2004,
plaintiffs filed "In Re: Natural Gas Commodity Litigation," as
the amended complaint reasserting their previous allegations.

On February 19, 2004, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss and
joined with several other defendants to file a joint Motion to
Dismiss. The plaintiffs filed a response on May 19, 2004,
contesting both Motions to Dismiss. On September 24, 2004, the
pending motions to dismiss were denied. On October 14, 2004,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add certain defendants'
affiliates as defendants and reasserted their previous
allegations.  The Company and the other defendants filed their
respective answers to the complaint on October 28, 2004.  
Plaintiffs filed a motion for class actions certification on
January 25, 2005.

On September 6, 2005, the Company and counsel for the plaintiffs
executed a stipulation and agreement of settlement, which upon
final approval by the court following notice to all class
members, the Company will be dismissed from the lawsuit. The
Company agreed to the settlement in order to avoid the expense
and uncertainty associated with the ongoing litigation. If
accepted by the court, the settlement will not have a material
impact upon the Company.

The suit is styled "Cornerstone Propane v. Reliant Energy, et
al., case no. 1:03-cv-06186-VM-AJP," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Victor Marrero and Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck.  
Representing the Company are Robert A. Jaffe of Kutak, Rock,
L.L.P., 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 922-
9155; and Gregory Copeland, Holly Roberts, J. Michael Baldwin,
Baker Botts, L.L.P., One Shell Plaza, 910 Louisiana, Houston, TX
07002, Phone: (713) 229-1234.  Plaintiffs are represented by:

     (1) Ali Oromchian, Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran, 601
         Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111, by Phone:

     (2) Christopher J. Gray, Law Office of Christopher J. Gray,
         P.C, 460 Park Avenue 21st Floor, New York, NY 10022,
         Phone: (212) 838-3221, Fax: (212) 508-3695, E-mail:

     (3) Christopher Lovell, Gary S. Jacobson, Lovell, Stewart,
         Halebian, L.L.P., 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10110,
         Phone: (212) 608-1900

     (4) Louis F. Burke, Louis F. Burke, P.C., 460 Park Avenue,     
         21st Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 682-1700,
         Fax: (212) 808-4280

NEW YORK: Firefighters Injured in 9/11 Attacks to Sue N.Y. City
New York firefighters hurt in the September 11, 2001 terror
attacks are threatening to sue the city in to force it to put
them back to work or retire them on disability, The New York
Daily News reports.

Numerous firefighters have been assigned desk jobs -- too sick
for active duty but too well for disability pensions -- under a
rule that changed "after the fire department realized how many
firefighters were affected" by the attacks, according to
attorney Jeffrey Goldberg.

Mr. Goldberg told The New York Daily News that he was preparing
a class action suit on behalf of 30 firefighters. He also said,
"There's no logic to keep them on the payroll. I think there's a
political agenda to protect the pension fund."

Before the terror attacks, the city's pension board generally
granted disability to firefighters who flunked a breathing test.
Now, however, they must undergo a pulmonary function test that
the firefighters' union says does not measure the breathing
problems most firefighters face.

A New York Law Department official told The New York Daily News
that the pension board's "decisions were appropriate in these

OHIO: City Files Suit V. Travel Web Sites Over Inadequate Taxes
The northwest Ohio city of Findlay initiated a lawsuit against
more than a dozen travel web sites that book hotel rooms,
claiming that the sites don't pay enough in taxes, The
Associated Press reports.

Filed in Hancock County Common Pleas Court, the suit claims that
site operators charge their customers taxes based on retail room
rates but pay the city based on lower wholesale rates and pocket
the difference. It specifically names companies such as
Priceline.com, Travelocity.com, Cheap Tickets Inc., Expedia Inc.
and Orbitz Inc., which negotiate discount rates with hotels,
then sell the rooms online.  The suit also seeks class-action
status, which would allow other Ohio cities and counties to join
if Judge Joseph Niemeyer approves the request.

George Kentris, one of the lawyers representing the city about
45 miles south of Toledo, told The Associated Press that the
amount Findlay has lost in bed taxes is not known. He explains,
"We haven't put a figure on it yet, but some of these businesses
have been in operation for 10 years." He adds, "The majority of
hotel rooms these days are booked online through these

"We believe there are a lot of tax districts around Ohio that
are in a similar position as Findlay," Mr. Kentris told The
Associated Press, adding that it could take three to five months
for Judge Niemeyer to rule.

PRE-PAID LEGAL: Appeals Court Yet To Rule on OK Suit Dismissal
The United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule
on plaintiffs' appeal the dismissal of the securities class
action filed against Pre-paid Legal Services, Inc. and certain
of its executive officers in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma.

The suit seeks unspecified damages on the basis of allegations
that the Company issued false and misleading financial
information, primarily related to the method it used to account
for commission advance receivables from sales associates.  

On March 5, 2002, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint, with prejudice, and entered a judgment in
favor of the defendants.  Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion
requesting reconsideration of the dismissal which was denied.  
The plaintiffs have appealed the judgment and the order denying
their motion to reconsider the judgment to the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals.  In August 2002, the lead institutional
plaintiff withdrew from the case, leaving two individual
plaintiffs as lead plaintiffs on behalf of the putative class.  

As of December 31, 2003, the briefing in the appeal had been
completed.  On January 14, 2004 oral argument was held in the
appeal and as of July 22, 2005, a decision was still pending.  

The suit is styled "In Re: Pre-Paid Securities Litigation, case
no. 5:01-cv-00182," filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma, under Judge Robin J.
Cauthron.  Representing the plaintiffs are Stuart W. Emmons and
William B. Federman, Federman & Sherwood, 120 N Robinson Ave,
Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, Fax:
405-239-2112, E-mail: swe@federmanlaw.com or wfederman@aol.com.  
Representing the Company are:

     (1) Clayton Basser-Wall, Brobeck Phleger & Harrison-SAN
         FRANCISCO, Spear Street Tower, One Market Plaza, San
         Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-442-0900

     (2) Brooke S. Murphy, Crowe & Dunlevy-OKC, 20 N Broadway
         Ave, Suite 1800, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-
         235-7735, Fax: 405-272-5278, E-mail:

     (3) Margaret M. Snyder, Clifford Chance Rogers & Wells LLP,
         Steuart Street Tower, One Market Plaza, San Francisco,
         CA 94105-1420, Phone: 415-778-4700, Fax: 415-778-4701

     (4) Robert P. Varian, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, 405
         Howard St, The Orrick Building, San Francisco, CA
         94105, Phone: 415-773-5934, Fax: 415-773-5759, E-mail:

PRE-PAID LEGAL: Working To Settle Lawsuits For Membership Fraud
Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. is working to settle multiple
lawsuits filed against it, certain officers, employees, sales
associates and other defendants in various Alabama and
Mississippi state courts by current or former members seeking
actual and punitive damages for alleged breach of contract,
fraud and various other claims in connection with the sale of

During 2004, there were at one time as many as 30 separate
lawsuits involving approximately 285 plaintiffs in Alabama.  As
of October 22, 2005, as a result of dismissals, summary
judgments, or settlements for nominal amounts, the Company is
aware of approximately 1 lawsuit involving 4 plaintiffs in
Alabama.  As of October 22, 2005, the Company is aware of 7
separate lawsuits involving approximately 406 plaintiffs in
multiple counties in Mississippi.  Certain of the Mississippi
lawsuits also name the Company's former provider attorney in
Mississippi as a defendant.

In Mississippi, the Company filed lawsuits in the United States
District Court for the Southern and Northern Districts of
Mississippi in which it seeks to compel arbitration of the
various Mississippi claims under the Federal Arbitration Act and
the terms of the Company's Membership agreements.  One of the
federal courts has ordered arbitration of a case involving 8

These cases are all in various stages of litigation, including
trial settings in Mississippi in November and December 2005, and
seek varying amounts of actual and punitive damages.  The
Company has tried three separate lawsuits in Mississippi.  The
first trial in Mississippi on these cases resulted in a
unanimous jury verdict in the Company's favor, including other
named defendants, on all claims on October 19, 2004, while the
second and third trials in Mississippi resulted in insubstantial
plaintiffs' verdicts on February 15, 2005 and May 9, 2005,
respectively.  On July 18, 2005 the Circuit Judge in the May 9,
2005 trial entered an order granting plaintiff's motion to
reconsider the submission of the issue of punitive damages to
the jury, and set the case for trial on that issue in November
2005.  The Company is seeking appellate relief from the final
judgment in that case and the recent order.  On August 16, 2005
the Circuit Judge in the February 15, 2005 trial overturned the
jury's finding of fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation on the
grounds that the evidence was insufficient to support those
claims and reduced the damages awarded by the jury to a total of
$525 for four plaintiffs. Although the amount of Membership fees
paid by the plaintiffs in the Mississippi cases is $500,000 or
less, certain of the cases seek damages of $90 million.  

On April 19, 2002, counsel in certain of the above-referenced
Alabama suits also filed a similar suit against the Company and
certain officers in the District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma
on behalf of Jeff and Jana Weller individually and doing
business as Hi-Tech Auto making similar allegations relating to
its Memberships and seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a
"nationwide" class.  The Pre-Paid defendants' preliminary
motions in this case were denied, and on June 17, 2003, the
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's
denial of the Pre-Paid defendants' motion to compel arbitration,
finding that the trial court erred when it denied the Company's
motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the terms of the valid
Membership contracts, and remanded the case to the trial court
for further proceedings consistent with that opinion.  On
December 3, 2004, the Court ordered the plaintiffs to proceed
with the arbitration.  The ultimate outcome of this case is not

PRE-PAID LEGAL: Court Nixes Appeal of OK Certification Ruling
The United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals refused
plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal of a lower court ruling
refusing to grant class certification to a lawsuit filed against
Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. and certain of its executive

On March 1, 2002, Caroline Sandler, Robert Schweikert, Sal
Corrente, Richard Jarvis and Vincent Jefferson filed the suit,
seeking unspecified damages filed on behalf of the Company's
sales associates and alleges that the marketing plan offered by
the Company constitutes a security under the Securities Act of
1933.  The suit seeks remedies for failure to register the
marketing plan as a security and for violations of the anti-
fraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
representations alleged to have been made in connection with the
marketing plan.

The complaint also alleges violations of the Oklahoma Securities
Act, the Oklahoma Business Opportunities Sales Act, breach of
contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and
unjust enrichment and violation of the Oklahoma Consumer
Protection Act and negligent supervision.  This case is subject
to the Private Litigation Securities Reform Act.

Pursuant to the Act, the Court has approved the named plaintiffs
and counsel and an amended complaint was filed in August 2002.  
The Pre-Paid defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint
and to strike the class action allegations on September 19,
2002, and discovery in the action was stayed pending a ruling on
the motion to dismiss.  On July 24, 2003, the Court granted in
part and denied in part the Pre-Paid defendants' motion to
dismiss.  The claims asserted under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and the Oklahoma Securities were dismissed without
prejudice.  The motion was denied as to the remaining claims. On
September 8, 2004, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  Plaintiffs petitioned the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals for permission to appeal the class certification ruling,
and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petition for
interlocutory appeal.  

The suit is styled "In Re: Pre-Paid Sec Lit II, case no. 5:02-
cv-00273," filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma under Judge Robin J. Cauthron.  
Representing the plaintiffs are Clell I Cunningham, III of Dunn
Swan & Cunningham, 210 W Park Ave, Suite 2800, Oklahoma City, OK
73102-5604, Phone: 405-235-8318, Fax: 405-235-9605, E-mail:
skip@DSCPC.com; and Steven E. Fineman, Wendy R. Fleishman, and
Rachel Geman of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein-NEW YORK, 780
3rd Ave, 48th Fl, New York, NY 10017-2024, Phone: 212-355-9500,
Fax: 212-355-9592, E-mail: sfineman@lchb.com,
wfleishman@lchb.com or rgeman@lchb.com.

RADIAN GUARANTY: Court Affirms Commercial Nature of Transactions
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania affirmed its position regarding the commercial
nature of mortgage insurance transactions, and that the order
supports keeping the mortgage process fast and efficient for
consumers, in the suit filed against Radian Guaranty Inc.

The ruling found that mortgage insurance transactions between
mortgage lenders and mortgage insurers are not consumer credit
actions and are not subject to the notice requirements of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

"This court order is a big win for consumers," said Roy J.
Kasmar, President and Chief Operating Officer of Radian.
"Mortgage transactions are consumer transactions, and we at
Radian work with our lender clients to help consumers by
reducing costs and increasing efficiency. Requiring mortgage
insurers to issue adverse action notices to borrowers would not
only be inconsistent with the FCRA, it would also disrupt the
critical lender-borrower relationship, making the mortgage
process unnecessarily complex and confusing for consumers."

The ruling was issued in response to a class action lawsuit that
claimed Radian failed to issue an adverse action notice to a
customer of one of Radian's mortgage lending clients, when the
customer's credit history disqualified them from receiving a
lower mortgage insurance rate.  Radian successfully argued that
it does not take adverse action under the FCRA when it sells
mortgage insurance to its mortgage lending clients, and that it
does not enter into credit transactions with individual

The suit was filed by Whitney Whitfield and Celeste Whitfield
and is seeking class action status on behalf of a nationwide
class of consumers who allegedly were required to pay for
private mortgage insurance provided by Radian Guaranty and whose
loans allegedly were insured at more than Radian Guaranty's
"best available rate," based upon credit information obtained by
Radian Guaranty, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (March
31, 2004) reports.

The suit alleges that FCRA requires a notice to borrowers of
such "adverse action" and that Radian Guaranty violated FCRA by
failing to give such notice.  The action seeks statutory
damages, actual damages, or both, for the people in the class,
and attorneys' fees, as well as declaratory and injunctive
relief, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (March 31, 2004)

In addition it also alleges that the failure to give notice to
borrowers in the circumstances alleged is a violation of state
law applicable to sales practices and seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief for this alleged violation. The litigation is
aimed at practices commonly followed in the mortgage insurance
industry, and similar cases are pending against several other
mortgage insurers, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (March
31, 2004) reports.  

The suit is styled, "Whitfield et al v. Radian Guaranty, Inc.,
Case No. 2:04-cv-00111-JS," filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under Judge juan
R. Sanchez. Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Douglas Bowdin of Douglas Bowdin, PA, Suite 800 Citrus
         Center, 255 S. Orange Ave., Orlando, FL 32801, Phone:
         407-422-0025, E-mail: dbowdoin@bowdoinlaw.com;

     (2) Joseph C. Kohn of Kohn Swift & Graf, PC, One South
         Broad St., Ste. 2100, Philadelphia, PA 19107, Phone:
         215-238-1700, Fax: 215-238-1968; and

     (3) W. Christian Hoyer, Kathleen Clark Knight and Terry A.
         Smiljanich of James Hoyer Newcomer & Smiljanich, PA,
         4830 W. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 550, Tampa, FL 33609,
         Phone: 813-286-4100, E-mail: kknight@jameshoyer.com and

Representing the Defendants are: Dionna K. Litvin and David
Smith of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP, 1600 Market St.,
Ste. 3600, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-751-2190, Fax:
215-972-7409, E-mail: dlitvin@schnader.com and

For more details, contact Mona Zeehandelaar of Radian Guaranty
Inc., Phone: +1-215-231-1674, E-mail:
mona.zeehandelaar@radian.biz, Web site: http://www.radian.bizor  
Radian Corporate Communications, Phone: +1-888-NEWS-520, E-mail:

SEMPRA ENERGY: Gas Utilities Antitrust Suit Goes to Trial Soon
A massive lawsuit alleging that Sempra Energy, the owner of
Southern California's two major gas utilities, conspired during
a clandestine hotel meeting to limit supplies and drive up
prices during the energy shortages of 2000 and 2001 is set to go
to trial soon, The Associated Press reports.

The class action suit, which was originally filed in December
2000 against Sempra and its Southern California Gas Co. and San
Diego Gas & Electric units alleged that they conspired with El
Paso Natural Gas Corporation to prevent competition for cheaper
and more plentiful Canadian natural gas. Additionally, the suit
alleges that Sempra and its companies conspired to protect their
respective market dominance over the supply and transportation
of natural gas into and within California, reaping enormous
profits at the expense of California consumers and businesses,
an earlier Class Action Reporter story (January 24, 2005)

The plaintiffs stated that the alleged agreement happened in a
clandestine meeting at a Phoenix hotel involving 11 senior
SoCalGas, SDG&E and El Paso executives in September 1996, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (January 24, 2005) reports.

Economists estimate that damages caused by excessive energy
costs in 2000 and 2001 amount to more than $9 billion, an amount
that would be tripled under California's antitrust law, the
plaintiffs contend, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(January 24, 2005) reports.

SILICON LABORATORIES: Revised Settlement Submitted To NY Court
Parties have submitted a revised settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against Silicon Laboratories,
Inc., four of its officers individually and the three investment
banking firms who served as representatives of the underwriters
in connection with the Company's initial public offering of
common stock to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges that the registration
statement and prospectus for the Company's initial public
offering did not disclose that the underwriters solicited and
received additional, excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors, and the underwriters had agreed to allocate
shares of the offering in exchange for a commitment from the
customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
pre-determined higher prices.  The action seeks damages in an
unspecified amount and is being coordinated with approximately
300 other nearly identical actions filed against other

A court order dated October 9, 2002 dismissed without prejudice
the Company's four officers who had been named individually.  On
February 19, 2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the
complaint against the Company.  On October 13, 2004, the Court
certified a class in six of the approximately 300 other nearly
identical actions and noted that the decision is intended to
provide strong guidance to all parties regarding class
certification in the remaining cases.  Plaintiffs have not yet
moved to certify a class in the Company's case.

The company has approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements which set forth the terms of a settlement between the
Company, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the other
approximately 300 issuer defendants.  Among other provisions,
the settlement provides for a release of the Company and the
individual defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to
be wrongful.  The Company would agree to undertake certain
responsibilities, including agreeing to assign away, not assert,
or release certain potential claims it may have against its
underwriters.  The settlement agreement also provides a
guaranteed recovery of $1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases
relating to all of the approximately 300 issuers.  To the extent
that the underwriter defendants settle all of the cases for at
least $1 billion, no payment will be required under the issuers'
settlement agreement.  To the extent that the underwriter
defendants settle for less than $1 billion, the issuers are
required to make up the difference.  

On February 15, 2005, the Court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion.  The Court ruled that the issuer
defendants and the plaintiffs were required to submit a revised
settlement agreement which provides for a mutual bar of all
contribution claims by the settling and non-settling parties and
does not bar the parties from pursuing other claims.  The
issuers and plaintiffs have submitted to the Court a revised
settlement agreement consistent with the Court's opinion.  The
revised settlement agreement has been approved by all of the
issuer defendants who are not in bankruptcy.  The underwriter
defendants will have an opportunity to object to the revised
settlement agreement.  There is no assurance that the Court will
grant final approval to the settlement.  

The suit is styled "In re Silicon Laboratories, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "IN
No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira
N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

STEWART ENTERPRISES: Plaintiffs File Amended CA Consumer Lawsuit
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against Stewart
Enterprises, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, Central District,
styled "Henrietta Torres and Teresa Fiore, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated and the General
Public v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., et al.; No. BC328961."

This purported class action was filed on February 17, 2005, on
behalf of a nationwide class defined to include all persons,
entities and organizations who purchased funeral goods and/or
services in the United States from defendants at any time on or
after February 17, 2001. The suit named the Company and several
of its Southern California affiliates as defendants and also
sought to assert claims against a class of all entities located
anywhere in the United States whose ultimate parent corporation
has been the Company at any time on or after February 17, 2001.

The plaintiffs alleged that defendants failed to disclose that
the prices charged by defendants for certain goods and services
exceeded what defendants paid to third parties for those same
goods and services on the plaintiffs' behalf. Plaintiffs further
alleged that this failure violated provisions of the Federal
Trade Commission's "Funeral Rule" that require a funeral home to
disclose, if true, that it marks up the price of certain items
purchased from third parties on behalf of customers on a "cash
advance" or "accommodation" basis. The plaintiffs alleged that
by failing to comply with the Funeral Rule, defendants:

     (1) breached contracts with the plaintiffs,

     (2) were unjustly enriched,

     (3) engaged in unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business
         practices in violation of a provision of California's
         Business and Professions Code, and

     (4) engaged in a civil conspiracy among the defendants to
         breach plaintiffs' contracts and commit acts of unfair

The plaintiffs sought restitution damages, disgorgement,
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.

By order dated May 5, 2005, the court ruled that this case was
related to similar actions against Service Corporation
International (SCI) and Alderwoods Group, Inc.  On August 18,
2005, the court sustained a demurrer in the SCI case, dismissing
the conspiracy count, but allowing the plaintiffs to amend the
remainder of the complaint. This ruling, by stipulation of the
parties, applied equally to the suit filed against the Company.

In response, on August 29, 2005, the plaintiffs in each of the
three cases filed amended complaints. SCI has filed a demurrer
in its case, and the Company joined in that demurrer on October
6, 2005.  As before, the ruling on this demurrer will apply
equally to the suit against the Company.

STEWART ENTERPRISES: CA Court Orders Consumer Suits Consolidated
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California ordered plaintiffs to file a consolidated consumer
class action against Stewart Enterprises, Inc. and other funeral
homes, and ordered the transfer of the cases to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

On May 2, 2005, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
"Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc, et al. v. Service Corporation
International, Alderwoods Group, Inc., Stewart Enterprises,
Inc., Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., and Batesville Casket Co.,"
(FCA Case) was filed on behalf of a nationwide class defined to
include all consumers who purchased a Batesville casket from the
funeral home defendants.  The suit alleges that the defendants
acted jointly to fix and maintain prices on caskets and reduce
competition from independent casket discounters in violation of
the federal antitrust laws and California's Business and
Professions Code. The plaintiffs seek treble damages,
restitution, injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys'

Thereafter, five substantially similar lawsuits were filed in
the Northern District of California asserting claims under the
federal antitrust laws and various state antitrust and consumer
protection laws. These five suits were transferred to the
division in which the FCA Case was pending and consolidated with
the FCA Case (collectively referred to as the "Consolidated
Consumer Cases").

On July 8, 2005, a purported class action was filed in the
Northern District of California entitled "Pioneer Valley Casket
Co., Inc., et al. v. Service Corporation International,
Alderwoods Group, Inc., Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Hillenbrand
Industries, Inc., and Batesville Casket Co."  (Pioneer Valley
Case).  The Pioneer Valley Case involves the same claims
asserted in the Consolidated Consumer Cases, except that it was
brought on behalf of a nationwide class defined to include only
independent casket retailers. On August 15, 2005, the Court
issued an order relating the Pioneer Valley Case to the
Consolidated Cases, but it has not been consolidated with the
Consolidated Consumer Cases for purposes of trial.

On July 15, 2005, the defendants filed motions to dismiss for
failure to plead facts sufficient to establish viable antitrust
and unfair competition claims.  On September 9, 2005, the Court
denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, without prejudice,
but ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended and consolidated
complaint that satisfies the objections raised in the motions to

At the defendants' request, the Court also issued orders in late
September 2005 transferring the Consolidated Consumer Cases and
the Pioneer Valley Case to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas. The transferred cases were
assigned to different judges in the Southern District of Texas,
but the Company believes they ultimately will be consolidated or
related before a single judge.

A similar action captioned "Ralph Lee Fancher, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Service Corporation
International, Alderwoods Group, Inc., Stewart Enterprises,
Inc., Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., Aurora Casket Co., York
Group, Inc., and Batesville Casket Co.," was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on
behalf of consumers in twenty-three states and the District of
Columbia who purchased caskets. The allegations of fact were
essentially the same as those made in the FCA Case, but the
plaintiff in this suit alleged that the defendants violated
various state antitrust, consumer protection and/or unjust
enrichment laws. The plaintiff in this purported class action
withdrew his complaint on August 2, 2005, and re-filed a nearly
identical complaint under Tennessee law and on behalf of only
Tennessee consumers in the Northern District of California on
September 23, 2005, the same day that the Consolidated Consumer
Cases were transferred to the Southern District of Texas.
Accordingly, this case remains pending in the Northern District
of California.

THOROUGHBRED INDUSTRIAL: Competitor Lodges Fraud Lawsuit in KY
Thoroughbred Industrial Cylinder Exchange and its parent company
Scott-Gross Co. faces a class action filed by its competitor,
alleging that the Company illegally obtained and refilled its
air gas cylinders, the Associated Press reports.

Airgas-Mid America filed the suit in Warren Circuit Court in
Kentucky, alleging that the Lexington company and others yet
unknown illegally relabeled and sold Airgas-Mid America
canisters after refilling them.

The Company got the cylinders through its exchange system, which
allows customers to bring in empty air gas cylinders and trade
for newly refilled ones at retail locations like Tractor Supply
Company and Rural King, both of which were also named as
defendants in the lawsuit.  Other retailers participating in the
Thoroughbred exchange program, which have yet to be identified,
are included in the list of defendants as "John Does." The suit
was filed on behalf of a purported 700 plaintiffs - all of whom
have yet to be identified, but are companies like Airgas-Mid
America with similar offerings.

The suit alleges the Company and Scott-Gross knew what they were
doing was illegal and tried to disguise markings from other
companies on the cylinders.  "(Airgas-Mid America) had
suspicions about it for a long time, but only obtained concrete
evidence of it in the last few weeks," Mike Owsley, one of the
company's attorneys in Bowling Green, told AP.

Companies like Airgas-Mid America typically own the cylinders
they distribute, which hold at least 100 cubic feet of oxygen,
and rent the cylinders to customers.  Representatives of
Thoroughbred were not available for comment, AP reports.

TRINITY HEALTH: MI Judge Dismisses Uninsured Patients' Lawsuit
The United States District Court in Detroit, Michigan dismissed
a class action lawsuit filed last year against Novi-based
Trinity Health, The Crain's Detroit Business reports.

The suit alleged that uninsured patients were charged excessive
fees and the hospitals were not providing sufficient charity
service to earn their tax-exempt status.  The suit was part of a
wave of lawsuits against about 400 nonprofit hospitals
nationwide.  The cases were pushed nationally by Richard
Scruggs, the Mississippi attorney who won a $205 billion
settlement against the major tobacco companies in 1998, and
locally by former state Attorney General Frank Kelley.

In Michigan, Mr. Kelley sued Trinity and Royal Oak-based William
Beaumont Hospitals. The suit against Beaumont was dismissed in
June, a decision that Mr. Kelley has since appealed to the
Michigan Court of Appeals.

Dane Hale, senior vice president and general counsel for Trinity
Health said in a statement regarding the dismissal, "We are very
pleased with the federal court's decision."

Mr. Kelley is now in private practice at Lansing-based law and
political lobbying firm Kelley Cawthorne P.L.L.C.

The suit is styled, "Grant et al v. TrinityHealth-Michigan,
Incorporated et al, Case No. 2:04-cv-72734-GER-DAS," filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, under Judge Gerald E. Rosen, with referral to Judge
Donald A. Scheer. Representing the Plaintiff/s are: Steven D.
Weyhing, Frank J. Kelley and Steven D. Weyhing of Kelley
Cawthorne, 101 S. Washington Square, 9th Floor, Lansing, MI
48933, Phone: 517-371-1400, E-mail:
sweyhing@kelley-cawthorne.com and sweyhing@kelley-cawthorne.com.
Representing the Defendant is Raymond W. Henney and Robert M.
Jackson of Honigman, Miller, (Detroit), 660 Woodward Ave., Suite
2290, Detroit, MI 48226-3506, Phone: 313-465-7476 and
313-465-7000, E-mail: rwh@honigman.com and

U.S. CHAMBER: To Release Securities Class Action Study at Meet
The U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform will release a
securities class action study, The Economic Reality of
Securities Class Action Litigation, at its 6th Annual Legal
Reform Summit on October 26 in Washington, DC.

The study reveals that the securities class action system is out
of kilter, providing the least relief to individual investors
and overcompensating institutional investors.

During the summit, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) will deliver a
keynote address on the role of Congress in reforming our civil
justice system, and the attorneys general of Rhode Island and
Kansas will speak on the appropriate role of state attorneys
general. A complete agenda is available online at

Featured Speakers at the summit include:

     (1) Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX);

     (2) Thomas J. Donohue, President and CEO, U.S. Chamber of

     (3) Billy Tauzin, President and CEO, PhRMA;

     (4) Patrick Lynch, Rhode Island Attorney General;

     (5) Phill Kline, Kansas Attorney General; and

     (5) U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement.

For more details, call 202-463-5682 or E-mail:

               New Securities Fraud Cases               

AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Stock Suit in VA
The law firm of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia on behalf of all purchasers of Amerigroup
Corporation ("Amerigroup" or the "Company") (NYSE:AGP)
securities between April 27, 2005 and September 28, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal
securities laws by, among other things, issuing a series of
materially false and misleading press releases concerning
Amerigroup's financial results and business prospects.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Amerigroup failed to
account for medical costs, incurred but not reported, in the
first and second quarters of 2005. As a result, the price of the
Company's common stock was artificially inflated throughout the
Class Period, allowing certain Company insiders to sell 170,712
shares of their Amerigroup stock for proceeds of $6.1 million.
On September 28, 2005, however, the Company disclosed that it
expected to report a third quarter 2005 loss of $0.06 to $0.08
per diluted share, as compared to the then-current consensus
earnings estimate of $0.48 per diluted share and that, as a
result, the Company would not meet its 2005 annual earnings
guidance. On this news, Amerigroup's stock fell $14.70 per share
from $33.91 per share to $19.81 per share on extremely heavy

For more details, contact Anthony Vozzolo, Esq. and Beth A.
Keller, Esq. of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, 320 East 39th St., New
York, NY 10016, Phone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330, E-mail:
Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com and Bkeller@faruqilaw.com, Web site:

DANA CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in GA
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Dana Corporation (NYSE: DCN) between March 23, 2005 to September
14, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

The Complaint alleges that by the beginning of the Class Period,
Dana's profits were being negatively impacted by an increase in
the price of raw materials - steel, in particular - which was
disconcerting to investors. In order to assure the market that
the Company's business was performing according to plan, and
would continue to perform well even if steel prices did not
decline materially, defendants artificially inflated Dana's net
income through improper accounting and, in addition, issued
earnings guidance that lacked any reasonable basis given the
Company's true performance and prospects, which were known to
defendants but not the investing public. In particular,
defendants' Class Period representations regarding Dana's
historical financial performance and condition and its expected
2005 earnings were materially false and misleading because:

     (1) the Company had improperly accounted for price
         increases, which materially artificially inflated its
         second quarter of 2005 income;

     (2) the Individual Defendants' assurances, made in written
         certifications filed with the SEC, that the second
         quarter Form 10-Q was free from misstatements and
         fairly presented the Company's financial condition and
         results of operations was patently false;

     (3) the Company's apparent success was the result of
         improper accounting, did not reflect the reality of its
         business and deceived investors; and

     (4) in light of these facts, which were known to
         defendants, defendants' guidance lacked any rational
         basis and could not be met without a material drop in
         raw material prices, contrary to defendants' repeated
         assurances to the contrary.

On September 15, 2005, before the open of ordinary trading, Dana
issued a press release announcing that it would likely restate
second quarter 2005 financial results and that it had
dramatically lowered its 2005 earnings guidance, to $0.60 to
$0.70 per share from $1.30 to $1.45, a more than 100% reduction.
Because of the expected earnings shortfall, the Company may have
to write down its U.S. deferred tax assets and may be in
violation of covenants contained in a loan agreement, according
to the press release. A main reason given for the halving of the
2005 guidance was high steel costs, a factor that defendants
repeatedly assured the market was already considered, and
accounted for, in the guidance.

In reaction to this announcement, the price of Dana stock fell
dramatically, from $12.78 per share on September 14, 2005 to
$9.86 per share on September 15, 2005, a one-day drop of 22.8%
on unusually heavy trading volume.

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

HILB ROGAL: Labaton Sucharow Files Amended Securities Suit in VA
The law firm of Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP, filed an amended
class action complaint in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, on behalf of those who
purchased or acquired the securities of Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co.
(NYSE:HRH) ("HRH" or the "Company") between August 11, 2000 and
May 26, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was
filed against HRH and Andrew L. Rogal, Martin L. Vaughn III,
Carolyn Jones, and Robert B. Lockhart ("Defendants").

Labaton Sucharow is engaged in an investigation into the
Company's national and local-level contingent and override
commission agreements. The complaint alleges that Defendants
issued a series of false and misleading statements during the
Class Period concerning the Company's growth and growth
potential, while failing to disclose:

     (1) it had entered into secret agreements to limit
         competition by steering clients to select insurers in
         return for substantial contingent and/or override

     (2) that the amount contingent and override commissions HRH
         received constituted a material portion of its net
         income during the Class Period;

     (3) that the growing amount of contingent and/or override
         commissions went straight to the Company's bottom line,
         and was a material reason for the Company's reported
         growth in earnings;

     (4) its earnings were overstated because it failed to
         establish a reserve for foreseeable losses associated
         with public revelation of its illicit business

     (5) it faced the material risk that a significant portion
         of its revenues might be discontinued, and that it
         would be forced to disgorge all or parts of the
         commissions to customers which it had improperly
         obtained during the Class Period;

     (6) it faced the material risk that it could lose
         customers, reputation, and goodwill upon the disclosure
         of its business practices; and

     (7) it faced the material risk that it could be subject to
         substantial legal costs, fines, penalties, claims for
         restitution, and damages as a result of its business

On October 14, 2004, the New York Attorney General's Office
disclosed its investigation into HRH competitor Marsh & McLennan
Companies, Inc. ("Marsh"), relating to the impropriety of
industry practices surrounding contingent commissions. Because
the October 14, 2004 news on Marsh implicated other insurance
brokers and carriers and addressed the issue of contingent
commissions generally in the insurance industry, the price of
HRH stock fell 9.5% on this news, on heavy trading volume. But
HRH falsely maintained that it was not engaged in practices
comparable to Marsh's. In a conference call on October 27, 2004,
Defendant Vaughan stated that HRH's business practices were
distinct from those of Marsh, and that HRH had no special
arrangements with insurance carriers and was not involved in
bid-rigging. On February 2, 2005, however, the Company reported
lower-than-expected financial results due, in part, to decreased
contingent and/or override commissions and increased legal
compliance and claims expenses. The price of HRH stock dropped
7.2% on this news, on heavy trading volume.

Finally, on May 26, 2005, the Company disclosed it had received
improper payments in connection with the placement of insurance
policies, and had terminated Defendant Lockhart as a result. On
this news, the price of HRH stock fell 11% on heavy trading
volume, causing the class significant damages. The Company has
since been under investigation by the states of Florida,
Massachusetts, California, North Carolina, New York and
Connecticut, and at least another 10 states are conducting
inquiries into the Company in connection with the practices
described in the complaint, including fraud on customers and

The Shelly Thompson of Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP, Phone:
800-321-0476, Web site:

REFCO INC.: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
The law firm of Wolf Popper, LLP, initiated a securities fraud
lawsuit against Refco, Inc. ("Refco") (NYSE: "RFX") and certain
of its officers and directors, on behalf of a class (the
"Class") consisting of all persons or entities that purchased
the common stock of Refco on the open market during the period
August 11, 2005 through October 7, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"); or purchased Refco common stock issued and/or
traceable to the Company's Registration Statement/Prospectus
dated August 10, 2005 and declared effective by the SEC on or
around August 11, 2005. The action was filed in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Refco to issue a Registration Statement/Prospectus,
touting the Company's exceptionally high derivative trading
volume and strong financial statements. However, unbeknownst to
the market, Refco hid from its investors the Company's true
financial condition. The Company materially misstated its
accounts receivables by hiding $430 million in bad debt unlikely
to be repaid. Using financial sleight of hand, the Company made
it appear that a legitimate business customer, a hedge-fund
company called Liberty Corner, owed Refco $430 million, when in
fact, a company controlled by Refco's Chief Executive Officer
and Chairman of the Board owed the Company the $430 million.
This was accomplished by making loans to Liberty Corner, which
turned around and lent the money to an entity controlled by
Refco's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board.

On October 10, 2005, only two months after the Company's initial
public offering, the Company announced that its financial
statements included in its Registration Statement/Prospectus
could no longer be relied on because of the previously
undisclosed $430 million related party receivable. The Company
also stated that it would delay the filing of its quarterly
report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending August 31,
2005. Furthermore, the Company announced that its Chief
Executive Officer, Chairman, and controlling shareholder,
Phillip R. Bennet, was taking a leave of absence at the request
of Refco's Board of Directors.

On this news, Refco's share price plummeted 45% to $15.60 from
the prior days closing of $28.56.

On October 12, 2005, Refco's Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board was arrested and charged with securities
fraud by the U.S. Attorney's Office for paying Liberty Corner to
help him hide the money he owed Refco. In addition, on October
13, 2005, Refco announced it would halt activities at its non-
regulated Capital Markets because its liquidity was no longer
sufficient to continue operations. After these announcements,
Refco's share price plummeted again, falling to a close of $7.90
on October 13, 2005.

Wolf Popper LLP has extensive experience representing
shareholders in class actions and has successfully recovered
billions of dollars for defrauded shareholders.

Class members who desire to be appointed a lead plaintiff in
this action must file a motion with the Court no later than
December 12, 2005. Class members who are interested in serving
as a lead plaintiff in this action, or other persons who have
questions or information regarding the prosecution of this
action, are urged to call or write:

For more details, contact James Kelly-Kowlowitz, Esq. or Emily
DeMuro, Investor Relations of Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third Ave.,
New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-759-4600, 877-370-7703 or
1-212-451-9610, Fax: 212-486-2093 or 877-370-7704, E-mail:
Jkelly@wolfpopper.com or edemuro@wolfpopper.com, Web site:

TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files KY Suit
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. (NYSE: TPX)
("Tempur-Pedic" or the "Company") between April 22, 2005 and
September 19, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Tempur-Pedic, Dale E. Williams, Robert B.
Trussell, JR., H. Thomas Bryant and P. Andrews Mclane with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by

     (1) that contrary to defendants' express representations
         the demand for Tempur-Pedic's expensive visco-elastic
         mattresses slowed;

     (2) that the Company faced increased competition in its
         niche sector in the form of cheaper offerings from
         Sealy, Simmons Bedding, and Serta International; and

     (3) that as a consequence of the foregoing defendants'
         encouraging statements about Tempur-Pedic's business
         prospects and market position lacked in any reasonable

On September 19, 2005, Tempur-Pedic lowered its financial
guidance for fiscal 2005. On this news, shares of Tempur-Pedic
common stock fell $4.68 per share, or 28.5 percent, on September
19, 2004, to close at $11.70 per share.

For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard A.
Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia
Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706,
E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site:


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


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, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2005.  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  * * *