CAR_Public/060308.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, March 8, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 48

                            Headlines

AINSWORTH LUMBER: Named in Antitrust Lawsuits V. OSB Producers
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Lawsuit Over Retirement Plan Amendment
BEAR STEARNS: Agilent, Autobytel Investors Urged to File Claims
BEAR STEARNS: Covad, Deltathree Investors Urged to File Claims
BEAR STEARNS: Radio One, Regent Investors Urged to File Claims

BIOMEDICAL TISSUE: FDA Heightens Alert Against Harvested Tissues
CAISSE DE DEPOT: Plaintiff Drops Name from Northern Trust Suit
CANADA: Financial Watchdog Faces Suit Over Norbourg Funds Crash
CANADIAN RAILWAY: Federal Judge Dismisses N.Dak. Derailment Suit
CHECKERS DRIVE-IN: Investor Group Opposes Disposal to Wellspring

COCA-COLA: Discovery Continues in Georgia Securities Fraud Suit
COCA-COLA: Plaintiffs Launch Amended ERISA Lawsuits in Georgia
COCA-COLA: Plaintiffs Respond to Motion V. Georgia Stock Suit
DU PONT: Facing Lawsuits Over Teflon Coating in U.S., Canada
EATON VANCE: Fairness Hearing on $10.5M Settlement Set April

ENGELHARD CORPORATION: N.J. Court Merges Sebastian, Silver Suits
ENGELHARD CORPORATION: Investors Averse to Disposal Sues in Del.
FIRST HORIZON: Plaintiffs Appeal Georgia Court Stock Suit Ruling
GOLDCORP INC: Faces Lawsuit Over September 2004 Option Grants
INFORMATICA CORPORATION: Final Fairness Hearing Set April 24

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Workers File FLSA, ERISA Suits in Calif.
MAINE: Trial to Begin in Malpractice Lawsuit V. Hagen Berman
MANNATECH INC: Plaintiffs in Stock Suit File Amended Complaint
MERRILL LYNCH: Continues to Defend Suit Over Research Reports
MERRILL LYNCH: Court Denies Motion for Rehearing in IPO Lawsuit

MERRILL LYNCH: Court Ruling on Defendants' Appeal Still Pending
MERRILL LYNCH: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Tyco Research Case
MERRILL LYNCH: Oct. Hearing Set for "Newby V. Enron" Litigation
METROPOLITAN LIFE: D.C. Court Dismisses Pension Fund Lawsuit
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Faces Insurance-Related Lawsuits in Ill.

METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Faces Katrina-Related Suits in Two States
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Reaches Agreement in Mont. Insurance Suit
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Unit Faces Lawsuit in Fla. Over OEM Parts
NEW YORK: Settles Suit Filed by Drivers Accused of Racial Bias
PRE-PAID LEGAL: Court Ruling on Plaintiff's Appeal Still Pending

PROTECTIVE APPAREL: To Replace Bullet-Proof Vests Across Florida
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Court Denies Appeal on Insurance Complaint
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Court Dismisses Appeal on HMO Settlement
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Court Ruling on Azar Case in N.M. Pending
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Stockbrokers' Suits in Calif., N.Y.

PUGET SOUND: California Energy Cross-Complaints Await Dismissal
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Appeals Court Restores Savings Plan Lawsuit
TEXTRON INC: Settlement Hearing on R.I. Securities Suit Set May
VULCAN MATERIALS: Faces Several Suits in La. Over Chlorine Leak
WACHOVIA CORPORATION: N.C. Court Dismisses Securities Complaint


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

NVE CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit
NVE CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Ademi & O'Reilly Files Stock Fraud Suit


                            *********


AINSWORTH LUMBER: Named in Antitrust Lawsuits V. OSB Producers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ainsworth Lumber Co. Ltd. has been named defendant in several
lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  A number of other North American
oriented strand board (OSB) producers have also been named as
defendants in one or more of the lawsuits.  Each lawsuit alleges
that the defendants violated U.S. antitrust laws in relation to
the pricing and supply of OSB from mid-2002 to the present.

The plaintiffs seek to have the case certified as a class
action, with the named plaintiffs serving as the representative
of a class of persons and entities that purchased OSB in the
U.S. between mid-2002 and the present.

Earlier, Norbord Inc. and six other North American OSB producers
were named as defendants in five lawsuits filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  Each
of the lawsuits alleges that seven North American OSB producers
violated U.S. antitrust laws by allegedly agreeing to fix prices
and reduce the supply of OSB from June 1, 2002 through the
present (Class Action Reporter, March 7, 2006).

The plaintiffs in the five lawsuits are:

     (1) Sawbell Lumber Co.,

     (2) Norwood Sash & Door Manufacturing Co.,
  
     (3) Columbare Inc.,

     (4) West Lumber Co., and

     (5) Frontier Lumber Co. Inc.

Each plaintiff seeks to have the case certified as a class
action, with the named plaintiff serving as the representative
of a class of persons and entities that purchased OSB in the
U.S. directly from any of the named North American OSB producers
between June 1, 2002 and the present.  

Some of the suits are styled:

     (1) "New Deal Lumber & Millwork Co. Inc. v. Louisiana-
         Pacific Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00971-
         PD",

     (2) "Frontier Lumber Co. Inc. v. Louisiana-pacific
         corporation, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00920-PD."


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Lawsuit Over Retirement Plan Amendment
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Co. said in a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission that in January 2006, a purported class
action captioned:

      "Paula Kritzman, individually and on behalf of all others
      similarly situated v. American Express Retirement Plan et.
      al"

was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

The plaintiff alleges that when the American Express Retirement
Plan was amended effective July 1, 1995, to convert from a final
average pay formula to a "cash balance" formula for the
calculation of benefits, the terms of the amended AXP Plan
violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, as amended
(ERISA), in at least these ways:

     (1) the AXP Plan violated ERISA's prohibition on reducing
         rates of benefit accrual due to the increasing age of a
         plan participant;

     (2) the AXP Plan violated ERISA's prohibition on forfeiture
         of accrued benefits; and

     (3) the AXP Plan violated ERISA's present value calculation
         rules.

The plaintiff seeks, among other remedies, injunctive relief
entitling the plaintiff and the purported class to benefits that
are the greater of:

     (1) the benefits to which the members of the class would
         have been entitled without regard to the conversion of
         the benefit payout formula of the AXP Plan to a cash
         balance formula, and

     (2)  the benefits under the AXP Plan with regard to the
          cash balance formula.

The plaintiff also seeks pre- and post-judgment interest and
attorneys fees and expenses.

American Express Co. on the Net: http://www.americanexpress.com.


BEAR STEARNS: Agilent, Autobytel Investors Urged to File Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law firm Klayman & Toskes, P.A. advises all Bear Stearns
customers who are eligible to participate in the settlement of
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92
(SAS) to explore legal options against Bear Stearns, one of the
non-settling defendant underwriters.

According to K&T, investors should strongly consider pursuing an
individual securities arbitration claim as a means to recovering
financial losses.

According to the IPO Securities Litigation, various issuers and
underwriters caused securities to trade at artificially inflated
prices, in connection with the initial public offering of the
securities, causing customers to lose billions of dollars.  
Investors who may have a claim against Bear Stearns, a non-
settling defendant underwriter, include those who suffered net
losses as a result of their purchase and/or receipt of these
stocks through Bear Stearns, during:

Agilent Technologies   (A)               Nov. 17, 99-Dec. 6, 00
Autobytel              (ABTL)            Mar. 26, 99-Dec. 6, 00
Buy.com                (BUYY)            Feb.  7, 00-Dec. 6, 00
Carrier1 International (Other OTC:CONEQ) Feb. 23, 00-Dec. 6, 00

Several defendant underwriters, including Bear Stearns, have not
settled with the Class Members of the Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation.  Therefore, K&T urges investors who
suffered substantial losses to proceed with a securities
arbitration claim against Bear Stearns, rather than wait for a
potential class action settlement.

Empirical evidence shows that investors may achieve an overall
higher rate of recovery by filing an individual securities
arbitration claim.  Accordingly, K&T plans to assist individual
investors who purchased and/or received an allocation of shares
through an IPO to recover their financial losses from Bear
Stearns, in securities arbitration claims before the National
Association of Securities Dealers and the New York Stock
Exchange.

For more information, contact Lawrence L. Klayman, Esquire, at
888-997-9956; On the Net: http://www.nasd-law.com.


BEAR STEARNS: Covad, Deltathree Investors Urged to File Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law firm Klayman & Toskes, P.A. advises all Bear Stearns
customers who are eligible to participate in the settlement of
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92
(SAS) to explore legal options against Bear Stearns, one of the
non-settling defendant underwriters.

According to K&T, investors should strongly consider pursuing an
individual securities arbitration claim as a means to recovering
financial losses.

According to the IPO Securities Litigation, various issuers and
underwriters caused securities to trade at artificially inflated
prices, in connection with the initial public offering of the
securities, causing customers to lose billions of dollars.  
Investors who may have a claim against Bear Stearns, a non-
settling defendant underwriter, include those who suffered net
losses as a result of their purchase and/or receipt of these
stocks through Bear Stearns, during:

Covad Communications (DVW)   Jan. 21, 99 - Dec. 6, 00
Deltathree, Inc.     (DDDC)  Nov. 22, 99 - Dec. 6, 00
Digital River, Inc.  (DRIV)  Aug. 11, 98 - Dec. 6, 00
Digitas, Inc.        (DTAS)  Mar. 13, 00 - Dec. 6, 00

Several defendant underwriters, including Bear Stearns, have not
settled with the Class Members of the Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation.  Therefore, K&T urges investors who
suffered substantial losses to proceed with a securities
arbitration claim against Bear Stearns, rather than wait for a
potential class action settlement.

Empirical evidence shows that investors may achieve an overall
higher rate of recovery by filing an individual securities
arbitration claim.  Accordingly, K&T plans to assist individual
investors who purchased and/or received an allocation of shares
through an IPO to recover their financial losses from Bear
Stearns, in securities arbitration claims before the National
Association of Securities Dealers and the New York Stock
Exchange.

For more information, contact Lawrence L. Klayman, Esquire, at
888-997-9956; On the Net: http://www.nasd-law.com.


BEAR STEARNS: Radio One, Regent Investors Urged to File Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law firm Klayman & Toskes, P.A. advises all Bear Stearns
customers who are eligible to participate in the settlement of
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92
(SAS) to explore legal options against Bear Stearns, one of the
non-settling defendant underwriters.

According to K&T, investors should strongly consider pursuing an
individual securities arbitration claim as a means to recovering
financial losses.

According to the IPO Securities Litigation, various issuers and
underwriters caused securities to trade at artificially inflated
prices, in connection with the initial public offering of the
securities, causing customers to lose billions of dollars.  
Investors who may have a claim against Bear Stearns, a non-
settling defendant underwriter, include those who suffered net
losses as a result of their purchase and/or receipt of these
stocks through Bear Stearns, during:

Radio One, Inc.        (ROIA) May 6, 99 - Dec. 6, 00
Regent Communications  (RGCI) Jun. 24, 00 - Dec. 6, 00
SonicWALL              (SNWL) Nov. 11, 99 - Dec. 6, 00
TheGlobe.com           (TGLO) Nov. 12, 98 - Dec. 6, 00


Several defendant underwriters, including Bear Stearns, have not
settled with the Class Members of the Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation.  Therefore, K&T urges investors who
suffered substantial losses to proceed with a securities
arbitration claim against Bear Stearns, rather than wait for a
potential class action settlement.

Empirical evidence shows that investors may achieve an overall
higher rate of recovery by filing an individual securities
arbitration claim.  Accordingly, K&T plans to assist individual
investors who purchased and/or received an allocation of shares
through an IPO to recover their financial losses from Bear
Stearns, in securities arbitration claims before the National
Association of Securities Dealers and the New York Stock
Exchange.

For more information, contact Lawrence L. Klayman, Esquire, at
888-997-9956; On the Net: http://www.nasd-law.com.


BIOMEDICAL TISSUE: FDA Heightens Alert Against Harvested Tissues
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration alerts health care
professionals to warn patients regarding the risk of tissue
implants that Biomedical Tissue Services, Ltd. has supplied.

The FDA is notifying surgeons, surgical supervisory personnel
and hospital risk managers of an update to the Oct. 26, 2005
information paper on human tissues recovered by BioMedical
Tissue.  It said the tissue, including human bone, skin, and
tendons, was recovered by BTS from human donors who may not have
met FDA donor eligibility requirements and who may not have been
properly screened for certain infectious diseases.

As part of its ongoing investigation, the FDA has become aware
of additional information regarding the reliability of donor
blood samples that is important for health care providers to
consider.  The FDA strongly recommends that health care
providers inform their patients who received tissue implants
prepared from BTS donors that they may be at increased risk of
communicable disease transmission and to offer them testing.  
While the FDA believes the risks from these tissues are low
because the tissues were routinely processed using methods to
help to reduce the risk of infectious disease, the actual
infectious risk is unknown.

Recently, Associated Press reports that a New York medical
supply company is facing a class action in federal court in
Baton Rouge, Louisiana for illegally selling tissue and bone to
Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center and other hospitals
in the state (Class Action Reporter, March 7, 2006).  According
to the report, Darrel Bourque learned in January that the tissue
transplanted in his neck during spinal surgery a year ago came
from Biomedical Tissue Services.

Representing the company and owner, Michael Mastromarino is:

     Mario F. Gallucci
     732 Castleton Ave.
     Staten Island, New York
     (Richmond Co.)

An Allentown Morning Call has also reported that Ken Andres Jr.,
a New Jersey lawyer, filed a class action in December in
Superior Court in Atlantic County against Mr. Mastromarino,
Biomedical, five tissue processors and a distributor.  No
hospitals are named defendants in the suit (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 13, 2006).

In Indiana, Brian Springer, who received bone transplant
material from Biomedical Tissue, has also filed a suit seeking
class-action status in Marion Superior Court, according to the
Indianapolis Star (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 10, 2006).


CAISSE DE DEPOT: Plaintiff Drops Name from Northern Trust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec is no longer a
defendant in the class action filed by the attorney representing
investors in the various Evolution and Norbourg funds.  The
attorney for this group informed the Caisse of the
discontinuance of the action on March 6.

The Caisse de depot emphasized in a statement it was never the
manager of the Evolution Funds; that the funds were managed by
Evolution Funds Inc., a company owned by Teraxis Capital; and
that it was Teraxis Capital that sold Evolution Funds Inc.  The
Caisse was one of the investors in Teraxis Capital with an 80%
interest.

In October, the Caisse de depot said the amended motion for
authorization to institute a class action holding it responsible
for all the potential losses incurred by investors in the
various Evolution Funds and Norbourg Funds is unfounded.  The
suit sought a judgment of $130 million against it and all the
other defendants (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 27, 2005).


CANADA: Financial Watchdog Faces Suit Over Norbourg Funds Crash
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action against Norbourg Asset Management Inc. named
Quebec's financial watchdog, l'Autorite des Marches Financiers
(AMF) in an amended complaint made Friday, according to The
Globe and Mail.  The suit alleges errors, omissions and
negligence on the part of AMF, the report said.

AMF revealed last year that Groupe Norbourg's 29 mutual funds
had $75 million in assets with Northern Trust at the end of
July, which was $130 million less than what it claimed.  
Northern Trust was in October being threatened with a class
action by Shefford resident Jocelyn Desrochers, who invested
$270,235 in the now-frozen Groupe Norbourg mutual funds.  
Northern Trust is the Toronto-based company responsible for the
safekeeping of Norbourg assets.  

The litigant, who estimates at $135,117 his potential losses
from financial irregularities in the Norbourg family of funds,
alleged that Northern Trust, as custodian, wrongfully permitted
$5.1 million to be diverted to the account of a company called
Norbourg International days before provincial regulators shut
down Groupe Norbourg on August 24.


CANADIAN RAILWAY: Federal Judge Dismisses N.Dak. Derailment Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland dismissed a class action
filed in Bismark, North Dakota against Canadian Pacific Railway
over a 2002 derailment and chemical spill in Minot, according to
Associated Press.

Judge Hoyland ruled that the Federal Railroad Safety Act pre-
empts state law, making the railroad immune from legal action,
the report said.  He has given the firm 30 days to decide
whether to appeal the decision to the 8th Circuit Court.  Should
the railway appeal, the 8th Circuit Court will have to clarify
whether it thinks the federal law prevents innocent bystanders
from seeking legal damages from railroad companies, Mike Miller,
the attorney who is representing hundreds of plaintiffs said.

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

Since the derailment, about 450 lawsuits in Minnesota State
Court and North Dakota have been filed against the Company.  The
suits filed in Minneapolis were grouped to help plaintiffs move
through the courts.  Six cases have been settled out of court.  
The settlements included that for a wrongful death lawsuit
brought by the widow of John Grabinger who died while trying to
escape the anhydrous ammonia cloud released by the train wreck.  
Twelve more cases are scheduled to begin on May 1.  Mr. Miller
represents six clients in the next batch of trials scheduled for
May in Minneapolis.  

The trial is being held in Minneapolis because it is the U.S.
headquarters of Canadian Pacific, which is based in Calgary,
Alberta.  

The railroad's lead attorney is:

     Timothy R. Thornton
     Briggs and Morgan,
     Professional Association
     2200 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street
     Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
     (Hennepin Co.)
     Phone: 612-977-8400
     Fax: 612-977-8650


CHECKERS DRIVE-IN: Investor Group Opposes Disposal to Wellspring
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Checkers Drive-In Restaurants shareholders has filed
a suit to block the company's sale to a New York-based private
equity firm, according to Tampa Tribune.

Pipefitters Local No. 636 Defined Benefit Plan filed the suit
seeking class-action status in Hillsborough County Circuit Court
on March 1.  The suit alleged that the Tampa, Florida-based
company and its directors:

     (1) violated their fiduciary duties to the company's
         stockholders,

     (2) failed to properly value Checkers when they agreed to a
         sale price of $15 a share, and

     (3) did not protect against its members' own conflicts of         
         interest

when they agreed to sell the company to Taxi Holdings, an
affiliate of New York private equity firm Wellspring Capital
Management LLC for $188 million.

The group wants the court to declare the acquisition agreement
unlawful and unenforceable, and block the sale until Checkers
reached agreement on the highest possible price for
stockholders.   The sale is expected to close in the second
quarter once it gets the required shareholder approval.


COCA-COLA: Discovery Continues in Georgia Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated class action filed
against The Coca-Cola Company and executives M. Douglas Ivester,
Jack L. Stahl and James E. Chestnut in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia.

The first suit filed was styled, "Carpenters Health & Welfare
Fund of Philadelphia & Vicinity v. The Coca-Cola Company, et
al."  The suit alleges that the Company, violated antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws by making
misrepresentations or material omissions relating to the
Company's financial condition and prospects in late 1999 and
early 2000.  

A second, largely identical lawsuit, styled, "Gaetan LaValla v.
The Coca-Cola Company, et al." was filed in the same court on
November 9, 2000.

The complaints allege that the Company and the individual named
officers:

     (1) forced certain Coca-Cola system bottlers to accept
         "excessive, unwanted and unneeded" sales of concentrate
         during the third and fourth quarters of 1999, thus
         creating a misleading sense of improvement in our
         Company's performance in those quarters;

     (2) failed to write down the value of impaired assets in
         Russia, Japan and elsewhere on a timely basis, again
         resulting in the presentation of misleading interim
         financial results in the third and fourth quarters of
         1999; and

     (3) misrepresented the reasons for Mr. Ivester's departure
         from the Company and then misleadingly reassured the
         financial community that there would be no changes in
         the Company's core business strategy or financial
         outlook following that departure.

Damages in an unspecified amount are sought in both complaints.
On January 8, 2001, an order was entered by the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia consolidating the two
cases for all purposes.  The Court also ordered the plaintiffs
to file a Consolidated Amended Complaint.  On July 25, 2001, the
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, which largely
repeated the allegations made in the original complaints and
added Douglas N. Daft as an additional defendant.

On September 25, 2001, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
all counts of the Consolidated Amended Complaint.  On August 20,
2002, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' Motion to Dismiss.  The Court also granted the
plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint.  On
September 4, 2002, the defendants filed a Motion for Partial
Reconsideration of the Court's August20, 2002 ruling.  The
motion was denied by the Court on April 15, 2003.

On June 2, 2003, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint.  The defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint on June 30, 2003.  On March 31, 2004, the Court
granted in part and denied in part the defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint.  In its order, the Court
dismissed a number of the plaintiffs' allegations, including the
claim that the Company made knowingly false statements to
financial analysts.  The Court permitted the remainder of the
allegations to proceed to discovery.  The Court denied the
plaintiffs' request for leave to further amend and re-plead
their complaint.  Discovery commenced on May 14, 2004, and is
ongoing.  The discovery cutoff is September 30, 2006.

The suit is styled, "Carpenters Health &, et al. v. Coca-Cola
Co, et al., Case No. 1:00-cv-02838-WBH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, under Judge
Willis B. Hunt Jr.  Representing the plaintiff/s are:

     (1) David Andrew Bain, Martin D. Chitwood, Krissi T. Gore,
         Craig Gordon Harley, Chitwood & Harley, 1230 Peachtree
         Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II, Atlanta, GA 30309,
         Phone: 404-873-3900, E-mail: dab@classlaw.com,
         mdc@classlaw.com, ktg@classlaw.com, cgh@classlaw.com

     (2) Mary K. Blasy, Patrick J. Coughlin, Dennis J. Herman,
         William S. Lerach, Steven W. Pepich, Katherine Blanck
         Radsan, Scott H. Saham, Sandra Stein, David A. Thorpe,
         Darren J. Robbins, Diane P. Doherty, Lerach Coughlin
         Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, 401 B Street, Suite 1700
         San Diego, CA 92101-4297, Phone: 619-231-1058

     (3) Deborah R. Gross, Office of Bernard M. Gross, 1515
         Locust Street, Second Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19102,
         Phone: 215-561-3600

Representing the Company are:

     (i) Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Stephen B. Devereaux, Dan Shamus
         McDevitt, Martin Robert Thornton, King & Spalding, 191
         Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30303-1763, Phone:
         404-572-4600, E-mail: jcashdan@kslaw.com or
         bthornton@kslaw.com  

    (ii) John Lewis, Jr. and Joel Martin Neumann, The Coca-Cola
         Company, P.O. Box 1734 One Coca-Cola Plaza, Atlanta, GA
         30301, Phone: 404-676-2121


COCA-COLA: Plaintiffs Launch Amended ERISA Lawsuits in Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed amended class actions against The Coca-Cola
Company, certain of its current and former executive officers
and its benefits committee, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

During May, June and July 2005 three similar putative class
actions, styled:

     (1) "Pedraza v. The Coca-Cola Company, et al.,"

     (2) "Shamery, et al. v. The Coca-Cola Company, et al.," and

     (3) "Jackson v. The Coca-Cola Company, et al.,"

were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia by participants in the Company's Thrift & Investment
Plan (the Plan).  The suits allege breach of fiduciary duties
under the ERISA by the Company, certain current and former
executive officers, and the Company's benefits committee.  The
purported class in each of these cases consists of the Plan and
persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan
between May 13, 1997 and April 18, 2005 and whose accounts
included investments in Company stock.

The complaints allege that, among other things, the defendants
failed to exercise the required care, skill, prudence and
diligence in managing the Plan and its assets, take steps to
eliminate or reduce the amount of Company stock in the Plan,
adequately diversify the Plan's investments in Company stock,
appoint qualified administrators and properly monitor their and
the Plan's performance and disclose accurate information about
the Company.  The plaintiffs, on behalf of the putative class,
seek, among other things, declaratory relief, damages for Plan
losses and lost profits, imposition of constructive trust as a
remedy for unjust enrichment, injunctive relief, costs and
attorneys' fees, equitable restitution and other appropriate
equitable and monetary relief.

By order of the Court, the plaintiffs in these cases filed
amended complaints in Sept. 16, 2005 supplementing the
allegations in the original complaints and naming the specific
individuals who served on the Benefits Committee and the Asset
Management Committee as defendants.  The amended complaint
supplements the detailed allegations of the original complaint
and names specific individual defendants who served on the
Benefits Committee and the Asset Management Committee.  
Identical amended complaints were also filed in the three cases
the plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed three individual
defendants.  The Company filed motions to dismiss all claims in
each case.  Briefings on these motions are complete and the
parties are waiting for the court's rulings.


COCA-COLA: Plaintiffs Respond to Motion V. Georgia Stock Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a response to a dismissal motion in an amended
securities class action, styled, "Selbst v. The Coca-Cola
Company, et al."

The suit was filed against The Coca-Cola Company and former
Chairman of the board and chief executive officer Douglas N.
Daft, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia.

On May 9, 2005, a putative class action, styled "Selbst v. The
Coca-Cola Company and Douglas N. Daft," was filed, alleging
violations of antifraud provisions of the securities laws by the
Company and Mr. Daft, former Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company.  The purported class consists
of persons, except the defendants, who purchased Company stock
between January 30, 2003 and September 15, 2004 and were damaged
thereby.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that during
the class period the Company and Mr. Daft made false and
misleading statements concerning the financial condition of the
Company and its business outlook, strategy, business model and
relationship with key bottlers in internal corporate memoranda,
analysts' conference calls, press releases and Securities and
Exchange Commission filings.  

The plaintiffs, on behalf of the putative class, seek
compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial,
extraordinary, equitable and/or injunctive relief as permitted
by law to assure that the class has an effective remedy, award
of reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel and expert
fees, and such other further relief as the Court may deem just
and proper.

On July 8, 2005, a putative class action, styled "Amalgamated
Bank, et al. v. The Coca-Cola Company, et al." was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
against:

     (1) the Company,

     (2) Douglas N. Daft,

     (3) E. Neville Isdell,

     (4) Steven J. Heyer and

     (5) Gary P. Fayard

alleging violations of antifraud provisions of the federal
securities laws.  The purported class consists of persons,
except the defendants, who purchased Company stock between
January 30, 2003 and September 15, 2004 and were damaged
thereby.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that during
the class period the defendants made false and misleading
statements about:

     (1) the Company's new business strategy/model,

     (2) the Company's execution of its new business
         strategy/model,

     (3) the state of the Company's critical bottler
         relationships,

     (4) the Company's North American business,

     (5) the Company's European operations, with a particular
         emphasis on Germany,

     (6) the Company's marketing and introduction of new
         products, particularly Coca-Cola C2, and

     (7) the Company's forecast for growth going forward

The plaintiffs claim that as a result of these allegedly false
and misleading statements, the price of the Company stock
increased dramatically during the purported class period.  The
complaint also alleges that in September and November 2004, the
Company and E. Neville Isdell acknowledged that the Company's
performance had been below expectations, that various corrective
actions were needed, that the Company was lowering its
forecasts, and that there would be no quick fixes.  

In addition, the complaint alleges that the charge announced by
the Company in November 2004 should have been taken early in
2003 and that, as a result, the Company's financial statements
were materially misstated during 2003 and the first three
quarters of 2004.  The plaintiffs, on behalf of the putative
class, seek compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at
trial, extraordinary, equitable and/or injunctive relief as
permitted by law to assure that the class has an effective
remedy, award of reasonable costs and expenses, including
counsel and expert fees, and such other further relief as the
Court may deem just and proper.

In September 2005, the plaintiff filed an amended consolidated
complaint providing, among other things, additional details
concerning the original complaint's allegations about
disclosures regarding the Company's operations in Germany.  On
November 21, 2005, the Company and the individual parties filed
a motion to dismiss the amended and consolidated complaint.  The
plaintiffs filed their response to that motion on January 27,
2006.

The suit is styled, "Selbst v. The Coca-Cola Company, et al.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-01226-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge Richard W.
Story.  Representing the plaintiff/s are, David Andrew Bain of
Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300
Promenade II, Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: 404-873-3900, E-mail:
dab@classlaw.com; and James A. Caputo of Lerach Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins, 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego,
CA 92101-4297, Phone: 619-231-1058.

Representing the defendant/s are, Jeffrey S. Cashdan of King &
Spalding, 191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30303-1763,
Phone: 404-572-4600, E-mail: jcashdan@kslaw.com; and Paul R.
Bessette of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP, Suite 2100
300 West 6th Street, Austin, TX 78701, Phone: 512-499-6250.


DU PONT: Facing Lawsuits Over Teflon Coating in U.S., Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Du Pont de Nemours & Co. faces approximately 15 intra-state
class actions in federal district courts that were filed on
behalf of consumers that have purchased cookware with Teflon
non-stick coating.

The actions, mostly filed in 2005, were filed in Colorado,
Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New
Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas
and two were filed in California.  The actions are at
preliminary stages and none of the courts have issued rulings
certifying any of the classes.

The actions allege that the Company violated state laws by:

     (1) engaging in deceptive and unfair trade practices by
         failing "to disclose to consumers that products
         containing Teflon were or are potentially harmful to
         consumers," and

     (2) that the Company has liability based on state law
         theories of negligence and strict liability.  

The actions allege that Teflon contained or released harmful and
dangerous substances, including a chemical (PFOA) alleged to
have been determined to be "likely" to cause cancer in humans.  
The actions seek unspecified monetary damages for consumers who
purchased cooking products containing Teflon, as well as the
creation of funds for medical monitoring and independent
scientific research, attorneys' fees and other relief.

Additionally, in December 2005, a motion was filed by a single
named plaintiff in the Superior Court for the Province of
Quebec, Canada seeking authorization to institute a class action
on behalf of all Quebec consumers who have purchased or used
kitchen items, household appliances or food-packaging containing
Teflon or Zonyl non-stick coatings.  Damages are not quantified,
but are alleged to include the cost of replacement products as
well as one hundred dollars per class member as exemplary
damages.  No additional pleadings have been filed.


EATON VANCE: Fairness Hearing on $10.5M Settlement Set April
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court District of Massachusetts will hold a
fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the matter, "In
Re Eaton Vance Corporation Securities Litigation No. 01 CV 10911
EFH."  The case was brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased shares (including purchases by dividend reinvestment)
of the EV Classic Senior Floating-Rate Fund between May 25, 1998
and March 15, 1999, inclusive, or between March 13, 2000 and
March 2, 2001, inclusive.

A fairness hearing will be held on April 26, 2006 at 2:00 p.m.
before the Honorable Edward F. Harrington, Jr. in Courtroom 13
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston,
Massachusetts 02210.

Deadline for filing a proof of claim or any objections to the
settlement is May 31, 2006.

The proposed Settlement provides for the creation of
$10,500,000.00 Settlement Fund to be distributed to Authorized
Claimants pursuant to a proposed Plan of Allocation, and the
Eaton Vance Defendants' agreement to pay up to $200,000.00 of
total notice and administration expenses.

The suit filed by shareholders in 2004 alleged that investors
were damaged because Eaton Vance overpriced senior loans held by
the EV Classic, Prime Rate, Institutional and Advisers funds,
causing the net asset values per share for those funds to be
inflated, and issued false and misleading registration
statements and prospectuses in violation of the Securities Act
of 1933 and certain SEC rules (Class Action Reporter, May 21,
2004).

Lead Plaintiffs are Donald Chesner, Elizabeth Chesner, the
Sophie B. Bialeck Trust, and Woodson W. Bassett, Jr.

Defendants are: Eaton Vance Corp., EV Classic Senior Floating-
Rate Fund (EV Classic), Eaton Vance Prime Rate Reserves, Eaton
Vance Management, James B. Hawkes, James L. O'Connor, Scott H.
Page, Payson F. Swaffield, M. Dozier Gardner, Jessica M.
Bibliowicz, Donald R. Dwight, Samuel L. Hayes, Norton H. Reamer,
Lynn A. Stout, John L. Thorndike, and Jack L. Treynor.

For more information, contact Claims Administrator Complete
Claim Solutions, Inc., P.O. Box 24723, West Palm Beach, FL
33416, Phone: (866) 404-0132 (toll free)); E-mail:
eatonvancelitigation@labaton.com; On the Net:
http://wwww.CompleteClaimSolutions.com;
http://www.klafterolsen.com;or Lead Counsel for the Lead  
Plaintiffs: Joel H. Bernstein, Esq., Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff
LLP, 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017; Jeffrey A. Klafter,
Esq., Klafter & Olsen LLP, 1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 220,
White Plains, NY 10605; and Paul J. Geller, Esq., Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 197 South Federal
Highway, Boca Raton, FL 33432.


ENGELHARD CORPORATION: N.J. Court Merges Sebastian, Silver Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Engelhard Corp. disclosed in a Securities and Exchange
Commission filing that on Jan. 4, 2006, Scott Sebastian, who
claims to be a stockholder of the Company, commenced a purported
class action against the Company and all of its directors.  The
suit was filed on behalf of the stockholders of the Company in
the Chancery Division of the New Jersey Superior Court for
Middlesex County.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with their response to BASF's
proposal to acquire the Company and seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief and damages.

On January 4, 2006, Hindy Silver, who alleges that she is a
stockholder of the Company, commenced a purported class action
on behalf of the stockholders of the Company against the Company
and all of its directors in the Chancery Division of the New
Jersey Superior Court for Mercer County.  The complaint alleges
that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with their response to BASF's proposal to acquire the
Company and seeks injunctive relief and an accounting.  

On January 17, 2006, the plaintiffs in the Sebastian and Silver
actions moved to transfer the Sebastian action to the New Jersey
Superior Court for Mercer County and to consolidate the two
actions in that Court.  The defendants cross-moved to stay the
New Jersey actions until the Delaware actions, described below,
have been resolved or, in the alternative, to dismiss the New
Jersey actions for failure to state a claim, and plaintiffs
moved for expedited discovery.  

Plaintiffs opposed defendants' cross-motions and requested leave
to file an amended complaint if the Court was inclined to grant
defendants' motion to dismiss.  The proposed amended complaint
adds, among other things, allegations that the Schedule 14D-9
filed by the Company with the SEC fails to disclose material
information that the proposed amended complaint alleges is
needed by Engelhard shareholders to be able to make an informed
decision concerning whether to tender their shares to BASF.

The proposed amended complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief and damages.  Defendants opposed plaintiffs' motion for
expedited discovery and motion to amend their complaint.  
Argument on all motions and cross-motions was held on February
9, 2006 in the New Jersey Superior Court for Mercer County.  The
Court stated that the motion to consolidate would be granted and
took the other matters under advisement.


ENGELHARD CORPORATION: Investors Averse to Disposal Sues in Del.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Engelhard Corp. disclosed in a Securities and Exchange
Commission filing that:

     (1) Laura Benjamin and Sam Cohn, and

     (2) Stewart Simon,

all of whom purport to be stockholders of the Company, each
commenced a purported class action on behalf of the stockholders
of the Company against the Company and all of its directors.  
The suits were filed on Jan. 5 and 6, 2006 in the Delaware Court
of Chancery for New Castle County.

Each complaint alleged that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with their response to BASF's
proposal to acquire the Company and sought injunctive relief.  
The Benjamin and Cohn complaints also sought damages and the
Simon complaint sought an accounting.  

On January 13, 2006 these three actions were consolidated under
the caption "In re: Engelhard Corporation Shareholders
Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 1871-N," in the Delaware Court
of Chancery for New Castle County, and a Consolidated Amended
Complaint was filed and served which names the same defendants
and contains allegations similar to those made in the complaints
initially filed in the underlying actions, and seeks injunctive
relief and damages. On the same day, plaintiffs served a request
for production of documents.

On January 17, 2006, the court entered an order governing the
protection and exchange of confidential information.  On January
24, 2006, the Court entered a case management order.  Defendants
have begun to produce documents to plaintiffs.  On January 25,
2006, with defendants' consent, the Court granted plaintiffs
leave to file a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint.  

The Second Consolidated Amended Complaint adds, among other
things, allegations that:

     (1) the Schedule 14D-9 filed by the Company with the SEC
         fails to disclose material information concerning what
         the Company and its Board of Directors are doing with
         respect to the exploration of strategic alternatives to
         BASF's offer, and

     (2) fails to disclose information that is material to
         evaluating the opinion Merrill Lynch provided to the
         Company's Board of Directors that BASF's offer is
         inadequate from a financial point of view.


FIRST HORIZON: Plaintiffs Appeal Georgia Court Stock Suit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeal in relation to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia's decision in a second amended
securities class action filed against First Horizon
Pharmaceutical Corporation and certain of its former and current
officers and directors is currently pending before the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.  

A consolidated securities lawsuit was filed on August 22, 2002
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  
Plaintiffs in the class action alleged in general terms that the
Company violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(a) of the Securities Act
of 1933 and that the Company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  

In an amended complaint, Plaintiffs claimed that the Company
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements to
the market in connection with its public offering on April 24,
2002 and thereafter relating to alleged "channel stuffing"
activities.  The amended complaint also alleged controlling
person liability on behalf of certain of the Company's officers
under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiffs sought an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages to be proven at
trial.

On September 29, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia dismissed, without prejudice, the class
action.  Although the class action was dismissed, the court
granted the plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their class
action provided that the plaintiffs pay all of the defendants'
fees and costs associated with filing the motions to dismiss the
class action.  Plaintiffs did not file a second amended
complaint as permitted, but instead filed a motion asking the
District Court to reconsider its September 29, 2004 order and
lift the condition that they must pay defendants' fees and costs
before further amendment.  

On June 22, 2005, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion
and gave them another opportunity to amend if they pay
defendants' fees and costs.  Once again, plaintiffs chose not to
file a second amended complaint.  Instead, plaintiffs filed an
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.  
This appeal currently is pending.

The suit is styled, "In Re: First Horizon Pharmaceutical
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:02-cv-02332-JOF," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under
Judge J. Owen Forrester, presiding.  Representing the
plaintiff/s are:  

     (1) David Andrew Bain, Martin D. Chitwood, Chitwood Harley
         Harnes, LLP, 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300
         Promenade II, Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: 404-873-3900,
         E-mail: dab@classlaw.com, mdc@classlaw.com;

     (2) Jack Reise, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
         Robbins, Suite 200, 197 South Federal Hwy., Boca Raton,
         FL 33432, Phone: 561-750-3000, Fax: 561-750-3364, E-
         mail: jreise@lerachlaw.com; and  

     (3) Karen Hanson Riebel of Lockridge Grindal Nauen, 100
         Washington Avenue South, 2200 Washington Square,
         Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179, Phone: 612-339-6900, E-
         mail: bgilles@locklaw.com.

Representing the Defendant/s are, Scott P. Hilsen, John Ludlow
Latham, Oscar N. Persons of Alston & Bird, 1201 West Peachtree
Street, One Atlantic Center, Atlanta, GA 30309-3424, Phone:
404-881-7000, E-mail: shilsen@alston.com, jlatham@alston.com,
opersons@alston.com; and Kathleen D. Zylan, #208, 6555 Sugarloaf
Parkway Suite 307, Duluth, GA 30097, Phone: 770-853-5143, E-
mail: kzylan@charter.net.


GOLDCORP INC: Faces Lawsuit Over September 2004 Option Grants
-------------------------------------------------------------
Goldcorp Inc. was served with Statements of Claim with respect
to a class action against, among others, the Company and certain
of its directors during the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages as a
result of stock options granted in September 2004, the Ontario,
Canada-based company said at its annual report released March 5.  
The claims allege that the defendants acted on material non-
public information at the time of the option grants.  

Goldcorp -- http://www/goldcorp.com-- is engaged in gold mining  
and related activities including exploration, extraction,
processing and reclamation.  Its assets are the Red Lake gold
mine in Canada, a 37.5% interest in the Alumbrera gold/copper
mine in Argentina, the Luismin gold/silver mines in Mexico, the
Peak gold mine in Australia, and the Wharf gold mine in the
U.S..

Goldcorp also owns a 59% interest in Silver Wheaton Corp., a
publicly traded silver mining company.  It is listed on the New
York Stock Exchange (symbol: GG) and the Toronto Stock Exchange
(symbol: G).

For more information, contact Goldcorp, Inc. Waterfront Centre
Suite 1560 - 200 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC V6C 3L6, Canada;
Phone: (604) 696-3000; Fax: (604) 696-3001; or Investor
Relations Director Julia Hasiwar; Phone: (800) 567-6223 (toll
free); E-mail: info@goldcorp.com.


INFORMATICA CORPORATION: Final Fairness Hearing Set April 24
------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Informatica Corporation is
set for April 24, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The case is styled "In re Informatica Corporation Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9922 (SAS)
(S.D.N.Y.), related to In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)."

Plaintiffs' amended complaint was brought purportedly on behalf
of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock from
April 29, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  It names as defendants
the Company, one of the Company's current officers, and one of
the Company's former officers and several investment banking
firms that served as underwriters of the Company's April 29,
1999 initial public offering and September 28, 2000 follow-on
public offering.

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

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

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

The complaint also alleges that false analyst reports were
issued.  No specific damages are claimed.

Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over
300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000.  The cases were consolidated for
pretrial purposes.  On February 19, 2003, the Court ruled on all
defendants' motions to dismiss.  The Court denied the motions to
dismiss the claims under the Securities Act of 1933.  The Court
denied the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claim against
Informatica and 184 other issuer defendants.  The Court denied
the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims against
the Informatica defendants and 62 other individual defendants.

The Company has decided to accept a settlement proposal
presented to all issuer defendants.  In this settlement,
plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims against the
Informatica defendants, in exchange for a contingent payment by
the insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring
the issuers in all of the IPO cases, and for the assignment or
surrender of control of certain claims the Company may have
against the underwriters.  

The Informatica defendants will not be required to make any cash
payments in the settlement, unless the pro rata amount paid by
the insurers in the settlement exceeds the amount of the
insurance coverage, a circumstance which the Company does not
believe will occur.  The settlement will require approval of the
Court, which cannot be assured, after class members are given
the opportunity to object to the settlement or opt out of the
settlement.  The Court has set a hearing date of April 24, 2006
to consider final approval of the settlement.

The suit is styled, "In re Informatica Corp. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," and is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Shira N. Scheindlin, under docket number 01 Civ. 9922
(Sas).   The suit is related to In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.).  The plaintiff
firms in this suit are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?61e.


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Workers File FLSA, ERISA Suits in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corp. faces a putative labor
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

On January 24, 2006, a putative class action was filed against
the Company in federal court in San Francisco on behalf of
technical support workers whose primary responsibilities are or
were to install and maintain computer software and hardware.

The suit, captioned, "Rosenburg et al v. International Business
Machines Corporation, Case No. 3:06-cv-00430-PJH," alleges that
the Company failed to pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state law, and asserts violations
of California record-keeping and meal-break provisions.  The
suit also asserts certain violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).  Relief sought includes
back wages, corresponding 401K and pension plan credits,
interest, and attorneys' fees.

The suit is styled, "Rosenburg et al v. International Business
Machines Corporation, Case No. 3:06-cv-00430-PJH," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
under Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.  Representing the plaintiff/s
are:

     (1) James M. Finberg of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
         LLP, 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor, San Francisco, CA
         94111-3339, Phone: 415-956-1000, Fax: 415-956-1008, E-
         mail: JFinberg@lchb.com;

     (2) David Borgen of Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen &
         Dardarian, 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000, Oakland, CA
         94612, Phone: 510-763-9800, Fax: 510-835-1417, E-mail:
         borgen@gdblegal.com;

     (3) Rebecca Sobie of Spiro, Moss, Barness, Harrison &
         Barge, LLP, 11377 West Olympic Boulevard, Fifth Floor,
         Los Angeles, CA 90064-1625, Phone: 310-235-2468, Fax:
         310-235-2456, E-mail: rsobie@smbhblaw.com.

Representing the Defendant/s is Donna M. Mezias of Jones Day,
555 California Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104,
Phone: 415/875-5822, Fax: 415-875-5700, E-mail:
dmezias@jonesday.com.


MAINE: Trial to Begin in Malpractice Lawsuit V. Hagen Berman
------------------------------------------------------------
A trial, which some says will define the duties of class action
lawyers to their clients, is set to begin on March 6 in a
Federal Courthouse in Portland, Maine.  Judge George Singal is
scheduled to oversee the legal malpractice case against one of
the nation's most well-known class action law firms, Hagen
Berman Sobol and Shapiro.  

The Plaintiffs, Glenwood Farms, Inc. and Carrabassett Spring
Water, Inc., which are both Maine-based spring water companies,
asserted claims of legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary
duty against their former attorneys: the firm and two of its
lawyers, Steve Berman of Seattle and Thomas Sobol of Cambridge,  
Massachusetts.  A third bottler, Tear of the Clouds, LLC (Keeper
Springs) of New York, which is partly owned by Robert F.
Kennedy, Jr. is making similar claims.

Judicial settlement conferences failed to resolve the dispute,
which arose out of a deal the lawyers were helping to broker for
the Maine companies with worldwide water distributor, Nestle and
its Maine subsidiary, Poland Spring.  The suit claims that the
lawyers abandoned these clients and filed class actions, which
derailed any chance of a settlement with Nestle.  The lawyers
countered by claiming they had a "higher duty" to the class than
the duty owed to the Plaintiffs.

The case has undergone a Final Trial Management conference and
jury selection is scheduled for March 6, 2006, with the three-
week trial to commence the very next day.

The suit is styled, "GLENWOOD FARMS INCORPORATED, et al. v.
IVEY, et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-00217-GZS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maine under Judge GEORGE Z.
SINGAL.  Representing the plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Bill Robitzek of Berman and Simmons, 85 Exchange
         Street, Portland, ME, Phone: 207-774-5277, E-mail:
         wrobitzek@bermansimmons.com;

     (2) Rob Morris and Tuck Irwin of Irwin, Tardy and Morris,
         Portland, ME, Phone: 207-772-0303, E-mail:
         rmorris@itmlaw.com; and

     (3) Lee Bals of Marcus Clegg and Mistretta, Portland, ME,
         Phone: 207-828-8000, E-mail: lbals@mcm-law.com.

Representing the defendant/s are PETER J. DETROY, III and
RUSSELL PIERCE of NORMAN, HANSON & DETROY, Phone: 207-774-7000,
E-mail: pdetroy@nhdlaw.com and rpierce@nhdlaw.com.


MANNATECH INC: Plaintiffs in Stock Suit File Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Litigants in purported class actions against Mannatech Inc.
filed a consolidated amended complaint on March 3 in keeping
with a court-imposed deadline.  

The lawsuits, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Mexico, were disclosed to investors in Mannatech's Form
10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 and in each subsequent
period.  The Company said it will be making its response to the
complaint within sixty days of March 3, as required by the
court's scheduling order.

Mannatech notes that it carries insurance to help defray the
cost of litigation and to protect the company and its directors.

On February 13, 2006, Mannatech reported that it expects to
report consolidated net sales for the fourth quarter 2005 of
$101 million, for an estimated increase of 20% as compared to
its fourth quarter 2004.  The estimated growth in sales reflects
a higher current associate and member count of 490,000 as of
December 31, 2005, an estimated increase of 32% or 121,000 as
compared to 369,000 for its year ended December 31, 2004.  This
reflects the continued acceptance of the company's products by
its customers and sales associates.

In September 2005, Mannatech faced several lawsuits filed by:

     (1) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP,

     (2) Brian M. Felgoise, P.C.,

     (3) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP,

     (4) Federman & Sherwood, and

     (5) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP

Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed the suit
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico on
behalf of purchasers of Mannatech, Inc. (NASDAQ:MTEX) common
stock between August 10, 2004 and May 9, 2005.  The complaint
charged Mannatech and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 1, 2005).  

The complaint alleged that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Mannatech's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and prospects and by
concealing improprieties by sale associates, allowed and
encouraged by the Company.  This caused the Company's stock to
trade as high as $26.04 per share during the Class Period.  
Defendants took advantage of this inflation, selling or
otherwise disposing of 178,100 shares of their Mannatech stock
then valued at more than $3.7 million (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 1, 2005).

On May 9, 2005, Barron's published a story on Mannatech
detailing CEO Caster's history and questioning the Company's
sales associates' methods and their "seemingly irrepressible
inclination . . . to make extraordinary therapeutic claims for
the supplements," which had "irked some foreign regulators." The
story also discussed a civil suit filed in Los Angeles County
against Mannatech for "'negligent misrepresentation'" and
"'conspiracy to commit fraud'" stemming from alleged misconduct
by its sales associates.  On this news, Mannatech's stock fell
to as low as $11.64 per share on May 10, 2005 before closing at
$12.15 per share on volume of 2.2 million shares (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 1, 2005).

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were ws:

     (1) the Company was at least tacitly encouraging associates
         to make misleading claims about the Company's products;

     (2) contrary to defendants' claims of fiscal 2005 growth
         and profitability, the Company would experience much
         worse results once its misleading practices were
         disclosed;

     (3) the Company lacked the controls to prevent false
         statements by associates; and

     (4) as a result of above, the Company's earnings were based
         on misleading claims about the efficacy of its
         products.

Mannatech -- http://www.mannatech.com-- based in Coppell,  
Texas, is a wellness solutions provider that sells its products
through a global network-marketing system throughout the U.S.
and the international markets of Canada, Australia, the United
Kingdom, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and
Denmark.


MERRILL LYNCH: Continues to Defend Suit Over Research Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., was named in dozens of class actions
since 2001 that challenged the objectivity of the Company's
research recommendations related to securities of Internet
companies.  

As a result of the dismissal or abandonment of many of these
cases and the February 16, 2006 settlements in principle of
others (which settlements are subject to further documentation
and court approvals), only two of these class actions are
actively being litigated.  The Company is vigorously defending
these two remaining actions, one of which, "Dabit v. Merrill
Lynch," is now before the U.S. Supreme Court, and the other of
which, "In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Shareholders
Litigation," is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.


MERRILL LYNCH: Court Denies Motion for Rehearing in IPO Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied
defendant's motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc in the
consolidated class action styled, "In re Initial Public Offering
Antitrust Litigation."  

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. was named as one of ten underwriting
defendants in the suit, which was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants and unnamed co-conspirators violated
antitrust laws by conspiring to require from customers
consideration in addition to the underwriters' discount for
allocation of shares of initial public offerings of certain
technology companies...and to inflate the aftermarket prices for
such securities.

On November 3, 2003, the district court granted the defendants'
motions to dismiss the complaint.  On September 28, 2005, the
Second Circuit reversed the district court's decision dismissing
the case, holding that the alleged conduct was not immune from
the antitrust laws.

On January 11, 2006, the Second Circuit denied defendants'
petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc.  The defendants
are seeking a stay of further proceedings while they petition
for Supreme Court review of the Second Circuit's decision.

The suit is styled, "In re Initial Public Offering Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 01 CIV 2014 (WHP)," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
William H. Pauley, III.  Representing the plaintiff/s are,
Russel Harrison Beatie, Jr., Beatie and Osborn, LLP, 521 Fifth
Avenue, 34th Floor, New York, NY 10175, Phone: (212)-888-9000,
Fax: (212)-888-9664, E-mail: bhunter@bandolaw.com; and Joseph J.
Depalma of Lite, Depalma, Greenberg & Rivas, L.L.C., Two Gateway
Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102, Phone: (973) 623-3000.  

Representing the defendant/s are, Gandolfo Vincent DiBlasi of
Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP (NYC), 125 Broad Street, NY, NY
10007, Phone: (212) 558-3836, Fax: (212)-558-3588, E-mail:
diblasig@sullcrom.com; and Steven G. Bradbury of Kirkland &
Ellis, 655 Fifteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005, Phone:
(202) 879-5000.


MERRILL LYNCH: Court Ruling on Defendants' Appeal Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is yet to rule
on the defendants' appeal against a New York federal court's
decision to grant class status the action styled, "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation."

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. was named as one of the defendants in
approximately 110 securities class action complaints alleging
that dozens of underwriting defendants, including the Company,
artificially inflated and maintained the stock prices of the
relevant securities by creating an artificially high aftermarket
demand for shares.

On October 13, 2004, the district court, having previously
denied defendants' motions to dismiss, issued an order allowing
certain of these cases to proceed against the underwriters as
class actions.  On June 30, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit entered an order agreeing to review the
district court's order granting plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The matter has now been fully briefed, and the
parties are awaiting a decision from the Court of Appeals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


MERRILL LYNCH: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Tyco Research Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action styled, "In re Merrill Lynch Tyco
Research Securities Litigation," appealed the dismissal of their
case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On June 4, 2003, shareholders of Tyco International filed a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging that a former Merrill Lynch & Co.,
Inc., research analyst engaged in a variety of improper
practices in connection with research analysis on Tyco
International.

On February 18, 2004, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the claims related to Tyco.  Plaintiffs have appealed
the dismissal of their action to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.


MERRILL LYNCH: Oct. Hearing Set for "Newby V. Enron" Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
An October 16, 2006 trial has been set for the consolidated
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas against 69 defendants purportedly on behalf of
the purchasers of Enron Corp.'s publicly traded equity and debt
securities during the period October 19, 1998 through November
27, 2001.  

On April 8, 2002, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. was added as a
defendant in suit, styled, "Newby v. Enron Corp. et al."  The
complaint alleges, among others, that the Company engaged in
improper transactions in the fourth quarter of 1999 that helped
Enron misrepresent, its earnings and revenues in the fourth
quarter of 1999.  The complaint also alleges that Merrill Lynch
violated the securities laws in connection with its role as an
underwriter of Enron stock, its research analyst coverage of
Enron stock, and its role as placement agent for and limited
partner in an Enron-controlled partnership called LJM2.

On December 19, 2002 and March 29, 2004, the court denied the
Company's motions to dismiss.  On July 27, 2005, the Company
filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings based, in part, on
the Supreme Court's April 19, 2005, decision in "Dura
Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo," which addressed the standards for
pleading and proving loss causation.  On August 3, 2005,
plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against
Merrill Lynch, which seeks a judgment that the Company knowingly
committed deceptive acts in furtherance of a scheme to defraud.
The Company is opposing that motion.  In addition, the
defendants, including the Company, are awaiting a decision on
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  A trial date has
been set for October 16, 2006.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: D.C. Court Dismisses Pension Fund Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motion to dismiss a
pending class action in which plaintiffs allege that they were
denied certain ad hoc pension increases awarded to retirees
under the Metropolitan Life retirement plan.

The ad hoc pension increases were awarded only to retirees
(i.e., individuals who were entitled to an immediate retirement
benefit upon their termination of employment) and not available
to individuals like these plaintiffs whose employment, or whose
spouses' employment, had terminated before they became eligible
for an immediate retirement benefit.  The plaintiffs seek to
represent a class consisting of former Company employees, or
their surviving spouses, who are receiving deferred vested
annuity payments under the retirement plan and who were
allegedly eligible to receive the ad hoc pension increases
awarded in 1977, 1980, 1989, 1992, 1996 and 2001, as well as
increases awarded in earlier years.

In September 2005, Metropolitan Life's motion for summary
judgment was granted.  Plaintiffs have moved for
reconsideration.

The suit is styled, "BRUBAKER, et al v. METROPOLITAN LIFE, et
al., Case No. 1:00-cv-02511-EGS," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia under Judge Emmet G.
Sullivan.  Representing the plaintiffs is Tas Coroneos, 5801
Highland Drive, Chevy Chase, MD 20815-5531, Phone: (301) 656-
1124, Fax: (301) 656-1460.  

Representing the Company are Emmett Boaz Lewis, Mark J. Rochon
and Anthony F. Shelley of MILLER & CHEVALIER, CHARTERED, 655
Fifteenth Street, NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005, Phone:
(202) 626-6090, Fax: (202) 628-0858, E-mail: elewis@milchev.com,
mrochon@milchev.com, ashelley@milchev.com.  


METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Faces Insurance-Related Lawsuits in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two purported nationwide class actions were initiated against
Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company in
Illinois.  

The first suit claims breach of contract and fraud due to the
alleged underpayment of medical claims arising from the use of a
purportedly biased provider fee pricing system.  A motion for
class certification has been filed and discovery is ongoing.  

The second suit claims breach of contract and fraud arising from
the alleged use of preferred provider organizations to reduce
medical provider fees covered by the medical claims portion of
the insurance policy.  The court recently granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the fraud claim in the second suit.


METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Faces Katrina-Related Suits in Two States
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company faces
several Hurricane Katrina-related federal lawsuits in Louisiana
and Mississippi.  

In November 17, 2005, a lawsuit was filed against the Company in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi, Southern Division, Case No. 1:05CV00550-LG-RHW.  
Two policyholders, who are challenging the denial of a claim
under their homeowners' policy for damage caused to their
property during Hurricane Katrina, brought the suit.  

Attorneys Don John W. Barrett and Richard F. Scruggs brought the
suit on behalf of Tina and Ella Stanley.  The plaintiffs allege
they have been insured by the Company for 17 years and that they
purchased insurance coverage from it for the purpose of insuring
against any damage that could result from hurricanes.  They
claim that the Company's agent represented to them in selling
the policy that it would provide full and comprehensive coverage
for any hurricane damage.  

According to their Complaint, the plaintiffs' residence was
completely destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.  They allege that
they contacted the Company after the storm and that its agents
advised them that their policy would pay for whatever damages
that their flood policy would not compensate.  However,
plaintiffs claim that in October 2005, the Company informed them
that it would not cover their loss, based upon its contentions
that plaintiffs' damages resulted from water and that such
damage was excluded under its policy.  

The plaintiffs claimed that the Company position on coverage
contradicts the statutory law of Mississippi, which they contend
requires full coverage if an insured residence is completely
destroyed by any covered loss, and contradicts the language of
their policy.  They seek certain equitable relief that would
require the Company to fully compensate them for their losses
resulting from Hurricane Katrina.

On December 12, 2005, a purported class action was filed against
the Company in Louisiana federal court on behalf of insureds who
incurred total property losses as a result of Hurricane Katrina.  
Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to coverage for all of their
claims.  That suit is styled, "Sucherman v. Metropolitan
Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 05-6456."

In 2006, the Company was also sued in two additional Hurricane
Katrina-related actions one in Louisiana and one in Mississippi.  
The Company believes that it is reasonably possible other
actions will be filed.  


METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Reaches Agreement in Mont. Insurance Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a purported class action filed
against Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company in
Montana.  

The suit alleges breach of contract and bad faith for not
aggregating medical payment and uninsured coverages provided in
connection with the several vehicles identified in insureds'
motor vehicle policies.  A recent decision by the Montana
Supreme Court in a suit involving another insurer determined
that aggregation is required.  

The parties have reached an agreement to settle this suit. The
Company recorded a liability in an amount the Company believes
is adequate to resolve the claims underlying this matter.  The
amount to be paid will not be material to the Company.  


METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Unit Faces Lawsuit in Fla. Over OEM Parts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company reports
that its subsidiary, Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company,
faces a purported class action in Florida over automotive parts.

The suit is alleging breach of contract and unfair trade
practices with respect to allowing the use of parts not made by
the original equipment manufacturer (OEM parts) to repair
damaged automobiles.  Discovery is ongoing and a motion for
class certification is pending.


NEW YORK: Settles Suit Filed by Drivers Accused of Racial Bias
--------------------------------------------------------------
New York City has agreed to compensate drivers whose licenses
were suspended or revoked because they refused to pick up
minority passengers, according to Associated Press.

In 2002, a federal judge ruled that taxi drivers must be granted
a hearing before their licenses can be suspended for illegally
refusing to pick up minority passengers (Class Action Reporter,
May 6, 2005).  

The ruling came in a class action filed against the Taxi and
Limousine Commission by a group of cab drivers who claimed that
suspending their licenses before a hearing deprived them of the
chance to defend themselves.

The lawsuit arose out of a program called "Operation Refusal,"
in which undercover police and taxi commission inspectors posing
as passengers attempted to identify discriminatory drivers.  
Cabdrivers caught bypassing minorities were issued citations and
had their licenses suspended and their cabs temporarily
confiscated, pending a later hearing.

However, U.S. District Court Judge Raymond Dearie, in Brooklyn,
ruled that the accused cabbies must have a right to a hearing
first, before such actions are taken against them.  The judge,
however, sided with the Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) on
whether it had the power -- after a hearing -- to suspend or
revoke taxi licenses after only the first or second offense
(Class Action Reporter, May 6, 2005).   

"Operation Refusal" came about after actor Danny Glover, who is
black, filed a complaint with the TLC, in which he complained
that several taxis drove past him.

The drivers' lawyer, Dan Ackman, said that under the settlement:

     (1) about 500 drivers each will get $121.50 for each day
         they were suspended,

     (2) about 100 drivers whose licenses were revoked after the
         suspensions will receive an additional $26,000 each and
         will be allowed to apply for new licenses, and

     (3) TLC will refund fines it collected from the drivers.

According to the report, under the current Operation Refusal
drivers are issued summonses if they are accused of
discrimination but are not penalized until after they appear in
taxi court, the TLC said.  The settlement still requires the
judge's approval.


PRE-PAID LEGAL: Court Ruling on Plaintiff's Appeal Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule on
plaintiff's motion for the Oklahoma class action, styled, "In
Re: Pre-Paid Securities, et al. v., Case No. 5:01-cv-00182."

Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. and several of its executive
officers were named as defendants in a putative securities class
action originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma in early 2001 seeking unspecified
damages on the basis of allegations that the Company issued
false and misleading financial information, primarily related to
the method it used to account for commission advance receivables
from sales associates.  

On March 5, 2002, the Court granted our motion to dismiss the
complaint, with prejudice, and entered a judgment in favor of
the defendants.  Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion requesting
reconsideration of the dismissal, which was denied.  The
plaintiffs have appealed the judgment and the order denying
their motion to reconsider the judgment to the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals.  In August 2002 the lead institutional
plaintiff withdrew from the case, leaving two-individual
plaintiffs as lead plaintiffs on behalf of the putative class.  
As of December 31, 2003, the briefing in the appeal had been
completed.  On January 14, 2004 oral argument was held in the
appeal and as of February 17, 2006, a decision was pending.  

The suit is styled, "In Re: Pre-Paid Securities, et al. v., Case
No. 5:01-cv-00182," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District Western District of Oklahoma under Judge Robin J.
Cauthron.  Representing the plaintiff/s are, Stuart W. Emmons
and William B. Federman of Federman & Sherwood, 120 N. Robinson
Ave., Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560,
Fax: 405-239-2112, E-mail: swe@federmanlaw.com and
wfederman@aol.com.

Representing the defendant/s are:

     (1) Brooke S Murphy of Crowe & Dunlevy-OKC, 20 N. Broadway
         Ave., Suite 1800, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-
         235-7735, Fax: 405-272-5278, E-mail:
         murphyb@crowedunlevy.com;

     (2) Margaret M. Snyder of Clifford Chance Rogers & Wells,
         LLP, Steuart Street Tower, One Market Plaza, San
         Francisco, CA 94105-1420, Phone: 415-778-4700, Fax:
         415-778-4701; and

     (3) Robert P. Varian of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe-SAN
         FRANCISCO, 405 Howard St., The Orrick Building, San
         Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-773-5934, Fax: 415-773-
         5759, E-mail: rvarian@orrick.com.


PROTECTIVE APPAREL: To Replace Bullet-Proof Vests Across Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Mike Cox notified police agencies across
Michigan of a settlement in a Florida class action that may
result in the replacement of defective bullet-proof vests.

The settlement deals with vests manufactured by Protective
Apparel Corporation of America, Inc. and Point Blank Body Armor,
Inc.  All the vests involved contain the product Zylon(C) and
were sold under the trade names Fusion, Legacy, Galls ZL1, Galls
ZL2, Galls ZL3, The Beast, RTZ, ZG, and ZPG.

The U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
released scientific data in August of 2005 showing that vests
containing Zylon(C) were prone to failures, particularly when
exposed to heat and moisture.  Consequently, the NIJ decertified
all vests containing Zylon(C) material.

Attorney General Cox has been a member of the national task
force of Attorneys General looking into companies using Zylon(C)
in ballistic vests and has recommended that all police officers
replace vests containing the material.  He is advising, however,
that until replacements are received, the police officers should
continue to wear their Zylon(C) vests.

"Police officers are on the front lines of justice," said Cox.
"They deserve the tools that will help them succeed, without
having to worry about defects."

                     Claims Filing Deadline

Under the terms of the settlement, agencies and officers who
purchased the questioned vests may either obtain a replacement
vest at no cost or may receive vouchers that can be used to
obtain other police equipment.  Claims need to be submitted by
June 30, 2006.

                         Case Background

Southern States Police Benevolent Association, Inc. filed the
suit on August 29,2005, alleging that the test results released
by the NIJ demonstrated that all of Defendants' Zylon-containing
vests fail to comply with their certifications and warranties.  
Southern States brought causes of action for breach of warranty
on label in vest, breach of warranty in warranty statement,
breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied
warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and for injunctive
relief (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 23, 2005).

On 19, 2005, Defendants filed an answer and affirmative defenses
denying that Defendants are in breach of any warranty and
denying that injunctive relief is proper.  On October 20, 2005,
the Court entered a Consent Order Certifying Class Action.  The
certified classes include all law enforcement personnel and
organizations, and other individuals, who purchased new
ballistic resistant soft body armor containing Zylon from the
Defendants, except for federal agencies and any persons who have
been physically injured as a result of defects in their vests.  
The Company recorded a $36.7 million reserve for this settlement
during the quarter ended September 30, 2005, which is part of
the $60 million cost of the vest replacement program (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 23, 2005).

For more information, visit http://www.zylonvestexchange.comor  
call 1-866-778-1150.


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Court Denies Appeal on Insurance Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' application for interlocutory appeal regarding
certain dismissed claims in the class action filed against:

     (1) Prudential Insurance,

     (2) the Prudential Home Mortgage Company, Inc., and

     (3) several other subsidiaries

in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, styled,
"Capitol Life Insurance Company v. Prudential Insurance, et
al.," was denied by the court.

The suit was filed in connection with the sale of certain
subordinated mortgage securities sold by a subsidiary of
Prudential Home Mortgage.  In May 2000, plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint that alleges violations of the New
Jersey securities statute and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, fraud, conspiracy and
negligent misrepresentation, and seeks compensatory as well as
treble and punitive damages.  

In October 2002, plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
denied.  Since that time, the court has permitted nine
additional investors to intervene as plaintiffs.  In August
2005, the court dismissed the New Jersey Securities Act and RICO
claims and the negligent misrepresentation claim.  Plaintiffs'
application for interlocutory appeal of this ruling was denied.


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Court Dismisses Appeal on HMO Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeals against the settlement of the nationwide
class action filed against Prudential Insurance and other health
management organizations (HMO), styled, "In Re Humana, Inc.
Managed Care Litigation," were dismissed by an appellate court.  

The suit was brought on behalf of provider physicians and
physician groups and alleges that the Company and other health
care companies engaged in an industry-wide conspiracy to defraud
physicians by failing to pay under provider agreements and by
unlawfully coercing providers to enter into agreements with
unfair and unreasonable terms.  

An amended complaint, naming additional plaintiffs, including
three state medical associations, and an additional defendant,
was filed in March 2001, and alleges claims of breach of
contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),
conspiracy to violate RICO, aiding and abetting RICO violations,
and violations of state prompt pay statutes and the California
unfair business practices statute. The amended complaint seeks
compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts, treble
damages pursuant to RICO, and attorneys' fees.

In September 2002, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification of a nationwide class of provider
physicians.  In September 2004 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit affirmed the decision with respect only to the
federal claims for conspiracy to violate RICO and aiding and
abetting RICO violations.  In September 2005, the district court
entered a final order approving the settlement of these claims
by Prudential Insurance, which provides for payment to
plaintiffs in the amount of $22 million. Two members of the
plaintiff class have appealed the final order.  In February
2006, the appeals were dismissed.

The suit is styled, "In Re Humana Inc. Managed Care Litigation,
MDL 1334," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, Miami Division, under Judge Federico
Moreno.  The suit names as defendants Humana, Inc., Aetna, Inc.,
Aetna-USHC, Inc., Cigna, Health Net, Inc., Human Health Plan,
Inc., Pacificare Health Systems, Inc., Prudential Insurance
Company of America, United Health Group, United Health Care and
Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc.  Cigna and Aetna have entered
settlements with the plaintiffs.  Lead Plaintiffs' Attorneys are
Barry Meadow of Podhurst, Orseck, et al., Harley Tropin of
Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton and Archie Lamb.


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Court Ruling on Azar Case in N.M. Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling for plaintiff's motion to amend a New Mexico Court's
order in a purported national class action, captioned, "Azar, et
al. v. Prudential Insurance," which was filed against Prudential
Financial, Inc. is still pending.

In August 2000, a suit was filed against the Company in the
District Court of Valencia County, New Mexico based upon the
alleged failure to adequately disclose the increased costs
associated with payment of life insurance premiums on a "modal"
basis, i.e., more frequently than once a year.

Similar actions were filed in New Mexico against over a dozen
other insurance companies.  The complaint asserts claims for
breach of the common law duty to disclose material information,
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and fraudulent
concealment and seeks injunctive relief, compensatory and
punitive damages, both in unspecified amounts, restitution,
treble damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees.  

In March 2001, the court entered an order granting partial
summary judgment to plaintiffs as to liability.  In January
2003, the New Mexico Court of Appeals reversed this finding and
dismissed the claims for breach of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing and breach of fiduciary duty.  The case was
remanded to the trial court and in November 2004, it held that,
as to the named plaintiffs, the non-disclosure was material.

In July 2005, the court certified a class of New Mexico only
policyholders denying plaintiffs' motion to include purchasers
from 35 additional states.  In September 2005, plaintiffs sought
to amend the court's order on class certification with respect
to eight additional states.  A ruling on that motion is still
pending.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Stockbrokers' Suits in Calif., N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. faces five purported class actions
filed in California and New York federal and state courts,
alleging that stock brokers were improperly classified as exempt
employees under state and federal wage and hour laws and,
therefore, were improperly denied overtime pay.  The complaints
seek back overtime pay and statutory damages, interest, and
attorneys.

The suits also name as defendants Prudential Securities, Inc.
and Prudential Equity Group LLC.  Two of the complaints --
"Janowsky v. Wachovia Securities, LLC, and Prudential Securities
Incorporated," and "Goldstein v. Prudential Financial, Inc." --
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.  The "Goldstein" complaint purports to have been
filed on behalf of a nationwide class. The "Janowsky" complaint
alleges a class of New York brokers.

The three complaints filed in California Superior Court, styled
"Dewane v. Prudential Equity Group, Prudential Securities
Incorporated, and Wachovia Securities LLC;" "DiLustro v.
Prudential Securities Incorporated, Prudential Equity Group,
Inc. and Wachovia Securities;" and "Carayanis v. Prudential
Equity Group LLC and Prudential Securities Inc.," purport to
have been brought on behalf of classes of California brokers.


PUGET SOUND: California Energy Cross-Complaints Await Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Puget Sound Energy (PSE), which was served with two cross-
complaints in six consolidated class actions filed in Superior
Court in San Diego, California, said that the cases are to be
dismissed soon.

In May 2002, Reliant Energy Services and Duke Energy Trading &
Marketing served the Company with the two cross-complaints.  
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit sought, among other things,
restitution of all funds acquired by means that violate the law
and payment of treble damages, interest and penalties.  

The cross-complaints asserted essentially that the cross-
defendants, including the Company, were also participants in the
California energy market at the relevant times, and that any
remedies ordered against some market participants should be
ordered against all.  Reliant and Duke also sought
indemnification, declaratory relief and conditional relief as
buyers in transactions involving cross-defendants should the
plaintiffs prevail.  The case was removed to federal court and
some of the newly added defendants, including the Company, moved
to dismiss the action.

On July 22, 2005, the court considered a proposed settlement
that would resolve all claims against the Duke parties and on
December 14, 2005, the court issued a judgment and order
approving the Duke settlement.  In August 2005, Reliant also
announced it had reached a settlement that would result in the
dismissal of the Master Complaint.  The court issued a judgment
and order preliminarily approving the Reliant settlement on
January 6, 2006.

Hearing on final approval for the Reliant settlement is
scheduled for April 2006.  Duke and Reliant both filed
stipulated requests for dismissal of the cross-complaints
against defendants, including the Company.  The dismissals will
become final only once the court's orders granting final
approval of the Duke and Reliant settlements become final.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Appeals Court Restores Savings Plan Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the
dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey of the class action filed against:

     (1) Schering-Plough Corporation, and

     (2) Richard Jay Kogan, former Chairman of the Board, Chief
         Executive Officer, President and Director of the
         Company.

The suit was filed on March 31, 2003, alleging that the Company,
Mr. Kogan (who resigned as Chairman of the Board November 13,
2002, and retired as Chief Executive Officer, President and
Director of the Company April 20, 2003) and the Company's
Employee Savings Plan (Plan) administrator breached their
fiduciary obligations to certain participants in the Plan.

In May 2003, the Company was served with a second putative class
action complaint filed in the same court with allegations nearly
identical to the complaint filed March 31, 2003.  On October 6,
2003, a consolidated amended complaint was filed, which names as
additional defendants' seven current and former directors and
other corporate officers.  The complaint seeks damages in the
amount of losses allegedly suffered by the Plan.  The Court
dismissed this complaint on June 29, 2004.  On July 16, 2004,
the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal.

On August 19, 2005 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit reversed the dismissal by the District Court and the
matter was remanded back to the District Court for further
proceedings.


TEXTRON INC: Settlement Hearing on R.I. Securities Suit Set May
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island will
hold a hearing for the proposed $7 million settlement of a
securities suit against Textron Inc.  The case was brought on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Textron Inc. on October 19, 2000
through September 26, 2001, inclusive.

The hearing will be held on May 9, 2006, 9:00 a.m. before the
Honorable William E. Smith, Federal Building and U.S.
Courthouse; One Exchange Terrace, Providence, Rhode Island
02903-1270

Deadline for filing proofs of claim is June 21, 2006.  Deadline
to file objections and for exclusion from the class is April 25,
2006.  

                         Case Background

In 2002, two identical lawsuits purporting to be class actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island by Textron
shareholders suing on their own behalf and on behalf of a
purported class of Textron shareholders.  A consolidated amended
complaint later alleged that the defendants failed to make
certain accounting adjustments in response to alleged problems
with Bell Helicopter's V-22 and H-1 programs and that the
Company failed to timely write down certain assets of its
OmniQuip unit.  The complaint sought unspecified compensatory
damages (Class Action Reporter, March 3, 2006).  

On June 15, 2004, the District Court ruled that the plaintiffs
could not maintain the claims that were based on allegations
relating to the H-1 program or to OmniQuip, and also ruled that
all claims against one of the individual defendants should be
dismissed.  The District Court certified the class of
shareholders on May 11, 2005 (Class Action Reporter, March 3,
2006).  

All claims in the litigation were subsequently settled for a
cash amount to be paid by Textron's insurer.  The settlement was
preliminarily approved by the District Court on January 31, 2006
(Class Action Reporter, March 3, 2006).

The suit is styled, "Rosen, et al. v. Textron, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:02-cv-00190-S," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Rhode Island under Judge William E. Smith.  
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Michael I. Behn of Behn &
Wyetzner, Chartered, 55 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 950, Chicago, IL
60601, Phone: 312-629-0000, Fax: 312-327-0266; and William M.
Kolb of Law Offices of William M. Kolb, LLC, 1 Ship Street,
Providence, RI 02903, Phone: 490-8297, Fax: 490-8299.  

Representing the Defendant/s are, Mitchell A. Karlan and Anthony
J. Mahajan of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, 200 Park Ave., 47
Floor, New York, NY 10166-0193, Phone: 212 351-4000, Fax: 351-
4035; and John A. Tarantino of Adler Pollock & Sheehan, P.C.,
One Citizens Plaza, 8th Floor, Providence, RI 02903, Phone:
274-7200, Fax: 351-4607.

For more information, contact Textron Inc. Securities
Litigation, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims
Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6395, Merrick, NY 11566-9000;
Phone: 1-800-430-9178; Fax: 631-470-5100, Web site:
http://www.gardencitygroup.com;Defendant's counsel Mitchell A.  
Karlan of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, 200 Park Avenue, 47th New
York, New York; Plaintiff's co-lead counsel Ira M. Press, Esq.
of Kirby Mcinerney & Squire, LLP, 830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor         
Suite 950, New York, New York 10022; or Plaintiffs' Co-Lead
Michael I. Behn, Esq. of Behn & Wyetzner, 55 West Wacker Drive,
Chicago, Illinois 60601.


VULCAN MATERIALS: Faces Several Suits in La. Over Chlorine Leak
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vulcan Materials Co. reports that it was named a defendant in 22
lawsuits consolidated in Civil District Court, Orleans
Parish, Louisiana.

The lawsuits seek class action certification and claims damages
for injuries allegedly resulting from a leaking chlorine tank
car from the Company's former Chemicals business.  The New
Orleans Fire Department evacuated approximately 50 to 75 people
from their homes.  Plaintiffs' counsel alleges to represent more
than 15,000 people in these cases.  A hearing regarding the
certification of the matter as a class action was held in the
second quarter of 2005, but the court issued no ruling.


WACHOVIA CORPORATION: N.C. Court Dismisses Securities Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina granted Wachovia Corp.'s motion to dismiss the amended
securities complaint.

A number of purported class actions were filed in June through
August 1999 against the Company's predecessor, First Union
Corp., in the U.S. District Courts for the Western District of
North Carolina and for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  
These actions also certain executive officers as defendants and
were purported to be on behalf of persons who purchased shares
of our common stock from August 14, 1998, through May 24, 1999.  

These actions were consolidated into one case in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina in
October 1999.  These complaints alleged various violations of
federal securities law, including violations of Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act, and that the defendants made materially
misleading statements and/or material omissions which
artificially inflated prices for our common stock.  The
complaints alleged that management failed to disclose
integration problems in the CoreStates Financial Corp. merger
and misstated the value of our interest in certain mortgage-
backed securities of The Money Store, Inc. ("TMSI") acquired by
Legacy First Union on June 30, 1998.  Plaintiffs sought a
judgment awarding damages and other relief.  

In January 2001, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the litigation for failure to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted.  Although the plaintiffs did not appeal
this ruling, they sought, and received permission to file an
amended complaint.  In August 2001, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that abandoned their previous allegations concerning
the CoreStates Financial Corp. merger and primarily raised new
allegations of irregularities at TMSI prior to its acquisition
by Legacy First Union.  In October 2001, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the securities litigation consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.

In September 2002, the court granted the motion in part,
limiting any new complaint to claims regarding alleged
misstatements or omissions pled in earlier complaints.  The
plaintiffs filed a third consolidated and amended complaint in
October 2002, purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of
our common stock during the period from March 4, 1998 to May 24,
1999.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that Legacy
First Union disregarded problems at TMSI and did not write down
goodwill from the TMSI acquisition soon enough.

In December 2003, the court denied the Company's motion to
strike portions of this complaint.  In February 2004, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On
January 20, 2006, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice.



                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 11, 2006
WELDING ROD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
W Chicago Lakeshore Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 18, 2006
MEALEY'S EMAIL DISCOVERY & RETENTION POLICIES CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

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

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

June 8-9, 2006
RETAIL & HOSPITALITY LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Intercontintental Buckhead, Atlanta
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

June 8-9, 2006
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

June 12-13, 2006
BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Marina del Rey
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  
      
June 22-23, 2006
PACIFIC NORTHWEST CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Hotel Monaco, Seattle
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

July 19-20, 2006
LITIGATION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

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

November 16-17, 2006
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT
SECURITIES, TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE
ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

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



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

March 01-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 01-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 01-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 01-30, 2006
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 01-30, 2006
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 01-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 01-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 01, 2006
HURRICANE AND NATURAL DISASTER CONFERENCE SERIES TELECONFERENCE:
AFFECT ON THE INSURANCE AND REINSURANCE INDUSTRIES
TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

March 28, 2006
WORKING WITH EXPERTS IN PHARMACEUTICAL CASES TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 13, 2006
TEFLON LITIGATION TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

________________________________________________________________
Sources:

http://www.mealeys.com/conferences_schedule.html
http://www.cleonline.com/
https://www.ali-aba.org/aliaba/CRSLST.asp
http://www.americanconference.com/Conferences.htm
http://www.ceb.com
http://www.pli.edu
http://www.worldjustice.com/class_action_seminars/
http://www.aei.org/events/filter./events.asp
http://www.tobacco.neu.edu/conference/index.html
http://masstortsmadeperfect.com



                   New Securities Fraud Cases

NVE CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP initiated a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota on behalf of purchasers of NVE Corporation (NVE)
(NASDAQ:NVEC) common stock between May 22, 2003 and February 11,
2005.

The complaint charges NVE and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  NVE engages in the development and sale of spintronics
devices and also licenses its spintronic Magnetoresistive Random
Access Memory (MRAM) technology to other companies, including
Cypress Semiconductor Corp.

During the Class Period, NVE claimed that Cypress was using its
alleged "watershed" MRAM patent and that NVE would purportedly
receive royalties from its licensing of its MRAM intellectual
property to Cypress and other companies.  Then on February 14,
2005, before the market opened, Cypress announced its intention
to divest Silicon Magnetic Systems, a subsidiary Cypress had
founded to commercialize MRAMs.  On this news, the price of the
Company's shares fell, losing close to 50% in value in the weeks
that followed.

The complaint alleges that the true facts, which were known by
each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were:

     (1) Cypress's MRAM product does not use the technology NVE
         claimed to own and/or have rights to;

     (2) NVE's MRAM patents are immaterial and unenforceable;

     (3) the Company's claimed significance during the Class
         Period of its receipt of patent 6,744,086 was of little
         consequence, as the patent application was several
         years old and the patent had been granted a month
         earlier;

     (4) NVE did not invent/develop the idea of using one
         transitor to read every magnetic memory cell in an MRAM  
         chip; and

     (5) the Company's announcement that Cypress's MRAM products
         were covered by NVE's technology agreement with Cypress
         was materially misleading, as Cypress was not required
         to (and did not) pay NVE any royalty payments under its
         technology agreement.

As a result of the defendants' false statements during the Class
Period, NVE stock traded at inflated levels, whereby the
individuals defendants sold more than $8.4 million worth of
their own shares.

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

For more information, contact plaintiff's counsel, William
Lerach or Darren Robbins of Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900
or 619/231-1058; E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com.


NVE CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of NVE Corporation (NASDAQ: NVEC)
(NVE) between May 22, 2003 and Feb. 11, 2005, inclusive.  The
class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of NVE securities.

For more information, contact J. Smith, Esquire or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esquire at Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite
602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, E-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com,
Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 (toll free).


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Ademi & O'Reilly Files Stock Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. (TTWO)
common stock between October 25, 2004 and January 27, 2006.

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

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

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

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

The complaint is at: http://www.ademilaw.com/cases/TakeTwo.pdf.

For more information, contact Guri Ademi of Ademi & O'Reilly
LLP, Phone: (866) 264-3995; E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.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, Maria Cristina 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  * * *