CAR_Public/060309.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, March 9, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 49

                          Headlines

AEP TEXAS: Discovery Proceeds for ERISA Lawsuits Filed in Ohio
AMERIGROUP CORP: Faces Consolidated Amended Stock Suit in Va.
APEX ALARM: Lawyers Seek to Dismiss Lead Plaintiff in Wage Suit
ARIZONA: Told to Defray Disabled Kids' Incontinence Supplies
BAYER AG: U.S. Authority Subpoena for Documents in Baycol Deal

BEAR STEARNS: Pac-West, Packeteer Investors Urged to File Claims
BEAR STEARNS: Covad, Deltathree Investors Urged to File Claims
BEAR STEARNS: Microtune, Neoforma Investors Urged to File Claims
BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Continues to Face Ala. Race Bias Lawsuit
BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Continues to Face ERISA Complaint in Ga.

BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Facing N.Y. Consumer Antitrust Lawsuit
BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Facing Securities Fraud Suit in Georgia
BURLINGTON RESOURCES: Reaches Agreement in Okla. Royalties Suit
COLORADO: Hispanic Law Enforcers File Employment Bias Complaints
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Asks Del. Court to Dismiss Investor Suit

CRYO-CELL INT'L: Fla. Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
GENERAL MOTORS: Lead Attorney Named in Securities Litigation
HEWLETT PACKARD: Investors File Suit Over Ex-CEO's Severance Pay
ILLINOIS: U.S. High Court Keeps Avery V. State Farm Suit Ruling
INDIANA: Morgan County Residents Named in Drug Hunt File Lawsuit

INTERNATIONAL PLAYTHINGS: Recalls Toy Phones for Choking Risk
KVH INDUSTRIES: Shareholders' Complaint Awaits Certification
MAN'S TRADING: Recalls Toy Jewelry Due to Aspiration Hazard
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Court Mulls Appeal of Md. Fraud Suit Dismissal
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Faces Insurance Lawsuit in Ohio State Court

PEROT SYSTEMS: Tex. Court Mulls Dismissal of Stock Fraud Lawsuit
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Retirees Oppose Lerach Coughlin's $98M Fee
RC2 CORPORATION: Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over Warranty Policy Changes
REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Reaches Agreement in N.Y. Stock Suit
SHELL OIL: 2009 Deadline Set for Claims in 'Qest' Pipes Lawsuit

SOUTH CAROLINA: Settlement Proposed for School Drug Raid Suit
STAPLES INC: Continues to Face Consolidated Labor Suit in Calif.
STATE STREET: Delphi Employees Sue to Recover Pension Losses
STOCK DEVELOPMENT: Faces Fla. Suit Over Fort Myers Condominium
SUPERIOR FORESTRY: Faces Suit in Tenn. Over Migrant Workers' Pay

TUTOGEN MEDICAL: Transplant Patient Files Lawsuit in Florida
UNILEVER: Recalls Facial Cleansing Massager After Injury Reports
VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in N.Y.
WASHINGTON: City of Seattle Settles "Temporary" Workers' Lawsuit
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces 11 Suits Over Defective Calypso Machines

WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Suits V. Tall Tub Dishwashers in Mo., Ill.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CHICAGO BRIDGE: Ann D. White Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
GRAFTECH INT'L: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in Del.
JARDEN CORP: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
MILLS CORP: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Va.
NVE CORP: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Minn.


                            *********


AEP TEXAS: Discovery Proceeds for ERISA Lawsuits Filed in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing for the several purported class actions
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio against AEP Texas North Co. over alleged violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

In the fourth quarter of 2002 and the first quarter of 2003,
three putative class actions were filed against AEP, certain
executives and AEP's ERISA Plan Administrator alleging
violations of ERISA in the selection of AEP stock as an
investment alternative and in the allocation of assets to AEP
stock.  The ERISA actions are pending in federal District Court,
Columbus, Ohio.  In these actions, the plaintiffs seek recovery
of an unstated amount of compensatory damages, attorney fees and
costs.

The Company recently filed a Motion to Dismiss these actions,
which the Court denied.  The Company later filed a Motion to
Strike Class Action Allegations and to Stay Further Merits
Discovery Pending Resolution of Class Certification Issues.
Currently, the cases are in the discovery stage.

The suit was styled, "In re AEP ERISA Litigation, Master File
No. 2:03-cv-00067-ALM-MRA," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Algenon L. Marbley
with referral to Judge Mark R. Abel.  Representing the
plaintiff/s are:

     (1) James Edward Arnold of Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott - 2,
         471 East Broad Street, Suite 1400, Columbus, OH 43215,
         Phone: 614-469-1400, E-mail: jarnold@cpaslaw.com;

     (2) Joseph J. Braun of Strauss & Troy - 1, The Federal
         Reserve Building, 150 E. Fourth Street, 4th Floor,
         Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018, Phone: 513-621-2120, E-mail:
         jjbraun@strausstroy.com;

     (3) Edwin J Mills of Stull, Stull and Brody, 6 East 45th
         Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-687-7230, E-
         mail: ssbny@aol.com.

Representing the defendant/s is Alvin James McKenna of Porter
Wright Morris & Arthur - 2, 41 S. High Street, Columbus, OH
43215-6194, Phone: 614-227-1945, Fax: 614-227-2100, E-mail:
amckenna@porterwright.com.


AMERIGROUP CORP: Faces Consolidated Amended Stock Suit in Va.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated amended securities class action, styled,
"Illinois State Board of Investment v. AMERIGROUP Corporation,
et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00701-HCM-FBS," was filed against
AMERIGROUP Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia.

Beginning Oct. 3, 2005, five purported class action complaints
(the Actions) were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of persons who acquired
common stock between April 27, 2005 and Sept. 28, 2005.  The
actions purported to allege claims against the Company and
certain of its officers for alleged violations of Sections
10(b), 20(a), 20(A) and Rule of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

On January 10, 2006, the Court issued an order:

     (1) consolidating the Actions;

     (2) setting "Illinois State Board of Investment v.
         AMERIGROUP Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-701
         as lead case for purposes of trial and all pretrial
         proceedings;

     (3) appointing Illinois State Board of Investment (ISBI) as
         Lead Plaintiff and its choice of counsel as Lead
         Counsel; and

     (4) ordering that Lead Plaintiff file a Consolidated
         Amended Complaint (CAC) by February 24, 2006.

On February 24, 2006, ISBI filed the CAC, which purports to
allege claims on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased common stock from February 16, 2005 through September
28, 2005.

The CAC asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b),
20(a), 20(A) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against defendants AMERIGROUP Corporation, Jeffrey L.
McWaters, James G. Carlson, E. Paul Dunn, Jr. and Kathleen K.
Toth.  Lead Plaintiff alleges that defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's financial statements, business, and prospects.  Among
other things, the CAC seeks compensatory damages and attorneys'
fee and costs.

The suit is styled, "Illinois State Board of Investment v.
AMERIGROUP Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00701-HCM-FBS,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia under Judge Henry C. Morgan, Jr. with referral to Judge
F. Bradford Stillman.  Representing the plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Edward James Powers of Vandeventer Black, LLP, 500
         World Trade Ctr., Norfolk, VA 23510, Phone: (757) 446-
         8600;

     (2) Jeffrey Arnold Breit of Breit Drescher & Imprevento,
         PC, 1000 Dominion Tower, 999 Waterside Dr., Norfolk, VA
         23510-3320, Phone: (757) 622-6000;

     (3) Michael Andrew Glasser of Glasser & Glasser, PLC, 580
         E. Main St., Suite 600, Norfolk, VA 23510, Phone: (757)
         625-6787

Representing the defendant/s is Stephen Edward Noona of Kaufman
& Canoles, PC, 150 W. Main St., P.O. Box 3037, Norfolk, VA
23510, Phone: (757) 624-3000.


APEX ALARM: Lawyers Seek to Dismiss Lead Plaintiff in Wage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for Apex Alarm LLC filed a motion to have the
plaintiff's representative in a wage class action filed against
it be dismissed, according to BYU NewsNet.  The case is being
disputed in Utah County courts.

Josh Hall, a former security salesman who filed a $10 million
case on behalf of Apex's 2004 sales force, was accused of
pursuing the case for monetary gains, and thus cannot represent
the class.  He is already facing a libel suit by Apex, which
claims Mr. Halls defamed the company through his Web site
Jobfacts.org in 2005.  Apex claims Mr. Hall asked for a $500,000
settlement in October 2005 in return for his withdrawal of the
case, the report said.

Mr. Hall and two other former employees filed the suit in
November, accusing the company of underpaying its employees and
contract terms.  He claims he has been underpaid by some
$27,000.

Apex is represented by:

     John Mullen
     Anderson & Karrenberg, P.C.
     700 Bank One Tower, 50 West Broadway
     Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
     (Salt Lake Co.)
     Phone: 801-534-1700
     Telecopier: 801-364-7697


ARIZONA: Told to Defray Disabled Kids' Incontinence Supplies
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Raner Collins ordered Arizona to pay for
incontinence supplies for disabled children in a class action
ruling on March 3, Associated Press reports.

Previously, disabled children who avail of Medicaid had their
disposable briefs paid for only if they developed open sores.
The states were not paying for the briefs saying the supplies do
not correct disabilities, and are thus not medically necessary.
But the Arizona Center for Disability Law argued that the policy
of the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System denies
children preventive care.

The federal court ruling also ordered the state to reimburse
parents for their children's incontinence expenses and pay
attorneys fees.  Some 40 other states cover those supplies.
AHCCCS deputy director Tom Betlach said the ruling could cost up
to $15 million a year.


BAYER AG: U.S. Authority Subpoena for Documents in Baycol Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
German drug maker and chemical company Bayer AG told regulators
it received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey in
February, according to BusinessWeek Online.

One subpoena concerns documents the company provided to the U.S.
Attorney regarding a contract to supply the government with its
now-withdrawn cholesterol drug Baycol.  Bayer faces about 5,900
lawsuits in the U.S., including putative class action suits, the
company said in filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On Aug. 8, 2001 the Food and Drug Administration announced that
Bayer withdrew Baycol from all markets in which it distributed
Baycol and/or Lipobay, other than Japan (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 3, 2001).

According to the FDA, the recall was announced for a number of
reasons, including the fact that more than 480 Baycol users
developed rhabdomyolysis after being prescribed the Baycol.
Rhabdomyolysis is a condition that results in muscle cell
breakdown and release of the contents of muscle cells into the
bloodstream.


BEAR STEARNS: Pac-West, Packeteer 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:

Pac-West Telecomm          (PACW) Nov. 30, 99 - Dec. 6, 00
Packeteer                  (PKTR)  Jul. 27, 99 - Dec. 6, 00
Perot Systems Corp.        (PER)   Feb. 1, 99 - Dec. 6, 00
PSI Technologies Holdings  (PSIT)  Mar. 16, 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: Microtune, Neoforma 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:

Microtune, Inc.      (TUNE)  Aug. 4, 00 -  Dec. 6, 00
Neoforma, Inc.       (NEOF)  Jan. 24, 00 - Dec. 6, 00
Net2Phone, Inc.      (NTOP)  Jul. 29, 99 - Dec. 6, 00
Optio Software, Inc. (OPTO)  Dec. 15, 99 - 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.


BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Continues to Face Ala. Race Bias Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
BellSouth Corp. continues to face a class action filed by five
African-American employees in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, styled, "Gladys Jenkins et al. v.
BellSouth Corporation."

The complaint alleges that the Company discriminated against
current and former African-American employees with respect to
compensation and promotions in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 USC. Section 1981.  Plaintiffs
purport to bring the claims on behalf of two classes:

     (1) all African-American hourly workers employed by
         BellSouth Telecommunications at any time since April
         29, 1998, and

     (2) class of all African-American salaried workers employed
         by BellSouth Telecommunications at any time since April
         29, 1998 in management positions at or below Job Grade
         59/Level C.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified amounts of back pay,
benefits, punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs, as
well as injunctive relief.

The suit is styled, "Jenkins, et al. v. Bellsouth Corp., Case
No. 2:02-cv-01057-VEH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama under Judge Virginia Emerson
Hopkins.  Representing the plaintiff/s are, Lisa M. Bornstein of
MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC, 1300 19th Street NW, Suite 400,
Washington, DC 20036, Phone: 202-822-5100, Fax: 202-822-4997, E-
mail: lbornstein@findjustice.com; and Roderick T. Cooks of
WIGGINS CHILDS QUINN & PANTAZIS, The Kress Building, 301 19th
Street, North Birmingham, AL 35203-3204, Phone: 328-0640, Fax:
254-1500, E-mail: rtc@wcqp.com.

Representing the defendant/s are, Anne M. Brafford and Michael
S. Burkhardt of Morgan, Lewis & Bocklius, LLP, Phone:
213-612-7335 & 1-215-963-5000, Fax: 213-612-2501 &
1-215-963-5001, E-mail: abrafford@morganlewis.com and
mburkhardt@morganlewis.com; and Jeffrey A. Lee of MAYNARD COOPER
& GALE, PC, AmSouth Harbert Plaza, Suite 2400, 1901 6th Avenue
North Birmingham, AL 35203-2618, Phone: 254-1000, Fax: 254-1999,
E-mail: jlee@maynardcooper.com.


BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Continues to Face ERISA Complaint in Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------------
BellSouth Corp. is a defendant in a consolidated class action
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, styled, "In re BellSouth Corporation ERISA Litigation,
Master File No. 1:02-CV-2440-JOF."

In September and October 2002, three substantially identical
class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia against the Corporation, its
directors, three of its senior officers, and other individuals,
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA).  The cases have been consolidated and on April 21,
2003, a consolidated Complaint was filed.  The plaintiffs allege
in the Consolidated Complaint that the company and the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
violation of ERISA, by among other things:

     (1) failing to provide accurate information to BellSouth's
         401(k) plans participants and beneficiaries;

     (2) failing to ensure that the Plans' assets were invested
         properly;

     (3) failing to monitor the Plans' fiduciaries;

     (4) failing to disregard Plan directives that the
         defendants knew or should have known were imprudent and

     (5) failing to avoid conflicts of interest by hiring
         independent fiduciaries to make investment decisions.

In October 2005, plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
denied.  The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of
damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.  Certain
underlying factual allegations regarding the Company's
advertising, Publishing subsidiary and its former Latin American
operation are substantially similar to the allegations in the
putative securities class action captioned, "In re BellSouth
Securities Litigation."

The suit is styled, "In re BellSouth Corporation ERISA
Litigation, Master File No. 1:02-CV-2440-JOF," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge
J. Owen Forrester.  Representing the plaintiff/s are, Scott L.
Adkins of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, Suite
200, 197 South Federal Highway, Boca Raton, FL 33432, Phone:
561-750-3000; and Lynn Lincoln Sarko of Keller Rohrback, 1201
Third Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone:
206-623-1900, E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com.

Representing the defendant/s are, Howard Douglas Hinson, Patrick
Connors DiCarlo, Leslie Maddox Bassett and Peter Marshall Varney
of Alston & Bird, 1201 West Peachtree Street, One Atlantic
Center, Atlanta, GA 30309-3424, Phone: 404-881-7000, 404-881-
4512 and 404-881-7856, Fax: 404-253-8466 and 404-881-7777, E-
mail: dhinson@alston.com, pdicarlo@alston.com,
leslie.bassett@alston.com and peter.varney@alston.com; and
Ashley B. Watson of BellSouth Corporation, 1155 Peachtree
Street, N.E., Suite 1700, Atlanta, GA 30309-3610, Phone: 404-
249-2720, E-mail: ashley.watson@bellsouth.com.


BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Facing N.Y. Consumer Antitrust Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
BellSouth Corp. and certain telcos are defendants in a consumer
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, styled, "William Twombly, et al. v. Bell
Atlantic Corp., et al."

The suit was filed in December 2002, alleging antitrust
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act against:

     (1) BellSouth Corp.;

     (2) Verizon;

     (3) AT&T (formerly known as SBC); and

     (4) Qwest.

It specifically alleged that defendants conspired to restrain
competition by agreeing not to compete with one another and to
impede competition with others.  The plaintiffs are seeking an
unspecified amount of treble damages and injunctive relief, as
well as attorneys' fees and expenses.

In October 2003, the district court dismissed the complaint for
failure to state a claim.  In October 2005, the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision and
remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings.

The suit is styled, "Twombly v. Bell Atlantic, et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-10220-GEL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Gerard E. Lynch.
Representing the plaintiff/s are, J. Douglas Richards of Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New
York, NY 10119, Phone: (212) 946-9390, Fax: (212) 244-5423, E-
mail: drichards@milbergweiss.com.

Representing the defendant/s are:

     (1) Hector Gonzalez and Lily Fu Swenson of Mayer, Brown,
         Rowe & Maw, LLP (NYC), 1675 Broadway, New York, NY
         10019, Phone: (212) 506-2500, Fax: (212) 262-1910, E-
         mail: hgonzalez@mayerbrownrowe.com;

     (2) Colin Ryle Kass of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP (Washington),
         655 Fifteenth Street NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC
         20005, Phone: (202) 879-5172, Fax: (202) 879-5200, E-
         mail: ckass@kirkland.com; and

     (3) Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans PLLC (DC), 1615 M.
         Street, N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C., DC 20036,
         Phone: 202-326-7902, Fax: 202-326-7999, E-mail:
         mkellogg@khhte.com.


BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Facing Securities Fraud Suit in Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
BellSouth Corporation and certain of its senior officers are
defendants in a consolidated securities class action filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and
styled, "In re BellSouth Securities Litigation."

From August through October 2002, several individual
shareholders filed substantially identical class actions against
the Company and three of its senior officers alleging violations
of the federal securities laws.  Pursuant to the provisions of
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995, the court has appointed a Lead Plaintiff.

The Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated and Amended Class Action
Complaint in July 2003 on behalf of two putative classes:

     (1) purchasers of BellSouth stock during the period
         November 7, 2000 through February 19, 2003 for alleged
         violations of Sections 10(b), and 20 of the Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934, and

     (2) participants in BellSouth's Direct Investment Plan
         during the class period for alleged violations of
         Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

Four outside directors were named as additional defendants. The
Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint alleged that
during the class period the Company:

     (1) overstated the unbilled receivables balance of its
         Advertising and Publishing subsidiary;

     (2) failed to properly implement SAB 101 with regard to
         its recognition of Advertising and Publishing revenues;

     (3) improperly billed competitive local exchange carriers
         (CLEC) to inflate revenues;

     (4) failed to take a reserve for refunds that ultimately
         came due following litigation over late payment
         charges; and

     (5) failed to properly write down goodwill of its Latin
         American operations.

On February 8, 2005, the district court dismissed the Exchange
Act claims, except for those relating to the write down of Latin
American goodwill.  On that date, the district court also
dismissed the Securities Act claims, except for those relating
to the write down of Latin American goodwill, the allegations
relating to unbilled receivables of the Company's Advertising
and Publishing subsidiary, the implementation of SAB 101
regarding recognition of Advertising and Publishing revenues and
alleged improper billing of CLECs.  The plaintiffs are seeking
an unspecified amount of damages, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.

The suit is styled, "In re BellSouth Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:02-cv-02142-WSD" filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia under Judge William S. Duffey, Jr.
Plaintiff firms involved in this or a similar case:

     (1) Chitwood & Harley of 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2900
         Promenade II, Atlanta, GA, 30309, Phone: 888.873.3999;

     (2) Fruchter & Twersky, 60 East 42 Street, New York, NY,
         10021, Phone: 212.687.6655; and

     (3) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP, Phone:
         561.361.5000 and 212.594.5300, Fax: 561.367.8400.


BURLINGTON RESOURCES: Reaches Agreement in Okla. Royalties Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in the consolidated class action filed
against Burlington Resources, Inc. and its former affiliate El
Paso Natural Gas Company began in the District Court of Washita
County, State of Oklahoma.

Two class actions were initially filed, styled:

     (1) "Bank of America, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas
         Company, et al., Case No. CJ-97-68," and

     (2) "Deane W. Moore, et al. v. Burlington Northern, Inc.,
         et al., Case No. CJ-97-132."

The court subsequently consolidated the suits.  Plaintiffs
contend that defendants underpaid royalties from 1982 to the
present on natural gas produced from specified wells in Oklahoma
through the use of below-market prices, improper deductions and
transactions with affiliated companies and in other instances
failed to pay or delayed in the payment of royalties on certain
gas sold from these wells.  The plaintiffs seek an accounting
and damages for alleged royalty underpayments, plus interest
from the time such amounts were allegedly due.  Plaintiffs
additionally seek the recovery of punitive damages.

The plaintiffs have not specified in their pleadings the amount
of damages they seek from the Company.  However, through pre-
trial discovery, plaintiffs have provided defendants with
alternative theories of recovery claiming monetary damages of up
to $57 million in principal, plus $417 million in interest, and
unspecified punitive damages and attorney's fees.

The court certified the plaintiff classes of royalty and
overriding royalty interest owners, and trial by jury commenced
on October 10, 2005, during which plaintiffs sought monetary
damages of up to $42 million in principal, plus $311 million in
interest, and unspecified punitive damages and attorney's fees.
The Company presented substantial defenses to these claims.

On November 9, 2005, the parties' counsel entered into a
preliminary agreement to settle this lawsuit for $66 million,
plus interest on this amount commencing January 20, 2006, as
provided in the settlement agreement.  On January 20, 2006, the
Court preliminarily approved the settlement and scheduled a
fairness hearing to determine the fairness to class members of
the proposed settlement, which is scheduled to commence in May
2006.

In a separate action, the Company and El Paso Natural Gas
Company asserted contractual claims for indemnity against each
other.  Both parties thought also reached a preliminary
agreement to settle the contractual indemnity claims against
each other.  The settlement of the indemnity claims is subject
to final court approval of the class action settlement.

Upon final court approval of the class action settlement, the
Company's contribution to the settlement will be approximately
$36 million, plus interest from January 20, 2006, as provided in
the settlement agreement.  The Company has established a reserve
to provide for this potential liability based upon management's
evaluation of this matter.


COLORADO: Hispanic Law Enforcers File Employment Bias Complaints
----------------------------------------------------------------
Latino police officers have filed a class action employment
discrimination complaint against the Denver Police Department,
according to Rocky Mountain News.  The complaint was filed with
the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., and the
federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Denver.

According to the report, the complaint alleges that the
department makeup does not reflect that of the city.  According
to Denver Post, there are 1,493 officers in the Denver Police
Department: about 20 percent are Latino -- 36 women and 266 men.
The complaint also alleged that Hispanics have been slow to earn
promotions and minority officers who file hostile work
environment complaints within the department face retaliation or
find their complaints ignored.

The National Latino Peace Officers Association has been
negotiating with the city for three years, the report said.  The
organization has nearly 100 members locally and 30,000
nationally.


COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Asks Del. Court to Dismiss Investor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Covad Communications Group, Inc. asked the Court of Chancery for
the State of Delaware, New Castle County to dismiss the class
action filed against its current and former directors by the
Company's former general counsel and secretary Druv Khanna.

In June 2002, Dhruv Khanna was relieved of his duties as the
Company's General Counsel and Secretary.  Shortly thereafter,
Mr. Khanna alleged that, over a period of years, certain current
and former directors and officers had breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company by engaging in or approving actions that
constituted waste and self-dealing, that certain current and
former directors and officers had provided false representations
to the Company's auditors and that he had been relieved of his
duties in retaliation for his being a purported whistleblower
and because of racial or national origin discrimination.

Based on the events mentioned above, in September 2003, Mr.
Khanna filed a purported class action and a derivative lawsuit
against the Company's current and former directors.  On August
3, 2004, Mr. Khanna amended his Complaint and two additional
purported shareholders joined the lawsuit.  In this action the
plaintiffs seek recovery on behalf of the Company from the
individual defendants for their purported breach of fiduciary
duty.  The plaintiffs also seek to invalidate the Company's
election of directors in 2002, 2003 and 2004 because they claim
that the Company's proxy statements were misleading.

On October 11, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety and a motion to disqualify Mr.
Khanna and the additional plaintiffs as class representatives.
The motions have not yet been scheduled for hearing.


CRYO-CELL INT'L: Fla. Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
approved the settlement of the consolidated securities class
action filed against Cryo-Cell International, Inc., certain of
its current and former officers and directors and two accounting
firms who previously audited the Company's consolidated
financial statements.

Ten complaints were initially filed, alleging violations of
federal securities laws, including improper recognition of
revenue in the consolidated financial statements presented in
certain public reports of the Company.  On October 22, 2003, all
ten complaints were consolidated (Case No. 03-CV-1011).  On
February 17, 2004, the court appointed lead plaintiffs.  On
April 27, 2004, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint generally seeks, among other things,
certification of a class of persons who purchased the Company's
common stock between March 16, 1999 and May 20, 2003 and
unspecified damages.

The parties have signed a formal stipulation of settlement to
settle the litigation. The settlement fairness hearing was held
on February 25, 2005.  The proposed settlement, which totals $7
million, includes a payment of $4 million, which would be paid
by the carrier of the Company's former auditors, subject to its
applicable deductible.  In addition, the Company's insurance
carrier would pay $3 million on the Company's behalf under its
directors' and officers' insurance policy, subject to its
maximum deductible of $175,000.

The Company previously satisfied the $175,000 deductible under
its directors' and officers' insurance policy, and believes it
will have no further financial obligations under the settlement.

The suit is styled, "Heller, et al. v. Walton, et al., Case No.
8:03-cv-01011-EAK-EAJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida under Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich.
Representing the plaintiff/s are Keith M. Fleischman and Mel E.
Lifschitz, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 E. 40th St.,
22nd Floor, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212/779-1414; and Kenneth
J. Vianale, Vianale & Vianale LLP, 2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
Boca Raton, FL 33431, Phone: 561/392-4750, ext 107, Fax:
561/392-4775, E-mail: e-file@vianalelaw.com.

Representing the Company are Brian Albritton and Tracy A.
Nichols of Holland & Knight LLP, P.O. Box 1288, 100 N. Tampa
St., Suite 4100, 33602-3644, Tampa, FL 33601-1288, Phone:
813/227-8500, Fax: 813/229-0134 or E-mail:
brian.albritton@hklaw.com.


GENERAL MOTORS: Lead Attorney Named in Securities Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has been appointed lead counsel in
the securities class action against General Motors, Inc.,
captioned, "In re General Motors Securities Litigation,
05cv8088(RMB) (S.D.N.Y.)," which includes these securities:

Coupon          Maturity Date         ISIN               CUSIP
------          -------------         ----               -----

8.375 %            07/15/33        US370442BT17       370442BT1
8.25 %             07/15/23        US370442BW46       370442BW4
7.375 %            05/23/48        US370442BQ77       370442BQ7
7.25 %             04/15/41        US3704428164       370442816
7.20 %             01/15/11        US370442BB09       370442BB0
6.25 %             07/15/33        US370442717        370442717
7.5 %              07/01/44        US3704421219       370442121
7.125 %            07/15/13        US370442BS34       370442BS3
7.375 %            05/15/48        US3704427257       370442725
4.5 %              03/06/32        US3704427414       370442741
5.25 %             03/06/32        US3704427331       370442733
7.25 %             02/15/52        US3704427588       370442758
7.375 %            10/01/51        US3704427661       370442766
7.25 %             07/15/41        US3704427745       370442774
7.25 %             07/03/13        XS0171942757              --
8.375 %            07/05/33        XS0171943649              --

For more information, contact Eric J. Belfi of Murray, Frank &
Sailer LLP, E-mail: ebelfi@murrayfrank.com; Gregory B. Linkh, E-
mail: glinkh@murrayfrank.com, Phone: (800) 497-8076 (212) 682-
1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892; Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Investors File Suit Over Ex-CEO's Severance Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Co. shareholders have filed a complaint over the
severance package of Carly Fiorina, who was dismissed as chief
executive last year, according to BusinessWeek Online.  The suit
also names as defendants eight other current or former HP
directors:

     (1) Patricia Dunn;

     (2) Lawrence Babbio;

     (3) Richard Hackborn;

     (4) George Keyworth II;

     (5) Robert Knowling Jr.;

     (6) Thomas Perkins, Robert Ryan; and

     (7) Lucille Salhany.

The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on May 6.  It claims the more than $42
million in cash, stock and other benefits to the former CEO
violates a 2003 board policy providing that the company's
severance payments would be limited to 2.99 times an executive's
combined salary and annual bonus.

Shareholders are represented by:

     Michael J. Barry
     Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
     Chase Manhattan Centre, 1201 North Market Street
     Wilmington, Delaware 19801
     (New Castle Co.)
     Phone: 302-622-7000
     Fax: 302-622-7100


ILLINOIS: U.S. High Court Keeps Avery V. State Farm Suit Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court refused on Monday to review a case that
overturned a $1.06 billion ruling against State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Co., according to Reuters.

Common Cause, BPI and Citizen Action/Illinois groups challenged
the ruling in the State of Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board
alleging the judge, who made the decisive vote on the 2005
decision, received money from company lawyers and executives for
his election to the Illinois Supreme Court.

In Illinois, Supreme Court justices are voted through partisan
elections.  In such election in November 2004, Justice Lloyd A.
Karmeier, a Republican, beat Appellate Judge Gordon Maag who
wrote an opinion in favor of Michael Avery in a suit versus
State Farm, and who participated in the Appellate Court
proceedings on an appeal of the amount of the bond in the Price
v. Philip Morris Inc. case (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 9,
2006).

The Avery suit was filed on behalf of customers of the
Bloomington, Ill.-based State Farm, accusing the company of
fraud for refusing to pay for top-quality replacement parts on
damaged cars.  The company was ordered in 1999 to pay $1.19
billion in damages.  An appeals court reduced it to $1.06
billion.  In 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court was to finally
decide on the award.  That was when Judge Karmeier had been
asked to stay out of the cases on the basis of his election ties
with the companies.

After his election, Judge Karmeier sided with State Farm, and
separately voted to throw out a $10 billion fraud judgment
against Philip Morris' marketing of its "light" cigarettes.  IN
the Avery suit, the Supreme Court ruled the plaintiffs had
failed to show damages.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court said there was no reason for
Judge Karmeier to remove himself from participating in the
decision.

For more information, contact: Todd Dietterle, State Chairman of
Common Cause Illinois, Phone: +1-312-332-1103; E. Hoy McConnell,
Executive Director of Business and Professional People For the
Public Interest, Phone: +1-312-759-8259; or William McNary, Co-
Director of Citizen Action, Illinois, Phone: +1-312-427-2114,
ext. 2.


INDIANA: Morgan County Residents Named in Drug Hunt File Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Monrovia lawyer filed a tort claim with the Morgan County
Commissioners to inform them of a planned class action in
relation to the authorities' hunt for people with past history
of drug charges.

Lawyer Steve Litz (P.O. Box 216, Monrovia, Indiana; Morgan Co.)
intends to file a suit against the county in behalf of four
people who claimed they were humiliated after being charged for
purchasing more than the legal limit of ephedrine or
pseudoephedrine.  A law prohibits the purchase more than three
grams of either drug within a week.

Robin A. McKinney, Gary D. Bolin, Heather Janae Lloyd, and
Richard L. Urich were charged Class C Misdemeanor, which is the
least of the criminal charges that can be filed.  The four, who
were charged along with several other county residents, contend
they have never had drug charges filed against them.  They are
each requesting $75,000 in damages.

Courts issued arrest warrants for 17 people and search warrants
for 12 locations after checking the logs of businesses who sell
medicine with the two restricted substances.


INTERNATIONAL PLAYTHINGS: Recalls Toy Phones for Choking Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
International Playthings Inc., of Parsippany, New Jersey,
voluntarily recalls 50,500 iPlay My First Mobile Phones.
Consumers are advised to stop using recalled products
immediately.

The company said the toy phone's yellow antenna can detach,
posing a choking hazard to young children.  CPSC and the firm
have received one report of the antenna breaking off, but no
injuries have been reported.

My First Mobile phone is a red and blue, flip-style mobile phone
with a yellow bear on the cover and a yellow, hard plastic
antenna.  Inside the flip phone are five round orange numeric
buttons, as well as a sun button.  The phone sounds with various
ring tones when the buttons are depressed.  On the inside top
cover on the phone is a mirror and a spinning star with a
ladybug button. "Made in China" is printed on the back of the
battery cover.

The China-made toys were sold at specialty toy stores nationwide
from August 2002 through November 2005 for about $13.

Consumers are advised to contact the firm to receive information
on returning the product to receive a free replacement item of
similar value.

Picture of the recalled product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06099.jpg

Consumer Contact: International Playthings, Phone:
(800) 445-8347; Web site: http://www.intplay.com/recall.htm


KVH INDUSTRIES: Shareholders' Complaint Awaits Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
KVH Industries Inc. has until March 13 to respond to a lead
plaintiff's motion to have a suit over the price of its
Tracvision A5 antenna certified as class action, according to
TelecomWeb.

In 2004, securities class actions were initiated against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode
Island.  This was after KVH slashed the price of its flagship
Tracvision A5 antenna by 34% from $3,495 to $2,295.  The
complaint charges KVH and certain of its officers and directors
of issuing false and misleading statements regarding KVH's
increasing financial results and the strong demand for its newly
developed TracVision A5 and G8 satellite TV systems.

A December 2005 issue of Class Action Reporter stated that the
U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island dismissed
in part the consolidated securities class action filed against
KVH and certain of its officers.  This matter consolidates into
one action eight separate complaints filed between July 21, 2004
and September 15, 2004.

On January 14, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.  The court heard oral arguments on
May 10, 2005.  The court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss.  On October 14, 2005, defendants
answered the consolidated complaint and denied liability and all
allegations of wrongdoing.  The Teamsters Affiliates Pension
Plan has been appointed lead plaintiff.

KVH describes itself as a designer, manufacturer and marketer of
mobile satellite communications products for the
automotive/recreational vehicle/marine markets and navigation,
guidance and stabilization products for defense markets.

The suit is styled 'Sekuk Global, et al v. KVH Industries, Inc.,
et al., case no. 1:04-cv-00306-ML,' filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Rhode Island, under Judge Mary M Lisi.
Representing the plaintiffs are Matthew F. Medeiros, Little,
Medeiros, Kinder, Bulman & Whitney, 72 Pine St., 5th Floor,
Providence, RI 02903, Phone: 401-272-8080 Fax: 401-521-3555; and
Barry J. Kusinitz, 155 South Main St., Suite 405, Providence, RI
02903, Phone: 401-831-4200, Fax: 401-831-7053.

Representing the Company are John H. Henn, Kalun Lee, Brandon F.
White, Foley Hoag LLP, 155 Seaport Boulevard,  Boston, MA 02210,
Phone: 617-832-1000, Fax: 617-832-7000; and Brooks R. Magratten,
Benjamin V. White III, Vetter & White, Incorporated, 20
Washington Place, Providence, RI 02903, Phone: 401-421-3060,
Fax: 401-272-6803.


MAN'S TRADING: Recalls Toy Jewelry Due to Aspiration Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Man's Trading Company, of Brisbane, California voluntarily
recalls 144,500 sets of "Girl Favors" Children's Toy Jewelry.
Consumers are advised to stop using recalled products
immediately.

The company said the recalled jewelry could break, releasing
small beads that pose an aspiration hazard to young children.
No injuries have been reported.

The jewelry includes various colored plastic bead bracelets,
rings and necklaces on elastic strings.  They were sold under
the brand name "Girl Favors" and had the following item numbers
and writing on the packaging:

Item
Number      Product
PF-1531      4 Smiley Bead Bracelets
PF-1532      4 Clear Bead Necklaces
PF-1533      6 Clear Bead Bracelets & Rings
PF-1536      4 Power Bead Bracelets
PF-1541      3 Heart Necklaces
PF-1549      4 Ice Cube Bracelets

The China-made toys were sold at various dollar stores
nationwide from July 2003 through December 2005 for about $1.

Consumers are advised to take these recalled items away from
children immediately and discard them or return them to the
store where purchased for a refund.

Picture of the recalled produce:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06103.jpg

Consumer Contact: MTC-Man's Trading Company, Phone:
(800) 388-7228 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday: Fax: (415) 468-7300; E-mail: mtcmans@aol.com; Web site:
http://www.mtcmans.com.


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Court Mulls Appeal of Md. Fraud Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule on the
appeal of the dismissal of a class action filed against
Nationwide Life Insurance Company, styled "Robert Helman, et al.
v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company, et al."

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona, challenges the sale of deferred annuity products for
use as investments in tax-deferred contributory retirement
plans. On April 8, 2004, the plaintiff filed an amended class
action complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased an
individual variable deferred annuity contract or a certificate
to a group variable annuity contract issued by the Company or
Nationwide Life Annuity and Insurance Company (NLAIC) which were
allegedly used to fund certain tax-deferred retirement plans.
The amended class action complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages.

The Company and NLAIC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
May 24, 2004. On July 27, 2004, the court granted the motion to
dismiss. The plaintiff has appealed that dismissal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The suit is styled, "Helman v. Nationwide Life Ins, et al., case
no. 2:03-cv-02138-FJM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona, under Judge Frederick J. Martone.
Representing the plaintiffs are Andrew S. Friedman of Bonnett
Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, 2901 N Central Ave, Ste 1000,
Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311, Phone: 602-776-5903, Fax: 602-274-1199,
E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com; and Brian C. Kerr, Janine L.
Pollack, Michael C. Spencer and Lee A. Weiss, Milberg Weiss
Bershad & Schulman LLP, 1 Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New
York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: (202) 783-6091.

Representing the Company are Arlo Devlin-Brown, Charles C.
Platt, Susan Schroeder, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP,
399 Park Ave., 31st Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 230-
8800; and Teresita Angela Tan Mercado and Donald A. Wall, Squire
Sanders & Dempsey LLP, 2 Renaissance Sq., 40 N. Central Ave.,
Phoenix, AZ 85004-4441, Phone: 602-528-4000, Fax: 602-253-8129,
E-mail: tmercado@ssd.com and dwall@ssd.com.


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Faces Insurance Lawsuit in Ohio State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Life Insurance Company was named as a defendant in a
class action filed in Common Pleas Court, Franklin County, Ohio,
entitled, "Michael Carr v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company."

The complaint, filed on February 11, 2005, seeks recovery for
breach of contract, fraud by omission, violation of the Ohio
Deceptive Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment.  It also
seeks unspecified compensatory damages, disgorgement of all
amounts in excess of the guaranteed maximum annual premium and
attorneys' fees.

On February 2, 2006, the court granted the plaintiff's motion
for class certification on the breach of contract and unjust
enrichment claims.  The court certified a class consisting of
all residents of the U.S. who, during the class period from
February 10, 1995 through February 2, 2006, purchased life
insurance policies from the Company that provided for guaranteed
maximum premiums and who paid premiums on a modal basis to the
Company.

Excluded from the class are the Company; any parent, subsidiary
or affiliate of the Company; all employees, officers and
directors of the Company; and any justice, judge or magistrate
judge of the State of Ohio who may hear the case.  The case is
currently set for trial on April 10, 2006.


PEROT SYSTEMS: Tex. Court Mulls Dismissal of Stock Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division has yet to rule on Perot Systems Corporation's
motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated class action
filed against the Company Ross Perot and Ross Perot, Jr.  The
suit is styled, "Vincent Milano v. Perot Systems Corporation."

Eight suits were initially filed in June, July and August 2002,
alleging violations of Rule 10b-5, and, in some of the cases,
common law fraud.  These suits allege that the Company's filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission contained material
misstatements or omissions of material facts with respect to its
activities related to the California energy market.  All of
these eight cases were later consolidated.  On October 19, 2004,
the court dismissed the case with leave for plaintiffs to amend.
In December 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint.

In February 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Consolidated Complaint.  The plaintiffs are
seeking unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys’
fees and costs.

The suit is styled, "Milano v. Perot Systems Corp, et al., case
no. 3:02-cv-01269," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, under Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater.
Representing the plaintiffs is William B. Federman, Federman &
Sherwood - Oklahoma City, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma
City, OK 73102, Phone: 405/235-1560, Fax: 405/239-2112, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com.

Representing the Company are Stephen G. Gleboff of Hughes &
Luce, BankOne Center, 1717 Main St, Suite 2800, Dallas, TX
75201, Phone: 214/939-5500, Fax: 214/939-6100, E-mail:
steve.gleboff@hughesluce.com; and Stephen C. Rasch, Thompson &
Knight, 1700 Pacific Ave., Suite 3300, Dallas, TX 75201-4693,
Phone: 214/969-1700, Fax: 214/969-1751, E-mail:
raschs@tklaw.com.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Retirees Oppose Lerach Coughlin's $98M Fee
----------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications retirees call as "extremely outrageous"
attempts by attorneys to collect $98 million in fees from a $400
million shareholder class-action settlement, The Rocky Mountain
News reports.

The Association of U.S. West Retirees complained in a filing in
U.S. District Court in Denver, Colorado that the shareholders'
lead law firm, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
of San Diego is requesting fees equivalent to $1,750 an hour.
According to the filing by the retirees group's attorney, Curtis
Kennedy, the law firm is "trying to pull a fast one" by asking
for $10 million to cover work done by in-house accountants paid
by the law firm.

In addition, Mr. Kennedy wrote, "It is all too obvious that lead
counsel are the mere jackals to the government's lions, feasting
after both the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission and the U.S.
Justice Department made the kill."  But "unlike the jackal, they
seek the lion's share" of the settlement.

The proposed $400 million settlement would resolve the major
consolidated shareholder lawsuit against the Company regarding
alleged securities fraud between 1999-2002.  The company
previously settled alleged misdeeds with the SEC for $250
million, money that also will be distributed to eligible
shareholders.

Since July 27, 2001, 13 putative class action complaints have
been filed against the Company.  One of those cases has been
dismissed.  By court order, the remaining actions have been
consolidated into a consolidated securities action.  In
November, Qwest Communications reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against it in the
U.S. District Court of Colorado, alleging violations of federal
securities laws, (Class Action Reporter, March 3, 2006).

In a prepared statement, Lerach Coughlin spokeswoman Kathleen
Walsh said that the law firm would wait for the decision from
the court on its request for 24 percent of the $400 million
settlement, plus $2.2 million for out-of-pocket expenses.  She
added though: "Lerach Coughlin has vigorously litigated this
case for a period of over four years.  Lerach Coughlin took on a
substantial risk in this case with no assurance of success.
However, the result is an excellent settlement in an extremely
complex and difficult case.  And the lead plaintiffs and class
representatives support the fee requested."

A hearing to determine the fairness of the proposed settlement
and attorney fees is scheduled for May 19.  However, the
retirees group is asking for a delay and more court scrutiny,
contending it's premature to hold a final hearing because of
insufficient documentation.  "While the reward for success
should justifiably be substantial, that does not necessarily
equate to rates that are forty or fifty times higher than the
average wage earner," Mr. Kennedy, the retirees attorney, said
in the filing.

For example, according to the retirees, Lerach Coughlin is
asking for $394,891 to cover "meals, hotels and transportation,"
without giving any receipts.  Additionally, Mr. Kennedy claims
the law firm is asking for $6.9 million of fees for work
performed by an unidentified "document clerk," who is shown as
getting hourly rates of $135 to $200.

He also said that the law firm failed to provide a phone number
or e-mail address on its notice to class-action members,
hampering their efforts to clarify how the settlement would be
distributed.  Since it didn't disclose details about its fee
until more than six weeks after the class notice was mailed, a
stockholder now would have to download the documents
electronically at a cost of up to $66.72, according to the
filing.  Mr. Kennedy thus wrote, "Lead counsel's dearth of
disclosures in the class notice reflects a very cavalier
approach to seeking an exorbitant amount of attorneys' fees and
expenses in shareholder lawsuits settled well before trial on
the merits."

The suit is styled, "In re Qwest Communications International,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-cv-1451-REB-CBS,
(Consolidated with Civil Action Nos. 01-cv-1472-REB-CBS, 01-cv-
1527-REB-CBS, 01-cv-1616-REB-CBS, 01-cv-1799-REB-CBS, 01-cv-
1930-REB-CBS, 01-cv-2083-REB-CBS, 02-cv-0333-REB-CBS, 02-cv-
0374-REB-CBS, 02-cv-0507-REB-CBS, 02-cv-0658-REB-CBS, 02-cv-755-
REB-CBS, 02-cv-798-REB-CBS and 04-cv-0238-REB-CBS)," filed in
the U.S. District for the District of Colorado under Judge
Robert E. Blackburn with referral to Judge Craig B. Shaffer.
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, X. Jay Alvarez, Spencer A.
Burkholz, Michael J. Dowd, Thomas E. Egler, Ray A. Mandlekar and
Scott Saham of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins,
LLP-SD CA, 655 West Broadway #1900, San Diego, CA 92101, U.S.A,
Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423, E-mail:
JayA@lerachlaw.com, SpenceB@lerachlaw.com, MikeD@lerachlaw.com,
TomE@lerachlaw.com, raym@lerachlaw.com and scotts@lerachlaw.com;
and Jeffrey Allen Berens of Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th
Avenue, Denver, CO 80218-1417, Phone: U.S.A, Phone:
303-861-3003, Fax: 303-830-6920, E-mail: jberens@dyershuman.com.

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


RC2 CORPORATION: Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over Warranty Policy Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action was filed in February 2006 in Illinois
state court against Learning Curve International, Inc., RC2
Brands, Inc. and RC2 Corp. in a case entitled, "Brady, et al. v.
Learning Curve International, Inc., et al."

The suit purports to include a proposed class of all purchasers
of Thomas & Friends Wooden Railway System trains and train
accessories that were sold with a "lifetime guarantee."  The
complaint relates to a change in the Company's warranty policy
regarding these Thomas& Friends products from a lifetime
guarantee to a limited warranty for 90 days after the date of
purchase, and alleges that this warranty change constituted a
breach of express warranty, consumer fraud and deceptive
business practices, and unjust enrichment.  The plaintiffs seek
actual damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief.


REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Reaches Agreement in N.Y. Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

In May 2003, securities class actions were commenced against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors.  A
consolidated amended class action complaint was filed in October
2003.  The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of
a class consisting of investors in the Company's publicly traded
securities between March 28, 2000 and March 30, 2003, alleges
that the defendants misstated or omitted material information
concerning the safety and efficacy of AXOKINE, a product then
being developed by the Company for the treatment of obesity, in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On August 3, 2005, the plaintiffs and the Company entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement settling all claims
against the Company in this lawsuit.  On November 14, 2005, the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
approved the terms of a settlement between plaintiffs and the
Company settling all claims against the it in this lawsuit.  The
settlement requires no payment by the Company or any of the
individual defendants named in the lawsuit.  The Company primary
insurance carrier agreed to make the required payment under the
settlement, the amount of which is immaterial to it.  The
settlement includes no admission of wrongdoing by the Company or
any of the individual defendants.

Separately, the plaintiffs and the individual defendants named
in the lawsuit entered into a Stipulation of Voluntary
Dismissal, which dismissed all claims against the individuals
with prejudice.  This voluntary dismissal shall automatically
become a dismissal with prejudice, without costs, upon the court
entering an order and final judgment approving the settlement.

The suit is styled, "Phillips v. Regeneron Pharm., et al., Case
No. 1:03-cv-03111-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Robert W. Sweet.
Representing the plaintiff/s are Nadeem Faruqi of Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP, 320 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
(212) 983-9330, Fax: (212) 983-9331, E-mail:
nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com; and Peter Edward Seidman and Richard H.
Weiss of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC), One
Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: (212) 613-5625,
Fax: (212) 868-1229, E-mail: pseidman@milberg.com.

Representing the Company are Dennis Patrick Orr of Mayer Brown
Rowe & Maw LLP (Chicago), 71 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL
60606, Phone: (212) 506-2500, Fax: (212) 262-1910 E-mail:
dorr@mayerbrownrowe.com; and Lauren E. Aguiar of Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom L.L.P., 4 Times Square, New York, NY
10036, Phone: (212) 735-3000.


SHELL OIL: 2009 Deadline Set for Claims in 'Qest' Pipes Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Homeowners eligible for compensation in a class action against
Shell Oil over polybutylene pipes, also known as 'Qest' pipes,
have until 2009 to file claims, according to WTKR.  A statute of
limitations to the filing now exists, the report said.

According to WTKR, the presiding judge established the Consumer
Plumbing Recovery Center to dole out more than $1 billion
settlement.  The pipes caused leaks in tens of thousands of
homes in Hampton Roads, Virginia.

The Shell Oil Company reached $20 million class action
settlement regarding polybutylene (PB) plumbing and/or heating
systems reports (Class Action Reporter, June 18, 2004).
Another defendant, E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company previously
settled, the Canada Newswire.

The settlement applies to legal proceedings:

     (1) Furlan v. Shell Oil Company, et al., No. C967236, in
         the Supreme Court of British Columbia;

     (2) Gariepy v. Shell Oil Company, et al., No. 307981/99,
         Ontario Superior Court of Justice; and

     (3) Couture v. Shell Oil Company, et al., No. 200 06-
         000001-985, Quebec Superior Court of Justice.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Settlement Proposed for School Drug Raid Suit
----------------------------------------------- -------------
Attorneys discussed at a conference on March 1 a proposed
settlement of civil rights class actions arising from a
Stratford High School drug raid, according to ABC News 4.

The planned settlement requires students to fill out a
questionnaire describing where they were and how they were
treated during a 2003 drug sweep to determine eligibility and
amount of potential claims.  Students could share more than $1
million in the settlement, according to the report.

In 2004, The Goose Creek Police Department faced a federal
lawsuit filed by parents of students at Stratford High School,
alleging that their children were terrorized by armed police and
drug-sniffing dogs during an illegal search at the school,
Reuters news reports (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 20, 2004).
The suit also names as defendant the Berkeley County School
system.

On November 5,2003, a surprise commando-style drug raid was
conducted on 107 Stratford High students.  A widely televised
surveillance tape of the raid showed police with guns drawn,
handcuffing students with plastic cuffs and ordering them not to
move while officers and dogs searched them.  No drugs or weapons
were found and no arrests were made.

The suit is pending in the U.S. District Court in Charleston,
South Carolina, on behalf of 20 Stratford High students aged 14
to 18, charging police and school officials with:

     (1) violating the students' constitutional rights by
         conducting an illegal search and seizure,

     (2) using excessive force,

     (3) committing assault and battery and

     (4) subjecting students to false imprisonment

The American Civil Liberties Union represents the plaintiffs.


STAPLES INC: Continues to Face Consolidated Labor Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Staples, Inc., is a defendant in a consolidated class action
pending in a California state court, styled, "Staples Overtime
Cases."

Various class actions were brought against the Company for
alleged violations of what is known as California's wage and
hour law.  The first of these lawsuits was filed on October 21,
1999.  These cases were subsequently consolidated as the
"Staples Overtime Cases," Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Orange, Civil Complex Center, (Judicial
Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4235, Lead Case No. 816121).

The plaintiffs have alleged that the Company improperly
classified both general and assistant store managers as exempt
under the California wage and hour law, making such managers
ineligible for overtime wages. The plaintiffs are seeking to
require us to pay overtime wages to the putative class for the
period from October 21, 1995 to the present.  The court has
granted class certification to the plaintiffs.  The court's
ruling is procedural only and does not address the merits of the
plaintiffs' allegations.

The Company believes that the class was improperly certified and
intends to appeal the decision.  If the case goes to trial, the
Company also believes that it has meritorious defenses in the
litigation and expects to prevail.  If, however, there is an
adverse judgment from which there is no successful appeal,
damages could range from $10 million to $150 million, excluding
interest and attorney's fees.


STATE STREET: Delphi Employees Sue to Recover Pension Losses
------------------------------------------------------------
Employees in bankrupt auto components maker Delphi Corp. filed a
consolidated class action complaint against State Street Bank &
Trust Co. in federal court in Detroit on March 3, according to
Bloomberg News.

The complaint alleges the administrator of Delphi's retirement
plan procrastinated in selling Delphi stock while the company
edged toward bankruptcy, resulting to millions in losses.  State
Street didn't start selling Delphi stock (NYSE: DPH) until three
days before the company filed for bankruptcy in October, the
complaint said.  It also claims the fund administrator disposed
of the stock despite signs that the company is no longer likely
to service its debts, and that it was no longer safe to invest
in the stock.  The Delphi employees want State Street to
reimburse them for losses.  State Street Bank is a unit of
Boston-based State Street Corp.


STOCK DEVELOPMENT: Faces Fla. Suit Over Fort Myers Condominium
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Indiana man initiated a class action against Stock
Development of Naples, Florida, contending that it illegally
canceled reservation agreements for a Fort Myers condominium
resort community.  The company allegedly told homeowners they
have to pay 8 percent more or back out, The Naples Daily News
reports.

However, an attorney for Stock Development denies any deceptive
and unfair trade practices.  Instead, according to him,
hurricanes, labor and construction increases pushed the condo's
costs well over 8 percent.

Douglas Roby, who filed his lawsuit recently in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, told The
Naples Daily News that he signed a reservation agreement to
purchase a condo in Paseo, off Daniels Parkway, for $298,990 on
Feb. 5, 2005.  He said he paid a $2,500 deposit to reserve his
unit for that price.

But in November, Mr. Roby and other buyers received a form
letter indicating there were delays and that, due to
"circumstances beyond our control," including obtaining permits
for utilities, the Company had to raise the purchase prices of
all units by 8 percent.  That letter told buyers: "Since January
2005, unprecedented sales volume in Southwest Florida has
created a labor and material shortage that has resulted in
record increases in the cost of materials to the home-building
industry.  These conditions were further exaggerated due to the
effects of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and now, Wilma.  Not immune
from these increases, Stock Development has diligently
investigated ways to absorb the increasing costs without
compromising the quality of the product being offered at Paseo."

Rather than reduce the overall amenity package and homeowners'
specifications, the Company said it was forced to make the
"difficult decision" of increasing prices.  The Company's web
site shows the community includes a resort-style pool, spa and
fitness facilities, a community movie theater, pub and caf‚, dry
cleaner, post office, and many outdoor activities.

The buyers also received a Notice of Termination of Reservation
Agreement and an Authorization to Proceed to Contract.  Faced
with no alternative, the suit said, Mr. Roby signed the contract
for the higher price, a $23,000 increase.

"There are a lot of people who walked away who wouldn't pay the
increased prices," according to attorney Eric Stiffler of Bonita
Springs, one of four lawyers handling the class-action case.  He
added, "We contend the price the people contracted for is the
price they should get the unit for, not the increased price."

The letter shows buyers were given 10 days to accept or reject
the increase.  The suits says more than 450 transactions were
terminated and alleges the Company used a "bait and switch"
tactic to reap "ill-gotten gains."  It further alleges, "Due to
the rapidly increasing prices in the Southwest Florida market."
The suit also says, "Stock was virtually guaranteed that it
could deceptively sell these properties at the low original
price and then subsequently increase the prices in order to
substantially increase its profits."

The suit alleges that when the Company wrote the original
agreement, it was aware prices on new construction had increased
by up to 40 percent over the past three years.  The complaint
says 8 percent, which is lower than the average increase charged
to buyers, caused Stock's prices to swell more than $10 million.
Although there were 453 lots being sold, according to the suit,
the Company over-reserved lots with three back-up purchasers per
lot, each paying more than $2,000 in deposits for the "exclusive
right" to buy at a certain price.  The deposits, the suit says,
helped the Company secure financing and enabled it to proceed.

The reservation agreement that buyers signed revealed that the
Company did say it could be terminated by the developer or buyer
at any time up to purchase.  However, attorney Eric Lee of Boca
Raton, the lawsuit's lead counsel, argues that the Company
didn't follow the law when it terminated the agreements.

"They agreed to sell for a certain price and it doesn't say the
costs could go up," Mr. Lee said, adding that they weren't suing
for breach of contract or failure to comply, but were alleging
deceptive sales practices. "It doesn't matter if they had an
'out' or not."

The attorneys have spoken to many Paseo buyers and Mr. Lee told
The Naples Daily News that he's reviewing reservation agreements
involving other Company developments and expects to file similar
class actions.

Florida statutes say a reservation agreement form shall include:
A statement saying the purchase price in the reservation
agreement will be the sales price in the purchase contract, or
that the price represented may be exceeded within a stated
amount or percentage, or that no assurance is given as to the
price in the contract for purchase or sale.

Mr. Lee argues that that the Company knew the law, since
reservation agreements for single-family homes in Paseo followed
that statute, giving no assurances about sales prices.  In this
case, according to him, buyers were told the condominium price
they signed for would be the price at closing.

Specifically, Mr. Lee cited a 2003 Florida case, "Fendrich vs.
RBF LLC," in which a buyer paid a $25,000 deposit to purchase a
specific lot at a stated price, but five months later, when he
was signing the purchase agreement, he was offered an inferior
lot at a higher price.  An appeal court ruled that state law
prohibits practices "likely to mislead consumers" and called it
a case of "bait and switch."

Attorney Edmond Koester of Naples, who is representing the
Company, said that the company's costs exceeded 8 percent and
weren't "premeditated."  He pointed out that "any brain-damaged
human being" would understand the factors pushing costs up.  He
specifically pointed out, "After the hurricanes hit and even
before the hurricanes hit, the cost of labor and materials were
continuing to increase.  There was a crystal clear reservation
agreement that said it could be canceled and it was not a
binding contract."

In addition, Mr. Koester argues that waiting lists and lotteries
for spots in condo communities are common and aren't unfair.  He
adds, "In my opinion, it's just a frivolous and pernicious
lawsuit without merit.  We're confident we'll prevail on the
merits. ... Given the lack of merits (on this lawsuit), we're
not shaking waiting for the next claim.  Stock thinks it's
unfair that they would file such a claim."

The suit is styled, "Roby v. Stock Development, LLC, Case No.
2:06-cv-00081-JES-SPC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida under Judge John E. Steele with
referral to Judge Sheri Polster Chappell.  Representing the
plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Eric A. Lee of Lee & Amtzis, P.L., 5550 Glades Rd.,
         Suite 401, Boca Raton, FL 33431, Phone: 561/981-9988,
         Fax: 561/981-9980, E-mail: lee@leeamlaw.com;

     (2) John Eric Stiffler of Kelley Stiffler Thomas, PLLC,
         P.O. Box 2485, Bonita Springs, FL 34135, Phone:
         239/949-8639, Fax: 239/949-2453, E-mail:
         eric@kstlawyers.com; and

     (3) Douglas Blankman of Kopelman & Blankman, P.A., 350 E.
         Las Olas Blvd., Suite 980, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301,
         Phone: 954/462-6855, Fax: 954/462-6899.

Representing the defendant/s is Edmond E. Koester of Goodlette,
Coleman & Johnson, P.A., 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300,
Naples, FL 34103, Phone: 239/435-3535, Fax: 239/435-1218, E-
mail: ekoester@gcjlaw.com.


SUPERIOR FORESTRY: Faces Suit in Tenn. Over Migrant Workers' Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal lawsuit was launched on behalf of three migrant
workers from Mexico who claim their Arkansas-based employer,
Superior Forestry Service, failed to pay them as promised to
plant trees in Tennessee, WBIR.com reports.

Filed five weeks ago in Columbia by the Southern Poverty Law
Center, the lawsuit seeks to become a class action for an
estimated 15-hundred migrant temporary workers that the Tilly,
Arkansas-based Company, employed over the past six years.  In
addition it also seeks back pay, travel expenses, other monetary
damages and an injunction prohibiting the company from violating
federal wage and working condition laws.  The three named
plaintiffs are Andres Aldana-Moreno, Jesus Santiago-Salmoran,
and Jose Rosiles-Perez.

The lawsuit was recently assigned to federal District Judge
William Haynes.  No trial date though was scheduled.

The suit is styled, "Rosiles-Perez, et al. v. Superior Forestry
Service, Inc., et al. Case No. 1:06-cv-00006," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee under Judge
William J. Haynes.  Representing the plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Clifton David Briley of Briley Law Group, PLLC, 511
         Union Street, Suite 1610, Nashville, TN 37219, Phone:
         (615) 986-2684, E-mail: david@brileylaw.com;

     (2) Tim A. Freilich of Legal Aid Justice Center, 1000
         Preston Avenue, Suite A, Charlottesville, VA 22903, US,
         Phone: (434) 977-0553 x 111, Fax: (434) 977-0558, E-
         mail: tim@justice4all.org;

     (3) Mary C. Bauer, Kristi Graunke and Jennifer J. Rosenbaum
         of Southern Poverty Law Center, Immigrant Justice
         Project, 400 Washington Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36104,
         US, Phone: (334) 956-8200, Fax: (334) 956-8481, E-mail:
         kgraunke@splcenter.org and
         jennifer.rosenbaum@splcenter.org;

     (4) Marni Willenson of Willenson Law Group, LLC, 4308 N.
         Ridgeway Avenue, Chicago, IL 60618, US, Phone: (312)
         546-4137, Fax: (312) 261-9977, E-mail:
         marni.willenson@gmail.com;

     (5) James M. Knoepp of Virginia Justice Center for Farm and
         Immigrant Workers, 6066 Leesburg Pike, Suite 520, Falls
         Church, VA 22041, US, Phone: (703) 778-3450, Fax: (703)
         778-3454; and

     (6) Matthew J. Piers and Joshua Karsh of Hughes, Socol,
         Piers, Resnick & Dum, Ltd., 70 W. Madison, Suite 4000,
         Chicago, IL 60602-4692, US, Phone: (312) 580-0100, Fax:
         (312) 580-1994.


TUTOGEN MEDICAL: Transplant Patient Files Lawsuit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A Florida woman is suing the company that received suspect bones
used for a transplant operation on her face, according to
Associated Press.

Kay Phelps is suing Tutogen Medical Inc. in Circuit Court,
alleging the corpse from which the bone was taken had not been
screened for HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.  Ms. Phelps twice
tested negative for AIDS, but said she suffered anguish over a
possible infection.   Her suit seeks class-action status on
behalf of all patients in Florida who might have received the
tissue that was sold to medical supply houses that supplied
surgeons.

The suit is not seeking damages, but is demanding payment for
medical testing for all patients who received tissue from this
company for the next "eight to 10 years."  Ms. Phelps is
represented by lawyer Thomas Thompson.

Tutogen Medical is one of five companies that received tissue
and bone from Biomedical Tissue Services of Fort Lee, N.J.
Experts in the field say the body parts were illegally taken
from corpses at six funeral homes in New York, New Jersey and
Philadelphia.  Biomedical is also facing class actions in
relation to its operation.

Tutogen Medical on the Net: http://www.tutogen.com/.


UNILEVER: Recalls Facial Cleansing Massager After Injury Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Unilever, of Trumbull, Connecticut, voluntarily recalls about
438,000 units (about 50,000 of which have been purchased by
consumers) of Dove SkinVitalizer - Facial Cleansing Massager.
Consumers are advised to stop using recalled products
immediately.

The company said the cleansing pillows on this device can loosen
or dislodge during use and then the SkinVitalizer can cause
minor scratches to the skin.  Unilever has received 33 reports
of cleansing pillows from the SkinVitalizer falling off of the
device.  Unilever has received nine reports of consumers who
have experienced minor scratches while using the product.  No
serious injuries have been reported.

The recall involves a white hand-held Facial Cleansing Massager
wand that is intended for use with Dove Cleansing Pillows.  When
turned on, the unit vibrates.  This notice applies to all units
and all codes of the SkinVitalizer.  No other Dove products or
Dove Facial Cleansing pillows are involved in this recall.

The product was made in China, and sold at discount department,
drug and grocery stores nationwide during February 2006 for
about $10.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the product and
contact Unilever for information on receiving a full refund.
Unilever will provide all shipping charges for returned
SkinVitalizer units.

Picture of the recalled product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06098.jpg

Consumer Contact: Unilever, Phone: (800) 896-9479; Web site:
http://www.dove.com.


VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Veeco Instruments, Inc. faces a consolidated securities class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, captioned, "In Re: Veeco Instruments Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 7:05-md-01695-CM."

Following the February 11, 2005 announcement, ten putative class
action shareholder lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District
Court in the Southern District of New York and in the Eastern
District of New York asserting claims for violation of federal
securities laws on behalf of persons who acquired the Company's
securities during the period beginning November 3, 2003 and
ending February 10, 2005.   These actions were consolidated into
one action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York and an amended and consolidated complaint and a
motion for class certification were filed.

The amended complaint names the Company, its Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, its Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer, and its Senior Vice President and Chief
Accounting Officer as defendants, and seeks unspecified damages.
It alleges claims against all defendants for violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and claims
against the individual defendants for violations of Section
20(b) of the Exchange Act.  The Company has filed a motion to
dismiss all claims in the amended complaint and that motion is
pending.  The Company has also filed an opposition to the motion
for class certification which is also pending.

The suit is styled, "In Re: Veeco Instruments Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 7:05-md-01695-CM," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Colleen McMahon.  Representing the plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Phyllis Maza Parker of Berger & Montague, PC, 1622
         Locust St., Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365, US, Phone:
         (215) 875-4647, Fax: (215) 875-4674, E-mail:
         pparker@bm.net;

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

     (3) Sherrie Raiken Savett of Berg & Androphy (Houston),
         3704 Travis Street, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: (215)
         875-3071, Fax: (215)-875-5715.

Representing the defendant/s are, Robert F. Serio of Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher, LLP (NYC), 200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor, New
York, NY 10166, Phone: 212-351-3917, Fax: 212-351-5246, E-mail:
rserio@gibsondunn.com.


WASHINGTON: City of Seattle Settles "Temporary" Workers' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Seattle, Washington settled for $11.5 million a
class action on behalf of 2,000 long-term employees who were
denied benefits because they had been labeled "temporary," The
Seattle Post Intelligencer reports.

Some had worked for the city for as long as eight or 10 years,
but were given extra pay instead of health insurance and other
benefits.  However, according to a settlement approved by King
County Superior Court Judge Douglas McBroom, temporary
assignments now cannot last more than one year.

Commenting on the deal, one of the plaintiffs, Scott Roberts, a
member of the park grounds crew who has been with the city for
about eight years told The Seattle Post Intelligencer,  "The
city has decided they're not going to do that anymore, and
they've taken a lot of steps to make sure that was not going to
happen as part of the settlement."  He added, "I'm very
satisfied with the settlement."

Under the settlement, the city agreed to give full benefits to
anyone who works at least half time, or about 18 hours per week,
for more than a year.  "It's a fair settlement," echoes City
Attorney Thomas Carr.  He also told The Seattle Post
Intelligencer, "The city's always tried to be fair to its
employees regardless of how many hours they work."

Individual payouts from the settlement probably will range from
several hundred dollars to several thousand dollars, according
to David Stobaugh, an attorney for the plaintiffs in the suit,
which was filed in 2002 and covers work from October 1996 to May
2005.  He told also told The Seattle Post Intelligencer, "If
they're 'temporary,' they'll be genuinely temporary.  We're
really glad that the city decided to change their practices.
They should be commended for that."

The case alleged that the city violated the terms of a similar
suit settled in 1989.  The recent settlement now establishes a
review process to track temporary and part-time assignments.  In
addition, it also allows workers who believe they've been
inappropriately labeled "temporary" to appeal.

Plaintiff Larry Glaser, a golf-course supervisor who has worked
for the city since 1996, told The Seattle Post Intelligencer,
"In the city, you tend to get lost in the numbers and stuff like
that, and it's hard when you think you're being done wrong to
get your voice heard.  Now, with the settlement, there's methods
and ways that you can go about that."  Mr. Glaser added, "The
city is a great place to work, and that's why I stuck with it
and went about the means and methods that I had to secure a
job."


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces 11 Suits Over Defective Calypso Machines
--------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation continues to face 11 purported class
actions in 11 states related to its Calypso clothes washing
machine.

Two of the original purported class actions have been dismissed.
The complaints in these lawsuits generally allege violations of
state consumer fraud acts, unjust enrichment, and breach of
warranty based on the allegations that the washing machines have
various defects.  There are no allegations of any personal
injury, catastrophic property damage, or safety risk.  The
complaints generally seek unspecified compensatory,
consequential, and punitive damages.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Suits V. Tall Tub Dishwashers in Mo., Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation continues to face two purported national
class actions, one in a Missouri state court and one in an
Illinois state court, that are each alleging breach of warranty,
fraud, and violation of state consumer protection acts in
selling tall tub dishwashers.

There are no allegations of any personal injury or property
damage and the complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages.
The Company believes these suits are without merit.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Ann D. White Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ann D. White Law Offices, P.C., initiated a Class Action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of persons who purchased the securities of Chicago Bridge
& Iron Co. NV between March 9, 2005 and February 15, 2006,
inclusive, against CBI and certain of its officers.

The action alleges defendants reported fraudulent financial
results and guidance to the investing public.  On October 26,
2005 CBI announced that it would be unable to timely file its
third quarter financials.  On October 31, 2005, CBI revealed
that this delay "was precipitated by a memo from a senior member
of CBI's accounting department alleging accounting
improprieties..."

On February 3, 2006, CBI announced that it had fired Gerald
Glenn (its President and CEO) and Robert Jordan (its COO), and
on February 15, that it was slashing its earnings guidance for
2005 by half principally due to "issues related to unapproved
change orders and claims on several projects...", and that the
SEC was investigating these matters. The cumulative effect of
these revelations was to drive CBI stock down by $7.50. Glenn,
Jordon and other senior managers reaped more than $30.8 million
on their sales of CBI.

For more details, contact Ann D. White Law Offices, P.C., One
Pitcairn Place, Suite 2400, 165 Township Line Road, Jenkintown,
Pennsylvania 19046, Phone: 215-481-0274, Fax: 215-481-0271.


GRAFTECH INT'L: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in Del.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP filed a
class action on February 28, 2006 on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of GrafTech
International Ltd. (NYSE: GTI), between November 3, 2005 and
February 8, 2006, inclusive.  The suit seeks remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The action, Civil Action number 06-cv-133, is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against
defendants GrafTech and certain of its officers and directors.
According to the complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a
series of material misrepresentations to the market during the
Class Period.

The complaint alleges that GrafTech manufactures and provides
synthetic and natural graphite and carbon-based products and
technical and research and development services to manufacturers
of steel, aluminum, silicon metal, automotive products and
electronics.  According to the complaint, during the Class
Period, the Company reported strong results and issued positive
guidance in its filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and in publicly disseminated press releases.
Unbeknownst to investors, however, these statements were
materially false and misleading, and knowingly or recklessly
disregarded by defendants as such, because defendants failed to
disclose that:

     (1) the pricing power for the Company's graphite electrode
         products was nonexistent, particularly in the European
         markets;

     (2) the Company's reported cost-cutting measures failed to
         improve the Company's bottom line;

     (3) contraction in the non-graphite market negatively
         affected the Company's business;

     (4) the Company lacked adequate internal controls to
         determine the true costs of its restructuring;

     (5) the Company lacked adequate internal controls to ensure
         the accuracy of its publicly issued guidance; and

     (6) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's guidance
         lacked any reasonable basis in fact.

On February 8, 2006, the last day of the Class Period, the truth
about the Company's financial condition and business prospects
was revealed when the Company announced disappointing
preliminary data related to its results for the fourth quarter
of 2005 and fiscal year 2006.  In reaction to this news, the
price of GrafTech common stock fell $2.71 per share, or 37.0%,
from its closing price of $7.31 on February 8, 2006, to $4.60 on
February 9, 2006, on volume nearly twelve times the average
daily trading volume.

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


JARDEN CORP: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, initiated a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Jarden Corp.
(NYSE:JAH) common stock between June 29, 2005 and January 11,
2006.

The complaint charges Jarden and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The Company engages in the manufacture, sourcing,
marketing, and distribution of branded consumer products.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
made numerous positive statements concerning the Company's
acquisition of The Holmes Group, Inc., the status of the Holmes
integration and the expected contribution of the Holmes business
to the Company's financial results, which caused Jarden common
stock to trade at artificially inflated prices. As alleged in
the complaint, these statements were materially false and
misleading because defendants failed to disclose the following
adverse facts, which defendants knew, or were reckless in not
knowing, at all relevant times:

     (1) that the Company was experiencing difficulties in its
         integration of Holmes;

     (2) that the Holmes business was not as successful as
         represented;

     (3) that the positive and immediate impact the Holmes'
         business would have on the Company's financial
         performance was grossly overstated; and

     (4) that as a result of the foregoing, defendants' Class
         Period statements concerning the Company's expected
         financial performance and prospects were lacking in a
         reasonable basis when made.

On January 12, 2006, prior to the opening of regular trading,
defendants held a conference call with investors to discuss the
Company's year-end business results and outlook for 2006.
During the conference call, defendant Franklin disclosed that
the Company's Holmes and FoodSaver businesses did not meet
expectations during the quarter and that the original forecasts
for Holmes that were provided at the time of the acquisition
were "overoptimistic."  Following this announcement, shares of
Jarden common stock fell $3.37 per share, from a previous close
of $30.42 per share to a close of $27.05 per share, on extremely
heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact William Lerach, Samuel H. Rudman and
David A. Rosenfeld of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins, LLP, Phone: 800-449-4900, E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com,
Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/jarden/.


MILLS CORP: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Va.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.,
filed a lawsuit on behalf of its client and on behalf of other
similarly situated purchasers of the securities of The Mills
Corporation (NYSE: MLS) between February 17, 2004 and January 6,
2006 inclusive, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia.

The complaint charges Mills and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Mills, a real estate investment trust ("REIT"), engages
in the development, redevelopment, leasing, financing,
management, and marketing of retail properties.

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

     (1) that the Company was materially overstating its
         financial results by improperly accounting for certain
         investments by its subsidiary, Mills Enterprises, Inc.,
         among other things. Mills has now stated that it will
         be restating its financial statements for 2000 through
         2004, and for the first three quarters of 2005, cut
         jobs and write off projects, which will result in
         approximately $77 million in charges for the fourth
         quarter;

     (2) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition; and

     (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the values of the
         Company's net income and funds from operations were
         materially overstated at all relevant times.

Beginning on October 31, 2005, the Company began to disclose the
extent of its troubles.  On that day, Mills announced that it
would be rescheduling its conference call with investors because
it needed extra time to evaluate its accounting for several
items.  On November 9, 2005, defendants disclosed additional
problems with, among other things, weaknesses in the Company's
internal controls.  Then, on January 6, 2006, the Company
announced that it would be restating its financial results for
2000 through 2004 and for the first three quarters of 2005.  It
also stated that it would cut jobs and write off projects, which
will result in approximately $77 million in charges for the
fourth quarter of 2005.  Following all of these disclosures,
shares of Mills common stock declined.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. and Donna Choi of
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York
Avenue, N.W. West Tower - Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20005,
Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600, E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or
dchoi@cmht.com.


NVE CORP: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Minn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, initiated a securities
class action filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of NVE Corp. between May 22,
2003 and February 11, 2005, inclusive.  The class action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The suit 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.  No class has yet been certified in
the above action.

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


                            *********


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  * * *