CAR_Public/060220.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, February 20, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 36

                            Headlines

ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Securities Suit Settlement Trial Set March 6
ATLANTIC LIBERTY: Shareholder Launches Fiduciary Lawsuit in Del.
AVAYA INC: Files Dismissal Motion V. ERISA Litigation in N.J.
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Jury Orders $1.86M Payment to Minot Residents
CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Passengers File Consumer Fraud Suit in FL

CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Await Ruling in Overtime Appeal
CENTRAL LOCATING: Wash. District Court Remands Rodgers Wage Case
CHORDIANT SOFTWARE: IPO Pact Final Approval Hearing Set April
COMDISCO INC: Ill. Judge Dismisses Shared Investment Plan Suit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit

CRACKER BARREL: Illinois Discrimination Suit to Get Day in Court
CR COURIER: Ordered to Pay Route Drivers $3.1M in Overtime Suit
ENRON CORPORATION: Workers to Receive $134M Retirement Benefits
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Asks Md. Court to Dismiss Mutual Funds Suits
GOLD KIST: Employee Files FLSA Suit in Ala., Seeks Compensation

INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Faces Shareholder Derivative Suit in Tex.
INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Tex. Court Sacks Consolidated Stock Suit
INTERMIX MEDIA: Investors File Consolidated Amended Calif. Suit
JEFFERSON-PILOT: Fourth Circuit Reaffirms S.C. Suit's Dismissal
KREHA CORPORATION: Antitrust Suit Settlement Trial Set March 21

MOBILE-PHONE COMPANIES: Judge Sends Health Suits to State Courts
MOBILITY ELECTRONICS: Settles Portsmith Litigation for US$3M
MOTOROLA INC: Ill. Court Certifies Class in Securities Lawsuit
MYLAN LABORATORIES: Shareholders Voluntarily Dismiss Pa. Lawsuit
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set March 20, 2006

NETGEAR INC: Consumer Suit Settlement Hearing Set March 21, 2006
NETOPIA INC.: Faces Pending Calif. Shareholder Derivative Suits
NETOPIA INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in CA
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: May Trial on Planned $400M Settlement Set
RALPH LAUREN: Settlement Reached in Calif. Dress Policy Lawsuit

SILICON LABORATORIES: Revised Settlement Submitted to NY Court
SIMPLICITY INC.: Steps up Recall of Cribs After Death Report
TRIBUNE CO.: Court Names Lead Plaintiff in Securities Lawsuit
UNION PACIFIC: Plans to Appeal Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: Securities Litigation Defective, Research Shows

UNITED STATES: FDA Alerts Public on Side Effects of Trasylol
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Elevator Manufacturers Antitrust Suit
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Judge Certifies Ad Sales Reps' Lawsuit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Milberg Weiss Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
SERACARE LIFE: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set February 21
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Stull, Brody Files GAT Fraud Suit in N.Y.    


                          *********

ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Securities Suit Settlement Trial Set March 6
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts will
hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $5.6 million settlement
in the matter, "In re Aspen Technology, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-12375-JLT."  The case was brought on
behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common
stock of Aspen Technology, Inc. between October 29, 1999 and
March 15, 2005.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Joseph L. Tauro in
the John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse, 1 Courthouse
Way, Boston, Massachusetts 02210, at 10:00 a.m., on March 6,
2006.

Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is on April 6, 2006.
Any objections to the settlement must be filed by February 21,
2006.  

For more details, Samuel H. Rudman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 58 South Service Road, Suite 200,
Melville, New York 11747, (Suffolk Co.), Phone: Telephone:
631-367-7100 or 877-992-2555, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail:
SRudman@lerachlaw.com and Aspen Technology Securities
Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co., LLC, P.O.
Box 8040, San Rafael, CA 94912-8040, Phone: 1-800-447-7657, Web
site: http://www.gilardi.com.


ATLANTIC LIBERTY: Shareholder Launches Fiduciary Lawsuit in Del.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Liberty Financial Corp., the Company's directors, Chief
Financial Officer and Flushing were named as defendants in a
lawsuit styled, "Lowinger v. Atlantic Liberty Financial Corp.,
et al.," which was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware in and for New Castle County.

The proposed class action lawsuit, which was filed on December
27, 2005, alleges that Atlantic Liberty Financial Corp. and its
board of directors and certain executive officers breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company and its shareholders by entering
into a merger agreement with Flushing for a price per share
which was below the current trading price, while agreeing to
change of control payments to the Company's directors and
certain executive officers, in excess of $3.0 million.  It also
alleges that Flushing rendered knowing assistance to the
Company's directors and certain executive officers in their
breach of fiduciary duties.  The plaintiff is requesting that:

     (1) the court declare the complaint to be a proper class
         action,

     (2) the termination fee entered into as part of the merger
         agreement be voided,

     (3) unspecified compensation or recessionary damages be
         awarded,

     (4) a constructive trust be established for the benefit of
         the class which will contain all special payments to
         the individual defendants and

     (5) plaintiffs receive costs and disbursements.


AVAYA INC: Files Dismissal Motion V. ERISA Litigation in N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Avaya Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey to dismiss an amended class action
lawsuit, captioned, "Edgar v. Avaya, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:05-cv-03598-SRC-JJH," which was filed against the Company and
certain of its officers, employees and members of the Board of
Directors.

On July 2005, a purported class action was filed against the
Company that alleges violations of certain laws under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).  On
October 17, 2005, an amended purported class action was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers, employees and
members of the Board. Like the initial complaint, the amended
complain purports to be filed on behalf of all participants and
beneficiaries of the Avaya Inc. Savings Plan, the Avaya Inc.
Savings Plan for Salaried Employees and the Avaya Inc. Savings
Plan for the Variable Workforce (collectively, the "Plans"),
during the period from October 5, 2004 through July 20, 2005.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the named
defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to participants
and beneficiaries of the Plans and failed to act in the
interests of the Plans' participants and beneficiaries in
offering Avaya common stock as an investment option, purchasing
Avaya common stock for the Plans and communicating information
to the Plans' participants and beneficiaries.  No class has been
certified in the action.  The complaint seeks a monetary payment
to the plans to make them whole for the alleged breaches, costs
and attorneys' fees.  Pursuant to a scheduling order entered by
the District Court, defendants filed their motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in December 2005.

The suit is styled, "Edgar v. Avaya, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:05-cv-03598-SRC-JJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler with
referral to Judge John J. Hughes.  Representing the Plaintiff/s
is Mark C. Rifkin of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP,
270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 545-4600,
E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com.  Representing the Defendant/s is
Joseph A. Martin of Archer & Greiner, PC, One Centennial Square,
Haddonfield, NJ 08033, Phone: (856) 795-2121, E-mail:
jmartin@archerlaw.com.


CANADIAN PACIFIC: Jury Orders $1.86M Payment to Minot Residents
---------------------------------------------------------------
A jury hearing the Canadian Pacific Railway derailment lawsuit
in Minneapolis awarded $1.86 million in compensation to four
Minot people seeking damages from the accident, according to
Minot Daily News.

Mike Miller of the Solberg Law Firm in Fargo, who represented
Jeanette Klier and Jodi Schulz, two of the four people seeking
damages in the suit, said the total of the verdicts was close to
what they had asked for from the railroad.  The plaintiffs
sought about $2.65 million in damages, according to the report.  
The railroad has contended that total damages for the four
should be about $125,000.

The lawsuits stemmed from the January derailment and massive
release of anhydrous ammonia from five ruptured tank cars in
Minot, South Dakota.  Thirty-one cars on the 112-car Canadian
Pacific Railway train derailed on the west edge of Minot and
five broke open early on the morning of January 18, 2002.  The
National Transportation Safety Board said the wreck was caused
by inadequate track maintenance and inspections, a conclusion
disputed by Canadian Pacific, (Class Action Reporter, July 11,
2005).

Since the derailment, about 450 lawsuits in Minnesota state
court and North Dakota are pending against the Company.  The
suits filed in Minneapolis were grouped together to help them
move through the courts.  Just recently six cases were settled
out of court.  The settlements included a wrongful death lawsuit
brought by the widow of John Grabinger, 38, who died while
trying to escape the anhydrous ammonia cloud released by the
train wreck.  Terms of those settlements have not been released.  

Twelve more cases scheduled to begin on May 1.  Further, Minot
attorney Mark Larson said he has one case coming up in the next
round of trials in Minneapolis.  

Mr. Miller represents six clients in the next batch of trials
scheduled for May in Minneapolis.  The report said Solberg Law
is also planning a class action.  About 1,000 people are
involved in that lawsuit.

The trial is being held in Minneapolis because it is the U.S.
headquarters of Canadian Pacific, which is based in Calgary,
Alberta.  The Company admitted liability in the current round of
lawsuits,  (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 10, 2006).  Tim Thornton
is the railroad's lead attorney.


CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Passengers File Consumer Fraud Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida dismissed a class action lawsuit filed against Carnival
Corporation that alleges a breach of implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing and a violation of The Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Filed in May 2005, the suit relates to profits made by Carnival
Cruise Lines on shore excursions provided by third party shore
excursion operators.  The suit seeks certification as a class
action on behalf of all Carnival Cruise Line passengers from May
5, 2001 to the present who have taken shore excursions, and
seeks payment of damages and injunctive relief.  On November 21,
2005, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida issued an order granting Carnival's motion to dismiss
the class action complaint.


CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Await Ruling in Overtime Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a dismissed lawsuit filed against Carnival
Corporation on behalf of some current and former crewmembers are
still awaiting a ruling on their appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.  The case alleged
that Carnival Cruise Lines failed to pay the plaintiffs'
overtime and minimum wages

The suit, which was originally filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami,
seeks as much as millions of dollars in back pay, penalty wages
and interest for current and former crewmembers. The suit
alleges that the crewmembers typically worked 12- and 14-hour
days, but were not paid for work in excess of 10 hours a day or
70 hours per week.  The six crew members from Nicaragua,
Romania, Bulgaria and India work onboard four Carnival Cruise
Lines ships as waiters, galley stewards and cabin attendants, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (April 11,2005) reports.  

On August 5, 2005, the Court dismissed the lawsuit. The
plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of
Appeals on August 18, 2005, which is currently pending, but have
voluntarily dismissed their minimum wage claim.


CENTRAL LOCATING: Wash. District Court Remands Rodgers Wage Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington rejected an argument of the defendant in the lawsuit
against Central Locating Service, Ltd. that the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA) of 2005 shifts the burden of proof in a
contested remand motion to the party resisting federal
jurisdiction, according to McGlinchey Stafford of
http://www.cafalawblog.com/.  

The case, styled, "Rodgers v. Central Locating Service, Ltd.,
No. 05-1911, 2006 WL 240683," constituted the third round of a
wage and hour dispute between Central Locating Service ("CLS")
and its employees concerning the company's overtime practices.   
After two class actions had been filed in federal court in
Florida and Washington, allegedly aggrieved employees filed this
case in Washington state court, seeking unpaid wages and
overtime compensation under the Washington Minimum Wage Act,
purposely omitting any claims under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act.  The Company removed the case to the Western
District of Washington asserting federal jurisdiction under
CAFA, and arguing that the amount in controversy exceeded $5
million.

However, before reaching the issue of amount in controversy,
U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour addressed CLS's argument
that CAFA altered the "traditional" presumptions and burdens
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332.  The Company argued that CAFA
"reversed the presumption against removal jurisdiction by
requiring plaintiffs opposing removal to disprove the existence
of jurisdictional prerequisites."  Judge Coughenour rejected the
Company's assertion that this modification of the traditional
burden was evident from the textual amendments, and could find
no "additions, admissions, or alterations demonstrating any
Congressional intent to alter any of the long-standing
presumptions or burdens applicable to remand motions."  
Moreover, the judge was hesitant, and ultimately declined, to
attempt to infer any intent from Congress's silence on the
issue.

In an attempt to persuade the court to look to CAFA's
legislative history, which strongly supported the Company's
position, it claimed that Congress's silence on the issue
amounted to an ambiguity on the face of the statute.  However,
the court wasn't ready to make that leap, and instead,
affirmatively found that Congress's failure to address the
burden of proof issue in the text of the statute did not amount
to an ambiguity sufficient to warrant attempting to discern
guidance from the legislative history.  Judge Coughenour
concluded that CAFA's textual silence on this issue simply meant
that Congress "left intact the well-founded presumption against
removal jurisdiction."

Judge Coughenour then addressed whether CAFA's requisite $5
million amount in controversy was satisfied.  In that regard,
the court noted that both parties conceded there was already
$4.1 million in damages on the table.  The dispute centered
around whether the employees' request for injunctive relief
would add at least another $876,000 to the jurisdictional
amount.  The Company contended that the request for injunctive
relief applied to the plaintiffs' cause of action for unpaid
overtime pay and, as such, could potentially require CLS to
disgorge the $876,000.  However, the court, held that the
Company failed to satisfy its burden of showing that the cost of
compliance with an injunction would exceed $876,000, and that
CLS has thus failed to demonstrate that CAFA's $5 million amount
in controversy requirement was fulfilled.  Judge Coughenour
accordingly granted the plaintiffs' motion and remanded the case
back to Washington state court.

The suit is styled, "Rodgers et al v. Central Locating Service,
LTD., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-01911-JCC," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington under
Judge John C. Coughenour.  Representing the Plaintiff/s are,
Steven Bert Frank and Michael C. Subit of Frank Freed Subit &
Thomas, 705 2nd Ave., Ste. 1200, Seattle, WA 98104-1729, Phone:
206-682-6711, Fax: 682-0401, E-mail: sfrank@frankfreed.com and
msubit@frankfreed.com.  

Representing the Defendant/s are, Angelique Groza Lyons of
Constangy Brooks & Smith (FL), 100 North Tampa St., STE. 3350,
Tampa, FL 33602, US, Phone: 813-223-7166, E-mail:
alyons@constangy.com; and Daniel L. Thieme of Littler Mendelson,
PC, 701 Fifth Ave., STE. 6500, Seattle, WA 98104, Phone:
206-623-3300, Fax: 447-6965, E-mail: dthieme@littler.com.

For more details, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?593
(Rodgers Decision).


CHORDIANT SOFTWARE: IPO Pact Final Approval Hearing Set April
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York scheduled a Final Settlement Fairness Hearing for April
24, 2006 on the settlement of class actions, styled, "In re
Chordiant Software, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-6222," which was filed against
Chordiant Software, Inc., and certain of its officers and
directors.

In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the
Company, certain of its officers and directors and the
underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO) violated
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegations
that the Company's registration statement and prospectus failed
to disclose material facts regarding the compensation to be
received by, and the stock allocation practices of, the IPO
underwriters.  The complaint also contains a claim for violation
of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on
allegations that this omission constituted deceiving investors.  
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

Similar complaints were filed in the same court against hundreds
of other public companies that conducted IPOs of their common
stock in the late 1990s.  In June 2004, the Company and almost
all of the other issuers entered into a formal settlement
agreement with the plaintiffs.  On February 15, 2005, the Court
issued a decision certifying a class action for settlement
purposes, and granting preliminary approval of the settlement
subject to modification of certain bar orders contemplated by
the settlement.  In addition, the settlement is still subject to
statutory notice requirements as well as final judicial
approval.

The Court has set a Final Settlement Fairness Hearing on the
settlement for April 24, 2006.  In addition, the settlement is
still subject to statutory notice requirements as well as final
judicial approval.  If this settlement is not finalized as
proposed, then the action may divert the efforts and attention
of our management and, if determined adversely to us, could have
a material impact on our business, results of operations,
financial condition or cash flows.

The suit is styled "In re Chordiant Software, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-6222,"
filed in relation to "In Re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in
this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


COMDISCO INC: Ill. Judge Dismisses Shared Investment Plan Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit against former members of Comdisco,
Inc.'s board of directors, captioned, "Coons v. Pontikes, et
al., Case No. C 04 5518 CRB," was recently dismissed.  The suit
was originally filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, but was later transferred to an
Illinois federal court.

David Coons filed the suit on December 30, 2004, in which he
seeks class action status on behalf of himself and certain other
former Company employees who participated in the Company's
Shared Investment Plan (SIP).  On March 18, 2005, Mr. Coons
filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint in the same
proceedings. In an order entered on July 25, 2005, the court
transferred the purported class action from California federal
court to the Northern District of Illinois.  The case is now
styled, "Coons v. Pontikes et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04386,"
under Judge Wayne R. Andersen.

The case, which was filed by certain SIP Participants, against
certain former directors of the Company and JP Morgan Chase,
seeks class action status. On November 17, 2005, Judge Andersen,
to whom the case was assigned, held a hearing at which he
allowed the plaintiff until December 30, 2005 to file a Second
Amended Complaint and set a further status hearing for January
12, 2006.  On December 28, 2005, on a motion filed by the
plaintiff's counsel, Judge Andersen dismissed the case in its
entirety.  

The suit is styled, "Coons v. Pontikes et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-
04386," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, under Judge Wayne R. Andersen.
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Champ W. Davis, Jr., Gini S.
Marziani and Barbara J. Mulvanny of Davis McGrath, LLC, 125
South Wacker Drive, Suite 1700, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone:
(312) 332-3033, E-mail: cdavis@davismcgrath.com,
gsmarziani@davismcgrath.com and bmulvanny@davismcgrath.com; and
Erick Charles Howard, Jahan P. Raissi and Arthur J. Shartsis of
Shartsis Fries, LLP, One Maritime Plaza, 18th Floor, San
Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 421-6500, Fax: (415) 421-2922.
Representing the Defendant/s are:

     (1) David E. Bennett of Vedder, Price Kaufman & Kammholz,
         P.C., 222 North LaSalle St., Suite 2600, Chicago, IL,
         60601, US, Phone: (312) 609-7714, Fax: (312) 609-5005,
         E-mail: dbennett@vedderprice.com;

     (2) Nathan P. Eimer of Eimer Stahl Klevorn & Solberg, LLP,
         224 South Michigan Ave., Suite 1100, Chicago, IL 60604,
         Phone: (312) 660-7600, E-mail: neimer@eimerstahl.com;
         and

     (3) Daniel Arlen Zazove of Perkins Coie, LLP, 131 South
         Dearborn, Suite 1700, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312)
         324-8605, E-mail: dzazove@perkinscoie.com.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California dismissed without prejudice a second consolidated
amended securities class action filed against Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. and certain of its current and former executive
officers, David Moore, Dennis Beal, Paul St. Pierre and Anthony
Digiovanni.

Since July 8, 2004, various putative class action lawsuits were
filed by certain alleged purchasers of the Company's common
stock on behalf of all persons who acquired shares of the
Company's common stock during a specified class period from
August 27, 2003 through either June 23, 2004 or July 30, 2004,
depending on the complaint.

The complaints allege that, in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the SEC, the defendants made certain material
misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain material facts
about the condition of the Company's business and prospects
during the putative class period, causing the respective
plaintiffs to purchase the Company's common stock at
artificially inflated prices.  The plaintiffs further claim that
Messrs. Moore, Beal, St. Pierre and Digiovanni are liable under
Section 20(a) of the Act.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified
amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as other
relief.

On November 5, 2004, a lead plaintiff was chosen and these cases
are now consolidated into one action.  A first consolidated
amended complaint was filed in February 2005.  The consolidated
case is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired shares of the Company's common stock during a specified
class period from August 27, 2003 through July 30, 2004.  On
September 6, 2005, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss, without prejudice.  On October 3, 2005, the lead
plaintiff filed a second consolidated amended complaint.

On January 23, 2006, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss with respect to the plaintiff's second consolidated
amended complaint, without prejudice.  The Company intends to
continue defending itself and its current and former officers in
this matter.

The suit is styled, "Conway Investment Club v. Corinthian
Colleges Inc., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-05025-R-CW," filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, under Judge Manuel L. Real.  The plaintiff firms in
the litigation are:

     (1) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (Main office, Philadelphia),
         3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone: 215.963.0600, Fax:
         215.963.0838, E-mail: info@barrack.com

     (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (Los
         Angeles), 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles,
         CA, 90071, Phone: 213.617.9007, Fax: 213.617.9185, E-
         mail: info@lerachlaw.com

     (3) Lim, Ruger & Kim, LLP, 1055 West Seventh Street, Suite
         2800, Los Angeles, CA, 90017, Phone: 213-955-9500, Fax:
         213-955-9511, E-mail: info@lrklawyers.com

     (4) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (Los Angeles), 355
         South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA, 90071,
         Phone: 213.617.9007, Fax: 213.617.9185, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com

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

     (6) 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


CRACKER BARREL: Illinois Discrimination Suit to Get Day in Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal magistrate in Illinois has ruled on a series of
motions in the Cracker Barrel Old Country Store lawsuit that
cleared the way for a trial at a still to be specified date in
the future, according to The Nashville City Paper.

John Hendrickson, attorney for the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) Chicago region said this case
failed to settle unlike other cases filed against the company.  
In September 2004, CBRL Group agreed to pay $8.7 million to
settle several racial and employment discrimination suits
involving 10,000 plaintiffs with the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Illinois case was bought in August 2004 by the EEOC on
behalf of 10 employees who worked at three Cracker Barrel
restaurants in Bloomington, Mattoon and Matteson, Illinois.  
According to the report, the complaint alleges that as early as
1998, the plaintiffs were subjected to pornographic photographs
and cartoons, obscene jokes, sexual propositions, groping and
sexual assaults.

Mr. Hendrickson said the suit has grown into a class action that
now involves about 35 women and five men.  The EEOC is seeking a
maximum of $12 million in damages on behalf of the plaintiffs,
as well as an injunction prohibiting discriminatory practices.

Cracker Barrel on the Net: http://www.crackerbarrel.com.


CR COURIER: Ordered to Pay Route Drivers $3.1M in Overtime Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Kenneth Mark Burr ordered
Consolidated Routing, also known as CR Courier Services Inc., to
pay $3,093,000 plus attorneys fees and costs to a class of
approximately 80 route courier drivers who were misclassified as
independent contractors by the employers management from 2001 to
date to compensate for overtime.

"It's time these people got paid," said Oakland attorney Randall
Crane, who tried the case for the drivers with Arthur Lazear
from the Oakland law firm of Hoffman & Lazear.  Mr. Crane said
he was pleased with the result and would seek to enforce the
judgment immediately against the company and its principal
shareholders.  The drivers were classified as independent
contractors who would pick up and deliver insurance company
forms and eyeglasses to and from doctor offices, often driving
150 miles a day with substantial overtime.

"These were low-paid workers dressed up as so-called independent
contractors, who, when you figure out the costs of doing the
job, worked for almost nothing," said Mr. Crane.  Also appearing
in the case for the employees was Reno attorney Mark R. Thierman
and Oakland attorney H. Tim Hoffman.  

The defendant was represented by Los Angeles attorney David
Palace.  The case is reported as Sharon E. Piert v. Consolidated
Routing Inc, et. al, Alameda Superior Court case no. C-83-5688.

For more information, contact Reno Mark Thierman of Thierman Law
Firm (http://www.laborlawyer.net),Phone: 775-287-4484; Fax:  
775-703-5027 E-mail: laborlawyer@pacbell.net.


ENRON CORPORATION: Workers to Receive $134M Retirement Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao said that Enron Corp.
workers and retirees will receive $133.95 million in cash to be
distributed through the company's retirement plans.  

The major portion of the cash total, $124.6 million, represents
proceeds of the sale of the Enron Corp. bankruptcy claim to Bear
Stearns Investment Products Inc., New York, N.Y.; the remaining
$9.33 million was paid separately by Enron earlier this month as
a distribution for part of the bankruptcy claim.

"The collapse of Enron was devastating to thousands of employees
and retirees whose long-term savings and retirement security
were tied up in the company," Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao
said.  "This agreement secures $134 million in cash which will
be distributed to workers and retirees through their retirement
plans.  The department will not rest until we have done
everything we can to help employees and retirees recover what
they are owed."

                         Case Background

On June 26, 2003, the department sued Enron, its board of
directors, Kenneth L. Lay, Jeffrey K. Skilling, the Enron
officers and the plans' administrative committees for
mismanagement of the plans, in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.  The defendants allegedly failed
to consider the prudence of Enron stock as an appropriate
investment for the retirement plans and did nothing to protect
the workers and retirees from extensive losses.  The suit also
alleged that the board of directors failed to appoint and
monitor a trustee to oversee the employee stock ownership plan.  
Lay also allegedly misrepresented Enron's financial condition to
employees and plan officials and encouraged them to buy the
stock.

The bankruptcy claim is the result of a September 2005
settlement between Enron, the department, the retirement plans
and private plaintiffs in the bankruptcy case.  The sale of the
bankruptcy claim increases the cash available for distribution
to participants in Enron's retirement plans.  The Labor
Department previously announced an $86.85 million settlement
with Enron officers and fiduciaries who served on the plans'
administrative committee.  Appeals are still pending in
connection with that settlement.  Subject to resolution of the
appeals, the sale of the bankruptcy claim increases the total
amount paid in this case for the Enron retirement plans to more
than $220.8 million, subject to attorneys' fees and expenses.  
It also converts an illiquid claim in the bankruptcy court to
cash assets, which can readily be distributed to Enron plan
participants.

The agreement resolves the Labor Department's lawsuit and a
private class action suit brought on behalf of the plans'
participants.  The agreement does not resolve the department's
claims against Mr. Lay and Mr. Skilling.

The final agreement was approved by the Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The Labor Department's lawsuit
resulted from a comprehensive investigation conducted by the
Dallas regional office of the department's Employee Benefits
Security Administration and the Office of the Solicitor.


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Asks Md. Court to Dismiss Mutual Funds Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Resources, Inc. and certain of the Franklin Templeton
mutual funds (Funds), current and former officers, employees,
and directors asked the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland to dismiss the consolidated market
timing/late trading class action filed against them.

The defendants have been named in multiple lawsuits in different
federal courts in Nevada, California, Illinois, New York, and
Florida, alleging violations of various federal securities and
state laws and seeking, among other relief, monetary damages,
restitution, removal of Fund trustees, directors, advisers,
administrators, and distributors, rescission of management
contracts and 12b-1 plans, and/or attorneys' fees and costs.

Specifically, the lawsuits claim breach of duty with respect to
alleged arrangements to permit market timing and/or late trading
activity, or breach of duty with respect to the valuation of the
portfolio securities of certain Templeton Funds managed by the
Company's subsidiaries, allegedly resulting in market timing
activity.  The majority of these lawsuits duplicate, in whole or
in part, the allegations asserted in the Administrative
Complaint and the SEC's findings regarding market timing in the
SEC Order.  The lawsuits are styled as class actions, or
derivative actions on behalf of either the named Funds or the
Company.

To date, more than 400 similar lawsuits against at least 19
different mutual fund companies have been filed in federal
district courts throughout the country.  Because these cases
involve common questions of fact, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) ordered the creation of a
multidistrict litigation in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland, entitled "In re Mutual Funds
Investment Litigation" (the "MDL").  The Judicial Panel then
transferred similar cases from different districts to the MDL
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

As of February 9, 2006, the following federal market timing
lawsuits are pending against the Company (and in some instances,
name certain officers, directors and/or Funds) and have been
transferred to the MDL:

     (1) Kenerley v. Templeton Funds, Inc., et al., Case No.  
         03-770 GPM, filed on November 19, 2003 in the United
         States District Court for the Southern District of
         Illinois;

     (2) Cullen v. Templeton Growth Fund, Inc., et al., Case No.
         03-859 MJR, filed on December 16, 2003 in the United
         States District Court for the Southern District of
         Illinois and transferred to the United States District
         Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 29,
         2004;  

     (3) Jaffe v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case
         No. CV-S-04-0146-PMP-RJJ, filed on February 6, 2004 in
         the United States District Court for the District of
         Nevada;  

     (4) Lum v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C 04
         0583 JSW, filed on February 11, 2004 in the United
         States District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

     (5) Fischbein v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al.,
         Case No. C 04 0584 JSW, filed on February 11, 2004 in
         the United States District Court for the Northern
         District of California;  

     (6) Beer v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case No.
         8:04-CV-249-T-26 MAP, filed on February 11, 2004 in the
         United States District Court for the Middle District of
         Florida;  

     (7) Bennett v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.
         CV-S-04-0154-HDM-RJJ, filed on February 12, 2004 in the
         United States District Court for the District of
         Nevada;  

     (8) Dukes v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case
         No. C 04 0598 MJJ, filed on February 12, 2004, in the
         United States District Court for the Northern District
         of California;

     (9) McAlvey v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C
         04 0628 PJH, filed on February 13, 2004 in the United
         States District Court for the Northern District of
         California;  

    (10) Alexander v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al.,
         Case No. C 04 0639 SC, filed on February 17, 2004 in
         the United States District Court for the Northern
         District of California;  

    (11) Hugh Sharkey IRA/RO v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et
         al., Case No. 04 CV 1330, filed on February 18, 2004 in
         the United States District Court for the Southern
         District of New York;

    (12) D'Alliessi, et al. v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et
         al., Case No. C 04 0865 SC, filed on March 3, 2004 in
         the United States District Court for the Northern
         District of California;  

    (13) Marcus v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C
         04 0901 JL, filed on March 5, 2004 in the United States
         District Court for the Northern District of California;  

    (14) Banner v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C
         04 0902 JL, filed on March 5, 2004 in the United States
         District Court for the Northern District of California;  

    (15) Denenberg v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. C 04 0984 EMC, filed on March 10, 2004 in the
         United States District Court for the Northern District
         of California;  

    (16) Hertz v. Burns, et al., Case No. 04 CV 02489, filed on
         March 30, 2004 in the United States District Court for
         the Southern District of New York

Plaintiffs in the MDL filed consolidated amended complaints on
September 29, 2004. On February 25, 2005, defendants filed
motions to dismiss, which are currently under submission with
the court.

The litigation is styled, "In re Mutual Funds Investment
Litigation, Case No. 1:04-md-15862-AMD," filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland, under Judge
Andre M. Davis.  Representing the Company is Meredith Nelson
Landy of O'Melveny and Myers LLP, 2765 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park,
CA 94025, Phone: 16504732671, Fax: 16504732601, E-mail:
mlandy@omm.com.  Representing the plaintiffs is H. Adam Prussin
of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman and Gross LLP, 100 Park Ave
26th Fl, New York, NY 10017-5516, Phone: 1-212-661-1100, Fax: 1-
212-661-8665, E-mail: haprussin@pomlaw.com.


GOLD KIST: Employee Files FLSA Suit in Ala., Seeks Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
An employee of Gold Kist Inc. filed the a lawsuit captioned
"Nicholas Leech v. Gold Kist Inc.," in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama claiming
that the Company violated certain provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, or FLSA.

Filed on November 3, 2005, the suit alleges that we failed to
pay the Plaintiff for time he has spent:
  
       (1) waiting in line before each shift to receive certain
           clothing and equipment that he wears while working,
     
       (2) putting on that clothing and equipment, and

       (3) taking off the clothing and equipment, and turning it
           back in, after each shift ends.

The plaintiff is seeking an unspecified amount of unpaid
overtime wages allegedly earned, plus liquidated damages in the
same amount, plus attorneys' fees, costs and interest.  The
plaintiff has filed the lawsuit as an opt-in collective action
under the FLSA, claiming that an unspecified number of allegedly
"similarly situated" employees should be permitted to join
together with him to pursue this lawsuit as a collective action
against the Company.  The proposed class would consist of any
and all persons employed as hourly employees by us at any time
during the three years preceding the filing of the plaintiff's
complaint.  

The suit is styled, "Leech v. Gold Kist Inc., Case No. 4:05-cv-
02280-CLS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama under Judge C. Lynwood Smith, Jr.  
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, David R. Arendall, Stephanie
S. Woodard and Allen Durham Arnold of Arendall & Associates,
2018 Morris Avenue, Third Floor, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone:
252-1550, Fax: 252-1556, E-mail: dra@arendalllaw.com,
aarnold@arendalllaw.com and ssw@arendalllaw.com.

Representing the Defendant/s are, George A. Harper, D. Chris
Lauderdale and David R Wylie JACKSON LEWIS, LLP, One Liberty
Square, 55 Beattie Place, Suite 800, Greenville, SC 29601,
Phone: 864-232-7000, Fax: 864-235-1381, Fax: 864-235-1385, E-
mail: harperg@jacksonlewis.com, lauderdc@jacksonlewis.com and
wylied@jacksonlewis.com.


INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Faces Shareholder Derivative Suit in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. continues to defend itself
against a shareholder derivative action in the 113th Judicial
District Court, Harris County, Texas, captioned, "C. Radek v.
Allen, et al., No. 2004-48577."

On September 3, 2004, Chris Radek filed the derivative action in
the District Court of Harris County, Texas naming Herbert R.
Allen, Richard L. China, William W. Reynolds, Britt Rice, David
A. Miller, Ronald P. Badie, Donald P. Hodel, Alan R. Sielbeck,
C. Byron Snyder, Donald C. Trauscht, and James D. Woods as
individual defendants and IES as nominal defendant.

On July 15, 2005, plaintiff filed an amended shareholder
derivative petition alleging substantially similar factual
claims to those made in the putative class action, styled, "In
re Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. Securities Litigation,
No. 4:04-CV-3342," and making common law claims against the
individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duties,
misappropriation of information, abuse of control, gross
mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment.  
On September 16, 2005, defendants filed special exceptions or,
alternatively, a motion to stay the derivative action.  On
November 11, 2005, Plaintiff filed a response to defendants'
special exceptions and motion to stay.

A hearing on defendants' special exceptions and motion to stay
took place on January 9, 2006.  Following that hearing, the
parties submitted supplemental briefing relating to the standard
for finding director self-interest in a derivative case.  
Defendants also advised the Court that the class action had been
dismissed with prejudice.  The Court has not yet ruled on the
special exceptions.


INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Tex. Court Sacks Consolidated Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas dismissed with prejudice a consolidated securities class
action filed against Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. and
certain of its officers and directors, styled, "In re Integrated
Electrical Services, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 4:04-CV-
3342."

On March 23, 2005, the Court appointed Central Laborers' Pension
Fund as lead plaintiff and appointed lead counsel.  Pursuant to
the parties' agreed scheduling order, lead plaintiff filed its
amended complaint on June 6, 2005.  The amended complaint
alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and
misleading statements during the proposed class period of
November 10, 2003 to August 13, 2004.

Specifically, the amended complaint alleges that defendants
misrepresented the Company's financial condition in 2003 and
2004 as evidenced by the restatement, violated generally
accepted accounting principles, and misrepresented the
sufficiency of the Company's internal controls so that they
could engage in insider trading at artificially-inflated prices,
retain their positions at the Company, and obtain a $175 million
credit facility for the Company.

On August 5, 2005, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim. The defendants argued
that the amended complaint fails to allege fraud with
particularity as required by Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and fails to satisfy the heightened pleading
requirements for securities fraud class actions under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Specifically,
defendants argue that the amended complaint does not allege
fraud with particularity as to numerous GAAP violations and
opinion statements about internal controls, fails to raise a
strong inference that defendants acted knowingly or with severe
recklessness, and includes vague and conclusive allegations from
confidential witnesses, without a proper factual basis.  

On September 28, 2005, the suit's lead plaintiff filed its
opposition to the motion to dismiss and defendants filed their
reply in support of the motion to dismiss on November 14,
2005.  On December 21, 2005, the Court held a telephonic hearing
relating to the motion to dismiss.

On January 10, 2006, the Court issued a memorandum and order
dismissing with prejudice all claims filed against the
Defendants.  The Plaintiff in the securities class action filed
its notice of appeal on February 2, 2006.  No dates for briefing
the appeal have been set or determined.

The suit styled, "In re Integrated Electrical Services, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 4:04-CV-3342," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Melinda Harmon.  Representing the Company is Fraser
A. McAlpine, Akin Gump et al, 1111 Louisiana St, 44th Floor
Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-250-8129, Fax: 713-236-0822 E-
mail: fmcalpine@akingump.com.  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) Brian Felgoise, 230 South Broad Street, Suite 404 ,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215.735.6810, Fax:
         215/735.5185;

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

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

     (5) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington,
         DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower,
         Washington, DC, 20005, Phone: 202.408.4600, Fax:
         202.408.4699, E-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com;

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

     (7) Hoeffner & Bilek, LLP, 440 Louisiana - Suite 720,
         Houston, TX, 77002, Phone: 713.227.7720;

     (8) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
         Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com;

     (9) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com;

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


INTERMIX MEDIA: Investors File Consolidated Amended Calif. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders who filed two class actions in the California
Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against Intermix
Media, Inc.'s officers that opposes the formation of Fox
Interactive Media (FIM), recently filed a consolidated amended
complaint.    

FIM is a new unit that manages the Company's entertainment, news
and sports brands, including foxsports.com, foxnews.com and
fox.com, and the Company owned television station web
properties, across the Internet. FIM will focus on leveraging
the Company's current and archive video assets, while building
an integrated web domain with multiple points of entry and
navigation capabilities that users will be able to customize and
personalize, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On August 26, 2005, a purported class action lawsuit, captioned
`Ron Sheppard v. Richard Rosenblatt et. al.' was filed.  The
suit also names as defendants the Company's former Chief
Executive Officer (Brad Greenspan), a former Intermix director,
all of the other then incumbent members of the Intermix Board
and entities affiliated with Venture Partners, a former major
Intermix stockholder.

The complaint alleges that in pursuing the FIM Transaction and
approving the merger agreement, the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to Company stockholders by, among other things,
engaging in self-dealing and failing to obtain the highest price
reasonably available for the Company and its stockholders. The
complaint further alleges that the merger agreement resulted
from a flawed process and that the defendants tailored the terms
of the merger to advance their own interests. The complaint
seeks an injunction preventing the completion of the merger, an
order requiring Intermix directors to exercise their fiduciary
duties to obtain a transaction in the best interests of Company
stockholders, rescission of the proposed merger to the extent
already implemented and reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.

On August 30, 2005, a similar purported class action lawsuit,
captioned "John Friedmann v. Intermix Media, Inc. et. al.," was
filed in the same court, naming as defendants all of the same
individuals and entities named in the "Sheppard" action, as well
as the Company . The complaint makes substantially similar
claims and allegations and seeks substantially similar relief as
the "Sheppard" action.

Prior to the consummation of FIM Transaction on September 30,
2005, plaintiff conducted expedited discovery and filed a motion
with the court seeking to enjoin the acquisition. Plaintiff
withdrew his motion after the Company filed supplemental proxy
materials augmenting certain information it included in its
proxy statement distributed to Company stockholders in
connection with seeking stockholder approval of the FIM
Transaction.  

On September 23, 2005, Mr. Greenspan announced his presentation
of an alternative acquisition proposal to the Company's board of
directors which, on September 26, 2005, the board publicly
rejected. Plaintiff thereafter applied to the court for an order
delaying the vote by Company stockholders on the FIM Transaction
in order to afford Company stockholders additional time to
consider the Greenspan proposal. The Court denied the
plaintiff's request and Company stockholders approved the FIM
Transaction on September 30, 2005.

The Company expects that the lawsuits will be consolidated under
lead counsel and a lead plaintiff and that a consolidated
amended complaint will be filed.  The Company further believes
that the lawsuits described above are meritless and intends to
vigorously defend against the claims and allegations in the
complaints.

The Friedmann and Sheppard lawsuits have since been consolidated
and a consolidated amended complaint was filed January 17, 2006.
The plaintiffs in the consolidated action are seeking various
forms of declaratory relief, damages, disgorgement and fees and
costs.  


JEFFERSON-PILOT: Fourth Circuit Reaffirms S.C. Suit's Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
reaffirmed a district court's decision in the appeal captioned,
"Thorn v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Co., 05-1162 (4th Cir.,
Feb. 15, 2006)," according to Robert Loblaw of
http://appellatedecisions.blogspot.com/.

The appeal involves the denial of class action certification to
plaintiffs who allege that Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance
overcharged African American customers for life insurance for a
seventy-year period.  The named plaintiffs in the case filed an
individual and class-action complaint against the Company on
behalf of themselves and approximately 1.4 million African-
American policyholders.  

The complaint alleged that the Company's corporate predecessors
discriminated against the class members in violation of federal
law by charging them higher premiums than whites for similar
insurance policies.  The district court denied certification
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), finding that because it could
not resolve the Company's statute of limitations defense on a
class-wide basis, issues common to the class did not predominate
over individual ones.  The district court also denied
certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), finding that
Appellants' requested remedy was merely a predicate for monetary
damages.

In its defense, the Company presented expert testimony that
awareness of these practices was widespread within the African
American community long before the lawsuit was filed, so the
claims may be barred by the statute of limitations.  The Company
also argued that the issue of when plaintiffs learned of the
overcharges could only be resolved on an individual basis,
thereby precluding class certification.  The district court
agreed and a divided Fourth Circuit affirms.  The appeal went
before Judges M. Blane Michael, Karen J. Williams and James C.
Dever, III.

In dissent, Judge Michael argues that the plaintiffs' claims are
ideally suited to class litigation, as individual plaintiffs
will probably only recover a few hundred dollars.  Moreover, he
notes that the Company's statute of limitations defense appears
to be based on the theory that plaintiffs had constructive
notice of their claims, and thus this defense can be resolved on
a class-wide basis, as is routinely done in securities class
actions.

The suit is styled, "Thorn, et al v. Jefferson Pilot Ins., Case
No. 3:00-cv-02782-CMC," on appeal from the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina under Judge Cameron M.
Currie.  Representing the Plaintiff/s are, William E Hopkins,
Jr. and T. English McCutchen, III, of McCutchen Blanton Rhodes
and Johnson, P.O. Box 11209, Columbia, SC 29211-1209, Phone:
803-799-9791, Fax: 803-253-6084, E-mail: wehopkins@mbjb.com and
emccutchen@mbjb.com; and Mario A. Pacella and Joseph Preston
Strom, Jr. of Strom Law Firm, 1501 Main Street, Suite 700,
Columbia, SC 29201, Phone: 803-252-4800, Fax: 803-252-4801, E-
mail: mpacella@stromlaw.com and petestrom@stromlaw.com.  

Representing the Defendant/s are, Jacquelyn D. Austin and Brent
OE Clinkscale of Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, P.O. Box
10208, Greenville, SC 29603, Phone: 864-255-5400, Fax:
864-255-5486 or 864-255-5488, E-mail: jaustin@wcsr.com and
bclinkscale@wcsr.com; and James Frederick Jorden of Jorden Burt
Boros Cicchetti Bevenson and Johnson, 1025 Thomas Jefferson,
Street NW, Suite 400 East, Washington, DC 20007-0805, Phone:
202-965-8100.

For more details, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?590
(Thorn Opinion).


KREHA CORPORATION: Antitrust Suit Settlement Trial Set March 21
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $5
million settlement in the matter, " In re Plastics Additives
Antitrust Litigation, Master Docket No. 03-CV-2038, MDL Docket
No. 1684."  The case was brought on behalf of all persons or
entities that purchased plastic additives in the United States
directly from Kreha Corporation of America.

The fairness hearing will be held on March 21, 2006, at 10:00
a.m., at the U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market St., Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19106, Courtroom 6614.

Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is on March 31, 2006.
Any objections to the settlement must be filed by March 6, 2006.  

For more details, contact Linda P. Nussbaum of Cohen, Milstein,
Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 150 East 52nd Street, New York, NY
10022, Phone: (212) 838-7797, E-mail: lnussbaum@cmht.com; and
Joseph C. Kohn, William E. Hoese, Craig W. Hillwig and Hilary
Cohen of Kohn, Swift, & Graf, PC, One South Broad Street - Suite
2100, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, Phone: (215) 238-1700,
Fax: (215) 238-1968, E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com,
whoese@kohnswift.com, chillwig@kohnswift.com and
hcohen@kohnswift.com, Web site:
http://www.plasticsadditivesantitrustlitigation.com/.


MOBILE-PHONE COMPANIES: Judge Sends Health Suits to State Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake recommended the return of
three more mobile-phone health suits to state and federal
courts, according to RCR Wireless News.

On Feb. 15, Jude Blake advised the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation that:

     (1) a mobile headset suit be returned to U.S. District
         Judge Ivan Lemelle in Louisiana;

     (2) a class-action brain cancer suit filed by now-deceased
         Gibb Brower to be remanded to a California state court;
         and

     (3) that a brain suit filed by the wife of James Louther be
         returned to a Florida court.

The return of the headset lawsuit follows an order to return
four similar cases to state courts in Maryland, Georgia,
Pennsylvania and New York, according to the report.  Earlier,
Judge Blake also junked an $800 million brain cancer suit
against Motorola Inc. and others in 2002.  She also dismissed in
2003 five cell phone radiation exposure class action.

In June, Judge Blake remanded to the D.C. Superior Court a suit
filed by Sarah Dahlgren, alleging mobile phone companies did not
adequately advise consumers of health risks related to their
products.


MOBILITY ELECTRONICS: Settles Portsmith Litigation for US$3M
------------------------------------------------------------
Mobility Electronics, Inc. settled the litigation, which arose
from its acquisition of Portsmith, Inc. in February 2002.  The
suit has been pending in the District Court of the Fourth
Judicial District of the State of Idaho, as well as the United
States District Court for the District of Idaho, as previously
disclosed in the Company's periodic filings with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement executed on February
15, 2006, Mobility has agreed to:

     (1) pay the plaintiffs the aggregate sum of $3.0 million in
         cash,

     (2) release one plaintiff from the repayment of a $484,000
         obligation, and

     (3) issue 82,538 shares of Mobility Electronics common
         stock to one plaintiff that were earned pursuant to the
         earn-out provisions of the acquisition, but were not
         previously issued.

All parties involved have agreed to release each other and their
affiliates from any and all claims that they may have against
the other.  The parties have agreed that the resolution of this
lawsuit does not constitute an admission or concession of
liability or fault by either party.

In accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standard
No. 5, "Accounting for Contingencies" (SFAS No. 5), as a result
of this settlement, the Company has recorded an additional $4.3
million charge against its fourth quarter 2005 financial results
prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles (GAAP).  Although the settlement is a subsequent
event that did not exist until February 15, 2006, SFAS No. 5
requires that the expense related to the settlement be charged
to the period in which the underlying litigation was in
existence and for which the Company has not yet reported in its
financial statements filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On February 9, 2006, the Company announced a net loss of $1.1
million, or ($0.04) per diluted share, for the three months
ended December 31, 2005, and net income of $9.3 million, or
$0.29 per diluted share, for the year ended December 31, 2005.  
The additional charge of $4.3 million results in a net loss of
$5.4 million, or ($0.18) per diluted share, for the three months
ended December 31, 2005, and net income of $5.0 million, or
$0.16 per diluted share, for the year ended December 31, 2005.  
The charge will be reflected in the Company's financial results
for both the three months and the year ended December 31, 2005
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 10-K.
Revised financial tables are included on the following pages.

Mobility Electronics, Inc. -- http://www.mobilityelectronics.com
-- (NASDAQ: MOBE) based in Scottsdale, Arizona, is a developer
of universal power adapters for portable computers and mobile
electronic devices (e.g., mobile phones, PDAs, digital cameras,
etc.) and creator of the patented intelligent tip technology.


MOTOROLA INC: Ill. Court Certifies Class in Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois - Eastern Division certified as a class action the case
captioned, "In Re: Motorola Securities Litigation, Case No. 03 C
00287."  The suit was brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased publicly traded Motorola, Inc. common stock or
registered debt securities during the period from February 3,
2000 through May 14, 2001.

The court appointed the Department of Treasury of the State of
New Jersey and its Division of investment, as the lead plaintiff
and class representative in the action.  Wolf Popper, LLP, and
Lite DePlalma Greenberg & Rivas, LLP, were appointed as co-lead
counsel for the class.  In order to be excluded from the class,
a written request for exclusion must be submitted by March 22,
2006.

The complaint names as defendant Motorola, Inc. (NYSE:MOT),
Christopher B. Galvin and Karl F. Koenemann.  It alleges that
during the Class Period, defendants made numerous false
statements about transactions between the Company and Telsim
Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S., a wireless
telecommunications carrier with operations in Turkey.  On
February 3, 2000, Motorola announced that it had entered into a
three-year agreement to provide products and services to Telsim,
and further stated, "that revenue from this supplier agreement
could be at least $1.5 billion."

The Company failed to disclose that the sales to Telsim were
predicated upon Motorola providing Telsim with $1.7 billion in
vendor financing, in effect, loaning Telsim the money used to
purchase Motorola products and services - and forcing the
Company to bear the enormous risk of default.  Defendants
further failed to disclose the deterioration of the relationship
between Motorola and Telsim (placing the likelihood of payment
in greater jeopardy) and also failed to disclose that the
Company had, through similar vendor financing arrangements,
provided its customers with an aggregate of $2.9 billion in
vendor financing for purchases of Motorola products.

On March 29, 2001, the Company disclosed in a Proxy Statement
filed with the SEC that its vendor-financing commitments totaled
$2.6 billion, of which $1.7 billion related to "a single
customer in Turkey" (Telsim).  On April 6, 2001, reports
detailing the Company's credit problems caused shares of
Motorola stock to decline by twenty three percent (23%).  In
mid-May 2001, the Company's quarterly SEC filing disclosed that
it had loaned Telsim $2 billion in vendor financing.  It also
disclosed that Telsim had failed to make a scheduled payment of
$728 million.  Telsim eventually defaulted on its obligations to
the Company.

The suit is styled, "In Re: Motorola Securities Litigation, Case
No. 03 C 00287," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois - Eastern Division under Judge
Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.  Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Robert
C. Finkel, James A. Harrod and Lester Levy of Wolf Popper, LLP,
845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 759-4600 and
(877) 370-7703, Fax: (212) 486-2093 and (877) 370-7704; and
Bruce D. Greenberg of Lite, DePalma, Greenberg, & Rivas, LLC,
Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102, Phone:
(973) 623-3000.  

Representing the Defendant/s are, Timothy F. Haley, Ian H.
Morrison and Camille Annette Olson of Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, 55
East Monroe Street, Suite 4200, Chicago, IL 60603-4205, Phone:
(312) 346-8000, E-mail: thaley@seyfarth.com,
imorrison@seyfarth.com and colson@seyfarth.com; and Emily M.
Pasquinelli of Arnold & Porter, 555 Twelfth Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20004-1202, Phone: (202) 942-5000.


MYLAN LABORATORIES: Shareholders Voluntarily Dismiss Pa. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania,
approved the voluntary dismissal by the plaintiffs of the
lawsuit, captioned, "In re Mylan Laboratories Inc. Shareholder
Litigation."

On November 22, 2004, an individual purporting to be a Company
shareholder, filed a civil action against the Company and all
members of its Board of Directors alleging that the Board
members had breached their fiduciary duties by approving the
planned acquisition of King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and by
declining to dismantle the Company's anti-takeover defenses to
permit an auction of the Company to Carl Icahn or other
potential buyers of the Company.

The suit also alleges that certain transactions between the
Company and its directors (or their relatives or companies with
which they were formerly affiliated) may have been wasteful.  On
November 23, 2004, a substantially identical complaint was filed
in the same court by another purported Company shareholder.  The
actions are styled as shareholder derivative suits on behalf of
the Company and class actions on behalf of all Company
shareholders.

The court ordered the suits consolidated.  The Company and its
directors filed preliminary objections seeking dismissal of the
complaints.  On January 19, 2005, the plaintiffs amended their
complaints to add Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co.,
Richard C. Perry, Perry Corp., American Stock Transfer & Trust
Company, and "John Does 1-100" as additional defendants, and to
add claims regarding trading activity by the additional
defendants and the implications on the Company's shareholder
rights agreement.  The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive and
declaratory relief and undisclosed damages.  On October 26,
2005, the court approved the voluntary dismissal of these cases
by the plaintiffs, with prejudice.


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set March 20, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for
Lee County, Florida will hold a fairness hearing for the
proposed settlement in the matter, "Dory Sabielny v. Nationwide
Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Case No. 99-2634-CA."  

The case was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased a
new or renewal Florida automobile, homeowners, property and
casualty, surety or marine insurance policy issued by the
Defendant effective on or after May 1, 1997 and who paid all
premiums owed, including at least one installment fee greater
than $1.00 on or after May 1, 1997 and or before May 13, 2002
pursuant to an installment payment plan offered by Defendant
that charged fees allegedly constituting a "premium finance
charge," "installment fee," "service charge," or "service fee"
greater than $1.00 per installment or an "interest charge"
exceeding 18 percent simple interest per year on the unpaid
premium balance.

The hearing will be held on March 20, 2006 at 1:30 a.m., before
the Honorable R. Thomas Corbin of the Circuit Court for Lee
County, Florida, Lee County Courthouse, 1700 Monroe St., Fort
Myers, FL 33901.

Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is on March 15, 2006.  
Any objections to the settlement must be filed by March 1, 2006.  

For more details, contact Viles, of Viles & Beckman, LLC, 2075
West First St., Fort Myers, FL 33901, Phone: 239-334-3933, Fax:
239-334-7105, E-mail: info@vilesandbeckman.com.


NETGEAR INC: Consumer Suit Settlement Hearing Set March 21, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara will
hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the
matter, "Zilberman v. Netgear, Inc., Case No. 1-04-CV-021230."  
The case was brought on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased between January 1, 1999 through November 22, 2005 any
wireless products sold by Netgear, Inc.  

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Jack Komar on
March 21, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. at Santa Clara Superior Court, 161
N. First St., Dept. 17C, San Jose, California 95113.  

Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is on July 5, 2006.  
Any objections to the settlement must be filed by March 6, 2006.  

For more details, contact Jordan L. Lurie and Zev B. Zysman of
Weiss & Lurie, 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2300, Los Angeles,
California 90024, Phone: (310) 208-2800, Fax: (310) 209-2348,
Web site: http://www.netgearsettlement.com/.


NETOPIA INC.: Faces Pending Calif. Shareholder Derivative Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Netopia, Inc. continues to face shareholder derivative lawsuits
in California district and state courts.

In August 2004, the first of four purported derivative actions,
captioned, "Freeport Partners, LLC, Derivatively on Behalf of
Nominal Defendant Netopia, Inc., v. Alan B. Lefkof, William D.
Baker, Reese M. Jones, Harold S. Wills, Robert Lee and Netopia,
Inc.," was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  

Two purported derivative actions are pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
and two related purported derivative actions are pending in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda.  These
actions make claims against our officers and directors arising
out of the alleged misstatements described above in connection
with the purported class action, captioned, "In re Netopia, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-3364."  

In November 2004, the derivative plaintiffs agreed to coordinate
the four derivative actions.  The parties have agreed to a stay
of the federal derivative actions, which was ordered by the
court in January 2005.  The state actions have been consolidated
under the name "In re Netopia, Inc. Derivative Litigation."  The
plaintiffs have not filed their consolidated amended complaint.


NETOPIA INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended securities class action
against Netopia, Inc. in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, styled, "In re Netopia,
Inc. Securities Litigation."

In August 2004, the first of four purported class action
complaints, "Valentin Serafimov, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, v. Netopia, Inc., Alan B. Lefkof and
William D. Baker," was filed, alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.  

The complaint alleged that during the purported class period,
November 6, 2003 and July 6, 2004, the Company made materially
false, misleading and incomplete statements and issued false and
misleading reports regarding its earnings, product costs, and
sales to foreign customers.  The other three complaints that
subsequently were filed made additional related claims based on
the same announcements and allegations of misstatements.

As provided in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995, the plaintiffs in these actions filed motions to
consolidate and to appoint lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff
counsel.  On December 3, 2004, the court issued an order
consolidating the cases and appointing a lead plaintiff and
plaintiff's counsel.  On June 29, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed
its consolidated amended complaint.  The consolidated amended
complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The consolidated
amended complaint alleges that during the purported class
period, November 6, 2003 through August 16, 2004, the Company
made false and misleading statements or failed to disclose
material facts, and that the market price of its common stock
was artificially inflated as a result of such alleged conduct.

The suit is styled, "In re Netopia, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 04-CV-3364," filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Ronald M.
Whyte.  The Levy Group has been assigned as Lead Plaintiff.  The
law firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Braun Law Group, P.C., Phone: (888) 658-7100, E-mail:
         info@braunlawgroup.com

     (2) Brian Felgoise, 230 South Broad Street, Suite 404,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215.735.6810, Fax:
         215/735.5185,

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

     (4) Kirby, McInerney & Squire LLP, 830 Third Avenue 10th
         Floor, New York Ave, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.317.2300,

     (5) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (San
         Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101,
         Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com

     (6) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com

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

     (8) Spector, Roseman & Kodroff (Philadelphia), 1818 Market
         Street; Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone:
         215.496.0300, Fax: 215.496.6610, E-mail:
         classaction@srk-law.com

     (9) 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


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: May Trial on Planned $400M Settlement Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
A May 19, 2006 hearing has been set to consider final approval
of the proposed settlement in a class action filed against Qwest
Communications International Inc. in Colorado, a Securities and
Exchange Commission of the company reveals.

On November 23, 2005, the company, certain other defendants, and
the putative class representatives entered into and filed with
the federal district court in Colorado a Stipulation of Partial
Settlement that, if implemented, will settle the consolidated
securities action against us and certain other defendants.  On
January 5, 2006, the federal district court in Colorado issued
an order:

     (1) preliminarily approving the proposed settlement,

     (2) setting a hearing for May 19, 2006 to consider final
         approval of the proposed settlement, and
  
     (3) certifying a class, for settlement purposes only, on
         behalf of purchasers of our publicly traded securities  
         between May 24, 1999 and July 28, 2002.

                        Settlement Terms

Under the proposed settlement agreement, Qwest would pay a total
of $400 million in cash, $100 million of which was paid 30 days
after preliminary approval of the proposed settlement by the
Federal District Court in Colorado, $100 million of which would
be paid 30 days after final approval of the settlement by the
court, and $200 million of which would be paid on January 15,
2007, plus interest at 3.75% per annum on the $200 million
between the date of final approval by the court and the date of
payment.

If approved, the proposed settlement agreement will settle the
individual claims of the class representatives and the claims of
the class they represent against us and all defendants in the
consolidated securities action, except Joseph Nacchio, our
former chief executive officer, and Robert Woodruff, our former
chief financial officer.  (The non-class action brought by SPA
that is consolidated for certain purposes with the consolidated
securities action is not part of the settlement.)  

As part of the proposed settlement, we would receive $10 million
from Arthur Andersen LLP, which would also be released by the
class representatives and the class they represent, which will
offset $10 million of the $400 million that would be payable by
us.

The proposed settlement agreement is subject to a number of
conditions and future contingencies.  Among others, it (i)
requires final court approval; (ii) provides plaintiffs with the
right to terminate the settlement if the $250 million we
previously paid to the SEC in settlement of its investigation
against us is not distributed to the class members; (iii)
provides us with the right to terminate the settlement if class
members representing more than a specified amount of alleged
securities losses elect to opt out of the settlement; (iv)
provides us with the right to terminate the settlement if we do
not receive adequate protections for claims relating to
substantive liabilities of non-settling defendants; and (v) is
subject to review on appeal even if the district court were
finally to approve it.  

Any lawsuits that may be brought by parties opting out of the
settlement will be fought, regardless of whether the settlement
described herein is consummated. No parties admit any wrongdoing
as part of the proposed settlement.


RALPH LAUREN: Settlement Reached in Calif. Dress Policy Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California scheduled an April 6, 2006 for the settlement of a
class action lawsuit filed against Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation
and its Polo Retail, LLC subsidiary in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

On September 18, 2002, an employee at one of the Company's
stores filed a lawsuit, alleging violations of California
antitrust and labor laws.  The plaintiff purports to represent a
class of employees who have allegedly been injured by a
requirement that certain retail employees purchase and wear
Company apparel as a condition of their employment.  The
complaint, as amended, seeks an unspecified amount of actual and
punitive damages, disgorgement of profits and injunctive and
declaratory relief.  

The Company answered the amended complaint on November 4, 2002.
A hearing on cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of
whether the Company's policies violated California law took
place on August 14, 2003.  The Court granted partial summary
judgment with respect to certain of the plaintiff's claims, but
concluded that more discovery was necessary before it could
decide the key issue as to whether the Company had maintained
for a period of time a dress code policy that violated
California law.  

The parties are engaged in settlement discussions, and during
Fiscal 2005, the Company recorded a reserve for our estimate of
the settlement cost, the amount of which is not material.  The
Company later reached an agreement in principle on a settlement
of this matter.  The proposed settlement would be subject to
court approval and the proposed settlement cost, of $1.5
million, does not exceed the reserve the Company established for
this matter in Fiscal 2005.  The state court action is covered
by the proposed settlement described above and would be
dismissed upon the court's final approval of the settlement.

On April 14, 2003, a second putative class action was filed in
the San Francisco Superior Court in California.  This suit,
brought by the same attorneys, alleges near identical claims to
those in the federal class action. The class representatives
consist of former employees and the plaintiff in the federal
court action.  Defendants in this class action include the
Company and its subsidiaries Polo Retail, LLC, Fashions Outlet
of America, Inc., Polo Retail, Inc. and San Francisco Polo, Ltd.
as well as a non-affiliated corporate defendant and two current
managers.  As in the federal action, the complaint seeks an
unspecified amount of actual and punitive restitution of monies
spent, and declaratory relief.  The state court class action has
been stayed pending resolution of the federal class action.

On January 12, 2006, a proposed settlement of the purported
class action was submitted to the court for approval.  A hearing
on the settlement has been scheduled for April 6, 2006.  The
proposed settlement would also result in the dismissal of the
similar purported class action filed in San Francisco Superior
Court as described above.

The suit is styled "Young v. Polo Retail, LLC et al., 3:02-cv-
04546-VRW," filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, under Judge Vaughn R. Walker.  
Lead plaintiff is Toni Young.  Representing the Plaintiff/s are,
Daniel L. Feder, Law Offices of Daniel Feder, 807 Montgomery
Street, San Francisco, CA 94133, Phone: 415-391-9476, Fax:
415-391-9432, E-mail: danfeder@pacbell.net; and Joseph Lewis
Fogel, Tonita Marie Helton and Richard B. Levy of Freeborn &
Peters, 311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606,
Phone: 312-360-6568, E-mail: jfogel@freebornpeters.com or
thelton@freebornpeters.com.  

Representing for the Defendant/s are, Mary L. Guilfoyle and
Joseph D. Miller, Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., One California
Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111-5427, Phone:
415-398-3500, Fax: 415-398-0955 or E-mail: mguilfoyle@ebglaw.com
or jmiller@ebglaw.com; and Patrick R. Kitchin, Law Office of
Patrick R. Kitchin, 807 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA,
Phone: (415) 677-9058, E-mail: prk@investigationlogic.com.


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

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

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

The company has approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements, which set forth the terms of a settlement between
the Company, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the
other approximately 300 issuer defendants.  Among other
provisions, the settlement provides for a release of the Company
and the individual defendants for the conduct alleged in the
action to be wrongful.  The Company would agree to undertake
certain responsibilities, including agreeing to assign away, not
assert, or release certain potential claims it may have against
its underwriters.  

The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of
$1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the
approximately 300 issuers.  To the extent that the underwriter
defendants settle all of the cases for at least $1 billion, no
payment will be required under the issuers' settlement
agreement.  To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle
for less than $1 billion, the issuers are required to make up
the difference.  

On February 15, 2005, the Court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion.  The Court ruled that the issuer
defendants and the plaintiffs were required to submit a revised
settlement agreement which provides for a mutual bar of all
contribution claims by the settling and non-settling parties and
does not bar the parties from pursuing other claims.  

The issuers and plaintiffs have submitted to the Court a revised
settlement agreement consistent with the Court's opinion.  The
revised settlement agreement has been approved by all of the
issuer defendants who are not in bankruptcy.  The underwriter
defendants will have an opportunity to object to the revised
settlement agreement.  There is no assurance that the Court will
grant final approval to the settlement.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


SIMPLICITY INC.: Steps up Recall of Cribs After Death Report
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and
Simplicity Inc., of Reading Pennsylvania, are renewing the
search for recalled Aspen 3 in 1 Cribs with Graco logos after
the death of a 19-month baby in Myrtle Creek, Oregon.

The child died on January 6, 2006, after two of the mattress
support slats came out of his recalled crib.  He became
entrapped between the mattress and the footboard of the crib and
suffocated.

CPSC and Simplicity announced the recall of about 104,000 Aspen
3 in 1 Cribs on December 21, 2005.  The recall was conducted
because the screws on the wooden mattress supports can come
loose, allowing a portion of the mattress to fall.  This poses a
suffocation hazard to young children who can slide down and
become entrapped between the unsupported mattress and end of the
crib.

Prior to the report of this death, Simplicity Inc. received 14
reports of the mattress supports coming loose, including eight
reports of entrapment.  Five injuries were reported including
scratches and bruises to the face and head, a strained neck and
a report of a child turning blue.

Although the Graco logo appears on these products, the cribs
were manufactured by Simplicity Inc.  Consumers should only
contact Simplicity about this recall.

The recalled cribs are made of wood and have wooden mattress
supports.  Only cribs with wooden mattress supports and with
model number 8740KCW SC and serial number 2803 SC (made the 28th
week of 2003) to 1605 SC (made the 16th week of 2005) are
included in this recall.  The model and serial number are
printed on the envelope attached to the mattress support.

The recalled cribs were sold in department and children's
product stores from August 2003 through May 2005 for about $130.

To receive a free repair kit or for more information, contact
Simplicity Inc. (http://www.simplicityforchildren.com),Phone:  
(800) 784-1982.

Picture of the recalled product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06058.jpg


TRIBUNE CO.: Court Names Lead Plaintiff in Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Philadelphia has become the lead plaintiff in a
securities fraud suit against Tribune Co., according to
Newsday.com.

Lawyer Sherrie R. Savett, who represents the city's Board of
Pensions and Retirement, said it was selected lead plaintiff
because it suffered the greatest loss among the parties, which
filed the complaint.  The report said the City lost $310,600
after discrepancies in the reported circulation figures of
Tribune Co. newspapers Newsday and Hoy were discovered.

The choice of the City as lead plaintiff comes as the judge
handling the case added several defendants to the suit,
including former Newsday publisher Raymond A. Jansen and former
general manager Louis Sito.  Shareholder Margaret K. Hill
initially named only current and former executives of Chicago-
based Tribune as defendants.  

The city's lawsuit is one of three filed last year that were
consolidated into one class-action case by a federal judge in
Chicago.

The Tribune Company and certain of its officers faced several
securities class actions filed in the United States District
Court, Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's securities (NYSE:TRB) securities from January 24,
2002 through July 15, 2004, inclusive (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 2, 2005).

The complaints alleged that the Company and certain of its
officers and directors knowingly or recklessly overstated the
Company's circulation numbers throughout the Class Period, and
thereby caused the Company's stock price to trade at
artificially inflated prices in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Specifically, the true facts, which were known by defendants but
concealed from the investing public during the Class Period,
were:

     (1) since at least FY 2001, Defendants were inflating the
         circulation of Tribune's Hoy and Newsday publications;
   
     (2) as a result of said inflation, the Company's financial
         results during the Class Period were artificially
         inflated (including revenue, earnings per share ("EPS")
         and accounts receivables), and the Company's
         liabilities were understated;

     (3) the Company's revenue and income was grossly overstated
         by millions of dollars;

     (4) defendants had knowingly established extremely weak, if
         not purposeless, circulation controls which allowed for
         the circulation overstatements and did not require that
         circulation managers certify the claimed circulation;
         and

     (5) as a result, defendants' ability to continue to achieve
         future EPS and revenue growth would be severely
         threatened and would and did result in $95 million in
         costs, fines, refunds and investigation expenditures.

In June 2004, Tribune reported that two of its papers, Newsday
and Hoy, had inflated circulation figures since 2001. This
announcement set off a wave of increased scrutiny throughout the
publishing industry, with advertisers keen to ensure that they
were not being similarly duped. Tribune also came under
increased scrutiny with the Audit Bureau of Circulations, a non-
profit, private entity charged with monitoring the accuracy of
circulation numbers for publications nationwide.

As a result of this increasing pressure, Tribune admitted on
July 15, 2004 that its reported circulation numbers for Hoy and
Newsday were overstated. Tribune eventually announced it was
conducting an internal investigation and that it may refund to
advertisers all amounts that they had been overcharged. In
response to this announcement, Tribune's stock price fell to $41
at the close of business on July 15, 2004, and has never
recovered.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Margaret K. Hill, Trustee of Kelk Irrevocable Trust, et al. v.
Tribune Company, et al.," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The plaintiff
firms in this litigation are:

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

     (2) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (LA), 1801 Ave. of the
         Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: (310)
         201-915, Fax: (310) 201-916, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

     (3) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (NY),
         200 Broadhollow Road, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747,
         Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173,

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

     (5) Pomerantz,Haudek, Block, Grossman & Gross, 100 Park
         Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone:
         212.661.1100,

     (6) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com

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

     (8) 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   


UNION PACIFIC: Plans to Appeal Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has set a $5.2 million appeal bond in a class
action alleging Union Pacific Railroad committed gender
discrimination by not providing contraceptives in its health
care plan.  

According to Omaha World-Herald, U.S. District Judge Laurie
Smith Camp ordered the company to:

     (1) provide prescription contraceptive coverage equal to
         health-plan benefits for other prescription drugs;

     (2) reimburse employees, who are members of the union which
         negotiated the health care plans, for their
         prescription contraceptive costs since Feb. 9, 2001;
         and

     (3) pay $5,500 each to two women who represented other
         employees in the class-action lawsuit, plus about
         $800,000 to cover attorney's fees.

The lead plaintiffs in the class action were Brandi Standridge,
a 25-year-old trainman and engineer for Union Pacific who lives
in Pocatello, Idaho, and Kenya Phillips, a 32-year-old engineer
who lives near Kansas City, Missouri.

Judge Smith-Camp ruled in favor of plaintiffs in a class action
lawsuit in July, The Associated Press reports (Class Action
Reporter, July 27, 2005).  The lawsuit claimed that the company
discriminated by providing a range of preventive health benefits
including impotence drugs but no contraceptive care.

Union Pacific spokeswoman Kathryn Blackwell said the company
plans to appeal, saying the order is part of normal legal
proceedings.  

According to the report, Judge Smith-Camp said her orders would
be delayed if Union Pacific appeals the ruling by April 1 and
files the bond.


UNITED STATES: Securities Litigation Defective, Research Shows
--------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class action litigation system is not working the
way Congress intended it to work when it passed the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) of 1995, according to a
paper released by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform
(ILR).

"The PSLRA, which was designed to protect the average American
investor, has been subverted by entrepreneurial plaintiffs'
lawyers," said Thomas J. Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce.  "The system needs to be repaired."

While the PSLRA has addressed a number of flaws in the system, a
changing litigation climate and plaintiffs' bar efforts to skirt
the law have nullified some of its most critical reforms.  ILR
is concerned that:

     (1) lawyers -- not plaintiffs -- are driving litigation;

     (2) that meritless claims may be allowed to proceed;

     (3) that motions to dismiss are not handled fairly; and

     (4) that trial lawyer attempts to expand liability for
         individual directors are deterring qualified outside
         directors from serving on corporate boards.

Further, an ILR study released last fall, The Economic Reality
of Securities Class Action Litigation, reveals that the
securities litigation system often overcompensates large
institutional investors and doesn't fully protect smaller, more
vulnerable investors.

"Repairing the system so that it works to the maximum benefit of
shareholders, especially small individual investors, without
causing undue harm to business and the economy is the only way
to restore fairness and commonsense to securities litigation,"
concluded Mr. Donohue.

ILR's paper was presented at a Chamber forum entitled Private
Securities Litigation Ten Years After the PSLRA: What's Working?
What's Not? The conference featured a high level, bipartisan
lineup of speakers including Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-
Connecticut) and SEC Commissioners Paul Atkins and Roel Campos.  
The mission of the Institute for Legal Reform is to make
America's legal system simpler, fairer and faster for everyone.  
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce represents more than three million
businesses and organizations of every size, sector and region.

ILR's securities litigation research is at:
http://www.instituteforlegalreform.org.


UNITED STATES: FDA Alerts Public on Side Effects of Trasylol
------------------------------------------------------------
The Food and Drug Administration issued a Public Health Advisory
alerting doctors who perform heart bypass surgery, and their
patients, that Trasyolol (aprotinin injection), a drug used to
prevent blood loss during surgery, has been linked in two
scientific publications to higher risks of serious side effects
including kidney problems, heart attacks and strokes in patients
who undergo artery bypass graft surgery.

"FDA is conducting a thorough evaluation of the safety profile
for this drug in light of the recent publications," said Dr.
Steven Galson, Director of FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research.  "We're working to evaluate the potential risks and
determine whether there is a need for further action.  In the
meantime, we advise providers to carefully assess the benefits
and risks of the drug for their patients."

FDA advises health care providers to be aware that:

     (1) Physicians who use Trasylol should carefully monitor
         patients for the occurrence of toxicity, particularly
         to the kidneys, heart or central nervous system and
         promptly report adverse event information to Bayer, the
         drug manufacturer, or through the FDA Medwatch program;

     (2) Physicians should consider limiting Trasylol use to
         those situations in which the clinical benefit of
         reduced blood loss is essential to medical management
         of the patient and outweighs the potential risks;

     (3) FDA is working with the manufacturer to examine the
         safety and benefits of Trasylol in light of the recent
         data and the evolving practice of medicine; and

     (4) Patients should discuss all major risks for heart
         bypass surgery with their healthcare providers.  These
         include the risks for bleeding and the available ways
         to lessen the risk for bleeding.

Trasylol (aprotinin injection) is the only product approved by
FDA for the prevention of peri-operative blood loss and the need
for blood transfusion among patients undergoing coronary artery
bypass graft surgery.  The drug aids the body's ability to stop
bleeding and is used to lessen the bleeding risk during this
surgical procedure.  This surgery is done to bypass clogged
arteries.

FDA is evaluating the studies more closely, along with other
scientific literature and reports submitted to the FDA through
the MedWatch program, to determine if labeling changes or other
actions are warranted.  One study, published in the New England
Journal of Medicine, reported that patients who received
Trasylol had higher rates of serious kidney problems, heart
attacks, and stroke compared to treatment with other drugs to
prevent bleeding or to no treatment; the second study, reported
in Transfusion, reported more cases of decreased kidney function
in patients treated with Trasylol compared to another treatment
to prevent bleeding.

A limitation of both studies was that doctors chose which
patients were to receive Trasylol or another treatment.  It is
possible that patients treated with Trasylol may have been
sicker than other patients.  The studies used complex
statistical methods to adjust for possible differences in
patient risk factors.

The agency also anticipates convening an advisory committee
meeting in 2006 to discuss the existing data about the risks and
benefits of Trasylol, and if additional safety measures need to
be taken.  The FDA will notify health care providers and
patients in a timely manner following further scientific
investigation of adverse event reports.

FDA also urges health care providers and patients to report
adverse event information to FDA via the MedWatch program by
phone (1800-FDA-1088), by fax (1-800-FDA-1078) or Internet.

The Public Health Advisory is available on line at
http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/advisory/aprotinin.htm.


UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Elevator Manufacturers Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Technologies Corporation, Otis Elevator Co. and other
elevator and escalator manufacturers face a consolidated class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  

The suit alleges a worldwide agreement among elevator and
escalator manufacturers to fix prices in violation of the
Sherman Act.  The lawsuit does not specify the amount of damages
claimed.  

The suit is styled, "In re Elevator Antitrust Litigation, Case
No. 1:04-cv-01178-TPG," filed in the United States District
Coiurt for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Thomas
P. Griesa.  Representing the Plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mary Jane Fait, Frederick Taylor Isquith, Sr., Stuart
         S. Saft, Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz,
         L.L.P., 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         (212) 545-4600, E-mail: fait@whafh.com,
         isquith@whafh.com;

     (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 401
         B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101 USA, Phone:
         619-231-7423

     (3) Nadeem Faruqi, Beth Ann Keller, Anthony Vozzolo, Faruqi
         & Faruqi, LLP, 320 East 39th Street, New York, NY
         10016, Phone: (212)983-9330, Fax: (212) 983-9331, E-
         mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com, bkeller@faruqilaw.com,
         avozzolo@faruqilaw.com  

Representing the Defendant/s is Deborah M. Buell, Cleary
Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, LLP, 1 Liberty Plaza, New York, NY
10006, Phone: 212-225-2000, Fax: 212-225-3499, E-mail:
maofiling@cgsh.com.


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Judge Certifies Ad Sales Reps' Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Southern California judge granted class action certification
to a lawsuit by three former Verizon Communications Inc.  
telephone directory advertising sales representatives claiming
the company unlawfully deducted corporate business losses from
their wages between 2000 and 2005.

Hinton, Alfert & Sumner of Walnut Creek, California, one of two
firms representing the plaintiffs, announced that Orange County
Superior Court Judge David Velasquez issued the certification on
Tuesday in the suit against Verizon Information Services, Inc.
and related Verizon entities.

More than 900 present and former sales representatives are
affected by the company's illegal compensation program, with
losses totaling more than $10 million, according to attorneys
representing the three individual plaintiffs:

     (1) Diana Gabriel of Albuquerque, NM,

     (2) Terry Jones of Palm Desert, CA, and

     (3) Yolan Hough of Riverside, CA.

"Verizon wrongfully foisted their business losses against their
sales reps and is now looking at a potential multimillion-dollar
judgment in this case," said Aaron Kaufmann of Hinton, Alfert &
Sumner, the plaintiffs' co-counsel along with Morris Baller of
the firm of Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian of
Oakland, CA.

The suit claims that between June 2000 and March 19, 2005,
Verizon's compensation program illegally deducted incentive pay
from reps for sales losses that were not their responsibility.  
According to the suit, telephone sales representatives who
worked in an office as well as those who called on accounts in
person were assigned territories and instructed to sell ads in
Verizon's telephone directories and on the internet to new and
existing customers.

Mr. Kaufmann said Verizon routinely assigned existing accounts
that could not be renewed -- such as companies that went out of
business, moved or had a disconnected telephone number -- to
sales reps who did not make the original sale. Reps who failed
to renew the accounts, or who renewed other accounts at a lower
revenue level than previously sold, had incentive wages deducted
from their pay.

Mr. Kaufmann said Verizon also deducted wages from sales reps to
offset adjustments, cancellations and credits Verizon provided
to customers.  If Verizon gave credit to a customer who
complained about the appearance of his ad, for example, it then
deducted wages from the rep that made the sale, even if he had
already been paid and regardless of whether any fault could be
attributed to the rep for the credit.  All affected sales reps
will now be notified that the suit is proceeding as a class
action case.

On December 4, 2005, Verizon Communications Inc. announced that
the Verizon board of directors has authorized the company's
management to "explore divesting Verizon Information Systems
through a spin-off, sale or other strategic transaction."

For more information, contact Aaron Kaufmann of Hinton Alfert &
Sumner, Phone: +1-925-932-6006, E-mail: Kaufmann@hinton-law.com;
or Morris J. Baller of Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen &
Dardarian, Phone: +1-510-763-9800, E-mail: mjb@gdblegal.com; or
Duffy Jennings of Duffy Jennings Communications, Phone:
+1-650-574-2254, E-mail: duffy@duffyjennings.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Amkor
Technology, Inc. (AMKR) between October 27, 2003, and July 1,
2004, inclusive.  It is pursuing remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against defendants:

     (1) Amkor, James J. Kim (Chairman, CEO),

     (2) Kenneth T. Joyce (CFO), John Boruch (Pres. until Jan.
         2004, Vice Chairman thereafter), and

     (3) Bruce Freyman (Pres. and COO between Jan. 04 to Aug.
         2004).

A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from
the Court, and can be viewed at: http://www.milbergweiss.com.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants repeatedly issued guidance of gross margins of 25% or
more.  Defendants also repeatedly stated that Amkor maintained
systems, procedures and controls that gave it a competitive
advantage in this business and, as a result, enabled the Company
to provide products and services while producing strong profits
for Amkor and its investors.  In addition, defendants
highlighted the Company's cost management and supporting
systems, its centralized administration infrastructure and
flexible information systems, and its proprietary centralized
information management systems and technologies.

Unbeknownst to investors, throughout the Class Period, the
Company was suffering from a host of undisclosed adverse
factors, as detailed in the complaint, that were negatively
impacting its business and that would cause it to report
declining financial results and to miss the guidance Amkor
disseminated.

At the end of the Class Period, investors learned that the
Company was operating far below expectations, that Amkor's gross
margins had declined materially and that its "product mix" had
turned "unfavorable."  This announcement caused the price of
Amkor shares to fall 25% in a single day.  By July 1, 2004,
following defendants' belated disclosures, shares of Amkor
traded to approximately $5.75 per share, well below the Class
Period high of almost $22.00 per share, reached in mid-January
2004.

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


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Milberg Weiss Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP commenced
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Impac
Mortgage Holdings, Inc. (IMH) between May 13, 2005 and August 9,
2005, inclusive.  It is pursuing remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California against defendants:

     (1) Impac, Joseph R. Tomkinson (Chair and CEO),

     (2) William S. Ashmore (COO), Richard J. Johnson (CFO), and

     (3) Gretchen D. Verdugo (Chief Accounting Officer).

A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from
the Court, and can be viewed at: http://www.milbergweiss.com.

The Complaint alleges that Impac operates as a REIT (real estate
investment trust) that engages in the acquisition, origination,
sale and securitization of non-conforming mortgages.  The
complaint further alleges that defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the effect of increasing
short-term interest rates on the Company's profit margins, the
adequacy of the Company's internal controls and the reliability
of the Company's statements with respect to current operating
performance and prospects.  The truth was revealed on August 9,
2005 when defendants reported a second quarter loss of $55
million, or $0.78 per share, that it primarily attributed the
unrealized mark-to-market change in the fair value of the
Company's derivative instruments.  On this news, shares of Impac
fell $2.39 per share, or 14.6% to close at $13.98 on August 10,
2005.

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


SERACARE LIFE: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set February 21
-------------------------------------------------------------
Investors in the SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc. class action have
until February 21, 2006 to file for lead plaintiff in the case.

Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo filed a complaint
in the case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California, Case No. 06-CV-0022 LBLM on January 5.  The
complaint seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who purchased SeraCare common
stock February 9, 2005 and December 19, 2005, inclusive.

The complaint is available at:
http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/SeraCare-Cplt.pdf.

The lawsuit claims that SeraCare and a number of individual
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t, and SEC
Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

Based in Oceanside, California, SeraCare manufactures and
provides biological products and services for diagnostic,
therapeutic, drug discovery and research organizations.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements that artificially inflated the
Company's stock price.  Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that
during the Class Period, the defendants issued false and
misleading statements or failed to disclose that:

     (1) SeraCare had improperly recognized revenue, thus
         inflating its financial results;

     (2) The Company had used faulty methods to account for and
         value its inventory;

     (3) The defendants had failed to prevent certain board
         members from exerting undue influence on SeraCare's
         financial reporting and auditing processes;

     (4) The timeliness, quality and completeness of the
         Company's implementation and testing of its internal
         controls were faulty; and

     (5) SeraCare's financial statements had violated Generally
         Accepted Accounting Principles.

According to the complaint, SeraCare's stock price fell by as
much as 62 percent on December 20, 2005, after the Company
revealed that its independent auditors had issued a report about
the above issues.  The Nasdaq Stock Market subsequently delisted
SeraCare's shares.

For more information, contact Nicole Lavallee, Esq. or Julie
Bai, Esq. of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
(http://www.bermanesq.com)425 California Street, Suite 2100,  
San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: (415) 433-3200; E-mail:
sflaw@bermanesq.com.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Stull, Brody Files GAT Fraud Suit in N.Y.    
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody commenced class action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons who purchased the common stock of Take-Two
Interactive Software, Inc. (NASDAQ: TTWO) from October 25, 2004
through January 27, 2006 inclusive.

The complaint alleges defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false statements
regarding the success of the Company's video game Grand Theft
Auto: San Andreas and the strong contribution that it was making
to the Company's overall revenues.  

Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that Take-Two
improperly hid pornographic materials directly in the
programming of the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas in order to
obtain a rating of "Mature 17+" by the powerful Entertainment
Software Rating Board ("ESRB").  As alleged in the Complaint,
had the ESRB known of the pornographic materials contained in
the game, it would have assigned a rating of "Adults Only 18+,"
the Company was forced to reduce its financial guidance.

On January 27, 2006, it was announced that the City Attorney for
the City of Los Angeles filed an action against the Company and
its subsidiary, Rockstar, in the Superior Court of the State of
California alleging, that Take-Two and Rockstar violated
sections of the California Business and Professions Code by
publishing untrue and misleading statements and engaging in
unfair competition.  On this news, Take-Two's stock fell below
$14 per share.

For more information, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. at Stull, Stull
& Brody (http://www.ssbny.com)6 East 45th Street, New York, NY  
10017; E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com; Phone: 1-800-337-4983 (toll-free);
Fax: 212/490-2022.



                            *********


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  * * *