CAR_Public/060216.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, February 16, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 34

                            Headlines

ACXIOM CORPORATION: Ark. Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit Still Pending
ADOBE SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Include Class Claims in Amended Suit
ALLIANCE SEMICONDUCTOR: Plaintiffs Appeal Stock Suit Dismissal
AMERITRADE HOLDING: Plaintiffs Withdraw Fiduciary Suit in Del.
ARIBA INC: Awaits Final Approval of IPO Securities Settlement

ARIBA INC: Current, Former Officials Face Securities Suit in Va.
ARIBA INC: Wants Del. Court to Dismiss FreeMarkets Merger Suit
ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Facing Lawsuit for Undisclosed Commissions
ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Subsidiaries Named in Amended N.Y. Lawsuit
BALLARAT UNIVERSITY: Staff Wants Ban on 'Misleading' Labor Deals

BECTON DICKINSON: Drug Mart Files Seventh Antitrust Suit in N.J.
CARRABBA'S ITALIAN: Mich. Restaurant Sued for Norovirus Reports
CHEVRON CORPORATION: U.S. Senators Tell Ecuador Lawsuit Secure
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Facing Nationwide Antitrust Lawsuit in Ark.
CONCUR TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.

DAVE & BUSTER'S: Signs Agreement to Settle Merger Litigation
DIGI INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Final Approval of N.Y. IPO Settlement
DOW CHEMICAL: Ordered to Pay $554M in Rocky Flats Litigation
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Calif. Court Approves $15M Overtime Settlement

ELECTRONIC ARTS: Facing Amended Overtime Lawsuit in California
EMERSON RADIO: N.Y. Court Dismisses 2003 Securities Litigation
FORD MOTOR: Former Worker Files Age Discrimination Suit in Mich.
ILLINOIS: Cook County Jail Officials Face Physical Abuse Suit
INTERNATIONAL ALUMINUM: Faces Calif. Suit over Defective Windows

LANDAMERICA FINANCIAL: $27.5M Settlement Gets Initial Approval
NEW YORK: Judge Throws Out Racial Profiling Lawsuit v. Police
NORTH SHORE: Ill. Court to Hear Parties' Motions in Gas Case
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Awaits Final Approval of IPO Securities Deal
POLYMEDICA CORPORATION: Appeals Court Rules in MA Stock Lawsuit

PSS WORLD: Fla. Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
RC2 CORPORATION: Toy Maker Facing Warranty Lawsuit in Illinois
ROSNEFT OIL: Top Executive Named in Yukos ADR Holders Lawsuit
SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA: Ga. Court Denies Plaintiffs' Motions in Suit
SPORT-HALEY INC: To Receive $173,000 Settlement from Ex-Auditors

TATA AMERICA: Worker Files Suit over Federal, State Tax Refunds


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

LAFARGE NORTH: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Lawsuit in Md.
LAFARGE NORTH: Wolf Popper Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
OMNICARE INC: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Suit
REPSOL YPF: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
ROYAL GROUP: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


ACXIOM CORPORATION: Ark. Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Acxiom Corporation's board of directors continues to face a class action in
Arkansas court, styled, "Indiana State District Council of Laborers and HOD
Carriers Pension Fund v. Morgan, et al., CV05-8498," alleging breach of
fiduciary duty.

Filed on June 23, 2005, the putative class action plaintiff alleges that the
board members are not independent from Charles Morgan, CEO and chairman of
the board.  Based on the purported lack of independence, the lawsuit alleges
that the board did not use good faith in considering the June 3, 2005 letter
from ValueAct.

The lawsuit is pending in Pulaski County, Arkansas Circuit Court.  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 complaint has been amended numerous times and the response to the most
recent amendment is not due until mid-March, 2006.   The defendants intend
to vigorously contest the suit.  The Company does not believe the ultimate
outcome of the lawsuit will have a material impact on the Company or its
operations or financial position.


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Include Class Claims in Amended Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs included class action claims in a shareholder derivative action
filed against Adobe Systems, Inc.'s directors and the Company (as a nominal
defendant) in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Santa Clara, styled, "Steve Staehr, Derivatively on Behalf of Adobe
Systems Incorporated v. Bruce R. Chizen, et al."

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties of
loyalty and due care and caused the Company to waste corporate assets by
failing to renegotiate or terminate the acquisition agreement with
Macromedia following the announcement by Macromedia that it would restate
its financial results for the fiscal years ended March 31, 1999 through 2004
and by failing to conduct sufficient due diligence prior to entering into
the acquisition agreement.  The complaint seeks, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages, attorneys' fees and certain forms of equitable
relief, including preliminarily and permanently enjoining the consummation
of the acquisition.

On August 18, 2005, Plaintiff amended his complaint to add a purported class
action.  The Company has obligations under certain circumstances to hold
harmless and indemnify each of the defendant directors against judgments,
fines, settlements and expenses related to claims against such directors and
otherwise to the fullest extent permitted under Delaware law and its bylaws
and certificate of incorporation.  Such obligations may apply to this
lawsuit.


ALLIANCE SEMICONDUCTOR: Plaintiffs Appeal Stock Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to decide on plaintiffs'
appeal of the dismissal of the securities class action filed against
Alliance Semiconductor Corporation, Tower Semiconductor Ltd. (Tower),
certain of Tower's directors (including N. Damodar Reddy), and certain of
Tower's shareholders (including the Company).

The lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York in July 2003, alleges that a proxy solicitation by
Tower seeking approval from the Tower shareholders for a restructuring of a
financing agreement between Tower and certain investors (including the
Company) contained false and misleading statements and/or omitted material
information in violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated there under, and also alleges that certain
defendants (including N. Damodar Reddy and the Company) have liability under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The lawsuit was brought by plaintiffs on behalf of a putative class of
persons who were ordinary shareholders of Tower at the close of business on
April 1, 2002, the record date for voting on certain matters proposed in a
proxy statement issued by Tower.

On January 30, 2004, all the defendants, including the Company, filed
motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.  On August 19, 2004, Judge Kimba Wood granted
defendants' motions and dismissed the complaint in its entirety with
prejudice.  On September 29, 2004, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The appeal will likely be
decided some time in 2006.

The suit was styled "De Vries, et al v. Tower Semiconductor, et al., Case
No. 1:03-cv-04999-KMW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under Judge Kimba M. Wood.  Representing the
Plaintiff/s are Jeffrey S. Abraham and Lawrence Donald Levit of Abraham
Fruchter & Twersky LLP, One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910, New York, NY 10119,
Phone: (212)-279-5050, Fax: (212)-279-3655, E-mail: llevit@aftlaw.com.
Representing the Defendant/s is Daniel Lucas Cantor and Michael R. Patrick
of O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Seven Times Square, New York, NY 10036, Phone:
212-326-2000, Fax: 212-326-2061, E-mail: dcantor@omm.com.


AMERITRADE HOLDING: Plaintiffs Withdraw Fiduciary Suit in Del.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in four class actions that were to be consolidated under the
caption, "In re Ameritrade Holding Corporation Shareholders Litigation,"
dismissed their lawsuits without prejudice.

Filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery back in May 2005, the suit accuses
the Company and its directors of allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties
to the Company's shareholders.  The plaintiffs, Judith Friedman, Margaret
Carroll, Mirfred Partners LLC and Irgun Torah, bring the actions on behalf
of themselves and other stockholders of the Company.  The complaints allege
that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by refusing to consider a
merger and acquisition proposal by E*Trade Financial Corporation.  The
complaints request injunctive relief and unspecified damages.

On May 31, 2005, the Court entered an order consolidating the actions.
Under the order, the plaintiffs are to file a consolidated amended complaint
and the defendants are not required to respond to the original complaints.

On February 3, 2006, the plaintiffs did not file a consolidated amended
complaint instead they dismissed the lawsuits without prejudice.


ARIBA INC: Awaits Final Approval of IPO Securities Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ariba, Inc. looks forward to the final approval for the proposed settlement
in the matter, "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC
92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)."

In 2001, a number of purported shareholder class action complaints related
to the Company's and FreeMarket's initial public offerings (the "IPOs") were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and FreeMarkets, and against certain of the two
companies' former officers and directors.  These complaints were later
consolidated into single class action proceedings related to each IPO.

In June 2003, a settlement was reached between plaintiffs and the Company
and FreeMarkets (the individual defendants having been previously
dismissed).  A final fairness hearing on the settlement has been scheduled
for April 24, 2006.  As of December 31, 2005, no amount is accrued, as a
loss is not considered probable or estimable.

The suit is styled, "In Re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  Some
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


ARIBA INC: Current, Former Officials Face Securities Suit in Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ariba, Inc.'s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and a former executive
and director of the Company face a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, entitled, "Crowell v.
McCormick, et al."

Filed on October 31, 2005, the suit is alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and specifically names
David H. McCormick and Robert M. Calderoni as defendants.  The Company is
not named as a defendant in the suit.  The action was brought on behalf of
stockholders who purchased the Company's stock from January 28, 2004 through
January 31, 2005.

The complaint alleges that the defendants artificially inflated the
Company's stock price between those dates by failing to disclose, in public
statements that the Company made about its products, market position and
performance, that some of those products allegedly infringed patents
belonging to a third party.

The suit is styled, "Crowell v. McCormick, et al., Cae No.
1:05-cv-01252-JCC-LO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District or Virginia under Judge James C. Cacheris with referral to Judge
Liam O'Grady.  Representing the Plaintiff/s is Mark Campbell Shuford of
Kaufman & Canoles, 1051 E Cary St., 3 James Center, 12th Fl., Richmond, VA
23219, Phone:
(804) 771-5700.  Representing the Defendant/s is Jonathan Richard DeFosse of
Shearman & Sterling, LLP, 801 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20004,
Phone: (202) 508-8000, Fax:
(202) 661-7374.


ARIBA INC: Wants Del. Court to Dismiss FreeMarkets Merger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ariba, Inc. asked the Delaware Chancery Court to dismiss the shareholder
class action filed against it and the former FreeMarkets, Inc. board
members.  The suit was filed on behalf of stockholders who held FreeMarkets
common stock from January 23, 2004 through July 1,2004.

The complaint alleges various breaches of fiduciary duty and a violation of
the Delaware General Corporation Law on the part of the former FreeMarkets
board members in connection with the Company's merger with FreeMarkets,
which was consummated on July 1, 2004.  The plaintiff in this action
contends, among other things, that the FreeMarkets board members breached
their fiduciary duties to FreeMarkets' common stockholders by:

     (1) negotiating the merger with the Company so as to
         provide themselves with downside protection against a
         decline in the Company's market price through a
         beneficial option exchange formula while failing to
         provide the common stockholders protection in the event
         of a drop in the price of the Company's stock,

     (2) contractually obligating themselves to recommend
         unanimously that FreeMarkets' stockholders approve the
         merger,

     (3) failing to disclose to FreeMarkets' stockholders
         certain material information before the merger closed,
         and

     (4) breaching their duties of loyalty to the common
         stockholders in various other respects.

As FreeMarkets' corporate successor, the Company is alleged to be liable for
the FreeMarkets board member's violation of the Delaware General Corporation
Law.  Plaintiff seeks disgorgement of benefits by the individual defendants,
as well as monetary and rescissory damages from all of the defendants,
jointly and severally.  The defendants' Motion to Dismiss the complaint was
submitted to the Delaware Chancery Court on February 4, 2005.  Plaintiff has
not filed any response or opposition to the motion to dismiss.


ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Facing Lawsuit for Undisclosed Commissions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., faces a purported class action, styled, "Village
of Orland Hills v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., Case No. 00 CH 13855," which
is pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.

The suit challenges the propriety of alleged "undisclosed contingent
commissions" paid pursuant to certain compensation arrangements between the
Company and various insurance companies.  The action was terminated when the
Company's motion for summary judgment was granted in early 2002, but was
reinstated in September 2003 when an intermediate appeals court overturned
such a ruling.


ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Subsidiaries Named in Amended N.Y. Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. said that two of its subsidiaries were added as
defendants in a second amended complaint filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

On October 19, 2004, the Company was joined as a defendant in a purported
class action, originally filed in August 2004, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York by OptiCare Health Systems Inc.
against various large insurance brokerage firms and commercial insurers
(OptiCare Health Systems Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 04 CV 06954 (DC)).

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants used the contingent
commission structure of placement service agreements in a conspiracy to
deprive policyholders of "independent and unbiased brokerage services, as
well as free and open competition in the market for insurance."  On February
1, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that added
additional defendants, including two of the Company's subsidiaries, but
which otherwise did not contain any new claims or allegations.

Since fourth quarter 2004, nine other similar purported class actions were
filed alleging claims similar to those alleged by the plaintiff in the
OptiCare litigation.  These cases were, or will likely be, included in a
Multi-District Litigation proceeding before the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.  Additionally, there are three state cases alleging
similar claims.

The suit is styled, "Opticare Health Systems, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan
Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-06954-DC," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Denny Chin.
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Edith M. Kallas and Joseph P. Guglielmo of
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New
York, NY 10119, Phone: (212) 594-5300, Fax: (212) 686-1229, E-mail:
ekallas@milbergweiss.com and jguglielmo@milbergweiss.com.

Representing the Defendant/s are, David Emilio Mollon and Lina M. Viviano of
Winston & Strawn, LLP (NY), 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166, Phone:
(212)-294-4748 and 212-294-6700, Fax: (212)-294-4700 and 212-294-4700,
E-mail: dmollon@winston.com and lviviano@winston.com; and Alan L. Kildow of
Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly, LLP, Plaza VII, Suite 3300, 45 South Seventh
Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: (612) 607-7565, Fax: 610-607-7100,
E-mail: akildow@oppenheimer.com.


BALLARAT UNIVERSITY: Staff Wants Ban on 'Misleading' Labor Deals
----------------------------------------------------------------
Staff of Ballarat University in Australia is taking the institution to court
for false and misleading information on the security of their employment,
according to ABC Ballarat.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman is lodging a suit in the federal court
seeking an injunction to stop the university from continuing to enter into
workplace agreements.

Lawyer Josh Bornstein says employees are concerned that if they sign the
Australian Workplace Agreement they will automatically lose their right to
go to the Industrial Relations Commission to access conciliation and
arbitration over employment matters; and lose redundancy entitlements.

He says the case means significant penalties against the university,
potentially up to millions of dollars depending on the number of people
affected.

Ballarat University on the Net: http://www.ballarat.edu.au/;Maurice  
Blackburn on the Net: http://www.mauriceblackburncashman.com.au/.


BECTON DICKINSON: Drug Mart Files Seventh Antitrust Suit in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Becton Dickinson and Company (BD) faces a purported class action filed by
Drug Mart Tallman in the U.S. District Court in Newark, New Jersey,
entitled, "Drug Mart Tallman, Inc., et al v. Becton Dickinson and Company,
Case No. 2:06-CV-00174)."

Filed on January 17, 2006, the complaint alleges that the Company violated
federal and various state antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of
higher prices for certain of its products to plaintiff and other indirect
purchasers of BD products.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to this suit and
intends to defend this suit vigorously.  The action is the seventh antitrust
class action suit brought against the Company by either direct or indirect
purchasers of its products.  These antitrust class actions, including the
above action, were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) in federal court in New Jersey.

The suit is styled, "DRUG MART TALLMAN, INC. v. BECTON DICKINSON & COMPANY,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge
Jose L. Linares with referral to Judge Ronald J. Hedges.  Representing the
Plaintiff/s id James V. Bashian of the Law Office of James V. Bashian, PC,
Fairfield Commons 271 Route 46 West, Suite F207, Fairfield, NJ 07004, Phone:
(973) 227-6330, E-mail: jbashian@bashianlaw.com.


CARRABBA'S ITALIAN: Mich. Restaurant Sued for Norovirus Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
An East Lansing man is filing a suit against mid-Michigan restaurant
Carrabba's Italian Grille, which was identified as the source of a
food-borne illness that broke out in the last weekend of January.

Dave Durbin, which came down with norovirus after eating at the Delta
Township restaurant, is filing the suit in Eaton County circuit court.  Mr.
Durbin's attorney is Greg Liepshutz.

WLNS reports that the Barry-Eaton Health Department found more than 400
norovirus cases connected with the restaurant.  Authorities cited it for
poor employee illness policy and a lack of enforcing "good hygiene" among
its employees.  The restaurant had apologized for the lapse, the report
said.

In another report, Food Consumer says a food safety attorney William Marler,
managing partner of Marler Clark, is filing a lawsuit on behalf of a Lansing
resident who ate at the restaurant on Jan. 31.  Mr. Durbin ate at the
Carrabba's on West Saginaw on Jan. 28, according to WLNS.


CHEVRON CORPORATION: U.S. Senators Tell Ecuador Lawsuit Secure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Barack Obama (D-Illinois) have
written to the U.S. Trade Representative asking to stop what they call
Chevron Corp.'s lobbying to undermine a historic environmental lawsuit
against the company in Ecuador's rainforest.

Chevron faces a potential multi-billion dollar liability in the class action
for cleanup of what experts believe is the worst oil-related contamination
in the world, affecting an estimated 30,000 people in the Ecuadorian Amazon.

The Senators sent a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Portman on
Feb. 2 urging him to ignore Chevron's campaign to exclude Ecuador from trade
negotiations until the Ecuadorian government shuts down the lawsuit.

The senators write: "We are writing to seek your assurances that the U.S.
Trade Representative will not allow negotiations over the Andean Free Trade
Agreement to interfere with a case involving Chevron that is under
consideration by the Ecuadorian judiciary, particularly one involving
environmental, health and human rights issues that have regional importance.
While we are not prejudging the outcome of the case, we do believe the
30,000 indigenous residents of Ecuador deserve their day in court."

Since the trial began in 2003, all 22 sites inspected by the court so far
have been found to be contaminated.  One site had levels of Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons 9,000 times higher than allowed in most U.S. states.

Chevron's lobbying of Congress has sparked outrage in Ecuador because
Chevron argued for years before a U.S. federal court, where the case was
originally filed, that it would recognize the jurisdiction of the Ecuador
court and abide by any judgment.

"This campaign is morally reprehensible because it violates an express
promise Chevron made to the U.S. court as a condition of getting the case
sent to Ecuador," said Luis Yanza, a representative of the affected
communities. c"Our people are dying while Chevron spends millions on
lobbyists to undermine the rule of law."

Earlier this month, Chevron was hit with a complaint filed to the Securities
and Exchange Commission for allegedly hiding its Ecuador liability. cStudies
have found elevated rates of cancer in the region where Chevron operated.

For details of the lawsuit, see: http://www.chevrontoxico.com. Chevron  
Corp. on the Net: http://www.chevron.com.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Facing Nationwide Antitrust Lawsuit in Ark.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Corporation, other vendors to the insurance industry, and
dozens of insurance companies faces a class action filed on February 11,
2005 in Miller County Circuit Court in Arkansas, styled, "Hensley, et al.
vs. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al."

The suit, filed as a putative nationwide class action, alleges the
defendants conspired to wrongfully use software products licensed by the
Company and the other software vendors to reduce the amount paid to the
licensees' insureds for bodily injury claims.  Plaintiffs also allege
wrongful concealment of the manner in which these software programs evaluate
claims and wrongful concealment of information about alleged inherent errors
and flaws in the software.  They seek injunctive and monetary relief of less
than $75,000 for each class member, as well as attorney's fees and costs.
The action was officially served upon the Company on November 11, 2005.


CONCUR TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Concur Technologies, Inc. agreed to settle the consolidated securities class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York against it, several of its current and former officers and the
underwriters of its initial public offering in December 1998.

The suit alleges errors and omissions concerning underwriting terms in the
prospectus for the Company's initial public offering.  The plaintiffs in
these lawsuits seek damages in unspecified amounts, which could be
substantial.

In April 2002, these lawsuits were consolidated.  In October 2002, the court
dismissed the individual defendants from the consolidated lawsuit, without
prejudice, pursuant to a stipulated agreement between the parties.

In February 2003, the presiding judge denied a motion to dismiss all claims.
In July 2003, the Company decided to participate in a proposed settlement
being negotiated by representatives of a coalition of issuers named as
defendants in similar actions and their insurers.

Although the Company believes that the plaintiffs' claims have no merit, it
has decided to participate in the proposed settlement to avoid the cost and
distraction of continued litigation.  The Company does not believe that the
proposed settlement will have any material adverse effect on its business,
financial condition, or results of operations.

The proposed settlement agreement would dispose of all remaining claims
against the Company and the individual defendants without any admission of
wrongdoing by us or the individual defendants.  The proposed settlement is
subject to final approval by the parties and the court.  There is no
guarantee that the parties or the court will approve the proposed
settlement.  Should the parties and the court fail to approve the proposed
settlement, we would continue to defend ourselves vigorously.


DAVE & BUSTER'S: Signs Agreement to Settle Merger Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Dave & Buster's, Inc. entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on the
proposed settlement with plaintiff of a purported class action filed on Jan.
20, 2006.  The suit opposes the Company's planned merger with an affiliate
of Wellspring Capital Management.

The proposed settlement is conditioned upon the consummation of the merger,
the execution of a definitive settlement agreement, and court approval.  The
settlement will extinguish all claims for any alleged violation of fiduciary
duty, including all claims relating to the adequacy of disclosure, and all
claims related to the value to be paid for the Company's common stock in the
proposed merger.

                Shareholder Special Meeting Date

In connection with the settlement, the Company has commenced the circulation
to its stockholders of a supplement to the Company's Jan. 25, 2006 proxy
statement.  The supplement contains additional disclosures regarding the
merger.  The Company's special meeting of stockholders to vote upon the
merger will be held on Feb. 28, 2006.

Dave & Buster's -- http://www.daveandbusters.com-- is an upscale,  
restaurant/entertainment concept with 46 locations throughout the U.S. and
in Canada.


DIGI INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Final Approval of N.Y. IPO Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Digi International, Inc. looks forward to the final approval of a settlement
in the lawsuit, styled, "In re Digi International, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "In Re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)."

The suit also names as defendants NetSilicon, Inc. certain of its officers
and certain underwriters involved in NetSilicon's initial public offering
(IPO) and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

On April 19, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed
asserting claims relating to NetSilicon's IPO and approximately 300 other
public companies. The complaint asserts, among other things, that
NetSilicon's IPO prospectus and registration statement violated federal
securities laws because they contained material misrepresentations and/or
omissions regarding the conduct of NetSilicon's IPO underwriters in
allocating shares in NetSilicon's IPO to the underwriters' customers.
Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the two named officers were
dismissed from the lawsuit, without prejudice, on October 9, 2002.

In June 2003, the Company elected to participate in a proposed settlement
agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation. If ultimately approved by
the Court, this proposed settlement would result in a dismissal, with
prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against the Company and against
any of the other issuer defendants who elect to participate in the proposed
settlement, together with the current or former officers and directors of
participating issuers who were named as individual defendants.

Consummation of the proposed settlement remains conditioned upon obtaining
both preliminary and final approval by the Court. Formal settlement
documents were filed with the Court in June 2004, together with a motion
asking the Court to preliminarily approve the form of settlement.  Certain
underwriters who were named as defendants in the settling cases, and who are
not parties to the proposed settlement, opposed preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement of those cases.  On February 15, 2005, the Court issued
an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement in all respects but
one.  In response to this order, the plaintiffs and the issuer defendants
are in the process of submitting revised settlement documents to the Court.
The underwriter defendants may object to the revised settlement documents.

On September 1, 2005, the Court preliminarily approved the proposed
settlement, directed that notice of the terms of the proposed settlement be
provided to class members, and scheduled a fairness hearing, at which
objections to the proposed settlement will be heard.  Thereafter, the Court
will determine whether to grant final approval to the proposed settlement.

The suit is styled "In re Digi International, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "In Re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira
N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


DOW CHEMICAL: Ordered to Pay $554M in Rocky Flats Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
A federal jury has recommended that Dow Chemical Co. and the former Rockwell
International Corp. pay $553.9 million to property owners whose lands were
contaminated by plutonium from the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant,
according to Associated Press.  The lawsuit was filed on behalf of 13,000
people.

The ruling includes punitive damages of $110.8 million against Dow Chemical
and $89.4 million against Rockwell, and some $352 million in actual damages.
There was no immediate word on an appeal, the report said.

The trial of the $500 million class action, filed 15 years ago, began in
Oct. 2005.  Residents who owned property near the site, claimed that Dow
Chemical Co., which operated the site from the 1950s through 1975, and
Rockwell International Corp., which took over in 1975 and operated the plant
until it was shut down in 1989, improperly stored or otherwise mishandled
plutonium-laced waste, resulting in contamination of soil and groundwater.
According to the suit, both firms operated the plant under a Department of
Energy (DOE) contract (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 11, 2005).

Those residents, who are the named plaintiffs in the suit, claimed that
large fires at the plant and windstorms and other natural events helped to
spread the waste outside the plant's boundaries.  That contamination, plus
what the property owners said was a stigma attached to houses near the
plant, resulted in plummeting property values (Class Action Reporter, Oct.
11, 2005).  They also contend that Dow, Rockwell and the DOE have covered up
how harmful the plant really was.

The defendants said only miniscule, harmless amounts of radioactive
plutonium and other dangerous materials ever escaped outside the plant.

Much of the case centers on an FBI raid at the site in the summer of 1989.
Rockwell, which ran Rocky Flats at the time, pleaded guilty in 1992 to 10
federal environmental crimes and paid a fine of $18.5 million.

Built in the 1950s during the Cold War era, the plant has been shut down.
Its 6,500-acre site underwent environmental cleansing and is slated to
become a wildlife refuge.

The suit was styled, "Cook, et al v. Rockwell Intl. Corp., Case No.
1:90-cv-00181-JLK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado, under Judge John L. Kane. Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Gary B. Blum of Silver & DeBoskey, P.C., 1801 York St.,
         Denver, CO 80206, U.S.A, Phone: 303-399-3000, Fax: 303-
         399-2650, E-mail: blumg@s-d.com;

     (2) Stanley M. Chesley of Waite, Schneider, Bayless &
         Chesley Co., L.P.A., 1513 Fourth and Vine Tower, One
         West Fourth St., Cincinnati, OH 45202, U.S.A, Phone:
         513-621-0268;

     (3) Merrill Gene Davidoff, Jennifer E. MacNaughton, Peter
         B. Nordberg, Ellen T. Noteware, Bernadette M. Rappold,
         Stanley B. Siegel and David F. Sorensen of Berger &
         Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust St., Philadelphia, PA
         19103, U.S.A, Phone: 215-875-3084, 215-875-3000 and
         215-875-3051, Fax: 215-875-4671, 215-875-4604 and 215-
         875-5707, E-mail: mdavidoff@bm.net,
         jmacnaughton@bm.net, pnordberg@bm.net,
         enoteware@bm.net and dsorensen@bm.net;

     (4) Bruce H. DeBoskey of Silver & Deboskey, P.C., 1801 York
         St. #700, Denver, CO 80206-5607, U.S.A, Phone: 303-399
         -3000;

     (5) Kenneth A. Jacobsen of Jacobsen Law Offices, LLC, 12
         Orchard Lane, Wallingford, PA 19086, U.S.A., Phone:
         610-566-7930, Fax: 610-566-7940;

     (6) David Evans Kreutzer of Colorado Department of Law,
         1525 Sherman St., 5th Floor, Denver, CO 80203, U.S.A,
         Phone: 303-866-5667, Fax: 303-866-3558, E-mail:
         david.kreutzer@state.co.us;

     (7) Louise M. Roselle of Waite, Schneider, Bayless &
         Chesley Co., L.P.A., 1513 Fourth and Vine Tower, One
         West Fourth St., Cincinnati, OH 45202, U.S.A, Phone:
         513-621-0267, Fax: 513-381-2375, E-mail:
         louiseroselle@wsbclaw.com;

     (8) Clisham, Satriana & Biscan, LLC, 1512 Larimer St., #400
         Denver, CO 80202, U.S.A, Phone: 303-468-5403, Fax: 303-
         942-7290, E-mail: satrianad@csbattorneys.com;

     (9) Holly Brons Shook of Silver & DeBoskey, P.C., 1801 York
         St., Denver, CO 80206, U.S.A, Phone: 303-399-3000, Fax:
         303-399-2650, E-mail: shookh@s-d.com;

    (10) Ronald Simon of Simon & Associates, 1707 N. St., N.W.
         Washington, DC 20036, U.S.A, Phone: 202-429-0094, Fax:
         202-429-0075, E-mail: ron@1707law.com; and

    (11) John David Stoner of Chimicles & Tikellis, L.L.P., 361
         West Lancaster Ave., One Haverford Centre, Haverford,
         PA 19041-0100, U.S.A

Representing the Defendant/s are:

     (i) Joseph John Bronesky and Christopher Lane of Sherman &
         Howard, L.L.C.- 17th St., Denver, CO, U.S.
         District Court Box 12, 633 Seventeenth St., #3000
         Denver, CO 80202, U.S.A, Phone: 303-299-8450 and 303-
         299-8422, Fax: 303-298-0949 and 303-298-0940, E-mail:
         jbronesk@sah.com and clane@sah.com;

    (ii) Wendy S. White, Timothy P. Brooks, Patrick M. Hanlon,
         Amy Horton, Franklin D. Kramer and Edward J. Naughton
         Of Goodwin Procter, LLP-DC, 1800 Massachusetts Ave.,
         N.W. #800, Washington, DC 20036, U.S.A, Phone:  202-
         828-2000, Fax: 828-2000;

   (iii) Michael K. Isenman of Goodwin Procter, LLP-DC, 901 New
         York Ave., NW #700, Washington, DC 20001, U.S.A, Phone:
         202-346-4000, Fax: 202-346-4444, E-mail:
         misenman@goodwinprocter.com;

    (iv) Lester C. Houtz of Bartlit, Beck, Herman, Palenchar &
         Scott-Colorado, 1899 Wynkoop St., #800 Denver, CO
         80202, U.S.A., Phone: 303-592-3177, Fax: 303-3140, E-
         mail: lester.houtz@bartlit-beck.com;

     (v) Douglas J. Kurtenbach, S. Jonathan Silverman, Mark S.
         Lillie and David M. Bernick of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP-
         Illinois, 200 East, Randolph Drive, #5400 Chicago, IL
         60601, U.S.A, Phone: 312-861-2225, 312-861-2089 and
         312-861-2248, Fax: 861-2200, 312-660-0452 and 312-861-
         2200, E-mail: mlillie@kirkland.com and
         dbernick@kirkland.com;

    (vi) Douglas M. Poland of LaFollette, Godfrey & Kahn, P.O.
         Box 2719, One East Main St., Madison, WI 53703-2719,
         U.S.A, Phone: 608-257-3911, Fax: 608-257-0609, E-mail:
         dpoland@gklaw.com; and

   (vii) Louis W. Pribila of Dow Chemical Company, 2030 Dow
         Center, Midland, MI 48674, U.S.A, Phone: 517-638-9511,
         Fax: 638-9410.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed
with prejudice a consolidated securities class action filed against
Electronic Arts, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors.

On March 24, 2005, a class action was filed, asserting claims under Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly
false and misleading statements.  Other individuals asserting the same
claims against the Company filed additional class actions in the same court.
On May 9, 2005, the court consolidated the complaints, and on June 13, 2005,
the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the
requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

An amended consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of the lead plaintiff
on August 12, 2005, and on September 27, 2005, the Company moved to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the
federal securities laws. On January 26, 2006, the court dismissed the
consolidated complaint with prejudice.

The suit is styled "In re Electronic Arts Inc. Securities Litigation, et
al., Case No. 3:05-cv-01219-MMC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, under Judge Maxine M. Chesney.
Representing the Plaintiff/s is Robert S. Green, Green Welling LLP, 595
Market Street, Suite 2750, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415/477-6700,
Fax: 415-477-6710, E-mail: RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM.  Representing the
Defendant/s is Michael D. Celio, Keker & Van Nest LLP, 710 Sansome Street,
San Francisco, CA 94111-1704, Phone: 415/773-6613, Fax: 415-397-7188,
E-mail: mdc@kvn.com.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Calif. Court Approves $15M Overtime Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court in San Mateo, California gave final approval to a
settlement reached by Electronic Arts, Inc. for the amended class action,
styled, "Kirschenbaum v. Electronic Arts Inc."

The complaint alleges that the Company improperly classified "Image
Production Employees" in California as exempt employees and seeks injunctive
relief, unspecified monetary damages, interest and attorneys' fees.  The
complaint was first amended on November 30, 2004 to add two former employees
as named-plaintiffs, and amended again on January 5, 2005 to add another
former employee as a named-plaintiff.  The allegations in the complaint were
not materially changed by the amendments.

In early October 2005, the Company reached a settlement to resolve these
claims. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company will make a lump sum
payment of $15.6 million to cover:

     (1) all claims allegedly suffered by the class members,

     (2) plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, not to exceed 25% of the
         total settlement amount,

     (3) plaintiffs' costs and expenses,

     (4) any incentive payments to the named plaintiffs that may
         be authorized by the court, and

     (5) all costs of administration of the settlement.

On October 17, 2005, the court granted its preliminary approval of the
settlement.  On January 27, 2006, the court granted its final approval of
the settlement.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Facing Amended Overtime Lawsuit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts, Inc. continues to face an amended class action filed in the
Superior Court in San Mateo, California, styled "Hasty v. Electronic Arts
Inc."

The complaint alleges that the company improperly classified "Engineers" in
California as exempt employees and seeks injunctive relief, unspecified
monetary damages, interest and attorneys' fees.  On March 16, 2005, the
Company received a first amended complaint, which contains the same material
allegations as the original complaint.  The Company answered the first
amended complaint on April 20, 2005.


EMERSON RADIO: N.Y. Court Dismisses 2003 Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Radio Corp. was able to have a class action filed against it in 2003
dismissed, a statement from its report for three and nine months ending Dec.
31, 2005 says.

Geoffrey P. Jurick, chairman and chief executive officer, said:

"During the December quarter, we accomplished several important goals:

     (1) the completion of our $45 million credit facility with
         Wachovia Bank;

     (2) the extension of our Funai licensing agreement to
         December 2007;

     (3) the dismissal of the class action litigation that
         started in 2003;

     (4) the introduction of our line of iPod(R) compatible
         products; and

     (5) the completion of an agreement to lease warehouse space
         which is anticipated to have future cost savings.

"We expect revenues on a full year basis for fiscal 2006 to approximate
those of fiscal 2005.  We also expect our licensing revenues to stabilize
and improve in the future with increased introductions of LCD and Plasma TVs
and related products by our licensee as these products move into the price
range of an Emerson consumer.  In an effort to remain a household name brand
in the consumer electronics marketplace, Emerson spent in excess of $1.9
million in marketing, promotion and advertising costs for the nine months
ending December 31, 2005.

In summary, we see the present and upcoming fiscal years as a transition
period during which the Company moves toward the introduction of new
products through the iPod(R) compatible, LCD and Plasma categories."

For the past two years, Emerson has been defending a consolidated putative
class action suit captioned In Re Emerson Radio Corp. Securities Litigation,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  By a
recent Opinion and Order, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint in the Class Action Litigation without prejudice and
granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their pleading consistent with the
Court's Opinion and Order.

                         Case Background

Between Sept. 4, 2003 and Oct. 30, 2003, several putative class actions were
filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's publicly traded securities
between Jan. 29, 2003 and Aug. 12, 2003.  On Dec. 17, 2003, the Court
entered a Joint Stipulation and Order consolidating these putative class
actions under the caption "In Re Emerson Radio Corp. Securities Litigation,
03cv4201 (JLL)" (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 3, 2006).

Further to that Stipulation and Order, lead plaintiff was appointed and
co-lead counsel and co-liaison counsel were approved by the Court in the
Consolidated Action.  Consistent with the Stipulation and Order, the
plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint that, among other things,
added Jerome Farnum, one of Emerson's directors, as an individual defendant
in the litigation (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 3, 2006).

The suit is styled "Pelone, et al v. Emerson Radio Corp., et al, case no.
2:03-cv-04201-JLL-RJH," filed in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey,
under Judge Jose L. Linares.  Representing the Company is Steven M. Hecht of
Lowenstein Sandler PC, 65 Livingston Avenue, Roseland NJ 07068-1791, Phone:
(973) 597-2500, E-mail: shecht@lowenstein.com.  Representing the plaintiffs
are Joseph J. DePalma, LITE, DEPALMA, GREENBERG & RIVAS, LLC, Two Gateway
Center, 12th Floor, Newark NJ 07102-5003 Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail:
jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com; and Andrew Robert Jacobs, Epstein Fitzsimmons Brown
Gioia Jacobs & Sprouls, 245 Green Village Road, PO Box 901, Chatham Township
NJ 07928-0901, Phone: (973) 593-4900, E-mail: ajacobs@epsteinfitz.com.


FORD MOTOR: Former Worker Files Age Discrimination Suit in Mich.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A former Ford Motor Company worker is suing the automaker for an alleged age
discrimination that he said led to his termination, DetNews.com reports.

Fifty-one year-old William Armstrong, who is a former engineer at Ford's
Dearborn, Detroit Michigan headquarters, filed the suit on Feb. 13 in Wayne
County Circuit Court.  He is represented by attorney Michael Pitt.

According to the report, Mr. Armstrong and his lawyer hope the suit will
gain class-action status.  His lawyer already brought two age discrimination
suits against the company.

Mr. Armstrong is one of about 4,000 Ford salaried employees who lost their
jobs last month as the firm tries to the fortunes of its North American
automobile operations.  Ford contends its layoffs were conducted within the
law.

Ford Motor on the Net: http://www.ford.com.


ILLINOIS: Cook County Jail Officials Face Physical Abuse Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Cook County Jail inmate filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court seeking
class action for complaints of violence against several jail guards,
according to Associated Press.

Frederick Lee Walker, who was jailed June 26, 2000 for murder charges,
initially filed the lawsuit in September 2005.  U.S. District Judge Ronald
Guzman appointed law firm Kirkland & Ellis LLP to represent him.  In
November Judge Guzman dismissed the complaint with leave for the appointed
counsel to file an amended complaint.

The suit names Sheriff Michael Sheahan, 28 jail guards and 100 "John Does,"
additional guards and other county employees as defendants, according to the
report.  It is seeking compensation for physical and emotional injuries Mr.
Walker and other detainees have suffered while jailed.


INTERNATIONAL ALUMINUM: Faces Calif. Suit over Defective Windows
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Aluminum Corp. and certain of its subsidiaries are defendants
in a class action, captioned, "Klotzer, et al. v. International Windows In
Time, Inc. (FCS021196)," filed in the Superior Court for Solano County,
California.

The suit alleges that the Company's 6200 Series aluminum windows were
defective in design and manufacture.  The plaintiffs seek monetary damages,
attorneys' fees and costs based upon various legal theories.  Substantially
identical lawsuits were filed against at least six other aluminum window
manufacturers.  The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

The Company also believes it is insured with respect to most, if not all of
plaintiffs' claims.  The suit is in its preliminary stages and no prediction
can be made as to its eventual outcome.


LANDAMERICA FINANCIAL: $27.5M Settlement Gets Initial Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in Detroit tentatively approved a settlement on a suit
alleging that certain homeowners have been overcharged for title insurance
in Michigan.  More than 60,000 new-home buyers in Michigan stand to share
some $27.5 million from the agreement.

According to Inman News, the deal would provide $300 to $400 each to people
who bought new homes between December 1998 and July 2005.  Bruetsch and
Farmington Hills lawyer Jeffrey Yellen and Birmingham lawyer David Davis
filed the class action in 2000 on behalf of four Detroit-area residents.

Defendants in the suit include Transnation Title Insurance Co. of Arizona,
First American Title Insurance Co. of California and Lawyer's Title
Insurance Corp. of Virginia.  The four reportedly sell 84% of the title
insurance in Michigan.

                  Transnation Title Litigation

On May 9, 2000, Romeo Jergess filed a putative class action suit against
Landamerica Financial Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Transnation Title Insurance
Company (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 9, 2005), alleging that:

     (1) the Company's rate for an owner's title insurance
         policy, charged in accordance with rates for new
         construction filed with the Insurance Bureau of the
         State of Michigan, are less than the rate paid by the
         lender for a simultaneously issued lender's title
         insurance policy, and

     (2) that the lower rate paid by the builder/developer for
         the owner's policy involves an illegal kickback for a
         referral and an illegal splitting of fees in violation
         of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).

                    Lawyers Title Litigation

On April 27, 2001, a similar suit was filed by Elaine Miller in the same
court (Case No. 01-71647) against Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation,
another subsidiary of Landamerica Financial.  The plaintiffs in both suits
seek an unspecified amount of damages equal to three times the amount of the
charge for each simultaneously issued lender's title insurance policy in
connection with a new home purchase commencing with the period one year
before the filing of each complaint, plus costs, interest and attorneys'
fees.

Transnation and Lawyers Title have engaged a forensic accountant to review
plaintiffs' estimate that the charges collected for such policies by
Transnation and Lawyers Title from the class as originally defined is
approximately $15 million.  The Jergess Suit and the Miller Suit were
consolidated on July 18, 2002 with cases pending against First American
Title Insurance Company and Chicago Title Insurance Company.  On December 5,
2002, the court certified a class defined as all individuals who, during the
period commencing prior to one year of the filing of the applicable suit and
ending on October 30, 2002, purchased a newly constructed one to four family
dwelling or condominium and were charged for a lender's title insurance
policy allegedly in violation of RESPA.

                    Previous Court Decisions

On February 12, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied
Transnation's and Lawyers Title's petitions for an interlocutory appeal of
the class certification order.  On October 30, 2003, the judge ordered that
individuals otherwise meeting the class definition, but who closed
transactions involving relevant policies between October 31, 2002 through
October 30, 2003, would not be subject to a statute of limitations defense
raised by Transnation Title or Lawyers Title between October 30, 2003 and
October 31, 2004.

On October 28, 2004, Transnation and Lawyers Title stipulated to an order
that individuals otherwise meeting the class definition, but who closed
transactions involving relevant policies between October 31, 2002 through
October 30, 2004, would not be subject to a statute of limitations defense
raised by Transnation or Lawyers Title between October 30, 2004 and October
31, 2005.  The court reserved decision on a Motion to proceed to trial with
the certified class as originally defined.

On January 13, 2005, the court denied Transnation's and Lawyers
Title's motion to dismiss the case for lack of standing.  On February 7,
2005, the court dismissed without prejudice Transnation's and Lawyers
Title's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with respect to those members of
the class covered by the affiliated business exception under RESPA with the
court indicating that the parties could resubmit the motion with additional
information.  The court has not yet ruled on the parties' cross Motions for
Summary Judgment on Count II of plaintiffs' complaint alleging an illegal
splitting of fees under RESPA.

On April 21, 2005, Transnation and Lawyers Title filed various Motions for
Summary Judgment and Limine with respect to multiple issues. The parties
participated in nonbinding mediation beginning May 3, 2005. On May 19, 2005,
Transnation and Lawyers Title entered into a binding term sheet to settle
the consolidated suits. The terms of the settlement are subject to court
approval.  If approved, Transnation and Lawyers Title will be obligated to
make a single aggregate payment of $10,325,000 into a settlement fund to be
established for the benefit of eligible class members.  Transnation and
Lawyers Title, who did not admit any liability in the settlement, would be
required to deposit the settlement funds into escrow within seven days
following the issuance of a final order by the court approving the
settlement.   Pursuant to the Term Sheet, the Settlement Agreement will
provide for the dismissal with prejudice of all claims by plaintiffs against
Transnation and Lawyers Title and a release of all claims by plaintiffs
except claims under their title policies.

The suit was styled "Jergess v. Transnation Title, et al., case no.
2:00-cv-72124-AC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan, under Judge Avern Cohn.  Representing the Company is Francis R.
Ortiz of Dickinson Wright, 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 4000, Detroit, MI
48226-3425, Phone: 313-223-3500, E-mail: fortiz@dickinson-wright.com.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jeffrey A. Yellen, 37000 Grand River Avenue, Suite 300,
         Farmington Hills, MI 48335, Phone: 248-473-0001, Email:
         jeffyellen@ntlmj.com

     (2) Patrick J. Bruetsch, Bruetsch Assoc., 401 S. Old
         Woodward Avenue, Suite 400, Birmingham, MI 48009,
         Phone: 248-646-1114, E-mail: pbruetsch@aol.com

     (3) Timothy K. McConaghy, Hardy, Lewis, 401 S. Old Woodward
         Avenue, Suite 400, Birmingham, MI 48009-6629, Phone:
         248-645-0800, E-mail: tkm@hardylewis.com


NEW YORK: Judge Throws Out Racial Profiling Lawsuit v. Police
-------------------------------------------------------------
New York Court of Claims Judge Thomas McNamara dismissed a class action
involving 60 black people who claimed racial profiling against police,
Associated Press reports.

Dozens of mostly male students at the State University College at Oneonta
were questioned shortly after a 1992 attack on an elderly white woman
occurred.  Judge McNamara said in his ruling the police may request
information supported by an objective, credible reason, according to the
report.

The lawsuit claims violations by authorities of the plaintiffs' rights to
equal protection, as well as their rights against unlawful search and
seizure and seeks more than $3 million in damages on behalf of the men.

In a related case, Judge McNamara ruled last year that state police violated
the rights of Sheryl Champen, a black woman, when she was unlawfully
searched during a 1992 hunt for a knife-wielding assailant who authorities
believed was a black man, The Associated Press reports (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 1, 2005).

After the searches, a group of students, townspeople and others sued in
federal court in 1993 claiming local police, state police, the city, state
and college unconstitutionally targeted them.  In 1995, a federal judge
dismissed their claim.  Later, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New
York agreed in part, ruling that the searches did not violate the
Constitution's "equal protection" guarantee. The appeals court though did
not address the plaintiffs' claim that police violated their Fourth
Amendment protections against unreasonable searches or stops. In 2001, the
U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case (October 25, 2005).

The state Court of Claims initially said it did not have the authority to
consider claims for monetary damages against the state based on alleged
constitutional violations. But, in 1996, the state's highest court, the
Court of Appeals, ruled that New Yorkers could seek monetary damages if
state government violated their constitutional rights.

That ruling upheld the students' claim of alleged state constitutional
violations of being discriminated against because of their race and against
illegal searches by police. In addition, the court also found that the
students might have a valid claim against the state for failure to properly
train its personnel. Thus, the Court of Claims was ordered to reconsider the
students' case on those points (Class Action Reporter Oct. 25, 2005).


NORTH SHORE: Ill. Court to Hear Parties' Motions in Gas Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois is set to hear both plaintiffs'
and defendants' motions in a case involving North Shore Gas Co. and Peoples
Gas Light & Coke Co. over it's alleged unlawful charging fees and deposits
that were never approved by the Illinois Commerce Commission.

In February 2004, a purported class action was filed in Cook County Circuit
Court in Illinois against the Company and Peoples Gas by Stephen Alport, a
Peoples Gas customer, alleging, among other things, violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act related to
matters at issue in Peoples Gas' gas charge reconciliation proceedings.

The suit, filed in February 2004, was brought on behalf of all customers in
Illinois who were allegedly defrauded of tens of millions of dollars by the
Illinois energy giant.  According to the suit, the customers (generally
builders and contactors), who are represented by the Chicago office of
Halunen & Associates, were wrongfully charged for connection, reconnection
and disconnection services associated with gas main and service pipe
installation.

The suit seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. The Company
and Peoples Gas deny the allegations made in the suit and intend to
vigorously defend against the suit.

On September 22, 2004, the Court granted a motion to dismiss all counts
against Peoples Gas.  On October 21, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint against the Company.  On November 22, 2004, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On April 6, 2005, the Court denied the Company's motion in part, by allowing
to stand the plaintiffs' claims for violation of the Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act and claims that the Company acted in
concert with others to commit a tortious act, and granted the Company's
motion in part by dismissing all of the plaintiffs' other claims, though
without prejudice to plaintiffs' ability to amend their complaint.  The
plaintiffs filed a response to the motions to dismiss on September 13, 2005,
and Peoples Gas filed replies on September 22, 2005.  The hearing on the
motions to dismiss is scheduled for February 28, 2006.

For more details, contact Halunen & Associates, 415 North LaSalle St., Suite
203, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone: 312-222-0660, Web site:
http://youhaverights.lawoffice.com/CM/Custom/Peoples-Gas-Class-Action-IL.asp.


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Awaits Final Approval of IPO Securities Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Openwave Systems, Inc. looks forward to the final approval for the
settlement in the matter, "In re Openwave Systems, Inc. (sic) Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9744 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.), related
to In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS)
(S.D.N.Y.)."

On November 5, 2001, a purported securities fraud class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
captioned.  It was brought purportedly on behalf of all persons who
purchased our common stock from June 11, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  The
defendants are Openwave and five of our former officers (the "Openwave
Defendants"), and several investment banking firms that served as
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering and secondary public
offering.

Three of the individual defendants were dismissed without prejudice, subject
to an agreement extending the statute of limitations, through December 31,
2003.

The complaint alleges liability as under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the registration statement for the
offerings did not disclose that:

     (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers
         to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for
         excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and

     (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to
         purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
         predetermined prices.

The amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports were issued.
No specific damages are claimed.  Similar allegations were made in over 300
lawsuits challenging public offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000, and the
cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes.

The Company recently accepted a settlement proposal presented to all issuer
defendants.  Plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims against the
Openwave Defendants, in exchange for a contingent payment by the insurance
companies responsible for insuring the issuers, and for the assignment or
surrender of control of certain claims the Company may have against the
underwriters.  The Openwave Defendants will not be required to make any cash
payment in the settlement, unless the pro rata amount paid by the insurers
in the settlement exceeds the amount of insurance coverage, a circumstance
which the Company does not believe will occur.

The settlement will require approval of the Court, which cannot be assured,
after class members are given the opportunity to object to the settlement or
opt out of the settlement.  The Court has scheduled a hearing for April 24,
2006 to consider whether final approval should be granted.  The Company
believes a loss is not probable or estimable.  Therefore no amount has been
accrued as of December 31, 2005.

The suit is styled, "In Re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  Some
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


POLYMEDICA CORPORATION: Appeals Court Rules in MA Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit entered an order vacating the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts' order in the case
styled, "In re: PolyMedica Corp. Securities Litigation, Civ. Action No.
00-12426-REK," which certified the class for the period from January 2001
through August 2001 and also remanded the matter for further proceedings in
the District Court consistent with its opinion.

The securities class actions were filed against Company and Steven J. Lee,
the Company's former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board in
Massachusetts Federal Court.  On November 27, 2000, Richard Bowe SEP-IRA
filed a purported class action on behalf of himself and purchasers of common
stock.  The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees
and costs and claims violations of Sections 10(b), 10b-5, and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, alleging various statements were misleading with respect to the
Company's revenue and earnings based on an alleged scheme to produce
fictitious sales.

Several virtually identical lawsuits were subsequently filed against the
Company.  On July 30, 2001, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
consolidate the complaints under the caption, "In re: PolyMedica Corp.
Securities Litigation, Civ. Action No. 00-12426-REK."

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on October 9, 2001.  The
consolidated amended complaint extended the class period to October 26, 1998
through August 21, 2001, and named as defendants the Company, Liberty
Medical Supply, Inc., and certain of the Company's former officers.
Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on December
10, 2001. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to this motion on February 11,
2002, and defendants filed a reply memorandum on March 11, 2002. The Court
denied the motion without a hearing on May 10, 2002. On June 20, 2002,
defendants filed answers to the consolidated amended complaint.

On January 28, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification to
which defendants filed an opposition on February 27, 2004. Plaintiffs filed
a reply memorandum on April 12, 2004 followed by additional briefing by the
parties. The Court heard oral argument on the motion on June 2, 2004.  On
September 8, 2004, the court allowed the plaintiffs' motion and certified
the class.  On September 21, 2004, the defendants filed a petition
requesting that they be permitted to appeal the decision to the First
Circuit Court of Appeals.  The plaintiffs filed a response to the
defendants' petition on October 7, 2004 opposing defendants' request to
appeal the class certification. Also on October 7, 2004, the Court stayed
sending notice of the class action pending a ruling on defendants' appeal of
class certification.

On February 15, 2005, the First Circuit Court of Appeals granted defendants'
petition for leave to appeal the class certification decision.
Defendants-appellants filed their brief on March 15, 2005, and
plaintiffs-appellees filed an opposition on April 15, 2005.
Defendants-appellants filed a reply brief on April 25, 2005.  The First
Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on May 4, 2005 and took the
matter under advisement.

On December 13, 2005, the First Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a decision
in defendants-appellants' favor and entered an order vacating the District
Court's order certifying the class for the period from January 2001 through
August 2001 and remanding the matter for further proceedings in the District
Court consistent with its opinion.  Discovery is ongoing in the underlying
suit.

The suit is styled, "Bowe et al v. Polymedica Corp., Case No.
1:00-cv-12426-REK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts under Judge Robert E. Keeton.  Representing the Plaintiff/s
are, Theodore M. Hess-Mahan of Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP, 53 State Street,
Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939, Fax: 617-439-0134, E-mail:
ted@shulaw.com; and Seth R. Klein of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., One Corporate
Center, 20 Church Street, Suite 1700, Hartford, CT 06103, US, Phone:
860-493-6292.

Representing the Defendant/s are, Michael G. Bongiorno, Jeffrey B. Rudman
and Emily R. Schulman of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, 60
State Street, Boston, MA 02115, Phone: 617-526-6145, 617-526-6912 and
617-526-6077, Fax: 617-526-5000, E-mail: michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com
and jeffrey.rudman@wilmerhale.com and emily.schulman@wilmerhale.com; and Gus
P. Coldebella of Goodwin Procter, LLP, Exchange Place, 53 State Street,
Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-570-1780, Fax: 617-523-1231.


PSS WORLD: Fla. Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville
Division approves the settlement of the securities class action filed
against PSS World Medical, Inc. and certain of its current and former
officers and directors on December 20,2005.

The suit, styled "Jack Hirsch v. PSS World Medical, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 3:98-CV 502-J-32TEM," was filed on behalf of a purported class of
similarly situated stockholders who purchased the Company's stock between
December 23, 1997 and May 8, 1998.  The suit alleged that the defendants
engaged in violations of certain provisions of the Securities Exchange Act,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The allegations reference a decline
in the Company's stock price following an announcement by the Company in May
1998 regarding the Gulf South Medical Supply, Inc. merger, which resulted in
earnings below analysts' expectations.

In December 2002, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice with respect to the
Section 10(b) claims.  The plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint in
January 2003 alleging claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act on behalf of a putative class of all persons who were shareholders of
the Company as of March 26, 1998.  In May 2003, the Court denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss.  By order dated February 18, 2004, the Court
granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Court ordered mediation occurred on June 10, 2004 and April 6, 2005, during
which the parties were not able to resolve their dispute.  The parties all
served motions for summary judgment and motion in limine to strike the
opposing experts on May 11, 2005.  On September 9, 2005, the parties filed a
Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, which
reflected the settlement reached by all the parties to the litigation for a
cash payment of $16.5 million, of which approximately $12.7 million was
recovered through existing insurance policies.  A hearing on the Joint
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement was held on
October 7, 2005, at which time the Court entered an Order Preliminarily
Approving Settlement and Directing Notice to the Class. The final fairness
hearing was held on December 20, 2005.  The Court entered the Final Judgment
and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice on December 20, 2005.  During the
three months ended December 30, 2005, the Company made payments totaling
$3.8 million to cover the uninsured losses and professional fees relating to
this matter.  As a result of these payments and the final fairness hearing,
the Company as of December 30, 2005 has satisfied all obligations to the
plaintiffs related to this litigation matter.

The suit, styled "Hirsch v. PSS World Medical, et al,
3:98-cv-00502-TJC-TEM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, under Judge Timothy J. Corrigan.
Representing the Defendant/s are:

     (1) Peter Bassett, John A. Jordak, Jr., Alston & Bird, LLP,
         1201 W. Peachtree St., N.E., Atlanta, GA 30309-3424,
         Phone: 404/881-7000, E-mail: jjordak@alston.com

     (2) Robert Eric Bilik, McGuireWoods LLP, 50 N. Laura St.,
         Suite 3300, Jacksonville, FL 32202-3661, Phone:
         904/798-3200, E-mail: ebilik@mcguirewoods.com

     (3) Darlene DeMelo, Inez H. Friedman-Boyce, Gary M.
         Grossman, Jordan D. Hershman, Testa, Hurwitz &
         Thibeault, High Street Tower, 125 High Street, Boston,
         MA 02110, Phone: 617/248-7000, E-mail: demelod@tht.com
         or friedman@tht.com

     (4) Robert Bruce George, Liles, Gavin, Costantino & Murphy
         225 Water St., Suite 1500, Jacksonville, FL 32202,
         Phone: 904/634-1100, Fax: 904/634-1234, E-mail:
         rgeorge@lgcmlaw.com

Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

     (i) Lee G. Kellison, J Michael Lindell, Lindell & Kellison,
         P.A., 12276 San Jose Blvd., Suite 126, Jacksonville, FL
         32223-8630, Phone: 904/880-4000, fax: 904-880-4013, E-
         mail: lkellison@lindellkellison.com or
         mlindel@lindelkellison.com

    (ii) Seth R. Klein, Jeffrey S. Nobel, Andrew Schatz, Schatz
         & Nobel, P.C., One Corporate Center, 20 Church St.,
         Hartford, CT 06103, E-mail: sklein@snlaw.net

   (iii) Richard B. Margolies, Abbey & Gardy, LLP, 2l2 E. 39th
         St., New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212/889-3700, Fax:
         212/684-5191

    (iv) James Notis, Lee Squitieri, Abbey & Gardy, LLP
         2l2 E. 39th St., New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212/889-
         3700, E-mail: jnotis@abbeygardy.com


RC2 CORPORATION: Toy Maker Facing Warranty Lawsuit in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two parents have filed a class action against toymaker RC2 Corp., which they
claimed reneged on a lifetime warranty, ABC7 reports.

Tanya Powers of Deerfield and Lucy Brady of Clarendon Hills filed the suit
in Cook County Circuit on Feb. 14.  Ms. Brady estimates her family has spent
$5,000 on the toys, which can cost between $30 and $50.  RC2 products
include a line of Thomas the Tank Engine licensed wooden train and track
toys.

According to the report, the toys originally made by Learning Curve
International have been around since 1993.  In 2003, a company named RC2
brands acquired Learning Curve and that same year reduced the warranty to 90
days.

"The problem is that they're applying that new 90-day warranty to the train
products that were purchased before they changed the warranty," said Thomas
Zimmerman, attorney.


ROSNEFT OIL: Top Executive Named in Yukos ADR Holders Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosneft Oil Company President Sergei Bogdanchikov was served with a notice
naming him a co-defendant in a class action filed by U.S.-based ADR holders
of Russian oil firm Yukos Oil.

The notice was served to Mr. Bogdanchikov on Tuesday while he was in London
to give a keynote address at an energy conference, according to The Moscow
Times.  The suit accuses him of playing a key role in a conspiracy to
confiscate Yukos from its owners.

Mr. Bogdanchikov took over Yukos' main production asset, Yuganskneftegaz in
December 2004, just days after it was sold off by the government as payment
for more than $28 billion in back taxes.

His notice brings to three the number of top Russian executives to be served
with court papers.  Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin was served similar
document last month; Industry and Energy Minister Viktor Khristenko received
his in late October.

A report by The Lawyers says Washington DC firm Covington & Burling, led by
international litigation partner Thomas Johnson, is representing at least 12
holders of ADRs, who filed a civil suit to recoup millions in lost share
value.


SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA: Ga. Court Denies Plaintiffs' Motions in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. (NYSE: SFA), which faces a consolidated shareholder
class action in the Georgia state court styled, "In re Scientific-Atlanta,
Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 2005-CV-109014," reports that the
court denied plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery as well a motion for
injunctive relief.

On November 22, 2005 the Company was named a defendant in a purported
shareholder class action complaint, captioned, "Fadem v. Scientific-Atlanta,
Inc. et al.," filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County of the State of
Georgia.  On November 23, 2005, we were named a defendant in a second
purported shareholder class action complaint, captioned, "Barone v.
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. et al.," also filed in the Superior Court of Fulton
County of the State of Georgia.

The two actions have been consolidated under the case, styled, "In re
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 2005-CV-109014,"
and the court has permitted the plaintiffs in the Fadem action to dismiss
Mr. Fadem as a party-plaintiff and to add the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local
572 Pension Fund as a party-plaintiff.

The two complaints generally allege that the Company's directors and
officers breached fiduciary duties owed to its shareholders in connection
with the merger.  On or about December 14, 2005, the Company's litigation
counsel received a letter from plaintiffs' counsel in the Fadem action that
also purported to identify areas of concern regarding disclosures in the
Definitive Proxy Statement.

On January 12, 2006, a hearing was held to consider the plaintiffs' motion
for expedited discovery and the Company's motion for a protective order
staying all discovery.  The court denied the plaintiffs' motion and granted
the Company's motion for protective order. The court also stated that it
would deny a motion by plaintiffs for injunctive relief.


SPORT-HALEY INC: To Receive $173,000 Settlement from Ex-Auditors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sport-Haley, Inc. entered into an agreement to resolve all pending claims
between it and former auditors and certain of its former auditors' current
and former members on Feb. 13.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement and a sharing agreement
between Sport-Haley and its director and officer liability insurance
carrier, Sport-Haley will receive a net payment of approximately $173,000.

In March 2001, as the Company previously announced, Sport-Haley retained
legal counsel to possibly pursue claims against its former auditors in
connection with damages the Company claimed were suffered as a result of the
restatements of its financial statements for fiscal years 1999 and 1998 and
the corrections of material information for the quarterly periods of fiscal
years 2000, 1999 and 1998.  Also, Sport-Haley was advised that the former
auditors asserted claims against the Company, including allegations of
unpaid fees. Neither Sport-Haley nor the former auditors have filed any
legal action to assert any of these disputed claims.

During a mediation session in November 2005, Sport-Haley reached an
agreement in principle with the former auditors to settle all disputed
claims between the parties and their affiliates.  The parties have now
finalized a written settlement agreement, which provides payment to
Sport-Haley of $525,000.

In accordance with a sharing agreement between Sport-Haley and its carrier
for officer and director liability insurance, Sport-Haley will receive 33%
of these settlement proceeds, or approximately $173,000, and the insurance
carrier will receive the remainder to partially recover amounts the carrier
paid in connection with a previously settled class action securities lawsuit
and defense costs reimbursed to the Company relating to a civil action
lawsuit filed by the SEC.

Among other terms of the settlement, the parties have agreed to mutual
releases of all claims asserted against each other, and each party has
continued to deny the merits of those claims asserted against it by the
other party.

Sport-Haley, Inc. designs, purchases, contracts for the manufacture of and
markets women's and men's fashion golf apparel and outerwear under the SPORT
HALEY(TM) and Ben Hogan(R) labels.

                   Sport-Haley Case Background

The Securities and Exchange Commission filed civil fraud charges against
Kenneth R. LeCrone, former auditor of Sport-Haley, Inc., alleging that he
recklessly permitted the audit firm of Levine, Hughes, and Mithuen, Inc.
(LHM) to issue unqualified audit opinions on Sport-Haley's opinions on
Sport-Haley's financial statements even though he knew or was reckless in
not knowing the company's 1998 and 1999 financial statements materially
misstated work-in-process (WIP) inventory, improperly capitalize period
costs and materially misstated losses on the sale of headwear equipment
(Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2003).

The Commission's lawsuit, which was brought in federal court in the District
of Colorado, sought an anti-fraud injunctions and civil money penalties.
The Commission's Amended Complaint alleges that Sport-Haley materially
overstated WIP inventory in its financial statements during its 1998 and
1999 fiscal years.  Mr. LeCrone knew or was reckless in not knowing that LHM
failed to perform sufficient audit procedures on the company's 1998 and 1999
WIP inventory accounts (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2003).

Mr. LeCrone agreed with Sport-Haley management to a solution to adjust the
overstated WIP inventory account that minimized the impact on the company's
gross margin, kept the 1998 financial statements intact, and ratably
eliminated $1.2 million of overstated WIP inventory during the company's
2000 fiscal year.  Sport-Haley failed to disclose the WIP inventory
overstatement or the company's measures to adjust the financial statements
for the overstatement.

Mr. LeCrone also recklessly allowed Sport-Haley to improperly capitalize
period costs in financial statements filed with the Commission during its
1998 and 1999 fiscal years.  Mr. LeCrone knowingly or recklessly allowed the
company to materially misstate losses on the sale of headwear equipment in
Sport-Haley's 1999 year-end financial statements.

Mr. LeCrone knew or was reckless in not knowing that Sport-Haley's financial
statements were materially false or misleading, did not comply with
generally accepted accounting principles, and that the audits were not
performed in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.

The Commission's complaint sought an order against Mr. LeCrone enjoining him
from further violations of the antifraud and reporting provisions of the
federal securities laws and imposing civil money penalties.

The suit was styled "SEC v. Sport-Haley, Inc., Robert G. Tomlinson, Steve S.
Auger, and Kenneth R. LeCrone, Civil Action No. 03-N-1917 (CBS)" filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.


TATA AMERICA: Worker Files Suit over Federal, State Tax Refunds
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, on behalf of Gopi
Vedachalam, an employee of Tata America International Corporation, filed a
nationwide class action in U.S. District Court in San Francisco against:

     (1) Tata America International Corporation, and

     (2) its parent corporations Tata Consultancy Services,
         Ltd.,

     (3) and Tata Sons, Ltd. (collectively referred to as
         Tata).

Among other allegations, the suit charges that the Tata unjustly enriched
itself by requiring all of its non-U.S.-citizen employees to endorse and
sign over their federal and state tax refund checks to Tata.

Tata is one of India's largest business conglomerates, with revenues last
fiscal year in excess of $17 billion.   The proposed class consists of
thousands of current non-U.S. citizen employees of Tata working in the U.S.,
plus former Tata employees dating back to 2000.

"Tata's employees from India and other countries working legally in the
U.S., including thousands of technical support personnel and project
managers, work hard to see that the American corporations they support and
Tata are profitable," stated Lieff Cabraser partner Steven M. Tindall.
"These workers are entitled to any amount of taxes they overpaid federal and
state tax agencies."

Mr. Tindall noted that this case constitutes one of the first class actions
against a company engaged in "reverse outsourcing," bringing non-U.S.
citizens to the U.S. to work in U.S. corporations, for violation of labor
laws.

The complaint charges that most Tata employees in the U.S. are non-U.S.
citizens.  These employees are granted visas, which allow them to work and
live in the U.S.  Tata requires each employee to sign an agreement, which
states that the employee's gross amount of compensation will be includable
as earnings in the U.S. and reported to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.
The complaint alleges that these employees are not paid the amount promised
them in these agreements.

The complaint alleges further that, at least until July 2005, Tata required
its non-U.S.-citizen employees to sign power of attorney agreements
delegating an outside agency to calculate and submit each employee's tax
return to state and federal authorities.  Tata then required its
non-U.S.-citizen employees who received tax refunds from state and federal
tax authorities to endorse the tax refund checks and send them back to Tata.

Under California Labor Code Section 221, it is unlawful "for any
employer to collect or receive from an employee any part of wages
theretofore paid by said employer to said employee."  The complaint also
charges that Tata's conduct violates this Code section as well as the common
law forbidding unjust enrichment and conversion.

From 2000 to 2003, plaintiff Gopi Vedachalam worked in Hayward,
California, as a Tata project manager assigned to Target.  Since 2003, he
has worked as a Tata project manager for 21st Century Insurance in Woodland
Hills, California.  "I work hard for Tata and the companies I have been
assigned to.  I should receive the full wages Tata agreed to pay me, as
should all other Tata employees in America.  I did not hand over my tax
refund checks voluntarily. I tried to recover these wages through Tata's
internal procedures, but I was met with either silence or
refusal."

Mr. Vedachalam is asking the federal court to certify the case as a class
action and issue an injunction against Tata, preventing it from requiring
its employees to endorse their tax refund checks to the company to the
extent it is still doing so.  The complaint also seeks compensation and
damages for current and former employees who were not paid what they were
promised and who were deprived of their tax refunds.

For more details, contact Steven M. Tindall or Stephen Cassidy of Lieff
Cabraser, Phone: 415/956-1000 or 1-800-971- 8881, E-mail: stindall@lchb.com
or scassidy@lchb.com, Web site:
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/lawsuitagainsttata.htm.



                   New Securities Fraud Cases


LAFARGE NORTH: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Lawsuit in Md.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law firm Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class action in the
Circuit Court of Baltimore City, Maryland on behalf of owners of the common
stock of Lafarge North America Inc. (LAF).

The Complaint alleges that Lafarge S.A. owns securities representing
approximately 52% of Lafarge NA's outstanding equity securities and that
Lafarge S.A. intends to make an offer to purchase all outstanding shares of
common stock of Lafarge NA not owned by Lafarge S.A. or its affiliates, at a
price of $75.00 per share.

The Complaint alleges that the price of $75.00 per share offered to the
class members is unconscionable, unfair and grossly inadequate consideration
and has been the object of manipulation because, among other things:

     (1) the intrinsic value of the stock of Lafarge NA is
         materially in excess of $75.00 per share, giving due
         consideration to the possibilities of growth and
         profitability of Lafarge NA in light of its business,
         earnings and earnings power, present and future;

     (2) the $75.00 per share price is inadequate and offers an
         inadequate premium to the public stockholders of
         Lafarge NA; and

     (3) the $75.00 per share price is not the result of arm's
         length negotiations but was fixed arbitrarily by
         Lafarge S.A. to "cap" the market price of Lafarge NA
         stock, as part of a plan for defendants to obtain
         complete ownership of Lafarge NA assets and business at
         the lowest possible price.

For more information, contact Charles J. Piven, P.A., The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland
21202, E-mail: piven@pivenlaw.com; Phone: 410/332-0030.


LAFARGE NORTH: Wolf Popper Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP commenced class action in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City against:

     (1) Lafarge North America, Inc. (LAF),

     (2) Lafarge S.A. (12053.FR),

     (3) Marshall A. Cohen,

     (4) Bertrand P. Collomb,

     (5) Philippe P. Dauman,

     (6) Bernard L. Kasriel,

     (7) Bruno Lafont,

     (8) Claudine B. Malone,

     (9) Blythe J. McGarvie,

    (10) James M. Micali,

    (11) Robert W. Murdoch,

    (12) Bertin F. Nadeau,

    (13) John D. Redfern,

    (14) Philippe R. Rollier,

    (15) Michel Rose, and

    (16) Lawrence M. Tanenbaum

On February 6, 2006, Lafarge S.A. issued a press release announcing its
intention to launch a cash tender offer for all outstanding shares of common
stock of Lafarge North America not owned by Lafarge S.A. or its affiliates.
Lafarge S.A. stated that it would offer the shareholders of Lafarge North
America US$75 per share.  The Tender Offer represents a mere 16.7% premium
over the February 3, 2006, closing price of $64.25 per share.  Lafarge North
America's common shares traded as high as $70.47 per share as recently as
August 2, 2005.  The complaint alleges that the Tender Offer price of $75
per share does not adequately reflect the expected growth in the Company's
profitability, in light of its continued growth in sales and profits.

The action is brought on behalf of all public shareholders of Lafarge North
America who are threatened with the deprivation of the value of their shares
of Lafarge North America common stock.  The action seeks to enjoin Lafarge
S.A. from depriving Lafarge North America minority shareholders of their
equity interest in the Company for inadequate consideration and from
usurping the benefits of the expected growth in the Company's profitability
for the defendants' own benefit.  The action also seeks damages in the event
the transaction is consummated.

For more information, contact Emily DeMuro, Investor Relations of Wolf
Popper LLP, E-mail: edemuro@wolfpopper.com; E. Elizabeth Ferguson, Esq.,
E-mail: eferguson@wolfpopper.com.  Wolf Popper LLP, 845 Third Avenue, New
York, NY 10022; Phone: 212.759.4600; Phone: 877.370.7703: Fax:212.486.2093;
Fax: 877.370.7704: E-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com.


OMNICARE INC: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated securities class action against Omnicare, Inc.
(NYSE: OCR) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including
allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price.  The class
period is from Aug. 3, 2005 through Jan. 27, 2006.  Plaintiff seeks to
recover damages on behalf of the Class.

For more information, contact William B. Federman of Federman & Sherwood
(http://www.federmanlaw.com),120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK  
73102, Phone: (405) 235-1560; Fax: (405) 239-2112; E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com.


REPSOL YPF: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law firm Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP commenced class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
securities purchasers of Repsol YPF, S.A. (REP) between July 28, 2005 and
January 27, 2006 inclusive.

The complaint charges Repsol and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Repsol engages in the
exploration, development, and production of crude oil and natural gas
primarily in Spain and Argentina.

The complaint alleges that defendants' issued a series of false and
misleading statements to the market artificially inflating the Company's
stock.  More specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose these
materially adverse facts to the market:

     (1) that the Company's proven reserves were materially
         overstated;

     (2) that changes in Bolivia's legal framework, were
         negatively effecting the Company's Bolivian gas
         production operation;

     (3) that the Company was experiencing production problems
         in Argentina;

     (4) that the Company had to take an asset impairment charge
         of EUR50 million; and

     (5) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
         positive statements about its reserves and business
         growth lacked in all reasonable basis when made.

On January 26, 2006, the Company announced that it was reducing its proven
oil and gas reserves estimates by 25%.  On this news, shares of Repsol ADRs
fell $2.12 per share, or 7%, on January 26, 2006, to close at $27.99 per
share.  The Company's stock continued to decline on January 27, 2006, when
it fell $1.34 per share, or 4.79%, to close at $26.65 per share.  Plaintiff
seeks to recover damages.

For more information, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard A. Maniskas,
Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway (http://www.sbclasslaw.com),Phone:  
1-888-299-7706 (toll free), 1-610-667-7706: E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.


ROYAL GROUP: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a
class consisting of:

     (1) all U.S. citizens and entities that purchased
         or otherwise acquired the common stock of Royal Group
         Technologies Limited (NYSE: RYG) (TSE:RYG.TO) on the
         New York Stock Exchange or the Toronto Stock Exchange
         (TSE); and

     (2) all foreign persons and entities that purchased or
         otherwise acquired the common stock of Royal Group on
         the NYSE during the period between February 24, 2000
         and October 18, 2004, inclusive.

Filing for lead plaintiff is no later than April 3, 2006.  Due to a clerical
error, an earlier press release had mistakenly identified the deadline for
filing this motion as March 28, 2006.

The complaint charges Royal Group and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Royal Group is a
vertically integrated manufacturer of polymer-based home improvement,
consumer and construction products.  Royal Group's operations are located
primarily in Canada and the U.S., with international locations in Mexico,
South America, Europe and Asia.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants caused Royal
Group's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance
of false and misleading financial statements.  The statements were
materially false and misleading because defendants knew, but failed to
disclose, that Company officers and directors systematically treated the
Company like their personal piggy bank -- routinely causing the Company to
engage in financial transactions either with themselves or with companies
under their control.

As detailed in the Complaint, the course of self-dealing conduct that
transpired at Royal Group was pervasive and substantial.  Royal Group's
executives ran the Company as their personal fiefdom and were not held
accountable by Royal Group's Board of Directors for the wrongful conduct.

On October 15, 2004, the Company announced that Company officers and
directors were the subject of a Royal Canadian Mountain Police (RCMP)
criminal investigation in connection with their engaging in self-dealing
transactions with Royal Group.  Then, on October 18, 2004 (after the close
of trading), the Company announced that the Company itself was being
criminally investigated by the RCMP in connection with the self-dealing
transactions.

As a result of the revelations of the substantial self-dealing transactions
by Defendants, the price of Royal Group's stock dropped precipitously,
falling from $8.97 per share on October 13, 2004 to $7.15 per share on
October 19, 2004, a decline of $1.82 per share, or more than 20%.  Plaintiff
seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and all members of the Class.

To see the complaint: http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/royalgroup/

Plaintiff's counsel contact: Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of
Lerach Coughlin , Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058; E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com.



                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *