CAR_Public/060221.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, February 21, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 37

                            Headlines

AMERICAN SKANDIA: Dropped Out of Consolidated Md. Stock Suits
ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Settles Consolidated Stock Fraud Suit in Mass.
AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Plaintiffs File Amended Consolidated Suit
AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Asks N.Y. Court to Dismiss Derivative Suit
BLACK DOG: Recalls Children's Sweatshirts on Strangulation Risk

BRASS EAGLE: Recalls Paintball Markers on Cartridge Injury Risk
CANADIAN NATIONAL: Facing $950M Lawsuit over Wabamun Oil Spill
DEVRY INC: Former Student Files Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
DEVRY INC: Discovery in Ill. Computer Student's Suit Continues
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Attorneys Launch Antitrust Lawsuit in S.D. NY

DOW CHEMICAL: To Probe Jury Process that Endorses $553.9M Payout
EUGSTER/FRISMAG: Recalls Espresso Makers Due to Fire Hazard
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: N.J. Judge Merges Securities Fraud Lawsuits
FLORIDA: Tarmac City Ordered to Reimburse Residents for EMS Fee
FLOWSERVE CORPORATION: March 2007 Trial Date set for Tex. Suit

HAWAII: Big Island Prisoners File Lawsuit over Poor Treatment
HEALTH NET: Plaintiffs Allege Fraud, Misconduct in ERISA Suits
IDAHO: Environmental Activists Seek to Prohibit Grass Burning
INTERLAND INC: Asks Pa. Court to Dismiss TCPA Violations Suit
JAPAN: Kincho Women Pursues JPY78M Claim on Land at High Court

JNI CORPORATION: Court Sets Final IPO Settlement Hearing April
MAYTAG CORPORATION: Shareholder Files Stock Fraud Suit in Iowa
MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Faces Suits over French Fries Disclosure
MERCK & CO.: Jury Dismisses Plaintiffs' Claims in Vioxx Lawsuit
MERRILL LYNCH: Settles Research Coverage Litigations for $164M

MORGAN STANLEY: Asks N.Y. Court to Consolidate Employees' Suits
MORGAN STANLEY: Employees Launch Amended Wage, Hour Suit in N.J.
MORGAN STANLEY: N.Y. Court to Rule on Mutual Funds Stock Suit
ORTHO-MCNEIL: Parker & Waichman Sues over Birth Control Patch
SALTON INC: Consumers File N.Y. Suit V. Russell Hobbs Tea Kettle

SONY BMG: EFF Urges Consumers to Claim Clean CDs, Get Downloads
STELLENT INC: Minn. Court Reviewing Securities Suit Settlement
TIBCO SOFTWARE: Shareholders File Stock Fraud Suits in Calif.
TOYOTA MOTOR: Settles Calif. Racial Suit, Faces Another in Wis.
TRANSACTION SYSTEMS: Files Judgment Motion for Nebr. Stock Suit

TRAVEL COMPANIES: Hurricane Wilma Victims in U.K. File Lawsuit
UCI MEDICAL: Plaintiff Lawyer Hits at Transplant Program Probe
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Pascazi Files $20B Wiretapping Lawsuit
VIXEL CORPORATION: IPO Settlement Awaits Final Court Approval
WILLIAMS CONTROLS: Faces Product Liability Suit in Okla. Court

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

NVE CORPORATION: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Lawsuit
OMNICARE INC: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
PROQUEST COMPANY: Dyer & Shuman Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
ROYAL GROUP: Labaton Sucharow Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


AMERICAN SKANDIA: Dropped Out of Consolidated Md. Stock Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Skandia, Inc., which previously faced six purported
nationwide class actions, was not named as a defendant in
consolidated amended complaints that were filed in the Baltimore
Division of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland.  

Each of these lawsuits had alleged that the Company and others
violated federal securities laws in connection with late trading
and market timing activities and seeks remedies, including
compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts.  The
cases are as follows:

     (1) Lowinger v. Invesco Advantage Health Sciences Fund, et
         al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the
         Southern District of New York in December 2003 and
         served on the Company in February 2004;  

     (2) Russo, et al. v. Invesco Advantage Health Sciences
         Fund, et al., filed in the U.S. District Court
         for the Southern District of New York in December 2003,
         this suit has not been served on the Company;

     (3) Lori Weinrib v. Invesco Advantage Health Sciences Fund,
         et al., filed in the United States District Court for
         the Southern District of New York in January 2004, this
         suit has not been served on ASI;  

     (4) Erhlich v. Invesco Advantage Health Sciences Fund et
         al., filed in the United States District Court for the
         District of Colorado in December 2003, this suit was
         served on ASI in February 2004;  

     (5) Fattah v. Invesco Advantage Health Sciences Fund, et
         al., filed in the United States District Court for the
         District of Colorado in December 2003, this suit has
         not been served on ASI.

These cases have been consolidated in multi-district litigation
located in the Baltimore Division of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland.  Consolidated amended complaints were
filed in the multi-district litigation in September 2004, and
the Company was not named as a defendant.


ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Settles Consolidated Stock Fraud Suit in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aspen Technology, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors
settled a consolidated securities class action filed in the U.S.
District Court of Massachusetts, captioned, "Aspen Technology,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-12375-JLT."

Two suits were initially filed as "Fener v. Aspen Technology,
Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 04-12375, (filed November 9,
2004)" and "Stockmaster v. Aspen Technology, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 04-12387, (filed November 10, 2004)."  The suits
allege, among other things, that the Company violated Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
in connection with various statements about its financial
condition for fiscal years 2000 through 2004.  The time for the
defendants to move, answer or otherwise respond to the
complaints has been extended to sixty days following the filing
of a consolidated amended complaint.

On February 2, 2005, the Court consolidated the cases under the
caption "Aspen Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 04-12375 (D. Mass.)," and appointed The Operating
Engineers and Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension
Fund (Local 66) and City of Roseville Employees' Retirement
System as lead plaintiff, purporting to represent a putative
class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock
between January 25, 2000 and October 29, 2004.  

On August 26, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint containing allegations materially similar to the prior
complaints and expanding the class action period.  Following
mediation, on November 16, 2005, the Company and the plaintiffs
on behalf of putative class members entered into a Stipulation
and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release of
Securities Action (the "Stipulation"), which was filed with the
Court on the same date.  On December 12, 2005, the Court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement provided for in the
Stipulation and set a hearing date of March 6, 2006 to consider
final approval of the settlement.

The terms of the proposed settlement, including the terms of the
distribution of settlement funds, are disclosed in the notice
that was sent by the court-appointed Claims Administrator,
Gilardi & Co., LLC, to members of the class, defined to include
all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between
October 29, 1999 and March 15, 2005, (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 20, 2006)

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Company and its
insurance carrier have paid a total of $5.6 million into a
settlement fund.  All costs of preparing and distributing
notices to members of the Class and administration of the
settlement, together with all fees and expenses awarded to
plaintiffs' counsel and certain other expenses, will be paid out
of the settlement fund, which will be maintained by an escrow
agent under the court's supervision.  However, the settlement
remains subject to the satisfaction of various conditions,
including final approval by the court.  If final approval is not
obtained, or if Class members opt out of the settlement, and the
Company is required to litigate the dispute or elects to settle
the dispute on different terms, the ultimate outcome could have
a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or
results of operations.

As part of the settlement, the Plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss
the class action with prejudice effective upon entry of final
judgment after court approval.  The Company entered into the
Stipulation to resolve the matter and without acknowledging any
fault, liability or wrongdoing of any kind.  There has been no
adverse determination by the court against the Company or any of
the other defendants in the case.

The suit is styled "Aspen Technology, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 1:04-cv-12375-JLT," filed in the U.S.
District Court in Massachusetts, under Judge Joseph L. Tauro.  
Representing the Company is Thomas J. Dougherty of Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP One Beacon Street Boston, MA
02108 Phone: 617-573-4800 Fax: 617-573-4822, E-mail:
dougherty@skadden.com.  Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Mario Alba, Jr., David A. Rosenfeld, Samuel Rudman of
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 200
         Broadhollow Road Suite 406 Melville, NY 11747 Phone:
         631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173;

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


AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Plaintiffs File Amended Consolidated Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the six purported shareholder class actions filed
against Authentidate Holding Corporation and certain of its
current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, recently filed an
amended consolidated complaint.

Plaintiffs in these actions allege that defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The securities law claims are based on the allegation that the
Company failed to disclose that the USPS could cancel its August
2002 contract with it if the Company did not meet certain
performance metrics, and when it disclosed in 2005 that the USPS
could cancel its contract because the Company had not met those
performance metrics, the market price of its stock declined. The
class action complaints seek unspecified monetary damages.

Certain plaintiffs and purported shareholders have filed motions
seeking to consolidate the class actions and to be appointed as
lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act.  A hearing on these motions was scheduled for October 5,
2005. On October 5, 2005 the Court granted the motion of one
plaintiff, the Illinois State Board of Investment, to be
appointed as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.  The caption of the case is "In re
Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities Litigation."

Plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on January 3,
2006.  The amended complaint asserts the same claims as the
prior complaint and also alleges that the Company violated the
federal securities laws by misrepresenting that it possessed
patentable technology.  Defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint is to be filed on March 4, 2006.  Oral
argument on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for June 30,
2006.

The suit is styled, "In Re: authentidate holding corp.
Securities litigation, Case No. 1:05-cv-05323-LTS," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Laura Taylor Swain.  Representing the Plaintiff/s are,
Richard William Gonnello, Andrew J. Entwistle and Johnston de
Forest Whitman, Jr. of Entwistle & Cappucci, LLP, 280 Park
Avenue, 26th Floor West, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
(212) 894-7200, Fax: (212) 894-7272, E-mail:
aentwistle@entwistle-law.com and jwhitman@entwistle-law.com; and
Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman
& Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 406, Melville, NY
11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail:
srudman@lerachlaw.com.  


AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Asks N.Y. Court to Dismiss Derivative Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Authentidate Holding Corporation moved to dismiss four purported
shareholder derivative actions that were filed against certain
former and current directors and officers of the Company in June
and July 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The derivative actions are based on substantially the same
events and factual allegations as the original class actions,
which were recently consolidated under the caption, "In re
Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:05-
cv-05323-LTS."  It asserted claims that an alleged breach of
fiduciary duty, waste, mismanagement, violations of Sarbanes-
Oxley, and misappropriation of inside information injured the
Company.  The derivative complaints sought, among other things,
damages, equitable relief, restitution, and payment of costs and
expenses incurred in the litigation (including legal fees).

Plaintiffs in the derivative actions entered into a Court-
approved stipulation providing for the consolidation of their
actions and the selection of Maxine Philips as the lead
plaintiff.  Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on
November 14, 2005.  Defendants moved to dismiss this complaint
on January 13, 2006.

The suit is styled, "Phillips v. Pai, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-
05499-LTS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Laura Taylor Swain.  
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Nadeem Faruqi, Beth Ann Keller
and Shane Thomas Rowley of 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 and srowley@faruqilaw.com.  Representing
the Defendant/s are, Irwin Howard Warren of Weil, Gotshal &
Manges LLP (NYC), 767 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10153, Phone:
(212) 310-8000, Fax: (212) 833-3148, E-mail:
mark.ribaudo@weil.com.


BLACK DOG: Recalls Children's Sweatshirts on Strangulation Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission in cooperation with
The Black Dog Tavern Company Inc., of Vineyard Haven,
Massachusetts voluntary recalls 9,700 children's hooded
sweatshirts with drawstrings.  Consumers are advised to stop
using the recalled products immediately.

The company said the garments have a drawstring through the
hood, posing a strangulation hazard to children.  In February
1996, CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist by
drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts.  
No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled sweatshirts have a black dog on the front and are
sold in youth sizes up to size 12 with drawstrings through the
hood.  Sweatshirt colors include navy blue, gray, red, pink,
black or oatmeal.  "The Black Dog," "Est. 71," or "The Black
Dog/Martha's Vineyard" are printed on the back of some of the
sweatshirts.  A tag sewn on the inside of the garment reads,
"The Black Dog."  Style numbers are K086, K088, K090, K062, or
K063 are printed on the garment's hang tag.

The sweatshirts, which were made in Canada and China, are sold
exclusively through Black Dog retail stores, catalog, and Web
site from May 2004 through January 2006 for between $30 and $50.

Pictures of recalled products:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06088a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06088b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06088c.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately remove the drawstrings from
the sweatshirts to eliminate the hazard.

Consumer Contact: Black Dog, Phone: (800) 626-1991 between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday; On the Net:
http://www.theblackdog.com.


BRASS EAGLE: Recalls Paintball Markers on Cartridge Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission in cooperation with
Brass Eagle, of Bentonville, Arkansas, is voluntary recalling
243,000 units of Blade Turbo(TM) and Paintball Breakout Players
Kit(TM).  Consumers are advised to stop using recalled products
immediately.

The company said the carbon dioxide (CO2) cartridges can be
forcibly ejected out the back of the paintball marker and break
the plastic screw-on cap.  This poses a serious risk of injury
to the paintball marker's operator who can be hit forcefully by
the CO2 cartridges or the plastic screw-on cap.  Over-tightening
the screw-on cap after the cartridges are pierced can result in
a serious impact injury.

The firm received reports of at least 73 incidents involving the
recalled paintball markers. Seven injuries have been reported
including an eye injury, facial bruises, and lacerations.

The recalled Blade Turbo(TM) paintball marker is bright blue
with a black handgrip on the nozzle.  Two carbon dioxide
cartridges are inserted into the back of the marker covered by a
clear plastic screw-on cap.  The silver-colored carbon dioxide
cartridges are about three-inches long.  The Paintball Breakout
Players Kit(TM) includes a Blade Turbo(TM), black mask and CO2
cartridges.  "Blade Turbo" is printed on the side of the
paintball marker. Paintball markers are sometimes referred to as
paintball guns.

The Blade Turbo, which were made in China, were sold at Wal-
Mart, Kmart and sporting goods retailers nationwide from January
2005 through January 2006 for about $20.  The Paintball Breakout
Players Kit(TM) was sold at Wal-Mart from October 2005 through
January 2006 for about $25.

To see picture of the recalled product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06090.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
Blade Turbo(TM) paintball marker and contact Brass Eagle to
receive a free replacement screw-on cap which is black, instead
of clear.

Consumer contact: Brass Eagle Phone: (866) 363-8241 (toll-free)
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, E-mail:
recall@brasseagle.com; On the Net: http://www.brasseagle.com.


CANADIAN NATIONAL: Facing $950M Lawsuit over Wabamun Oil Spill
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Wabamun man has launched a class action against Canadian
National Railway in relation to an August 2005 derailment and
oil spill on Lake Wabamun, according to Edmonton Sun.

Calvin Davey, a resident of Half Moon Bay on Wabamun Lake, filed
the suit in Alberta Court of Queen's Bench on Feb. 17.  The suit
seeks $950 million in general and punitive damages, and a
declaration that the railway was negligent in the derailment and
spill.  Should the suit be certified as class action, it would
include everyone living and owning land and homes within a 5-km.
radius of the lake's shore.

It would exclude members of the Paul First Nation, which filed
its own lawsuits earlier this month, according to The Calgary
Sun.  The aboriginal band that lived on the east shore for
hundreds of years filed the suit against Canadian National, as
well as the federal and Alberta governments.


DEVRY INC: Former Student Files Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
DeVry, Inc. and DeVry Universtiy, Inc. faces an amended class
action filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, on behalf of all students enrolled in the
post-baccalaureate degree program in Information Technology.  

In January 2002, Royal Gardner, a graduate of one of DeVry
University's Los Angeles-area campuses, filed a class-action
complaint, alleging that the program offered by DeVry did not
conform to the program as it was presented in the advertising
and other marketing materials.  In March 2003, the court with
limited right to amend and re-file dismissed the complaint.  The
complaint was subsequently amended and re-filed.

During the first quarter of the Company's fiscal year 2004,
Gavino Teanio filed a new complaint in the same court with the
same general allegations and by the same plaintiffs' attorneys.  
That subsequent action has been stayed pending the outcome of
the Gardner matter.  Discovery continues in the Gardner matter,
but there is no determinable date at which the Teanio matter may
be brought to conclusion.


DEVRY INC: Discovery in Ill. Computer Student's Suit Continues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in a class action filed in the Circuit Court
for Cook County, Illinois, against DeVry, Inc. and DeVry
University, which is alleging that DeVry graduates do not have
appropriate skills for employment in the computer information
systems field.  

In November 2000, Afshin Zarinebaf, Ali Mousavi and another
graduate of one of DeVry University's Chicago-area campuses
filed a class-action complaint.  The complaint was subsequently
dismissed by the court, but was amended and re-filed to include
as a plaintiff Mark Macenas, a then-current student in another
curriculum from a second Chicago-area campus.  Discovery
continues, and a hearing to determine class-action certification
has been held, though the court has not yet announced its
ruling.

The suit is styled, "Zahrinebaf v. DeVry, Case No. 2000-CH-
15965," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
under Judge Aaron Jaffe.  Representing the plaintiffs is
Horowitz Horowitz & Associates, 25 E. Washington #900, Chicago,
IL 60602, Phone: (312) 372-8822.  Representing the Company is
SCHOPF & WEISS, 312 W. Randolph #300, Chicago IL 60606 Phone:
(312) 701-9300.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Attorneys Launch Antitrust Lawsuit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Group, Inc. and We The People Forms and Service
Centers USA, Inc. (WTP) face a class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging
that the defendants unlawfully restrained competition in the
market for bankruptcy services through the Company's advertising
and other practices.  The Company has acquired WTP's assets.

Sally S. Attia and two other attorneys filed the suit on August
11,2005, on behalf of a nationwide class of all U.S. bankruptcy
attorneys, seeking class-action status, damages in an
indeterminate amount (including punitive and treble damages
under the Sherman and Clayton Acts) and other relief.

On August 12, 2005, the court denied plaintiffs' request for
expedited or "ex parte" injunctive relief.  The Company's motion
to dismiss this action was submitted on October 7, 2005.

The suit is styled, "Attia et al v. Dollar Financial Corp. et
al., case no. 1:05-cv-07133-KMW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Kimba
M. Wood.  Representing the Plaintiff/s is Christopher R. Neufeld
and Kelechi O. Onyeobia, PC, Law Offices of Kelechi O. Onyeobia,
P.C., 39 East Broadway, Suite 608, New York, NY 10002, Phone:
(646)-660-1964, Fax: (212)-962-1822, E-mail:
crn@dealershipnetwork.com.  Representing the Defendant/s is
Hilary B. Miller of the Law Office of Hilary B. Miller, 112
Parsonage Road, Greenwich, CT 06830, Phone: (203) 399-1320, Fax:
(914) 206-3727, E-mail: hilary@miller.net.


DOW CHEMICAL: To Probe Jury Process that Endorses $553.9M Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for Rocky Flats residents have until March 3 to respond
to a challenge posed by attorneys of Dow Chemical Co. and
Rockwell International Corp. who was recently ordered to pay
$553.9 million in damages to the homeowners, Rocky Mountain
News.com reports.

The lawyers of the former Rocky Flats operator filed a sealed
motion seeking to interview a juror who walked out in tears
during deliberations.  According to the report, the Dow and
Rockwell lawyers have alleged that other jurors may have bullied
the woman, and perhaps others, into changing their votes.  

The federal jury has recommended that Dow Chemical Co. and the
former Rockwell International Corp. pay $553.9 million to
property owners whose lands were contaminated by plutonium from
the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant, according to
Associated Press (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 16, 2006).  The
lawsuit was filed on behalf of 13,000 people.  

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

                         Case Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representing the Defendant/s are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


EUGSTER/FRISMAG: Recalls Espresso Makers Due to Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission in cooperation with
Eugster/Frismag of Switzerland, voluntary recalls 2,100 units of
Orchestro espresso makers.  Consumers are advised to stop using
the recalled product immediately.  

The coffee maker is imported by Krups, of Medford,
Massachusetts.  The company said the electrical connectors in
the espresso machine can erode, posing a fire hazard.  No
accident or injuries have been reported.

The recalled espresso makers are black and silver, have a silver
control panel, and can make two cups of espresso at once.  The
word "KRUPS" is printed on the front of the machine.  The model
number and factory mark are stamped on a silver sticker on the
bottom of the machine.  These are the recalled models:

Model Number Factory Mark
889-45        F8894556
890-41       F8904156

The products are sold at department stores and independent
specialty stores nationwide from January 1999 through November
2005 for about $850

Pictures of the recalled product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06089a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06089b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the espresso
machines and contact Krups for a free repair.

Consumer contact: Krups, Phone: 866-832-7690 (toll free) between
7 a.m. to 6 p.m. CST Monday through Friday; On the Net:
http://www.krupsrecall.com.


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: N.J. Judge Merges Securities Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ordered
the consolidation of two securities class actions filed against
Exide Technologies, Inc. and certain of its current and former
officers, which was filed by two of the Company's former
shareholders, Aviva Partners LLC and Robert Jarman.

The suits allege violations of certain federal securities laws,
on behalf of those who purchased the Company's stock between
November 16, 2004 and May 17, 2005.  The complaints allege that
the named officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 in connection with
certain allegedly false and misleading public statements made
during this period by the Company and its officers.  The
complaints do not specify an amount of damages sought.  The
District Judge consolidated the cases for all purposes on August
29, 2005 and is currently considering the shareholders' motions
to be appointed Lead Plaintiff.

The first suit in the litigation is styled, "Aviva Partners LLC,
et al. v. Exide Technologies, et al.," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.  The Plaintiff
firms in this litigation are:

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

     (2) 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

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

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

     (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  


FLORIDA: Tarmac City Ordered to Reimburse Residents for EMS Fee
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Fourth District Court of Appeal of the state of Florida has
affirmed a lower court ruling ordering the City of Tarmac to
reimburse property owners who were charged an Emergency Medical
Services (EMS) fee.  

According to the Miami Herald, courts have ruled that cities
can't charge an assessment, such as Tamarac's EMS, that doesn't
benefit property.  The medical services fee charged between 1997
and 1999 was combined with a fire fee.

The court's order will entitle about 25,000 residential property
owners about $415 each for $3.7 million that residents paid for
the EMS fees minus attorneys' fees, said Frederick Goldstein,
attorney in the class action.  They will receive the
reimbursements this year.  

The court still has to approve a process for residents to apply
for the compensation, according to city Finance Director Steven
Chapman.  The city does not plan to take the case to the Florida
Supreme Court, he said.


FLOWSERVE CORPORATION: March 2007 Trial Date set for Tex. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation, which faces an amended consolidated
securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas alleging that the Company violated
federal securities laws during a period beginning on March 29,
2001 and ending September 27, 2002, reports that a March 27,
2007 trial date was slated for the case.

During the quarter ended September 30, 2003, related putative
lawsuits were filed in federal court in the Texas, alleging that
the Company violated federal securities laws.  Since the filing
of these cases, which have been consolidated, the lead plaintiff
has amended its complaint several times.  The lead plaintiff's
current pleading is the fifth consolidated amended complaint.  

The Complaint alleges that federal securities violations
occurred between February 6, 2001 and September 27, 2002 and
names as defendants Mr. C. Scott Greer, our former Chairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer, Ms. Renee J. Hornbaker,
our former Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, our independent registered public
accounting firm, and Banc of America Securities LLC and Credit
Suisse First Boston LLC, which served as underwriters for two of
our public stock offerings during the relevant period.

The Complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933.
The lead plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages,
forfeiture by Mr. Greer and Ms. Hornbaker of unspecified
incentive-based or equity-based compensation and profits from
any stock sales, and recovery of costs.  On November 22, 2005,
the Court entered an order denying the defendants' motions to
dismiss the Complaint on the pleadings in their entirety.  The
case is currently set for trial on March 27, 2007.  We continue
to believe that the lawsuit is without merit and are vigorously
defending the case.

The suit is styled, "Ryan v. Flowserve Corporation, et al., Case
No. 3:03-cv-01769," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas under Judge Jane J. Boyle.  
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Robert J. Hill of Claxton &
Hill, 3131 McKinney Ave., Suite 700 LB 103, Dallas, TX 75204-
2471, Phone: 214/969-9029, Fax: 214/953-0583, E-mail:
claxtonhill@airmail.net; and Joe Kendall of Provost Umphrey Law
Firm - Dallas, 3232 McKinney Ave., Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75204,
Phone: 214/744-3000, Fax: 214/744-3015, E-mail:
Provost_Dallas@yahoo.com.  

Representing the Defendant/s are, R. Thaddeus Behrens of Haynes
& Boone, 901 Main St., Suite 3100, Dallas, TX 75202-3789, Phone:
214/651-5000, E-mail: behrenst@haynesboone.com; and David W
Klaudt of Locke Liddell & Sapp, Chase Tower, 2200 Ross Ave.,
Suite 2200, Dallas, TX 75201-6776, Phone: 214/740-8000, Fax:
214/756-8792, E-mail: dklaudt@lockeliddell.com.


HAWAII: Big Island Prisoners File Lawsuit over Poor Treatment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Inmates at Hawaii Community Correctional Center in Big Island,
Hilo are filing a class action over dismal conditions at the
prison, according to Khon2 News.

The suit alleged that poor treatment at the prison may have
pushed inmates to start a fire at the center in July 2004.  The
plaintiffs allege that around that time dozens of them had to
sleep on the floor together in a section because of
overcrowding.  They also claim they were denied visitations, and
adequate access to bathrooms and showers, according to the
report.

Public Safety Officials said they have not seen the lawsuit, the
report said.


HEALTH NET: Plaintiffs Allege Fraud, Misconduct in ERISA Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs charged Health Net, Inc. with alleged misconduct,
discovery abuses and fraud in relation to the class actions
filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.  The two suits are styled "McCoy v.
Health Net, Inc. et al.," and "Wachtel v. Guardian Life
Insurance Co."

These two lawsuits are styled as class actions and were filed on
behalf of a class of subscribers in a number of the Company's
large and small employer group plans in the Northeast. The
Wachtel complaint was filed on July 30, 2001 and the McCoy
complaint was filed on April 23, 2003.  These two cases have
been consolidated for purposes of trial.  Plaintiffs allege that
Health Net, Inc., Health Net of the Northeast, Inc. and Health
Net of New Jersey, Inc. violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) in connection with various practices
related to the reimbursement of claims for services provided by
out-of-network providers.  Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of
payment of benefits, disgorgement, injunctive and other
equitable relief, and attorneys' fees.

During 2001 and 2002, the parties filed and argued various
motions and engaged in limited discovery. On April 23, 2003,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification seeking to
certify a nationwide class of Health Net subscribers.  The
Company opposed that motion and the Court took it under
submission.  On June 12, 2003, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the case, which was ultimately denied.

On August 8, 2003, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint,
adding the Company as a defendant and expanding the alleged
violations. On December 22, 2003, plaintiffs filed a motion for
summary judgment on the issue of whether the Company utilized an
outdated database for calculating out-of-network reimbursements,
which we opposed. That motion, and various other motions seeking
injunctive relief and to narrow the issues in this case, are
still pending.

On August 5, 2004, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and issued an Order certifying a
nationwide class of Health Net subscribers who received medical
services or supplies from an out-of-network provider and to whom
Defendants paid less than the providers' actual charge during
the period from 1997 to 2004. On August 23, 2004, the Company
requested permission from the Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit to appeal the District Court's class certification Order
pursuant to Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On November 14, 2004, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
granted the Company's motion to appeal. On March 4, 2005, the
Third Circuit issued a briefing and scheduling order for the
Company's appeal.  Briefing on the appeal was completed on June
15, 2005. Although oral argument has not yet been scheduled, the
Third Circuit recently inquired as to counsels' availability to
present oral argument in October 2005.

On December 13, 2004, Plaintiffs filed a motion to further amend
their complaint to add additional class representatives. On
January 12, 2005, the District Court denied the plaintiffs'
motion because it lacked jurisdiction as a result of the
Company's pending appeal of its class certification order.
Thereafter, the District Court certified to the Third Circuit
that, if it were vested with jurisdiction, it would grant the
motion to amend the complaint to add the additional class
representatives, and would be inclined to amend its prior class
certification order. Plaintiffs and defendants have submitted
letter briefs to the Third Circuit concerning the effect, if
any, of the District Court's certification; the Third Circuit
has not yet ruled on this issue.

On January 13, 2005, counsel for the plaintiffs in the
McCoy/Wachtel actions filed a separate class action against
Health Net, Inc., Health Net of the Northeast, Inc., Health Net
of New York, Inc., Health Net Life Insurance Co., and Health Net
of California, Inc. captioned "Sharman v. Health Net, Inc., 05-
CV-00301 (FSH)(PS)" (U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey) on behalf of the same parties who would have been added
to the McCoy/Wachtel action as additional class representatives
had the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave
to amend their complaint in that action. This new action
contains similar allegations to those made by the plaintiffs in
the McCoy/Wachtel action.

Discovery has concluded and a final pre-trial order was
submitted to the District Court on June 28, 2005. Both sides
have moved for summary judgment, and briefing on those motions
has been completed. In their summary judgment briefing,
plaintiffs also sought appointment of a monitor to oversee
certain of our claims payment practices, which plaintiffs allege
are wrongful.  The Company opposed the appointment of a monitor.

Notwithstanding its pending Third Circuit appeal of the District
Court's class certification order, a trial date was set for
September 19, 2005.  On July 29, 2005, the Company filed a
motion in the District Court to stay the District Court action
and the trial in light of the pending Third Circuit appeal. On
August 4, 2005, the District Court denied the motion to stay and
instead adjourned the September 19 trial date and ordered that
the parties be prepared to go to trial on seven days' notice as
of September 19, 2005.  The Company immediately filed a request
for a stay with the Third Circuit seeking an order directing the
District Court to refrain from holding any trial or entering any
judgment or order that would have the effect of resolving any
claims or issues affecting the disputed class until the Third
Circuit rules on the class certification order.  Plaintiffs
cross-moved for dismissal of the class certification appeal.

On September 27, 2005, the Third Circuit granted the Company's
motion for a stay and denied plaintiffs' cross-motion.
Plaintiffs have not specified the amount of damages being sought
in this litigation and, although these proceedings are subject
to many uncertainties, based on the proceedings to date, the
Company believes the amount of damages ultimately asserted by
plaintiffs could be material.

On August 9, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a motion with the District
Court seeking sanctions against the Company for a variety of
alleged misconduct, discovery abuses and fraud on the District
Court. The sanctions sought by plaintiffs and being considered
by the Court include, among others, entry of a default judgment,
monetary sanctions, and either the appointment of a monitor to
oversee the Company's claims payment practices and our dealings
with state regulators or the appointment of an independent
fiduciary to replace the company as a fiduciary with respect to
our claims adjudications for members.  On September 12, 2005,
the Company responded to plaintiffs' motion denying that any
sanctionable misconduct, discovery abuses or fraud had occurred.

The District Court held hearings on plaintiffs' motion for
sanctions October 17 and 18, 2005, & November 15, 17, 2005, &
November 22, 2005, & December 19 and 20, 2005 and January 5,
2006.  Throughout the hearing process, the parties took
additional depositions and submitted additional briefs on issues
that arose during the hearings.  The hearings have recessed but
not concluded.

The suits are styled, "Wachtel, et al v. Guardian Life Insura,
et al., case no. 2:01-cv-04183-FSH-PS," and "Mccoy v. Health
Net, Inc., et al., case no. 2:03-cv-01801-FSH-PS," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, under Faith
S. Hochberg.  Representing the defendants are Herve Gouraige of
Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor,
Newark, NJ 07102-5003, Phone: 973 642-1900, E-mail:
hgouraige@ebglaw.com; and Heather V. Taylor, Mccarter & English,
Four Gateway Center, 100 Mulberry Street, Newark NJ 07102,
Phone: 973-639-5905, E-mail: htaylor@mccarter.com.  Representing
the plaintiffs is Barry M. Epstein of SILLS CUMMIS EPSTEIN &
GROSS PC, One Riverfront Plaza, Newark, NJ 07102-5400, Phone:
(973) 643-7000, E-mail: bepstein@sillscummis.com.


IDAHO: Environmental Activists Seek to Prohibit Grass Burning
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clean air advocate Safe Air for Everyone in northern Idaho filed
a suit seeking class action to stop field burning, according to
Associated Press.  The group accuses Idaho officials of
violating the Americans Disabilities Act by letting Bluegrass
farmers to burn their fields.

The suit is asking a federal judge to order Idaho to stop the
burning and pay damages to residents damaged by the practice,
according to the report.

The state Department of Agriculture says the Bluegrass farmers
have no economically viable alternative than burning their
fields to grow their crop.


INTERLAND INC: Asks Pa. Court to Dismiss TCPA Violations Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Interland, Inc. asked the Allegheny County State Court in
Pennsylvania to dismiss the claims in the class action filed
against it, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).

A competing web hosting company, PairNetworks, filed this case
in December 2001 as a putative class action, claiming that the
Company's distribution of a facsimile on November 15, 2001 to
market domain name registration services violated the TCPA.
Several years later, two additional plaintiffs joined in the
action.  

The plaintiffs have conceded that all of the putative class
members were customers of the Company. Federal Communications
Commission regulations in effect at the time provided that the
distribution of facsimiles to persons with whom the sender had
an "established business relationship" did not amount to a
violation of the TCPA.  The Company has asked the court to deny
class certification and a ruling on that motion is pending as
well as a motion for summary judgment on the named plaintiffs'
claims.  If the court denies class certification, the Company's
damages, if it were liable, cannot exceed $1,500 for each of the
three named plaintiffs.  However, if the court grants class
certification, its size may exceed 50,000.  The Company also
asked the court for summary judgment and that motion has been
briefed and argued to the court.  If granted, that motion would
result in the dismissal of all claims.

In addition, the Company has filed a motion seeking to dismiss
all of the claims against it on the grounds that the facsimile
at issue did not violate the TCPA because it satisfied all of
the requirements of applicable Federal Communications Commission
regulations in effect at the time the fax was sent.  Congress
has expressly extended those regulations through the Junk Fax
Act of 2005.  The Company' motion has been briefed and argued to
the court and the parties are awaiting a ruling.


JAPAN: Kincho Women Pursues JPY78M Claim on Land at High Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawyer for the plaintiffs in a case over the distribution of
payment for land that were seized by the U.S. Army argued in
court that a ruling giving compensation only to men is
unacceptable, according to the Daily Yomiuri Online reports.

Parties in the case are residents of Okinawa Prefecture, a group
of approximately 50 islands located in the southwest extremity
of Japan, between Kyushu and Taiwan.  Okinawa is the name of the
largest island.

The lawyer, representing 26 women of Kincho, told the Supreme
Court the verdict tried to preserve the remnants of the
traditional family system to the detriment of the plaintiffs'
interest.  

The women were unable to claim money because of a ruling made by
the organization not to distribute the money to female residents
in the town, where the traditional family system is still
strong.  The plaintiffs lived in the town but they had married
men from outside the town.  The plaintiffs are seeking JPY77.7
million from the local community organization as their share of
compensation money paid for land seized to build a U.S. Army
facility there.

The exclusive payment to male members of the community was found
discriminatory and illegal at the first trial, but it was
considered legal at a subsequent trial because the court said
residents should respect community customs.


JNI CORPORATION: Court Sets Final IPO Settlement Hearing April
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
set an April 24, 2006 final approval hearing for the settlement
of the lawsuit, styled, "In re JNI Corporation Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01 Civ 10740 (SAS)."  
The suit was filed against JNI Corporation, which became a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Applied Micro Circuits
Corporation in October 2003, and the underwriters of its initial
and secondary public offerings of common stock.

In November 2001, a class action was filed, alleging that
defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the Company's public offerings.  The lawsuit is
among more than 300 class actions pending in this court that
have come to be known as the "IPO laddering cases."

In June 2003, a proposed partial global settlement, subsequently
approved by the Company's board of directors, was announced
between the issuer defendants and the plaintiffs that would
guarantee at least $1 billion to investors who are class members
from the insurers of the issuers.  The proposed settlement, if
approved by the court and by the issuers, would be funded by
insurers of the issuers, and would not result in any payment by
the Company or Applied Micro.

The Court granted its preliminary approval of settlement subject
to defendants' agreement to modify certain provisions of the
settlement agreements regarding contractual indemnification.  
The Company accepted the Court's proposed modifications.  The
court thus set the hearing for final approval of the settlement,
which is slated for April 24, 2006.

The suit is styled, "In re JNI Corporation Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01 Civ 10740 (SAS),"
filed in relation to "IN re IPO Securities Litigation, 21-MC-92
(SAS)," in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, under Judge Shira A. 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, 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


MAYTAG CORPORATION: Shareholder Files Stock Fraud Suit in Iowa
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maytag Corporation faces a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, captioned,
"Yellen v. Hake."

On July 5, 2005, Barry Yellen filed a complaint against the
Company, Chief Executive Officer Ralph Hake, and Chief Financial
Officer George C. Moore, for alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder.  

The complaint, brought on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between March 7, 2005,
and April 21, 2005, alleges, among other things, that the
defendants knowingly or recklessly made materially false
statements in a press release and at an investor conference on
March 7, 2005, regarding the Company's expected earnings range
in 2005, and that defendants made such statements seeking to
inflate the price of the Company's shares in conjunction with
ongoing negotiations to sell the Company to Triton Acquisition
Holding Company.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the
alleged class, unspecified compensatory damages, and an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses.  Plaintiff has filed a motion
seeking to be appointed the "lead plaintiff" within the meaning
of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  

The suit is styled, "Barry Yellen, et al. v. Maytag Corp., et
al., Case No. 05-CV-00388," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Iowa under Judge Robert W. Pratt with
referral to Judge Thomas J. Shields.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP (New York), 485 Seventh
Avenue, Suite 1000, New York, NY, 10018, Phone: (212) 239-4340,
Fax: (212) 239-4310, E-mail: lawyer@lawssb.com; and George A.
LaMarca and Justin E. LaVan of LaMarca & Landry, 1820 NW 118th
Street, Suite 200, Des Moines, IA 50325, Phone: 515-225-2600,
Fax: 225-8581, E-mail: connie@lamarcalandry.com and
justin@lamarcalandry.com.  

Representing the Defendant/s are, Dimitry Joffe and Eric M. Roth
of Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz, 51 West 52nd Street, New York,
NY 10019-6150, Phone: 212-403-1210, Fax: 512-403-2210, E-mail:
djoffe@wlrk.com and emroth@wlrk.com; and Lance Winfield Lange
and Edward M Mansfield of Belin Lamson Mccormick Zumback &
Flynn, P.C., 666 Walnut Street, Suite 2000, Des Moines, IA
50309-3989, Phone: 515-283-4639 and 515-243-7100, Fax:
515-558-0639 and 243-1408, E-mail:
lwlange@belinlaw.com and emmansfield@belinlaw.com.


MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Faces Suits over French Fries Disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------
McDonald's Corp. is facing several lawsuits after it disclosed
on Feb. 13 that its French fries contain wheat and dairy
products, according to Associated Press.  Three lawsuits were
filed against it by a couple from Florida, a woman from
California, and another woman from Illinois.

Mark and Theresa Chimiak of Jupiter Florida sued the fast food
chain, claiming their 5-year old daughter has an intolerance to
gluten.  On Feb. 15, Nadia Sugich of Los Angeles, who claims she
is a vegan, sued McDonald's, saying she would not have eaten the
fries if she had known they contained dairy products.  Debra
Moffatt of Lombard, Illinois filed a suit Feb. 17 in Cook County
Circuit Court, accusing the company of misleading the public.  
She seeks unspecified damages.

Attorney Thomas Pakenas says Ms. Moffat has celiac disease, a
gastrointestinal condition set off by eating gluten, a protein
found in wheat.  The Chimiak family's attorney is Brian W. Smith
of West Palm Beach.

According to the report, Oak Brook-based McDonald's says it's
testing its fries through a food allergy research program at the
University of Nebraska.


MERCK & CO.: Jury Dismisses Plaintiffs' Claims in Vioxx Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. jury found drugs company Merck & Co. not liable for the
death of a man who took the firm's recalled painkiller Vioxx,
according to The Business Online.  The jury also ruled that
Vioxx was not a defective product, and Merck was not negligent
in making the product and it had sufficiently warned users of
its risks.

Evelyn Irvin, the widow of Richard Irvin, who took Vioxx for
about a month to relieve back pain, filed the lawsuit.  Her
lawyers maintained that Vioxx is the cause of her husband's
heart attack.  The case before U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon
of New Orleans, Louisiana is in Houston, Texas rather than its
original venue of New Orleans because of damage by Hurricane
Katrina, an earlier Class Action Reporter story reports.

The Company has been bombarded with lawsuits around the world
since it pulled the $2.5 billion-a-year seller Vioxx from the
market in Sept.  30, 2004 after an internal study found it
doubled patients' risks of heart attacks and strokes if taken
for 18 months or longer.  More than 20 million people took the
drug worldwide before its withdrawal (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 4, 2005).

Vioxx is the trade name for rofecoxib, which is part of the
class of drugs called NSAIDs.  It was touted as a pain and
inflammation reliever that did not cause ulcers or
gastrointestinal bleeding, a side effect of many such
medications.  Merck previously said that it tested Vioxx on
nearly 10,000 patients during clinical trials and pulled the
drug as soon as the danger of its prolonged use became clear
(Class Action Reporter, July 13, 2005).

The verdict on Feb. 17 was the first in a federal court and the
third out of more than 9,000 cases filed against Merck.  It
concluded a retrial of an earlier trial in December that did not
reach a unanimous decision.


MERRILL LYNCH: Settles Research Coverage Litigations for $164M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. said at a regulatory filing it entered
into agreements in principle to settle 23 class actions related
to Merrill Lynch's research coverage of securities of Internet
companies.  

The settlements are for a total of $164 million, and are subject
to further agreements on terms and conditions and court
approval.  As a result of the settlements, the plaintiffs will
drop their appeals in eleven cases in which motions to dismiss
were previously granted.

As a result of these settlements and prior actions, only two of
41 class actions related to Merrill Lynch's research coverage of
these securities will remain pending.  Merrill Lynch is
vigorously defending these two suits, including one in which the
parties are awaiting a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Merrill Lynch will record in its fourth quarter 2005 financial
results a $170 million litigation-related expense ($102 million
after-tax and $0.11 per diluted share for full year 2005 and
$0.10 per diluted share for the fourth quarter of 2005), as it
is a subsequent event according to generally accepted accounting
principles.  This event will also be reflected in the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December
30, 2005.


MORGAN STANLEY: Asks N.Y. Court to Consolidate Employees' Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York to consolidate labor complaints against it
for pre-trial proceedings.   The firm faces wage and hour
complaints in New York courts filed on behalf of its current and
former employees in two states.

On September 9, 2005, a purported class action, captioned
"Gasman v. Morgan Stanley," was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  The complaint seeks
damages and other relief on behalf of certain present and former
employees in New York.

On September 23, 2005, a purported class action, captioned,
"Roles v. Morgan Stanley et al.," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.  The complaint seeks
damages and other relief on behalf of certain present and former
employees in New York and nationwide.

On November 3, 2005, Morgan Stanley filed a motion to transfer
the Roles matter to the Southern District of New York for
purposes of consolidating it and Gasman matters for pre-trial
proceedings.

The suit is styled, "Gasman v. Morgan Stanley, Case No. 1:05-cv-
07889-RCC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Richard C. Casey.  Representing
the Plaintiff/s are, Max Folkenflik of Folkenflik & McGerity,
1500 Broadway, 21st Floor, New York, NY 10036, Phone:
(212) 757-0400, E-mail: mfolkenflik@fmlaw.net; and Robert Abrams
of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP, 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-545-4600, Fax:
212-545-4653, E-mail: abrams@whafh.com.  

Representing the Defendant/s are, Heidi L. Swartz and Sam Scott
Shaulson of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (New York), 101 Park
Avenue, 37th Floor, New York, NY 10178, Phone: 212-326-2169 and
(212)-309-6718, Fax: 212-326-2061 and (212)-309-6273, E-mail:
hswartz@morganlewis.com and sshaulson@morganlewis.com.


MORGAN STANLEY: Employees Launch Amended Wage, Hour Suit in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a wage and hour complaint filed in New Jersey
state court against Morgan Stanley on behalf of its current and
former employees brought a first amended complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On September 1, 2005, a purported class action, captioned
"Steinberg v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. and Morgan Stanley
DW, Inc.," was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Bergen County.  The complaint seeks damages in an
unspecified amount and other relief on behalf of certain present
and former employees in New Jersey.

On October 7, 2005, the matter was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.  Plaintiff filed a first
amended complaint on January 13, 2006 seeking damages in an
unspecified amount and relief on behalf of certain present and
former employees in New Jersey and nationwide.

The suit is styled, "Steinberg v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:05-cv-04856-DMC-MF," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Dennis M.
Cavanaugh, with referral to Judge Mark Falk.  Representing the
Plaintiff/s are, Edward P. D'alessio of Winne, Banta,
Hetherington & Basralian, P.C., Court Plaza North, 25 Main
Street, P.O. BOX 647, Hackensack, NJ 07601, Phone:
(201) 487-3800, E-mail: edalessio@winnebantalaw.com; and 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 are, richard g. Rosenblatt and
Scott E. Ross of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 502 Carnegie
Center, Princeton, NJ 08540-6273, Phone: (609) 919-6609 and
609-919-6600, E-mail: rrosenblatt@morganlewis.com and
sross@morganlewis.com.


MORGAN STANLEY: N.Y. Court to Rule on Mutual Funds Stock Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on motions by both parties involved in the
consolidated class action, styled, "In re Morgan Stanley and Van
Kampen Mutual Funds Securities Litigation."

From October 2003 to December 2003, nine purported class
actions, which were later consolidated, were filed against
Morgan Stanley, including certain subsidiaries and various
Morgan Stanley and Van Kampen mutual funds, and certain officers
of Morgan Stanley and its affiliates and certain trustees of the
named Morgan Stanley funds.

The consolidated amended complaint was filed on behalf of all
persons or entities, other than defendants, who purchased or
held shares of certain Morgan Stanley or Van Kampen mutual funds
from October 1, 1999 to November 17, 2003 against Morgan
Stanley, including certain subsidiaries and various Morgan
Stanley and Van Kampen funds.  Plaintiffs allege that defendants
gave their sales force economic incentives to promote the sale
of proprietary mutual funds and that they improperly failed to
disclose these economic incentives.  

The complaint also alleges that defendants improperly used Rule
12b-1 fees and that the named funds paid excessive commissions
to Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. (MSDWI) in connection with the sale
of proprietary funds.  The complaint alleges violations of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act, Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act, Section 206 of the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940, Sections 34(b), 36(b) and 48(a) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940, and of common law fiduciary
duties.  The consolidated amended complaint seeks, among other
things, compensatory damages, rescissionary damages, fees and
costs.  

On July 2, 2004, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  On March 9, 2005, plaintiffs
filed a Motion for Leave to file a Supplemental Pleading that
would, among other things, expand the allegations and alleged
class to encompass the sale of certain non-proprietary mutual
funds.  Both motions are pending.

The suit is styled, "In Re Morgan Stanley and Van Kampen Mutual
Funds Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-08208-RO," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Richard Owen.  Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Christopher J. Keller of Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow,
         LLP, 100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017,
         Phone: (212) 907-0853, Fax: (212) 883-7053, E-mail:
         ckeller@labaton.com

     (2) Andrew J. Morganti of Siemion Huckabay, P.C., One Towne
         Square, Suite 1400, Southfield, MI 48068, Phone: (248)
         357-1400

     (3) Steven G. Schulman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,
         LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119,
         Phone: 212-946-9356, Fax: 212-273-4406, E-mail:
         sschulman@milbergweiss.com

Representing the Defendant/s is Charlotte Moses Fischman of
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP, 1177 Avenue of the
Americas, New York, NY 10036, Phone: 212-715-9125, Fax:
212-719-8000, E-mail: cfischman@kramerlevin.com.


ORTHO-MCNEIL: Parker & Waichman Sues over Birth Control Patch
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parker & Waichman, LLP filed a suit against Ortho-McNeil
Pharmaceutical, Inc., a division of Johnson and Johnson Inc., on
behalf of a 33-year-old woman who allegedly suffered a venous
thrombosis (blood clot) and stroke after using the Ortho Evra
contraceptive patch for six months.

In a statement, Parker & Waichman said that in February 2004,
the plaintiff began suffering from headaches, nausea and
vomiting.  Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff's conditions
worsened, and she was taken to the emergency room at the Henry
Medical Center in Stockbridge, Georgia.  Diagnostic tests
revealed venous thrombosis and stroke.  The plaintiff was
subsequently airlifted to Emory University Hospital and was
admitted to the Neuro Intensive Care Unit where she underwent
Heparin and Coumadin (anticoagulant) therapy.  The plaintiff
will likely undergo prolonged treatment with these medications,
which may be necessary for the remainder of her life.  The suit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey in Newark, New Jersey.

For more information on Ortho Evra please visit
http://www.orthopatchlawsuit.comor  
http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/Ortho_Evra_Patch.

                 FDA Warning on Blood Clots Risk

On November 10, 2005, Ortho McNeil, in conjunction with the FDA,
issued a warning about the increased risks of blood clots
associated with Ortho Evra.  In the new warning, Ortho-McNeil
admitted for the first time that women who use the patch will be
exposed to up to 60% more estrogen than they would be exposed to
if they were taking a birth control pill with 35 micrograms of
estrogen.  The patch is only intended to deliver 20 micrograms
of estrogen.  The FDA's announcement on this warning can be
found at http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2005/NEW01262.html.  
It is widely understood that increased exposure to estrogen
greatly increases the risk of blood clots, which can cause
serious injury or death.

Venous thrombosis is a blood clot formation in the veins that
most commonly forms in the veins of the legs.  The thrombus can
interfere with circulation; it may break off and travel through
the blood stream, which can cause pulmonary embolism or stroke.  
Treatment may include long-term use of anticoagulant medications
and/or surgery.  The new warnings from the FDA and Ortho-McNeil
indicate that the risk of developing blood clots may be
significantly higher with the Ortho Evra patch than with oral
contraceptives.

Stroke occurs when the blood supply to a part of the brain is
suddenly interrupted.  In brain tissue, a reduction of blood
flow can damage or kill brain cells.  Death of brain tissue can
lead to loss of the function controlled by that tissue.  Stroke
is an extremely serious medical condition that often leads to
adult disability and death.  It is important to identify a
stroke as early as possible because patients who are treated
earlier are more likely to survive and have better recoveries.  
The new warnings from the FDA and Ortho-McNeil indicate that the
risk of stroke may be significantly higher with the Ortho Evra
patch than with oral contraceptives.

It is alleged that Ortho-McNeil was aware of the increased
medical risks associated with Ortho Evra before the drug was
approved and that, once approved, the company failed to
adequately warn patients about these risks.  Evidence shows that
the risk of blood clots, heart attack and stroke associated with
Ortho Evra is significantly higher than with oral contraceptive
pills.  The incidence of embolisms and thrombotic injuries in
Phase III trials of Ortho Evra was reportedly six times greater
than the incidence of such events in oral contraceptives using
the hormone levonorgestral.  

The FDA has logged 9,116 reports of adverse reactions to the
patch in a 17-month period, whereas Ortho Tri-Cyclen, a birth
control pill, only generated 1,237 adverse reports in a six-year
period. During a 12-month period, 44 serious injuries or deaths
have been associated with Ortho Evra, whereas only 17 such
reports were linked to the birth control pill during a similar
time period.  The pattern is further magnified when usage rates
are considered: Ortho Tri-Cyclen has six times the number of
users as Ortho Evra.

Ortho Evra is an adhesive, transdermal birth control patch that
is worn on the torso.  The patch is intended to release 150 mcg
of norelgestromin and 20 mcg of ethinyl estradiol into the
bloodstream per 24 hours.  It is replaced once a week for three
weeks, and no patch is worn during the fourth week during
menstruation.  The regimen is then repeated.  Ortho Evra was
approved by the FDA in November 2001, and over 4 million women
have used Ortho Evra since its approval.  Ortho Evra continues
to be marketed aggressively to both consumers and physicians.

or more information, contact Jason Mark, Esq. or Melanie H.
Muhlstock, Esq. of Parker & Waichman, LLP --
http://www.yourlawyer.com--  Phone: 1-800-Law-Info  
(1-800-529-4636).


SALTON INC: Consumers File N.Y. Suit V. Russell Hobbs Tea Kettle
----------------------------------------------------------------
Salton, Inc. faces a lawsuit filed in New York State Supreme
Court, styled, "DiNatale v. Salton, Inc."  The suit seeks
unspecified damages for claims that plaintiffs were injured by
water contaminated with lead from a tea kettle sold by the
Company under its Russell Hobbs brand.

Filed on or about October 27, 2004, the plaintiffs' attorney was
asking to convert the lawsuit into a class action suit, but no
class action suit has been filed to date.  The manufacturer of
the product and its insurer are defending this lawsuit.  The
Company's attorneys and its insurers are cooperating in the
defense of the lawsuit.  Shortly after receiving notice of the
lawsuit, the Company voluntarily suspended selling the product.

The Company believes that at substantially the same time, the
two retailers who had purchased the kettle from the Company also
suspended selling the product.  Based on information received
from the two retailers, the Company believes that only a limited
number of the kettles were sold to consumers.  The Company
voluntarily contacted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and
has shared its information and test results concerning the
product with the agency.


SONY BMG: EFF Urges Consumers to Claim Clean CDs, Get Downloads
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is urging music fans
who purchased Sony BMG music CDs containing flawed digital
rights management (DRM) to submit their claims now for clean CDs
and extra downloads as part of a class action settlement.

"This settlement gives consumers what they thought they were
buying in the first place -- clean, safe music that will play on
their computers and their iPods as well as their stereo
systems," said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl.

Anyone who purchased Sony BMG CDs that included First4Internet
XCP and SunnComm MediaMax software can receive the same music
without DRM.  Some will also get downloads of other Sony BMG
music from several different services, including iTunes.  Music
fans have through the end of the year to participate in the
settlement, and they should receive their compensation within
six to eight weeks of submitting their claim forms, a statement
from EFF says.  Customers can find out more about the settlement
and how to submit their claims at http://www.eff.org/sony.

The problems with the Sony BMG CDs surfaced when security
researchers discovered that XCP and MediaMax installed
undisclosed -- and in some cases, hidden -- files on users'
Windows computers, potentially exposing music fans to malicious
attacks by third parties.  The infected CDs also communicated
back to Sony BMG about customers' computer use without proper
notification.

In addition to compensating consumers, Sony BMG was forced to
stop manufacturing CDs with both First4Internet XCP and SunnComm
MediaMax software.  The settlement also waives several
restrictive end user license agreement (EULA) terms and commits
Sony BMG to a detailed security review process prior to
including any DRM on future CDs.

"This settlement got music fans a fair shake in exchange for a
raw deal," said EFF Staff Attorney Corynne McSherry.  "If you
were upset about this DRM debacle, submitting your claim is one
way to show the entertainment industry that you want to be
treated with respect and fairness."

EFF and its co-counsel -- Green Welling LLP, Lerach, Coughlin,
Stoia, Geller, Ruchman and Robbins, and the Law Offices of
Lawrence E. Feldman and Associates -- along with a coalition of
other plaintiffs' class action counsel, reached the settlement
after negotiations with Sony BMG in December of 2005.

To submit claim:
http://www.eff.org/sony

For litigation documents and frequently asked questions:
http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/Sony-BMG/

The suit was styled, "Michaelson et al v. Sony BMG Music, Inc.
et al, Case No. 1:05-cv-09575-NRB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Naomi
Reice Buchwald.  Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Scott Adam
Kamber of Kamber & Associates, LLC, 19 Fulton St., Suite 400,
New York, NY 10038, Phone: (646)-441-7100, Fax: (212)-202-6364,
E-mail: skamber@kolaw.com; and Jonathan K. Levine of Girard
Gibbs & De Bartolomeo, LLP, 601 California St, Suite 1400, San
Francisco, CA 94108, Phone: 415-981-4800; Fax: 415-981-4846; E-
mail: jkl@girardgibbs.com.

Representing the defendant(s) are Jeffrey S. Jacobson of
Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP(NYC), 919 Third Avenue, New York, NY
10022, Phone: 2129096479; Fax: 2129096836; E-mail:
jsjacobs@debevoise.com.


STELLENT INC: Minn. Court Reviewing Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota is yet to
give final approval to the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Stellent, Inc. and certain
of its current and former officers, styled, "In Re: Stellent,
Inc. v., et al., Case No. 0:03-cv-04384-RHK-AJB."

The lawsuit was a consolidation in Federal District Court for
the District of Minnesota of several related lawsuits (the first
of which was commenced on July 31, 2003).  The plaintiff alleges
that the defendants made false and misleading statements
relating to the Company and its future financial prospects in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  The plaintiff seeks monetary damages against the
defendants in unspecified amounts.

In fiscal year 2005 a settlement was reached, subject to final
documentation and preliminary and final court approval.  The
Company received the final court approval in the third quarter
of fiscal year 2006.  No further expenses of any significance
are anticipated with this lawsuit.

The suit is styled, "In Re: Stellent, Inc. v., et al., Case No.
0:03-cv-04384-RHK-AJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota under Judge Richard H. Kyle with referral
to Judge Arthur J. Boylan.  Representing the Plaintiff/s are,
Carolyn Glass Anderson and Robert C. Moilanen of Zimmerman Reed,
PLLP, 651 Nicollet Mall, Ste. 501, Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123,
Phone: (612) 341-0400, Fax: (612) 341-0844, E-mail:
cga@zimmreed.com and rcm@zimmreed.com; and Dennis J. Herman and
Reed R. Kathrein of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP - SF, 100 Pine St., Ste. 2600, San Francisco, CA
94111, Phone: (415) 288-4545 and 415-676-4406, Fax:
415-288-4534, E-mail: dennish@lcsr.com and reedk@lerachlaw.com.  

Representing the Defendant/s are, Theresa M. Bevilacqua and
Peter W. Carter of Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, 50 S. 6th St., Ste.
1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498, Phone: 612-340-7883 and
612-340-2600, Fax: 612-340-2868, E-mail: carter.peter@dorsey.com
and bevilacqua.theresa@dorsey.com; and Heather J. Klaas of
Ameriprise Financial, Inc., T33/52 IDS Tower, Minneapolis, MN
55440, Phone: 612-671-4873, Fax: 612-671-3432, E-mail:
heather.j.klaas@ampf.com.


TIBCO SOFTWARE: Shareholders File Stock Fraud Suits in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tibco Software, Inc. and several of its officers face three
purported securities class actions filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.  The plaintiffs
are seeking to represent a class of purchasers of the Company's
common stock from September 21, 2004 through March 1, 2005.

The complaints generally allege that the Company made false or
misleading statements concerning its operating results, its
business and internal controls, and the integration of Staffware
and seek unspecified monetary damages.  The complaints charge
the Company and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Lance Siegall, et al. v. Tibco Software, Inc., et al., case no.
05-CV-02146," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation
are:

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

     (2) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
         80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
         mail: info@dyershuman.com

     (3) 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

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

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


TOYOTA MOTOR: Settles Calif. Racial Suit, Faces Another in Wis.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation is continuing to work on the
principal terms of a settlement of the class actions filed
against it in California federal and state courts, alleging race
discrimination in relation to its pricing practices.

An alleged class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, styled "Baltimore v. Toyota
Motor Credit Corporation," filed in November 2000 claims that
the Company's pricing practices discriminate against African-
Americans and Hispanics.  Two additional cases pending in the
state courts in California, (styled "Herra v. Toyota Motor
Credit Corporation" and "Gonzales v. Toyota Motor Credit
Corporation") filed in the Superior Court of California Alameda
County in April 2003 and in the Superior Court of the State of
California in August 2003, respectively, contain similar
allegations claiming discrimination against minorities.

Various individuals brought the cases.  Injunctive relief is
being sought in all three cases and the cases also include a
claim for actual damages in an unspecified amount.  As of
December 31, 2005, the parties had conducted a series of
mediation sessions and had reached agreement on the principal
terms of a settlement.  The parties reached an agreement to
settle the cases subsequent to December 31, 2005.

In addition to the forgoing, an alleged class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, captioned,
"Harris, et al. v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation," filed in
June 2005 contains allegations identical to those set forth in
"Baltimore v. TMCC" and the plaintiffs seek similar relief.  The
Wisconsin case is limited to a purported class of consumers
whose contracts originated in the State of Wisconsin.

The California case is styled, "Baltimore, et al v. Toyota Motor
Credit, et al., Case No. 2:01-cv-05564-NM-Mc," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge Nora M. Manella with referral to Judge James W. McMahon.  
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Daniel L. Berger, Hannah E.
Greenwald, Hannah E. Greenwald, Marcus Jackson, Seth R. Lesser,
Samera Syeda Ludwig, Blair A. Nicholas, Alan Schulman and
Darnley D. Stewart of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman, 1285
Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Fl., New York, NY 10019, Phone:
212-554-1400; and Wyman O Gilmore, Jr. of Wyman O Gilmore Law
Offices, 115 Court St., P.O. Box 729, Grove Hill, AL 36451,
Phone: 251-275-3115, Fax: 251-275-3847.  

Representing the Defendant/s are, Brandon A. Block of Buchalter
Nemer, 1000 Wilshire Boulevard, 15th Floor, Los Angeles, CA
90017, Phone: 213-891-5108, E-mail: bblock@buchalter.com; and
Lisa M. Simonetti and Julia B. Strickland of Stroock Stroock &
Lavan, 2029 Century Park E, 18th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90067-
3086, Phone: 310-556-5800, Fax: 310-556-5959.

The Wisconsin case is styled, "Harris et al v. Toyota Motor
Credit Corporation Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-00670-CNC," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
under Judge Charles N. Clevert, Jr.  Representing the
Plaintiff/s are, Virginia M. Antoine, Laurence J. Fehring and
Robert L. Habush of Habush Habush & Rottier, SC, 777 E Wisconsin
Ave. - Ste. 2300, Milwaukee, WI 53202-5381, Phone: 414-271-0900,
Fax: 414-271-6854 and, E-mail: vantoine@habush.com,
lfehring@habush.com and rhabush@habush.com; and Emile H. Banks,
Jr., of Emile Banks & Associates, LLC, 2600 N. Mayfair Rd., Ste.
1120, Milwaukee, WI 53226, Phone: 414-777-0000, Fax:
414-777-0090, E-mail: emile@emilebankslaw.com.  

Representing the Defendant/s are, Edward J. Heiser, Jr., Andrew
A. Jones and Kenneth R. Nowakowski of Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek,
SC, 555 E. Wells St., Ste. 1900, Milwaukee, WI 53202-3819,
Phone: 414-273-2100, 414-978-5445, 414-978-5517 and
310-556-5800, Fax: 414-223-5000, E-mail: ajones@whdlaw.com and
knowakowski@whdlaw.com; and David W. Moon of Stroock Stroock &
Lavan, LLP, 2029 Century Park E., Ste. 1800, Los Angeles, CA
90067-3086, Fax: 310-556-5959.


TRANSACTION SYSTEMS: Files Judgment Motion for Nebr. Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Transaction Systems Architects, Inc. filed a motion for judgment
on the pleadings in the consolidated securities class action
filed against it and currently pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nebraska.

In November 2002, two class action complaints were filed,
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
Pursuant to a Court order, the two complaints were consolidated
as "Desert Orchid Partners v. Transaction Systems Architects,
Inc., et al.," with Genesee County Employees' Retirement System
designated as the Lead Plaintiff.

The First Amended Consolidated suit, filed on June 30, 2003,
alleges that during the purported class period, the Company and
the named defendants misrepresented the Company's historical
financial condition, results of operations and its future
prospects, and failed to disclose facts that could have
indicated an impending decline in the Company's revenues.  The
Consolidated Complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest,
fees, costs and rescission.  The class period alleged in the
Consolidated Complaint is January 21, 1999 through November 18,
2002.  

The Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.  In response, on December
15, 2003, the Court dismissed, without prejudice, Gregory
Derkacht, the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer,
as a defendant, but denied the motion to dismiss with respect to
the remaining defendants, including the Company.  On February 6,
2004, the Court entered a mediation reference order requiring
the parties to mediate before a private mediator.  The parties
held a mediation session on March 18, 2004, which did not result
in a settlement of the matter.  On July 1, 2004, lead plaintiff
filed a motion for class certification wherein, for the first
time, lead plaintiff sought to add an additional class
representative, Roger M. Wally.  On August 20, 2004, defendants
filed their opposition to the motion.  On March 22, 2005, the
Court issued an order certifying the class.

The parties held a second mediation session on January 5-6,
2006, which did not result in a settlement of the matter.  On
January 27, 2006, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, seeking a
dismissal of the lead plaintiff and certain other class members,
as well as a limitation on damages based upon plaintiffs'
inability to establish loss causation with respect to a large
portion of their claims.

The suit is styled, "Desert Orchid Partners v. Transaction
Systems Architects, et al., Case No. 8:02-cv-00553-JFB-TDT,"
filed in the U.S. District Court in Nebraska, under Judge Joseph
F. Bataillon.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Gerald L. Friedrichsen of Fitzgerald, Schorr Law Firm,
         13220 California Street, Suite 400, Omaha, NE 68154-
         5228, Phone: (402) 342-1000, Fax: (402) 342-1025,
         Email: gfriedrichsen@fitzlaw.com;

     (2) Louis Gottlieb of Goodkind, Labaton Law Firm - New
         YORK, 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212)
         907-0872, Fax: (212) 883-7072, Email:
         lgottlieb@glrslaw.com;

     (3) Marc I. Gross of Pomerantz, Haudek Law Firm, 100 Park
         Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212)
         661-1100, Fax: (212) 661-8665, Email:
         migross@pomlaw.com;  

     (4) David W. Rowe, Kinsey, Ridenour Law Firm, P.O. Box
         85778, Lincoln, NE 68501-5778, Phone: (402) 438-1313,
         Fax: (402) 438-1654, Email: drowe@krbklaw.com;

     (5) Emily C. Komlossy, Goodkind, Labaton Law Firm -
         FLORIDA, 2455 East Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 813, Fort
         Lauderdale, FL 33304, Phone: (954) 630-1000, Fax: (954)
         565-1312 Email: ekomlossy@glrslaw.com; and

     (6) Jonathan M. Plasse of Goodkind, Labaton Law Firm -
         FLORIDA, 2455 East Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 813, Fort
         Lauderdale, FL 33304, Phone: (212) 907-0863, Fax: (212)
         883-7063 Email: jplasse@glrslaw.com.

Representing the defendant/s are, Elizabeth L. Yingling and Joel
Held of Baker, Mckenzie Law Firm, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2300
Dallas, TX 75201, Phone: (214) 978-3000, Fax: (214) 978-3099,
Email: elizabeth.l.yingling@bakernet.com or
joel.held@bakernet.com and Thomas J. Culhane of Erickson,
Sederstrom Law Firm, 10330 Regency Parkway Drive, Suite 100
Omaha, NE 68114, Phone: (402) 397-2200, Fax: (402) 390-7137,
Email: tculh@eslaw.com.


TRAVEL COMPANIES: Hurricane Wilma Victims in U.K. File Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
British tourists who were stranded in Cancun when Hurricane
Wilma struck in October are filing a class action against tour
operators, according to Times Online.

They group of about 250 holidaymakers are claiming refunds and
damages against MyTravel, Thomas Cook, Thomson, First Choice and
Cosmos.  The group is represented by Solicitors Alexander
Harris.

The tourists argue they should not have been flown to Cancun
with a storm looming, and that not enough was done after the
hurricane struck, according to the report.  They spent five days
in a shelter after Wilma lashed the Yucatan.  Among the
plaintiffs is the Benson family from Rugby, which spent GBP7,000
on a fortnight's holiday in Mexico, under Thomson's travel
offering.  They were refunded GBP1,900, which covers the cost of
the holiday minus the flights and three nights' accommodation.


UCI MEDICAL: Plaintiff Lawyer Hits at Transplant Program Probe
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Blue Ribbon Committee retained by UCI Chancellor Michael
Drake issued its investigative report regarding the failure of
the UCI Liver Transplant Program on Feb. 16.

"Unfortunately, the report paints a picture with a fairly broad
brush.  The issues including a failure of leadership and
accountability and lack of quality assurance are really nothing
new.  This is a mirror image of similar criticism of UCI since
the fertility scandal of ten years ago," said Larry Eisenberg,
of Eisenberg & Gray, LLP, lead counsel for the patients suing
UCI.

"It is incomprehensible that the report does not mention
anything about misrepresentation or false claims regarding UCI
overstating its alleged transplantation success.  The glaring
omission is that patients simply were not told the truth about
the shortcomings of the program.  Patients relied on such
representations and died because they did not transfer to
another liver transplant program," said Mr. Eisenberg.

"In order to get to the heart of the problem, a true
investigative analysis would itemize specific examples of who
was responsible and why the liver transplant patients were not
properly served.  There are probably a number of investigative
journalists and attorneys who know more about the specific
failures at UCI than the Blue Ribbon Committee," said Mr.
Eisenberg.

"This report is nothing more than a fairly bland review by
academic individuals with distinct ties to the Regents and the
University of California, who are the defendants in these
lawsuits.  It is no wonder that the report is long on
generalities and short on specifics.  UCI does not want to
provide the plaintiffs with evidence to be used against them in
Court.  We will proceed with the pre-trial depositions and
discovery process to obtain the testimony and evidence that will
ultimately prove the fraud and misrepresentation that occurred.  
Whether the culture of misrepresentation and deceit continues at
UCI remains to be seen.  The patients and their families will
have their day in Court," said Mr. Eisenberg.

                         Case Background

A lawsuit seeking class action status was launched in Orange
County Superior Court against UCI Medical Center for negligence,
fraud and conspiracy [in 2005], The Associated Press reports
(Class Action Reporter, Nov. 16, 2005).

The lawsuit alleged that hospital officials didn't tell patients
that the University of California, Irvine Medical Center hadn't
had a resident liver transplant surgeon since June 2003.  Its
two surgeons were based in San Diego, some 90 miles away, and
worked under contract, according to the suit (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 16, 2005).

In addition, the 11-page lawsuit also alleged that three
doctors, Dr. David Imagawa, Dr. Muhammad Sheikh and Dr. Sean
Cao, conspired to perform surgeries that were more lucrative and
cutting-edge while neglecting transplant patients, even when
organs became available.  According to the suit, the other
procedures attracted "more prestige, more patients, more profit
and more research funding" than transplants.  The plaintiffs in
the case are Andrea Razetto, her husband, Carlos, and Audrey
Degenhardt (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 16, 2005).

                           Plaintiffs

Greene Broillet represents the Arms Family, the Degenhardt
Family, the Hambarian Family, the Henderson Family, the Vu
Family and the Wade Family, who all filed complaints for damages
for the wrongful death of a family member who allegedly died
while under the care of UCI's Liver Transplant Program.  The
firm also represents Barry Johnson, Chris Millington, Yolanda
Sanchez, and Diane Tovar, who all filed complaints for damages
for personal injuries allegedly sustained while awaiting an
organ transplant as a patient of UCI's Medical Center.  The
partners handling these cases are Browne Greene and Mark T.
Quigley with the Santa Monica, CA. law firm of Greene Broillet &
Wheeler, LLP. Arms, et. al. vs. Regents of the University of
California, Case Number 06CC01920.

             Consolidation of Greene Broillet Suits

Recently, Santa Ana Superior Court Judge Jonathan H. Cannon
ordered the consolidation of all lawsuits pending against The
Regents of the University of California arising over the
University of California at Irvine's Liver Transplant Program
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 17, 2006).

Greene Broillet & Wheeler, LLP's 10 wrongful death and personal
injury lawsuits will be consolidated with other similar cases
and will be controlled by Judge Cannon.  The Judge also ruled
that the Plaintiffs may begin deposing the Defendants 46-days
from Feb. 15 (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 17, 2006).

Contact information for Larry Eisenberg of Eisenberg & Gray,
LLP: Phone: 949-753-1500; E-mail: leisenberg@eglawyers.com.

For more information, contact Browne Greene and Mark T. Quigley
of Greene Broillet & Wheeler (http://www.greene-broillet.com),
Phone: 310.576.1200.  The attorneys also represent Elodie Irvine
in her appeal of her civil suit against UCI's Medical Center.


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Pascazi Files $20B Wiretapping Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael S. Pascazi, attorney and counselor-at-law, filed a class
action against Verizon Communications, Inc. on Feb. 16, 2006.  

The suit alleges and accuses the telecom giant of violating the
law and the privacy of its customers by collaborating with the
National Security Agency (NSA) in the NSA's massive and illegal
program to wiretap and data-mine Americans' communications.
Docket No.: SDNY 06 Civ.1221)

In December 2005, the press revealed that the government had
instituted a comprehensive and warrantless electronic
surveillance program that ignored the careful safeguards set
forth by Congress.  This surveillance program, purportedly
authorized by the President at least as early as 2001 and
primarily undertaken by the NSA, allegedly intercepts and
analyzes the communications of millions of ordinary Americans.

In the largest "invasion of privacy" ever devised, it is alleged
that the NSA uses powerful computers to "data-mine" the contents
of these Internet and telephone communications for suspicious
names, numbers, and words, and to analyze data traffic
indicating who is calling and emailing whom, in order to
identify persons who may be "linked" to "suspicious activities",
whether directly or indirectly.  "Such conduct by the government
is more troubling than the issuance of the General Warrants by
King George, prior to the Declaration of Independence and the
Revolutionary War, whereby, the American Patriots threw off the
yoke of tyranny," according to Mr. Pascazi.

To accomplish such a feat the government requires the
collaboration of major telecommunications companies to implement
the NSA's unprecedented and illegal domestic wiretapping
program.

Verizon (which recently acquired MCI, Inc., formerly WorldCom)
maintains domestic and international telecommunications
facilities over which millions of Americans' telephone and
Internet communications pass every day.  It is also alleged that
Verizon manages some of the largest databases in the world,
containing records of most or all communications made through
its vast networks.

The lawsuit alleges that Verizon has opened its key
telecommunications facilities and databases to direct access by
the NSA and/or other government agencies, thereby, disclosing to
the government the contents of its customers', and others',
communications, as well as detailed communications records about
millions of its customers' and others, whose communications pass
over and through Verizon's telecommunications facilities,
including the lawsuit's class members.

The lawsuit also alleges that Verizon has given the government
unfettered access to its over 19,000 gigabyte databases of
information; some of the largest databases in the world.
Moreover, it is alleged that by opening its network and
databases to wholesale surveillance by the NSA, Verizon has
violated the privacy of its customers and the people they call
and email, as well as broken longstanding communications privacy
laws.

The lawsuit further alleges that Verizon continues to assist the
government in its secret surveillance of millions of Americans.
Mr. Pascazi, on behalf of a nationwide class of persons, is
suing to hold Verizon responsible for its alleged illegal
collaboration in the government's domestic wiretapping program,
which program has violated the law and damaged the fundamental
freedoms of the American public.  The suit estimates and alleges
damages totaling $20 billion, subject to evidence adduced during
discovery and at trial.

Copy of the Class Action Complaint, filed in Federal District
Court for the Southern District of New York, is available at
http://www.pascazilaw.com.

The case is styled "Pascazi v. Borrelli et. al (7:06-cv-01221-
WCC)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under Judge William C. Conne.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Michael S. Pascazi, P.O. Box 268,
Fishkill, NY 12524, Phone: (845) 228-8784 (New York); Phone:
+44 0121.288.7535 (London): Fax: +1 877.844.4120 (U.S.A.); E-
mail: info@pascazilaw.com.


VIXEL CORPORATION: IPO Settlement Awaits Final Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vixel Corporation (now Emulex Corporation) is awaiting final
approval of a consolidated class action suit, styled, "In re
Vixel Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 01 CIV.
10053(SAS)."  The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against it and two of its
officers and directors and certain underwriters who participated
in the Company's initial public offering in late 1999.

The amended complaint alleges violations under Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Section 11 of the Securities Act and seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's stock during the period October 1, 1999 through
December 6, 2000.  

In October 2002, the parties agreed to toll the statute of
limitations with respect to the Company's officers and directors
until September 30, 2003, and on the basis of this agreement,
the Company's officers and directors were dismissed from the
lawsuit without prejudice.

During June 2003, the Company and the other issuer defendants in
the action reached a tentative settlement with the plaintiffs
that would, among other things, result in the dismissal with
prejudice of all claims against the defendants and their
officers and directors.  In connection with the possible
settlement, those officers and directors who had entered tolling
agreements with the plaintiffs agreed to extend those agreements
so that they would not expire prior to any settlement being
finalized.  

Although Vixel approved this settlement proposal in principle,
it remains subject to a number of procedural conditions, as well
as formal approval by the court.  On August 31, 2005, a
Preliminary Order In Connection With Settlement Proceedings was
issued which among other items, sets a date for a Settlement
Fairness Hearing, and the form of notice to the Settlement
Classes of the Issuers' Settlement Stipulation.

In December 2005, the settlement notices authorized by the court
were sent to former Vixel stockholders and the web site:
http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.comwas created for  
claimants, as well as a March 24, 2006 objection deadline.  The
Company believes the final resolution of this litigation will
not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated
financial position, results of operation or liquidity.

The suit is styled, "In re Vixel Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 01 CIV. 10053(SAS)," related to "In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A. 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, 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


WILLIAMS CONTROLS: Faces Product Liability Suit in Okla. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Williams Controls, Inc. was named in a product liability case
filed in the District Court for Bryan, Oklahoma, styled, "Cuesta
v. Ford, et al."

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages on behalf
of the class.  The Company believes the claims to be without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against this action.  
There can be no assurance, however, that the outcome of the
lawsuit will be favorable to the Company or will not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, consolidated
financial condition and results of operations, the Company
stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  

The suit is styled, "Braulio Cuesta M.D. v. Ford Motor Company,
CJ-04-00511," filed in the District Court for Bryan, Oklahoma.  
Representing the plaintiff are The Burrage Law Firm, John E.
Dowdell, Bruns & Gibbs, and Greene Law Firm.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


NVE CORPORATION: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated the first securities class action
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against
NVE Corporation (NVEC), and certain officers and directors.

The Complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations that the defendants issued
a series of material misrepresentations to the market concerning
its projected revenues and product technology, which had the
effect of artificially inflating the shares' market price.  The
class period is from May 22, 2003 through February 11, 2005.  
Deadline to apply as lead plaintiff is April 11, 2006.

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


OMNICARE INC: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
on behalf of all securities purchasers of Omnicare, Inc. (OCR)
from August 3, 2005 and January 27, 2006 inclusive.

The complaint charges Omnicare and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Omnicare, together with its subsidiaries, provide
pharmaceutical care for the elder people primarily in the U.S.
and Canada.  The complaint alleges that Defendants' issued a
series of false and misleading statements to the market
artificially inflating the Company's stock.

More specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose these
materially adverse facts to the market:

     (1) that Defendants materially inflated Omnicare's
         financial results by improperly substituting the pills
         it supplies to its nursing home patients to treat three
         common ailments.  Specifically, that the Company
         improperly substituted two 7.5-milligram Buspirone
         anti-anxiety tablets for one 15-milligram tablet,
         Fluoxetine anti-depression tablets for capsules and
         Ranitidine heartburn capsules for tablets;

     (2) that the implementation of Medicare Part D had
         significantly increased the Company's costs and the
         number of rejected Medicare claims, which put a strain
         on the Company's business model; and

     (3) that the Company lacked the staff and the essential
         internal compliance controls necessary to capitalize on
         the new plan.

On January 30, 2006, Associated Press reported that on January
27, 2006 Michigan attorney general's office raided Omnicare's
offices in Livonia and other cities.  On this news, shares of
Omnicare fell $6.09 per share, or 11.06 percent, on heavy
trading volume, to close at $48.96 per share on January 30,
2006.

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


PROQUEST COMPANY: Dyer & Shuman Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Dyer & Shuman, LLP initiated class action on
behalf of persons who purchased the common stock of ProQuest
Company (PQE) between Jan. 9, 2003 and Feb. 8, 2006.  The suit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of
Michigan.

The lawsuit alleges that ProQuest Company violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market.  

For more information, contact Derek C. Epps of Dyer & Shuman,
LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue Denver, CO 80218, Phone:
1-800-711-6483; E-mail: DEpps@DyerShuman.com; On the Net:
http://www.dyershuman.com.


ROYAL GROUP: Labaton Sucharow Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Labaton Sucharow and Lerach Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on February
3, 2006 on behalf of a Class consisting of:

     (i) all United States citizens and entities that purchased
         or otherwise acquired the common stock of Royal Group
         Technologies Limited (NYSE:RYG) (TSX:RYG) on the New
         York Stock Exchange or the Toronto Stock Exchange; and

   (ii) all foreign persons and entities that purchased or  
        otherwise acquired Royal Group common stock on the New     
        York Stock Exchange between February 24, 2000 and
        October 18, 2004, inclusive.  

The lawsuit was filed against Royal Group and certain of its
former officers and directors.  The docket number for the action
is No. 06 Civ. 0876 (KMW).  The action has been assigned to the
Honorable Kimba M. Wood, U.S. District Judge.  Class members
have until April 3, 2006 to file as a lead plaintiff.

A copy of the complaint is available at
http://www.labaton.com/get/?case=RoyalGroup.
  
The complaint charges Royal Group and certain of its former
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Royal Group is a vertically integrated
manufacturer of polymer-based home improvement, consumer and
construction products.  Royal Group's operations are located
primarily in Canada and the U.S., with international locations
in Mexico, South America, Europe and Asia.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
caused Royal Group's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements.  The statements were materially false and misleading
because Defendants knew, but failed to disclose, that Company
officers and directors systematically treated the Company like
their personal piggy bank -- routinely causing the Company to
engage in financial transactions either with themselves or with
companies under their control.  Royal Group executives ran the
Company as their personal fiefdom and were not held accountable
by the Company's board of directors for their wrongful conduct.

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

As a result of these revelations, the price of Royal Group stock
dropped precipitously, falling from $8.97 per share on October
13, 2004 to $7.15 per share on October 19, 2004, a decline of
more than 20 percent.  Plaintiffs seeks to recover damages for
himself and all members of the Class.  

For more information, contact David J. Goldsmith, Esq. of
Labaton Sucharow and Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800-321-0476 or
investorrelations@labaton.com.


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *