CAR_Public/060222.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, February 22, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 38

                            Headlines

ALCOA INC.: Mohawk Indians File Suit over PCB-Related Damages
ANTHEM INSURANCE: Suit Filed in Ind. Over 2001 Demutualization
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Withdraws Exanta After News of Liver Injury
AUSTRALIA: Maurice Blackburn Chairman Responds to Accusations
AXA S.A.: Armenian Insurance Settlement Hearing Set May 15, 2006

BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Hybrid Canola Harms Organic Farming in Canada
CHILDHOOD OBESITY: Consumer Advocates Mull Filing Suit in Mass.
CORKY & LENNY'S: Ohio Deli Faces Suit Over Salmonella Outbreak
CYTOSOL LABORATORIES: FDA Discovers Endotoxin in Salt Solution
DEMOCRATIC PARTY: Black-Rights Activist Files Reparation Lawsuit

DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Plaintiff Atty. Eyes a Third of Settlement
DUPONT CO.: EPA Advisers Say C8 Might Indeed be Carcinogenic
FIRST YEARS: FDA Issues Health Alert on Recalled Teething Rings
FLORIDA: Hearing Over Miami's $7M Fire-Fee Settlement Heated  
FLYING SALMON: Alerts Public on Undeclared Soybean in Caviar

ILLINOIS: Chicago Police Union Claims City Overbills Retirees
INDIAN TRUST: Senate, House Committees Schedule Joint Hearing
LASKO PROCUTS: Recalls Pivoting Floor Fans Due to Fire Hazard
MAINE: Federal Court Reschedules Knox County Strip-Search Trial
MASSACHUSETTS: Judge Makes Extensive Review on MDL's Pros, Cons

MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Spring Lake Park School to Receive $258T
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Monticello Schools Get $149T Windfall
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Minn. School Gets $145T from Settlement
NETFLIX INC: Mulls Revising Terms of Settlement with Subscribers
NORTH CAROLINA: Professor Mulls Lawsuit V. Durham Public Schools

PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Offers Credit Security to Data Theft Victims
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Distributes Notices for $400M Settlement
SIPEX CORP: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 6, 2006
SOS STAFFING: Securities Settlement Hearing Set April 11, 2006
TELEPHONE COMPANIES: Nebraska Distributes 2004 Settlement Money

UNIROYAL TECHNOLOGY: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set March 30
UNITED STATES: Questions on What News Merits Disclosure Linger
UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: Reaches $9M Settlement in Labor Lawsuit


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
  
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

APPLICA INC: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Fla.
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Suit in Ga.
COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES: Chitwood Harley Lodges Stock Suit in Ga.
COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Stock Suit in Ga.

COOPER COMPANIES: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Stock Suit in Calif.
COOPER COMPANIES: Brodsky Smith Lodges Securities Suit in Calif.
JARDEN CORP: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Stock Suit in Pa.


                         *********


ALCOA INC.: Mohawk Indians File Suit over PCB-Related Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Inc. is facing a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of New York styled "Margaret George,
et al., v. General Motors Corporation and Alcoa Inc.," Docket
No. 05-CV-1482.  

The complaint alleges personal injury and damages arising from
exposure to PCB released from the defendants' industrial
facilities in Massena, New York, and seeks certification of a
class of plaintiffs comprised of individual Mohawk Indians
residing on the Akwesane Territory, a Mohawk Indian Reservation,
situated along the St. Lawrence River in the U.S. and Canada.  
The suit alleges that approximately 12,000 individuals reside on
the reservation.  The company is investigating the allegations.

The suit is styled "George et. al v. General Motors Corporation
et. al, (7:05-cv-01482-TJM-GHL)," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of New York under Judge Thomas
J. McAvoy, with referral to Judge George H. Lowe.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Christopher A. Amato
         Dreyer, Boyajian Law Firm
         75 Columbia Street
         Albany, NY 12210
         Phone: 518-463-7784
         Fax: 518-463-4039
         E-mail: camato@dreyerboyajian.com

     (2) Donald W. Boyajian
         Dreyer, Boyajian Law Firm
         75 Columbia Street
         Albany, NY 12210
         Phone: 518-463-7784
         Fax: 518-463-4039
         E-mail: dboyajian@dreyerboyajian.com

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) David R. Greene
         LeBoeuf, Lamb Law Firm - Hartford Office
         One Goodwin Square
         225 Asylum Street
         Hartford, CT 06103
         Phone: 860-293-3500
         Fax: 860-293-3555
         E-mail: dxgreene@llgm.com

     (2) David G. Hetzel
         LeBoeuf, Lamb Law Firm - NY Office
         125 West 55th Street
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-424-8000
         Fax: 212-424-8500
         E-mail: david.hetzel@llgm.com

     (3) Michael W. Peters
         LeBoeuf, Lamb Law Firm - Albany Office
         99 Washington Avenue
         Suite 2020, One Commerce Plaza
         Albany, NY 12210-2820
         Phone: 518-626-9000
         Fax: 518-626-9010
         E-mail: mwpeters@llgm.com


ANTHEM INSURANCE: Suit Filed in Ind. Over 2001 Demutualization
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action was filed on Jan. 31, on behalf of former members
of Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. who received cash
compensation on or about December 2001 when Anthem Insurance
converted from a mutual to a stock insurance company.

The conversion took place on Nov. 2, 2001.  The class action
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Indiana statutes, breach of fiduciary duty and contract, unjust
enrichment and negligence.

The action, captioned "Cescato v. Anthem, Inc., No. 1:05-CV-
01908," is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division against:

     (1) Anthem, Inc.,

     (2) Anthem Insurance, and

     (3) Goldman, Sachs & Co.

The case was assigned to Judge David F. Hamilton.  The suit
alleges Defendants made material misrepresentations and omitted
material facts in documents sent to members who approved the
conversion.  To raise the cash needed to compensate former
members for their interests, Anthem stock was sold in an initial
public offering on Oct. 30, 2001.  The defendants are alleged to
have reduced the price at which the IPO shares would be offered
in order to sell almost twice as many shares as had been
represented would be sold, thus raising almost twice as much
cash.  

The defendants then allegedly took advantage of the cash
compensation default mechanism in the Plan of Conversion and
prevented hundreds of thousands of members from becoming Anthem
shareholders.  They allegedly devised the scheme to save costs
and avoid complexities associated with a large shareholder
population.  Since the cash compensation paid to former members
was tied to the allegedly depressed IPO share price, all former
members who were paid cash are alleged to have received
inadequate compensation.  In addition, Anthem and Anthem
Insurance allegedly misinformed former members that the entire
cash compensation was taxable capital gain income.

Deadline for filing as lead plaintiff is April 21, 2006.  For
more information, contact Dennis P. Barron, Phone:
(513) 871-2369.

Court contact: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Indianapolis Division, 105 E. Ohio St., Indianapolis,
IN 46204, Phone: (317) 229-3700; On the Net:
http://www.insd.uscourts.gov.


ASTRAZENECA PLC: Withdraws Exanta After News of Liver Injury
------------------------------------------------------------
AstraZeneca plc has decided to withdraw the anticoagulant
Exanta(TM) (melagatran/ximelagatran from the market and
terminate its development.  Exanta is also known as Exarta(TM)
in Italy and Sweden

AstraZeneca estimates that approximately 400 patients are
currently being prescribed the drug for short-term prevention of
venous thromboembolism (VTE) following orthopaedic surgery (OS).  
Two ongoing Exanta clinical trials will be discontinued and
Exanta-treated patients switched to other treatments.  The
company said it is important that patients do not stop Exanta
treatment without consulting their doctor.  Regulatory files in
OS and other indications in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere will
now be withdrawn.

The withdrawal of Exanta has been triggered by new patient
safety data (an adverse event report of serious liver injury) in
the EXTEND clinical trial.  The trial examines use of Exanta in
extended VTE prophylaxis in OS up to 35 days post-operatively,
and so involves a longer duration of therapy than currently
approved for marketing.  Liver findings have previously been
observed during clinical trials of chronic use as referred to in
the prescribing information.  

This new patient report indicates a potential risk of severe
liver injury, with an observation of rapid onset of signs and
symptoms in the weeks following the end of the 35 days
treatment.  This specific observation has not previously been
made in relation to Exanta and indicates that regular liver
function monitoring may not mitigate the possible risk.

While there is no evidence of a risk of liver injury with
approved use up to 11 days, any unapproved use beyond 11 days is
a concern.  Therefore, in the interests of patient safety,
AstraZeneca is taking the precautionary measure of withdrawing
Exanta. AstraZeneca has informed regulatory authorities of its
decision to withdraw Exanta and is now communicating with all
prescribers and healthcare professionals to advise them that no
new patients should be started on Exanta.

For patients currently taking Exanta, doctors should consider
changing treatment to an alternative anticoagulant while taking
account of individual patient circumstances and ensuring
uninterrupted anticoagulation.  The small number of current
Exanta patients should be contacted by their doctor and reviewed
promptly to avoid any unplanned discontinuation of therapy.  
AstraZeneca will maintain the supply of Exanta for a short
period to allow doctors to manage patients during this
transition.

David Brennan, Chief Executive Officer, AstraZeneca PLC said:
"We have decided to take this precautionary action in the
interests of patient safety.  There are a number of alternative
options for short-term post-operative anticoagulation following
orthopaedic surgery.  We would like to recognize the involvement
of doctors, patients and scientists and their commitment to the
development of Exanta over the past years.  Thrombosis is one of
the greatest threats to human health and represents a
significant public health burden.  AstraZeneca remains committed
to the discovery and development of new medicines in this area
to help improve patients' lives."

Early in 2005, AstraZeneca securities lawsuit in relation to
Exanta filed by:

     (1) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP,

     (2) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP,
    
     (3) the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel,

     (4) Schatz & Nobel, P.C.,

     (5) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP,

     (6) Stull, Stull & Brody

Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of all persons who purchased American Depository Receipts of
AstraZeneca, PLC (NYSE:AZN) between April 2, 2003 and October 8,
2004, inclusive (Class Action Reporter, March 22, 2005).  

The Complaint alleges that AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical
research company, and certain of its officers and directors
issued materially false statements concerning the results of the
clinical trials of the Company's investigational oral
anticoagulant Exanta, and the status and likelihood of the
approval of the New Drug Application for Exanta.  

These statements caused the Company's stock/ADR prices to rise
until September 9, 2004, when the U.S. Food & Drug
Administration posted briefing documents on the FDA's website
which raised previously unheard-of problems with Exanta.  Then,
on October 8, 2004, AstraZeneca issued a press release stating,
that they received an Action Letter from the FDA for Exanta.  
The release stated that "the [FDA] did not grant approval for
the investigational oral anticoagulant EXANTA(R)
(ximelagatran)."  On this news, AstraZeneca stock fell to $38
per share. During the Class Period, AstraZeneca traded as high
as $51.20 per share on March 9, 2004.

Astrazeneca on the Net: http://www.astrazeneca.com/.


AUSTRALIA: Maurice Blackburn Chairman Responds to Accusations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Murphy, Chairman of the Melbourne, Australia-based
plaintiff law firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman recently responded
to claims it is wrong for it to conduct shareholder class
actions, The Financial Review reports.

Mr. Murphy's comments came after the publishing of Richard
Jacobs's "Spare the AWB shareholder, please" letters.  In it Mr.
Jacobs suggested that the firm do not benefit shareholders
because all settlement money comes out of the company, thereby
reducing shareholder value by the amount of any payout.

According to Mr. Murphy, though, Mr. Jacobs' starting premise is
completely wrong, since shareholder class actions commonly
include as defendants the directors, the auditors and the
advisers of the company.  Any settlement is usually contributed
to by each such defendant (or more commonly their insurer) not
just by the company and therefore, the shareholder's recovery
does not reduce shareholder value by that amount.  For example,
the GIO class action conducted by his firm was run against GIO,
its directors, its independent expert, its auditors and its
takeover adviser.  In that case, shareholders recovered $97
million from various parties.

In any event, Mr. Murphy goes on to states that it is wrong for
Mr. Jacobs to presume that when a company is ordered to
compensate its past and present shareholders, its share value
correspondingly reduces.  A recent U.S. analysis of the impact
of settlements in shareholder class action claims shows that
share value often increases on the announcement of a settlement,
since the market regains confidence that the company will comply
with proper corporate governance practices and the law.

Mr. Jacobs's argument also relies on participants in a class
action being current shareholders.  The majority of participants
in a shareholder class action are former shareholders who are no
longer vitally interested in the market value of the company in
which they once held shares.  Why should shareholders, who sold
their shares at a loss because of a company's misleading and
deceptive conduct, care whether the value of the company reduces
because they decide to sue?  Mr. Murphy pointed out that it is
the shareholders who are the victims of the company's
misconduct, not the other way around.

Mr. Murphy notes that a fundamental aspect of our corporate
governance regime is the ability of shareholders to seek
recovery of losses through the private enforcement of investor
protection laws under the Corporations Act.  Presumably,
according to him, Mr. Jacobs believes this law is a folly.

The regulator itself recognizes the important corporate
governance role that shareholder class actions can play.  Jeremy
Cooper, the deputy director of the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission, recently said that vigilant shareholders
and a vigorous, but appropriately balanced, shareholder class
action landscape, will play an important part in maintaining the
integrity of the equity capital market.

Mr. Murphy concludes his response by saying, we are proud of our
work in prosecuting claims for private and institutional
investors in the capital market, and are fortunate to be able to
derive our income from pursuit of our clients' interests, which
is also for the public good.


AXA S.A.: Armenian Insurance Settlement Hearing Set May 15, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $17.5 million
settlement in the matters, "Kyurkjian, et. al, v. AXA, S.A., et
al., Case No: 02-01750 and Ouzounian, et. al., v. AXA, S.A., et
al., Case No: 05-02596."

The case was brought on behalf of all beneficiaries, heirs of
beneficiaries, owners, heirs of owners, and all other persons
having Claims.  "Claims" means any and all claims or potential
claims of any nature, however they may be expressed, know or
unknown, direct or indirect, under, concerning, or in any way
arising out of or relating to the Life Insurance Policies, which
any of the Plaintiffs or any of the Settlement Class members may
have had, may now have, or may in the future have against any of
the Released AXA Parties or any combination of them, whether or
not such claims are or were time-barred under applicable law
(including, without limitation, any and all claims for payment
of death benefits, surrender values, cash values, endowments, or
any other form of payment under the Life Insurance Policies).  

A "Life Insurance Policy" means a life insurance policy (which
may include savings components or annuities) that:

     (1) insured a life of, or was purchased by, a person of
         Armenian descent or ancestry; and

     (2) was issued at any time in the Turkish Ottoman Empire
         through and until the later of:

        (a) December 31, 1920, or

        (b) such time as the Turkish Ottoman Empire ceased to
            exist, by:

           (i) The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the
               U.S.,

           (ii) L'Union Compagnie D'Assurance Sur La Vie Humaine
                (whose successors include, without limitation,
                L'Union des Assurance de Paris-Vie, sued in the
                Actions as L'Union des Assurance de Paris),

          (iii) Caisse Paternelle, also known as "la Caisse
                Paternelle cie anonyme d'assurance mutuelles
                generale sur la vie humaine, en mutualite a
                primes fixes et contre les accidents sur 1es
                chemins de fer",

           (iv) la Confiance,

            (v) The Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York,

           (vi) Nordstern Lebenversicherungs AG, or

          (vii) any of their respective predecessors,
                successors, or subsidiaries, provided that the
                successor or subsidiary relationship with any of
                the six companies named herein was in existence
                prior to 1923.

The hearing is on May 15, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. before U.S. Judge
Christina A. Snyder in Courtroom 5 of the U.S. District Court,
located at 312 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012.  

Any objections to the settlement must be filed by April 14,
2006.  

For more details, contact Barry A. Fisher of Fleishman & Fisher
1875 Century, Pk. E, Ste. 2130, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone:
310-557-1077; Brian S. Kabateck of Kabateck Brown Kellner, 350
S. Grand Ave, 39th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone:
213-217-5000, E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com; and Mark J. Geragos,
Matthew J. Geragos and Shelley Kaufman of Geragos & Geragos, 350
S. Grand Ave., 39th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90071-3480, Phone:
213-625-3900, E-mail: fileclerk@geragos.com, Web site:
http://www.armenianinsurancesettlement.com/.  


BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Hybrid Canola Harms Organic Farming in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case alleging that Monsanto Canada Inc. and Bayer CropScience
Inc. destroyed the ability of Saskatchewan farmers to produce
organic canola because the farmers' crops were contaminated with
genetically modified (GM) canola originating with either
Monsanto or Bayer is currently underway in a Canadian court, The
Toronto Star reports.

Canola pollen drifts on the wind, so that pollen from a field of
GM canola can drift into a field of organic canola and pollinate
some of the plants there.  When those plants mature, their seeds
will contain the same modified GM genes as the plants that did
the pollinating.

The farmers are claiming damages for lost markets.  The case
alleges that once trace amounts of GM seeds are found in a crop,
it cannot be certified and sold as organic.

Monsanto sells the herbicide called Roundup and Bayer sells a
different herbicide called Liberty Link.  Both companies sell
canola seeds that are genetically modified to resist their
respective herbicides.  When farmers spray their fields, the
herbicides kill weeds, but not the canola.  According to trial
evidence, 70 per cent of all canola grown in Western Canada in
2003 was in fields where Roundup or Liberty Link was used.

The first step in the case was a request to designate it as a
class action on behalf of all organic grain farmers in
Saskatchewan.  The judge, Madam Justice G. A. Smith, refused to
grant the request for a variety of reasons, but the Saskatchewan
Court of Appeal agreed to hear an appeal of her decision.

Two aspects of Justice Smith's judgment were being questioned.  
The first was that she noted that both companies had
acknowledged cross-pollination was both foreseeable and
inevitable.  So, the companies knew that their GM plants would
contaminate the fields of organic farmers.

The second aspect concerns one of the many grounds that Justice
Smith gave for dismissing the case.  She said the statement of
claim did not disclose a cause of action, and one reason was
that no physical damage was done to the organic fields by GM
contamination.

Justice Smith pointed out the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
had declared the GM canolas were safe for use.  According to
her, "In effect, the alleged damage is not of physical harm to
the plaintiffs' crops, but arises from the alleged inability to
meet the requirements of organic certifiers or of foreign
markets for organic canola.  There is no allegation that GM
canola is unhealthy or causes detrimental physical problems to
humans or plant life."  She also noted that the claim was "for
pure economic loss of a category not previously recognized by
Canadian courts."

In their request for an appeal, the farmers argued that Justice
Smith set excessively exacting standards.  This, said the judge
who gave the green light to the appeal, "strike(s) me as an
arguable proposition."

Both judgments are available at http://www.saskorganic.com. At  
175 pages, the trial decision is long, but at stake is the
future of organic farming in Canada.


CHILDHOOD OBESITY: Consumer Advocates Mull Filing Suit in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two possible lawsuits aimed at addressing childhood obesity
issues are likely to be filed in Massachusetts, according to
Jones Day.

Consumer advocates plan to attack Kellogg, Viacom, Coca-Cola,
and PepsiCo in two Massachusetts-based lawsuits, the report
said.  The suits will contend that their marketing and
advertising have contributed to the rise in childhood obesity.

Massachusetts is the likely venue for the suits for two
principal reasons, according to the report.  Under a
Massachusetts statute-General Law Chapter 93A, Regulation of
Business Practices for Consumers Protection (Chapter 93A)- it
appears possible to bring a claim as a class action without
first establishing several of the requirements of a traditional
Rule 23 class.  Further, Chapter 93A does not appear to require
proof of reliance on the alleged deceptive conduct in order to
recover damages, the report said.

Reported plaintiffs in the Kellogg/Viacom threatened lawsuit are
coalition of individuals and consumer advocacy groups, including
the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).  The CSPI
is also involved in a threatened lawsuit against Coca-Cola,
PepsiCo, and their bottlers.

It is possible that approaches used in tobacco litigation could
be used in the legal proceedings.  According to the report, a
January issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine
carries a review of the history of tobacco litigation that
suggest ways that public health officials and consumer
protection authorities can use the approaches in that litigation
to "urge" food companies to provide better products.


CORKY & LENNY'S: Ohio Deli Faces Suit Over Salmonella Outbreak
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Bay Village couple in Ohio filed a lawsuit seeking class
action status in relation to a salmonella outbreak at Corky &
Lenny's, according to Plain Dealer Reporter.

The suit claims that Jeanne Silver fell ill after eating a
corned beef-and-chopped liver sandwich from the restaurant on
Feb. 2.  She was hospitalized for three days and tested positive
for salmonella.  Infections caused by salmonella, a bacteria
spread through feces-contaminated food, usually cause diarrhea,
fever and abdominal cramps soon after infection.

Corky & Lenny's temporarily closed after reports of the outbreak
escalated.  The Cuyahoga County Board of Health reported 20
confirmed cases, 61 probable cases and one suspected case
between Jan. 29 and Feb. 13.  Health officials recently allowed
the restaurant to reopen after it followed health department
procedures, according to Chris Keppes, director of epidemiology
and surveillance at the department.


CYTOSOL LABORATORIES: FDA Discovers Endotoxin in Salt Solution
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration sent a letter to Cytosol
Laboratories, Inc., of Braintree, Massachusetts, to request a
recall of all brands and sizes of Balanced Salt Solution (BSS)
that the firm manufactures.  BSS is a drug used by health
professionals to irrigate a patient's eyes, ears, nose and/or
throat during a variety of surgical procedures including
cataract surgery.

FDA requested the recall because product lots were found to have
elevated levels of endotoxin.  Endotoxins, also known as
pyrogens, are substances found in certain bacteria that cause a
wide variety of serious reactions such as fever, shock, changes
in blood pressure and in other circulatory functions.  FDA has
received reports of a serious and potentially irreversible eye
injury called Toxic Anterior Segment Syndrome(TASS) which occurs
when a contaminant, such as endotoxin, enters the anterior
segment of the eye during surgery and causes an inflammatory
reaction.  FDA has also received complaints relating to injuries
in over 300 patients who were given BSS manufactured by Cytosol
Laboratories, Inc.

The FDA requests that the company take immediate action to
retrieve all inventories of the product, including any existing
stock at physician offices and hospitals.  An FDA-requested
recall is initiated to protect the public health when a product
that has been distributed represents a risk of illness or injury
and the firm has not initiated a recall of the product.  FDA is
instructing hospitals, physicians, and consumers to immediately
stop using any of these products, quarantine any remaining
product, and if no return instructions from Cytosol are
received, destroy the product.

An estimated one million units of BSS products were distributed
between December 2003 and December 2005.  The BSS products
subject to the recall order were manufactured by Cytosol
Laboratories, Inc. for distribution under three labels:

     (1) "AMO Endosol" distributed by Advanced Medical Optics,
         Inc. (AMO), Santa Ana, California;

     (2) "Cytosol Ophthalmics" distributed by Cytosol
         Ophthalmics, Lenoir, North Carolina; and

     (3) "Akorn" distributed by Akorn, Inc., Buffalo Grove,
         Illinois.

FDA contact information, Phone: 1-888-463-6332. On the Net:
http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm.


DEMOCRATIC PARTY: Black-Rights Activist Files Reparation Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action reparation suit was filed against the Democratic
Party recently, according to an article by Mike Spaniola in
MichNews.com.

The case was filed by African American Rev. Wayne Perryman of
Seattle.  Rev. Perryman is not seeking monetary damage, but
wants Democrats to apologize to African Americans, the article
said.  The reparation suit did not attract significant media
attention.

Rev. Perryman is a former newspaper publisher, and radio talk-
show host, according to information posted on his Web site.  
Aside from being a minister, he currently works as fact-finding
investigator in discrimination cases.


DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Plaintiff Atty. Eyes a Third of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawyer in the sex abuse scandal involving the Covington
Diocese asked a Boone County judge for almost 30% of the
settlement money, according to WCPO.  Stan Chesley and his law
firm, which filed the case in 2003, asked for about $25 million
of the more than $85 million settlement.

Special Judge John Potter approved on Jan. 31 an $85 million
settlement between sexual abuse victims and the Roman Catholic
Diocese of Covington, Kentucky, according to CBS News.  The
settlement covers 361 victims who claimed they were abused over
a 50-year period by priests in the diocese.  The settlement was
initially approved in July.

                       Settlement Hearing

In a recent hearing in Boone Circuit Court, attorneys for both
parties revealed that William Burleigh, chairman of the board of
the E.W. Scripps Co., which owns The Post, and Thomas D. Lambros
of Ashtabula, Ohio, former chief judge in the Northern District
of Ohio, will be the special masters of the settlement fund
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 17).  They will meet with those who
filed claims, determine the validity of each claim and award the
victim a cash settlement in accordance with the settlement
outline.  Judge Potter set a hearing for March 14 to review the
plans for payment of the money.  

                         Case Background

Cincinnati-based attorney Stan Chesley filed the class action in
Boone County Circuit Court back in 2003, claiming that 21
priests and some other workers abused more than 150 victims in
the Diocese of Covington for decades while church officials did
nothing to stop the misconduct.  According to the court filings,
from about 1956, information on the sexual abuse of minors by
diocesan priests has been concealed from the public, including
parents of children in schools and parishes where the alleged
perpetrators were assigned, as well as from family members of
employees of the diocese.  Specifically, the suit accuses the
diocese, which is just across the Ohio River from Cincinnati, of
a 50-year cover-up of sexual abuse by priests and others, (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 18, 2003).

For more info, visit: http://www.covingtonkydioceseabuse.com/.


DUPONT CO.: EPA Advisers Say C8 Might Indeed be Carcinogenic
------------------------------------------------------------
A group of scientific advisers to the Environmental Protection
Agency approved the labeling of perfluorooctanoic acid, which
also is known as C8 and the acronyms PFOA and APFO, as a likely
carcinogen.

The chemical is made solely at DuPont Co.'s Fayetteville Works
plant.  The DuPont plant is off N.C. 87 near the Cape Fear River
on the Cumberland-Bladen county line.  The substance used in
manufacturing Teflon, has been the subject of many class actions
against the company.  In December, the company agreed to pay a
$10.25 million civil penalty for withholding information about
the potential health and environmental impacts of the compound.

Residents living near the plant, located on the Ohio River about
7 miles southwest of Parkersburg, West Virginia sued Dupont in
August 2001 claiming their drinking supply was contaminated with
perfluorooctonoate (a.k.a. C8, C-8, PFOA, APFO, FC143, FC-143)
(Class Action Reporter, August 23, 2004).  Wood County Circuit
Judge George W. Hill subsequently approved an at least $107.6
million settlement, noting that the settlement was finalized
without any evidence that the chemical caused any disease (Class
Action Reporter, March 2, 2005).

Though the long-term effects of C8 on people are unknown, the
screenings and analysis will try to determine if the chemical
has any link to cancer, heart disease and birth defects, (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 19, 2006).

The approval to recommend C8 as a likely carcinogen is
conditional on minor revisions clarifications on a draft report
consisting of making a cover letter to the EPA administrator
more reader-friendly; clarifying the scope of dissent among
members of the advisory board panel that reviewed the EPA's
draft risk assessment of C8; and clarifying the inclusion and
rejection of certain unpublished scientific studies.


FIRST YEARS: FDA Issues Health Alert on Recalled Teething Rings
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is advising consumers to
stop using liquid-filled children's teething rings manufactured
by RC2 Brands (The First Years) because the liquid contained in
these rings is contaminated with bacteria that may cause serious
illness if swallowed by babies, enters the lungs, or is absorbed
through a cut in the mouth.

The risk of illness is especially high in infants whose immune
systems are compromised by underlying issues such as
malnutrition, blood problems, or as a result of cancer therapy.

RC2 Brands (The First Years), which is located in Stoughton,
Massachusetts, stopped distributing the teethers and began a
recall of these products in January 2006.

"FDA is closely monitoring the recall to ensure that all these
teething rings are removed from the market and that consumers
are alerted to the problem," said Dr. Daniel Schultz, Director
of FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health.  "The
agency is also taking a careful look at other RC2/The First Year
products to determine if any others are contaminated with the
bacteria."

The teething rings were sold nationwide between July 2005 and
January 2006 at major retailers, and grocery, drug, and
specialty stores.  Approximately 352,000 have been distributed
in the U.S..  The specific products subject to the recall are:

     (1) Disney Days of Hunny Soft Cool Ring Teether -- Style
         No. Y1447,

     (2) Disney Soft Cool Ring Teether -- Style No. Y1470,

     (3) Disney Soft Cool Ring Teether -- Style No. Y1490,

     (4) Sesame Beginnings Chill & Chew Teether -- Style No.
         Y3095,

     (5) The First Year's Cool Animal Teether, fish, zebra, and
         dinosaur designs -- Style No. Y1473,

     (6) The First Year's Floating Friend Teether -- Style No.
         Y1474

The FDA has determined that the firm's action constitutes a
Class I recall, a situation in which there is a reasonable
chance that use of the product will cause serious health
problems or death.  To date, the firm has received 105
complaints of fluid leakage, 14 reports of sharp edges that
resulted in 9 incidents of cuts, and 2 reports of babies biting
through the rings.  The teething rings are manufactured in Hong
Kong and have been sold in both the U.S. and Canada.

The firm is asking consumers who purchased one of the recalled
teethers to place it in a plastic bag and return it to:

Parent Service Center
RC2/The First Years
100 Technology Center Dr.
Stoughton, Mass., 02072

The First Years' service center Phone: 1-866-725-4407; One the
Net: http://www.thefirstyears.com.


FLORIDA: Hearing Over Miami's $7M Fire-Fee Settlement Heated  
------------------------------------------------------------
Lies, bribes and profiteering, those were some of the
accusations made by each sides lawyers as they fought recently
in a Miami courtroom over the city's controversial $7 million
fire-fee settlement with a handful of property owners, The
MiamiHerald.com reports.

With the hearing over, it will now fall to Miami-Dade Circuit
Judge Peter Lopez to decide whether to let the 2004 settlement
stand or to toss it.  In any case, the decision will spark
another legal battle between the city and a proposed 80,000-
member class of property owners who challenged the fire-fee
deal, which was struck between the city manager and a powerful
lawyer in a local cafeteria.  The judge's ruling could come as
early as March 6.

The disputed settlement, a response to a class action
challenging the city's unconstitutional fire-rescue fee, gave no
money to almost every city property owner, who had spent
hundreds and in some cases thousands of dollars over the years
paying an illegal assessment.  Instead, the millions went to
seven people, five of whom are the original plaintiffs of the
lawsuit.  The other two are friends of the plaintiffs.  The city
argued in court that the deal should be voided, since it made a
colossal mistake in assuming that the money would be split among
Miami's roughly 80,000 property owners, (Class Action Reporter,
Jan. 31, 2006).

An attorney for the lucky few who received an initial city
payout of $3.5 million said they should be allowed to keep it
because City Manager Joe Arriola and other officials knew what
they were doing when they made the deal with seven plaintiffs
and their original lawyer, Hank Adorno.

"He is simply not telling the truth," attorney Lewis Brown said,
referring to Mr. Arriola, who has testified he thought the fire-
fee refund, was meant for all Miami property owners.  "He lied,"
Mr. Brown continued. "He is seeking to avoid blame and political
embarrassment."

The seven people rewarded by the city had paid less than $93,000
in fire fees.  Attorneys for the city accused the small group of
plaintiffs and Mr. Adorno of "private profiteering."  Mr.
Adorno's firm has received $1 million of the settlement so far
and would get another $1 million if the deal stands.

"The court cannot condone conduct like this," said lawyer Thomas
Scott, a former state and federal judge as well as a former U.S.
attorney in Miami. "Whatever it does in its order, the court
must condemn it."  "They breached their fiduciary duty and
profited from their wrongdoing," echoes attorney Scott Cole, who
also represents the city.  "They were unjustly enriched and
entered into an illegal settlement."

Mr. Adorno, who faces a legal malpractice complaint, denied the
allegations through his lawyer, Mr. Brown.

The most inflammatory accusations came from the lawyer
representing the tens of thousands of city property owners who
never saw a dime of the fire-fee settlement.  "It's a bribe
that's truly shocking to the conscience," said attorney Patrick
Scott.  He said, "It's more likely than not they breached their
fiduciary duty.  And when I say that, I mean all the parties
involved.  When they reached the agreement, they hushed
everything up" with a confidential settlement.

The current Miami scandal was born in the late 1990s, when the
near-bankrupt city created the fire rescue fee to fill budget
gaps.  The fee ranged from less than $100 to several thousand
dollars for some property owners.  Just weeks after the fee was
approved in March 1998, five property owners, who were later
joined by two others, filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn it.

The suit was a proposed class action, meaning the plaintiffs
would act as stand-ins for the thousands of other taxpayers also
paying the fee.  In 2002, the Florida Supreme Court deemed a
similar fire fee unconstitutional.  The decision meant Miami had
wrongfully collected as much as $90 million and it left the city
defenseless in court.  Two years later, Judge Lopez deemed
Miami's fire-fee ordinance illegal, but he never formally
certified the class of property owners.  

In settlement talks, the city faced having to repay $24 million
to $75 million to 80,000 people.  Mr. Adorno, former assistant
City Attorney Charles Mays, former City Attorney Alejandro
Vilarello and Deputy Fire Chief Maurice Kemp have contradicted
Mr. Arriola's account of the negotiations.

Mr. Mays and Mr. Vilarello met with Mr. Arriola after the
settlement conference, saying they described their strategy to
keep the deal quiet until the statute of limitations passed to
prevent the other property owners from getting a refund.  But,
Mr. Arriola said that they discussed only how much the city
might have to pay.  Mr. Arriola adds that sthat he then briefed
the mayor, Manny Diaz, who said he did not press Mr. Arriola for
any details.

On the eve of trial, Mr. Arriola and Mr. Adorno agreed to meet
over breakfast, at the Latin American Cafeteria on Southwest
27th Avenue. Mr. Adorno opened negotiations with a demand for
$28 million, Mr. Arriola recalled.  The city manager said that
he countered with $7 million.

Mr. Adorno said the city could settle the "individual claims" of
the seven property owners.  But Mr. Arriola said that Mr. Adorno
never mentioned individual claims, insisting the lawyer said the
settlement would go to "a lot of people."

The City Commission approved the settlement in November 2004,
after the statute of limitations expired for the rest of the
property owners in the proposed class to seek refunds.  Their
attorney, Patrick Scott, said the evidence from a recent court
hearing shows Mr. Arriola cooked the deal with Mr. Adorno.  "If
you were to take [Arriola] at his word, then everyone else is
lying," according to Mr. Scott.  Mr. Adorno's lawyer, Mr. Brown,
countered that his client had planned to pursue the class action
after his clients received the second installment of the $7
million.

However, others expressed doubt. "It's disingenuous," said
Thomas Scott, the city's attorney.  "They had the opportunity to
represent the class and they didn't. . . . Whose hands are
unclean?  The city has come in here and admitted their error.  
The city is contrite."


FLYING SALMON: Alerts Public on Undeclared Soybean in Caviar
------------------------------------------------------------
Flying Salmon Inc. of San Francisco, California is recalling:

     (1) "Carpathian" Brand repacked Japanese Orange Tobiko
         Caviar in 2 oz., 4 oz., and 8 oz. Containers,

     (2) "Carpathian" Brand repacked Japanese Wasabi Tobiko
         Caviar in 2 oz., 4 oz., and 8 oz. Containers,

     (3) "Carpathian" Brand repacked Japanese Black Tobiko
         Caviar in 2 oz., 4 oz., and 8 oz. containers

because they may contain undeclared soybean.  People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to Soybean run the risk of serious
or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these
products.

The listed products were distributed in the Northern California
area where the products may have been distributed and reached
the consumers through retail stores.

The products are packed under the brand name "Carpathian".  It
may be in 2 oz. and 4 oz. plastic or glass jars.  The 8 oz.
container is plastic.  The containers in question will not have
any ingredient labels attached to its sides.  "No illnesses have
been reported to date".

The recall was initiated after FDA inspectors, during a routine
inspection, discovered that the variety of the Tobiko Caviar
(mentioned above) containing soybean were distributed in
packaging that did not reveal the presence of soybean.  
Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused by a
temporary breakdown in company's production and packaging
processes.

Consumers who have purchased the "The Variety of Tobiko
Products" of the "Carpathian" Brand are advised to return the
product to the place of purchase for a full refund.  Flying
Salmon, Inc., Phone: 1-800-622-8427.


ILLINOIS: Chicago Police Union Claims City Overbills Retirees
-------------------------------------------------------------
The union representing Chicago, Illinois police officers filed a
petition claiming that retired city employees overpaid for
health benefits, The Chicago Tribune reports.  The group is also
accusing the city of failing to pay the required percentage of
retirees' health-care costs mandated in a 2003 class-action
court settlement.

Mark P. Donahue, president of the Fraternal Order of Police,
estimated that more than 30,000 retired city employees might
have overpaid the city for health-care costs since the
settlement went into effect July 1, 2003.  According to the
petition, some retirees may have overpaid by as much as $156 a
month.  Mr. Donahue said told The Chicago Tribune, "We concluded
that the city has failed to meet its mandated share, resulting
in overpayments by retirees in excess of $20 million" in the
years following the settlement.

The petition calls for the city to reimburse retirees who have
overpaid and to devise a system to reconcile the overages at the
end of every year.  The city countered it had no obligation to
pay the costs.

In 2003, a settlement was reached in "City of Chicago v.
Korshak," a class-action lawsuit filed 16 years earlier in which
retired city employees argued the city should be required to pay
a portion of their health-care costs.  Under that pact, the city
agreed to foot a percentage of the bill for doctor visits,
hospital services and prescription drug costs for retirees and
their dependents based on factors such as individual retirees'
Medicare eligibility, their retirement dates and their numbers
of years of service.

Jennifer Hoyle, a spokeswoman for the city's Law Department,
told The Chicago Tribune that her office estimated the dollar
amount of the overpayment at $15 million.


INDIAN TRUST: Senate, House Committees Schedule Joint Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Senate Indian Affairs Committee and House Resources
Committee will hold a joint hearing on the settlement of the
class action case, captioned, "Cobell v. Norton," The Washington
Daybook reports.

The class action involves 500,000 Native Americans who are
asking the Interior Department to account for the billions of
dollars in their ancestors' land and natural resource assets the
federal government has held in trust since 1887.  The issue of
how to determine what is owed the Indians has gone back and
forth from Judge Lamberth to the appeals court repeatedly during
the last 10 years, (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 21, 2005).

Filed in 1996 by Blackfeet Indian Elouise Cobell, the case
became the longest and largest class action suit brought against
the government, involves royalties for farming, grazing, mining,
logging and other economic activities on tribal lands.  The suit
dates back to the 1880s, when the government, trying to break up
reservations, "allotted" some Indian lands, giving 40 to 160
acres to some individual Native Americans.  Back then the
government leased the lands for oil, gas, timber, grazing and
coal, and collected the fees to put into trust funds for Indians
and their survivors, (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 21, 2005).

The hearing is scheduled to take place on March 1, 2006 at 9:30
a.m. in the 216 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC
20510.

The suit is styled, "Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al., on her own
behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Gale
Norton, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Case No. 96-1285
(RCL)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, under Judge Royce C. Lamberth.  Representing the
defendants are Robert E. Kirschman, Jr. and Sandra Peavler
Spooner of the U.S. Department of Justice, 1100 L Street, NW
Suite 10008, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 616-0328, E-
mail: robert.kirschman@usdoj.gov or sandra.spooner@usdoj.gov.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mark Kester Brown, 607 14th Street, NW Washington, DC
         20005-2000, Phone: (775) 542-4938, Fax: 202-318-2372,
         E-mail: mkesterbrown@attglobal.net

     (2) Dennis M. Gingold, 607 14th Street, NW 9th Floor,
         Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 824-1448, Fax: 202-
         318-2372, E-mail: dennismgingold@aol.com

     (3) Richard A. Guest and Keith M. Harper, NATIVE AMERICAN
         RIGHTS FUND, 1712 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-
         2976, Phone: (202) 785-4166, Fax: 202-822-0068, E-mail:
         richardg@narf.org or harper@narf.org

     (4) Elliott H. Levitas, KILPATRICK STOCKTON, LLP, 607 14th
         Street, NW Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202)
         508-5800, Fax: 202-508-5858, E-mail:
         elevitas@kilpatrickstockton.com.

For more details, contact The Committee on Indian Affairs,
Phone: 202-224-2251, Web site: http://indian.senate.gov;and  
House Resources Committee, Phone: 202-225-2761, Web site:
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov.


LASKO PROCUTS: Recalls Pivoting Floor Fans Due to Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Lasko Products Inc., of West Chester, Pennsylvania, voluntary
recalls about 5.6 million units of Lasko, General Electric,
Galaxy, and Air King Brand Box and Pivoting Floor Fans.  
Consumers are advised to stop using recalled products
immediately.

The company said an electrical failure in the motor can pose a
fire hazard to consumers.  Lasko has received 42 reports of
fires possibly associated with motor failures, with seven
reports of injuries, including burns and smoke inhalation. At
least eight of the reported fires resulted in extensive property
damage.

The recall involves various models of Lasko, Galaxy, Air King
and General Electric fans manufactured between January 1999 and
July 2001, and sold through February 2004.  Styles and model
numbers of recalled fans, which are either stamped or on a label
on the bottom of the fans, are:

Brand        Type of Fan     Model Numbers
Lasko        Box Fan         Models 3700, 3723, 3733, 3750
                  Cyclone Fan     Models 3510, 3550, 3800, 35105
                  Wind Machine    Models 3300 and 3521
                  Air Companion   Model 3515
                  Air Director    Model 2135
                  Wind Tunnel     Models 3400 and 3410                  
                  
General Electric  Box Fan      Model 106620
                  Cyclone Fan     Models 106600, 106630

Galaxy        Box Fan     Model 3733

Air King        Cyclone Fan     Model 9500
                  (20" deluxe pivot fan)
                  Air Companion   Model 9515
                  (15" deluxe pivot fan)

Picture of Recalled Fans:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06085a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06085b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06085c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06085d.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06085e.jpg
                                 
Detailed information and pictures of affected models can be
found at http://www.laskoproducts.com

The fans, which were manufactured in the U.S., were sold at
discount department stores nationwide from September 2000
through February 2004 for between $10 and $25.

Consumers are advised to stop using the fans immediately and
contact Lasko to receive a free fan protection cord adaptor.

Lasko on the Net: http://www.laskoproducts.com;Phone:  
(800) 984-3311 anytime.


MAINE: Federal Court Reschedules Knox County Strip-Search Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Proceedings in a federal class-action lawsuit against Knox
County and Sheriff Dan Davey, Maine were pushed back after the
county recently failed to have a harsh pretrial judgment against
it overturned, The Waldo Village Soup reports.

According to the court, the case is now scheduled for hearing in
U.S. District Court in Portland no earlier than May 1, a month
past its initial trial date of April.  

In November, Senior U.S. Justice Gene Carter cleared the way for
a major class action against the county to continue in response
to a motion for summary judgment brought by Laurie Tardiff of
Thomaston, who filed the suit against the jail, jail personnel
and Sheriff Davey in December 2002.  Ms. Tardiff, who is
represented by Dale Thistle of Newport, claimed the county
violated the rights of hundreds of detainees by conducting
unconstitutional, and humiliating, strip searches, (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 4, 2005).

The suit was certified class action in November 2003, allowing
certain detainees booked into the Knox County Jail since 1996 to
pursue damages against the county.  In 1994 and again in 2000,
state jail inspector John Hinkley, now the Knox County Jail
administrator, found the jail noncompliant with Maine standards
for strip-searching every detainee booked into the jail (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 4, 2005).  Attorneys for Ms. Tardiff
estimate the final class could swell to more than 4,000.

In that previous decision, claims against Sheriff Davey as an
individual were also upheld by Judge Carter, who rebuked the
sheriff for his "reckless indifference of the constitutional
rights" of Knox County Jail detainees charged with misdemeanor
crimes and his toleration of the practice (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 4, 2005).  

The defendant lawyers' recent filing argues that the number of
illegal strip searching that Judge Carter noted in his November
decision failed to prove the practice of illegal strip searches
was "pervasive and widespread," according to the report.  The 17
confirmed strip searches of inmates in six sample months between
1998 and 2002 were just a fraction of the overall inmate
population considering there are approximately 30 such inmates
are booked into the county jail each month, they said.  The
county also argues that the state inspections of the jail in
1994 and 2000, which deemed the jail noncompliant with state
strip-search laws, are just "snapshots in time" of the jail's
activity during the past years, (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 14,
2006).

The suit is styled, "Tardiff v. Knox County, et al., Case No.
2:02-cv-00251-GC," filed in the U.S. District for the District
of Maine under Judge Gene Carter.  Representing the Plaintiff/s
are, Sumner H. Lipman of Lipman, Katz & Mckee, P.O. BOX 1051,
Augusta, ME 04332-1051, Phone: 207-622-3711, E-mail:
slipman@lipmankatzmckee.com; and Dale F. Thistle of Law Office
of Dale F. Thistle, 103 Main Street, P.O. BOX 160, Newport, ME
04953, Phone: (207) 368-7755, E-mail: dthistle@verizon.net.

Representing the Defendant/s are, Peter t. Marchesi of Wheeler &
Arey, P.A., 27 Temple Street, P.O. BOX 376, Waterville, ME
04901, Phone: 873-7771, E-mail: pbear@wheelerlegal.com and John
J. Wall, III of Monaghan Leahy, LLP, P.O. BOX 7046 DTS,
Portland, ME 04112-7046, Phone: 774-3906, E-mail:
jwall@monaghanleahy.com.


MASSACHUSETTS: Judge Makes Extensive Review on MDL's Pros, Cons
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge William G. Young thoroughly discusses multi-
district litigation (MDL) in his February 1 opinion in the case
styled, "Delaventura v. Columbia Acorn Trust."  His discussion
includes references to scores of articles and publications on
MDL, and expresses his disdain for the current state of MDL,
including the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation,
according to McGlinchey Stafford of http://www.cafalawblog.com/.   

In Judge Young's a twenty-five page opinion which makes a
comprehensive review of MDL, he also covers the likely effects
of the Class Action Fairness Act on MDL, and highlights a
Congressional rebuke of the Judicial Panel on MDL in the text of
CAFA.  In the case, Dean Delaventura, an apparent shareholder of
Columbia Acorn Trust (Columbia), filed a class action in
Massachusetts state court asserting a single cause of action for
breach of contract.  The Company removed the matter to
Massachusetts District Court alleging that the complaint was
preempted under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act
of 1998 (SLUSA).  

In an attempt to usher this case into an already filed "market
timing" MDL group of twelve cases, the Company filed a motion to
stay the proceedings in the Massachusetts' District Court while
it petitioned the Judicial Panel to transfer this case to the
District of Maryland, the home of the "market timing" MDL.  Mr.
Delaventura countered with the expected motion to remand, and
both motions were heard at an expedited hearing on June 14,
2005.  At the hearing, Judge Young denied the Company's motion
to stay the proceedings and stated on the record, "If the multi-
district litigation panel orders the case transferred, they'll
do so over my opposition, which I now state for the record.  I
don't agree that this case should be transferred." Judge Young
though later denied Mr. Delaventura's motion to remand.

However, paying little, if any, heed to Judge Young's wishes,
the Judicial Panel on MDL transferred the case to the Northern
Division of the District of Maryland August 10, 2005.  However,
Judge Young made the best of the situation by authoring the
comprehensive opinion on MDL, in which he illuminates several
intersections of MDL with the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)
of 2005.

Initially referring to MDL as an "excellent innovation in civil
practice," Judge Young described MDL and introduced the Judicial
Panel on MDL as a "special judicial creature comprised of seven
federal district court or appellate court judges."  He then
recognized that "some commentators anticipate that the Class
Action Fairness Act . . . may generate more federal class
actions of national scope, resulting in more multi-district
litigation."  The Judge then, painting a fair and balanced
picture of MDL, referenced a number of works by respected
authorities in the area, including nationally recognized
plaintiffs' class action attorney Elizabeth J. Cabraser and
Texas Federal Judge Lee H. Rosenthal, a prominent figure in the
CAFA world, who have written about potential drawbacks to MDL,
including the inability to resolve state law claims, the
potential for delay, and the unnecessary choice of law issues
which arise in the MDL context.  Judge Young then began to
reveal his qualms with the current state of MDL, and attacked
the system for primarily putting the risk of trial into the
hands of the transferee judge, which effectively means that a
litigant cannot journey back to its home court unless the
transferee judge allows it.  Judge Young asserted, "Once trial
is no longer a realistic alternative, bargaining shifts in ways
that inevitably favor the defense."

Judge Young pointed to the text of CAFA as an illustration of
the perceived pro-defense slant MDL has, in his estimation,
earned, but then stated, "The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
. . . itself thought to be legislation that favors business
defendants . . . contains an unmistakable rebuke to the Panel on
Multi-District Litigation in Section 4, which provides that no
class action removed to federal court under its provisions shall
thereafter be transferred to another district pursuant to Title
28, Section 1407(a) (the MDL statute) . . . without the request
of a majority of plaintiffs."

After recognizing several judges who are conducting MDL in a
fashion that will help it "earn back the respect it has lost,"
Judge Young concluded his musings on the status of MDL with an
offer to take the case back from the transferee court.

The suit is styled, "Delaventura v. Columbia Acorn Trust, et
al., Case No. 1:05-cv-10793-WGY," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge William G.
Young.  Representing the Plaintiff/s are, John C. Martland of
Martland & Brooks, LLP, Stonehill Corporate Center, Suite 500,
999 Broadway, Saugus, MA 01906, Phone: 617-742-9700, Fax:
617-742-9701, E-mail: jcmartland@gilmanpastor.com; and David
Pastor of Gilman and Pastor, LLP, 60 State Street, 37th Floor,
Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-742-9700, Fax: 617-742-9701, E-
mail: dpastor@gilmanpastor.com.  

Representing the Defendant/s are, Brian E. Pastuszenski of
Goodwin Procter, LLP, Exchange Place, 53 State Street, Boston,
MA 02109, Phone: 617-570-8202, Fax: 617-523-1231, E-mail:
BPastuszenski@goodwinprocter.com; and Giselle J. Joffre of Ropes
& Gray, LLP, One International Place, Boston, MA 02110, Phone:
617-951-7789, Fax: 617-951-7050, E-mail:
giselle.joffre@ropesgray.com.

For more details, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?5b3
(Delaventura Opinion).


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Spring Lake Park School to Receive $258T
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spring Lake Park District 16 will get $258,000 in vouchers as
share in the settlement of a class action brought by the state
of Minnesota against Microsoft Corp., according to Coon Rapids
Herald.

The amount is part of the $55.2 million schools statewide will
receive in vouchers, according to information released Jan. 30
from Gov. Tim Pawlenty's office.  Initially, the Company agreed
to pay $174.5 million in vouchers to businesses and consumers in
Minnesota.  Schools in the state could later claim what
consumers did not, (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 9, 2006).

Statewide, 467 school districts and charter schools will receive
vouchers intended to supplement current technology budgets,
updating computer software and hardware and enhancing
professional development for teachers and staff, (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 9, 2006).  The settlement stipulates must be used
over a seven-year period.  Districts have until Jan. 12, 2012 to
use the vouchers.

                         Case Background

In 2000, the Company faced a flurry of lawsuits for using its
market power to force customers to pay higher prices for its
Windows operating system.  Those federal cases were later
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for Maryland.  These
cases allege that the Company competed unfairly and unlawfully
monopolized alleged markets for operating systems and certain
software applications, and they seek to recover alleged
overcharges for these products, (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 6,
2006).

To date, courts have dismissed all claims for damages in cases
brought against the Company by indirect purchasers under federal
law and in 17 states.  Nine of those state court decisions have
been affirmed on appeal.  An appeal of one of those state
rulings is pending.  There was no appeal in four states.  Claims
under federal law brought on behalf of foreign purchasers have
been dismissed by the U.S. District Court in Maryland as have
all claims brought on behalf of consumers seeking injunctive
relief under federal law, (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2005).

The ruling on injunctive relief and the ruling dismissing the
federal claims of indirect purchasers are currently on appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, as is a ruling
denying certification of certain proposed classes of U.S. direct
purchasers.  Courts in eleven states have ruled that indirect
purchaser cases may proceed as class actions, while courts in
two states have denied class certification, (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 2, 2005).


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Monticello Schools Get $149T Windfall
------------------------------------------------------------
The personal computers in Minnesota's District 882 will soon see
an upgrade, thanks to the court-enforced generosity of software
powerhouse Microsoft Corporation, The Monticello Times reports.

The Monticello School District received $149,000 (in the form of
vouchers) in the settlement.  The vouchers, which are good until
2012, are designed to help the local schools' technology advance
into the 21st century.

The amount is part of the $55.2 million schools statewide will
receive in vouchers, according to information released Jan. 30
from Gov. Tim Pawlenty's office.  Initially, the Company agreed
to pay $174.5 million in vouchers to businesses and consumers in
Minnesota.  Schools in the state could later claim what
consumers did not, (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 9, 2006).

In 2000, the Company faced a flurry of lawsuits back for using
its market power to force customers to pay higher prices for its
Windows operating system.  Those federal cases were later
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for Maryland.  These
cases allege that the Company competed unfairly and unlawfully
monopolized alleged markets for operating systems and certain
software applications, and they seek to recover alleged
overcharges for these products, (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 6,
2006).

Statewide, 467 school districts and charter schools will receive
vouchers intended to supplement current technology budgets,
updating computer software and hardware and enhancing
professional development for teachers and staff, (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 9, 2006).

Plaintiffs had sought to recover Microsoft's overcharges on
behalf of Minnesota consumers, which they estimated at between
$290 and $425 million from 1993 to 2001.  After the deadline for
the public claims on the settlement passed, half the value of
the unclaimed vouchers was made available to the Minnesota
Department of Education.  There was a narrow window for
application, which made it a rushed process.

District Director of Technology Sue Heidt told The Monticello
Times, "Our timeline was really short, because we had a two-week
window to put together a plan of how we were going to spend it."  
She adds, "It was a big deal to technology directors all around
the state, because it was such a short timeline to make
decisions on how we would use the money.  Part of what you want
to do is meet with your team of technology professionals in the
district, and two weeks to put together how you might use this
is not a lot of time."

According to a handouts distributed to teachers, the amount
awarded was determined by the number of free and reduced lunch
students in the Fall 2004 Special Populations Report, which was
certified by the Minnesota Department of Education.  District
882 is one of the 467 districts and charter schools in the state
that will benefit from the settlement.

The money is not intended to supplant funding for computers-it
is to be used only to buy new technology.  Some of the
requirements of the award include a 50/50 split between hardware
and software, a responsibility for the district to track and
submit vouchers for reimbursement, and a requirement for
purchases to be from a general-purpose list.  It is also
permissible for schools to use to vouchers to pay for
professional development for teachers and staff.

One planned purchase is wireless access in the gathering areas
of local schools.  "There's a provision in the money that you
can't supplant projects that you've already got in place, and I
was looking for something in our technology plan that we
currently don't have," Ms. Heidt told The Monticello Times.  She
adds, "We've got pilots of it here and there, but we don't have
wireless.  This isn't set in stone yet."

Some other ideas include expanding Web capabilities to improve
communications and having accessible software tools across the
district.  In addition, some of the money will go toward
instructional software for special populations, an example being
software for ESL students.

Heidt also said there was to be an emphasis on more mobile
technology, such as having a SMART projection system in each
building. A SMART projection system is a whiteboard that
projects images with the help of a computer. It can be written
on or erased with the touch of a finger.

Another potential option is to update and replace the school's
existing computers.  Some are nearly a decade old, and before
new software is deployed, a minimum computer standard needs to
be created.  Also, Windows XP compliance needs to be achieved
across the board for both staff and students.  

Thanks to a class-action lawsuit and the public not filing for
its entire share, Monticello schools are going to have a better
grasp on the technology of the future.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Minn. School Gets $145T from Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Computers in Minnesota's Princeton school district will be more
linked with one another than before and the computers will have
more upgraded operating systems because of a recent $145,000
windfall courtesy of giant computer software firm Microsoft
Corporation, The Princeton Union Eagle reports.

The Company was found to be overcharging consumers and
businesses for certain products.  Therefore, people who had
bought Microsoft products during a certain time period have been
able to get a limited refund.  

However, not all of those who received the refund vouchers have
cashed them in.  Now Minnesota schools are getting half of that
un-cashed money from the settlement.

Superintendent Mark Sleeper told The Princeton Union Eagle, "Its
great news, especially with the money being as tight as it is
now and technology changing as fast.  We have a hard time
keeping the computers updated."

Upon receiving the vouchers, schools must spend half their money
on computer hardware and the other half on software.  Out of the
$145,000 going to the Princeton district, $41,464 is going to
the high school, $33,126 to the middle school, $38,310 to North
Elementary and $32,900 to South Elementary.  The allocations per
school are based on the number of students per building who are
eligible for the government's free and reduced lunch program.  

The district has until Feb. 27, 2012, to use the money, which is
why the district is going to spend enough time to find the best
way of using the funds, district technology coordinator Darin
Marcussen told The Princeton Union Eagle.  Though Mr. Marcussen
didn't talk about any new computer purchases planned with the
money, he did point out that hardware will be purchased that
makes it possible to link building to building with the
computers and hardware for bringing the Internet into classrooms
where it isn't now.

Also, by upgrading software programs, the goal is to use more of
the potential that computer technology has, according to Mr.
Marcussen.  He goes on to say of the settlement, "It's a great
thing for education.  Typically education is two years behind in
technology because of funding."


NETFLIX INC: Mulls Revising Terms of Settlement with Subscribers
----------------------------------------------------------------
In an attempt to satisfy federal regulators, Netflix Inc.
appears ready to revise a proposed class-action settlement so
that 6 million consumers eligible for a free sample of its
online DVD rental service aren't automatically charged after the
one-month offer expires, The Associated Press reports.

The Los Gatos, California-based Company was sued more than a
year ago, after a consumer learned that the company used several
different methods to limit how many DVDs a customer could
receive a month, even though the Company promoted its service as
offering unlimited rentals.  The national class action, filed on
September 2004 in San Francisco Superior Court, alleged that the
Company misled consumers by failing to deliver DVDs as promised,
within one business day.  In reality, according to the suit, it
would often take as long as four to six business days for
customers to receive requested DVDs.  And that meant customers
could watch fewer videos than they had signed up for under
Company's monthly membership plan, (Class Action Reporter, Jan.
20, 2006).

The Company denied wrongdoing, but agreed to settle the suit,
whose costs dragged down its third-quarter net income by $3.4
million.  According to the proposed settlement, Netflix
subscribers who joined the service before January 15 and
remained members through October 19, will get a one-month
upgrade in their service level while paying their usual
subscription price.  For example, subscribers to the three-
movies-out plan would pay $17.99 but would get four movies out
at a time for one month. Meanwhile, those who subscribed to
Netflix before January 15 but canceled their membership before
October 19 are eligible to one month of free service.  Netflix
users must register by February 17 to receive the upgrade,
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 20, 2006).

In the proposed settlement, plaintiffs' lawyers would receive
$2.5 million, but the plaintiffs, in this case, the class of
current and former Netflix customers would receive either a free
service upgrade for one month or a coupon for free service for
one month.  However, if customers receiving the freebies do not
cancel the upgrades or service before the end of the month is
up, Netflix would begin charging them for the extra services,
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 20, 2006).  That provision drew a
harshly worded objection from the Federal Trade Commission, as
well as other parties.

The Company indicated its willingness to drop the automatic
renewal clause when its lawyers updated a San Francisco Superior
Court judge on the settlement talks, Adam Gutride, an attorney
representing consumers in the case told The Associated Press.

If the change is made, eligible consumers would still receive
free DVDs for a month, but the Company wouldn't be able impose
charges after the period expired unless the recipient took
action to extend the service.

To allow time for further negotiations, a court hearing to
approve the settlement has been postponed by a month to March
22.

Under the current settlement proposal, almost 4.1 million former
Netflix subscribers are being offered a free month of service.
Another 2.08 million current customers are being offered a free
upgrade for a month.

The Federal Trade Commission protested the settlement last
month, arguing the automatic renewal feature smacked of a
promotional gimmick designed to help the Company attract more
subscribers.  As an example on how the automatic renewal clause
could backfire on a consumer, Netflix subscribers currently
paying for three DVDs at a time would end up being charged $6
more per month if they accepted an upgrade and didn't return to
their old plan after a month.

Netflix, which started the year with 4.2 million subscribers,
has said the settlement is in the best interests of its
customers and shareholders.  The proposed settlement though came
under fire because the attorneys who filed the suit will receive
$2.53 million, almost 64 percent of the $3.98 million that the
Company expects to spend on the deal.  

Mr. Gutride and Seth Safier, another attorney in the case,
maintain the settlement is worth $85.5 million if everyone
eligible accepts Netflix's free DVD offer.  The attorney says
that they deserve to be paid $2.53 million because they have
spent more than 2,100 hours working on the case.


NORTH CAROLINA: Professor Mulls Lawsuit V. Durham Public Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patti Solari, a law professor at North Carolina Central
University, is gathering evidence for a class action she intends
to file against Durham Public Schools within the next few weeks,
The News & Observer reports.

Though fliers placed at M&M Mini Mart No. 4 on Mangum Street,
Ms. Solari is seeking parents who think their children were
wrongly suspended from Durham Public Schools.  The fronts of the
fliers are emblazoned with "End Apartheid in Durham Public
Schools" in eye-catching capital block letters, and the inner
pages forms a questionnaire seeking information from parents
whose children have been suspended or expelled within the past
three years.

Ms. Solari told The News & Observer that the district is
unlawfully targeting black and Latino students for the most
serious offenses, denies many students due process once they are
kicked out of school.  She also said that it has implemented an
anti-gang policy that allows school resource officers,
principals and teachers to easily label and put students out of
school with little proof of actual gang affiliation.

The planned lawsuit will seek monetary damages, a reworking of
the district's gang policy and the immediate readmission of
every student under the age of 20 who has been unlawfully
suspended from Durham schools.

"This has been bothering me for a very long time, and it just
seemed the time to do it," Ms. Solari told The News & Observer.  
"If [Durham Public Schools] did what they were supposed to do,
it would be all right, but they aren't.  Black [children] are
the perfect fall guys, and they don't have anyone to back them
up."

Gail Heath, the chairwoman of the Durham school board, told The
News & Observer that she was unaware of the coming suit.  When
asked whether she thought the lawsuit had merit, she replied,
"Certainly, I wouldn't be part to anything that I've felt is
unlawful."

Ms. Heath then said she would not comment further until she had
spoken with the school board attorney.  She called back a few
minutes later and said Superintendent Ann Denlinger wanted all
calls on the lawsuit referred to her.  Ms. Denlinger's
administrative assistant said that she had no comment because
she had no knowledge of Ms. Solari's plans.

Ms. Solari, a former president of the state American Civil
Liberties Union and a member of the board of directors of the
N.C. Legal Education Assistance Foundation, told The News &
Observer that she first began pulling together her case after a
2003 brawl at Jordan High School that led the school board to
expel three students permanently and suspend several others.  
The students were accused of being in a gang.  Some complained
that the district reacted too harshly and did not allow the
students due process by transferring some to the district's
alternative school without a hearing.

Durham schools have come under scrutiny for the disproportionate
number of black students, particularly boys that they kick out
each year.  In the fall of 2003, black students accounted for 80
percent of the district's suspensions, with two schools
suspending more than 40 percent of their black boys in one
semester, numbers that led to an outcry from parents, the mayor,
county commissioners and the City Council.  Thus in the next
year, suspension numbers dropped drastically and have continued
to decrease.

The racial disparity though remains, and Ms. Solari told The
News & Observer that the discriminatory practices that lead to
the numbers have not changed.  Ms. Solari's own daughter was
suspended numerous times from Jordan and labeled the "Crips
Queen" by the schools resource officer, according to her.  Ms.
Solari's daughter is now a student at NCCU and will be one of
the plaintiffs in the suit.

So far, there are three other plaintiffs: Jazmyn Jenkins, 17;
Desmond Johnson, 16; and Angell Lee Copper, 17.  Back in
December, the district kicked out the three students from Jordan
High School for the rest of the year after a fight.  The
students also were arrested and charged with disorderly conduct.

Ms. Solari and Sherri Copper, Angell's mother, told The News &
Observer that the students had been labeled gang members by the
school before the incident.  They say that after the incident,
parents were not notified of the arrests and that the punishment
was too harsh for a short fight where no weapons were used and
no one was injured.  Ms. Copper said Jazmyn and Angell had been
trying to break up the fight.

Ms. Copper, who has three other children in Durham Public
Schools, told The News & Observer that she's joining the suit in
hopes of bringing about changes in the system.  "I hope that the
school system will ... take notice of the policies that they
have and stop singling out and picking and choosing children and
realize we are not going to stand still and let our children be
unfairly kicked out of school."


PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Offers Credit Security to Data Theft Victims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Providence Health System hired Kroll Inc., a New York-based
security and consulting firm, to provide one-year free credit
protection to employees and patients whose records were stolen
from an employee in December.

According to OregonLive.com, the offer is available to the
firm's 1,500 employees and 365,000 patients, who will sign up
for the "ID TheftSmart" service.  The report said the service
includes continuous credit file monitoring and, in case of
identity theft, credit restoration and reimbursement of up to
$25,000 for certain costs of recovering from identity theft.

Providence Health is facing a lawsuit for an alleged failure to
protect patient information, according to ConsumerAffairs.com
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 6, 2006).  Attorney David Sugarman,
who filed the lawsuit in Multnomah County Circuit Court on
behalf of Laurie Paul, is seeking class-action status for the
suit.

The medical and personal records of 365,000 patients and 1,500
current and former Providence employees were lost when a laptop
containing the information was stolen on Dec. 31 from an
information services analyst who worked for Providence.  

The company, which operates hospitals in Oregon and Washington,
disclosed the theft only on Jan. 25, more than three weeks after
the incident.  The report said Oregon has no law requiring
companies to report data thefts to customers.  State authorities
are now conducting investigations since the theft occurred.

Plaintiff lawyer contact: David L. Sugerman, Cleary Gottlieb
Steen & Hamilton LLP, One Liberty Plaza, New York, New York
10006 (New York Co.); Phone: 212-225-2000; Cable Address:
"Cleargolaw New York"; Telex: WUI 62985; Fax: 212-225-3999.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Distributes Notices for $400M Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Some Qwest Communications shareholders are getting notices in
the mail asking them to register for a piece of the $400 million
partial settlement in an accounting-fraud suit that the phone
company agreed to settle late last year, The Denver Post
reports.

The suit covers shareholders who bought company stock between
May 1999 and July 2002, Patrick Coughlin, an attorney involved
in the settlement told The Denver Post.  Company stock fell from
about $60 to $5 during the period.

The settlement resolves the biggest chunk of shareholder
lawsuits alleging that the Denver firm misled investors and
inflated its sales by billions of dollars during the tenure of
former CEO Joe Nacchio.  Specifically, the deal will cover the
Denver, Colorado-based Company, some former executives and its
board of directors, (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 11, 2005).  

According to a booklet sent with the notice, on average,
stockholders will get 19 cents a share, but some claims will be
worth up to $13.95 a share.  Some like, former shareholder Terry
Parker would get back one-third of his more than $7,000
retirement investment, based on an allocation plan in the
booklet.  Mr. Parker, who has a real estate and property-
management office in Denver, told The Denver Post that he hasn't
received the notice yet.  He commented though of the impending
settlement, "That would sure thrill me.  I would like to see all
of my money back because the misrepresentations were so
flagrant, but it doesn't work that way."

Qwest was forced to restate $2.5 billion in revenue after an
accounting scandal and the same amount in earnings to clean up
its books.  The class-action suit claimed Qwest and its former
executives made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose harmful information under the tenure of Mr. Nacchio.

The suit is styled, "In re Qwest Communications International,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-cv-1451-REB-CBS,
(Consolidated with Civil Action Nos. 01-cv-1472-REB-CBS, 01-cv-
1527-REB-CBS, 01-cv-1616-REB-CBS, 01-cv-1799-REB-CBS, 01-cv-
1930-REB-CBS, 01-cv-2083-REB-CBS, 02-cv-0333-REB-CBS, 02-cv-
0374-REB-CBS, 02-cv-0507-REB-CBS, 02-cv-0658-REB-CBS, 02-cv-755-
REB-CBS, 02-cv-798-REB-CBS and 04-cv-0238-REB-CBS)," filed in
the U.S. District for the District of Colorado under Judge
Robert E. Blackburn with referral to Judge Craig B. Shaffer.  

Representing the Plaintiff/s are, X. Jay Alvarez, Spencer A.
Burkholz, Michael J. Dowd, Thomas E. Egler, Ray A. Mandlekar and
Scott Saham of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins,
LLP-SD CA, 655 West Broadway #1900, San Diego, CA 92101, U.S.A,
Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423, E-mail:
JayA@lerachlaw.com, SpenceB@lerachlaw.com, MikeD@lerachlaw.com,
TomE@lerachlaw.com, raym@lerachlaw.com and scotts@lerachlaw.com;
and Jeffrey Allen Berens of Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th
Avenue, Denver, CO 80218-1417, Phone: U.S.A, Phone:
303-861-3003, Fax: 303-830-6920, E-mail: jberens@dyershuman.com.  

Representing the Defendant/s are, John M. Richilano of Richilano
& Gilligan, P.C., 633 17th Street #1700, Denver, CO 80202,
U.S.A, Phone: 303-893-8000, Fax: 303-893-8055, E-mail:
jmr@rglawoffice.net; and Timothy Granger Atkeson of Arnold &
Porter LLP - Colorado, 370 Seventeenth Street #4500, Denver, CO
80202, U.S.A, Phone: 303-863-1000, Fax: 303-832-0428, E-mail:
Tim_Atkeson@aporter.com.


SIPEX CORP: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 6, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Francisco Division, will hold a fairness for the proposed $6
million settlement in the matter, "In re Sipex Corporation
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 05-CV-00392-WHA."  The
case was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired the Company's common stock between April 10, 2003 and
January 20, 2005.

The hearing will be held on April 6, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. before
the Honorable William H. Alsup at the U.S. Courthouse, 450
Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California.  

Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is on May 8, 2006.  Any
objections to the settlement must be filed by March 24, 2006.  

For more details, contact David A. Priebe of DLA Piper Rudnick
Gray Cary U.S., LLP, 2000 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA
94303-2248, Phone: 650-833-2000; Fax: 650-833-2001; E-mail:
david.priebe@dlapiper.com; Uri Seth Ottensoser of Bernstein
Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, NY
10016, Phone: 212-779-1414, Fax: 212-779-3218, Web site:
http://www.bernlieb.com;Dale Richard Bish of Wilson Sonsini  
Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone:
650-804-4018, E-mail: dbish@wsgr.com; and Boris Feldman of
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto,
CA 94304-1050, Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail:
boris.feldman@wsgr.com.


SOS STAFFING: Securities Settlement Hearing Set April 11, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Third Judicial District Court, Salt Lake County, State of
Utah will hold a fairness hearing for proposed settlement in the
matter, "William Doane v. JoAnn W. Wagner, et al., Case No. 03-
0920804."  

The case was brought on behalf of all record owners of SOS
Staffing Services, Inc. common stock during the period beginning
on September 10, 2003 through and including the date of the
consummation of the Company's merger with Hire Calling Holding
Company on November 3, 2003.

The hearing will be held on April 11, 2006 at 8:45 a.m. before
the Honorable Robert K. Hilder, at the Third Judicial District
Court of Utah, Salt Lake Department, 450 South State St., Salt
Lake City, Utah 84111.

For more details, contact Erik A. Christiansen of Parsons Behle
& Latimer, 201 South Main Street, Suite 1800, Salt Lake City, UT
84111, Phone: 801-532-1234, Fax: 801-536-6111, Web site:
http://www.parsonsbehlelaw.com/default.asp.


TELEPHONE COMPANIES: Nebraska Distributes 2004 Settlement Money
---------------------------------------------------------------
A social center in Kearney, Nebraska received a $10,000 check,
which was taken from the $5 million class action settlement two
years ago between three telephone carriers and attorneys general
in 32 states, according to Kearney Realty Area News.  

Verizon Wireless, Cingular Wireless and Sprint PCS agreed in
2004 to resolve state consumer protection investigations that
alleged they issued misleading advertisements and unclear
disclosures about service agreement terms and wireless coverage
areas.

Nebraska was awarded $106,000 of the settlement.  On Feb. 15,
Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, presented the $10,000
check to the Kearney's Spouse/Sexual Abuse Family Education
Center.  It is one of the six in the state, the others being
awarded to domestic assault and rape prevention organizations in
Lincoln, North Platte, Scottsbluff, Norfolk and Nebraska City
also.  Mr. Bruning is giving out $60,000 in 2006 and $40,000 in
2007 to domestic violence/rape prevention organizations, the
report said.


UNIROYAL TECHNOLOGY: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set March 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida will
hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $2.65 million
settlement in the matter "Bellocco v. Uniroyal Technology, et
al., Case No. 8:02-cv-01141-JDW-TBM."  The case was brought on
behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired the common stock
of the Company during the period February 8, 2000 through and
including May 13, 2002.

The hearing will be held on March 30, 2006 at 9:15 a.m. before
the Honorable James D. Whittmore, U.S. District Judge, at the
Sam M. Gibbons U.S. Courthouse & Federal Building, 801 North
Florida Ave., Tampa, Florida 33602.

Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is on June 28, 2006.  
Any objections to the settlement must be filed by March 16,
2006.  

For more details, contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. of Bernstein
Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 E. 40th St., 22nd Floor, New York,
NY 10016, Phone: 212-779-1414, E-mail: seidman@bernlieb.com;
Chris A. Barker of Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., 400 North Ashley
Drive, #2100, Tampa, FL 33602, Phone: 813-489-1001, Fax:
813-489-1008, E-mail: cbarker@barkerrodemsandcook.com; and
Uniroyal Technology Corp. Securities Litigation, c/o The Garden
City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6388,
Merrick, New York 11566-9000, Phone: (888) 890-8179.  


UNITED STATES: Questions on What News Merits Disclosure Linger
--------------------------------------------------------------
A top U.S. securities regulator is frustrated about "premature"
disclosures of preliminary settlements arising from SEC
investigations, according to Reuters.

The risk of preliminary settlement announcement is that the SEC
commissioners might later reject it, Paul Atkins, a Securities
and Exchange Commission member said at a securities class-action
lawsuit conference at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

No specific guidance exists on the manner with which companies
should publicly disclose various stages of SEC investigations to
shareholders.  The stages includes requests for information or
receipt of subpoenas to notice of potential enforcement action
or settlements-in-principle with the SEC.  The approval of
majority of the five SEC commissioners is needed for the
settlement agreement to take effect.  

Companies also risks lawsuits if they fail to disclose
"material" events.  But regulators, attorneys and other
securities law experts have debated over the issue of how
material should a development be to require disclosure because
an investigation does not necessarily indicate wrongdoing.  Mr.
Atkins said he intends to work with SEC staff to craft guidance
"in the near future."  

Another point that concerned him is the allegations of
conspiracy between short-sellers and hedge funds to drive down
share prices by sounding off possible wrongdoing to the SEC or
the media.  He considers alleged market manipulation
'incredibly' important to the integrity of the capital markets.


UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: Reaches $9M Settlement in Labor Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The University of Rochester and its affiliates agreed to pay $9
million to settle a lawsuit over hours worked by employees,
according to the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle.  The
settlement is yet to be approved by the court.

Employees of the university filed the lawsuit on Feb. 15 in
state Supreme Court in Monroe County, alleging they were not
paid for time spent working during breaks. Up to 40,000 hourly
employees who worked at the area's largest employer over the
past seven years now might be eligible for up to $700 each,
university spokeswoman Teri D'Agostino said.

The university did not admit wrongdoing, but agreed to pay to
avoid costly and time-consuming litigation.  Its affiliates
include Highland and Strong Memorial hospitals, Visiting Nurse
Services and The Highlands at Brighton and Pittsford.

The workers are represented by lawyer Nelson Thomas of Dolin,
Thomas & Solomon (http://www.dts-esq.com/)


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
  

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


February 23-24, 2006
LITIGATING DISABILITY INSURANCE CLAIMS
American Conference Institute
Miami
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com

February 27-28, 2006
REINSURANCE AGREEMENTS
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com

March 06, 2006
BIRTH CONTROL PATCH LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz Carlton Marina del Rey, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

March 9-10, 2006
TOXIC TORT UPDATE: TEXAS
Mealey Publications
Las Colinas Four Seasons, Dallas, Texas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

March 23-24, 2006
FUNDAMENTALS OF REINSURANCE LITIGATION & ARBITRATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

March 27-28, 2006
CATASTROPHIC EVENT INSURANCE CLAIMS
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com

March 29-30, 2006
FINITE RISK REINSURANCE
American Conference Institute
Bermuda
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com

March 30, 2006
EMAIL DISCOVERY & RETENTION POLICIES CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Grand Hyatt, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

April 5-6, 2006
AML COMPLIANCE FOR INSURANCE
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com

April 5-8, 2006
13TH INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

April 10, 2006
ASBESTOS MEDICINE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
W Chicago Lakeshore
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

April 24-25, 2006
INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
Mealey Publications
Hyatt Regency, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

April 27-28, 2006
RUN-OFF AND COMMUTATIONS
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com

April 27-28, 2006
BAD FAITH AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
American Conference Institute
San Francisco
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com

May 1-2, 2006
INSURANCE/REINSURANCE COMPANY RUN-OFF CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton (Arlington St.) Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

May 8-9, 2006
VIOXX LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Amelia Island, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

May 8-9, 2006
HURRICANE AND NATURAL DISASTER CONFERENCE SERIES
The Ritz-Carlton Amelia Island, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

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

June 5-6, 2006
ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
The Ritz-Carlton (Arlington St.) Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

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

November 2-3, 2006
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT
SECURITIES, TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE
ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 30-December 1, 2006
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614



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

February 01-28, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 01-28, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 01-28, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 01-28, 2006
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 01-28, 2006
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 01-28, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 01-28, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 1, 2006
HURRICANE AND NATURAL DISASTER CONFERENCE SERIES TELECONFERENCE:
AFFECT ON THE INSURANCE AND REINSURANCE INDUSTRIES
TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 7, 2006
BEXTRA AND CELEBREX TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 16, 2006
HURRICANE AND NATURAL DISASTER CONFERENCE SERIES TELECONFERENCE:
CLAIMS IMPACT TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 28, 2006
TEFLON LITIGATION TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 30, 2006
LEAD LITIGATION: THE IMPACT OF THE RI DECISION TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 11, 2006
HURRICANE AND NATURAL DISASTER CONFERENCE SERIES TELECONFERENCE:
BUSINESS INTERRUPTION CLAIMS ANALYSIS
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 18, 2006
FRAUDULENT JOINDER TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 26, 2006
P2P NETWORKS AND LIABILITY TELECONFERENCE: PROTECTION OF DIGITAL
MATERIALS
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 4, 2006
TOUGH CASES IN TOUGH PLACES TELECONFERENCE: STRATEGIES IN
PLAINTIFF FRIENDLY JURISDICTIONS
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 16, 2006
WORKING WITH EXPERTS IN A TOXIC TORT CASE TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 18, 2006
ETHICS TELECONFERENCE: THE CLASSIFICATION OF CLIENT EXPENSES IN
MASS TORTS--CASE SPECIFIC VS. COMMON BENEFIT EXPENSES
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 23, 2006
EMERGING TRENDS IN BAD FAITH LITIGATION TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 6, 2006
PREEMPTION TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 15, 2006
ARE YOU COVERED - WHAT EVERY IN-HOUSE LAWYER NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT
INSURANCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 20, 2006
FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 13, 2006
WORKING WITH EXPERTS IN PHARMACEUTICAL CASES TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

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

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

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

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


APPLICA INC: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
behalf of purchasers of Applica Incorporated (NYSE: APN) common
stock during the period between November 4, 2004 and April 28,
2005.

The complaint charges Applica and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Applica engages in the manufacture, marketing, and
distribution of small household appliances.  The Company markets
and distributes kitchen products, home products, pest control
products, pet care products, and personal care products.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
highlighting the Company's ability to transform its business and
become more profitable.  As alleged in the Complaint, these
statements were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse
facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company was experiencing decreasing demand for
         its products. In particular, demand for two key
         products, Tide(TM) Buzz(TM) Ultrasonic Stain Remover
         and Home Cafe(TM) single cup coffee maker, were not
         meeting internal expectations;

     (2) that Applica was materially overstating its net worth
         by failing to timely write down the value of its
         inventory which had become obsolete and unsaleable;

     (3) that Applica was experiencing higher product warranty
         returns, which it had not appropriately reserved for;

     (4) that Applica's financial statements issued during the
         Class Period were not prepared in accordance with
         Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and
         therefore were materially false and misleading; and

     (5) as a result of the foregoing, there was no reasonable
         basis for the Company's revenue and earnings guidance.

The Complaint further alleges that, on April 20, 2005,
Defendants revealed that the Company would not come near
achieving the guidance they had previously sponsored and/or
endorsed, that the Company's business was suffering from
numerous adverse factors and that the Company was marking down
inventory and experiencing increased warranty expenses.  Then,
on April 28, 2005, Defendants further detailed the impact of
these adverse factors on Applica's business. These belated
disclosures had an immediate, adverse impact on the price of
Applica shares.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law
Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, Phone (888) 643-6735 or (610) 660-8000,
Fax: (610) 660-8080, E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com, Web site:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 behalf of purchasers of Chicago Bridge &
Iron Co. N.V. (NYSE:CBI) publicly traded securities during the
period between March 9, 2005 and February 3, 2006.

The complaint charges Chicago Bridge and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Chicago Bridge operates as an engineering, procurement,
and construction company and offers conceptual design,
engineering, procurement, fabrication, field erection,
mechanical installation, and commissioning services.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued numerous materially false and misleading statements (in
press releases, on conference calls with investors and in
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission), which
caused Chicago Bridge's securities to trade at artificially
inflated prices.  As alleged in the complaint, these statements
were materially false and misleading because they misrepresented
and failed to disclose these adverse facts:

     (1) that the Company was materially overstating its
         financial results by failing to properly utilize
         percentage-of-completion accounting;

     (2) that the Company was not following its publicly stated
         revenue recognition policies; and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
         statements were not prepared in accordance with
         Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and
         therefore were materially false and misleading.

According to the complaint, on October 26, 2005, Chicago Bridge
issued a press release announcing that it would be delaying the
release of its third quarter financial results because the
results were not "finalized in time to meet the original
schedule."  On October 31, 2005, Chicago Bridge issued a press
release announcing a delay in its release of third quarter
financial results that was "precipitated by a memo from a senior
member of CB&I's accounting department alleging accounting
improprieties, including the determination of claim recognition
on two projects and the assessment of costs to complete two
projects."

Then, on February 3, 2006, after the close of the market,
Chicago Bridge issued a press release announcing the
terminations of Defendants Glenn and Jordan and that it would
further elaborate on the terminations on a conference call the
week of February 13, 2006.  Two hours after the announcement of
the terminations, an attorney representing Defendants Glenn and
Jordan issued a press release representing that they had been
terminated in connection with the Company's internal accounting
investigation.

In response to these announcements, on February 6, 2006, the
price of Chicago Bridge stock dropped from $29.00 per share to
$22.33 per share on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin (http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/chicagobridge/),
Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com.


COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Suit in Ga.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Coca-Cola
Enterprises, Inc. between October 15, 2003 and July 28, 2004,
inclusive.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.  The action charges that defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.  No class has yet been certified in the above
action.

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


COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES: Chitwood Harley Lodges Stock Suit in Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, initiated a securities fraud class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia against:

     (1) Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. (CCE),

     (2) Lowry F. Kline, John R. Alm,

     (3) Patrick J. Mannelly,

     (4) Rick L. Engum,

     (5) E. Liston Bishop, III,

     (6) G. David Van Houten, Jr.

     (7) Summerfield K. Johnston, Jr.

The case was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired CCE stock between October 15, 2003 and July
28, 2004 and were damaged thereby.  The case is pending before
the Honorable Thomas W. Thrash and is entitled "Argento Trading
Company, L.P. v. Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. et al., No. 1:06-
cv-00275 (TWT)."

The Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated Sections
10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose to the
investing public that CCE had a longstanding and systemic
practice of channel stuffing -- forcing extra product onto its
customers to boost revenue. CCE's reported financial results and
future earnings prospects were materially misleading without
disclosure about CCE's channel stuffing practices and how those
practices affected CCE's financial condition. The complaint also
alleges that CCE's channel stuffing resulted in the improper
recognition of revenue in violation of GAAP.

While defendants were misrepresenting CCE's financial condition,
and CCE's stock price climbed through the Class Period, the
individual defendants engaged in substantial insider trading.
For example, Defendant Johnston sold over $172 million worth of
his CCE stock, representing 19.52% of his holdings or 6,481,082
shares. Defendant Mannelly sold approximately 372,396 shares of
his CCE common stock, with proceeds totaling approximately
$9,353,964, and Defendant Van Houten sold approximately 225,953
shares of CCE common stock, for proceeds totaling approximately
$6,123,757. Other individual defendants sold substantial amounts
of CCE stock as well.

On July 29, 2004, CCE made a partial corrective disclosure
regarding CCE's true financial condition and diminished future
earnings prospects. Reacting to CCE's disclosures, and the
individual defendants' insider trading activities, investors
hammered CCE's stock price on record trading volumes. Thus, by
the close of business on July 29, CCE's stock price fell by
approximately 25% or $5 per share, erasing nearly $3.1 billion
of CCE's then $12.5 billion market capitalization.

For more details, contact Meryl W. Edelstein, Esq. of Chitwood
Harley Harnes, LLP (http://www.chitwoodlaw.com),Phone:  
888-873-3999 ext. 6881, E-mail: medelstein@chitwoodlaw.com.


COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Stock Suit in Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP initiated a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.
(CCE) during the period between October 15, 2003 and July 28,
2004.

CCE is the world's largest marketer, producer and distributor of
products of The Coca-Cola Company.  The complaint alleges that
defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
failing to disclose to the investing public that CCE had a
longstanding and systemic practice of channel stuffing, forcing
extra product onto its customers to boost revenue.  CCE's
reported financial results and future earnings prospects were
materially misleading without disclosure of CCE's channel
stuffing practices and how those practices affected CCE's
financial condition.  The complaint also alleges that CCE's
channel stuffing resulted in the improper recognition of revenue
in violation of generally accepted accounting principles.

On July 29, 2004, CCE made a partial corrective disclosure
regarding CCE's true financial condition and diminished future
earnings prospects. On this news, CCE's stock price fell by
approximately 25% or $5 per share, erasing nearly $3.1 billion
of CCE's then $12.5 billion market capitalization.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com; Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/cocacolaenterprises/


COOPER COMPANIES: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Stock Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., filed a securities
class action commenced on behalf of shareholders who acquired
The Cooper Companies, Inc. (NYSE: COO) securities between July
29, 2004 through November 21, 2005.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, against the company and certain key
officers and directors.  The action charges that defendants
violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.  No class has yet been certified in the above
action.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq., 261 Old York
Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046, Phone:
(215) 886-1900, E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net.  


COOPER COMPANIES: Brodsky Smith Lodges Securities Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, filed a securities
class action filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Cooper Companies, Inc.
(NYSE: COO) between July 29, 2004 and November 21, 2005,
inclusive.  Also included are all those who acquired Cooper
through its acquisition of Ocular Sciences, Inc.

The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.  The Complaint alleges that
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class
Period, thereby artificially inflating the price of Cooper
securities.  No class has yet been certified in the above
action.

For more details, contact Evan J. Smith, Esq. or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esq. of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite
602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 877-LEGAL-90, E-mail:
clients@brodsky-smith.com.


JARDEN CORP: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded
securities of Jarden Corp. (NYSE: JAH) between June 29, 2005 and
January 11, 2006.

The Complaint alleges that Jarden and CEO Martin Franklin
violated the federal securities laws in connection with a scheme
to convert hundreds of millions of dollars of convertible stock
to common stock, and earn defendant Franklin tens of millions of
dollars in restricted stock compensation. Specifically, it is
asserted that Franklin misrepresented the business situation and
potential of the Holmes Group, Inc. when that company was
acquired by Jarden at the beginning of the Class Period. This
caused the stock to rise substantially, triggering the personal
benefits to Franklin.  On January 11, 2006 Jarden announced that
Holmes' profit margins and product mix were not what the market
had been led to expect. On this news, Jarden's stock fell
substantially.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law
Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, Phone (888) 643-6735 or (610) 660-8000,
Fax: (610) 660-8080, E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com, Web site:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Stock Suit in Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
(NASDAQ: TTWO) common stock during the period between October
25, 2004 and January 27, 2006.

The complaint charges Take-Two and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Take-Two, together with its subsidiaries, is a global
developer, marketer, distributor and publisher of interactive
entertainment software games and accessories for personal
computers and game consoles, such as PlayStationr.  The Company
derives the significant majority of its sales in the U.S. and
its largest customers include Best Buy, Blockbuster, Circuit
City, Electronics Boutique, GameStop, Target, Toys R Us, Wal-
Mart, and other national and regional drug store, supermarket
and discount store chains and specialty retailers.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
made numerous representations about the success of the Company's
video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and the strong
contribution that it was making to the Company's overall
revenues.  However, as alleged in the Complaint, defendants
failed to disclose that, in order to distinguish this new
product in an already saturated videogame market, the Company
improperly hid pornographic materials directly in the
programming of the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas game.

The Complaint further alleges that defendants failed to disclose
the inclusion of the pornographic materials in order to obtain a
rating of "Mature 17+" by the powerful Entertainment Software
Rating Board ("ESRB"), a private group that rates video games.  
As alleged in the Complaint, had the ESRB known of the
pornographic materials contained in the game, it would have
assigned it a rating of "Adults Only 18+" and it would not have
been carried for sale in the major retail chains, such as Wal-
Mart and Target, who refuse to carry such games.  Indeed, when
it was subsequently disclosed that the ESRB had revised its
rating on the game to "Adults Only 18+," the Company was forced
to reduce its financial guidance.

Then, on January 27, 2006, it was announced that the City
Attorney for the City of Los Angeles filed an action against the
Company and its subsidiary, Rockstar, in the Superior Court of
the State of California alleging, among other things, that the
Company and Rockstar violated sections of the California
Business and Professions Code by publishing untrue and
misleading statements and engaging in unfair competition.

Following this announcement, Take-Two's stock price plunged
below $14 per share, on more than 20 million shares traded -
approximately ten times the average daily trading volume during
the entire preceding 12 months.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law
Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, Phone (888) 643-6735 or (610) 660-8000,
Fax: (610) 660-8080, E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com, Web site:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.



                            *********


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  * * *