---

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

           Wednesday, December 7, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 242

                            Headlines

ACXIOM CORPORATION: AR Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit Still Pending
ALLIED WASTE: Asks AZ Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
AMERICREDIT CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit
BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Settlement Hearing Set January 13, 2006
BLUE CROSS: Allowed To Spend Proceeds From Tobacco Litigation

BORLAND SOFTWARE: Discovery Continues in DE Shareholder Lawsuit
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Shareholders Launch Fraud Suits in MA Court
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Seeks Dismissal of EEOC Discrimination Charge
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Recalls Vena Cava Filters For Injury Hazard
CARDINAL HEALTH: Asks OH Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit

CARDINAL HEALTH: Trial in CA ERISA Fraud Suit Set January 7,2006
CARDINAL HEALTH: Plaintiffs File Consolidated ERISA Suits in OH
CONAGRA STORE: Recalls Chewy Granola Bars Due to Wrong Packaging
DSW INC.: Settles FTC Charges Due To Unfair Trade Practices
FINOVA CAPITAL: Appeals Certification of Thaxton Entities Suits

GENZYME CORPORATION: Biosurgery Shareholders Launch Fraud Suits
IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Implementing NY Stock Lawsuit Settlement Terms
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: IL Man Launches Suit Over Xbox 360 Defect
NEW YORK: Cook Withdraws From Lawsuit V. Flushing Hindu Temple
NORTH TEXAS: FTC Rules Physicians Illegally Fixed Prices in Area

NUVEEN INVESTMENTS: IL Securities Lawsuit Dismissal Deemed Final
OHIO POWER: Named As Defendant in Canadian Environmental Lawsuit
PACKAGING CORPORATION: Linerboard Suit Discovery To End 12/2005
PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Lawsuit Over Medicare Automatic Enrolment
PREMIERE GLOBAL: Discovery Proceeds in MD TCPA Violations Suit

PUBLIC SERVICE: Named As Defendant in Canada Environmental Suit
RYLAND GROUP: Continue To Face Securities Lawsuits in N.D. Texas
SEPRACOR INC.: Discovery Proceeds in MA Securities Fraud Lawsuit
SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Stock Lawsuit Dismissal
THOMSON NEWSPAPERS: Copyright Suit in Canada Heads to High Court

WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Phentermine HCl Product Litigation
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Seek Transfer of Suit Appeal
WELLMAN INC.: Antitrust Settlement Hearing Set December 15, 2005
WFS FINANCIAL: Suit Status Conference Set January 18,2006 in CA


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CIPHERGEN BIOSYSTEMS: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Suit in CA
MIKOHN GAMING: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NV
MIKOHN GAMING: Goldman Scarlato Lodges NV Securities Fraud Suit
STONE ENERGY: Roy Jacobs to File Securities Fraud Lawsuit in LA
STONE ENERGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in LA

UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities suit in NY

                          *********


ACXIOM CORPORATION: AR Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Acxiom Corporation's board of directors continues to face a
class action filed in Pulaski County Circuit Court in Arkansas,
styled "Indiana State District Council of Laborers and HOD
Carriers Pension Fund v. Morgan, et al., CV05-8498."

The suit alleges that the board members are not independent from
Charles Morgan, the Company's chief executive officer and
chairman of the board of directors.  Based on this purported
lack of independence, the lawsuit alleges that the board did not
use good faith in considering the June 3, 2005 letter from
ValueAct Capital.

In addition to seeking class action status, the plaintiffs are
also seeking an order requiring the defendants to properly
consider the ValueAct transaction or any other transaction in
the best interests of Acxiom shareholders and to rescind any
measures that would prevent ValueAct from negotiating for the
purchase of the Company.  The suit is in its early stages and
the defendants have not yet responded to the complaint.


ALLIED WASTE: Asks AZ Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allied Waste Industries, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and five of its current
and former officers.

The amended complaint asserts claims against all defendants
under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and claims against the
officers under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The
complaint alleges that from February 10, 2004, to September 13,
2004, the defendants caused false and misleading statements to
be issued in the Company's public filings and public statements
regarding its anticipated results for fiscal year 2004.  The
lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of damages.

On October 19, 2005, the Court heard oral arguments on a motion
the Company has filed to dismiss the complaint. The motion has
not been decided, and is currently under submission with the
Court.

The first identified complaint in this litigation is styled
"Steven Zack, et al. v. Allied Waste Industries, Inc., et al.,"
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com

     (2) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401
         East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
         410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com

     (3) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr,
         New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com

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


AMERICREDIT CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a second amended class action against
AmeriCredit Corporation and certain of its officers and
directors after the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Forth Worth Division partially
dismissed an earlier, similar securities class action.

In fiscal 2003, shareholders launched several complaints,
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
Additionally, a complaint was filed in fiscal 2003 against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors in the 48th
Judicial District Court in Tarrant County, Texas, alleging
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
in connection with the Company's secondary public offering of
common stock on October 1, 2002.

These complaints have been consolidated into one action, styled
"Pierce v. AmeriCredit Corp., et al.," in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth
Division; the plaintiff in Pierce seeks class action status.  In
Pierce, the plaintiff claims, among other allegations, that
deferments were improperly granted by the Company to avoid
delinquency triggers in securitization transactions and enhance
cash flows to incorrectly report charge-offs and delinquency
percentages, thereby causing the Company to misrepresent its
financial performance throughout the alleged class period.

The plaintiff also alleges that the Company's registration
statement and prospectus for the offering contained untrue
statements of material facts and omitted to state material facts
necessary to make other statements in the registration statement
not misleading.

The Company believes that its granting of deferments, which is a
common practice within the auto finance industry, complied with
the covenants contained in its securitization and warehouse
financing documents, and that the Company's deferment activities
were properly disclosed to all constituents, including
shareholders, asset-backed investors, creditors and credit
enhancement providers, the Company said in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


Additionally, a class action complaint, styled "Lewis v.
AmeriCredit Corp.," was filed in fiscal 2003 against the Company
and certain of its officers and directors alleging violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection
with the Company's secondary public offering of common stock on
October 1, 2002.

In Lewis, also pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, the
plaintiff alleges that the Company's registration statement and
prospectus for the offering contained untrue statements of
material facts and omitted to state material facts necessary to
make other statements in the registration statement not
misleading.

In April 2004, two rulings were issued by the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth
Division, affecting the Pierce and Lewis lawsuits.  On April 1,
2004, the Court, in response to motions to dismiss filed by the
Company and the other defendants, ruled that the plaintiff's
complaint in the Pierce lawsuit was deficient and ordered the
plaintiff to cure such deficiencies or the case would be
dismissed.  On April 27, 2004, the Court issued an order
consolidating the Lewis case into the Pierce case.  In
connection with the order consolidating the Lewis and Pierce
cases, the Court granted the plaintiffs permission to file an
amended, consolidated complaint, which they have done.

On September 30, 2005, the Court issued an Order that the
Company's and the individual defendants motion to dismiss should
be partially granted and partially denied and that the plaintiff
should be given one final opportunity to re-plead the complaint
only as to those claims brought pursuant to the Securities Act
of 1933. The Court dismissed the claims alleging violations of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Pursuant to the Court's Order, on
October 28, 2005, the plaintiff filed a second amended
consolidated complaint concerning the Securities Act of 1933
claims.


BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Settlement Hearing Set January 13, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York will hold a fairness hearing in the proposed $9,750,000
settlement in the matter, "In re: Bennett Environmental, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 04 Civ. 5852 (LTS)." The case
was filed on behalf of all persons or entities who from June 2,
2003 through and including July 22, 2004, purchased the
Company's common stock or purchased "units" of the Company's
securities pursuant to the private placement announced on
January 12, 2004 and in either case were damaged thereby. The
proposed Settlement is with Bennett Environmental Inc., John
Bennett, Allan Bulckaert, Robert Griffiths, Danny Ponn and
Richard Stern.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Laura Taylor
Swain, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007-1581
at 2:30 p.m. on January 13, 2006 to determine whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and to consider the application of
Lead Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation
expenses.

For more details, contact Bennett Environmental Inc. Securities
Litigation, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims
Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6366, Merrick, NY 11566-9000,
Phone: 800-298-5765, Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com;
and Daniel L. Berger, Jeffrey N. Leibell and Avi Josefson of
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN, LLP, 1285 Avenue of the
Americas, New York, NY 10019, Phone: (800) 380-8496, Web site:
http://www.blbglaw.com.


BLUE CROSS: Allowed To Spend Proceeds From Tobacco Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota was cleared to start
spending settlement money from a lawsuit against the tobacco
industry, The St. Paul Business Journal reports.

Eagan-based Blue Cross, which originally filed the lawsuit more
than 11 years ago, agreed to a $469 million settlement in 1998.
The settlement was delayed by a class action lawsuit from some
policyholders who wanted larger shares from the settlement.

Blue Cross plans to distribute about $241 million to prevention
and health improvement programs, with work scheduled to start in
early 2006. In addition, the insurer will also give $70 million
to offset the deficit of the Minnesota Comprehensive Health
Association, which provides health plans to those who can't
otherwise afford them; $41 million, minus legal fees, to roughly
38,000 fully insured employer groups; $30 million to support
community clinics serving the uninsured and under-insured; and
$30 million to approximately 200,000 fully insured individuals.

Back in 2001, Blue Cross transferred $21 million of the
settlement proceeds to the Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Minnesota Foundation. The company also paid roughly $36 million
in taxes on the settlement.


BORLAND SOFTWARE: Discovery Continues in DE Shareholder Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still proceeding in the remaining stockholder class
action filed against Borland Software, Inc., styled "Dieterich
v. Harrer, et al., Case No. 024-N."

On November 27, 2002, a stockholder class action and derivative
lawsuit, styled "Dieterich v. Harrer, et al., Case No.
02CC00350," was filed against Starbase Corporation, or Starbase,
and five former directors of Starbase in the Superior Court of
the State of California for Orange County, claiming that the
former directors had breached fiduciary duties owed to Starbase
and stockholders of Starbase.  The Company is paying the costs
of defending this litigation pursuant to indemnification
obligations under the merger agreement relating to its
acquisition of Starbase. Following a series of motions, the case
was dismissed without prejudice on August 20, 2003.

On October 28, 2003, a stockholder class action relating to the
same matter, Dieterich v. Harrer, et al, Case No. 024-N, was
filed against the former directors of Starbase in Chancery Court
of the State of Delaware, alleging breach of fiduciary duties by
the former directors of Starbase.  The lawsuit also named as
defendants the Company, and four of its former executive
officers:

     (1) Dale Fuller,

     (2) Keith Gottfried,

     (3) Frederick Ball, and

     (4) Doug Barre

Defendants moved to dismiss and in August 2004, the Chancery
Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.
Discovery has commenced and there is no date set for trial.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Shareholders Launch Fraud Suits in MA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation and certain of its officers and
directors face several securities class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On September 23, 2005, Srinivasan Shankar, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, filed a purported securities
class action suit on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's securities during the period March 31,
2003 through August 23, 2005, alleging that the Company and
certain of its officers violated certain sections of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint principally alleges that the Company did not
adequately disclose its ability to satisfy FDA regulations
governing medical device product quality, which resulted in the
artificial inflation of the Company's stock price and enabled
certain of the Company's officers to profit from the sale of
Company stock at such inflated prices. The complaint seeks
unspecified damages, equitable, and injunctive relief.

On September 28, 2005, October 27, 2005, November 2, 2005 and
November 3, 2005, Jack Yopp, Robert L. Garber, Betty C. Meyer
and John Ryan, respectively on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, filed a purported securities class
action suit in the same Court on behalf of the same purported
class, alleging similar misconduct and seeking similar relief.
The Company believes the suits will be consolidated.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Seeks Dismissal of EEOC Discrimination Charge
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation moved to dismiss the charge of
discrimination filed against it with the Minnesota Department of
Human Rights and the Minnesota office of the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

On March 3, 2005, the African Assistance Program filed the
charge, purportedly on behalf of certain of the Company's black
employees of African national origin, alleging discriminatory
and retaliatory employment practices in violation of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. At present, the
EEOC is handling this matter on behalf of both agencies.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Recalls Vena Cava Filters For Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation (NYSE: BSX) is voluntarily
recalling all Stainless Steel Greenfieldr Vena Cava Filters with
12Fr Femoral Introducer Systems manufactured before March 10,
2004. This recall does not affect vena cava filters that have
been implanted in patients.

This recall includes only the Stainless Steel Greenfieldr Vena
Cava Filter with 12Fr Femoral Introducer Systems manufactured
prior to March 10, 2004. All unused devices with a "use before
date" prior to March 2007 are to be returned to Boston
Scientific. The product code for these devices under recall is
M001505010. The product code and the use before date of the
device are located on the box and pouch label. The total number
of devices involved in this recall is estimated at 18,000.

The Company is initiating this recall because of reports of
detachment at the bond between the carrier capsule and the outer
sheath of the filter's delivery system during the implant
procedure. If the carrier capsule should detach during an
implantation procedure, there is a risk of cardiac and pulmonary
embolization. Potential adverse events include serious patient
injury or death.

The Company initiated this recall after a review of complaint
records and analysis of returned devices revealed the potential
problem. A total of eight complaints were received, of which two
were reported as involving serious patient injury requiring
intervention and one was reported as a death.

A vena cava filter is a small cone-shaped device that is
implanted in the inferior vena cava, the large vein that carries
blood from the lower part of the body to the heart. The filter
prevents pulmonary embolism by capturing blood clots before they
can be carried to the lungs. The blood clots are trapped in the
filter while blood flows both through and around the entrapped
clot, allowing the clot to dissolve naturally.

The products affected by this recall were distributed to
hospitals worldwide. Boston Scientific is notifying affected
hospitals through detailed recall notification letters,
including instructions on how to return recalled product.

The Company is working with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and is notifying officials in other
countries of this recall.

Inquires may be directed to Boston Scientific at 888-272-1001.
Any adverse reactions experienced with the use of this product,
and/or quality problems should also be reported to the FDA's
MedWatch Program by phone at 1-800-FDA-1088, by Fax at
1-800-FDA-0178, by mail at MedWatch, HF-2, FDA, 5600 Fishers
Lane, Rockville, MD 20852-9787, or on the MedWatch website at
http://www.fda.gov/medwatch.


CARDINAL HEALTH: Asks OH Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs ask the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio filed a consolidated amended securities class
action against Cardinal Health, Inc. and certain of its officers
and directors, captioned "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Federal
Securities Litigation."

Since July 2, 2004, ten purported class action complaints have
been filed by purported purchasers of the Company's securities
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors,
asserting claims under the federal securities laws.  These cases
include:

     (1) Gerald Burger v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         575),

     (2) Todd Fener v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         579),

     (3) E. Miles Senn v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         597),

     (4) David Kim v. Cardinal Health, Inc. (04 CV 598),

     (5) Arace Brothers v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         604),

     (6) John Hessian v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         635),

     (7) Constance Matthews Living Trust v. Cardinal Health,
         Inc., et al. (04 CV 636),

     (8) Mariss Partners, LLP v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al.
         (04 CV 849),

     (9) The State of New Jersey v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et
         al. (04 CV 831) and

    (10) First New York Securities, LLC v. Cardinal Health,
         Inc., et al. (04 CV 911)

The Cardinal Health federal securities actions purport to be
brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities
during various periods beginning as early as October 24, 2000
and ending as late as July 26, 2004 and allege, among other
things, that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by
issuing a series of false and/or misleading statements
concerning the Company's financial results, prospects and
condition. Certain of the complaints also allege violations of
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, claiming
material misstatements or omissions in prospectuses issued by
the Company in connection with its acquisition of Bindley
Western Industries, Inc. in 2001 and Syncor in 2003.

The alleged misstatements relate to the Company's accounting for
recoveries relating to antitrust litigation against vitamin
manufacturers, and to classification of revenue in the Company's
Pharmaceutical Distribution business as either operating revenue
or revenue from bulk deliveries to customer warehouses, among
other matters. The alleged misstatements are claimed to have
caused an artificial inflation in the Company's stock price
during the proposed class period.  The complaints seek
unspecified money damages and equitable relief against the
defendants and an award of attorney's fees.

On December 15, 2004, the Cardinal Health federal securities
actions were consolidated into one action captioned "In re
Cardinal Health, Inc. Federal Securities Litigation," and on
January 26, 2005, the Court appointed the Pension Fund Group as
lead plaintiff in this consolidated action.  On April 22, 2005,
the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint naming
the Company, certain current and former officers and employees
and the Company's external auditors as defendants. The complaint
seeks unspecified money damages and other unspecified relief
against the defendants. On August 22, 2005, the Company and
certain defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint.

The suit is styled "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 2:04-cv-00575-ALM-NMK," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, under
Judge Algenon L. Marbley.  Representing the plaintiffs is John
R. Climaco, Climaco Lefkowitz Peca Wilcox & Garofoli LPA - 1,
1228 Euclid Avenue, Suite 900, Cleveland, OH 44115-1891, Phone:
216-621-8484, Fax: 216-771-1632, E-mail: jrclim@climacolaw.com.
Representing the Company is John M. Newman, Jr., Geoffrey J.
Ritts, Jones, Day, Reavis, & Pogue, North Point, 901 Lakeside
Ave, Cleveland, OH 44114-1190, Phone: 216-586-3939, E-mail:
jmnewman@jonesday.com or gjritts@jonesday.com.


CARDINAL HEALTH: Trial in CA ERISA Fraud Suit Set January 7,2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated class action filed against Cardinal
Health, Inc., Syncor International Corporation and certain
officers and employees of the Company is set for January 7,2006
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

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

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

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified money damages and
other unspecified relief against the defendants.  On April 26,
2004, the defendants filed Motions to Dismiss the consolidated
complaint.  On August 24, 2004, the Court granted in part and
denied in part Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.  The Court
dismissed, without prejudice, all claims against defendants Ed
Burgos and Sheila Coop, all claims alleging co-fiduciary
liability against all defendants, and all claims alleging that
the individual defendants had conflicts of interest precluding
them from properly exercising their fiduciary duties under
ERISA.  A claim for breach of the duty to prudently manage plan
assets was upheld against Syncor, and a claim for breach of the
alleged duty to "monitor" the performance of Syncor's Plan
Administrative Committee was upheld against defendants Monty Fu
and Robert Funari.  Trial of these claims is presently scheduled
for February 7, 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


CARDINAL HEALTH: Plaintiffs File Consolidated ERISA Suits in OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio to dismiss an amended consolidated
class action against Cardinal Health, Inc. and certain of its
officers, directors and employees.

Since July 2, 2004, 14 purported class action complaints have
been filed by purported participants in the Cardinal Health
Profit Sharing, Retirement and Savings Plan (collectively
referred to as the "Cardinal Health ERISA actions").  These
cases include:

     (1) David McKeehan and James Syracuse v. Cardinal Health,
         Inc., et al. (04 CV 643),

     (2) Timothy Ferguson v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04
         CV 668),

     (3) James DeCarlo v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al.
         (04 CV 684),

     (4) Margaret Johnson v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04
         CV 722),

     (5) Harry Anderson v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         725),

     (6) Charles Heitholt v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04
         CV 736),

     (7) Dan Salinas and Andrew Jones v. Cardinal Health, Inc.,
         et al. (04 CV 745),

     (8) Daniel Kelley v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         746),

     (9) Vincent Palyan v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         778),

    (10) Saul Cohen v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         789),

    (11) Travis Black v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         790),

    (12) Wendy Erwin v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         803),

    (13) Susan Alston v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         815), and

    (14) Jennifer Brister v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04
         CV 828)

The Cardinal Health ERISA actions purport to be brought on
behalf of participants in the Cardinal Health Profit Sharing,
Retirement and Savings Plan and the Syncor Employees' Savings
and Stock Ownership Plan (the "Syncor ESSOP," and together with
the Cardinal Health Profit Sharing, Retirement and Savings Plan,
the "Plans"), and also on behalf of the Plans themselves.  The
complaints allege that the defendants breached certain fiduciary
duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA), generally asserting that the defendants failed to make
full disclosure of the risks to the Plans' participants of
investing in the Company's stock, to the detriment of the Plans'
participants and beneficiaries, and that Company stock should
not have been made available as an investment alternative for
the Plans' participants.

The misstatements alleged in the Cardinal Health ERISA actions
significantly overlap with the misstatements alleged in the
Cardinal Health federal securities actions. The complaints seek
unspecified money damages and equitable relief against the
defendants and an award of attorney's fees. On December 15,
2004, the Cardinal Health ERISA actions were consolidated into
one action captioned "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. ERISA
Litigation."

On January 14, 2005, the court appointed lead counsel and
liaison counsel for the consolidated Cardinal Health ERISA
action. On April 29, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended ERISA complaint naming the Company, certain
current and former directors, officers and employees, the
Company's Employee Benefits Policy Committee and Putnam
Fiduciary Trust Company as defendants.  The complaint seeks
unspecified money damages and other unspecified relief against
the defendants.  On August 22, 2005, the Company and certain
defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the consolidated amended
ERISA complaint.

The suit is styled "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. ERISA
Litigation, case no. 2:04-cv-00643-ALM-NMK," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, under
Judge Algenon L. Marbley.  Representing the plaintiffs are James
Edward Arnold, Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott - 2, 471 East Broad
Street, Suite 1400, Columbus, OH 43215, Phone: 614-469-1400, E-
mail: jarnold@cpaslaw.com.  Representing the Company are J.
Kevin Cogan, Jones Day, 325 John H. McConnell Blvd., PO Box
165017, Columbus, OH 43216-5017, Phone: 614-469-3939, Fax:
614-461-4198, Email: jcogan@jonesday.com.


CONAGRA STORE: Recalls Chewy Granola Bars Due to Wrong Packaging
----------------------------------------------------------------
ConAgra Store Brands of Lakeville, Minn. is voluntarily
recalling 10 oz. cartons of Giant brand Chocolate Chip Chewy
Granola Bars with a manufacturing code of May 20, 06 G1,
2151523200 on the top flap. The cartons are being recalled
because they may contain individually packaged Peanut Butter
Chocolate Chunk Chewy Granola Bars. People who are allergic to
peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reactions if they consume these granola bars.

The individually packaged bar wrappers correctly state Peanut
Butter Chocolate Chunk Chewy Granola Bars and are safe to be
consumed by anyone other than those allergic to peanuts. The
product was only distributed in Delaware, Maryland, New York,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of
Columbia.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with this
product. The company has notified the Food and Drug
Administration and is working with them to assure the quality
and safety of the food supply.

If there are any questions, product should not be consumed but
rather returned to the store of purchase for a full refund. For
more information, consumers can call 1-800-722-1344.


DSW INC.: Settles FTC Charges Due To Unfair Trade Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shoe discounter DSW Inc. agreed to settle Federal Trade
Commission charges that its failure to take reasonable security
measures to protect sensitive customer data was an unfair
practice that violated federal law. According to the FTC, DSW's
data-security failure allowed hackers to gain access to the
sensitive credit card, debit card, and checking account
information of more than 1.4 million customers. The settlement
will require DSW to implement a comprehensive information-
security program and obtain audits by an independent third-party
security professional every other year for 20 years.

Columbus, Ohio-based DSW operates approximately 190 stores in 32
states. In 2004, DSW generated $961 million in net sales and
sold approximately 23.7 million pairs of shoes.

According to the FTC's complaint, DSW uses computer networks to
obtain authorization for credit card, debit card, and check
purchases at its stores and to track inventory. For credit and
debit card purchases, DSW collects information, such as name,
card number, and expiration date, from the magnetic stripe on
the back of the cards. This magnetic stripe information is
particularly sensitive because it contains a security code that
can be used to create counterfeit cards that appear genuine in
the authorization process. For check purchases, DSW collects
information such as routing number, account number, check
number, and the consumer's driver's license number and state. In
each case, the information was wirelessly transmitted to a
computer network located in the store, and from there was sent
to the appropriate bank or check processor.

The FTC charges that until at least March 2005, DSW engaged in a
number of practices that, taken together, failed to provide
reasonable and appropriate security for sensitive customer
information. Specifically, the agency alleges that DSW:

     (1) created unnecessary risks to sensitive information by
         storing it in multiple files when it no longer had a
         business need to keep the information;

     (2) failed to use readily available security measures to
         limit access to its computer networks through wireless
         access points on the networks;

     (3) stored the information in unencrypted files that could
         be easily accessed using a commonly known user ID and
         password;

     (4) failed to limit sufficiently the ability of computers
         on one in-store network to connect to computers on
         other in-store and corporate networks; and

     (5) failed to employ sufficient measures to detect
         unauthorized access.

The FTC charges that a total of approximately 1.4 million credit
and debit cards and 96,000 checking accounts were compromised,
and that there have been fraudulent charges on some of these
accounts. Further, some customers whose checking account
information was compromised have incurred out-of-pocket expenses
in connection with closing their accounts and ordering new
checks. Some checking account customers have contacted DSW to
request reimbursement for their expenses, and DSW has provided
some amount of reimbursement to these customers. According to
DSW's SEC filings, as of July 2005, the company's exposure for
losses related to the breach ranges from $6.5 million to $9.5
million.

The FTC alleges that DSW's failure to secure customers'
sensitive information was an unfair practice because it caused
substantial injury that was not reasonably avoidable by
consumers and not outweighed by offsetting benefits to consumers
or competition. The settlement requires DSW to establish and
maintain a comprehensive information security program that
includes administrative, technical, and physical safeguards. The
settlement also requires DSW to obtain, every two years for the
next 20 years, an audit from a qualified, independent, third-
party professional to assure that its security program meets the
standards of the order. DSW also will be subject to standard
record keeping and reporting provisions to allow the FTC to
monitor compliance.

This is the FTC's seventh case challenging faulty data security
practices by retailers and others.

The Commission vote to accept the proposed consent agreement was
4-0. The FTC will publish an announcement regarding the
agreement in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be
subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and
continuing through January 2, 2006, after which the Commission
will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be
addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, Room H-135, 600
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC is
requesting that any comment filed in paper form near the end of
the public comment period be sent by courier or overnight
service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington
area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened
security precautions.

NOTE: Consent agreements are for settlement purposes only and do
not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation.

Copies of the complaint and consent order 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, Phone:
202-326-2181 or Jessica Rich, Bureau of Consumer Protection,
Phone: 202-326-3224 or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/12/dsw.htm.


FINOVA CAPITAL: Appeals Certification of Thaxton Entities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
FINOVA Capital Corporation appealed the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina's ruling granting class
certification for the consolidated lawsuit filed against it over
its loan to The Thaxton Group, Inc. and several related
entities.

Under its loan agreement, FINOVA has a senior secured loan to
the Thaxton Entities of approximately $108 million at September
30, 2004.  The Thaxton Entities were declared in default under
their loan agreement with FINOVA after they advised FINOVA that
they would have to restate earnings for the first two fiscal
quarters of 2003, and had suspended payments on their
subordinated notes.  As a result of the default, FINOVA
exercised its rights under the loan agreement, and accelerated
the indebtedness.  The Thaxton Entities then filed a petition
for bankruptcy protection under chapter 11 of the federal
bankruptcy code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware on October 17, 2003, listing assets of
approximately $206 million and debts of $242 million.

The first lawsuit, a complaint captioned "Earle B. Gregory, et
al, v. FINOVA Capital Corporation, James T. Garrett, et al.,"
was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County,
South Carolina, case no. 2003-CP-29-967, and was served on
FINOVA on October 17, 2003.  An amended complaint was served on
November 5, 2003, prior to the deadline for FINOVA to answer,
plead, or otherwise respond to the original complaint.  The
Gregory action was properly removed to the United States
District Court for the District of South Carolina on November
17, 2003, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  1334 and 1452.  The
plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court, but
the U.S. District Court denied this motion in an order dated
December 18, 2003.

The second Thaxton-related complaint, captioned "Tom Moore, Anna
Nunnery, et al., v. FINOVA Capital Corporation, Moore & Van
Allen PLLC, and Cherry, Bekaert & Holland LLP, case No. 8:03-
372413 ("Moore")," was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina on November 25, 2003, and was
served on FINOVA on December 2, 2003.  The third complaint,
captioned "Sam Jones Wood and Kathy Annette Wood, et al., v.
FINOVA Capital Corporation, Moore & Van Allen PLLC, and Cherry,
Bekaert & Holland LLP," was filed in the Superior Court for
Gwinnett County, Georgia, case no. 03-A13343-B, and was served
on FINOVA on December 9, 2003.  FINOVA properly removed the Wood
action to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia (Atlanta Division) on January 5, 2004.  The
fourth complaint, captioned "Grant Hall and Ruth Ann Hall, et
al., v. FINOVA Capital Corporation, Moore & Van Allen PLLC, and
Cherry, Bekaert & Holland LLP, case no. 03CVS20572,"
("Hall") was filed in the Mecklenberg County, North Carolina,
Superior Court, and was also served on FINOVA on December 9,
2003.  FINOVA properly removed the Hall action to the United
States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
(Charlotte Division) on January 5, 2004.  The fifth complaint,
captioned "Charles Shope, et al., v. FINOVA Capital Corporation,
Moore & Van Allen PLLC, and Cherry, Bekaert & Holland LLP, case
No. C 204022 ("Shope")," was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, and
was served on FINOVA on January 13, 2004.

Each of the five Thaxton-related lawsuits are styled as class
actions, purportedly brought on behalf of certain defined
classes of people who had purchased subordinated notes from the
Thaxton Entities.  The complaints by the subordinated
noteholders allege claims of fraud, securities fraud, and
various other civil conspiracy and business torts in the sale of
the subordinated notes.  Each of the complaints seeks an
unspecified amount of damages, among other remedies.  In
addition to FINOVA, the complaints each name as co-defendants
Thaxton's accountants and attorneys, and in the Gregory case,
several officers of the Thaxton Entities.

Upon motion by FINOVA to the United States Judicial Panel for
MultiDistrict Litigation (Docket 1612), all five Thaxton-related
actions were transferred on June 18, 2004 to the United States
District Court for the District of South Carolina for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings (the "MDL Litigation").  In
June 2005, the South Carolina District Court certified the MDL
Litigation as a class action.

On October 6, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit issued an order granting the Company's petition
for permission to appeal the order of the South Carolina
District Court certifying the class action cases and staying
further proceedings in the South Carolina District Court during
the pendency of the appeal or until the further order of the
Court of Appeals.


GENZYME CORPORATION: Biosurgery Shareholders Launch Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Genzyme Corporation in the United States District Court
continues to face four class actions filed in Massachusetts and
New York regarding the exchange of all of the outstanding shares
of Biosurgery Stock and Molecular Oncology Stock for shares of
the Company's stock.  Each of the suits was filed on behalf of
holders of Biosurgery Stock.

The first case, filed in Massachusetts Superior Court in May
2003, alleged a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing in the Company's charter and a breach of its board
of directors' fiduciary duties. The plaintiff in this case
sought an injunction to adjust the exchange ratio for the
tracking stock exchange.  The Court dismissed the complaint in
November 2003, but the plaintiff in this case has appealed this
dismissal.  This appeal was argued before the Massachusetts
Appeals Court in March 2005 and the Company is awaiting the
Appeals Court's ruling.

Two substantially similar cases were filed in Massachusetts
Superior Court in August and October 2003.  These cases were
consolidated in January 2004, and in July 2004, the consolidated
case was stayed pending disposition of a fourth case, which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York in June 2003.  This case alleges violations of federal
securities laws, common law fraud, and a breach of the merger
agreement with Biomatrix in addition to the state law claims
contained in the other cases. The plaintiffs are seeking an
adjustment to the exchange ratio, the rescission of the
acquisition of Biomatrix, and unspecified compensatory damages.
In November 2005, the plaintiffs in this case dropped all of the
claims alleged in the initial complaint relating to the issuance
of Biosurgery Stock and the acquisition of Biomatrix, and
narrowed the putative class to include only those individuals
who held Biosurgery Stock on May 8, 2003. Discovery in this case
is ongoing.


IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Implementing NY Stock Lawsuit Settlement Terms
---------------------------------------------------------------
Imclone Systems, Inc. is implementing the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, styled
"Irvine v. ImClone Systems Incorporated, et al., No. 02 Civ.
0109 (RO)."

In the corrected consolidated amended complaint, filed on
October 22, 2002, plaintiffs asserted claims against the
Company, its former President and Chief Executive Officer, Dr.
Samuel D. Waksal, its former Chief Scientific Officer and then-
President and Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Harlan W. Waksal, and
several of the Company's other present or former officers and
directors, for securities fraud under sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b5-1, on behalf of a purported class
of persons who purchased the Company's publicly traded
securities between March 27, 2001 and January 25, 2002.  The
complaint also asserted claims against Dr. Samuel D. Waksal
under section 20A of the Exchange Act on behalf of a separate
purported sub-class of purchasers of the Company's securities
between December 27, 2001 and December 28, 2001.

The complaint generally alleged that various public statements
made by or on behalf of the Company or the other defendants
during 2001 and early 2002 regarding the prospects for FDA
approval of ERBITUX were false or misleading when made, that the
individual defendants were allegedly aware of material non-
public information regarding the actual prospects for ERBITUX at
the time that they engaged in transactions in the Company's
common stock and that members of the purported stockholder class
suffered damages when the market price of the Company's common
stock declined following disclosure of the information that
allegedly had not been previously disclosed.  The complaint
sought to proceed on behalf of the alleged classes described
above, sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount and
sought recovery of plaintiffs' costs and attorneys' fees.

On June 3, 2003, the court granted, in part, a motion to dismiss
filed by all defendants and dismissed plaintiff's claims except
those asserted against the Company, Dr. Samuel D. Waksal, and
Dr. Harlan W. Waksal.  On April 14, 2004, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On January 24,
2005, the Company announced that it had reached an agreement in
principle to settle the consolidated class action for a cash
payment of $75 million, a portion of which will be paid by the
Company's insurers.  The settlement is subject to the
negotiation and execution of definitive settlement documents and
to Court approval.

On July 29, 2005 the Court approved the proposed settlement.  On
August 5, 2005, the Company paid the remaining $25 million into
escrow.  These funds will be held in escrow until such time that
the settlement becomes final and thereafter will be distributed
pursuant to the terms of the settlement documents.  As of
September 30, 2005, the Company has collected from its insurers
all of the outstanding receivable amounting to $20.5 million,
which was reflected as a receivable in Other current assets, as
of December 31, 2004. The amount received from the insurers
includes $8.75 million, less attorneys fees of $875,000 that was
paid to the Company under the derivative settlement.

The suit is styled "Irvine v. ImClone Systems Incorporated, et
al., No. 02 Civ. 0109 (RO)," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Richard
Owen.  Representing the Company are John J. Clarke, Jr., DLA
Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP(NYC) 1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020 Phone: 212-835-6120 Fax: 212-835-6001 E-mail:
john.clarke@dlapiper.com; and Dennis E. Glazer, Patrick J.
Murray and Jocelyn Emily Strauber, Davis Polk & Wardwell 450
Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212)450-4000.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Ken H. Chang, Robert Craig Finkel, Marian Probst
         Rosner, Wolf Popper LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY
         10022 Phone: (212) 451-9667 Fax: (212) 486-2093 E-mail:
         kchang@wolfpopper.com, rfinkel@wolfpopper.com,
         mrosner@wolfpopper.com;

     (2) Erin Green Comite, Edmund Scott, David Searby, Scott
         and Scott LLC 108 Norwich Avenue P.O.Box 192
         Colchester, CT 06415 Phone: 860-537-5537

     (3) William C. Fredericks, Ann Meredith Lipton, Peter
         Sloane, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC) One
         Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119 Phone: (212) 594-
         5300 Fax: (212) 868-1229 E-mail: alipton@milberg.com,
         psloane@milberg.com


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: IL Man Launches Suit Over Xbox 360 Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Chicago resident who bought Microsoft Corporation's new Xbox
360 initiated a lawsuit in an Illinois federal court against the
world's largest software maker, claiming that the new video game
console has a design flaw that causes it to overheat and freeze
up, Reuters reports.

Filed by Robert Byers, the proposed class action claims that in
Microsoft's bid to gain a share in the $25 billion global video
game market, the company was so intent on releasing the Xbox 360
before competing next-generation machines from Sony Corporation
and Nintendo Co Ltd. that it sold a "defectively designed"
product. The suit seeks unspecified damages and litigation-
related expenses, as well as the replacement or recall of Xbox
360 game consoles.

According to Mr. Byers, the power supply and central processing
unit in the Xbox 360 overheat, affecting heat-sensitive chips
and causing the console to lock up. Complaints about the problem
surfaced quickly on gaming enthusiast Web sites after the Xbox
360 debuted last November 22. Console owners reported that some
systems had crashed during regular use as well as during online
game play using the Xbox Live service. Problems included screens
going black and the appearance of a variety of error messages.

Though Microsoft spokeswoman Molly O'Donnell told Reuters that
the company does not comment on pending litigation. She did tell
Reuters that at the time the complaints started to surface, "We
have received a few isolated reports of consoles not working as
expected." She declined to say, however, how many reports
Microsoft had received and instead told Reuters that calls
reporting the issue to the company represented a "very, very
small fraction" of units sold.

The suit is styled, "Byers v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No.
1:05-cv-06834," filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge David H. Coar.
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Richard Joseph Doherty and
James Michael Smith of Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates, 25 East
Washington St., Suite 900, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone:
(312) 372-8822, E-mail: rich@horwitzlaw.com and
jsmith@horwitzlaw.com.


NEW YORK: Cook Withdraws From Lawsuit V. Flushing Hindu Temple
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hindu Temple Society of North America scored a victory in
its battle against a group of members who are seeking to replace
its current leaders with a new group of elected trustees, The
Queen Chronicle reports.

A temple cook, who claimed in a lawsuit that he was exploited,
withdrew his name from the suit, although his former attorney
says the decision may have been coerced. The move leaves
Krishnan Chittur, the attorney who filed the class action
lawsuit in New York on behalf of the cook and other workers at
the Flushing temple, without a plaintiff in his case. Mr.
Chittur is also representing a group of six temple members who
want to replace the Flushing temple's board of trustees with a
leadership body elected by the congregation.

Temple attorney Robert Greene told The Queens Chronicle of the
group that is seeking elections, "They seem to have used (the
cook) in their attempts to smear the temple."

Federal Judge Victor Pohorelsky interviewed the cook for more
than an hour before determining that he had withdrawn from the
lawsuit of his own volition, according to Mr. Green. The cook,
Lakshminarayanan Parameshwaran, told The Queens Chronicle
through an interpreter that he felt he was being used as a pawn
by opponents of the temple's current board of trustees. The
interpreter is also employed by the temple. "He experienced some
difficulties in the kitchen," according to the temple's
interpreter. "Krishnamurthy Aiyer (a member of the group seeking
elections) talked to him and said if he files a suit he will get
better pay and other things."

The class action lawsuit was filed in federal court on July
14th, with Lakshminarayanan as its sole signatory. It claims the
temple's cooks and priests, who were brought over from India
under religious worker visas, were forced to work long hours
without overtime. According to Mr. Chittur, this is a violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York's labor laws.

In addition, the lawsuit also accuses the temple of obtaining
religious worker visas for its cooks under the pretext that they
would only be performing religious duties such as preparing
cooked offerings and food for religious festivals. Mr. Chittur
told The Queens Chronicle that the cooks in fact function as
ordinary restaurant cooks at the temple's canteen and for
private catering assignments outside the temple's premises.

However, the temple's lawyers counter that the labor laws cited
in the lawsuit cover commercial, not religious workers and that
although anyone can eat at the canteen, it is difficult to find
and passersby are unlikely to know of its existence, unless they
are worshipping at the temple. The temple's lawyers also say
that Lakshminarayanan and other cooks are not exploited, as they
receive annual salaries of $35,000 to $50,000 as well as housing
and four weeks' vacation per year.

Lakshminarayanan told The Queens Chronicle through the temple's
interpreter that he decided to withdraw from the lawsuit after
he came to believe that his "lawsuit was being linked to the
other case" and that he "was being used as a pawn" in the other
case and felt "misled." Though he did not elaborate on how he
came to believe the cases were being linked he said through the
interpreter that he had since decided to cease communications
with Mr. Chittur. The interpreter told The Queens Chronicle that
Lakshminarayanan's working conditions and compensation had not
changed.

Mr. Chittur finds it suspicious that he has been unable to
communicate with Lakshminarayanan since early this month, when
he says the cook called to tell him that he was being pressured
to end the lawsuit. When Lakshminarayanan was brought before
Judge Pohorelsky, he was "surrounded by a battalion of temple
personnel," according to Mr. Chittur. "Attorney-client privilege
is not going to take place like that. It's like having sex in
public," he explained.

As a result, Mr. Chittur told The Queens Chronicle that he's
been receiving calls from former and present temple employees
who want to join his class action suit. "If they were thinking
of getting rid of this lawsuit, this has made it much worse for
them. A lot of people believe this guy's being bought off."

Mr. Chittur might be able to revise the lawsuit if he finds new
plaintiffs, but the temple's lawyers say it will likely be
dismissed early next year. In fact, Dr. Uma Mysorekar, the
temple's director told The Queens Chronicle, "This case is
finished. It's a good thing both for the temple and for
(Lakshminarayanan) because he is relieved of this and we are
also relieved of this."

The other case, however, the one involving six dissident temple
members who want to replace the temple's board of trustees with
an elected body is not. In 2003, in response to a suit brought
in state court, Judge Joseph Golia appointed a referee to
oversee the election of a new board of trustees. The referee has
set a January 15th election date.

Judge Golia's court has issued certain orders suggesting that
the election will go forward on that day, barring further action
by the courts. The temple's lawyers say that if they cannot
obtain a favorable ruling by that time, they will file an
emergency motion to postpone the election.

Mr. Chittur told The Queens Chronicle, "These fellows have been
blowing smoke every step of the way. They're dragging their feet
because they know in this election they will lose hands down."

The suit is styled, "Parameswaran v. Mysorekar et al, Case No.
1:05-cv-03162-JG-VVP," filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge John Gleeson
with referral to Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky. Representing the
Plaintiff/s is Krishnan Shanker Chittur of Chittur & Associates,
P.C., The Lincoln Building, 60 East 42nd St., Suite 1501, New
York, NY 10165, Phone: (212) 370-0447, Fax: 212-370-0465, E-
mail: kchittur@chittur.com. Representing the Defendant/s are,
Robert L. Greene, 67 Wall St., Suite 2200, New York, NY 10005,
Phone: 917-543-9081, Fax: 212-943-2300, E-mail:
robertlgreene@earthlink.net and Steven C. Stern of Miranda &
Sokoloff, LLP, 240 Mineola Blvd., The Esposito Building,
Mineola, NY 11501, phone: (516) 741-7676 ext. 311, Fax:
(516) 741-9060, E-mail: sstern@mirandasokoloff.com.


NORTH TEXAS: FTC Rules Physicians Illegally Fixed Prices in Area
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a unanimous administrative opinion and order made public on
December 1,2005, the Federal Trade Commission ruled that North
Texas Specialty Physicians (NTSP), an association of independent
physicians in the Forth Worth, Texas area, illegally fixed
prices in its negotiations with payors, including insurance
companies and health plans. The Commission opinion, authored by
Commissioner Thomas B. Leary, affirmed a November 2004 ruling by
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) D. Michael Chappell, with some
modifications, and issued an order that requires the respondent
association to cease and desist from the illegal conduct and to
terminate pre-existing contracts with payors for physician
services.

The Commission concluded that NTSP's contracting activities with
payors "amount(s) to unlawful horizontal price fixing." The
opinion states that, through a variety of mechanisms, NTSP was
able to orchestrate price agreements among its physicians. The
evidence in the case, the Commission found, "shows not only
negotiation activity in aid of a collective agreement on a
minimum fee schedule, but also specific enforcement mechanisms -
such as the powers of attorney and collective withdrawal from
payor networks - in order to coerce agreement from payers."
These actions, when viewed as a whole, the Commission wrote,
"leave no doubt that the overriding purpose behind NTSP's
conduct was to fix prices."

The Commission specifically addressed Respondent's claims on
appeal and found that:

     (1) the FTC does have jurisdictional authority to review
         alleged anticompetitive conduct by NTSP, because it is
         a corporation that is "organized to carry on business
         for its own profit and that of its members;"

     (2) NTSP's argument that its physicians are not "members"
         under Texas law is invalid because it "elevates form
         over substance;"

     (3) NTSP satisfies the interstate commerce jurisdictional
         requirement, because its actions to maintain fee
         levels, if successful, could be expected to affect the
         flow of interstate payments from out-of-state payors to
         NTSP physicians;

     (4) NTSP is not a "sole actor" when it negotiates on behalf
         of the competing physicians who control it, but rather,
         under antitrust law, is the agent for the group, and
         thus, the member physicians conspired to fix prices
         even though they did not communicate directly with one
         another; and

     (5) NTSP's claims of teamwork, spillover, and other
         efficiencies were not legitimate and not supported by
         the evidence.

In response to the cross appeal of Complaint Counsel, the
Commission held that the ALJ incorrectly found it was necessary
to define a relevant market in a case of this kind. The
Commission also found that the ALJ's order was inappropriately
narrow in some of its core provisions and contained two
unwarranted provisos.

"This is not really a close case," the Commission concluded.
"NTSP's conduct is similar to conduct that has been held per se
unlawful and summarily condemned in other contexts. . . . [W]e
have analyzed the conduct under our more flexible Polygram
framework, and considered each of Respondent's defenses in
depth. Our ultimate conclusion is the same." A brief description
of the Commission's legal analysis in issuing the decision and
order is provided below.

The Commission opinion states that an "outright per se
condemnation" of NTSP's conduct could be supported by
application of the Supreme Court's 1982 opinion in Arizona v.
Maricopa County Medical Society. The Commission notes, however,
that in its later 1999 California Dental Ass'n v. FTC opinion,
the Supreme Court "urged caution in the application of the per
se label to conduct in a professional setting . . . ." The
Commission also notes that "since Maricopa, we have a better
understanding of the potential integration efficiencies" of
associations like NTSP. Accordingly, after the first
administrative trial of a physician association case in over 20
years, the Commission adopted the more flexible methodology of
its own recent opinion in the Polygram Holdings, Inc. case and
the opinion of the D.C. Circuit Court that upheld Polgram on
appeal.

The Polygram approach allows for a more extensive consideration
of Respondent's defenses. Accordingly, the Commission notes, "we
have available in this case an extensive record on which to
buttress our conclusions about the likely effects of
Respondent's conduct." The opinion emphasizes, however, that the
Polygram methodology "is not the same thing as a full blown rule
of reason inquiry." Once the Commission has found that
"Respondent's proferred justifications for NTSP's inherently
suspect conduct are not legitimate . . . it is not necessary to
go on and find actual adverse market effects."

NTSP had approximately 480 physician members at the time of
trial in April 2004, including over 100 primary care physicians,
and others in 26 medical specialties. These physicians have
distinct economic interests and many compete with one another.

NTSP's main functions are to negotiate and review contract
proposals for the services of its members, to review payment
issues, and to act as a lobbyist for the interests of its
members. NTSP has negotiated both risk-sharing contracts (where
doctors are typically reimbursed on a dollar-per-patient basis)
and non-risk sharing contracts (which provide "fee-for-service"
payments). The challenged conduct involved only the negotiation
of non-risk sharing contracts, which were more common for NTSP.

In negotiation of its non-risk sharing contracts, NTSP engaged
in conduct designed to enhance the collective bargaining power
of its members. This conduct included the use of member polls on
prospective fees, and communication of the results to members,
in a way that affected payment levels in non-risk sharing
contracts. In addition, NTSP's agreement with its members
granted NTSP the right of first negotiation with payors and
inhibited independent negotiations by individual physicians.
NTSP's illegal conduct also included refusals to deal and
refusals to forward payor offers to member physicians that NTSP
itself deemed unacceptable.

The administrative complaint against NTSP was filed in September
2003. The Initial Decision in favor of Complaint Counsel was
issued in November 2004. Both NTSP and Complaint Counsel
subsequently appealed to the Commission. The Commission found
that the practices described above taken together amounted to
illegal price fixing, and entered an order that would prohibit
them.

The opinion and order approved by the Commission upholds the
initial decision of the ALJ and adopts the findings of fact and
conclusions of law as those of the Commission, except where they
are inconsistent with the Commission's opinion and order. The
order requires that NTSP cease and desist from engaging in the
anticompetitive price-fixing conduct alleged in the complaint.
The conduct barred includes "entering into, adhering to,
participating in, maintaining, implementing, or otherwise
facilitating any combination, conspiracy, agreement, or
understanding between physicians with respect to their provision
of physician services:

     (i) to negotiate on behalf of any physician with any payor;

    (ii) to deal, refuse to deal, or threaten to refuse to deal
         with any payor;

   (iii) regarding any term, condition, or requirement upon
         which any physician deals, or is willing to deal, with
         any payor, including, but not limited to price terms;
         or

    (iv) not to deal individually with any payor, or not to deal
         with any payor through any arrangement other than
         Respondent."

In addition, the order prohibits exchanging, or facilitating the
exchange or transfer, of any information among physicians
concerning their willingness, or lack thereof, to deal with or
not deal with a payor, and prohibits any attempts to engage in
the conduct described above. It also bars NTSP from pressuring
or inducing anyone to engage in such conduct. Finally, the order
contains reporting and distribution requirements to ensure that
NTSP complies with its terms and requires NTSP to terminate any
preexisting contract with any payor to provide physician
services, with extensions allowed under certain circumstances.
The order will terminate in 20 years.

In order to avoid interference with potential efficiencies, the
order does not prohibit any agreement involving conduct that is
reasonably necessary to further a qualified risk-sharing joint
arrangement or a qualified clinically integrated arrangement
among physicians. The order also allows NTSP to act as a
messenger or an agent on behalf of physicians for contracts with
payors, but for three years NTSP is required to notify the
Commission in advance before doing so.

The Commission vote approving issuance of the opinion and order
was 4-0.

Copies of the Commission's opinion and order 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, DC 20580. The FTC's Bureau of Competition
seeks to prevent business practices that restrain competition.
The Bureau carries out its mission by investigating alleged law
violations and, when appropriate, recommending that the
Commission take formal enforcement action. To notify the Bureau
concerning particular business practices, call or write the
Office of Policy and Evaluation, Room 394, Bureau of
Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave,
N.W., Washington, DC 20580, Electronic Mail: antitrust@ftc.gov;
Telephone (202) 326-3300. For more information on the laws that
the Bureau enforces, the Commission has published "Promoting
Competition, Protecting Consumers: A Plain English Guide to
Antitrust Laws," which can be accessed at the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/index.htm. For more details,
contact Nancy Ness Judy, Office of Public Affairs by Phone:
202-326-2180 or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/12/ntsp.htm.


NUVEEN INVESTMENTS: IL Securities Lawsuit Dismissal Deemed Final
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois' dismissal of the securities class action filed against
Nuveen Investments, Inc., styled "James Jacobs et al v Nuveen
Investments, Inc. et al., No. 05 C0143 (N.D. Ill.)" is deemed
final, after plaintiffs failed to file an appeal.

An individual purporting to be a shareholder of one open-end
fund sponsored by Nuveen filed the suit, which also names as
defendants:

     (1) Nuveen Investments, Inc.,

     (2) Nuveen Institutional Advisory Corp. (merged into NAM as
         of 1/1/05),

     (3) NWQ Investment Management Company, LLC,

     (4) Rittenhouse Asset Management, Inc.,

     (5) Institutional Capital Corp, and

     (6) the individual Nuveen fund directors, including
         Nuveen's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Timothy
         R. Schwertfeger

Purporting to sue on behalf of investors in all Nuveen-sponsored
open-end mutual funds with equity holdings, the plaintiff
alleged that the defendants breached common law fiduciary
duties, duties of care and Sections 36(a), 36(b) and 47(b) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940 by failing to ensure that
open-end funds participated in securities class action
settlements for which these funds were eligible. The complaint
contained no specific allegations that the Nuveen funds failed
to participate in particular settlements but lists 136
settlements during the period from January 10,2000 through
January 10,2005, and alleged that the funds failed to submit
claims in some of those proceedings. The plaintiff claimed as
damages disgorgement of fees paid to the investment advisers,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and
other unspecified relief.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on March
14, 2005.  By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 20, 2005,
the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint,
dismissing the plaintiff's federal claims under Sections 36(a),
36(b), and 47(b) with prejudice, and dismissing the plaintiff's
common law or state law claims without prejudice.  The Company
has no information regarding whether the plaintiff intends to
appeal the court's decision.

The suit is styled "Jacobs v. Bremner, et al, case no. 1:05-cv-
00143," filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Milton I. Shadur.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Hank Bates and J. Allen Carney, Cauley Bowman Carney &
         Williams, LLP, 11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200, Little
         Rock, AR 72212, Phone: (501) 312-8500

     (2) Marvin Alan Miller, Jennifer Winter Sprengel and
         Matthew Eric Van Tine, Miller Faucher and Cafferty,
         LLP, 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200 Chicago, IL
         60602, Phone: (312) 782-4880

     (3) Randall K Pulliam, Baron & Budd, P.C., 3102 Oak Lawn
         Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, TX 75219, Phone: (214) 521-
         3605

Representing the Company are James Kevin McCall and James L.
Thompson of Jenner & Block, LLC, One IBM Plaza, 330 North Wabash
Avenue, 40th Floor, Chicago, IL 60611, Phone: (312)222-9350


OHIO POWER: Named As Defendant in Canadian Environmental Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Power Co. was named as one of 21 defendants in a lawsuit
filed in the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada.  The
defendants are alleged to own or operate coal-fired electric
generating stations in various states that, through negligence
in design, management, maintenance and operation, have emitted
nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter that have
harmed the residents of Ontario.

The lawsuit seeks class action designation and damages of
approximately $50 billion, with continuing damages of $4 billion
annually. The lawsuit also seeks $1 billion in punitive damages.


PACKAGING CORPORATION: Linerboard Suit Discovery To End 12/2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fact discovery in the consolidated opt-out direct antitrust
lawsuit filed against Packaging Corporation of America in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania is expected to close this month.

On May 14, 1999, the Company was named as a defendant in two
Consolidated Class Action Complaints that alleged a civil
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.  The suits,
then captioned "Winoff Industries, Inc. v. Stone Container
Corporation, MDL No. 1261" (E.D. Pa.) and "General Refractories
Co. v. Gaylord Container Corporation, MDL No. 1261," (E.D. Pa.),
name PCAthe Company as a defendant based solely on the
allegation that it is successor to the interests of Tenneco
Packaging Inc. and Tenneco Inc., both of which were also named
as defendants in the suits, along with nine other linerboard and
corrugated sheet manufacturers.  The complaints allege that the
defendants, during the period October 1, 1993 through November
30, 1995, conspired to limit the supply of linerboard, and that
the purpose and effect of the alleged conspiracy was to
artificially increase prices of corrugated containers and
corrugated sheets, respectively.

On November 3, 2003, Pactiv Corporation (formerly known as
Tenneco Packaging), Tenneco and the Company entered into an
agreement to settle the class action lawsuits.  The settlement
agreement provides for a full release of all claims against the
Company as a result of the class action lawsuits and was
approved by the Court in an opinion issued on April 21, 2004.
Approximately 160 plaintiffs opted out of the class and together
filed about ten direct action complaints in various courts
across the country.  All of the opt-out complaints make
allegations against the defendants, including the Company,
substantially similar to those made in the class actions.

The settlement agreement does not cover these direct action
cases.  These actions have all been consolidated as "In re
Linerboard, MDL 1261 (E.D. Pa.)" for pretrial purposes.  These
actions have almost all been consolidated as "In re Linerboard,
MDL 1261 (E.D. Pa.)" for pretrial purposes.

On June 30, 2005, Pactiv, Tenneco, and the Company entered into
an agreement to settle one of the opt-out suits, styled
"Conopco, Inc., et al. v. Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation,
et al., Case No. 03-CV-3549," (E.D. Pa.).  The settlement
agreement provides for a full release of all claims against PCA
as a result of the action and was approved by order of the Court
on July 28, 2005.  The Company has made no payments to the
plaintiffs as a result of the settlement of any of the opt-out
suits. Fact discovery is proceeding and is currently set to
close December 30, 2005.

The litigation is styled "In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation,
case no. 2:10-md-01261-JD," filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Jan
E. Dubois.


PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Lawsuit Over Medicare Automatic Enrolment
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the latest legal challenge to the new Medicare prescription
drug program, lawyers representing low-income Pennsylvanians
initiated a lawsuit that asks the courts to block automatic
enrollment of thousands of people who receive both Medicare and
Medicaid into managed care plans, The Pittsburgh Post Gazette
reports.

Filed recently in the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, the
suit, which seeks class action status, alleges that the federal
government lacked legal authority to permit the change. The
automatic enrollments could force some Medicare and Medicaid
recipients, known as "dual eligibles," to change their doctors
or hospitals.

Alissa Halperin, managing attorney for the Philadelphia office
of the Pennsylvania Health Law Project, which filed the lawsuit
with Community Legal Services of Philadelphia told The
Pittsburgh Post Gazette, that more than 110,000 Pennsylvanians
could be affected by the auto-enrollment, as well as about
90,000 other dual eligibles in about a dozen other states. She
also told The Pittsburgh Post Gazette that while the government
allowed dual eligibles to opt out of the automatic enrollment
process, which it termed "passive enrollment," those provisions
were "poorly crafted and explained." Ms. Halperin adds, "I can't
tell you the number of people who were shocked when we explained
it to them."

The lawsuit follows another filed on behalf of dual eligibles
last month in federal court in New York City. That lawsuit,
filed by attorneys representing the Medicare Rights Center and
other consumer advocacy groups, warned that many dual eligibles
could lose access to their medications as their drug coverage
shifts next month from Medicaid to the new Medicare drug
program, known as Part D.

People generally qualify as dual eligibles if they are disabled
or old enough to qualify for Medicare coverage and also have low
incomes that qualify them for Medicaid coverage.

Named as defendants in the latest suit are: Mark McClellan,
administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services,
and Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt.
Plaintiffs include several Pennsylvania dual eligibles and two
groups, Action Alliance of Senior Citizens of Greater
Philadelphia and the Center for Advocacy for the Rights and
Interests of the Elderly.

The lawsuit concerns members of Medicaid managed care plans who
also receive Medicare. It alleges that automatically enrolling
those dual eligibles in the new Medicare managed care plans,
could unfairly deprive them of access to their medical
providers. Generally under Medicare managed care plans, members
are restricted to a network of doctors and other medical
providers.

The suit is styled, "ERB et al v. MCCLELLAN et al, Case No.
2:05-cv-06201-JP," filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge John R. Padova.
Representing the Plaintiff/s is Alissa Eden Halperin, PA Health
Law Project, 437 CHESTNUT ST., SUITE 900, PHILADELPHIA, PA
19460, Phone: 215-625-3897, E-mail: ahalperin@phlp.org.


PREMIERE GLOBAL: Discovery Proceeds in MD TCPA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against one of
Premiere Global Services, Inc.'s subsidiaries, Xpedite in the
Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Paul Worsham filed the suit on February 22, 2005, alleging that
Xpedite transmitted pre-recorded telephone calls advertising
Data Communications services to telephone numbers in Maryland,
including to Mr. Worsham's telephone number, in violation of the
TCPA, as amended, and applicable Federal Communication
Commission (FCC) rules.  The complaint also alleges violations
of federal caller identification requirements under FCC rules
and violations of the Maryland Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.  The complaint seeks statutory damages under the federal
and Maryland statutes for each of four alleged violations of the
two statutes and injunctive relief.


PUBLIC SERVICE: Named As Defendant in Canada Environmental Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Public Service Co. of Oklahoma was named as one of 21 defendants
in a lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario,
Canada.  The defendants are alleged to own or operate coal-fired
electric generating stations in various states that, through
negligence in design, management, maintenance and operation,
have emitted nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and particulate
matter that have harmed the residents of Ontario.

The lawsuit seeks class action designation and damages of
approximately $50 billion, with continuing damages of $4 billion
annually. The lawsuit also seeks $1 billion in punitive damages.


RYLAND GROUP: Continue To Face Securities Lawsuits in N.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryland Group, Inc. and two of its officers continue to face
several securities class actions filed on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's publicly traded securities during the period
between October 22, 2003 through January 7, 2004, inclusive.

The complaints, filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, charges Ryland Group, R. Chad
Dreier, and Gordon Milne with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Between October 22, 2003 and January 7,
2004, the defendants issued a series of material
misrepresentations to the market concerning the Company's
financial results.

The first identified complaint in this litigation is styled "TDH
Partners, LLP, et al. v. Ryland Group, Inc., et al., case no.
04-CV-0073," filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

     (1) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York),
         200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone:
         631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173,

     (2) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East
         Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
         410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com

     (3) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com

     (4) Paskowitz & Associates, Phone: 800.705.9529, E-mail:
         classattorney@aol.com

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

     (6) The Brualdi Law Firm, 29 Broadway - Suite 1515, New
         York, NY, 10006, Phone: 212.952.0602, Fax:
         212.952.0608,

     (7) Wechsler Harwood LLP, 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New
         York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail:
         info@whhf.com


SEPRACOR INC.: Discovery Proceeds in MA Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class
actions filed against Sepracor, Inc. and certain of its current
and former officers and a current director in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Several suits were initially filed on behalf of certain persons
who purchased the Company's common stock and/or debt securities
during different time periods, beginning on various dates, the
earliest being May 17, 1999, and all ending on March 6, 2002.
These complaints allege violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and the rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  Primarily they allege that the defendants made
certain materially false and misleading statements relating to
the testing, safety and likelihood of approval of tecastemizole
(formerly SOLTARA) by the United States Food and Drug
Administration, or FDA.

On April 11, 2003, two consolidated amended complaints were
filed, one on behalf of the purchasers of the Company's common
stock and the other on behalf of the purchasers of its debt
securities.  These consolidated amended complaints reiterate the
allegations contained in the previously filed complaints and
define the alleged class periods as May 17, 1999 through
March 6, 2002.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss both
consolidated amended complaints on May 27, 2003.  On March 11,
2004, the court, while granting in part the motion to dismiss,
did allow much of the case to proceed.

On September 8, 2005, in both the debt purchasers' action and
the equity purchasers' action, the district court granted the
plantiff's motion for class certification. The parties are
currently engaged in discovery.

The suit is styled "In Re: Sepracor, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:02-cv-12338-MEL," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, under Judge Morris E.
Lasker.

Lawyer for the defendants is Mary Jo Johnson of Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, 60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109,
Phone: 617-526-6750, Fax: 617-526-5000 or E-mail:
maryjo.johnson@wilmerhale.com.  Lawyers for the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Theodore M. Hess-Mahan of Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, 53
         State Street, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939,
         Fax: 617-439-0134 or E-mail: ted@shulaw.com

     (2) Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory M. Nespole or David L.
         Wales of Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-545-
         4600, E-mail: nespole@whafh.com or wales@whafh.com

     (3) David Pastor of Gilman and Pastor, LLP, Stonehill
         Corporate Center, 999 Broadway, Suite 500, Saugus, MA
         01906, Phone: 781-231-7850, Fax: 781-231-7840 e-mail:
         dpastor@gilmanpastor.com


SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Stock Lawsuit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Central District of California's ruling dismissing the
consolidated securities class action filed against Syncor
International Corporation and certain of its officers and
directors.

Eleven purported class action lawsuits have been filed against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors, asserting
claims under the federal securities laws.  These cases include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A lead plaintiff has been appointed by the Court in the Syncor
federal securities actions, and a consolidated amended complaint
was filed May 19, 2003, naming the Company and 12 individuals,
all former officers, directors and/or employees, as defendants.
The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified money damages and
other unspecified relief against the defendants.  The Company
filed a Motion to Dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on
August 1, 2003, and on December 12, 2003, the Court granted the
Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. A second amended
consolidated class action complaint was filed on January 28,
2004, naming the Company and 14 individuals, all former Syncor
officers, directors and/or employees, as defendants.

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

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the third amended
consolidated complaint on January 31, 2005. On April 15, 2005,
the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss with prejudice. The lead
plaintiff has appealed this decision. Plaintiff filed its
opening appellate brief on September 28, 2005.  The Company's
brief is presently due on December 14, 2005.

The suit is styled "Richard Bowe, et al v. Syncor Intl Corp, et
al, case no. Richard Bowe, et al v. Syncor Intl Corp, et al
2:02-cv-08560-LGB-RC," filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, under Judge Lourdes G.
Baird.  Representing the plaintiffs is Frank J. Johnson, Frank J
Johnson Law Offices, 402 West Broadway, 27th Floor, San Diego,
CA 92101, Phone: 619-230-0063.  Representing the Company are Joe
Kendall and Willie Briscoe, Provost Umphrey Law Firm, 3232
McKinney Ave, Ste 700, Dallas, TX 75204, Phone: 214-744-3000;
and Theodore M Hess-Mahan and Thomas G. Shapiro, Shapiro Grace
Haber & Urmy, 75 State St, Boston, MA 02109, Phone:
617-439-3939.


THOMSON NEWSPAPERS: Copyright Suit in Canada Heads to High Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action battle between The Globe and Mail and its
freelancers over who owns the rights to material reproduced in
databases and CD-ROMs will go before the Supreme Court soon, The
Globetechnology.com reports.

The case involved a lawsuit launched by Canadian author and
freelance writer Heather Robertson, who wrote two articles that
were published in The Globe in 1995 that was later included in
several databases. It specifically pitted thousands of freelance
writers against the Thomson Newspapers Corporation, then the
publisher of The Globe and Mail (now published by Bell Globe
Media), an earlier Class Action Reporter story (October 13,
2004) reports.

In her suit Ms. Robertson argued that the inclusion of the
articles without permission or compensation constituted an
infringement of her copyright. She wanted extra pay for
freelancers when their work was resold in electronic form. For
its part, The Globe argued that inclusion of the work in the
database fell within its copyright as a collective work or
compilation of material, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(October 13, 2004) reports.

The case has raised a range of issues about copyright,
contracts, and the point at which a newspaper ceases to be a
newspaper and becomes an electronic collection of searchable
articles.

However, its practical impact will be mainly on people who have
written for newspapers in the past. The Globe, like other
papers, has had freelancers sign written contracts since the
late 1990s, which state specifically that the writer has signed
over the rights to electronic reproduction.

Still, Ms. Robertson's lawyer, Michael McGowan told
Globetechnology.com, "copyright lasts 50 years after the death
of the author, so there is a lot of stuff from years ago that's
still under copyright that The Globe could not use [if the paper
loses the case]."

The Supreme Court is hearing several appeals and cross-appeals,
because both The Globe and Ms. Robertson were on losing sides of
some of the rulings made by the lower courts in Ontario. But the
key issue before the top court, Mr. McGowan tells
Globetechnology.com, is "to what extent writers will share in
the commercial proceeds of on-line databases and CD-ROMs."

The Globe's central argument is that Canadian copyright law
specifies that the paper can reproduce material it has purchased
in "any material form," and that this includes electronic
databases and CD-ROMs. The paper also says that freelancers
agree to "implied licenses" for electronic reproduction when
they sell their stories.

The Globe's submission to the Supreme Court says the Ontario
Court of Appeal was wrong when it ruled, in a split decision,
that the content of The Globe's database is essentially a set of
individual stories, and not a collective work.

In that ruling, the appeals court said the "collective
copyright" The Globe holds on the whole paper is lost when the
stories are placed on a searchable database. Two of the three
judges on the appeals court panel said, "The effect of a
newspaper is lost when articles are placed in the database. The
originality of the collective work through the editors'
judgment, skill and labour, is dissipated" because databases
don't have the "function, form or content of either a periodical
or a newspaper. . . . A database is not a newspaper."

The Canadian Newspaper Association and the Canadian Community
Newspapers Association previously intervened on behalf of The
Globe, arguing that technological developments shouldn't force
publishers to lose their rights to reproduce their "collective
works" in electronic media. The associations further said in
their filings with the court that if papers are forced to remove
freelance stories from their databases, it would impair the
public's ability to use them for research purposes.

University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist told
Globetechnology.com that the Supreme Court has become very
interested in copyright issues. In the past, according to him,
the top court generally favored the creators of material, but in
more recent decisions it has tried to balance the rights of
creators and users. He told Globetechnology.com, "I would expect
that their analysis [in this case] would again focus on how to
balance the interests of all parties."

Prof. Geist also noted that while the top court's decision may
clarify many of the issues, the class action itself will likely
end up back in the lower courts for resolution. According to
him, "If the court finds for Robertson in a manner that allows
the case to proceed, there would still be the prospect of
further litigation on the merits of the case itself." Still, he
added, "in many instances these cases often settle once some the
key legal principals have been addressed."


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Phentermine HCl Product Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its affiliates face
approximately 50 suits in various state and federal courts,
alleging personal injury as a result of using phentermine
hydrochloride products.  The suits also name other
pharmaceutical firms.

Most of the cases involve multiple plaintiffs, and several were
filed or certified as class actions.  The Company believes it
will be fully indemnified by Rugby's former owner, Aventis
Pharmaceuticals (Aventis, formerly known as Hoechst Marion
Roussel, Inc., and now known as Sanofi-Aventis) for the defense
of all such cases and for any liability that may arise out of
these cases, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities
and Exchange Commission.  Aventis is currently controlling the
defense of all these matters as the indemnifying party under its
agreements with the Company.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Seek Transfer of Suit Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs seek to transfer its appeal of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York's ruling
granting summary judgment in favor of Watson Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. and other pharmaceutical firms to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Beginning in July 2000, a number of suits have been filed
against the Company, Rugby Group and other company affiliates in
various state and federal courts, alleging violations of federal
antitrust laws, related to its Ciprofloxacin hydrochloride
product.  The suits allege claims under various federal and
state competition and consumer protection laws. Several
plaintiffs have filed amended complaints and motions seeking
class certification.  The defendants have opposed these class
certification motions, which remain pending, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (April 11,2005) states.

As of March 7, 2005, approximately 42 cases had been filed
against the Company, Rugby and other Watson entities. Twenty-two
of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, styled "In re:
Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No.
001383."  In May 2003, the court hearing the consolidated action
granted the Company's motion to dismiss and made rulings
limiting the theories under which plaintiffs can seek recovery
against Rugby and the other defendants.  Portions of that
decision are expected to be appealed.

On May 28, 2004, the defendants, including the Company and
certain of its affiliates, filed motions for summary judgment in
the consolidated action pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, seeking dismissal of several
of the claims asserted by the plaintiffs, including claims
alleging violation of the antitrust laws.  On July 9, 2004, the
plaintiffs filed oppositions to the defendants' summary judgment
motions, and the direct purchasers filed a cross-motion for
partial summary judgment on their claims.  A hearing on these
motions took place on February 28, 2005.

On May 7, 2005, three groups of plaintiffs from the consolidated
action, including the direct purchaser plaintiffs, the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs, and plaintiffs Rite Aid and CVS
Corporation, filed Notices of Appeal in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit, appealing, among other
things, the March 31, 2005 Order granting summary judgment in
favor of the defendants.  On August 25, 2005, defendants filed a
motion to transfer the appeals of the judgment in defendants'
favor in the consolidated action from the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  Appellants filed their briefs
in opposition to the motion to transfer on or about September
26, 2005.  Defendants filed their reply in support of the motion
to transfer on October 21, 2005.  All parties have requested
oral argument on the motion.

The suit is styled "In Re: Ciprofloxin Hydrochloride Antitrust
Litigation, case no. 1:00-md-01383-DGT-SMG," filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
under Judge David G. Trager.  Representing the Company is David
E. Everson of Stinson, Mag & Fizzell, P.C., 1201 Walnut, Suite
2900, Kansas City, MO 64106, Phone: 816-842-8600, Fax:
816-691-3495, E-mail: deverson@stinsonmoheck.com.  Representing
the plaintiffs are Robert S. Schachter, Joseph S. Tusa of
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, 41 Madison Avenue, 32nd
Floor, New York, NY 10010, Phone: 212-223-3900, Fax:
212-371-5969, E-mail: rschachter@zsz.com.


WELLMAN INC.: Antitrust Settlement Hearing Set December 15, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina, Charlotte Division will hold a fairness hearing
for the proposed settlements by Wellman Inc. and Nan Ya in the
matter, In re: Polyester Staple Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket
No. 3:03CV1516. The case was filed on behalf of all individuals
or entities (excluding governmental entities and non-class
plaintiffs), who purchased Polyester Staple in the United States
directly from defendants from April 1, 1999 to July 31, 2001.

The court will hold the hearing on December 15, 2005, at 10:00
a.m., at the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, 250 Charles R. Jonas Federal Bldg.,
401 West Trade St., Charlotte, NC 28202.

For more details, contact Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. by Mail: West Tower, Suite
500, 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005-3964,
Phone: (202) 408-4600, Fax: (202) 408-4699, E-mail:
lawinfo@cmht.com.


WFS FINANCIAL: Suit Status Conference Set January 18,2006 in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
A status conference in the class action filed against WFS
Financial, Inc. and WestCorp is set for January 18, 2006 in the
Orange Count Superior Court in California.  A settlement has
been reached for the suit, and the court has granted preliminary
approval.  The consolidated securities class action is styled
"In re WFS Financial Shareholder Litigation, case no.
04CC00559."

Beginning on May 24, 2004 and continuing thereafter, a total of
four separate purported class action lawsuits relating to the
announcement by the Company and Westcorp that they were
commencing an exchange offer for the Company's outstanding
public shares.  The suit also names as defendants the Company's
individual board members.  On June 24, 2004, the actions were
consolidated.

On July 16, 2004, the court granted a motion by plaintiff Alaska
Hotel & Restaurant Employees Pension Trust Fund, in Case No.
04CC00573, to amend the consolidation order to designate it the
lead plaintiff in the litigation.  The lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint on August 9, 2004, and then filed
the present "corrected" consolidated amended complaint on
September 15, 2004.  All of the shareholder-related actions
allege, among other things, that the defendants breached their
respective fiduciary duties and seek to enjoin or rescind the
transaction and obtain an unspecified sum in damages and costs,
including attorneys' fees and expenses.

The parties have tentatively agreed to a full and final
resolution of the Action and, on January 19, 2005, the parties
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, also known as the
MOU, concerning the terms of the tentative settlement. The
parties are in the process of preparing a formal settlement
agreement based on the terms of the MOU and will present it to
the Court for approval.

Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, the parties have agreed, among
other things, that additional disclosures will be made in the
Registration Statement on Form S-4 (as filed with the SEC on
July 16, 2004), the claims asserted in the Action will be fully
released, and the Action will be dismissed with prejudice.
Further, pursuant to the MOU, WFS has agreed to pay plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $675,000, or in
such lesser amount as the Court may order.  The effectiveness of
the settlement agreement is contingent on the transaction
actually occurring. The parties prepared a formal settlement
agreement based on the terms of the MOU and obtained preliminary
approval for the settlement from the Court on June 17, 2005. The
parties have further agreed, with the Court's consent, that the
parties will not proceed with providing notice of the proposed
settlement to shareholders nor schedule a final hearing on
approval of the settlement unless and until the necessary
regulatory approvals for the transaction have been obtained.
Subsequently, on September 12, 2005, the Company entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger by and among Wachovia Corporation,
also known as Wachovia, the Company, Western Financial Bank and
Westcorp, also known as the Wachovia Merger Agreement.
Accordingly, on September 12, 2005, WestCorp terminated the
merger agreement dated as of May 23, 2004, which is the subject
of the Action. Thereafter, counsel for plaintiffs indicated that
they are evaluating the Wachovia Merger Agreement to determine
whether and to what extent they might proceed with the Action. A
further status conference in the Action is scheduled for January
18, 2006.



                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------


December 7, 2005
ASBESTOS INSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 12-14, 2005
10TH ANNUAL DRUG & MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conferences
The Waldorf Astoria, New York, NY, United States
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563

December 12-13, 2005
VIOXX LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Caesars Palace, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 12-13, 2005
LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Pentagon City, Washington DC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

January 23-24, 2005
ADVANCED INSURANCE COVERAGE ISSUES
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 5-8, 2006
INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 16-17, 2006
ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Coral Gables, Miami, Florida
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 25-26, 2006
INSURANCE COVERAGE 2006: CLAIM TRENDS & LITIGATION
Practising Law Institute
New York
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

September 28-30, 2006
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614


* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

December 01-30, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 01-30, 2005
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 01-30, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 01-30, 2005
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 01-30, 2005
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 7, 2005
PERCHLORATE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 8, 2005
SSRI's TELECONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 14, 2005
FINITE RISK REINSURANCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 14, 2005
CLASS CERTIFICATION--HOW TO GET A CLASS CERTIFIED OR DEFEAT
CERTIFICATION
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 15, 2005
D&O TELECONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 15, 2005
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ISSUES
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINAITON
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.



                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CIPHERGEN BIOSYSTEMS: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, initiated a class
action suit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Ciphergen Biosystems, Inc.
("Ciphergen" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CIPHE) and certain of
its officers and directors, on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased the publicly traded common stock of Ciphergen
between August 8, 2005 and November 16, 2005 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 by publicly issuing a series of false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's financial condition, thus
causing Ciphergen's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels.

The complaint alleges that on November 16, 2005, Ciphergen
disclosed, inter alia, that its Audit Committee had determined
that the Company's previously reported results for the quarter-
ended June 30, 2005 should no longer be relied upon and would
need to be restated because revenue was recognized on certain
transactions "in a manner inconsistent with the Company's
revenue recognition policy." Indeed, the Company indicated that
the restatement would reduce previously reported revenues for
such quarter by $503,000 or 7% and result in an increase in the
Company's previously reported net loss for such quarter by
$301,000 or 3%. The Company also advised that the Audit
Committee's investigation was not yet complete and that it was
also "reviewing the appropriateness of revenue recognition in
connection with certain transactions that took place in the
fourth quarter of fiscal 2004 and in fiscal 2005."

On November 17, 2005, as a result of these disclosures, the
complaint alleges that the price of Ciphergen common stock
declined from a prior day close of $1.73 to close at $1.36 per
share, a decline of approximately 21%, on unusually heavy
volume.

For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox, Joel B. Strauss,
Donald R. Hall and Jeffrey P. Campisi of KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER
LLP, 805 Third Ave., 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
(800) 290-1952 or (212) 687-1980, Fax: (212) 687-7714, E-mail:
mail@kaplanfox.com, Web site: http://www.kaplanfox.com/and
Laurence D. King of KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER, LLP, 555 Montgomery
Street, Suite 1501, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone:
(415) 772-4700, Fax: 415-772-4707.


MIKOHN GAMING: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NV
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Mikohn
Gaming Corporation (d/b/a Progressive Gaming International
Corporation) ("PGIC" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PGIC) between
February 22, 2005 through October 19, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada against defendant PGIC and one or more of its
executive officers. The action charges that defendants violated
federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class
Period, which statements had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the Company's securities. No class
has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven of The Law Offices Of
Charles J. Piven, P.A., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401
East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone:
410-986-0036, E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


MIKOHN GAMING: Goldman Scarlato Lodges NV Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada,
on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of Mikohn Gaming Corporation (d/b/a
Progressive Gaming International Corporation) ("Mikohn" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:PGIC) between February 22, 2005 and October
19, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed
against Mikohn, Russel H. McMeekin and Michael A. Sicuro
("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Defendants failed to disclose that the impact of Financial
Accounting Standards Board's accounting Standard ("SFAS") 153 on
the Company's public filings.

On October 20, 2005, Defendants revealed that because the
Company failed to properly account for two non-monetary
transactions in accordance with SFAS 153, the Company expected
to report a loss of $0.09 per share rather than a gain of $0.08
to $0.10 per share, as Defendants had previously reported. The
Company changed the accounting treatment after its auditor, BDO
Seidman, informed the Company that it had to comply with SFAS
153 and that it could not recognize the revenues in the third
quarter from these two transactions. In reaction to this news,
shares of Mikohn fell dramatically, falling nearly 30% in very
heavy volume.

For more details, contact Brian D. Penny, Esq. of The Law Firm
of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C, Phone: 888-753-2796, E-mail:
info@gsk-law.com.


STONE ENERGY: Roy Jacobs to File Securities Fraud Lawsuit in LA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Roy Jacobs & Associates was retained to commence
a class action in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana, on behalf of a class of persons
who purchased the securities of Stone Energy Corporation
(NYSE:SGY) between March 4, 2002 and October 6, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The complaint to be filed alleges that Stone made false and
misleading statements regarding its financial performance. On
October 6, 2005 Stone announced, among other things, its
intention to take a significant reserve write-down of its
"proven" oil reserves of $161 million -- a 20% decline. As a
result, Stone's stock price fell $7.93 to $48.14. On November 8,
2005, Stone announced its intention to restate its financial
statements for 2001 through 2004 and for the first two quarters
of 2005. The Company launched an internal investigation into its
reserve practices and admits that it overstated its oil
reserves.

For more details, contact Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. of Roy Jacobs &
Associates, Phone: 888-884-4490, E-mail:
classattorney@pipeline.com.


STONE ENERGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in LA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Stone Energy Corporation (NYSE: SGY) ("Stone
Energy" or the "Company") between June 17, 2005 and October 6,
2005 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Stone Energy, David H. Welch, Kenneth H.
Beer, D. Peter Canty and James H. Prince with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the
Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that Stone Energy materially overstated its financial
         results by improperly overvaluing its oil reserves;

     (2) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition; and

     (3) that as a result of the above, the values of the
         Company's proven reserves, assets and future net cash
         flows were materially overstated at all relevant times.

On October 6, 2005, Stone Energy shocked the market when it
issued a press release announcing that it intends to take a
significant reserve write-down. On this news, shares of the
Company's stock fell $7.93 per share or almost 14% to close at
$48.14 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then, on
November 9, 2005, Stone Energy issued a press release announcing
that it would restate certain historical financial statements
and provided selected financial data from 2001 to 2004 and for
the first six months of 2005.

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


UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Universal American
Financial Corporation ("Universal American" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:UHCO) between February 16, 2005 and October 28, 2005,
inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against
Universal American and certain officers and directors
("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's medical loss ratio, which is
a ratio measuring the relationship between the cost of
healthcare provided to premium income. Defendants claimed that
the profitability of certain businesses was contingent upon the
Company's ability to accurately predict and manage costs related
to the provision of healthcare services. Defendants further
stated that they had reversed a negative trend-line in the
medical loss ratio they had been experiencing.

On October 28, 2005, Defendants announced a 22% decline in net
income resulting directly from higher medical care costs and
expenses. In reaction to this news, Universal American's stock
price fell $7.50 per share to close below $15.00 per share.
During the Class Period, insiders sold stock for proceeds in
excess of $200 million.

For more details, contact Leigh Lasky, Esq. of The Law Firm of
Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., Phone: 800-495-1868, E-mail:
investorrelations@laskyrifkind.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  * * *