/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060123.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, January 23, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 16


ALLIANCE GAMING: Moves for Summary Judgment in NV Stock Lawsuit
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Settles Overcharging Suit Filed by Drivers
ALTRIA GROUP: Cigarette Smokers Demand Lung Cancer Screening
BURLINGTON COAT: CA Court Gives Preliminary OK to Overtime Suit
C8 SCIENCE: Launches Research on C-8's Effect on Human Health

CARROLL INDEPENDENT: Facing $1B Suit for Polluting Water Source
CENTENNIAL COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Unfair Trade Practices Lawsuits
CINTAS CORPORATION: CA Court Orders Arbitration for Houston Case
CINTAS CORPOARTION: EEOC Intervenes in Serrano Racial Bias Case
CINTAS CORPORATION: EEOC, DFEH Administrative Action Terminated

DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Provides Update on CA Settlement's Progress
FISHER-PRICE: Recalls 614T Chairs Due to Strangulation Hazard
GREAT ATLANTIC: Nets Share in NY Visa/Mastercard Antitrust Deal
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Facing Class Action over Price Overcharging
MERIX CORPORATION: OR Court Stays Proceedings in Derivative Suit

MIZUNO USA: Recalls Gloves Containing Potentially Harmful Mold
NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR: Discovery Proceeds in CA Injury Lawsuit
OHIO: German Camera Maker Held Liable in Anti-camera Lawsuit
OREGON STATE: Court to Hear AOC's Complaints Later This Month
OWENS CORNING: MA Suit Status Conference Set For November 8,2005

ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Settlement Hearing Set February 10, 2006
SOLECTRON CORPORATION: CA Stock Settlement Hearing Set for March
SYNTACE USA: Recalls 2.3T Handlebar Stems Due to Injury Hazard
TELSTRA GROUP: Facing AU$300M Suit for Disclosure Rules Breach
THE OLD LINE: NM County Court OKs Class in Policyholders' Suit

UNITED STATES: EEOC Ordered to Pay Record $1M to Pasadena Firm
WESTPOINT CORPORATION: Funds' Collapse May Give Rise to Lawsuits
WORLDCOM INC.: Provides Updates on "Right-of-Way Litigation"

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Fraud Suit
SFBC INTERNATIONAL: Hanzman & Criden Files Securities Fraud Suit
SFBC INTERNATIONAL: Mager & Goldstein Files FL Securities Suit


ALLIANCE GAMING: Moves for Summary Judgment in NV Stock Lawsuit
Alliance Gaming Corporation moved for a summary judgment in the
consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed against it
and certain of the Company's officers in the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada.

Company officers named in the suit are:

     (1) Robert Miodunski,

     (2) Robert Saxton,

     (3) Mark Lerner, and

     (4) Steven Des Champs

The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 stemming from revised earnings guidance, declines in the
stock price, and sales of stock by insiders.  The court has also
appointed lead counsel and lead plaintiff, although plaintiffs
have yet to file a consolidated suit.

Recently, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, all as
is customary in such cases.  The Company and the other
defendants then moved for summary judgment, and that motion is
currently being briefed.

The first identified complaint is styled "Tyler, et al. v.
Alliance Gaming Corporation, et al., Case No. 04-CV-821" The
class period in the suit is from January 15, 2004 to June 7,
2004.  The plaintiffs firms involved in this or similar
litigation are:

     (1) Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP (San Francisco)
         Mail: 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA,
         94111 Phone: 415-288-4545 Fax: 415-288-4534 or E-mail:

     (2) Geller Rudman, PLLC Mail: 197 South Federal Highway,
         Suite 200, Boca Raton, FL, 33432 Phone: 561-750-3000
         Fax: 888-262-3131 E-mail: info@geller-rudman.com;

     (3) Brian Felgoise, 230 South Broad St., Suite 404,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215.735.6810, Fax:

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

     (5) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
         Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt, Suite 2525,
         Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:

     (6) Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Ave., 8th Floor, New
         York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, Fax:
         info@whhf.com; and

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

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Settles Overcharging Suit Filed by Drivers
Allstate Insurance settled a Madison County class action over
high-risk insurance sold to drivers without admitting
wrongdoing, according to Madison St. Claire Record.  The case,
which was filed by Priscilla Spencer and seven other plaintiffs
in 2002, claims the insurer improperly added charges to premiums
and denied discounts to clients.  

The defendant is represented by Roger Heidenreich of
Sonnenschein Nath and Rosenthal, St. Louis; the plaintiffs by
Stephen Tillery of St. Louis and Jay Angoff of Jefferson City,
Mo.  Mr. Tillery's team will receive 29% of the settlement, of
which each plaintiff will receive $5,000.  Circuit Judge
Nicholas Byron set a May 24 hearing on a joint motion for

ALTRIA GROUP: Cigarette Smokers Demand Lung Cancer Screening
Philip Morris USA is facing a federal class action suit filed by
a group of heavy Marlboro smokers demanding tests for early
detection of lung cancer, Reuters reports.  The lawsuit is filed
in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn on behalf of current and
former Marlboro smokers over 50 years old who smoked a pack or
more a day for 20 years.  

The plaintiffs want an annual low-dose CT scan of the chest,
which is used to minimize cancer-causing side effects of an
actual CT scan.  Studies indicate that a low-dose CT scan can
help in the early detection of cancer, although this finding
remains to be firmly established.

Annual scans cost about $500 each, according to Jerome Block, a
New York attorney representing the plaintiffs.  Whereas, the
class size is about "tens of thousands."  The plaintiffs, from
New York, are not seeking compensatory or punitive damages, the
report said.  According to a spokesman for Altria Group Inc.,
the parent of Philip Morris, his company has not seen the

The suit is styled, "Caronia et al. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-00224-JBW-SMG," filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Jack
B. Weinstein with referral to Judge Steven M. Gold. Representing
the Plaintiff/s are, Steven J. Phillips of Levy, Phillips &
Konigsberg, LLP, 800 Third Ave., 13th Floor, New York, NY 10022,
Phone: (212) 605-6200, E-mail: sphillips@lpklaw.com.

BURLINGTON COAT: CA Court Gives Preliminary OK to Overtime Suit
The Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda
granted preliminary approval to a settlement for class action
lawsuit filed against Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse

The plaintiff, who is a former Company employee, filed the
putative class action styled, "Lewis v. Burlington Coat Factory
Warehouse Corporation," on behalf of himself and certain current
and former management-level employees at the Company's
California stores.  The plaintiff alleges that the Company
violated a California state law by classifying these employees
as "exempt" managerial/executive employees for purposes of the
payment of overtime compensation and failing to pay them the
overtime premium required for non-exempt employees.  The lawsuit
also claims that the Company failed to provide employees with
meal and rest periods required under California law.  In his
complaint, the plaintiff is seeking certification as a class,
damages and penalties in unspecified amounts, statutory damages,
restitution, disgorgement, injunctive and declaratory relief,
and costs of litigation, including attorney fees.  

The Company filed an answer denying the claims and asserting
various affirmative defenses on December 22, 2004.  On July 22,
2005, the Company entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs
to settle this claim.  The settlement is subject to court
approval.  On October 21, 2005, the Court granted preliminary
approval to the settlement.  

C8 SCIENCE: Launches Research on C-8's Effect on Human Health
The three members of the C-8 Science Panel, chosen to determine
whether a probable link exists between C-8 and human disease,
will be in Parkersburg, WV, to announce the onset of their
research on Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2006 at 8:30 a.m. at the Wingate
Inn. The Science Panel is part of a class action settlement of a
lawsuit involving releases of a chemical known as C-8 from
DuPont's Washington Works in Wood County, West Virginia. The
Science Panel will conduct a series of community epidemiology
studies and evaluate an ongoing study of DuPont's workers.

The court also approved Plaintiffs' decision to use settlement
funds for a separate C-8 Health Project, under the direction of
Brookmar, Inc. The Project involves collection of data from
class members including C-8 blood levels, clinical blood tests,
as well as medical and demographic history. This data set
represents a portion of what the Science Panel will evaluate to
answer the question of whether a probable link exists between C-
8 and human disease. The C-8 Health Project is not the Science
Panel's community study.

Under the terms of the settlement, both parties agreed to each
Science Panelist and each is independent from DuPont and
Plaintiffs. After several months of interviews, the parties
selected Drs. Savitz, Fletcher & Steenland.

Dr. Tony Fletcher is an environmental epidemiologist at the
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, in the Public
and Environmental Health Research Unit, and serves as President
of the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology.

Dr. Nelson Kyle Steenland is Professor at the School of Public
Health at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. Prior to coming
to Emory, he worked for 20 years at the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), which is part of CDC.

Dr. David Savitz recently joined the Mount Sinai School of
Medicine as Professor of Community and Preventive Medicine and
as the Director of the Center of Excellence in Epidemiology,
Biostatistics, and Disease Prevention. He is the author of the
book, Interpreting Epidemiologic Evidence. Until recently, he
was Professor and Chair of the Department of Epidemiology at the
University of North Carolina School of Public Health.

Each epidemiologist brings a history of specialized research in
environmental and occupational exposures, and will bring unique
perspectives to the study.

For more information, contact Lisa Collins of C8 Science Panel
(http://www.c8sciencepanel.org),Phone: +1-304-483-1355.

CARROLL INDEPENDENT: Facing $1B Suit for Polluting Water Source
Residents of Parkton in northern Baltimore County filed a $1
billion lawsuit against a fuel company, the operators of the gas
station and store, and a property owner alleging toxic
contamination of well water.  Law firm Peter Angelos filed the
suit in Baltimore County Circuit Court on Jan. 9 in behalf of
three home owners Charles and Doris Belt, Craig and Patricia
Timlin and Tony Hill. All live on Rayville Road in Parkton.  

The defendants are Middletown Road property owner Jerry
Phillips, Carroll Independent Fuel Company, which leases the
property, and Richard and Janet Wiser, who sublease the property
and operate Wally's Citgo and Wally's Country Store.

The case claims gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether,
MTBE, was discovered in well water at 11 of 26 homes near the
station on Middletown Road.  The pollutant they said
contaminated their wells, caused health problems and will reduce
property values.  The substance was discovered in a monitoring
well at Wally's Citgo in October.   According to a recent test
by the Maryland Department of the Environment two of 34 wells
had alarming MTBE levels above 20 parts per billion.

Each of the lawsuit's five counts asks for $200 million in
punitive damages, and in excess of $25,000 for each plaintiff in
actual damages, according to the report.  The plaintiffs want a
court-supervised trust fund to be established to monitor their
health.  They also want to receive damages for decreased
property values, new water sources, and carbon filtration
systems for their wells.  A jury trail has been requested.

John Phelps, one of three owners of Carroll Independent Fuel,
insists the company complied with all the Maryland Department of
the Environment's safety requirements.

CENTENNIAL COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Unfair Trade Practices Lawsuits
Centennial Communications Corporation faces several lawsuits in
which plaintiffs have alleged, depending on the case, breach of
contract, misrepresentation or unfair practice claims relating
to its billing practices, including rounding up of partial
minutes of use to full-minute increments, billing send to end,
and billing for unanswered and dropped calls.  The plaintiffs in
these cases have not alleged any specific monetary damages and
are seeking certification as a class action.

A hearing on class certification in one of these cases was held
on September 2, 2003 in a state court in Louisiana. Subsequent
to such hearing, a new judge was assigned to the case and the
plaintiffs renewed their motion seeking class action status in
December 2004.  The decision of the court with respect to class
certification is still pending.

CINTAS CORPORATION: CA Court Orders Arbitration for Houston Case
Cintas Corporation faces a class action lawsuit styled, "Larry
Houston, et al., v. Cintas Corporation," alleging racial
discrimination.  The suit was filed on August 3, 2005, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of African-American managers.

On November 22, 2005, the Court entered an order requiring the
named plaintiffs in the "Houston" lawsuit to arbitrate all of
their claims for monetary damages.

The suit is styled, "Houston et al v. Cintas Corporation, Case
No. 3:05-cv-03145-JSW," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge
Jeffrey S. White.  Representing the Plaintiff/s is Roberta L.
Steele of Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian, 300
Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000, Oakland, CA 94612, Phone:
(510) 763-9800, Fax: 510 835-1417, E-mail: RLS@gdblegal.com.  
Representing the Defendant/s is Nancy L. Abell of Paul,
Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, 555 South Flower St., 25th
Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071-2371, Phone: 213 683-6162, Fax:
(213) 627-0705, E-mail: nancyabell@paulhastings.com.

CINTAS CORPOARTION: EEOC Intervenes in Serrano Racial Bias Case
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
intervened in the class action lawsuit styled, "Mirna E.
Serrano, et al., v. Cintas Corporation," which is alleging
racial discrimination, and is seeking relief damages and fees.

The suit was filed on May 10, 2004, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division on behalf of female service sales representative job
applicants at all Company locations in Michigan.

On September 6, 2005, a Magistrate Judge granted plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to expand
the lawsuit to a nationwide claim.  On November 15, 2005, the
EEOC intervened in "Serrano" to participate in the lawsuit in
continuation of an EEOC charge filed on April 17, 2000, by Mirna
Serrano with the EEOC Detroit District office.

The suit is styled, "Serrano v. Cintas Corporation, Case No.
4:04-cv-40132-PVG-DAS," filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, under Judge Paul V.
Gadola with referral to Judge Donald A. Scheer.  Representing
the Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Robert K. Dawkins of Equal Employment Opportunities
         Commission (Detroit), 477 Michigan Ave., Suite 865,
         Detroit, MI 48226, Phone: 313-226-4600, Fax: 313-226-
         2778, E-mail: robert.dawkins@eeoc.gov;

     (2) James K. Fett and Lawrence A. Fields of Fett & Fields
         (Pinckney), 805 E. Main St., Pinckney, MI 48169-3266,
         Phone: 734-954-0100, E-mail: jim@frflaw.com and

     (3) Rachel J. Geman and Gena E. Wiltsek of Lieff, Cabraser,
         (New York), 780 Third Ave., 48th Floor, New York, NY
         10017-2024, Phone: 212-355-9500, Fax: 212-355-9592, E-
         mail: rgeman@lchb.com and gwiltsek@lchb.com; and

     (4) William G. Tishkoff of Tishkoff & Assoc. (Ann Arbor),
         407 N. Main, Suite 200, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1158,
         Phone: 734-663-4077, E-mail: will@tishkofflaw.com.

Representing the Defendant/s is Gregory M. Utter of Keating,
Muething, (Cincinnati), One East Fourth St., Suite 1400,
Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-579-6540, Fax: 513-579-6457, E-
mail: gmutter@kmklaw.com.

CINTAS CORPORATION: EEOC, DFEH Administrative Action Terminated
An administrative action filed with the United States Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) Washington, D.C.
office and the California Department of Fair Employment and
Housing (DFEH) by James Morgan against Cintas Corporation was
terminated by the federal agency.

Alleging racial discrimination in compensation and training
opportunities the action was originally filed on December 15,
2004. On July 15, 2005, the EEOC terminated the processing of an
administrative action.

On August 3, 2005, Mr. Morgan joined the class action lawsuit,
"Robert Ramirez, et al., v. Cintas Corporation," which filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, under Judge Jeffrey S. White.  On November 2, 2005,
the Court entered an order requiring Mr. Morgan to arbitrate all
of his claims for monetary damages.

The suit is styled "Ramirez et al v. Cintas Corporation, case
no. 3:04-cv-00281-JSW," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge
Jeffrey S. White.  Representing the plaintiffs is Paul Strauss
of Miner Barnhill & Galland, 14 W. Erie Street, Chicago, IL
60610, Phone: 312-751-1170, E-mail: pstrauss@lawmbg.com.  
Representing the Company is Rachael Rowe, 6800 Cintas Blvd.,
Cincinnati, OH 45262, Phone: 513-754-3640.

DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Provides Update on CA Settlement's Progress
Darden Restaurants, Inc. is providing an update on the
settlement reached in two class actions filed against it
Superior Court of Orange County, California, alleging violations
of the state's wage and hour laws.

In March 2002 and March 2003, three current and former hourly
restaurant employees filed two purported class actions against
the Company, alleging violations of California labor laws with
respect to providing meal and rest breaks.  Although the Company
continues to believe it provided the required meal and rest
breaks to its employees, to avoid potentially costly and
protracted litigation, the Company agreed during the second
quarter of fiscal 2005 to settle both lawsuits and a similar
case filed in Sacramento County, for approximately $9.5 million.  

Terms of the settlement, which do not include any admission of
liability by the Company, received preliminary judicial
approval, and claims administration is underway. During the
quarter ended November 27, 2005, the Company paid $3,720 towards
the settlement of these claims.  The remaining  $5,780 was paid
in December 2005 and is included in other current liabilities at
November 27, 2005.

FISHER-PRICE: Recalls 614T Chairs Due to Strangulation Hazard
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Fisher-Price, of East Aurora, N.Y., is voluntarily
recalling about 614,000 units of Fisher-Pricer Laugh & Learn
Musical Learning Chairs.

According to the Company, a child can become lodged between the
seatback and side table of the chair, possibly leading to an
entrapment of the neck. This can pose a strangulation hazard to
young children. Fisher-Price has received three reports of young
children getting their necks lodged between the seatback and the
side table of the toy, including one report of a child receiving
a welt on the neck.

The recalled Laugh & Learn Musical Learning Chair is a plastic
infant toy that measures about 17 inches high. It plays music
and teaches children numbers and letters. It also features a
blue chair with four green plastic legs and a side table with a
purple base and white top. The table holds a clock, book, and a
lamp. Smiley faces are displayed on the lamp and seat back.
"Fisher-Price" is written on the front of the chair. The
packaging states that the toy is intended for children 12 months
through 36 months of age. The model numbers are H4609, H7167
through H7173, H8157, H8998, and J0272 through J0275 can be
found on the underside of the seat of the chair. Pictures of
recalled product:

     (1) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06068.jpg

Manufactured in China, the chairs were sold at all discount
department and toy stores nationwide from May 2005 through
January 2006 for about $27.

Consumers should take the recalled musical chair away from
children immediately and contact Fisher-Price to receive a free
repair kit that contains a plastic piece that connects in
between the seatback and side table, preventing the possibility
of entrapment.

Consumer Contact: Contact Fisher-Price at (866) 552-3914 anytime
or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.service.fisher-

Consumers can also view a video clip about this recall (standard
version http://www.cpsc.gov/vnr/asfroot/fpchair.asxor a higher  
quality version http://www.cpsc.gov/vnr/asfroot/fpchairhq.asx-  
broadband connection recommended) (transcript
http://www.cpsc.gov/trans/fpchair.html).This is in "streaming  
video" format (http://www.cpsc.gov/streaming.html).  

Various sounds of the Laugh & LearnT Musical Learning ChairT =

GREAT ATLANTIC: Nets Share in NY Visa/Mastercard Antitrust Deal
In connection with a settlement reached in New York for the
VISA/Mastercard antitrust class action litigation, Great
Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. Inc. is entitled to a portion of the
settlement fund that will be distributed to class members.

Members of the class action lawsuit consisted of all businesses
and organizations in the United States that accepted Visa and
MasterCard debit and credit cards for payment at any time during
the period October 25, 1992 to June 21, 2003.  The class
plaintiffs claimed that, through their "Honor All Cards"
policies, Visa and MasterCard forced merchants to accept Visa
and MasterCard signature debit card transactions at
supracompetitive prices.  In April 2003, Visa and MasterCard
settled with the plaintiffs' class by agreeing to pay $3.05
billion over time into a settlement fund.

Pursuant to our initial review of our historical records as well
as estimates provided by the Claims Administrator, we recorded
an estimated pretax recovery of $1.5 million as a credit to
"Selling, general and administrative expense" in our
Consolidated Statements of Operations during the 12 and 40 weeks
ended December 3, 2005.

During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2005 and into fiscal 2006,
we will continue to work with the Claims Administrator to ensure
that all monies owed to the Company in connection with this
litigation are received.  This process may result in additional
recoveries being recorded in future periods.

The suit is styled "In re Visa/MasterCard Antitrust Litigation,
case no. 1:03-md-01575-JG-RLM," filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge
John Gleeson.  Representing the Company are Randi Dale
Adelstein, Gary R. Carney, Jr., and Kenneth Anthony Galloe of
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP, 1285 Avenue of
the Americas, New York, NY 10019-6064, Phone: 212-373-3000, E-
mail: radelstein@paulweiss.com, gcarney@paulweiss.com,
kgallo@paulweiss.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Anne M. Lockner, K. Craig Wildfang of Robins, Kaplan,
         Miller & Ciresi, L.L.P., 2800 LaSalle Plaza, 800
         LaSalle Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015, Phone:
         (612) 349-8500, Fax: (612) 339-4181, E-mail:
         amlockner@rkmc.com or kcwildfang@rkmc.com;

     (2) David P. Germaine, Daar & Vanek P.C., 225 W.
         Washington, 18th Floor, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: 312-
         474-1400, Fax: 312-474-1410, E-mail:

     (3) Joseph Michael Vanek, Daar, Fisher, Kanaris & Vanek,
         P.C., 200 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3350, Chicago, IL
         60606, Phone: 312-474-1400, E-mail:

     (4) Mitchell H. Macknin, Bruce S. Sperling of Sperling &
         Slater, P.C., 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300, Chicago,
         IL 60603, Phone: 312-641-3200, Fax: 312-641-6492, E-
         mail: mhmacknin@sperling-law.com, bss@sperling-law.com;  

     (5) Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Dwight J. Davis, Joseph J.
         Loveland, Reginald Smith of King & Spalding LLP, 191
         Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA 30303-1763, Phone: 404-
         572-4600, E-mail: jcashdan@kslaw.com, ddavis@kslaw.com,
         jloveland@kslaw.com or rsmith@kslaw.com; and  

     (6) Mark L. Weyman, Anderson, Kill, Olick & Oshinsky P.C.,
         1251 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020, Phone:
         (212) 279-1000, E-mail: mweyman@andersonkill.com.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Facing Class Action over Price Overcharging
Federal Judge Patti B. Saris in Boston intends to certify a
nationwide class action against four big drugs company for
defying pricing rules set out by the Average Wholesale Price

According to Bloomberg News, Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers
Squibb Co., AstraZeneca Plc and GlaxoSmithKline Plc, stands to
face repayments worth hundreds of millions of dollars should
they be found guilty of overcharging.  The government uses the
Average Wholesale Price formula to set reimbursements from
federal health programs.  Plaintiffs claim the companies
artificially inflated the figures to consumers and third-party
payers.  The judge excluded drugs made by Schering-Plough Corp.,
for lack of evidence it caused anyone harm.  The report said the
decision only affects companies that make drugs that must be
administered by physicians.

Tom Sobol, a managing partner at Hagens Berman LLP in Boston, is
acting in behalf of consumer groups such as the Florida Alliance
of Retired Americans who have complained against the drugmakers
practices.  The groups represent patients, including the
Congress of California Seniors and the states of Illinois,
Kentucky, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nevada and Montana.

The suit is styled, "In re Average Wholesale Price Litigation,
Case No. 1:01-cv-12257-PBS," filed in the United States District
Court in Massachusetts, under Judge Patti B. Saris.  
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, David J. Bershad and J.
Douglas Richards of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP,
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY 10119, Phone:
212-594-5300.  Representing the Defendant/s are, Daniel E.
Reidy, Jeremy P. Cole, Jessie A. Witten, Tina M. Tabacchi, and
Toni-Ann Citera of Jones Day, 77 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL
60601-1692, Phone: 312-782-3939, E-mail:
tmtabacchi@jonesday.com, jawitten@jonesday.com,
tcitera@jonesday.com; and Jeffrey I. Weinberger, Munger Tolles &
Olson, 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3500, Los Angeles, CA 90071-
1560, Phone: 213-683-9100.

MERIX CORPORATION: OR Court Stays Proceedings in Derivative Suit
The Multnomah County Circuit Court in Oregon stayed all
proceedings on pending derivative litigation against Merix

On July 2, 2004, two derivative lawsuits were filed in the
Circuit Court for the State of Oregon, County of Multnomah,
against certain of the Company's officers and directors based on
the same allegations made in the class action lawsuit styled,
"In re: Merix Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. CV 04-826-
MO."  The Company is named as a nominal defendant in these
derivative lawsuits, which were recently consolidated under the
common caption, "In re: Merix Corporation Derivative Litigation,
Lead Case No. 0407-06807."

On April 29, 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated shareholder
derivative complaint in which they allege breaches of fiduciary
duties and mismanagement by the defendants.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages from the defendants, purportedly on behalf
of the Company, as well as the derivative plaintiffs' attorneys'
fees and costs.  

On August 31, 2005, the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon, the federal court hearing the class action
lawsuit granted a motion to stay discovery in this state-court
derivative action.  

On September 13, 2005, the state court stayed all proceedings in
the derivative lawsuit pending further developments in the
federal class action lawsuit, including all proceedings on a
motion that the defendants filed on July 7, 2005 to dismiss the
consolidated shareholder derivative complaint.

MIZUNO USA: Recalls Gloves Containing Potentially Harmful Mold
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Mizuno USA, Inc., of Norcross, Ga. voluntarily recalled 12,800
Mizuno "Gamer" baseball gloves.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

These gloves could contain aspergillus mold. Such mold usually
does not affect healthy individuals, but could cause respiratory
or other infections in individuals with chronic health problems
or in individuals who have impaired immune systems. So far no
such case has been reported.

The recall includes all Mizuno "Gamer" baseball gloves. These
gloves have the word "Gamer" printed on the palm of the gloves.  
They are sold at sporting goods stores nationwide from July 2005
through October 2005 for about $80.  The gloves were
manufactured in the Philippines.

Consumers should stop using the gloves and contact Mizuno USA,
Inc. for information on how to receive a free replacement
baseball glove.

Consumer Contact: Mizuno USA, Inc., Phone: (800) 966-1211
between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.

NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR: Discovery Proceeds in CA Injury Lawsuit
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against
National Semiconductor Corporation and a number of its suppliers
in California Superior Court, alleging damages for personal

Plaintiff James Harris filed the suit in January 1999 on behalf
of the Company's former and present employees, alleging that
cancer and/or reproductive harm were caused to employees as a
result of alleged exposure to toxic chemicals while working at
the company.  Plaintiffs claim to have worked at sites in Santa
Clara and/or in Greenock, Scotland.  In addition, one plaintiff
claims to represent a class of children of company employees who
allegedly sustained developmental harm as a result of alleged in
utero exposure to toxic chemicals while their mothers worked at
the Company.  

Although no specific amount of monetary damages is claimed,
plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of the classes for personal
injuries, nervous shock, physical and mental pain, fear of
future illness, medical expenses and loss of earnings and
earnings capacity.  

The court has required the Scottish employees to seek their
remedies in Scottish courts.  The court has also denied
plaintiffs' motion for certification of a medical monitoring
class.  Discovery in the case is proceeding.

OHIO: German Camera Maker Held Liable in Anti-camera Lawsuit
Jefferson County Common Pleas Judge David E. Henderson recently
refused to free German speed camera vendor Traffipax from
liability in an ongoing Steubenville, Ohio anti-camera lawsuit,
theNewspaper.com reports.  The case may be certified as a class
action in a hearing next Monday, the report said.  A final
hearing on the case is scheduled March 9.

Attorney Gary M. Stern filed the class action lawsuit on Nov.
23, 2005 on behalf of his wife, who received two speeding
tickets. Mr. Stern claims that the cameras are unconstitutional
for a number of reasons among those are that motorists don't
have the right to appeal. Court documents pointed out that the
traffic cameras read the speed of cars driving by, and if you
are in excess of the speed limit, you are mailed an $85 ticket,
an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 24, 2005)

Mr. Stern claims that his wife was not driving the vehicle at
the time of the alleged offense and charges that the city failed
to follow the terms of its own ordinance which required fourteen
days of advance notice before installing the cameras. In
addition, he also cites constitutional problems with the
ordinance, claiming "Persons who wish to contest their citations
are limited to a hearing that is not subject to any prescribed
rules of procedure or evidence, and is not heard by an impartial
tribunal, but is decided by a police officer employed by the
very department that issued the citation, whose decision is
final and not subject to judicial review or further appeal, all
of which violate the due process rights guaranteed by the Ohio
and the United States constitutions."

Jefferson County Common Pleas Judge David E. Henderson in
December issued a preliminary injunction against the speed
camera program in city of Steubenville, Ohio, TheNewspaper.com
reported (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 9, 2005).

As a result of that injunction, the city shut down the camera
system and those who have received tickets was freed of
liability unless the case is resolved in the city's favor.

Since September 23, Steubenville has collected $225,000 in
revenue from the camera program, which issued the $85 tickets to
anyone going just 5 MPH over the speed limit.

OHIO and TRAFFIPAX, INC., Case No. 05 CV 524," filed in the
Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County, Ohio, under Judge
David E. Henderson. Representing the Plaintiff is GARY M. STERN
of STERN, STERN & STERN CO., LPA, 108 South Fourth St.,
Steubenville, OH 43952, Phone: (740) 284-1211, Web site:

OREGON STATE: Court to Hear AOC's Complaints Later This Month
A federal court hearing on the lawsuit filed by patients' rights
group against the Oregon State Hospital in Salem will be heard
on Jan. 31, 2006, in Portland, according to Statesman Journal.  
The Oregon Advocacy Center filed the suit last month in behalf
of forensic patients, whom advocates said endured unsafe
conditions due to negligence of state officials.  

Meanwhile, the Legislative Emergency Board will consider a $9.1
million request to bolster forensic-program staffing and reduce
the patient population that just might convince the group to
settle the case.

"If the E-Board does not provide the requested funds, it will
pretty much rule out a settlement," Bob Joondeph, the executive
director of OAC said. "If the money is approved, the case may
settle before the hearing."  

The fund would allow 30 people to be added to the 122-year old
hospital, develop community-based housing for 71 patients and
carrying out plans to transfer 100 patients to new facilities.

The suit is styled, "Jeanniton v. Oregon State Hospital, Case
No. 3:05-cv-00656-HA," filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon, under Judge Ancer L. Haggerty.  
Representing the Plaintiff/s is D. Michael Dale of Law Offices
of D. Michael Dale, P.O. Box 1032, Cornelius, OR 97113, Phone:
(503) 357-8290, Fax: (503) 357-8290, E-mail:
michaeldale@dmichaeldale.net.  Representing the Defendant/s is
Marc Abrams, State of Oregon, Department of Justice, 1162 Court
St., NE Salem, OR 97301, Phone: (503) 947-4700, Fax:
(503) 947-4791, E-mail: marc.abrams@state.or.us.

OWENS CORNING: MA Suit Status Conference Set For November 8,2005
A June 12, 2006 trail date was slated for the class action filed
against certain of Owens Corning's current and former directors
and officers that is pending in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts.  The Company is not named in
the suit.

The suit, filed on April 30, 2001 and styled "John Hancock Life
Insurance Company, et al. v. Goldman, Sachs Co., et al., CA No.
01-10729-RWZ," purports to be a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of certain unsecured debt securities of the
Company in offerings occurring on or about April 30, 1998 and
July 23, 1998.  

The complaint alleges that the registration statements pursuant
to which the offerings were made contained untrue and misleading
statements of material fact and omitted to state material facts
which were required to be stated therein and which were
necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, in
violation of sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933.  The amended complaint seeks an unspecified amount of
damages or, where appropriate, rescission of the plaintiffs'

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action on November
20, 2001.  A hearing was held on this motion on April 11, 2002,
and the Court issued a decision denying the motion on August 26,
2002.  On March 9, 2004, the Court granted class certification
as to those claims relating to written representations but
denied certification as to claims relating to alleged oral

Mediation was conducted on November 2, 2005, at which mediation
the plaintiffs and the underwriter defendants agreed to
settlement terms.  A status conference on this matter was held
on November 8, 2005.  A trial was scheduled to commence on June
12, 2006, as to the director and officer defendants.

The suit is styled, "Hancock Mutual Life, et al v. Goldman Sachs
& Co., et al, Case No. 1:01-cv-10729-RWZ," filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts under
Jugde Rya W. Zobel.  Representing the Defendant/s are, David A.
Bunis, Daniel J. Cloherty and William H. Kettlewell, Dwyer &
Collora, LLP, 12th Floor, 600 Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA 02210-
2211, Phone: 617-371-1000, Fax: 617-371-1037, E-mail:
dbunis@dwyercollora.com, dcloherty@dwyercollora.com and
wkettlewell@dwyercollora.com; and Richard L. Stone and Mark A.
Strauss of Kirby, McInerney & Squire, LLP, 830 Third Ave., 10th
Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-371-6600, Fax:
212-751-2540.  Representing the Defendant/s are, Timothy C.
Blank, Joseph A. Tate and Kevin T. Kerns of Dechert, LLP, 200
Clarendon St., 27th Floor, Boston, MA 02116, Phone: 617-728-
7100, Fax: 617 426-6567, E-mail: timothy.blank@dechert.com; and
John D. Donovan, Jr. of Ropes & Gray, LLP, One International
Place, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-951-7566, Fax: 617-951-7050,
E-mail: jdonovan@ropesgray.com.

ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Settlement Hearing set February 10, 2006
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement in the matter, "Anthony V. DeMarco v. Robertson
Stephens and Paul Johnson, Civil Action No. 03-C-590 (GEL). The
case was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased shares
or the common stock of Corvis Corporation (N/K/A Broadwing
Corp.) during the period of August 22, 2000 through May 25 2001.

The Hearing will be held on February 10, 2006, at 10:00 p.m.,
before the Honorable Gerard E. Lynch in Courtroom 6B of the
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., New York, NY 1007.

Deadline for filing a proof of claim or any objections to the
settlement is on January 27, 2006.

For more details, contact Jack Zwick of Weiss & Lurie, 551 Fifth
Ave., Suite 1600, New York, NY 10176, Phone: 212-682-3025 or
(888) 593-4771, Fax: 212-682-3010, E-mail: info@wllawny.com;
Patrick V. Dahlstrom of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross,
Phone: (312) 377-1181, Fax: (312) 377-1184, E-Mail:
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com, Web site: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com;
and Corvis/Robertson Stephens Securities Litigation, c/o/ Berdon
Claims Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, NY 11753-
8914, Phone: (800) 766-3330, Fax: (516) 931-0810.    

SOLECTRON CORPORATION: CA Stock Settlement Hearing Set for March
A preliminary settlement with parties in the consolidated
securities class action filed against Solectron Corporation and
certain of its officers styled, "In re Solectron Corporation
Securities Litigation, Case No. C-03-0986 CRB," is slated for a
final approval hearing on March 3, 2006.

On March 6, 2003, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, alleging claims under Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleged that
the defendants issued false and misleading statements in certain
press releases and SEC filings issued between September 17, 2001
and September 26, 2002.  In particular, plaintiff alleged that
the defendants failed to disclose and to properly account for
excess and obsolete inventory in the former Technology Solutions
business unit during the relevant time period.

Additional complaints making similar allegations were
subsequently filed in the same court, and pursuant to an order
entered June 2, 2003, the Court appointed lead counsel and
plaintiffs to represent the putative class in a single
consolidated action.  The Consolidated Amended Complaint, filed
September 8, 2003, alleges an expanded class period of June 18,
2001 through September 26, 2002, and purports to add a claim for
violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, on behalf of a putative class of former shareholders of
C-MAC Industries, Inc., who acquired Solectron stock pursuant to
the October 19, 2001 Registration Statement filed in connection
with Solectron's acquisition of C-MAC Industries, Inc.

In addition, while the initial complaints focused on alleged
inventory issues at the former Technology Solutions business
unit, the Consolidated Amended Complaint adds allegations of
inadequate disclosure and failure to properly account for excess
and obsolete inventory at Solectron's other business units.  The
complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of
the putative class.

On June 14, 2004 the lead plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification seeking to have the court declare this matter as a
class action.  The court heard the Motion on October 1, 2004 and
granted the motion.  In August 2005, the parties reached an
agreement in principal to settle the litigation on terms not
material to the Company.  The parties are currently negotiating
the terms of the formal written settlement agreement, which they
expect to execute and file with the Court in November 2005.  A
settlement hearing is scheduled for March 3, 2006 to determine
final approval of the settlement.

The suit is styled, "In re Solectron Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. C-03-0986 CRB," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, under
Judge Charles R. Breyer.  Representing the Defendant is Ellen H.
Ehrenpreis, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill
Road, Palo Alto CA 94304-1050 Phone: 650-493-9300 or by Fax:
650-565-5100.  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) Green & Jigarjian LLP, 235 Pine Street, 15th Floor, San
         Francisco, CA, 94104, Phone: 415.477.6700, Fax:
         415.477.6710; and

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

SYNTACE USA: Recalls 2.3T Handlebar Stems Due to Injury Hazard
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Syntace USA, of Olney, Illinois, is voluntarily
recalling about 2,300 units of F99 (Force 99) Bicycle Handlebar

According to the Company, the recalled bicycle stems can crack
or break under normal conditions, causing the rider to fall and
suffer serious injury. No incidents or injuries have been

The recalled bicycle handlebar stem is black. Stems with
production codes 01 03 through 45 04, and stems with no
production code are included in this recall. The production code
is the bottom set of numbers located on the end of the stem.

Manufactured in Taiwan, the recalled products were sold at all
bicycle dealers, mail order magazines and on the Internet from
May 2003 through July 2005 for about $90.

Remedy: Consumers should stop using bicycles equipped with the
recalled handlebar stem immediately and contact Syntace for
instructions to receive a free replacement stem and

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Crystal
Trout at Syntace USA at (800) 448-3876, extension 233, between 8
a.m. and 4 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or log onto
http://www.syntaceusa.com- consumers also can e-mail the firm  
at syntaceusa@syntace.com or write to: Syntace USA, 1902 Miller
Drive, Olney, Ill. 62450.

TELSTRA GROUP: Facing AU$300M Suit for Disclosure Rules Breach
Telstra Group shareholders filed a AU$300 million suit against
the Australian telephone firm in a Federal Court in Sydney,
alleging breach of stock exchange disclosure rules.

According to AFX, the suit claims the company made selective
disclosures by first briefing the government and journalists
about its financial woes last year before informing the
Australian stock exchange.  Telstra is 51.8% owned by the

Telstra's stock closed at $5 on August 10, the day before
results were issued. It fell 18c on August 11, the day the
results were released to market. Shares fell a further 24c
between August 11, when analysts received information that the
Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC) found the
rest of the market did not, around the time of the government
briefing and September 7, when Telstra issued an earnings
downgrade (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 20, 2005).  Telstra then
warned profits could fall by up to 10% in the year to June 2006
and that it had underinvested in capital expenditures during the
previous three to five years.

Shareholders who bought Telstra shares between the release of
its annual results on Aug. 11 and the profit warning in the week
of Sept. 5 claims they were overcharged for being kept in the
dark about the firm's finances.  Some 50 shareholders have
raised such concern.  Law firm Slater and Gordon said this could
increase to several thousands, according to the report.  Slater
and Gordon Spokesman Michael Salmon said early estimates
indicate shareholders were overcharged some AU$300 in the four-
week period alone.  The firm said anyone who bought Telstra
shares between Aug. 11 and Sept. 7 is eligible to join the suit.

THE OLD LINE: NM County Court OKs Class in Policyholders' Suit
The Second Judicial District Court, Bernalillo County, New
Mexico certified as a class action the lawsuit styled, "Lisa M.
Enfield v. The Old Line Life Insurance Company of America, No.

The suit was filed one behalf of all present and former
policyholders who purchased their policies from the Company,
between January 1, 1980, and June 11, 2002, and who have, since
February 23, 1995, paid their premiums on a monthly, quarterly
or semi-annual basis. It alleges breach on contract by the

The plaintiffs specifically claim that in the Company's life
insurance policies, it agreed to charge its policyholders no
more than the Maximum Annual Life Insurance Premium listed in
the Table of Premiums in each policy.  However, if a
policyholder paid for the Company's policy on a monthly,
quarterly or semi-annual basis, according to plaintiffs, the
Company adds an extra charge to the stated maximum premium

Plaintiffs want this extra charge, or "modal premium," above the
maximum annual premium to be recovered with prejudgment
interest.  In addition, through their suit, they also seek
reimbursement of costs incurred in the litigation and an award
in attorney's fees.  

UNITED STATES: EEOC Ordered to Pay Record $1M to Pasadena Firm
Ballard, Rosenberg, Golper & Savitt LLP said that the federal
district court ordered the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission to pay $1,022,653.69 in attorneys' fees and expenses
to a Pasadena immigration law firm which the EEOC unsuccessfully
sued for sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination.  In a
17-page written ruling, U.S. District Judge Dickran Tevrizian
found that the EEOC's lawsuit against Robert L. Reeves &
Associates "was unreasonable, frivolous and without foundation."
The award is believed to be, by far, the largest ever issued
against the EEOC.

Linda Miller Savitt, a partner with the management-side
employment law firm of Ballard, Rosenberg, Golper & Savitt in
Universal City, represented Reeves and his firm throughout the
case, including a 10-day jury trial, which ended in a unanimous
defense verdict on November 2, 2005. John J. Manier, a senior
counsel with Ballard, Rosenberg, Golper & Savitt, prepared the
briefs in support of Reeves' request for fees and expenses.

Mr. Reeves maintained that the EEOC either knew or unreasonably
failed to learn that its lawsuit was part of a scheme by two of
Mr. Reeves' former law associates, Daniel Hanlon and Colin
Greene, to destroy Mr. Reeves and his firm. In 2001, a Los
Angeles Superior Court judge found Hanlon and Greene liable to
Mr. Reeves for interference with contract and prospective
economic relations, misappropriation of trade secrets and
related claims, and awarded Reeves and his firm a total judgment
of nearly $200,000. The California Supreme Court upheld that
award in a unanimous decision in 2004.

Judge Tevrizian agreed that "either the EEOC knew it was being
used as a primary weapon in Hanlon's and Greene's campaign to
destroy (Reeves' firm), or it maintained a studied and
inexcusable ignorance of this fact."  Judge Tevrizian noted that
before the EEOC filed its suit against Mr. Reeves, the only
persons it interviewed were Mr. Hanlon, Mr. Greene and Nikki
Mehrpoo Jacobson -- despite Mr. Greene's prior service as the
firm's in-house counsel before the EEOC in a pregnancy-bias
charge brought by former employee Judith Quilaton, Mr. Greene's
romantic relationship with Ms. Jacobson, Mr. Hanlon's role as
decision-maker in the firm's termination of Ms. Quilaton, and
Mr. Hanlon's and Mr. Greene's unlawful conduct when they left
the firm in 1999.

Judge Tevrizian rejected the EEOC's attempt to distance itself
from Mr. Hanlon and Mr. Greene. Instead, he found that Mr.
Hanlon, Mr. Greene and Ms. Jacobson "schemed ... to elicit the
EEOC to expand the (Ms. Quilaton) matter to include alleged
sexual harassment," even though Ms. Quilaton's pregnancy-bias
claim "eventually proved to be so baseless that the EEOC did not
even appeal" from Judge Tevrizian's summary dismissal of the

Although the EEOC purported to sue Mr. Reeves on behalf of 7-10
people identified by Mr. Hanlon, Mr. Greene and Ms. Jacobson,
the agency's investigator, Deborah Kinzel Barnes, admittedly
never spoke with any of these individuals before filing suit,
and Ms. Jacobson was the only woman Ms. Barnes interviewed with
respect to alleged sexual harassment. Judge Tevrizian concluded
that "the EEOC basically sought to parlay a few isolated jokes
and comments into bad-faith, exaggerated allegations of a
hostile work environment."

In addition, Judge Tevrizian found that the EEOC's conduct
throughout the case, in discovery and at trial, made "improper
use of the legal system to prosecute what it knew, or should
have known, were groundless claims." As examples, Judge
Tevrizian cited the EEOC's requests for private information from
third parties not involved in the case, its refusal to "provide
'even the most basic factual allegations' underlying the
supposed claims" of three individuals, and its "flagrant
disregard for the attorney-client privilege" in seeking
discovery directly from Reeves' current and former attorneys,
including Greene.

Judge Tevrizian further ruled that "the EEOC's lawsuit was
unreasonable and frivolous" as to all 12 individuals on whose
behalf it purported to bring claims. He noted that the EEOC did
not appeal from his earlier summary dismissal of claims on
behalf of six of these individuals. Although a divided federal
appellate court panel ruled that the EEOC had sufficient
evidence to proceed to trial as to the other six "claimants,"
Judge Tevrizian found "the testimony and jury verdict at trial"
showed none of these claims was based on any credible evidence.

In particular, Judge Tevrizian cited many inconsistencies in the
individuals' testimony, the repeated use of the term "personal
space" in witness testimony, which had been coached by the EEOC,
and the EEOC's "gross" exaggeration of several of the claims.
Tevrizian pointed out that the testimony of Nikki Mehrpoo
Jacobson was exaggerated and even fabricated. Judge Tevrizian
found "[Ms.] Jacobson's contradictions and distortions are
particularly troubling because Jacobson provided the anonymous
tip which initiated the EEOC's sexual harassment investigation
and was the only woman the EEOC interviewed on this issue before
rendering its 'cause' finding."

Judge Tevrizian ruled that Mr. Reeves and his firm were entitled
to an award of $995,780.72 in attorneys' fees and $26,872.97 in
additional expenses, for a total award of $1,022,653.69.

A copy of Judge Tevrizian's written order can be obtained from
Linda Miller Savitt of Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt, LLP,
E-mail: lsavitt@brgslaw.com, Web site: http://www.brgslaw.com/.  

WESTPOINT CORPORATION: Funds' Collapse May Give Rise to Lawsuits
Preparations are up to file class actions in relation to the
collapse of the financing firms of troubled Westpoint
Corporation.  Brisbane Courier Mail said lawyers acting for
Westpoint investors are planning suits aimed at recouping money
from the firm's financial planners.  According to AAP News, IMP
(Australia) is also doing the same.
Law firm Slater and Gordon is targeting unnamed financial
planners to recoup funds for an unspecified number of Westpoint
investors.  Joanne Rees of Slater and Gordon said dozens of
investors have already approached the firm.  The report said
about 6000 investors face major losses when the funds went
bankrupt, and some $300 million are involved.  Perth lawyer
Charlie Grollow, of IMF (Australia) said he had talked to about
100 people.

Ms. Rees said they are targeting financial planners because
there is little chance anything can be recovered from Westpoint.  
But they are investigating first which financial planner
recommended the firm's high-risk promissory notes to investors.  
The investment firm of former Westpoint executive director
Richard Beck Beck, Kebbel, led the fund raising for mezzanine
finance to fund apartment projects.

Seven Westpoint mezzanine financing firms called in
administrator Geoff Totterdell from PricewaterhouseCoopers last
month.  Two of them are already in liquidation.

WORLDCOM INC.: Provides Updates on "Right-of-Way Litigation"
Prior to its July 21, 2002 filing of voluntary petitions for
relief in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of
New York under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code, WorldCom, Inc., was named as a defendant in five putative
nationwide and twenty-five putative state class actions
involving fiber optic cable on railroad, pipeline and utility

The complaints, collectively labeled by the Company as "Right-
of-Way Litigation" allege that the railroad, utility and/or
pipeline companies from which the Company obtained consent to
install its fiber optic cable held only an easement in the
right-of-way, and that the consent of the adjoining landowners
holding the fee interest in the right-of-way did not authorize
installation. The complaints also allege that because such
consent was not obtained, the fiber optic network owned and
operated by the Predecessor Company trespasses on the property
of putative class members.

In addition, the complaints allege causes of action for
trespass, unjust enrichment and slander of title, and seek
injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages and
declaratory relief.  By July 21, 2002, twenty-two putative class
actions remained pending.  In the remaining eight cases, class
certification had been denied and/or the action had been
dismissed.  These cases were stayed as a result of the Company's
bankruptcy filing, initially as a result of the automatic stay
provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, and presently by operation of
the discharge injunction incorporated into the modified Second
Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization.  To date, the Bankruptcy
Court has denied all motions to lift the automatic stay or the
discharge injunction.

Certain of the right-of-way plaintiffs filed individual and/or
putative class proofs of claim in the bankruptcy proceedings.  
To date, the Bankruptcy Court denied all pending motions to
certify classes with respect to these proofs of claim, and has
declined to extend the bar date to allow the late-filing of
claims by unnamed class members.

The Company, which collapsed when an accounting fraud to inflate
earnings and hide expenses was uncovered, has re-emerged as MCI
Inc., now based in Ashburn, Virginia.

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Fraud Suit
Wechsler Harwood LLP filed a class action suit on behalf of all
securities purchasers of Faro Technologies, Inc. between May 6,
2004, and November 3, 2005, inclusive.  The action, entitled,
Johnson v. Faro Technologies, Inc. Case No. 6:06-cv-57-ORL-
18DAB, is pending in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, and names as defendants, the
Company, its Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, Simon Raab,
its Executive Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and a
director, Gregory A. Fraser, and its Chief Financial Officer,
Barbara R. Smith. A copy of the complaint is at:

The complaint charges FARO and with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and alleges that throughout the Class
Period, these defendants directly participated in accounting
fraud which materially misrepresented the Company's financial
results in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles

The Complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the complaint
alleges that, at or about the beginning of the Class Period, the
defendants represented that the Company had implemented
practices that purportedly increased the Company's production
capacity by, among other improvements, eliminating
overproduction, wait time, inefficient processes, and product
defects. During the Class Period, defendants issued strong
results and positive guidance, which they attributed in material
part to the Company's purported implementation of adequate
controls and more efficient practices. The Complaint alleges
that defendants' Class Period representations regarding the
Company's financial performance and prospects were materially
false and misleading when made because the Company's internal
inventory and accounting controls and procedures were wholly
defective and inadequate during the Class Period.

The truth began to emerge on July 18, 2005. On that day, the
Company issued a press release revealing that it had a backlog
of unfilled customer orders that had grown significantly in the
second quarter of 2005 and that, as a result, the Company
significantly lowered its earnings guidance for that quarter.
Further, on November 3, 2005, after the market closed, the
Company announced that it had incurred $1.6 million in
"inventory costing and consumption variances" related to the
implementation of a new accounting and inventory management
system. Defendant Simon Raab later admitted that the Company had
not been able to keep up with customer orders which resulted in
"substantially more complex inventory management situations, and
. . . substantial inventory increases." In reaction to this
news, the price of FARO stock plummeted $4.39, or 19.6%, from
its closing price of $22.38 on November 3, 2005, to finally
close on November 4, 2005, at $17.99, on unusually heavy trading

The Complaint also alleges that during the Class Period, before
the truth was revealed to investors, defendants sold or caused
to be sold more than 1.48 million of their own shares of FARO
stock, for net proceeds of approximately $40.9 million,
including through the use of highly complicated forward sales
transactions that allowed defendants to both realize immediate
profits and avoid current tax liabilities.

For more information, contact Jeffrey M. Norton of Wechsler
Harwood LLP (http://www.whesq.com),488 Madison Avenue, 8th  
Floor, New York, New York 10022, Phone: 877-935-7400 (ext. 286);
E-mail: jmn@whesq.com.

SFBC INTERNATIONAL: Hanzman & Criden Files Securities Fraud Suit
Hanzman & Criden initiated a class action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of
all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of SFBC
International, Inc. (NASDAQ:SFCC) between February 17, 2004 and
December 15,2005, inclusive.  A copy of the complaint may be
obtained from the court, or by calling (305) 357-9010.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements concerning SFBC's business condition. Specifically,
defendants touted the Company's strong revenue, earnings, and
its ability to outperform competitors and obtain large contracts
from drug companies, because of the large numbers of
participants its facilities could handle, and its ability to
quickly recruit participants for drug trails. SFBC's financial
success, however, was the result of business practices that were
improper and reckless, and if discovered, would cause the
Company to lose its credibility for accurate drug testing, and
thus lose customers, expose the Company to fines and possible
lawsuits from victims of faulty drugs, and face heavy regulation
such that its ability to outperform competitors and quickly
recruit large groups of participants could no longer be

When news of SFBC's improper business practices was revealed to
the market beginning on November 2, 2005, through the end of the
Class Period on December 15, 2005, the Company's stock price
fell more than60% from $41.49 to $15.78.

For more information, contact Kevin Love at Hanzman & Criden, E-
mail: klove@hanzmancriden.com, Phone: (305) 357-9000.

SFBC INTERNATIONAL: Mager & Goldstein Files FL Securities Suit
The law firm of Mager & Goldstein LLP initiated class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on behalf of all purchasers of securities of SFBC
International, Inc. between February 17, 2004 and December 15,
2005, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements during the Class Period regarding the Company's
operations, business condition and compliance with applicable
regulations. Specifically, defendants reported increasing
revenue during the Class Period as a result of the Company's
ability to successfully recruit individuals to participate in
drug trials. However, SFBC's financial strength actually
resulted from a series of improper recruiting and business
practices, that if revealed would destroy the Company's
credibility for reliable drug testing and subject the Company to
fines, possible lawsuits and heavy regulation.

On November 2, 2005, SFBC's improper business and recruitment
practices were revealed to the market, with subsequent
announcements over the next several weeks. As a result, the
Company's stock price plummeted from $41.49 on November 2, 2005
to $15.78 on December 15, 2005, a drop of 61.9%.

For more information, contact Jayne Arnold Goldstein, 2825
University Drive, Suite 350 Coral Springs, Florida 33065, Phone:
866-849-7545 (toll free), 954-341-0844, Fax: 954-341-0855; E-
mail: jgoldstein@magergoldstein.com; or Lee Albert, One Liberty
Place, 21st Floor, 1650 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103;
Phone: 866-284-3280 (toll free), 215-640-3280, Fax:
215-640-3281; E-mail: lalbert@magergoldstein.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


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *