---

           C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Tuesday, November 15, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 226

                          Headlines

ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: PA Court Dismisses Stock Suit in Part
ALKERMES INC.: MA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation
AMERICAN FRESH: Recalls Ground Beef For E. Coli Contamination
BOEING CO.: Pays $72.5M to Settle Sex-Discrimination Suit in WA
BP AMERICA: CO Mineral Owners To Receive $101M From Settlement

CAMBREX CORPORATION: NJ Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit
DUPONT CO.: OH Residents Sign up For Teflon Medical Monitoring
ENTERNET MEDIA: CA Court Halts Website Due To Spyware, Adware
GARDEN LEAF: Recalls Chicken Products For Listeria Contamination
GILEAD SCIENCES: CA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit

HRT WEBSITES: FTC Sends Warning Letters to 34 Websites For Fraud
INVESTORS FINANCIAL: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in MA
MICROMUSE INC.: Law Firm Sets Deadline to Object to Settlement
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Continues To Face DRAM Antitrust Litigation
NORTH CAROLINA: Judge Dismisses Four Suits by Uninsured Patients

OHIO: Women Files Sexual Harassment Suit V. Dr. Vikas Kashyap  
PERINI CORPORATION: MA Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: OR Judge OKs Deal, Sets Approval Hearing Date
QUAKER MAID: Recalls Frozen Beef Due To E. Coli Contamination
RADIOSHACK CORPORATION: IL Court Grants Summary Judgment in Suit

SBC COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Court Reinstates Antitrust Lawsuits
SCANA CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of SC Fraud Suit
SONY BMG: Suspends Production of CD Copy Protection Technology
SOUTH CAROLINA: Remains As Defendant in SC Right-of-Way Lawsuit
ST. JUDE: Court Rejects Certification of Silzone Injury Lawsuit

SUPERCONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGIES: CA Court OKs Stock Suit Settlement
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Trial in FL Managed Care Suit Set Jan. 2006
WELLES-BOWEN REALTY: OH Couple Files Suit Over "Sham Operation"
XTO ENERGY: KS Court Mulls Certification of Gas Antitrust Suit
XTO ENERGY: KS Court Considers Certification For Antitrust Suit

XTO ENERGY: Pays For Settlement Of CO Royalty Payments Lawsuit

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Glancy Binkow Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Pomerantz Haudek Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
HCA INC.: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TN
LIPMAN ELECTRONIC: Pomerantz Haudek Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
WELLS FARGO: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA

                          *********



ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: PA Court Dismisses Stock Suit in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Pennsylvania dismissed in
part the consolidated securities class action filed against
Adelphia Communications Corporation's former officers and
directors, its former auditors, lawyers, and financial
institutions who worked with the Company, alleging violations of
federal securities laws.

Beginning on April 2, 2002, various groups of plaintiffs filed
more than 30 class action complaints, purportedly on behalf of
certain of the Company's shareholders and bondholders or classes
thereof in federal court in Pennsylvania.  Several non-class
action lawsuits were brought on behalf of individuals or small
groups of security holders in federal courts in Pennsylvania,
New York, South Carolina and New Jersey, and in state courts in
New York, Pennsylvania, California and Texas.  

Seven derivative suits were also filed in federal and state
courts in Pennsylvania, and four derivative suits were filed in
state court in Delaware. On May 6, 2002, a notice and proposed
order of dismissal without prejudice was filed by the plaintiff
in one of these four Delaware derivative actions. The remaining
three Delaware derivative actions were consolidated on May 22,
2002.  On February 10, 2004, the parties stipulated and agreed
to the dismissal of these consolidated actions with prejudice.

The complaints, which named as defendants the Company, certain
former officers and directors of the Company and, in some cases,
the Company's former auditors, lawyers, as well as financial
institutions who worked with the Company, generally allege that,
among other improper statements and omissions, defendants misled
investors regarding the Company's liabilities and earnings in
the Company's public filings. The majority of these actions
assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and SEC Rule 10b-5. Certain bondholder actions assert claims for
violation of Section 11 and/or Section 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933. Certain of the state court actions
allege various state law claims.

On July 23, 2003, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(JPMDL) issued an order transferring numerous civil actions to
the District Court for consolidated or coordinated pre-trial
proceedings (the "MDL Proceedings").  On September 15, 2003,
proposed lead plaintiffs and proposed co-lead counsel in the
consolidated class action were appointed in the MDL Proceedings.
On December 22, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint.  Motions to dismiss have been filed by various
defendants. On May 27, 2005 and August 16, 2005, the
District Court granted in part and denied in part some of the
pending motions and provided the plaintiffs limited ability to
re-plead the dismissed claims.   

As a result of the filing of the Chapter 11 Cases and the
protections of the automatic stay, the Company is not named as a
defendant in the amended complaint, but is a non-party. The
consolidated class action complaint seeks monetary damages of an
unspecified amount, rescission and reasonable costs and expenses
and such other and future relief as the court may deem just and
proper. The individual actions against the Company also seek
damages of an unspecified amount.

Pursuant to section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, all of the
securities and derivative claims that were filed against the
Company before the bankruptcy filings are automatically stayed
and not proceeding as to the Company.

The suit is styled "IN RE: ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION,
ET AL., case no. 2:04-mc-00222-LP," filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under
Judge Louis H. Pollak.  Representing the plaintiffs is Geraldine
D. Zidow of MCKISSOCK & HOFFMAN, PC, 1818 Market St., 13th
floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-246-2100, E-mail:
gzidow@mckhof.com.  Representing the remaining defendants are
Elizabeth Watson Calhoun and Joel E. Tasca, BALLARD, SPAHR,
ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, LLP, 1735 Market Street, 51ST floor,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-665-8500, E-mail:
calhoune@ballardspahr.com or tasca@ballardspahr.com.  


ALKERMES INC.: MA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts dismissed the consolidated securities class action
filed against Alkermes, Inc. and certain of its current and
former officers and directors with prejudice.

Beginning in October 2003, the Company and certain of our
current and former officers and directors were named as
defendants in six purported securities class action lawsuits,
styled:

     (1) Bennett v. Alkermes, Inc., et. al., 1:03-CV-12091;

     (2) Ragosta v. Alkermes, Inc., et. al., 1:03-CV-12184;

     (3) Barry Family LP v. Alkermes, Inc., et. al., 1:03-CV-
         12243;

     (4) Waltzer v. Alkermes, Inc., et. al., 1:03-CV-12277;

     (5) Folkerts v. Alkermes, Inc., et. al., 1:03-CV-12386 and

     (6) Slavas v. Alkermes, Inc., et. al., 1:03-CV-12471

On May 14, 2004, the six actions were consolidated into a single
action captioned: "In re Alkermes Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 03-CV-12091-RCL (D. Mass.)."  On July 12, 2004, a
single consolidated amended complaint was filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period April
22, 1999 to July 1, 2002.

The consolidated amended complaint generally alleges, among
other things, that during such period, the defendants made
misstatements to the investing public relating to the
manufacture and FDA approval of the Company's Risperdal Consta
product. The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified
damages.

On September 10, 2004, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss all claims asserted against them in
the consolidated amended complaint in their entirety. The Court
heard oral argument on the motion on January 12, 2005, and the
Company is awaiting a decision on the motion.  On October 6,
2005, the federal magistrate judge issued a report and
recommendation for dismissal, in its entirety, of the above-
captioned purported securities class action litigation. After
issuance of this ruling, on October 21, 2005, the lead plaintiff
and the Company and the individual defendants filed a
stipulation with the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts providing for dismissal of this
action, in its entirety and with prejudice. On October 27, 2005,
the Court entered an order dismissing the action with prejudice
as provided in such stipulation and terminating the case on the
Court's docket.

The suit is styled "In Re Alkermes Securities Litigation, case
no. 1:03-cv-12091-RCL," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, under Judge Reginald C.
Lindsay.  Representing the Company are Brian E. Pastuszenski and
Alexis L. Shapiro of Goodwin Procter LLP, Exchange Place, 53
State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-570-1094, Fax:
617-523-1231, E-mail: BPastuszenski@goodwinprocter.com or
ashapiro@goodwinprocter.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are
Connie M. Cheung, Jeffrey W. Lawrence, William S. Lerach and
Shanna M. Scarlet, Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP, 100 Pine
Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-
4545, Fax: 415-288-4534, E-mail: jeffreyl@lcsr.com; and David
Pastor, Gilman and Pastor, LLP, 60 State Street, 37th Floor,
Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-742-9700, Fax: 617-742-9701, E-
mail: dpastor@gilmanpastor.com.  


AMERICAN FRESH: Recalls Ground Beef For E. Coli Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Fresh Foods, a Thomasville, GA, firm, is voluntarily
recalling approximately 6,200 pounds of ground beef that may be
contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced in a
statement.

The products subject to recall include 10-pound chubs of
"AMERICAN FRESH FOODS THOMASVILLE, GA 31792--FINE GROUND BEEF
73/27 10LB" with the case code of "7428" and a sell by date of
"11/15/05."  The chubs of ground beef also bear the
establishment code "Est. 33793" inside the USDA mark of
inspection. The ground beef was produced on Oct. 28, 2005 and
was shipped to retail stores in Florida.

The problem was discovered through company testing. FSIS has
received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of
these products.  Consumption of food contaminated with E. coli
O157:H7, a potentially deadly bacterium, can cause bloody
diarrhea and dehydration. The very young, seniors and persons
with weakened immune systems are the most susceptible to
foodborne illness.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall may contact
company Vice President for Food Safety and Quality Assurance Tim
Biela at (817) 332-5807 ext. 111.  Consumers with food safety
questions can call the toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline
at (888) 674-6854. The hotline is available in English and
Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time)
Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are
available 24 hours a day.


BOEING CO.: Pays $72.5M to Settle Sex-Discrimination Suit in WA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co. agreed to pay $72.5 million to several thousand
women in a bid to settle a class action sex-discrimination
lawsuit in Washington, The Seattle Times reports.

Revealed in documents recently filed with the U.S. District
Court in Seattle, the million-dollar amount is the maximum
allowed under a settlement agreement that won preliminary
approval from a federal judge last year. In addition to the
payout, Boeing admitted no wrongdoing, but did agree to change
its hiring, pay, promotion practices, and how it investigates
employee complaints.

John Dern, a spokesman at Boeing's corporate headquarters in
Chicago, told the Seattle Times, "We've moved ahead on numerous
fronts in making improvements to our work environment."

If the plaintiffs' motion for speedy payment is granted, checks
could be in the mail to some 17,960 current and former female
Boeing employees by Christmas. But, even if the motion is not
granted the firm has until January 14 to pay a court
administrator, who will then issue checks to class members
according to seniority and position.  Mike Helgren, the lead
attorney for the plaintiffs told The Seattle Times that the
exact amounts to be disbursed are under seal, but range from
$500 to $26,000. He adds that the average pre-tax payout is
$3,000 per employee. To cover attorneys' fees and other legal
costs about $15 million will be deducted from the total
settlement.

All in all, more than 20,000 current and former female employees
out of a potential pool of 29,000 said Boeing discriminated
against them at Seattle-area plants between 1997 and 2000. Of
those claims, nearly 2,400 were thrown out for filing
irregularities, including failure to meet a May 3 deadline. The
lawsuit, filed in 2000, alleged a pattern of discrimination at
Boeing.


BP AMERICA: CO Mineral Owners To Receive $101M From Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Some 4,500 people who receive royalties from the production of
coal-bed methane gas in La Plata and Archuleta counties in
Colorado stand to collect back-income of almost $101 million,
minus about one-third in lawyers' fees, The Durango Herald
reports.

The potential windfall is the result of an out-of-court
agreement in a class action lawsuit brought against BP America
in 1994 in which the plaintiffs challenged the company's
underpayment of royalties for some 14 years. Sixth Judicial
District Court Judge David Dickinson is expected to approve the
agreement at a December 7, 2005 hearing, which will determine if
the terms of the agreement and the method used to compute
payments are reasonable.

The lawsuit challenged a BP practice that started in June 1991,
when the company started deducting the expense of gathering,
treating and compressing gas from royalty payments. Ignacio lamb
rancher Richard Parry filed the class action lawsuit against
Amoco in 1994.

In October 2003, Judge Dickinson ruled that Amoco (now BP) could
not subtract from the royalties the cost of bringing coal-bed
methane gas to marketable condition. The judge said that the so-
called GTC expenses are an integral part of making gas
marketable and cannot be assessed to royalty holders.  In the
case, plaintiffs were represented by the law firm of Fleeson,
Gooing, Coulson & Kitch, of Wichita, Kansas along with lawyer
Bob Miller of Durango. The law firm's Web site indicates that
three classes of plaintiffs stand to receive almost $101 million
in royalty refunds and interest.

Under an out-of-court agreement between BP and the plaintiffs'
attorneys that was reached in August, which made a trial to set
damages unnecessary, the lawyers are asking for $650,000 in
expenses and attorneys' fees, plus one-third of the amount
recovered after subtracting out-of-pocket expenses. Meanwhile,
the plaintiffs, who were found to have owned the subsurface
mineral rights but not necessarily the land above, are scheduled
to receive $59.5 million in refunds and $41.4 million in
interest, according to the law firm's Web site.

And the plaintiffs may receive additional income, Mr. Miller
told The Durango Herald. Refunds beyond the $101 million will
accrue, according to him, because the GTC deductions will not
end until 45 days after the fairness hearing.  In addition to
the windfall, BP must also return a yet-unspecified amount of
money collected by the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, which had
certain agreements with Amoco.


CAMBREX CORPORATION: NJ Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
refused to dismiss the securities class action filed against
Cambrex Corporation and five of its former and current Company
officers.

The lawsuit has been brought as a class action in the names of
purchasers of the Company's common stock from October 21, 1998
through July 25, 2003.  The complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose in timely fashion the January 2003 accounting
restatement and subsequent SEC investigation, as well as the
loss of a significant contract at the Baltimore facility.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss in May 2004.  Thereafter
the plaintiff filed a reply brief.  The Company responded and is
awaiting a decision from the Court.  On October 27, 2005, the
Court denied the Company's Motion to Dismiss.

The suit is styled "Stephen Dodge, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Cambrex Corporation, James A.
Mack, Douglas H. MacMillan, Claes Glasell, Salvatore J. Guccione
and Luke M. Beshar," filed in the United States District Court
in New Jersey.

Counsel for the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Patrick L. Rocco and Jennifer Sullivan of Shalov Stone
         & Bonner LLP, 163 Madison Ave. P.O. Box 1277
         Morristown, New Jersey 07692-1277, Phone: 973-775-8897;

     (2) Steven G. Schulman, Peter Seidman and Sharon M. Lee of
         Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone:
         212-594-5300, Fax: 212-868-1229;

     (3) Marc S. Henzel of the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel,
         273 Montgomery Avenue, Bala Cynwyd PA 19004, Phone:
         610-660-8000


DUPONT CO.: OH Residents Sign up For Teflon Medical Monitoring
--------------------------------------------------------------
More than 43,000 people in the mid-Ohio Valley signed up for
tests to find out if a chemical used to make Teflon at a DuPont
Co. chemical plant might harm their health, The Associated Press
reports.

DuPont is paying for the survey and testing as part of its
settlement of a class action lawsuit over the chemical ammonium
perfluorooctanoate, also known as C8. The chemical is used to
produce Teflon at the plant in Washington, West Virginia, along
the Ohio River.

The class action lawsuit (Civil Action No. 01-C-608) was filed
in August 2001 on behalf of residents living near the plant,
located on the Ohio River about 7 miles southwest of
Parkersburg, West Virginia, who said that their drinking supply
was contaminated by ammonium perfluorooctonoate (a.k.a. C8, C-8,
PFOA, APFO, FC143, FC-143), an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (August 23, 2004) reports.

Wood County Circuit Judge George W. Hill approved the
settlement, which DuPont decided to enter into because of the
time and expense of litigation. The settlement, in which the
company agreed to pay at least $107.6 million, was described by
the judge as "a very shrewdly and competently organized proposal
and it seems to be a very unprecedented action by a huge
corporate defendant." In addition, the judge noted that the
settlement was finalized without any evidence that the chemical
caused any disease, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(March 2, 2005) reports.

Since August, more than 17,000 residents of the six Ohio and
West Virginia water districts covered by the settlement have
taken part in the study. Currently, the study now has a waiting
list of about 26,000 people, and it's expected that up to 60,000
will eventually take part.

Though the long-term effects of C8 on people are unknown, the
screenings and analysis will try to determine if the chemical
has any link to cancer, heart disease and birth defects. Earlier
this year a federal scientific review panel concluded C8 is
"likely" to be carcinogenic to humans. Previously, it was
discovered that the chemical, used since World War II, was found
to produce liver cancer in lab rats.

DuPont disputes those findings and cited its own studies on
about 1,100 employees at its Washington Works plant. That study,
revealed that there are higher cholesterol levels among
employees who worked closest to C8 but no overall health
problems. In addition, DuPont's also points to a recent
University of Pennsylvania Medical School study of about 380
people who live near the plant, which found that the residents
had up to 80 times more C8 in their blood than the general
population, but the researchers couldn't find a link to
increased liver, kidney, thyroid or cholesterol problems. Those
researchers though stated that more study was needed.

Answers will begin to come next year when the court-appointed
panel of three epidemiologists reviews the latest screening
results. Some findings will come quickly, according to panel
member Kyle Steenland, an epidemiology professor at Emory
University. But others such as links to cancer and heart disease
may take up to four years. Professor Steenland told The
Associated Press, "The evidence about the health effects of C8
are limited. There are some concerns about cancer and some
concerns about reproductive effects. There is some evidence it
might have some effect on heart disease as well."


ENTERNET MEDIA: CA Court Halts Website Due To Spyware, Adware
-------------------------------------------------------------
An operation that uses the lure of free lyric files, browser
upgrades, and ring tones to download spyware and adware on
consumers' computers has been ordered to halt its illegal
downloads by a U.S. District Court at the request of the Federal
Trade Commission. The court also halted the deceptive downloads
of an affiliate who helped spread the malicious software by
offering blogs free background music. The music code downloaded
by the blogs was bundled with a program that flashed warnings to
consumers who visited the blog sites about the security of their
computer systems. Consumers who opted to upgrade by clicking,
downloaded the spyware onto their computers. The court has
frozen the organization's assets pending a further hearing. The
FTC will seek to bar the deceptive and unfair practices
permanently and require the operators to give up their ill-
gotten gains.

The FTC complaint alleges that the Web sites of the defendants
and their affiliates cause "installation boxes" to pop up on
consumers' computer screens. In one variation of the scheme, the
installation boxes offer a variety of "freeware," including
music files, cell phone ring tones, photographs, wallpaper, and
song lyrics. In another, the boxes warn that consumers' Internet
browsers are defective, and claim to offer free browser upgrades
or security patches. Consumers who download the supposed
freeware or security upgrades do not receive what they are
promised; instead, their computers are infected with spyware.

The agency's complaint alleges that the defendants' software
code tracks consumers' Internet comings and goings; changes
consumers' preferred home page settings; inserts new toolbars
onto consumers' browsers; inserts a large side "frame" or
"window" onto consumers' browser windows that in turn displays
ads; and displays pop-up ads on consumers' computer screens,
even when consumers' Internet browsers are not activated. In
addition, the agency alleges that once the spyware is loaded on
consumers' computers, it interferes with the functioning of the
computer and is difficult for consumers to uninstall or remove.

The FTC alleges the practices are unfair and deceptive and
violate the FTC Act. The agency will seek a permanent ban on the
practices, and redress for consumers.

This case was brought with the invaluable assistance of the
Microsoft Corporation, Webroot Software, Inc., and Google
Incorporated.  Defendants named in the FTC complaint are
Enternet Media, Inc.; Conspy & Co., Inc., Lida Rohbani, also
known as Linda Rohhani and Lida Hakimi; Nima Hakimi; Baback
(Babak) Hakimi, also known as Bobby Rohbani and Bobby Hakimi,
individually and doing business as Networld One, all based in
California which used exploitative code called "Search Miracle,"
"Miracle Search," "EM Toolbar," "EliteBar," and "Elite Toolbar."
The defendants do business as "Enternet Media, Inc.,"
"Enternet," "www.searchmiracle.com," "www.c4tdownload.com," and
"www.cash4toolbar.com". The affiliate, also charged in the
complaint, is Nicholas C. Albert, doing business as Iwebtunes
and www.iwebtunes.com, based in Ohio.

The FTC has set up two ways for consumers who have had
experience with these defendants to contact the FTC with any
information that may be relevant to the FTC's action. Consumers
can send email to enternetmedia@ftc.gov or call 202-326-2992 to
leave messages.   The Commission vote to file the complaint was
4-0. It was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, in Los Angeles.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has "reason to
believe" that the law has been or is being violated, and it
appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public
interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the
defendant has actually violated the law. The case will be
decided by the court.

Copies of the complaint are available from the FTC's Web site at
http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's Consumer Response  
Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent
fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the
marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot,
stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish
(bilingual counselors are available to take complaints), or to
get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-
free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form
at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing,  
identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer
Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of
civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and
abroad.  For more details, contact Claudia Bourne Farrell,
Office of Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2181 or contact Mona
Spivack and Tara M. Flynn, Bureau of Consumer Protection by
Phone: 202-326-3795 or 202-326-3710 or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/11/enternet.htm.


GARDEN LEAF: Recalls Chicken Products For Listeria Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Garden Leaf Foods, a Gardena, Calif., firm, is voluntarily
recalling approximately 275 pounds of a ready-to-eat chicken
product that may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service announced in a statement.

The products subject to recall are 10-ounce packages of "TRADER
JOE'S HERB CHICKEN WRAP WITH MUSTARD VINAIGRETTE." Each deli
wrap bears the establishment number "P-21252" inside the USDA
seal of inspection and the sell by date, "11/07."  The deli
wraps were produced on November 1 and distributed to retail
stores in Arizona, California, Nevada and New Mexico.

The problem was discovered through FSIS microbiological
sampling. FSIS has received no reports of illnesses associated
with consumption of the products.  Consumption of food
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can cause listeriosis,
an uncommon but potentially fatal disease. Healthy people rarely
contract listeriosis. However, listeriosis can cause high fever,
severe headache, neck stiffness and nausea. Listeriosis can also
cause miscarriages and stillbirths, as well as serious and
sometimes fatal infections in those with weakened immune
systems, such as infants, the elderly and persons with HIV
infection or undergoing chemotherapy.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should
contact company President Krikor Bilanjian at (310) 767-1173.  
Consumers with food safety questions can call the toll-free USDA
Meat and Poultry Hotline at (888) 674-6854. The hotline is
available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m.
to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food
safety messages are available 24 hours a day.


GILEAD SCIENCES: CA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed without prejudice the third amended
securities class action filed against Gilead Sciences, Inc., its
Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, former
Executive Vice President of Operations (and current Senior
Business Advisor), Executive Vice President of Research and
Development, and Senior Vice President of Manufacturing and
Research.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
and Exchange Commission, by making certain alleged false and
misleading statements.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages
on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's
securities during the period from July 14, 2003 through October
28, 2003.

Other similar actions were subsequently filed and the court
issued an order consolidating the lawsuits into a single action
on December 22, 2003.  On February 9, 2004, the court issued an
order appointing lead plaintiffs in the consolidated action.  On
April 30, 2004 lead plaintiffs, on behalf of the purported
class, filed their consolidated amended complaint.  On June 21,
2004 the Company and individual defendants filed their motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  On January 4, 2005
the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to
amend.  Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on February
25, 2005.  On March 11, 2005 Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended
Complaint.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this complaint
by May 10, 2005 and the matter was heard on September 27, 2005.  
On October 11, 2005, the court granted the defendants' notion to
dismiss the third amended complaint with leave to amend.

The suit is styled "In re Gilead Sciences Securities litigation,
case no. 03-CV-4999," filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Martin J.
Jenkins.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

     (4) Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach LLP (Seattle,
         WA), 1001 Fourth Avenue - Suite 3200, Seattle, WA,
         98154, Phone: 206.839.0730


HRT WEBSITES: FTC Sends Warning Letters to 34 Websites For Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Trade Commission staff sent warning letters to 34
Web site operators making claims that products advertised as
natural alternatives to hormone replacement therapy will prevent
or treat diseases, such as cancer, heart disease, or
osteoporosis. The warning letters advise these sellers that
their marketing claims may be illegal.

The letters, sent to Web sites identified through an FTC
Internet surf, warn that any health-related claims must be
supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence. Another
16 sellers will receive letters from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) today, warning them that their business
practices may violate FDA law.

"False or unsubstantiated claims about disease cure and
prevention are of particular concern because of their potential
harm. Our action today reminds marketers that they must have
scientific support for such marketing claims before making
them," said Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC's Bureau of
Consumer Protection.

The Web sites were identified during an FTC Internet surf of
sites making claims that their hormone replacement therapy
alternative products - for example, progesterone creams, sprays
or dietary supplements containing plant-based hormones - could
cure diseases or prevent them. The letters note that the FTC
staff is not aware of any competent and reliable scientific
evidence to support claims that the types of products advertised
could prevent, treat, or cure cancer, heart disease, or other
diseases, prevent osteoporosis, or increase bone density. They
also emphasize that according to FTC case law, all health claims
- including claims about the safety of natural hormones - must
be supported by reliable scientific evidence.

The letters offer guidance to the businesses, pointing them to
the FTC publication Dietary Supplements: An Advertising Guide
for Industry, on the FTC's Web site at
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/dietsupp.htmand  
Frequently Asked Advertising Questions: A Guide for Small
Business, on the FTC's Web site at
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/ad-faqs.htm.

FTC staff strongly advised the marketers to review their
advertising and promotional materials, and to revise or delete
any false, misleading, or unsubstantiated product claims.  The
FDA letters were sent to 16 Web sites, warning them about
possible violations of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
The letters list the suspect claims, note the possible law
violations, and state the consequences of noncompliance. For
more information about the warning letters sent by the FDA,
visit its Web site at www.fda.gov.

A sample FTC warning letter is available from the FTC's Web site
at http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's Consumer Response  
Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent
fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the
marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot,
stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish
(bilingual counselors are available to take complaints), or to
get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-
free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form
at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing,  
identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer
Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of
civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and
abroad.  For more details, contact Jacqueline Dizdul, FTC Office
of Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2472 or Susan Cruzan, FDA
Office of Public Affairs, by Phone: 301-827-6248 or contact
Janice Frankle or Carol Jennings, FTC Bureau of Consumer
Protection by Phone: 202-326-3022 or 202-326-3010 or visit the
Website: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/11/hormone.htm.


INVESTORS FINANCIAL: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Investors Financial Services Corporation and five of its
officers are named as defendants in three purported class action
complaints that were filed on August 4, 2005, August 15, 2005,
and September 30, 2005 in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts.

Among other things, the complaints filed on August 4, 2005 and
August 15, 2005 assert that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during
the period October 15, 2003 until July 15, 2005.  The complaint
filed on September 30, 2005 asserts that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
during the period July 16, 2003 until July 15, 2005.

The allegations in the complaints predominantly relate to the
Company's October 2004 restatement of its financial results, and
the Company's July 2005 revision of public guidance regarding
its future financial performance.  The complaints seek
unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs.


MICROMUSE INC.: Law Firm Sets Deadline to Object to Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Emerson Poynter, LLP, reports that a notice of
the proposed settlement of a shareholder derivative lawsuit
brought in federal court on behalf of Micromuse, Inc.
(Nasdaq:MUSE) ("Micromuse") (the "Federal Lawsuit") was recently
sent to the shareholders of Micromuse.

Approval of the proposed settlement of the Federal Lawsuit may
affect important rights of Micromuse and Micromuse shareholders
including extinguishing the right to recover $189 million in
insider trading proceeds on behalf of Micromuse. Accoridng to
the firm for those shareholders of Micromuse stock that wish to
object to the proposed settlement, they have until November 15,
2005 to make objections.

Prior to the proposed settlement, the Federal Lawsuit was
dismissed by the federal court in favor of a previously filed
("related") shareholder derivative lawsuit in state court (the
"State Lawsuit"). Instead of filing in state court, the Federal
Lawsuit was appealed and ultimately reached the proposed
settlement.

The State Lawsuit was brought by plaintiffs derivatively on
behalf of (and for the benefit of) Micromuse, to remedy
defendants' violations of California law, including breaches of
fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste
of corporate assets, unjust enrichment and violations of the
California Corporations Code (including illegal insider trading)
that occurred between October 1, 1999 and the present (the
"Relevant Period") and that have caused substantial losses to
Micromuse and other damages, such as to its reputation and
goodwill. The plaintiffs in the State Lawsuit seek, among other
things, to recover $189 million in illegal insider trading
proceeds from defendants for Micromuse. The claim for $189
million in illegal insider trading proceeds was not brought in
the Federal Lawsuit. Plaintiffs in the State Lawsuit recently
defeated the defendants' attempt to dismiss the lawsuit.

The proposed settlement of the Federal Lawsuit also seeks to
release all claims in the State Lawsuit, including the claim to
recover $189 million in illegal insider trading proceeds, which
the State Lawsuit seeks for Micromuse's benefit and recovery. If
the proposed settlement is approved, Micromuse will receive no
monetary compensation for the $189 million in illegal insider
selling. In fact, the defendants in the Federal Lawsuit will not
be required to pay anything for their wrongdoing as the proposed
settlement only requires Micromuse to implement limited
corporate governance changes. The plaintiff's attorneys in the
Federal Lawsuit have indicated that they will seek $250,000 in
attorneys' fees.

The proposed settlement involves Greg Sutterfield, derivatively
and on behalf of Micromuse, Inc. v. Lloyd Carney, et al.,
Defendants and Micromuse, Inc., Nominal Defendant, Case No. C 04
0893 BZ.

For more details, contact Claims Administrator, Sutterfield v.
Carney, et al., Objections, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box
170500, Milwaukee, WI 53217, Phone: (800) 918-9012; and Scott E.
Poynter of Emerson Poynter, LLP, 2228 Cottondale Ln., Suite 100,
Little Rock, AR 72202, Phone: (800) 663-9817, E-mail:
epllp@emersonpoynter.com, Web site:
http://www.emersonpoynter.com.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Continues To Face DRAM Antitrust Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. faces several class actions, following
the United States Department of Justice's investigation over
alleged antitrust violations in the "Dynamic Random Access
Memory" or DRAM industry.  

Eighteen cases have been filed in various federal district
courts (one of which has been voluntarily dismissed) asserting
claims on behalf of a purported class of individuals and
entities that purchased DRAM directly from the various DRAM
suppliers during the period from April 1, 1999 through at least
June 30, 2002.  All of the cases have been transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for
consolidated proceedings.  The complaints allege price-fixing in
violation of federal antitrust laws and seek treble monetary
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and an injunction against the
allegedly unlawful conduct.  

Additionally, four cases have been filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California asserting claims
on behalf of a purported class of individuals and entities that
indirectly purchased DRAM and/or products containing DRAM from
various DRAM suppliers during the time period from April 1, 1999
through at least June 30, 2002.  The complaints allege price
fixing in violation of federal antitrust laws and various state
antitrust and unfair competition laws and seek treble monetary
damages, restitution, costs, interest and attorneys' fees.

In addition, at least sixty-one cases have been filed in various
state courts (three of which have been voluntarily dismissed)
asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of indirect
purchasers of DRAM.  Cases have been filed in the following
states: Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa,
Kansas, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and
West Virginia, and also in the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico.  The complaints purport to be on behalf of a class of
individuals and entities that indirectly purchased DRAM and/or
products containing DRAM in the respective jurisdictions during
various time periods ranging from 1999 through the filing date
of the various complaints.

The complaints allege violations of the various jurisdictions'
antitrust, consumer protection and/or unfair competition laws
relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM products and seek
treble monetary damages, restitution, costs, interest and
attorneys' fees.  A number of these cases have been removed to
federal court and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco) for consolidated
proceedings.  

Additionally, three cases have been filed in the following
Canadian courts: Superior Court, District of Montreal, Province
of Quebec; Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Ontario; and
Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver Registry, British
Columbia.  The substantive allegations in these cases are
similar to those asserted in the cases filed in the United
States.  Based upon the Company's analysis of the claims made
and the nature of the DRAM industry, the Company believes that
class treatment of these cases is not appropriate and that any
purported injury alleged by plaintiffs in the direct purchaser
cases would be more appropriately resolved on a customer-by-
customer basis.  

In addition, the Attorneys General of Arkansas, California,
Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa,
Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia and Wisconsin have indicated that they are
investigating potential state and federal civil claims against
the Company and other DRAM suppliers on behalf of state and
governmental entities that were direct or indirect purchasers of
DRAM and potentially on behalf of other indirect purchasers of
DRAM.  


NORTH CAROLINA: Judge Dismisses Four Suits by Uninsured Patients
----------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Court Judge Forrest Bridges dismissed four of five
class action lawsuits that accuse hospitals of charging higher
rates for patients who are uninsured than for those who have
health insurance, The Associated Press reports.

Specifically, the North Carolina judge dismissed claims against
Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, NorthEast Medical Center
in Concord, Rowan Regional Medical Center in Salisbury and Moses
Cone Memorial Hospital in Greensboro. The suits claim that
hospitals use a two-tiered billing system, one for patients
insured by companies that negotiate discounts and a higher set
of rates for the uninsured.

Gary Jackson, a Charlotte lawyer representing the patients, told
The Associated Press that the judge dismissed part of the two
claims against N.C. Baptist Hospital in Winston-Salem, the
defendant in the fifth suit. He also told The Associated Press
that seven of the eight patients involved had been sued by the
hospitals first for not paying their bills. The judge said that
those patients could make their unfair billing claims part of
their defense in the lawsuits the hospitals filed against them.

However, a claim by Sue Coughenour of Rowan County against N.C.
Baptist was not dismissed because she had not been sued by the
hospital first, according to Mr. Jackson. He told The Associated
Press that the judge "was not determining that the bills were
reasonable." He adds, "It is not a slam-dunk for the hospitals
by any stretch of the imagination."

Carolinas Medical Center spokesman Alan Taylor told The
Associated Press that the center is pleased that the judge
dismissed the lawsuits and adding, "We felt all along it was
without merit."

Hospital officials, who sought for the dismissal of the suits,
maintained that they routinely provide free medical services for
the uninsured and the poor and that they routinely negotiate
discounted rates with uninsured individuals.


OHIO: Women Files Sexual Harassment Suit V. Dr. Vikas Kashyap  
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two Ohio women initiated a class action lawsuit against Delhi
doctor Vikas Kashyap, M.D., claiming that they were sexually
assaulted in an examination room, 9 News reports.

According to the state medical board, formal charges weren't
warranted but both women say they were alone with Vikas Kashyap.
One woman alleges that he fondled her under the guise of a
breast exam and the other says she was a victim of a much more
serious assault.

Before last year, Colleen Huffer and Terena Deters didn't know
each other. Ms. Huffer told 9News, "When I answered the phone,
this voice across the phone came over and said, 'You don't know
me, but my name is Terena Deters. We have a mutual friend.'"

Ms. Deters tells 9News that during an appointment, Dr. Kashyap
insisted on listening for a heart murmur because she had prior
indications of heart palpitations, though she says those had
gone away. She said, "Doctor insisted on listening, which was
fine, and then talked me into a breast exam and that is when he
-- it was a very inappropriate breast exam -- made some very
inappropriate remarks." In the suit Ms. Deters says that the
doctor told her, "that she had 'nice breasts' and that her
husband was a 'lucky man,' and that she could, 'have an
affair.'"

"Terena described for me what had happened to her. I sat silent
for a few moments," according to Ms. Huffer, "looked at myself -
- I had a mirror sitting on the chest of drawers -- I looked in
the mirror and I said, 'Well, you finally have somebody to help
you bring your voice out'." Ms. Huffer, who was in for
mononucleosis, says the doctor violated her in a much more
severe way. She told 9News, "I kept saying I was molested, but
then having to go to my doctor and have an examination and have
her look at me and say, 'No, you can't say this was a
molestation -- this was a rape.'"

9News tried to speak with Dr. Kashyap recently, but an employee
said he wasn't at his office. However, 9News waited outside and
saw the doctor leave the office.

Ms. Huffer told 9News, "He's got to be stopped one way or the
other. Whether it be me, whether it be Terena or if it would be
hundreds of other women come forward."

Upon being contacted by 9News for comment, Dr. Kashyap's
attorney David Fornshell, of Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP, provided the
following statement: "Dr. Kashyap categorically denies the
outrageous allegations contained in the plaintiffs' complaint.
The plaintiffs' made these same allegations to law enforcement,
to the state medical board, both of whom thoroughly investigated
their stories and concluded that no further action was
warranted. We're confident that the court will also conclude
that these slanderous allegations are completely untrue."

The women say that both the state and police failed them, and
that is why they filed the suit. Regarding her health, Ms.
Deters told 9News that another breast exam and ultrasound did
not reveal a tumor. Covington attorney Barbara D. Bonar told
9News, "We filed this as a class action because we have a
reasonable belief that there are other victims who have not yet
come forward." Once Dr. Kashyap is served with the complaint, he
and his attorney will have 28 days to respond.


PERINI CORPORATION: MA Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated class action filed against certain of Perini
Corporation's current and former directors.

Frederick Doppelt, Arthur I. Caplan and Leland D. Zulch filed a
lawsuit individually, and as representatives of a class of
holders of the $2.125 Depositary Convertible Exchangeable
Preferred Shares, representing 1/10 Share of $21.25 Convertible
Exchangeable Preferred Stock against certain current and former
directors of the Company.  This lawsuit is captioned "Doppelt,
et al. v. Tutor, et al."  Mr. Doppelt is a current director of
Perini and Mr. Caplan is a former director of the Company.

Specifically, the original complaint alleged that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the holders of the
Depositary Shares and to the Company. The plaintiffs principally
allege that the defendants improperly authorized the exchange of
Series B Preferred Stock for common stock while simultaneously
refusing to pay accrued dividends due on the Depositary Shares.

In July 2003, the plaintiffs filed an amended Complaint. The
amended complaint added an allegation that the defendants have
further breached their fiduciary duties by authorizing a tender
offer for the purchase of up to 90% of the Depositary Shares and
an allegation that the collective actions of the defendants
constitute unfair and deceptive business practices under the
provisions of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.  The
amended complaint withdrew the allegation of a breach of
fiduciary duty owed to Perini, but retained the allegation with
respect to a breach of those duties owed to the holders of the
Depositary Shares.

On April 12, 2004, pursuant to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss,
the Court dismissed the claim under the Massachusetts Consumer
Protection Act. The Court did not dismiss the claim for breach
of fiduciary duty, except as such claim relates to the tender
offer for the purchase of the Company's Depositary Shares.
Pursuant to the Court's April 12, 2004 Order, in May 2004 the
plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint and a motion for
class certification.  Defendants filed an answer denying any and
all claims of wrongdoing and asserting affirmative defenses.

On November 30, 2004, Perini announced that the parties had
reached an agreement for settlement of the Action.  Under the
terms of the settlement, Perini would purchase all of the
Depositary Shares submitted in the settlement for consideration
of $19.00 per share in cash and one share of Perini common
stock.  On April 19, 2005, the District Court of Massachusetts
conditionally certified a class of holders of Depositary Shares
for purposes of settlement only.  On May 5, 2005, the Court
preliminarily approved the settlement as being fair, just,
reasonable and adequate, pending a final hearing.

On September 21, 2005, the Court gave final approval to the
settlement as being fair, just, reasonable and adequate.  The
settlement and the number of Depositary Shares participating in
the settlement became final on October 24, 2005.  Under the
terms of the settlement, effective November 2, 2005, the Company
purchased all of the 374,185 participating Depositary Shares
that were submitted for $19.00 in cash and one share of the
Company's common stock for each Depositary Share for an
aggregate of $7.1 million in cash and 374,185 shares of common
stock.  After consummation of the settlement, 185,088 Depositary
Shares remain outstanding and Frederick Doppelt will resign from
his position as a director of the Company.

The suit is styled Doppelt, et al v. Tutor, et al., 1:02-cv-
12010-MLW, and is pending in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, under Judge Mark L. Wolf.  
The law firms involved in this litigation are:

     (1) Samuel E. Bonderoff of Paul, Weis, Rifkind, Wharton &
         Garrison, NY, representing plaintiffs Leland D. Zulch,
         Arthur I. Caplan and defendants Arthur J. Fox, Jr.,
         Bonnie R. Cohn, Christopher H. Lee, Douglas J.
         McCarron, Jane E. Newman, Marshall M. Crider, Nancy
         Hawthorne, Peter Arkley, Raymond R. Oneglia, Richard J.
         Boushka, Robert A. Band, Robert A. Kennedy, Ronald N.
         Tutor and Wayne L. Berman;

     (2) Robert T. Cronan of Goodwin Procter LLP Mail: Exchange
         Place, 53 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-
         570-1389 or 617-523-1231, E-mail:
         tcronan@goodwinproctor.com, representing defendants
         Arthur J. Fox, Jr., Bonnie R. Cohn, Christopher H. Lee,
         Douglas J. McCarron, Jane E. Newman, Marshall M.
         Crider, Nancy Hawthorne, Peter Arkley, Raymond R.
         Oneglia, Richard J. Boushka, Robert A. Band, Robert A.
         Kennedy, Ronald N. Tutor and Wayne L. Berman and
         plaintiff Arthur I. Caplan;

     (3) Felicia S. Ennis of Robinson Brog Leinwand Greene
         Genovese & Gluck, Mail: 31st Floor, 1345 Avenue of the
         Americas New York, NY 10105-0143, Phone: 212-603-6300,
         Fax: 212-956-2164 E-mail: fse@robinsonbrog.com
         representing plaintiffs Frederick Doppelt and Arthur I.
         Caplan and defendant Richard J. Boushka;

     (4) Stuart M. Glass of Goodwin Procter, LLP, Mail: Exchange
         Place, 53 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-
         570-1920, Fax: 617-523-1231, E-mail:
         sglass@goodwinprocter.com, representing defendants
         Arthur J. Fox, Jr., Bonnie R. Cohn, Christopher H. Lee,
         Douglas J. McCarron, Jane E. Newman, Marshall M.
         Crider, Nancy Hawthorne, Peter Arkley, Raymond R.
         Oneglia, Richard J. Boushka, Robert A. Band, Robert A.
         Kennedy, Ronald N. Tutor, Michael R. Klein and Wayne L.
         Berman and plaintiff Arthur I. Caplan;

     (5) Daniel J. Kramer of Paul Weiss Rivkind Wharton &
         Garrison LLP, Mail: 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New
         York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-373-300 Fax: 212-757-3990 E-
         mail: dkramer@paulweiss.com, representing plaintiff
         Arthur I. Caplan,

     (6) Alan M. Pollack of Robinson Brog Leinwand Greene
         Genovese & Gluck, Mail: 31st Floor, 1345 Avenue of the
         Americas, New York, NY 10105-0143 Phone: 212-603-6316,
         Fax: 212-956-2164 or E-mail: amp@robinsonbrog.com
         representing plaintiff Frederick Doppelt and defendant
         Richard J. Boushka;

     (7) Steven L. Schreckinger of Palmer & Dodge, LLP, Mail:
         111 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02199, Phone: 617-
         239-0167, Fax: 617-227-4420, E-mail:
         sschreckinger@palmerdodge.com, representing plaintiffs
         Arthur I. Caplan, Frederick Doppelt, Yvonne Weber,
         Leland D. Zulch and defendants Richard J. Boushka, and
         Martin Ahubik,

     (8) Eryn Starun of Paul Weiss Rivkind Wharton & Garrison
         LLP, Mail: 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
         10019, Phone: 212-373-300, Fax: 212-757-3990, E-mail:
         estarun@paulweiss.com, representing plaintiff Arthur I.
         Caplan

     (9) Matthew J. Weiss of Weiss & Associates, 419 Park Avenue
         South 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-683-7373
         Fax: 212-726-0135 E-mail:
         mjweiss@weissandassiciatespc.com representing
         plaintiffs Arthur I. Caplan, Frederick Doppelt, Leland
         D. Zulch, Martin Ahubik and Yvonne Weber


PROVIDENCE HEALTH: OR Judge OKs Deal, Sets Approval Hearing Date
----------------------------------------------------------------
A judge in Multnomah County in Oregon granted preliminary
approval to a settlement of a class action lawsuit against
Providence Health System, The Associated Press reports.

The suit centers on allegations that Providence charged
uninsured patients a higher rate for services than it did
insured patients.

Recently, Circuit Judge Marilyn Litzenberger set June 23, 2006,
as the target date for final approval of the settlement. In the
meantime, individuals or groups who object to terms of
settlement can ask to intervene in the case with patient claims
required to be filed by February 23, 2006.


QUAKER MAID: Recalls Frozen Beef Due To E. Coli Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Quaker Maid Meats, Inc., a Reading, Penn., firm, is voluntarily
recalling approximately 94,400 pounds of frozen ground beef
patties that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
announced in a statement.

The products subject to recall include Three-pound boxes of
"PHILLY-GOURMET, 100% PURE BEEF, HOMESTYLE PATTIES" with the
packaging code of "2005A," "2005B," "2005C" or "2005D;" and
Five-pound boxes of "PHILLY-GOURMET, 100% PURE BEEF, HOMESTYLE
PATTIES" with the packaging code of "2005A," "2005B," "2005C" or
"2005D."

The products also bear the establishment code "Est. 2748" inside
the USDA mark of inspection. The patties were produced on July
19 and were shipped to retail stores in Connecticut, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Maine, Maryland Massachusetts, New Jersey, New
York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia and Wisconsin.  
Testing done by the New York Department of Health has linked the
product to illnesses. E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly
bacterium that can cause bloody diarrhea and dehydration. The
very young, seniors and persons with weak immune systems are the
most susceptible to foodborne illness.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall may contact
company President, Sergei Szortyka at (610) 376-1500.  Consumers
with food safety questions can call the toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline at (888) 674-6854. The hotline is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day.


RADIOSHACK CORPORATION: IL Court Grants Summary Judgment in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment
in the class action filed against RadioShack Corporation in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division styled "Alphonse L. Perez, et al. v.
RadioShack Corporation, Case No. 02 C 7884."

On October 31, 2002, Alphonse L. Perez and Douglas G. Phillips
brought this lawsuit against the Company on behalf of themselves
and all other past and present employees of RadioShack who were
designated, paid, or employed as "Y" Store Managers in the
United States within the past three (3) years, and who have not
already had their claims for overtime previously adjudicated.

The suit alleges a claim under the Federal Fair Labor Standards
Act.  This lawsuit alleges that RadioShack has and continues to
have a policy of requiring their employees in the "Y" Store
Manager position to work in excess of forty (40) hours per week
without paying them overtime compensation as required by federal
wage and hour laws.  Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, including the interest thereon, statutory
penalties, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs on
behalf of themselves and all similarly situated current and
former "Y" Store Managers.

On September 9, 2005, the judge in the Perez case granted, in
part, the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.  This
interlocutory ruling held that any Perez class member not
supervising at least 80 hours of weekly payroll at least 80% of
the time could not be deemed exempt from overtime pay.  The
Company respectfully disagree with the ruling and will continue
to defend its position. Although the plaintiffs' counsel in
Perez has publicly stated that they believe our alleged
liability, as a result of the judge's September 9th ruling, may
be in excess of $10 to $15 million, the Company said in a
regulatory filing that it strongly disagreed with this
assessment.

In the filing, the Company said, "Based on our current analysis,
we believe that our alleged liability upon the final disposition
of this ruling will be substantially less, if any at all. We
anticipate that the trial of all remaining issues in the Perez
case will begin in February 2006, and we believe it is likely we
will prevail on all of the remaining issues at trial."

The suit is styled, "Perez et. al. v. RadioShack Corporation,
Case No. 02 C 7884," filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, under
Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.

Counsel for the class are: Timothy J. Touhy, Esq., Daniel K.
Touhy, Esq., James B. Zouras, Esq., and Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.,
of TOUHY & TOUHY, LTD., 161 North Clark Street, Suite 2210,
Chicago, Illinois 60601.,Phone: (877)372-2209, Fax: (312)456-
3838, Email: lawyers@touhylaw.com Website:
http://www.radioshackclassaction.com,and Peter M. Callahan,  
Esq., Robert W. Thompson, Esq. and Lee A. Sherman, Esq. of
CALLAHAN, McCUNE & WILLIS, 111 Fashion Lane, Tustin, California,
92780, Phone: (714) 730-5700, Fax: (714) 730-1642, E-mail:
classaction@cmwlaw.net.

Defendant Radioshack is represented by: Edward W. Bergmann,
Esq., Justin M. Crawford, Esq., Brian J. Hipp, Esq. of SEYFARTH
SHAW, 55 East Monroe Street, Suite 4200, Chicago, Illinois,
60603, Phone: (312) 346-8000, Fax: (312) 269-8869, and Robert S.
Brewer, Jr., Esq., Ross H. Hyslop, Esq., and Robert A. Cocchia,
Esq., of MCKENNA, LONG & ALDRIDGE, LLP, 750 B Street, Suite
3300, San Diego, California, 92101, Phone: (619)595-5400, Fax:
(619) 595-5450, E-mail: rsattorneys@mckennalong.com, Website:
http://www.radioshackovertimelawsuits.com.


SBC COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Court Reinstates Antitrust Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the
two consumer antitrust class actions filed against SBC
Communications, Inc., reversing a lower court ruling.

The suits, which also name other telephone companies, namely
Verizon Communications, BellSouth Corporation and Qwest
Corporation as defendants, were initially filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
alleging that the defendants violated federal and state
antitrust laws by agreeing not to compete with one another and
acting together to impede competition for local telephone
services.  

In October 2003, the court granted the joint defendants' motion
to dismiss these suits on the ground that the plaintiffs'
complaints failed to state a claim under the antitrust laws.  In
October 2005, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the
District Court ruling, thereby allowing the cases to proceed.
The Second Circuit noted in its decision that its ruling was
procedural in nature and did not address the merits of the
cases. Motions for rehearing and rehearing en banc are pending.
If these motions are denied, the case will return to the
District Court for further proceedings. No motion for class
certification can be filed unless and until the case returns to
the District Court, and other portions of Defendants' motion to
dismiss not subject to the appeal remain to be decided.

The lead case is titled "Twombly v. Bell Atlantic, et al, case
no. 1:02-cv-10220-GEL," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Gerard
E. Lynch.  The member case is styled "Marcus v. Bell Atlantic
Corporation, case no. 1:03-cv-01567-GEL."  Counsel for the
plaintiffs in the lead case is J. Douglas Richards of Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New
York, NY 10119 Phone: (212) 946-9390 Fax: (212) 244-5423 E-mail:
drichards@milbergweiss.com.  Representing the Company are:

     (1) Aaron M. Panner, Mark C. Hansen, Michael J. Guzman, and
         Michael K. Kellogg, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd &
         Evans, PLLC Sumner Square, 1615 M Street, N.W. Suite
         400 Washington, DC 20036, E-mail: mkellogg@khhte.com

     (2) Maria T. Galeno, Pillsbury Winthrop LLP (NY), 1540
         Broadway, New York, NY 10004 Phone: 212-858-1833 Fax:
         212-298-8407 E-mail: mgaleno@pillsburywinthrop.com  


SCANA CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of SC Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the South Carolina's Circuit Court of Common
Pleas for the Ninth Judicial Circuit's dismissal of the class
action filed against SCANA Corporation, styled "Douglas E.
Gressette, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly
situated v. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and SCANA
Corporation."

The case alleges the Company made improper use of certain
easements and rights-of-way by allowing fiber optic
communication lines and/or wireless communication equipment to
transmit communications other than the Company's electricity-
related internal communications.  The plaintiff asserted causes
of action for unjust enrichment, trespass, injunction and
declaratory judgment.  The plaintiff did not assert a specific
dollar amount for the claims.

The Company believes its actions are consistent with governing
law and the applicable documents granting easements and rights-
of-way, it stated in a regulatory filing.  The Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss and issued an Order dismissing the
case on June 29, 2005.  


SONY BMG: Suspends Production of CD Copy Protection Technology
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sony BMG Music Entertainment recently stated that it would stop
producing CDs with its controversial XCP copy-protection
technology, The iT News reports.

In a statement released last week, the company, which is a joint
venture by Sony and Germany's Bertelsmann AG, said, "As a
precautionary measure, Sony BMG is temporarily suspending the
manufacture of CDs containing XCP technology. We also intend to
re-examine all aspects of our content protection initiative to
be sure that it continues to meet our goals of security and ease
of consumer use."

The decision came after nearly every major security firm put out
alerts that a Trojan horse was using the XCP (eXtended Copy
Protection) software to hide malicious files. Last week also saw
news of a wave of class action lawsuits filed or about to be
filed against Sony for installing the hacker-style "rootkit" on
users' PCs without their permission.

Even as it said it would defer using XCP, Sony remained defiant
adding in its statement, "We swiftly provided a patch to all
major anti-virus companies and to the general public that guards
against precisely the type of virus now said to exist." Sony
also stood by its rights to copy-protect content from digital
piracy by pointing out, "It is an important tool to protect our
intellectual property rights and those of our artists."

However, Mark Russinovich, one of the original discovers of
XCP's practice of installing a rootkit to hide its files from
crackers, has called that patch into question. He revealed that
that in some cases it could crash a computer during
installation.

Numerous anti-virus and anti-spyware vendors have dubbed the XCP
technology as spyware or called it "unwanted malicious
software", with some, such as Computer Associates, going so far
as to blacklist and remove the software.

Before Sony's announcement, suits were already pending or were
to be filed over the software. One of those suits was filed on
November 1, 2005, in Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles in California. That suit is asking the court to prevent
Sony from selling additional CDs protected by the anti-piracy
software. In addition, the suit seeks monetary damages for
California consumers who purchased them, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (November 10, 2005) reports.

The suit alleges that Sony's software violates at least three
California statutes, including the "Consumer Legal Remedies
Act," which governs unfair and/or deceptive trade acts; and the
"Consumer Protection against Computer Spyware Act," which
prohibits software that takes control over the user's computer
or misrepresents the user's ability or right to uninstall the
program. It also alleges that Sony's actions violate the
California Unfair Competition law, which allows public
prosecutors and private citizens to file lawsuits to protect
businesses and consumers from unfair business practices, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 10, 2005) reports.  

Another suit is a nationwide class action case, which is
expected to be filed in a New York court. That suit will be
seeking relief for all U.S. consumers who have purchased any of
the 20 music CDs in question, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (November 10, 2005) reports.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Remains As Defendant in SC Right-of-Way Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company continues to face a class
action styled "Collins v. Duke Energy Corporation, Progress
Energy Services Company, and SCE& G," filed in South Carolina's
Circuit Court of Common Pleas for the Fifth Judicial Circuit.  
Since that time, the plaintiffs have dismissed defendants Duke
Energy and Progress Energy and are proceeding against the
Company only.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for the alleged improper use
of electric transmission and distribution easements but have not
asserted a dollar amount for their claims. Specifically, the
plaintiffs contend that the licensing of attachments on electric
utility poles, towers and other facilities to non-utility third
parties or telecommunication companies for other than the
electric utilities' internal use along the electric transmission
and distribution line rights-of-way constitutes a trespass.


ST. JUDE: Court Rejects Certification of Silzone Injury Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a recent ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit reversed a district court's certification of a
nationwide class action suit, which asserts claims under a
series of Minnesota consumer protection and deceptive trade
practices statutes, The Mondaq News Alerts reports.

The court's opinion in the case, In re St. Jude Medical, Inc.,
No. 04-3117, __F.3d__, 2005 WL 2509282 (8th Cir. October 12,
2005), reversed a district court decision accepting the
possibility of a nationwide class action lawsuit premised on the
laws of a single state and effectively overruled a second
district court decision in an insurance sales practices case.

The Eighth Circuit's ruling addresses the role of the various
constitutional considerations implicated by putative national
class actions, which seek to rely on the law of one particular
state and represents the second significant appellate court
decision in recent months rejecting the certification of a
nationwide class.

The defendant, St. Jude Medical, Inc., is a medical
manufacturing company with headquarters and operations located
in Minnesota. It faced a number of putative class actions that
were filed on behalf of those patients in the United States who
had received a Silzone valve implant it manufactured. Those
suits were consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation and transferred to the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota for pretrial proceedings.

The suit asserted common law claims for strict products
liability, breach of implied and express warranties, negligence,
and medical monitoring as well as claims under a variety of
Minnesota statutes including the False Advertising Act, the
Consumer Fraud Act, the Unlawful Trade Practices Act, and the
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

The plaintiffs in the case moved for certification of a number
of different classes including a single, national class under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) asserting claims under
Minnesota's consumer protection and deceptive trade practices
acts. Defendant argued, among other things, that application of
Minnesota law to the entire class was unconstitutional in the
first instance and even assuming such application was
constitutional, Minnesota law should not be presumed to apply to
all class members and the court should undertake a state-by-
state analysis to determine what law should apply to each
plaintiff's claims, an inquiry the breadth of which would
overwhelm any common issues and make a national class
unmanageable.

Finding that the state of Minnesota had a significant interest
in the litigation in light of the fact St. Jude was
headquartered there and most of the relevant conduct had
occurred in, or emanated from the state, the district court
rejected the first argument. Therefore, it ruled that
application of Minnesota law was neither arbitrary nor
fundamentally unfair.

With respect to the second argument, the district court found
that there were no impediments to applying Minnesota's consumer
protection statutes to a nationwide class because those statutes
explicitly permitted "any person" or "a person" injured by a
violation to bring a lawsuit.

The district court's ruling was appealed by St. Jude to the
Eight Circuit, arguing that the district court's certification
of a nationwide class action using the consumer protection laws
of a single state to the exclusion of all others violated the
Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Full Faith and
Credit Clause, the Rules Enabling Act, the Erie doctrine, and
Rule 23. The Eighth Circuit found it necessary only to address
the Due Process and Full Faith and Credit arguments.

The court cited the same general rule of constitutional law as
the district court (i.e., in order "for a state's substantive
law to be selected in a constitutionally permissible manner, the
State must have a significant contact or significant aggregation
of contacts, creating state interests, such that choice of its
law is neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair"), but found
it impossible to determine whether that rule had been satisfied
in this case since the district court had not analyzed the
contacts between Minnesota and each plaintiff's claims.

In order to apply Minnesota law to a nationwide class, the
appeals court held the district court was first required to
conduct an individualized choice-of-law analysis with respect to
each plaintiff class member's claim in order to determine
whether any conflicts existed. Accordingly, the Eight Circuit
reversed the certification of the consumer protection class and
remanded the case so that the district court could conduct "a
thorough conflicts-of-law analysis with respect to each
plaintiff class member before applying Minnesota law."


SUPERCONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGIES: CA Court OKs Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California approved the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Superconductor
Technologies, Inc. and certain of its officers.

Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint in October
2004. The plaintiffs allege securities law violations by the
Company and certain of its officers and directors under Rule
10b-5 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended. The complaint was filed on behalf of a
purported class of people who purchased Company stock during the
period between January 9, 2004 and March 1, 2004 and seeks
unspecified damages.  The plaintiffs base their allegations
primarily on the fact that the Company did not achieve its
forecasted revenue guidance of $10 to $13 million for the first
quarter of 2004.

In February 2005 the Company settled with the lead plaintiffs
appointed by the Court to handle this matter. Under the terms of
the settlement, the Company's insurers will pay $4.0 million
into a settlement fund, and the Company will pay up to $50,000
of the costs of providing notice of the settlement to settlement
class members.  These amounts were paid into the settlement fund
in April 2005. The District Court approved the settlement on
August 8, 2005, and the Company does not expect any further
legal action related to this matter.

The suits are pending in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, under Judge Dickran
Tevrizian.  The suits are styled:

     (1) Marc A Backhaus v. Superconductor Technologies Inc et
         al., 2:04-cv-02680-DT-JTL,

     (2) Sandy Goldfine v. Superconductor Technologies Inc et
         al., 2:04-cv-02848-DT-JTL

     (3) Aida Alvarez v. Superconductor Technologies Inc et al.,
         2:04-cv-02927-DT-JTL

Lawyer for the Company is Richard H. Zelichov, Irell & Manella,
1800 Avenue of the Stars, Ste 900, Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276,
Phone: 310-277-1010, E-mail: rzelichov@irell.com.  Lawyers for
the plaintiffs are:

     (i) Arthur R. Angel, Arthur R Angel Law Offices, 1236 North
         Fairfax Avenue, West Hollywood, CA 90046, Phone: 323-
         656-9085
  
    (ii) Stuart W Emmons and William B Federman, Federman and
         Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma
         City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com

   (iii) Christopher Kim, Liza J. Yang, Lim Ruger & Kim, 1055 W
         7th St, Ste 2800, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone:  213-
         955-9500, E-mail: ckim@lrklawyers.com or
         lisayang@lrklawyers.com

    (iv) Richard A Maniskas, Marc A. Topaz, Schiffrin & Barroway
         3 Bala Plaza E Ste 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone:
         610-667-7706

     (v) Peter A Binkow, Lionel Z. Glancy, Michael Goldberg,
         Glancy & Binkow 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste 311, Los
         Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, E-mail:
         info@glancylaw.com

    (vi) Robert I Harwood, Wechsler & Harwood, 488 Madison Ave,
         8th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-935-7400


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Trial in FL Managed Care Suit Set Jan. 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated class action filed against
UnitedHealth Group, Inc. and virtually all major entities in the
health benefits business has been moved to January 2006 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Miami Division.  The litigation is styled "In Re:
Managed Care Litigation: MDL No. 1334."

Beginning in 1999, a series of class action lawsuits were filed.  
In December 2000, a multidistrict litigation panel consolidated
several litigation cases involving the Company and its
affiliates.  Generally, the health care provider plaintiffs
allege violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO) in connection with alleged undisclosed policies
intended to maximize profits.  Other allegations include breach
of state prompt payment laws and breach of contract claims for
failure to timely reimburse providers for medical services
rendered.  The consolidated suits seek injunctive, compensatory
and equitable relief as well as restitution, costs, fees and
interest payments.

The trial court granted the health care providers' motion for
class certification and that order was reviewed by the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the
class action status of the RICO claims, but reversed as to the
breach of contract, unjust enrichment and prompt payment claims.
Through a series of motions and appeals, all direct claims
against the Company have been compelled to arbitration. The
trial court has denied the Company's further motion to compel
the secondary RICO claims to arbitration and the Eleventh
Circuit affirmed that order. A trial date was initially set for
September 2005, but later the date was changed to January 2006.  
The trial court has ordered that the trial be bifurcated into
separate liability and damage proceedings.   At a hearing before
the trial court in July 2005, the plaintiffs confirmed that they
would not seek damages against the Company with respect to
capitation-related claims. In August 2005, the capitation
related claims were dismissed from litigation.

The suit is styled "In Re Humana Inc. Managed Care Litigation,
MDL 1334," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, under Judge
Federico Moreno.  The suit names as defendants Humana, Inc.,
Aetna, Inc., Aetna-USHC, Inc., Cigna, Health Net, Inc., Human
Health Plan, Inc., Pacificare Health Systems, Inc., Prudential
Insurance Company of America, United Health Group, United Health
Care and Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc.  Cigna and Aetna have
entered settlements with the plaintiffs.  Lead Plaintiffs'
Attorneys are Barry Meadow of Podhurst, Orseck, et al., Harley
Tropin of Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton and Archie Lamb.


WELLES-BOWEN REALTY: OH Couple Files Suit Over "Sham Operation"
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Perrysburg, Ohio couple initiated a lawsuit in U.S. District
Court in Toledo against Welles-Bowen Realty Inc., alleging that
the company's title-company arm is a sham operation that
collects kickbacks from a Chicago firm, The Toledo Blade
reports.

The suit tackles an issue that has generated national
controversy -- joint ventures between real estate agencies and
title insurance underwriters to sell the insurance to homebuyers
have been created nationwide. The ventures have also prompted
several state investigations.

John Murray, an attorney with the well-known Sandusky law firm
of Murray & Murray, told The Toledo Blade that the lawsuit filed
by his firm shows the issue has hit the Toledo market. He said,
"It's completely illegal for these Realtors to be setting up
sham operations to get more fees than they've disclosed to their
customers." Mr. Murray also told The Toledo Blade, "The question
is: Are they really doing substantive work or are they just
getting a secret rebate that should be going to the consumers or
real estate [agents]?"

However, Kevin Smith and David Browning, the brokers and owners
of Welles-Bowen Realty, and their attorney, Richard Carr,
dispute the lawsuit's claims. They pointed out that the title
company has two employees who handle title business, which they
say is established according to federal rules. "This is not a
sham business," Mr. Smith said.

In the lawsuit, which seeks class action status, Erick Carter
and Whitney Hayes-Carter allege that Welles-Bowen Title Agency
does not have a separate staff and was created for one reason by
the Toledo real estate company, Fidelity National Financial
Inc., and Chicago Title Insurance Co.

The purpose, the suit contends, "was to enable Fidelity and/or
Chicago Title to provide Welles-Bowen Realty with kickbacks and
other improper or illegal payment in exchange for Welles-Bowen
Realty referring real estate settlement work to Chicago Title."

The suit alleges that when the Carters agreed in September to
buy a house at 431 Blue Jacket Rd. in Perrysburg, their Welles-
Bowen agent referred them to Welles-Bowen Title for home-
purchase closing services. The Carters are seeking damages equal
to three times the amount of any charge paid by them or others,
as well as their legal costs.

A closing document indicates the title company received $946.28
for title insurance from the Carters, $644 from the seller for
title insurance, and $25 from the seller for a title
examination.

The suit also alleges, "Although Welles Bowen Title did not
conduct the title search, provide any closing services, or
provide office space for the closing, it received approximately
70 percent of the funds applied to title charges on the Carters'
HUD settlement statement."

Mr. Smith told The Toledo Blade: "We have an affiliated business
arrangement that the Carters read and signed which spells
everything out and states they had an option about what title
company they wanted to use."


XTO ENERGY: KS Court Mulls Certification of Gas Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Stevens County, Kansas has yet to rule on
the certification of the class action filed against XTO Energy,
Inc., one of its subsidiaries and over 200 natural gas
transmission companies, producers, gatherers and processors of
natural gas.

The suit, styled "Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et al.
(formerly "Quinque" case)," was filed in June 2001, on behalf of
a class of plaintiffs consisting of all similarly situated gas
working interest owners, overriding royalty owners and royalty
owners either from whom the defendants had purchased natural gas
or who received economic benefit from the sale of such gas since
January 1, 1974.

The complaint alleges that the defendants have mismeasured both
the volume and heating content of natural gas delivered into
their pipelines, resulting in underpayments to the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs assert a breach of contract claim, negligent or
intentional misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, common carrier
liability, conversion, violation of a variety of Kansas statutes
and other common law causes of action.  The amount of damages
was not specified in the complaint.

In February 2002, the Company, along with one of its
subsidiaries, were dismissed from the suit and another
subsidiary of the Company was added. A hearing was held in
January 2003, and the court held that a class should not be
certified.  The plaintiffs' counsel has filed an amended class
action petition, which reduces the proposed class to only
royalty owners, reduces the claims to mismeasurement of volume
only, conspiracy, unjust enrichment and accounting, and only
applies to gas measured in Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming.  The
court held an evidentiary hearing in April 2005 to determine
whether the amended class should be certified, and the Company
is awaiting the decision of the court.


XTO ENERGY: KS Court Considers Certification For Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Stevens County, Kansas has yet to rule on
certification of a new class action filed against one of XTO
Energy, Inc.'s subsidiaries, styled "Price, et al. v. Gas
Pipelines, et al."

The action was filed in the District Court of Stevens County,
Kansas, against natural gas pipeline owners and operators. The
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of plaintiffs consisting of
all similarly situated gas royalty owners either from whom the
defendants had purchased natural gas or measured natural gas
since January 1, 1974 to the present. The new petition alleges
the same improper analysis of gas heating content that had
previously been alleged in the "Price" case discussed above
until it was removed from the case by the filing of the amended
class action petition.  In all other respects, the new petition
appears to be identical to the amended class action petition in
that it has a proposed class of only royalty owners, alleges
conspiracy, unjust enrichment and accounting, and only applies
to gas measured in Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming.

The court held an evidentiary hearing in April 2005 to determine
whether the amended class should be certified, and the Company
is awaiting the decision of the court.


XTO ENERGY: Pays For Settlement Of CO Royalty Payments Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
XTO Energy, Inc. has paid the $5.1 million settlement for the
class action filed against it in the District Court of La Plata
County, Colorado, styled "Burkett, et al. v. J.M. Huber Corp.
and XTO Energy Inc."  The suit also names as defendant J.M.
Huber Corporation.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have deducted in their
calculation of royalty payments expenses of compression,
gathering, treatment, dehydration, or other costs to place the
natural gas produced in a marketable condition at a marketable
location. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of
all lessors and their successors in interest who own or have
owned mineral interests located in La Plata County, Colorado and
that are leased to or operated by Huber or the Company, except
to the extent that the lessors or their successors have
expressly authorized deduction of post-production expenses from
royalties.

The Company acquired the interests of Huber in producing
properties in La Plata County effective October 1, 2002, and has
assumed the responsibility for certain liabilities of Huber
prior to the effective date, which may include liability for
post-production deductions made by Huber.  On February 17, 2005,
we agreed to a settlement of $5.1 million, resulting in an
additional loss of approximately $2 million that has been
recorded in our consolidated income statement for the six months
ended June 30, 2005.  The Company paid the settlement in August
2005.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Glancy Binkow Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, which represents
shareholders of Boston Scientific Corporation, states that there
are 10 days remaining to move to be a lead plaintiff in the
shareholder lawsuit against the Company. All persons and
institutions who purchased securities of Boston Scientific
Corporation ("Boston Scientific" or the "Company")(NYSE:BSX),
between March 31, 2003 and August 23, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), may move the Court not later than November 21,
2005, to serve as lead plaintiff.

The complain, which was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, charges Boston
Scientific and certain of the Company's executive officers with
violations of federal securities laws. Boston Scientific
develops, manufactures and markets medical devices and
technologies used in interventional medical specialties --
including cardiology, oncology, endoscopy, urology and
gynecology -- and also offers a variety of other less-invasive
medical products. The Complaint alleges Boston Scientific
provided highly explicit false and misleading assurances of the
Company's ability to satisfy FDA regulations governing its
medical device product quality, as well as affirmative
representations concerning the Company's knowledge and expertise
with respect to the design, development, marketing approval, and
sales of its medical devices. The Complaint further alleges that
during the Class Period certain of the defendants sold millions
of shares of Boston Scientific stock, resulting in proceeds of
approximately $400 million.

On August 23, 2005, based on the cumulative impact of three
separate FDA Warning Letters, investors learned of defendants'
broad based concealment of Boston Scientific's defective and
deficient internal controls and corporate compliance processes
and the risks the Company faced. As a result of this news,
Boston Scientific's stock price dropped $1.23, or 4.5 percent,
on volume of 15.8 million shares, to close at $25.92 per share -
- which was $19.89, or 43.4 percent, below its Class Period high
of $45.81 on April 5, 2004.

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy and Michael Goldberg
of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Phone:
(310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com,
Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Pomerantz Haudek Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP,
reminds investors that they have until November 21, 2005 to ask
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the case against
Boston Scientific Corporation ("Boston Scientific" or the
"Company") (NYSE:BSX). The law firm filed the class action
lawsuit on November 2, 2005, on behalf of purchasers of
securities of Boston Scientific during the period from March 31,
2003 through August 23, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The case, Civil Action Number 05-12194 JLT, was filed in the
United States District Court, District of Massachusetts.

The Complaint charges that Defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder) by making false and misleading
statements to the investing public as to the Company's ability
to satisfy FDA regulations governing its medical device product
quality, as well as affirmative representations as to the
Company's knowledge and expertise regarding design, development,
marketing approval and sales of its medical devices.

The true facts, which were known to each of the defendants but
concealed from the investing public, were that

     (1) the Company's internal controls, corporate compliance
         processes and systems as they were directly related to
         the medical device product life cycle were deficient
         and defective;

     (2) the Company suffered from longstanding, basic, chronic
         and global deficiencies in its quality practices;

     (3) the Company had failed to comply with numerous FDA
         medical device regulations and Federal Statutes
         governing its quality practices; and

     (4) public safety was at risk, since the Company was unable
         to reliably assure safety and efficacy for any of its
         products.

On August 23, 2005, based on the cumulative impact of three
separate FDA Warning Letters, investors finally learned of the
true nature of defendants' concealment of its broken quality
program and the risks the Company faced that were completely
unrelated to the Company's ongoing and unpredictable patent
litigation agenda. The truth was that the performance of the
Company was immediately related to the revelations of quality
and regulatory obstacles impacting marketability. As a result of
the news from the FDA, the Company's stock price fell $1.23 per
share. The stock has plummeted $19.89 or over 43% from its Class
Period high of $45.81 on April 5, 2004.

For more details, contact Teresa Webb or Carolyn Moskowitz of
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, Phone: Phone:
(888) 476.6529, E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com or
csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com, Web site: http://www.pomlaw.com.


HCA INC.: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TN
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired HCA, Inc.
(NYSE: HCA) securities between January 12, 2005 and July 12,
2005, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, against the company and certain
key officers and directors. The action charges that defendants
violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq., 261 Old York
Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA 19046, Phone: (215) 886-1900, E-
mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net.


LIPMAN ELECTRONIC: Pomerantz Haudek Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP,
which filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of New York, against Lipman
Electronic Engineering, Ltd. ("Lipman" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:LPMA) and certain of its officers and directors, is
reminding interested parties that they have until December 12,
2005 to ask the Court to appoint them as lead plaintiff for the
Class. The class action was filed on behalf of public investors
who purchased the common stock of Lipman on the Nasdaq National
Market and/or the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange during the period of
October 4, 2004 through September 27, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

Lipman Electronic Engineering, a corporation organized under the
laws of the State of Israel and headquartered in Rosh Haayin,
Israel, develops, manufactures, markets and sells electronic
payment systems and software worldwide. The Complaint alleges
that throughout the Class Period, Lipman issued public
statements in press releases and to analysts which fraudulently
created a false impression concerning the Company's business
operations and prospects following the acquisition of Dione, Plc
("Dione"), a United Kingdom based supplier of so-called "smart
card" payment systems. Defendants claimed that the Dione
acquisition would add to Lipman's earnings within one year and
"provide important new customer relationships that would add
critical mass to our U.K. presences" when, in fact, at the time
of these statements, defendants knew or recklessly disregarded
the substantial difficulty the Company was facing in integrating
and exploiting the Dione acquisition.

Less than one year after completing the Dione acquisition, the
misleading nature of defendants' Class Period statements was
revealed on September 28,2005, in a stunning admission by the
Company that the "weaker than expected performance of Dione"
caused the Company to slash its 2005 earnings estimates, from a
previous forecast of $1.39 to $1.42 per share down to $0.88 to
$0.98 per share. The Company also announced that it had
terminated the employment of Dione CEO Shaun Gray and that the
Company anticipated it would take a non-cash impairment charge
relating to goodwill and other intangible assets in 2005.
Investor reaction was sharply negative to the news of the Dione
unit's shockingly poor performance causing Lipman's share price
to plunge nearly 22 percent following the disclosure of the
Company's inability to leverage the Dione acquisition to expand
Lipman's European market presence. Additionally during the Class
Period, defendants materially misleading statements and
omissions enabled the Company to complete a secondary offering
for 1,973,044 shares at $29.75 per share in May 2005.

For more details, contact Teresa Webb or Carolyn Moskowitz of
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, Phone: Phone:
(888) 476.6529, E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com or
csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com, Web site: http://www.pomlaw.com.


WELLS FARGO: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP ("Milberg
Weiss") initiated a class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo &
Company (NYSE: WFC), and certain of its affiliates, on behalf of
all persons who purchased from Wells Fargo Investments, LLC
("Wells Fargo Investments") or H.D. Vest Investment Services,
LLC ("H.D. Vest") one or more of the Wells Fargo proprietary
funds ("Wells Fargo Funds," as defined below) or non-proprietary
funds participating in the Revenue Sharing Program (the "Wells
Fargo Preferred Funds" and "H.D. Vest Preferred Funds," as
defined below), from June 30, 2000 through June 8, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Act of 1993 (the "Securities Act"), the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (the "Investment Company Act"),
and state law.

The action, case number C-05-4518WHA, is pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against defendant Wells Fargo and its affiliated entities.

The "Wells Fargo Preferred Funds" includes mutual funds in the
following mutual fund families: Franklin Templeton Investments,
Putnam Investments, MFS Investment Management, Fidelity
Investments, Evergreen Investments, Alliance Bernstein
Investment Research and Management, Van Kampen Investments, AIM
Distributors, Inc., Oppenheimer Funds, Inc., Eaton Vance Managed
Investments, ING Funds Distributors, LLC, Allianz Global
Investors Distributors, LLC, Federated, The Hartford Mutual
Funds, Dreyfus Service Corporation, Delaware Investments,
Pioneer Investment Management, Inc., Scudder Investments, and
Wells Fargo Mutual Funds.

The "H.D. Vest Preferred Funds" includes mutual funds in the
following families: Oppenheimer Funds, Putnam Investments,
Scudder Investments, MFS Investment Management, Van Kampen
Investments, Lincoln Financial Distributors, AIM Investments,
Phoenix Investment Partners, John Hancock Funds, Wells Fargo
Funds, American Funds, and Franklin Templeton Investments.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. Unbeknownst to
investors, defendants, in clear contravention of their
disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, failed to
properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to
aggressively push Wells Fargo Investments and H.D. Vest sales
personnel to steer clients into purchasing certain Wells Fargo
Funds and Wells Fargo and H.D. Vest Preferred Funds
(collectively, "Shelf Space Funds") that provided financial
incentives and rewards to Wells Fargo and H.D. Vest and their
personnel based on sales. The complaint alleges that defendants'
undisclosed sales practices created an insurmountable conflict
of interest by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell
Shelf-Space Funds to their clients, even though such investments
were not in the clients' best interest. Wells Fargo Investments
and H.D. Vest's failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.

The action also includes a subclass of persons who held any
shares of Wells Fargo Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally
alleges that the investment advisor subsidiary of Wells Fargo,
Wells Fargo Funds Management, created further undisclosed
material conflicts of interest by entering into revenue sharing
agreements with brokers at Wells Fargo Investments and H.D. Vest
to push investors into Wells Fargo Funds, regardless of whether
such investments were in the investors' best interests. The
investment advisors financed these arrangements by illegally
charging excessive and improper fees to the fund that should
have been invested in the underlying portfolio. In doing so they
breached their fiduciary duties to investors under the
Investment Company Act and state law and decreased shareholders'
investment returns.

The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
Wells Fargo Financial Plan that held Wells Fargo Funds. The
Wells Fargo Financial Plans include, but are not limited to Full
Service Brokerage Accounts, Wells Asset Management accounts,
WellsChoice account, and WellsSelect account.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman of Milberg Weiss
Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New
York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: (800) 320-5081, E-mail:
sfeerick@milbergweiss.com, Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com.  


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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