CAR_Public/060228.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, February 28, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 42

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Continues to Face Age Discrimination Suit in N.J.
3M COMPANY: Faces Suit in Ill. Over ACME Drum Reconditioning Ops
3M COMPANY: Plaintiffs to Add Members in Age Discrimination Suit
3M COMPANY: Still Faces Perflourooctanyl Lawsuits in Ala., Minn.
ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set March 6

BALLARAT UNIVERSITY: Agrees to Clarify Aussie Labor Contracts
CALIFORNIA: Coachella Valley Real Estate Broker Accused of Fraud
CANADA: $51M Suit Seeks to Uphold Right of Mentally Ill Inmates
CARDSYSTEMS SOLUTIONS: Settles FTC Security Violation Charges
CHATTEM INC: Working to Resolve DEXATRIM PPA Injury Litigation

CISCO SYSTEMS: Continues to Face Securities Lawsuit in Calif.
CROCUS INVESTMENT: Plaintiffs in Stock Lawsuit Get New Lawyers
DOMINION HOMES: Homeowners File New Suit Over Down-Payment Gifts
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces Title Insurance Lawsuit in Ohio Court
HANOVER DIRECT: Obtains Favorable Judgments in Insurance Cases

INFOUSA INC: Shareholder Files Derivative Lawsuit in Nebraska
INTRABIOTICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Calif. Court Dismisses Stock Suit
MARSH & MCLENNAN: N.J. Court to Consider Suit Dismissal Motion
MEDI-HUT CO: To Settle N.J. Accounting Fraud Lawsuit for $4.5M
ONSIGHT AUTO: Farmers, Policyholders Allege Fraud in Lawsuit

PACIFICORP: New Judge Assigned to Ratepayers' Lawsuit in Oregon
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Investors to Share in $250M SEC Fair Fund
SAFE HARBOR: Faces Fraud Lawsuit in California Superior Court
SPRING STREET: Settlement Hearing on Subscription Suit Set April
UCI MEDICAL: Greene Broillet Files New Cases V. Regents of UCI

WORLD AIRWAYS: Faces Lawsuits Over Ritetime Contractual Flights
XEROX CORP: Class Ratification Motion Filed in Conn. Stock Suit
XEROX CORPORATION: Conn. Court to Rule on ERISA Suit Dismissal
XEROX CORP: Continues to Face Race Discrimination Suit in N.Y.
XEROX CORP: Court Hears Appeal on N.Y. Apartheid Suit Dismissal

XEROX CORP: Discovery Ensues in Consolidated Stock Suit in Conn.

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CHICAGO BRIDGE: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
COOPER COMPANIES: Federman Sherwood Lodges Stock Suit in Calif.
DOT HILL: Stull Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. Calif.
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Lerach Coughlin Files Stock Suit in Idaho
PROQUEST COMPANY: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Suit in Mich.

                           *********


3M COMPANY: Continues to Face Age Discrimination Suit in N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co. is still defending itself against a purported age
discrimination class action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey that was filed by one of its employees.

The suit alleges that 3M violated New Jersey's Law Against
Discrimination by policies, practices and patterns of decisions
related to performance appraisals, training, promotion, pay and
termination that discriminate against employees over the age of
45.  It is anticipated that the class will include about 100
current and former salaried exempt and non-exempt employees.  

On November 2, 2005, John Pinkowski, filed the suit against his
employer in the Superior Court of Essex County, New Jersey on
behalf of a class of New Jersey-based employees of the Company.  
On December 2, 2005, the Company filed a Notice of Removal and
the case was transferred to federal court in New Jersey.  The
Company then filed its Answer to the Complaint on December 23,
2005.

On January 11, 2006, Magistrate Judge Patty Schwartz filed a
Scheduling Order and scheduled a conference on March 6, 2006 to
approve a discovery plan.

To see Pinkowski Complaint, visit:
http://researcharchives.com/t/s?5da

The suit is styled, "Pinkowski v. 3M Company, Case No. 2:05-cv-
05668-KSH-PS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey under Judge Katharine S. Hayden with referral to
Judge Patty Shwartz.  Representing the Plaintiff/s is:

Bennet Dann Zurofsky
Reitman Parsonnet
744 Broad Street, Suite 1807
Newark, NJ 07102
Phone: (973) 642-0885
E-mail: bzurofsky@reitpar.com
Web site:
http://www.sprengerlang.com/cases/case-list/3m/about/#NJ.  

Representing the Defendant/s are:

Michael T. Bissinger
Pitney Hardin
Gregory C. Parliman
Pitney, Hardin, Kipp & Szuch, LLP
Phone: (973) 966-6300
        973-966-8401
E-mail: mbissinger@pitneyhardin.com,
        acastronovo@pitneyhardin.com,
        gparliman@pitneyhardin.com.


3M COMPANY: Faces Suit in Ill. Over ACME Drum Reconditioning Ops
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several hundred plaintiffs who claim to have lived in the
vicinity of the ACME Barrel Company's storage drum
reconditioning facility in Chicago, Illinois, filed a lawsuit in
the third quarter of 2003 in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, against 3M Co. and a number of other companies that
allegedly were customers of ACME Barrel.  

The complaint seeks unspecified damages for personal injuries
allegedly caused by the plaintiffs' exposure to chemicals
migrating from ACME Barrel's drum reconditioning operations.  
The plaintiffs also assert that a class should be certified on
behalf of all persons similarly situated.  


3M COMPANY: Plaintiffs to Add Members in Age Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a pending age discrimination case against 3M Co.
recently filed a motion to join additional plaintiffs into their
case.

On December 2004, a current and a former employee of the Company
filed a purported class action in the District Court of Ramsey
County, Minnesota, seeking to represent a class of all current
and certain former salaried employees employed by 3M Co. in
Minnesota below a certain salary grade who were age 46 or older
at any time during the applicable period to be determined by the
Court.

The plaintiffs in the case are Clifford Whitaker, 60, and
Michael Mucci, 55.  According to the lawsuit, since at least
2001, the Company acted "to elevate younger employees to the
company's leadership and to remove employees over the age of 45
-- perceived as less able or willing to accept and apply new
business methodologies adopted by the company."  It also alleges
that the Company disproportionately selects younger employees
for a leadership-training program called "Six Sigma," (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 23, 2004)

Specifically, the complaint alleges the plaintiffs suffered
various forms of employment discrimination on the basis of age
in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act and seeks
injunctive relief, unspecified compensatory (up to triple actual
damages) and punitive damages in excess of $50,000, including
back and front pay and attorneys' fees.  In January 2006, the
plaintiffs filed a motion to join four additional plaintiffs.


3M COMPANY: Still Faces Perflourooctanyl Lawsuits in Ala., Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co. continues to defend itself against several class actions
over perflourooctanyl contamination in Alabama and Minnesota.

A former employee filed a purported class action in 2002 in the
Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama involving
perfluorooctanyl chemistry.  The lawsuit seeks unstated
compensatory and punitive damages and alleges that the
plaintiffs suffered fear, increased risk, sub clinical injuries
and property damage from exposure to perfluorooctanyl chemistry
at or near the Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing
facility.  

The complaint also alleges that the Company acted improperly
with respect to disclosures to workers concerning such
chemistry.  The Circuit Court in 2005 granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the named plaintiff's personal injury-related
claims on the basis that the exclusivity provisions of the
state's Workers Compensation Act bar such claims.

Additionally, in 2005, the judge in a second purported class
action (also filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama
seeking unstated compensatory and punitive damages involving
alleged damage to their property from emissions of
perfluorooctanyl compounds from the Company's Decatur, Alabama,
manufacturing facility that formerly produced those compounds)
granted the Company's motion to abate the case, effectively
putting the case on hold pending the resolution of class
certification issues in the action described above filed in the
same court in 2002.

On October 8, 2004, two residents of Washington County,
Minnesota filed a purported class action in the District Court
of Washington County on behalf of county residents whose
property has allegedly been harmed by perfluorooctanyl compounds
and who have allegedly suffered personal injury from such
compounds from the Company's Cottage Grove, Minnesota production
facility that formerly manufactured those compounds and other of
its facilities nearby.  

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages in excess of $50,000 per
plaintiff and class member.  After the District Court granted
the Company's motion to dismiss the claims for medical
monitoring and public nuisance in April 2005, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint adding additional allegations
involving other perfluoronated compounds manufactured by the
Company, alleging additional legal theories in support of their
claims, and seeking relief based on alleged contamination of the
City of Oakdale municipal water supply and certain private wells
in the vicinity of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. Pretrial proceedings
are in progress and a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion to
certify the case as a class action was scheduled by for the fall
of 2006.


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

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

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

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


BALLARAT UNIVERSITY: Agrees to Clarify Aussie Labor Contracts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melbourne Federal Court Justice Neil Young has dismissed
application for injunction against the University of Ballarat in
Western Victoria after the university agreed to issue a
clarifying statement regarding its labor contracts.  

The university is not to enter into any Australian Workplace
Agreements for 10 days under an agreement struck Feb. 24,
according to The Courier.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman lodged a class action against
the firm two weeks ago alleging that up to 700 staff were misled
when the university said key employment conditions would be
safeguarded under the AWA.  The lead plaintiff in the case is is
National Tertiary Education Union president Dr. Jeremy Smith.  

Lawyer for the employees is Kamal Farouque of Maurice Blackburn:

     Kamal Farouque
     Assistant: Rosemary Hamer
     Phone: 03 9605 2827
     Fax: 03 9600 2404
     Email: rhamer@mbc.aus.net
     Web site: http://www.mauriceblackburncashman.com.au/)

Ballarat University on the Net: http://www.ballarat.edu.au/.


CALIFORNIA: Coachella Valley Real Estate Broker Accused of Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney for Coachella Valley residents who are alleged
victims of a real estate scammer is about to get his fifth
client in a class action, according to KESQ.com.

Palm Strings attorney David Lynch is suing Haydee Verdugo for
allegedly selling bogus real estate, and stealing thousands from
more than 20 people before disappearing.  Mr. Lynch estimates
she got more than $300,000, according to the report.

In an exclusive phone interview with NewsChannel 3, Ms. Verdugo
denied the allegations, saying she was going to Mexicali Mexico
for medical treatment.  She said she was ready to answer the
complaints the moment she returns.


CANADA: $51M Suit Seeks to Uphold Right of Mentally Ill Inmates
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ottawa province is facing a $51 million class action for
breaching Charter rights of mentally ill people accused of
crimes, according to the Ottawa Sun.

The suit, filed on behalf of Deep River resident Sylvie Phaneuf,
alleges the province is in breach of a 2004 court order, by
holding inmates in custody until an assessment bed becomes
available in a psychiatric hospital, rather than being given the
opportunity to seek bail.  It claims the practice is against a
November 2004 ruling by local Ontario Superior Court Justice
Robert Desmarais, who declared the process is unconstitutional.

Civil lawyer Joseph Obagi (Web site http://cooliganryan.com)
said the suit could include as many as 100 people.  Will Murray
is the defense lawyer.


CARDSYSTEMS SOLUTIONS: Settles FTC Security Violation Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
CardSystems Solutions, Inc. and its successor, Solidus Networks,
Inc., doing business as Pay By Touch Solutions, have agreed to
settle Federal Trade Commission charges that CardSystems'
failure to take appropriate security measures to protect the
sensitive information of tens of millions of consumers was an
unfair practice that violated federal law.  

According to the FTC, the security breach resulted in millions
of dollars in fraudulent purchases.  The settlement will require
CardSystems and Pay By Touch to implement a comprehensive
information security program and obtain audits by an independent
third-party security professional every other year for 20 years.

This is the ninth FTC case targeting companies whose security
practices compromised consumers' confidential financial
information, and the first the Commission has brought against a
credit card processor.

"CardSystems kept information it had no reason to keep and then
stored it in a way that put consumers' financial information at
risk," said Deborah Platt Majoras, Chairman of the FTC. "Any
company that keeps sensitive consumer information must take
steps to ensure that the data is held in a secure manner."

According to the FTC, CardSystems provided merchants with
products and services used in "authorization processing" -
obtaining approval for credit and debit card purchases from the
banks that issued the cards. Last year, it processed about 210
million card purchases, totaling more than $15 billion, for more
than 119,000 small and mid-size merchants. In processing these
transactions, CardSystems collected personal information from
the magnetic strip of the card, including the card number,
expiration date, and other data. CardSystems then stored this
information on its computer network. Pay By Touch acquired
CardSystems' assets in December 2005, and now processes
transactions for the same merchants CardSystems served.

The FTC charged that CardSystems engaged in a number of
practices that, taken together, failed to provide reasonable and
appropriate security for sensitive consumer information.
Specifically, the agency alleges that CardSystems:

     (1) created unnecessary risks to the information by storing
         it;

     (2) did not adequately assess the vulnerability of its
         computer network to commonly known or reasonably
         foreseeable attacks, including "Structured Query
         Language" injection attacks;

     (3) did not implement simple, low-cost, and readily
         available defenses to such attacks;

    (4) did not use strong passwords to prevent a hacker from
        gaining control over computers on its computer network
        and access to personal information stored on the
        network;

    (5) did not use readily available security measures to limit
        access between computers on its network and between its
        computers and the Internet; and

    (6) failed to employ sufficient measures to detect
        unauthorized access to personal information or to
        conduct security investigations.

According to the FTC's complaint, these practices compromised
millions of credit and debit cards, and led to millions of
dollars in fraudulent purchases. In addition, after the fraud
was discovered, banks cancelled and re-issued thousands of
credit cards, and consumers experienced inconvenience, worry,
and time loss dealing with the affected cards.

The proposed settlement requires CardSystems and Pay By Touch to
establish and maintain a comprehensive information security
program that includes administrative, technical, and physical
safeguards. The settlement also requires them to obtain - every
two years for the next 20 years - an audit from a qualified,
independent, third-party professional that confirms that its
security program meets the standards of the order, and to comply
with standard bookkeeping and record-keeping provisions.

This case is similar to prior FTC actions involving alleged
failures to secure credit and debit card information. As in the
prior cases, CardSystems faces potential liability in the
millions of dollars under bank procedures and in private
litigation for losses related to the breach.

The Commission vote to accept the proposed consent agreement was
4-0, with Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour recused. The FTC
will publish an announcement regarding the agreement in the
Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to
public comment for 30 days, beginning Feb. 23 and continuing
through March 27, 2006, after which the Commission will decide
whether to make it final.

Comments should be addressed to the FTC, Office of the
Secretary, Room H-159, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20580. The FTC requests that any comment filed in
paper form near the end of the public comment period be sent by
courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal
mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to
delay due to heightened security precautions.

Copies of the complaint and consent agreement are available at
http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's Consumer Response  
Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC
20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent,
deceptive, and unfair business practices in the marketplace and
to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid
them.


CHATTEM INC: Working to Resolve DEXATRIM PPA Injury Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chattem Inc. is working to resolve a number of lawsuits alleging
that the plaintiffs were injured as a result of ingestion of
products containing phenylpropanolamine (PPA), which was an
active ingredient in most of the Company's DEXATRIM products
until November 2000.

The lawsuits filed in federal court were transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington before
U.S. District Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein, styled, "In Re
Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No.
1407.  The remaining lawsuits were filed in state court in a
number of different states.

On April 13, 2004, the company entered into a class action
settlement agreement with representatives of the plaintiffs'
settlement class, which provided for a national class action
settlement of all PPA claims.  On November 12, 2004, Judge
Barbara J. Rothstein of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington entered a final order and judgment
certifying the class and granting approval of the PPA
settlement.  After the final judgment was entered, two parties
who had objected to the settlement filed appeals challenging and
seeking to set aside the final judgment.  Both of these appeals
have now been dismissed.

The PPA settlement includes claims against us involving alleged
injuries by products containing PPA in which the alleged injury
occurred after December 21, 1998, the date we acquired the
brand.  In accordance with the terms of the class action
settlement agreement, the Company previously published notice of
the settlement and details as to the manner in which claims
could be submitted.  The deadline for submission of claims was
July 7, 2004.  

A total of 391 claims were certified by the court as timely
submitted.  Of these 391 claims, 173 alleged stroke as an injury
and 218 alleged other non-stroke injuries.  Of the 391 total
claims, only 371 claimants actually had alleged injuries that
occurred after December 21, 1998 and continued to pursue their
claims in the settlement.  The remaining claimants have either
withdrawn their claims or cannot be located. A total of 14
claimants with alleged injuries that occurred after December 21,
1998 elected to opt out of the class settlement.  Subsequently,
the Company settled nine of the opt-out claims.  The five
remaining opt-out claimants may pursue claims for damages
against us in separate lawsuits.  As of February 17, 2006, two
of the five remaining opt out claimants filed lawsuits against
the Company that it is continuing to defend.

The suit is styled, "In Re: Phenylpropanolamine, et al v., et
al., Case No. 2:01-md-01407-BJR," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington under Judge Barbara
J. Rothstein.  

Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Lance Palmer
         PPA MDL #1407 Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel
         Kraft Palmer Davies, PLLC
         720 Third Avenue, Suite 1510
         Seattle, Washington USA 98104-1825
         Phone: 1-800-448-8008
         Fax: 206-624-2912; and

     (2) Nancy Guy Armstrong
         P.O. BOX 1343, MCCOMB, MS 39648
         Phone: 601-684-8816
         Fax: 601-684-8816.  

Representing the Defendant/s are:

     (1) Rodney L Umberger, Jr.
         Williams Kastner & Gibbs
         P.O. Box 21926, Seattle, WA 98111-3926
         Phone: 206-628-6600
         Fax: 628-6611
         E-mail: rumberger@wkg.com; and

     (2) Sharon L. Caffrey
         Duane Morris (PA)
         1650 Market St., STE. 3900
         Philadelphia, PA 19807
         Phone: 215-979-1180
         E-mail: slcaffrey@duanemorris.com.


CISCO SYSTEMS: Continues to Face Securities Lawsuit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cisco Systems, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors
continue to face a consolidated shareholder class action filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

Beginning on April 20, 2001, a number of purported shareholder
class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and certain
of its officers and directors.  The lawsuits have been
consolidated, and the consolidated action is purportedly brought
on behalf of those who purchased our publicly traded securities
between August 10, 1999 and February 6, 2001.  Plaintiffs allege
that defendants have made false and misleading statements,
purport to assert claims for violations of the federal
securities laws, and seek unspecified compensatory damages and
other relief.

The suit is styled, "In re: Cisco Systems, Inc., Securities
Litigation, et al., Case No. 5:01-cv-20418-JW," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
under Judge James Ware with referral to Judge Patricia V.
Trumbull.  Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) George E. Barrett of Barrett, Johnston & Parsley, 217
         Second Avenue North, Nashville, TN 37201, Phone: 615-
         244-2202, E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com

     (2) Eric J. Belfi of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275
         Madison Avenue, Suite 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682-1892, E-mail:
         ebelfi@murrayfrank.com

     (3) Stuart L. Berman of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King
         of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610/667-7706,
         E-mail: sberman@sbclasslaw.com

Representing the Defendant/s are, Alice L. Jensen of Fenwick &
West, LLP, 275 Battery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone:
(415) 875-2300, Fax: (415) 281-1350, E-mail:
ajensen@fenwick.com.


CROCUS INVESTMENT: Plaintiffs in Stock Lawsuit Get New Lawyers
--------------------------------------------------------------
A new set of lawyers will be representing Crocus Investors
Association in its class action against Crocus Investment Fund,
according to The Winnepeg Sun.

Queen's Bench justice Shawn Greenberg dismissed the previous set
of lawyers, including Paul Walsh, a month ago, citing a conflict
of interest.  Mr. Walsh once acted for Crocus' former chief
executive James Umlah.

The investors, about 34,000, will now be represented by:

     (1) David Klein (lead lawyer)
         David Klein, Klein Lyons,
         Suite 1100 - 1333 West Broadway
         Vancouver, B.C. V6H 4C1
         Phone: (604) 874-7171;

     (2) Jay Prober; and

     (3) Norman Boudreau.

Crocus Investment Fund stopped trading in December 2004 amid
allegations of over-inflated share value.  The lawsuit seeks
$200 million in lost share value and damages.


DOMINION HOMES: Homeowners File New Suit Over Down-Payment Gifts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Homes is facing a third lawsuit in relation to its
alleged fraudulent "charity down-payment grants," according to
The Columbus Dispatch.

Amy and Scott Rudawsky and Michelle and Jeff Beard, homeowners
in the Village at Polaris Park in southern Delaware County filed
a suit in U.S. District Court against top executives including
Chief Executive Officer Douglas G. Borror and his brother,
Corporate Executive Vice President David Borror.

The suit alleged that what was offered in the contract as
charity down-payment grants obtained by Dominion through the
nonprofit Nehemiah Corp. of America, were actually wrapped into
house prices.

Those two couples also filed a lawsuit against Dominion in
federal court on Tuesday for secretly converting their Federal
Housing Administration loans into subprime mortgages generally
given to borrowers' with poor credit, according to the report.

                   Galloway Ridge Litigations

Earlier, homeowners in Galloway Ridge and the Village at
Galloway Ridge on the Far West Side in Franklin sued the Dublin-
based company in County Common Pleas Court.  The suit alleged
that homeowners were defrauded when the company added without
their consent the cost of what was promised as "down-payment
gifts" and "interest-rate subsidies" into the cost of their
houses. The Ohio Attorney General's Office and the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development have already
investigated the matter.

The suit seeks at least $25,000 in damages, attorney fees and a
court order prohibiting Dominion from, among other things,
offering down-payment gifts and interest-rate subsidies.  
Thousands of Dominion homeowners in Central Ohio could be
involved.

Defendants in the suit include:

     (1) Dominion Homes Inc., its

     (2) Dominion Homes Financial Services Ltd.,

     (3) Valuation Resources Inc., and

     (4) charitable organizations including California-based
         Nehemiah Corp. of America.  

The plaintiffs are Clifford and Shannon Rece and Christopher and
Amanda Endl.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces Title Insurance Lawsuit in Ohio Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Ohio couple is suing Jacksonville, Florida-based Fidelity
National Title Insurance Co. for keeping them in the dark
regarding discounts in their title insurance.

Jerry and Dianne Randleman paid full when they refinanced their
Huron County home in 2004, but it turned out that under rates
filed by their insurer with the Ohio Insurance Department in
Columbus, they were entitled to a discount, the Toledo Blade
reports.  They should have availed of the discount because their
house was already covered by a title insurance policy purchased
when the couple first closed on their New London home.

The couple is suing in the U.S. District Court in Toledo.  The
lawsuit alleges that the defendant knowingly and routinely
overcharged its customers.  Representing the plaintiffs are
lawyers Mark Koberna of Cleveland, and Rick Sonkin.  The team
includes plaintiff firm Motley Rice LLC, of Mt. Pleasant, North
Carolina, according to the report.

The case is styled "Randleman et al v. Fidelity National Title
Insurance Company (3:06-cv-07049-JGC)," filed in the U.S.
District Court of Ohio under Judge James G. Carr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mark R. Koberna
         Sonkin & Koberna
         Ste. 400
         3401 Enterprise Parkway
         Cleveland, OH 44122
         216-514-8300
         Fax: 216-514-4467
         E-mail: mark@sonkinkoberna.com

     (2) David D. Yeagley
         Ulmer & Berne
         1100 Skylight Office Tower
         1660 West Second Street
         Cleveland, OH 44113-1448
         Phone: 216-583-7216
         Fax: 216-583-7217
         E-mail: dyeagley@ulmer.com


HANOVER DIRECT: Obtains Favorable Judgments in Insurance Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hanover Direct, Inc., which was a party to four class actions
that all involved allegations that the Company's charges for
insurance were invalid, unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent, has
in large part, resolved all of these cases.  Specifically, the
cases involved are styled:

     (1) Jacq Wilson v. Brawn of California, Inc., Case No. CGC-
         02-404454, (Supp. Ct. San Francisco, CA 2002) (Wilson
         Case).  

     (2) Teichman v. Hanover Direct, Inc., et al., No. 3L641,
         (Supp. Ct. San Francisco, CA 2001).  (Teichman Case).  

     (3) John Morris, individually and on behalf of all other
         similarly situated person and entities similarly
         situated v. Hanover Direct, Inc. and Hanover Brands,
         Inc., No. L 8830-02, (Sup. Ct. Bergen Co., Law Div.,
         NJ).  

     (4) Martin v. Hanover Direct, Inc., et al., No. CJ-2000,
         (D.C. Sequoyah Co., Ok.) ("Martin Case").  

On February 13, 2002, Jacq Wilson, suing on behalf of himself
and other similarly situated persons, filed a representative
suit in the Superior Court of the State of California, City and
County of San Francisco, against the Company alleging that the
Company charged an unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent insurance
fee on orders, was engaged in untrue, deceptive and misleading
advertising and unfair competition under the state's Business
and Professions Code.  

In November 2003, the Court entered judgment for the plaintiffs,
requiring defendants to refund insurance charges collected from
consumers for the period from February 13, 1998 through January
15, 2003, with interest. In April 2004, the Court awarded
plaintiff's counsel approximately $445,000 of attorneys' fees.  
The Company appealed the Court's decision and the order to pay
attorneys' fees.  On September 2, 2005 the California Court of
Appeals reversed both the Court's findings on the merits and its
award of attorneys' fees and awarded the Company its cost on the
appeal.

On August 15, 2001, Randi Teichman filed a summons and four-
count complaint in the Superior Court for the City and County of
San Francisco seeking damages and other relief for herself and a
class of similarly situated persons arising out of the insurance
fee charged by catalogs and Internet sites operated by Company
subsidiaries.  This case had been stayed since May 2002 pending
resolution of the "Wilson" Case.  The same counsel represented
the plaintiffs in both "Wilson" and "Teichman" and the
plaintiffs in both cases agreed to dismiss the cases with
prejudice in exchange for the Company's agreement to not seek
reimbursement of its appellate costs in the case.

On October 28, 2002, John Morris, individually and on behalf of
other similarly situated persons in New Jersey filed a class
action alleging that the Company improperly added a charge for
"insurance" and the Company's conduct was in violation of the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act as otherwise deceptive, misleading
and unconscionable.  On February 14, 2005, the Court denied
class certification, which limited the damages being litigated.  
Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement effective as of August 29,
2005, the case was settled with the Company agreeing to pay
$39,500 in the aggregate for a nominal amount of damages and
legal fees.

On March 3, 2000, Edwin L. Martin filed a class action against
the Company claiming breach of contract, unjust enrichment,
recovery of money paid absent consideration, fraud and a claim
under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.  The allegations stem
from insurance charges paid to the Company by consumers who had
placed orders from catalogs published by indirect subsidiaries
of the Company over a number of years.  

Plaintiff sought relief including a declaratory judgment as to
the validity of the delivery insurance, an order directing the
Company to return to the plaintiff and class members the
"unlawful revenue" derived from the insurance charges, threefold
damages for each class member, and attorneys' fees and costs.  
In July 2001, the Court certified the class and the Company
filed an appeal of the class certification.  On October 25,
2005, the class certification was reversed.  Plaintiff filed an
Application for Rehearing, which was denied on January 3, 2006.  
On January 18, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Petition for a Writ of
Certiorari in the Oklahoma Supreme Court.  The Company believes
that it is unlikely that the Oklahoma Supreme Court will grant
Plaintiff's petition.

The Company established a $0.5 million reserve during the third
quarter of 2004 for the class actions described above for
settlements and the Company's current estimate of future legal
fees to be incurred.  The balance of the reserve as of September
24, 2005 was approximately $0.1 million.


INFOUSA INC: Shareholder Files Derivative Lawsuit in Nebraska
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Value Equity Partners, an investor in Omaha, Nebraska-
based InfoUSA Inc., filed a derivative class action complaint
against InfoUSA Chief Executive Vinod Gupta, according to
Associated Press.

The suit was filed under seal on Feb. 22 in Delaware's Court of
Chancery on behalf of all shareholders.  It alleged breached of
fiduciary duties on behalf of the CEO towards shareholders.  
Cardinal Value owns 6.4% of InfoUSA.

The report notes that in September, Cardinal Value sent a sent a
letter to InfoUSA's board expressing concern about the rejection
of an $11.75-per-share buyout offer from Gupta.  It turned out
from court documents that the new lawsuit is related to earlier
legal actions filed to obtain InfoUSA corporate records.

The company and its directors was subject to earlier lawsuits
claiming breached of fiduciary duties in connection with Mr.
Gupta's proposal to acquire stocks (Class Action Reporter, Sept.
21, 2005).  The purported class actions were filed in the
District Court of Douglas County, Nebraska, entitled "Eileen
Tyrrell vs. infoUSA, Inc., et al." (filed in June 2005) and
"Robert Bartow vs. infoUSA, Inc., et al." (filed in July 2005).


INTRABIOTICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Calif. Court Dismisses Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted Intrabiotics Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers.

Beginning on July 2, 2004, three purported class action
shareholder complaints were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern of California against the Company and
several of its officers.  The actions were consolidated and a
consolidated amended complaint has been filed, purportedly
brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between September 5, 2003 and June 22, 2004.  The amended
complaint generally alleges that the Company and several of its
officers and directors made false or misleading statements
concerning the clinical trial of iseganan. The plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages.

On February 28, 2005, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  A hearing on
the motion to dismiss was held on June 17, 2005 and a ruling on
the motion is pending.

On January 23, 2006, the court issued its decision on the
motion, granting the motion to dismiss the claim under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, with leave to amend, and
denying the motion to dismiss the claims under the Securities
Act of 1933.  The court has given the plaintiffs 30 days to file
an amended complaint.

The Company believes the suit to be without merit and intends to
defend itself vigorously.  However, the Company believes it is
likely that the litigation will continue through at least the
end of 2006.  Due to the uncertainties surrounding the final
outcome of this matter, no amounts have been accrued at December
31, 2005.  The Company and the individual defendants are insured
under the Company's directors' and officers' insurance policies,
with $15 million in total coverage, and a $500,000 deductible,
which has been met.

The suit is styled, "In Re: IntraBiotics Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-2675," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, under
Judge Jeffrey S. White.  Lawyers for the Company are Boris
Feldman, Cheryl W. Foung, Kassra Powell Nassiri and Ignacio E.
Salceda 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, cfoung@wsgr.com,
knassiri@wsgr.com, isalceda@wsgr.com.  Representing the
Plaintiff/s are:

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

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

     (3) Bruce G. Murphy, 265 Llwyds Lane, Vero Beach La, FL,
         32963, Phone: 561.231.4202,

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

     (5) Green & Jigarjian LLP, 235 Pine Street, 15th Floor, San
         Francisco, CA, 94104, Phone: 415.477.6700, Fax:
         415.477.6710,

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

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

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

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

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


MARSH & MCLENNAN: N.J. Court to Consider Suit Dismissal Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to consider a motion by Marsh & McLennan Cos. to
dismiss a complaint in a class action is to take place in the
U.S. District Court in Newark, New Jersey, according to
BestWire.

Marsh was previously named among 14 businesses in the insurance
brokerage antitrust lawsuit concerning bid-rigging allegations.  
Last year, the company agreed to pay $850 million to settle a
lawsuit by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.  The case
accused it of rigging bids and fixing prices, and steering
business to insurers that paid fees hidden from clients.

The insurance brokerage company -- http://www.marshmac.com--  
owns UK broker Sedgwick Group, Seabury & Smith, and Marsh &
McLennan Capital, and Mercer Consulting Group.


MEDI-HUT CO: To Settle N.J. Accounting Fraud Lawsuit for $4.5M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Former auditors of Medi-Hut Co., Inc., a New Jersey-based
pharmaceutical and medical device maker, agreed to settle a
class action over accounting fraud by paying $4.5 million,
according to court papers filed in a federal class action.

In the recently filed documents, attorneys for the class action
against the Company are asking a judge to approve the settlement
with Bridgewater accounting firm Rosenberg, Rich, Baker, Berman
& Co., which indicated in the documents that it is settling the
case to avoid further legal costs.  The accounting firm approved
the Company's financial statements from 1999 through 2001, two
years later, the Company's founder and other executives admitted
in federal court that they had manipulated the company books to
conceal losses.  The Company had operated from Lakewood, Ocean
County.

In its previous SEC report, Medi-Hut Co., Inc. said it received
a total of eleven class actions between March and April of 2002.  
These lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.  The complaints allege that the Company
and its officers and directors failed to disclose in its
periodic reports a related party transaction between the Company
and an employee of it.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages along with fees and expenses for the action, (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 23, 2002).  

The suit is styled, "In Re Medi-Hut CO., et al. v., et al., Case
No. 3:02-cv-00881-SRC-TJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler with
referral to Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.  

Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Joseph J. Depalma
         Lite, Depalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC
         Two Gateway Center, 12TH Floor, Newark, NJ
         07102-5003
         Phone: (973) 623-3000
         E-mail: jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com; and

     (2) Lisa J. Rodriguez
         Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLP
         8 Kings Highway West, Haddonfield, NJ 08033
         Phone: (856) 795-9002
         E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com.


ONSIGHT AUTO: Farmers, Policyholders Allege Fraud in Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Farmers Insurance Exchange has begun serving civil summons and
complaints upon Redding auto glass company Onsight Auto Glass
and its owner, accusing them of taking part in a scheme designed
to defraud Farmers and its policyholders.  The civil complaint -
- which is similar to prior successful lawsuits against auto
glass businesses and body shops, who submitted false insurance
claims -- seeks:

     (1) damages for the fraud allegedly committed,

     (2) injunctive relief, where the courts are asked to order
         a halt to these deceptive practices.

Outlining a highly unusual and aggressive billing scam, the
lawsuit details how the alleged perpetrator deliberately over-
billed Farmers for services on 455 occasions.  As alleged in the
civil complaint, the defendant created a sham office in a remote
area, so it could manipulate its billing.  In fact, the only
things located where the shop is claimed to exist were abandoned
mines and a shack.  There was no electricity, no running water
and certainly no auto glass business.  Under national
guidelines, automobile glass claims are paid at a premium if the
shop is located in less densely populated areas.  As explained
in the complaint, defendant created documentation that the shop
was located in a remote area, so it could charge Farmers
significantly more.

"This case shows the lengths people will go for money.  We have
seen similar scams in California and across the country.  We
continue to sue civilly and assist law enforcement to stop these
perpetrators.  This type of fraud takes advantage of a system
designed to help our [clients] quickly and conveniently replace
damaged or broken windshields.  However, by secretly
manipulating the system, this type of scheme leads to millions
of dollars in false claims, " said Doug Ashbridge, Director of
Special Investigations.

"I am proud of our Special Investigative Unit who, through
persistent investigative efforts, yielded conclusive evidence
that this was a deliberate effort to defraud Farmers and its
policyholders."

Farmers developed evidence indicating that 81% of the money paid
to Onsight Auto Glass involved fraud.  Farmers' Special
Investigations Unit confirmed its suspicions through witnesses
and documented the suspected fraud.  Following its
investigation, it became clear that no glass work was done from
the alleged shop location.  By pretending to have a shop at this
address, defendant was able to falsely charge more for its work.

Mr. Ashbridge went on to state: "Farmers is committed to
stamping out insurance fraud. There are no exceptions. Why
should hard working and honest people have to pay for the acts
of a few dishonest people? Farmers has teams that are designed
to detect this type of fraudulent activity and uncover other
types of insurance fraud scams. Similar investigations are
proceeding nationwide in an attempt to curb these windshield
scams."

Farmers is represented by:

     Dennis B. Kass
     Manning & Marder, Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, LLP
     Los Angeles Office
     660 South Figueroa Street
     23rd Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Phone:(213)624-6900
     Fax:(213)624-6999
     Web site: http://www.mmker.com/

The Farmers Insurance Group(R) -- http://www.farmers.com--
companies comprise the nation's third-largest personal lines
property & casualty insurance group - helping to restore the
lives of over 15 million customers when the unexpected happens.  
Headquartered in Los Angeles and doing business in 41 states,
these companies provide homeowners, auto, business, life
insurance, recreational products and financial services to more
than 10 million households through 17,000 exclusive and
independent agents and district managers.  Phone; 1-800-FARMERS.


PACIFICORP: New Judge Assigned to Ratepayers' Lawsuit in Oregon
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit against PacifiCorp, the utility that
supplies electricity to one of every four Portlanders, was
assigned to a new judge, The Portland Tribune reports.

The Company had asked Multnomah County Circuit Judge John
Wittmayer to recuse himself after learning he was a PacifiCorp
ratepayer.  Judge Janice Wilson, which was assigned to replace
Judge Wittmayer, is now set to hear the case on March 22.

The suit, which accused the Company of overcharging ratepayers,
was similar to an earlier case against Portland General Electric
that Judge Wittmayer heard.  That suit resulted in a $10 million
settlement.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Investors to Share in $250M SEC Fair Fund
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) said that it would
distribute $250 million to aggrieved Qwest Communications
shareholders as part of the settlement of a similar class-action
lawsuit, The Rocky Mountain News reports.

The Company agreed to pay $250 million to settle civil fraud
charges with the SEC back in 2004.  Certain former executives of
the Company who have settled charges with the SEC have also put
money into the "Fair Fund," as it's called.  It now has $252.9
million to distribute to former Company shareholders.

Throughout 2005, The Company still had to deal with plaintiffs
in a class-action securities fraud suit.  The Company settled
that case last November for $400 million.  The federal
regulators wanted "to minimize costs, maximize the recovery of
investors, and complete the distribution (of the Fair Fund
money) as efficiently as possible."  So the SEC will piggyback
on the class-action settlement to get it done.

The SEC said investors who purchased common stock of Qwest
during the period from July 27, 1999, through July 28, 2002, may
be eligible to share in the Fair Fund.  That time frame is not
the same as the Class Period in the Qwest class-action
settlement.  The federal agency noted that no attorneys' fees
can be claimed, and none will be deducted, from the Fair Fund.

Claims documents can be obtained from administrator Gilardi &
Co. LLC by mailing the firm at P.O. Box 808003, Petaluma, CA
94975-8003, calling 1-800-516-6339, or downloading them from
http://www.gilardi.com.


SAFE HARBOR: Faces Fraud Lawsuit in California Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A $20 million lawsuit was filed in Superior Court on Feb. 15
against a Ramona, California man who misrepresented himself as a
certified financial planner, according to North County Times.

The suit was filed on behalf of William and Stephanie Burke of
Ramona, and William Burke's mother, Cora Burke of El Cerritos,
California.  The suit, filed against Rollo Richard Norton,
identifies three other, similar investor lawsuits filed late
last year.  It seeks to be a class action on behalf of more than
50 investors.

According to the report, Mr. Norton misrepresented himself as a
certified financial planner when the board that certifies
financial planners had suspended him.  Also named in the suit
are Mr. Norton's father Richard Norton, and Safe Harbor
Financial, Inc., which is owned, operated or controlled by the
younger Norton.  

The suit alleged the defendants engaged in a "pyramid scheme" of
paying money from new investors to pay returns to old investors.  
The strategy was discovered in September 2005 when several large
investors demanded a return of their money, but Safe Harbor and
the other lawsuit defendants were unable to pay them.

The suit claims the defendants targeted as potential investors
people who knew Norton from his church or who knew his father
from his work as an investment counselor for retirement planning
at a local hospital.  

A document filed as an exhibit with the lawsuit indicated that
San Diego attorney Thomas Warwick may represent Norton,
according to the report.  Lawyer Michael Kirby represents the
Burkes.

Cora Burke invested more than $400,000 in Safe Harbor, while Mr.
Burke and his wife, Stephanie, invested more than $940,000.


SPRING STREET: Settlement Hearing on Subscription Suit Set April
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the
matter: "Caleb McArthur v. Spring Street Networks, Inc., Index
No.: 100766/04."  The case was brought on behalf of all natural
persons who became paying subscribers to Spring Street Network
Inc.'s personals websites during the period from September 7,
2001 to March 23, 2005.

Caleb McArthur filed the lawsuit claiming that Spring Street
failed to make certain disclosures required by New York General
Business Law, section 394-c (the Dating Services Act) in its
subscription agreements.  Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that
Spring Street failed to provide in its subscription agreements:

     (1) that subscribers are permitted to cancel the
         subscription agreement, and receive full refunds if
         they do so within 3 days after execution of the
         subscription agreement;

     (2) that subscribers are permitted to place their
         memberships on hold for up to one year;

     (3) a `Dating Service Consumer Bill of Rights', setting
         forth customer rights under New York law; and

     (4) a `fair and reasonable policy for the situation in
         which a purchaser moves to permanently reside at a
         location outside the service area' of Defendant.

Plaintiffs also claim that Defendant entered into 473,717 such
contracts.

The hearing will take place in the courtroom of Judge Debra
James, Room 1254, 111 Centre Street New York, New York, 10013 at
10:00 a.m. on April 13, 2006.

The deadline for submitting a proof of claim and any objections
to the settlement is on March 31, 2006.  

For more details, contact Jay Edelson, Esq. of Blim & Edelson,
LLC, 53 W. Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1642, Chicago, Illinois
60604, Phone: (312) 913-9400, Fax: 888-325-4652, Fax:
(312) 913-9401, E-mail: classinfo@blimlaw.com, Web site/s:
http://www.blimlaw.comand  
http://www.springstreetnetworks.com/settlement.html.


UCI MEDICAL: Greene Broillet Files New Cases V. Regents of UCI
--------------------------------------------------------------
Four new fraud cases were filed against the Regents of the
University of California arising over its Irvine's Liver
Transplant Program on Feb. 24, Greene Broillet & Wheeler
announced at a press conference.

The Bell, Kylander and Nguyen Families filed wrongful death
claims and Richard Farmer filed a personal injury claim.

Attending the press conference were Elodie Irvine, Chris
Millington and Diane Tovar (along with her sister Lisa Delgado),
who were on UCI's Liver Transplant list, as well as Audrey
Degehardt, Regenia Hope and Ed Bell, who all lost a loved one
while awaiting a liver transplant at UCI.  

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Browne Greene and Mark T. Quigley
      Greene Broillet & Wheeler
      Web site: http://www.greene-broillet.com
      Phone: 310-576-1200

in the case "Arms, et. al. vs. Regents of the University of
California, Case Number 06CC01920."

"While it is good that there is a lot of media scrutiny on UCI's
Liver Transplant Program," explained Browne Greene, "we should
not forget about the patients who were suddenly left dangling
when the program shuttered last November.  For more than three
months now, many of these patients have been unable to get on
another liver transplant list.  Sadly, their efforts have been
hampered because UCI's bureaucracy has made it difficult for
them to get their medical records transferred."

Mr. Greene continued, "This is not only intolerable, it's ugly.
The University should take responsibility for expediting the
placement of its former patients into other programs. These
individuals and their families have suffered enough, and we can
only hope that UCI steps up to the plate and does the right
thing by these people who wait and worry each and every day
about whether or not they will receive a life saving liver."

"We are now starting the discovery phase of this litigation and
will see to it that each and every one of our clients has their
day in court," explained Mark T. Quigley. "The ongoing
investigations are useful, but we believe that a trial is the
best way to uncover the truth about what really occurred behind
the scenes at UCI's Liver Transplant Program. On behalf of our
clients, we will determine how it happened that greed got in the
way of good."

Elodie Irvine, whose earlier settlement is being appealed by
Greene Broillet & Wheeler, attended the press conference and
called upon the public to contact their congressmen and
senators, and even President Bush, to take immediate steps to
review the nation's organ transplant programs and put into place
laws that will prevent another UCI Liver Transplant Program
scandal.

"I really care about what is happening to the patients on UCI's
Liver Transplant Program," stated Elodie Irvine. "We can't
abandon them now. I am asking the public to write to their
leaders to make sure that this tragedy is never repeated again.
Also, I'd like to call for a special oversight board that
includes medical professionals and individuals who have been
through the organ transplant process, as well as patients who
are on the waiting list. It's the only way to insure the
integrity of the nation's organ transplant centers."

"It was a nightmare living through my husband's battle with
liver disease," said Audrey Degenhardt, the widow of Geoffrey
Degehardt and whose husband was on the UCI Liver Transplant
Program list. "But to learn that he might have lived had UCI run
an honest program is a stunning shock, and one that I and my
children will never be able to fully reconcile with in our
hearts. We want Geoffrey's death to have meaning and pray that
the right steps will be taken by the University and by our
government so that we can once again have faith in our health
care institutions."

Greene Broillet & Wheeler also represent Elodie Irvine in her
appeal of her civil suit against UCI's Medical Center.  It was
Ms. Irvine's earlier civil lawsuit against UCI that prompted a
federal investigation into its liver transplant program,
resulting in decertification of that program on November 10,
2005.

The defendant is represented by:

       Margaret Holm
       Bonne Bridges Mueller
       Phone: 714-835-1157


WORLD AIRWAYS: Faces Lawsuits Over Ritetime Contractual Flights
---------------------------------------------------------------
World Airways, Inc., which is now known as World Air Holdings,
Inc., continues to faces suit in both federal and state courts
over its discontinued contractual flights with Ritetime Aviation
and Travel Services, Inc.

In January 2004, ten purported class action complaints (six in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York one
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, one in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia, one
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New
Jersey and one in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois) and four individual complaints (all in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York), and
thirteen small claims actions (one in California, three in New
Jersey, one in Georgia and eight in New York) were filed against
the Company arising out of the discontinuance of charter flights
upon the expiration of World Airways' obligation to provide
services under an air services agreement.

Seven of the eight small claims actions in New York were settled
for a total of $14,000 (or $2,000 per plaintiff).  The purported
class action cases were consolidated for discovery purposes into
the Eastern District of New York.  The Company had operated the
charter flights between cities in the U.S. and Lagos, Nigeria
for Ritetime Aviation and Travel Services, Inc. (Ritetime).  
World Airways' obligation to perform air services for Ritetime
ended with the last chartered flight on December 30, 2003.  From
the allegations made by the various plaintiffs, it appears that
Ritetime continued to sell tickets to passengers for flights
purportedly scheduled to depart after the expiration of World
Airways' contractual obligations for air services.  

The plaintiffs purport to act for themselves and on behalf of
other persons who held tickets issued by Ritetime for the non-
contracted flights.  Ritetime is also named as a defendant in
each of these lawsuits.  The plaintiffs seek compensatory,
punitive and/or treble damages and costs and expenses, including
attorneys fees, based on various legal theories including breach
of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, illegal/excess tax and violations of U.S. federal
laws and regulations governing air transportation and of the
Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Statute.

World Airways' insurance carrier has responded and assumed the
defense of these cases and agreed to conditionally indemnify
World Airways on the costs of litigation and any resulting
judgment.  In March 2004, Ritetime filed a Demand to Arbitrate
in Peachtree City, Georgia, and subsequently World Airways
responded and filed a counterclaim.  The matter was heard in
October 2004, and the arbitrator awarded World Airways $2.2
million against Ritetime, plus indemnification on all judgments,
fees and expenses incurred by World Airways in the Ritetime
litigation.  

However, it is doubtful that Ritetime has assets to pay the
award and no receivable has been recorded.  World Airways'
insurance carrier has conditionally agreed to indemnify World
Airways.  In the event this insurance coverage is rescinded, the
Company cannot determine the impact, if any, this matter will
have on its financial condition, results of operations or
liquidity.


XEROX CORP: Class Ratification Motion Filed in Conn. Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the recently dismissed consolidated securities
class action filed against Xerox Corporation, styled, "Carlson
v. Xerox Corporation, et al.," pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, filed a motion for class
ratification.

Initially consisting of 21 cases, the consolidated securities
class action, also names as defendants:

     (1) KPMG LLP;

     (2) Paul A. Allaire;

     (3) G. Richard Thoman;

     (4) Anne M. Mulcahy;

     (5) Barry D. Romeril;

     (6) Gregory Tayler; and

     (7) Philip Fishbach.  

On September 11, 2002, the court entered an endorsement order
granting plaintiffs' motion to file a third consolidated amended
complaint.  The defendants' motion to dismiss the second
consolidated amended complaint was denied, as moot.  According
to the third consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs purport
to bring this case as a class action on behalf of an expanded
class consisting of all persons and/or entities who purchased
the Company's common stock and/or bonds during the period
between February 17, 1998 through June 28, 2002 and who were
purportedly damaged thereby.  

The third consolidated amended complaint sets forth two claims:

     (1) each of the Company, KPMG, and the individual
         defendants violated Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and
         SEC Rule 10b-5 thereunder; and

     (2) the individual defendants are also allegedly liable as       
         "controlling persons" of the Company pursuant to
         Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act.

Plaintiffs claim that the defendants participated in a
fraudulent scheme that operated as a fraud and deceit on
purchasers of the Company's common stock and bonds by
disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or
concealing material adverse facts relating to various of the
Company's accounting and reporting practices and financial
condition.  

The plaintiffs further allege that this scheme deceived the
investing public regarding the true state of the Company's
financial condition and caused the plaintiffs and other members
of the alleged Class to purchase the Company's common stock and
bonds at artificially inflated prices, and prompted a SEC
investigation that led to the April 11, 2002 settlement which,
among other things, required the Company to pay a $10 penalty
and restate its financials for the years 1997-2000 (including
restatement of financials previously corrected in an earlier
restatement which plaintiffs contend was improper).  The third
consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified compensatory
damages in favor of the plaintiffs and the other Class members
against all defendants, jointly and severally, including
interest thereon, together with reasonable costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees.

On December 2, 2002, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  On July 13, 2005, the
court denied the motion.  On October 31, 2005, the defendants
answered the complaint.  On January 19, 2006, plaintiffs filed a
motion for class ratification.  That motion has not been fully
briefed or argued before the court.  The parties are engaged in
discovery.

The suit is styled, "Carlson, et al. v. Xerox Corporation, et
al., Case No. 3:00-cv-01621-AWT," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut under Judge Alvin W.
Thompson.  Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Francis P. Karam and Keith M. Fleischman of Bernstein
         Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th St., New York,
         NY 10016, Phone: 212-779-1414, Fax: 212-779-3218, E-
         mail: karam@bernlieb.com

     (2) Eliot B. Gersten and John Joseph Robaczynski of Gersten
         & Clifford, 214 Main Street, Hartford, CT 06106, Phone:
         860-527-7044, Fax: 860-527-4968, E-mail:
         egersten@gcrlaw.net and jrobacynski@gcrlaw.net

     (3) Dennis J. Johnson and Jacob B. Perkinson of Johnson &
         Perkinson, 1690 Williston Rd., South Burlington, VT
         05403, Phone: 802-862-0030, Fax: 802-862-0060, E-mail:
         djohnson@jpclasslaw.com and jperkinson@jpclasslaw.com

     (4) Abigail Romeo of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt &
         Pucillo-MA, One Liberty Square, 8th Floor, Boston, MA
         02109, Phone: 617-542-8300, Fax: 617-542-1194, E-mail:
         aromeo@bermanesq.com

     (5) Cary L. Talbot of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes &
         Lerach, One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 4915, New York,
         NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212-594-5300.

Representing the Defendant/s are:

     (i) Michael Gruenglas and Jay B. Kasner of Skadden, Arps,
         Slate, Meagher & Flom, Four Times Square, New York, NY
         10036-3897, Phone: 212-735-3000

    (ii) Timothy W. Blakely, Evan R. Chesler, Karin A. DeMasi
         and Sandra C. Goldstein of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, 825
         8Th Ave., Worldwide Plaza, New York, NY 10019-7415,
         Phone: 212-474-1000, Fax: 212-474-3700, E-mail:
         echesler@cravath.com, kdemasi@cravath.com and
         sgoldstein@cravath.com

   (iii) Thomas D. Goldberg of Day, Berry & Howard, One
         Canterbury Green, Stamford, CT 06901-2047, Phone: 203-
         977-7383, Fax: 203-977-7301, E-mail:
         tdgoldberg@dbh.com.


XEROX CORPORATION: Conn. Court to Rule on ERISA Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut is yet
to rule on Xerox Corporation's motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action filed against it, styled, "In Re Xerox
Corp. ERISA Litigation."

On July 1, 2002, a class action complaint captioned "Patti v.
Xerox Corp. et al." was filed, alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).  Three
additional class actions (Hopkins, Uebele and Saba) were
subsequently filed in the same court making substantially
similar claims. On October 16, 2002, the four actions were
consolidated as "In Re Xerox Corporation ERISA Litigation."  On
November 15, 2002, a consolidated amended complaint was filed.  
A fifth class action (Wright) was filed in the District of
Columbia.  It has been transferred to Connecticut and
consolidated with the other actions.

The purported class includes all persons who invested or
maintained investments in the Xerox Stock Fund in the Xerox
401(k) Plans (either salaried or union) during the proposed
class period, May 12, 1997 through November 15, 2002, and
allegedly exceeds 50,000 persons.  The defendants include the
Company and these individuals or groups of individuals during
the proposed class period:

     (1) Plan Administrator;

     (2) Board of Directors;

     (3) Fiduciary Investment Review Committee;

     (4) Joint Administrative Board;

     (5) Finance Committee of the Board of Directors; and

     (6) Treasurer.  

The complaint claims that all the foregoing defendants were
fiduciaries of the Plan under ERISA and, as such, were obligated
to protect the Plan's assets and act in the interest of Plan
participants.  The complaint alleges that the defendants failed
to do so and thereby breached their fiduciary duties.

Specifically, plaintiffs claim that the defendants failed to
provide accurate and complete material information to
participants concerning Company stock, including accounting
practices which allegedly artificially inflated the value of the
stock, and misled participants regarding the soundness of the
stock and the prudence of investing their retirement assets in
Company stock.  Plaintiffs also claim that defendants failed to
invest Plan assets prudently, to monitor the other fiduciaries
and to disregard Plan directives they knew or should have known
were imprudent, and failed to avoid conflicts of interest.

The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought.
However, it asks that the losses to the Plan be restored, which
it describes as "millions of dollars."  It also seeks other
legal and equitable relief, as appropriate, to remedy the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, as well as interest, costs
and attorneys' fees.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  The
plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for class certification
and a motion to commence discovery.  Defendants have opposed
both motions, contending that both are premature before there is
a decision on their motion to dismiss.  In the fall of 2004, the
Court requested an updated briefing on the Company's motion to
dismiss and update briefs were filed in December.

The suit is styled "In Re Xerox Corporation ERISA Litigation,
Case No. 3:02-cv-01138-AWT," filed in the U.S. District Court in
Connecticut under Judge Alvin W. Thompson.  

Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Gary A. Gotto
         Keller Rohrback
         3101 North Central Avenue
         Suite 900, Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2600
         Phone: 602-230-6322
         Fax: 602-248-2822
         E-mail: ggotto@kellerrohrback.com; and

     (2) Charles R. Watkins
         Susman & Watkins
         Two First National Plaza, Suite 600
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: 312-346-3466
         Fax: 312-346-2829
         E-mail: chuckwatkins@ameritech.net.  

Representing the Defendant/s are:

     (1) William H. Boice  
         Kilpatrick Stockton
         1100 Peachtree St., Ste. 2800, Atlanta
         GA 30309-4530
         Phone: 404-815-6464
         Fax: 404-541-3134
         E-mail: bboice@kilpatrickstockton.com; and

     (2) William J. Egan
         Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner
         City Place II, 185 Asylum Street
         10th Floor, Hartford, CT 06103
         Phone: 860-275-6400, Fax: 860-275-6410
         E-mail: wegan@brownraysman.com.


XEROX CORP: Continues to Face Race Discrimination Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation continues to face a class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
styled, "Warren, et al. v. Xerox Corporation."

Six black company sales representatives filed the suit on May 9,
2001.  The plaintiffs allege that the Company has engaged in a
pattern or practice of race discrimination against them and
other black sales representatives by assigning them to less
desirable sales territories, denying them promotional
opportunities, and paying them less than their white
counterparts.  Although the complaint does not specify the
amount of damages sought, plaintiffs do seek, on behalf of
themselves and the classes they seek to represent, front and
back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys'
fees.

On March 11, 2004, the court entered an order certifying a
nationwide class of all black salespersons employed by Xerox
from February 1, 1997 to the present under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Civil Rights Act
of 1871.  The Company denies any wrongdoing and is vigorously
defending the action.

The suit is styled, "Warren, et al v. Xerox Corporation, Case
No. 1:01-cv-02909-JG-KAM," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York under Judge John Gleeson with
referral to Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto.  Representing the
Plaintiff/s are, Barry Alan Weprin of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad,
Hynes & Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th floor, New
York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: (212) 946-9312, Fax: 212-868-1229,
E-mail: bweprin@milbergweiss.com.  

Representing the Defendant/s are, Eugene D. Ulterino and Amy
Laura Ventry of Nixon Peabody, LLP, Phone: 585-263-1580 and
(516) 832-7500, Fax: 585-263-1600 and (516) 832-7555, E-mail:
eulterino@nixonpeabody.com and aventry@nixonpeabody.com.


XEROX CORP: Court Hears Appeal on N.Y. Apartheid Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument began in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals over
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's
dismissal of the class action filed against Xerox Corporation
and several other corporations, alleging they provided providing
material assistance to the apartheid government in South Africa
from 1948 to 1994, by engaging in commerce in South Africa and
with the South African government and by employing forced labor,
thereby violating both international and common law.

The suit, styled "Digwamaje et al. v. IBM et al." was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
September 27, 2002.  Service of the First Amended Complaint on
the Company was deemed effective as of December 6, 2002.  On
March 19, 2003, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint that
eliminated a number of corporate defendants but was otherwise
identical in all material respects to the First Amended
Complaint.  

The plaintiffs claim violations of the Alien Tort Claims Act,
the Torture Victims Protection Act and Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).  They also assert human rights
violations and crimes against humanity.  Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages in excess of $200 billion and punitive
damages in excess of $200 billion.  The foregoing damages are
being sought from all defendants, jointly and severally.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.  Oral argument of the motion was heard on November 6,
2003.  By Memorandum Opinion and Order filed November 29, 2004,
the court granted the motion to dismiss.  A clerk's judgment of
dismissal was filed on November 30, 2004.  On December 27, 2004,
the Company received a notice of appeal dated December 24, 2004.

On February 16, 2005, the parties filed a stipulation
withdrawing the December 24, 2004 appeal on the ground that the
November 30, 2004 judgment of dismissal was not appealable.  On
March 28, 2005, Plaintiffs submitted a letter requesting
permission to file a motion for leave to file an amended and
consolidated complaint.  By Summary Order filed April 6, 2005,
the Court denied the request.  In a second Summary Order filed
the same day, the Court amended its November 29, 2004, Opinion
and Order, which dismissed the action, so as to render the
Opinion and Order appealable and plaintiffs filed a new appeal
on May 3, 2005.  

On August 19, 2005, plaintiffs-appellants filed their brief in
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  On October 4, 2005,
defendants-appellates filed their brief in the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals.  Oral argument in the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals was held on January 24, 2006.  The Company denies any
wrongdoing and is vigorously defending the action.

The suit is styled, "Digwamaje, et al. v. IBM Corporation, et
al., Case No. 1:02-cv-06218-JES," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge John E.
Sprizzo.  Representing the Defendant/s are Kristin M. Heine of
Driscoll & Redlich, 521 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300, New York, NY
10175; and Kristofor T. Henning, Michael J. Holston and John F.
Schultz, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, 30 Broad Street, 30th
Floor, New York, NY 10004-2953.  Representing the Plaintiff/s
are:

     (1) Kweku J. Hanson, 487 Main Street, Harford, CT 06106,
         Phone: (860) 728-5454

     (2) Medi Moira Mokuena, 268 Jubilee Avenue, Halfway House
         1685, Extension 12, Republic of South Africa

     (3) Medi Mokuena, 268 Jubilee Avenue, Halfway House, P. O.
         Box 8591, Johannesburg

     (4) Paul M. Ngobeni, 914 Main Street, Suite 206, East
         Hartford, CT 06108, Phone: (860) 289-3155


XEROX CORP: Discovery Ensues in Consolidated Stock Suit in Conn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated securities class action
styled, "In re Xerox Corporation Securities Litigation," which
was filed against Xerox Corporation and other defendants in U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut.  

Consisting of seventeen cases, the consolidated action, whose
named defendants include:

     (1) the Company,

     (2) Barry Romeril,

     (3) Paul Allaire, and

     (4) G. Richard Thoman,

purports to be a class action on behalf of the named plaintiffs
and all other purchasers of common stock of the Company during
the period between October 22, 1998 to October 7, 1999.

The amended consolidated complaint in the action alleges that in
violation of Section 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
each of the defendants is liable as a participant in a
fraudulent scheme and course of business that operated as a
fraud or deceit on purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the Class Period by disseminating materially false and
misleading statements and/or concealing material facts relating
to the defendants' alleged failure to disclose the material
negative impact that the April 1998 restructuring had on the
Company's operations and revenues.  

The amended complaint further alleges that the alleged scheme:

     (1) deceived the investing public regarding the economic
         capabilities, sales proficiencies, growth, operations
         and the intrinsic value of the Company's common
         stock;

     (2) allowed several corporate insiders, such as the named
         individual defendants, to sell shares of privately held
         common stock of the Company while in possession of
         materially adverse, non-public information; and

     (3) caused the individual plaintiffs and the other members
         of the purported class to purchase common stock of the
         Company at inflated prices.  

The amended consolidated complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and the other
members of the purported class against all defendants, jointly
and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of
defendants' alleged wrongdoing, including interest thereon,
together with reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the
action, including counsel fees and expert fees.

On September 28, 2001, the court denied the defendants' motion
for dismissal of the complaint.  On November 5, 2001, the
defendants answered the complaint.  On or about January 7, 2003,
the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  

The Company and the individual defendants filed their opposition
to that motion on June 28, 2005.  The motion has been fully
briefed, but has not been argued before the court.  The court
has not issued a ruling.  On or about November 8, 2004, the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Welfare Fund of
Local Union No. 164 ("IBEW") filed a motion to intervene as a
named plaintiff and class representative.  That motion has been
fully briefed, but has not been argued before the court.  The
court has not issued a ruling.  Separately, on June 8, 2005,
IBEW and Robert W. Roten moved to substitute as lead plaintiffs
and proposed class representatives.  That motion has been fully
briefed, but has not been argued before the court.  The court
has not issued a ruling.  The parties are currently engaged in
discovery.

The suit is styled, "In Re Xerox Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:99-cv-02374-AWT," and is pending under
Judge Alvin W. Thompson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut.  Representing the Defendant/s are:

     (i) Alfred U. Pavlis, Daly & Pavlis, LLC, 107 John St.,
         Southport, CT 06890, Phone: 203-255-6700, Fax: 203-255-
         1953, E-mail: apavlis@dalypavlis.com

    (ii) Andrew N. Vollmer, Gordon Pearson and Heather A. Jones,
         Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, 2445 M St., NW, Washington,
         DC 20037-1420, Phone: 202-663-6000

Representing the for the Plaintiff/s are:

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

     (b) Hurwitz & Sagarin, 147 North Broad St., Po Box 112,
         Milford, CT, 06460-0112, Phone: 203.877.8000,

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

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

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

     (f) Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, 35 East State
         Street, Media, PA, 19063, Phone: 877.891.9880, E-mail:
         jshah@classactioncounsel.com

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

     (h) Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY), The French Building,
         551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, New York, NY, 10126, Phone:
         212.682.3025, Fax: 212.682.3010, E-mail: info@wyca.com



                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP announces
that it has filed a class action on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Chicago Bridge
& Iron Company N.V. (CBI; NYSE: CBI), between March 9, 2005 and
February 15, 2006, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The action, Civil Action number 06-cv-1532, is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against defendants:

     (1) CBI;

     (2) Gerald M. Glenn (former President, CEO and Chairman);

     (3) Richard E. Goodrich (Executive VP and CFO); and

     (4) Robert B. Jordan (former Executive VP and COO).  

According to the complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a
series of material misrepresentations to the market during the
Class Period.

The complaint alleges that CBI is a global engineering,
procurement, and construction company.  According to the
complaint, the Company repeatedly reported in filings with the
SEC and in publicly disseminated press releases strong financial
results and "record backlog" of construction projects that would
generate significant revenues and contribute to the Company's
continuing growth.

Unbeknownst to investors, however, these statements were
materially false and misleading, and knowingly or recklessly
disregarded by defendants as such, because defendants failed to
disclose that the Company's purportedly positive results and
guidance were the result of, in material part, fraudulent
accounting.  The truth began to emerge on October 26, 2005.  On
that day, the Company announced that it would not be able to
timely file its report for the third quarter of 2005 with the
SEC.  In reaction to this news, the price of CBI stock fell
$6.21 per share in a single day.  

On October 31, 2005, the Company revealed in a press release
that the delay in releasing its results for the third quarter of
2005 "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."  
According to the release, the Company's Audit Committee had
commenced an independent investigation of the matter.  Despite
this announcement, defendant Gerald Glenn, maintained a positive
outlook for the Company's performance.

On January 27, 2006, the Company disclosed in a filing with the
SEC that it had entered into a lucrative "Stay Bonus Agreement"
with the Company's Vice President and Controller, Tommy Rhodes,
valued at over $1.74 million, in an apparent attempt to cover up
its previously announced "accounting improprieties" and to
silence a potential whistle-blower.  On February 3, 2006, as
further evidence that CBI's problems were much more serious than
defendants had suggested at the time, the Company announced,
without explanation, that it had fired defendants Glenn and
Robert B. Jordan.  

In reaction to this news, the price of CBI stock plummeted,
falling to $22.33 per share, or 23%, on February 4, 2006, from
its closing price of $29.00 on February 3, 2006.  On February
15, 2006, the last day of the Class Period, the Company
announced that it was slashing its earnings guidance for fiscal
2005 to between $0.40 to $0.50 per share, well below its
previous guidance of $0.90 to $0.93 per share.  

In addition, the Company revealed that it was in "communication
with the SEC in regard to developments in the Audit Committee
investigation."  On the same day, February 15, 2006, the Company
hosted a conference call during which Philip Asherman, the
Company's new President and CEO, stated that "nearly two-thirds
of the guidance adjustment announced (was) a result of further
erosion of earnings on two of (the) projects" identified in
October 2005 by defendants.  

In addition, Mr. Asherman conceded that the Company had
identified certain internal control "issues," including controls
related to the Company's forecasting, stating that "clearly
there is an opportunity to correct identified weaknesses in our
controls. . ."  In reaction to this news, the price of CBI stock
fell another $0.77 to close at $22.95 on February 14, 2006.  
Defendants were motivated to engage in the unlawful and
fraudulent scheme in order for Company insiders, including
defendants Glenn, Goodrich, and Jordan, to sell over 715,837
shares of their personally-held CBI shares during the Class
Period for proceeds of more than $30.8 million.

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


COOPER COMPANIES: Federman Sherwood Lodges Stock Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California against
The Cooper Companies, Inc.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.  The class period is
from July 29, 2004 through November 21, 2005.

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


DOT HILL: Stull Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf
of all securities purchasers of Dot Hill Systems Corporation
(NASDAQ: HILL) ("Dot Hill" or the "Company") from April 23, 2003
through February 3, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Dot Hill and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations.  Among other things,
plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements
concerning Dot Hill's operations and financial performance
caused the Company's stock price to become artificially
inflated, inflicting damages on investors. Dot Hill provides
storage network solutions and data storage products to channel
and OEM partners worldwide. The Complaint alleges that during
the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded but
concealed from the investing public that:

     (1) the Company's accounting department suffered from
         material weaknesses and deficiencies and lacked the
         necessary staff and resources to perform its required
         functions;

     (2) the Company's inadequate internal accounting process
         and controls enabled Dot Hill management to manipulate
         the Company's Costs of Goods Sold and to routinely and
         inappropriately misclassify "expenses," causing Dot
         Hill to issue false financial statements;

     (3) the Company's internal controls suffered serious
         deficiencies in multiple areas, including data entry,
         expense classification, financial closing processing,
         fixed asset processing and inventory processing;

     (4) the Company's financial reporting process lacked
         effective internal controls which were required to
         properly analyze and/or estimate Dot Hill's future
         financial and operational performance, and

     (5) the Company falsely reported its financial results for
         the first three quarters of 2004, by improperly
         recognizing revenue and improperly recording expenses.

On February 3, 2005, the Company announced its preliminary
financial results for the fourth quarter 2004 and that it would
be restating its 2004 unaudited financial results due to the
material weaknesses in its internal controls over its financial
closing process. As a result of this news, the price of Dot Hill
stock plummeted to as low as $5.70 per share B 67% below the
Class Period high of $17.37 per share.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com, Web
site: http://www.ssbny.com.  


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Lerach Coughlin Files Stock Suit in Idaho
------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP initiated a
class action on behalf of an institutional investor in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho on behalf of purchasers
of Micron Technology, Inc. (NYSE:MU) publicly traded securities
during the period between February 24, 2001 and February 13,
2003.

The complaint charges Micron and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Micron manufactures and markets semiconductor devices
worldwide.

The complaint alleges that at the start of the Class Period,
Micron and its employees (along with others in its industry)
were engaged in a scheme to manipulate the price of dynamic
random access memory, a type of computer memory semiconductor
chip, commonly known as DRAM. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that during the Class Period, defendants falsified the
Company's public statements and financial reporting by
concealing the following material adverse facts from the
investing public:

     (1) that Micron and its co-conspirators had entered into
         and engaged in a combination and conspiracy in the
         United States and elsewhere to suppress and eliminate
         competition by fixing the prices of DRAM to be sold to
         certain original equipment manufacturers of personal
         computers and servers;

     (2) that Micron's publicly reported sales and earnings had
         been improperly inflated due to illegal price-fixing
         activities during the Class Period; and

     (3) that as a result of defendants' participation in the
         illegal price-fixing activities, Micron's sales and
         earnings reports and forward-looking price forecasts
         issued during the Class Period were false and
         misleading.

According to the complaint, as a result of defendants' false and
misleading Class Period statements, the Company's shares traded
at inflated prices enabling the Company to issue more than $632
million worth of debt during 2003, sell over $480 million worth
of warrants and complete numerous stock-for-stock acquisitions
using the Company's inflated shares as acquisition currency.
Insiders also sold approximately $4.5 million worth of their own
personally held Micron stock at inflated prices during the Class
Period.

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/micron/.  


PROQUEST COMPANY: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Suit in Mich.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC initiated a securities class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, on
behalf of shareholders who purchased, exchanged or otherwise
acquired the common stock of ProQuest Company (NYSE: PQE)
between January 9, 2003 and February 8, 2006.  No class has yet
been certified in this action.

The Complaint that has been filed alleges that defendants have
violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of
materially false statements regarding ProQuest's business and
financial results. According to these allegations, ProQuest
announced on February 9, 2006 that it had materially understated
its deferred income and accrued royalty accounts, and had
materially overstated its prepaid royalty account.

Consequently, investors suffered large losses after the true
facts concerning the Company emerged on or about February 9,
2006, when ProQuest's stock collapsed to a low of $21.90 per
share, before closing at $24.19 on volume of 3 million shares --
13 times the average.

For more details, contact Lewis Kahn of KGS, Phone:
1-866-467-1400, ext. 100, or 504-648-1850, E-mail:
lewis.kahn@kglg.com.  



                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *