CAR_Public/060314.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, March 14, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 52

                          Headlines

24 HOUR: $38M Settlement on California Employment Lawsuit Okayed
ACUITY BRANDS: Fined $700T for Failing to Report Lights' Defects
AIRLINES: Tanzanian Firm Lodges Price-Fixing Complaint in Ill.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Insurance Firms Back Review of Laughlin Suit
AMERICAN EQUITY: Williams Case Moves After Several Substitutions

AMERICAN SUZUKI: Recalls All-Terrain Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard
AQUANTIVE INC: N.Y. Court Sets IPO Settlement Fairness Hearing
AQUANTIVE INC: Plaintiffs Drop Name in Ill. Spyware Complaint
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Faces Several Allegations of Cargo Price-Fixing
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Suit Launched in N.Y. Over Dolan Proposal

CAREMARK RX: Tenn. Court Yet to Rule on Venue Transfer Motion
CINERGY CORP: Ohio State Court Dismisses Shareholder Complaint
COMPUCREDIT CORP: Continues to Face N.C. Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
COVINGTON DIOCESE: Litigants Object to Settlement Monitor
EASTMAN KODAK: Plaintiffs File Amended Consolidated Stock Suit

EQUIFAX INC: Calif. Court Dismisses Claims in Standfacts' Suit
EQUIFAX CONSUMER: Continues to Face Consumer Fraud Suit in Ga.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Fourth Amended CROA Complaint Filed in Ga.
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Faces Lawsuits Over August 2003 Power Outage
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Unit Faces Suit in Ohio Over W.H. Sammis Plant

GOOGLE: Calif. Fraud Suit to Proceed Despite Settlement in Ark.
GROUP 1: State, Federal Antitrust Pacts Get Preliminary Approval
KINDER MORGAN: Appeals Court Sends Consumer Suit to Regulator
LIFELINE SYSTEMS: Files Additional Disclosures Under Settlement
MOTOROLA INC: Continues to Face Iridium Securities Suit in D.C.

MOTOROLA INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Wireless Telephones
MOTOROLA INC: Howell Plaintiffs Appeal Suit's Dismissal in Ill.
MOTOROLA INC: Still No Trial Set for Ill. Securities Fraud Suit
NEWMONT MINING: Colo. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits
NORTEL NETWORKS: Records $2.47B Litigation Expense in Q4 Result

PIPELINE MECHANICAL: Settles Carbon Monoxide Leak Suit in Canada
RAYTHEON CO: Court Yet to Rule on Dismissal Motion V. ERISA Suit
REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: Lawyer Requests N.J. Venue for Suit
SANOFI-SYNTHELABO: Faces Federal Suits Over Sleeping Drug Ambien
U.S. AGGREGATES: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set March 24

UNIROYAL TECHNOLOGY: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set March 30

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

CHICAGO BRIDGE: Bruce G. Murphy Lodges Securities Fraud Suit
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Bruce G. Murphy Files N.Y. Securities Suit


                            *********


24 HOUR: $38M Settlement on California Employment Lawsuit Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court has granted final approval to a class-
wide $38 million settlement on behalf of approximately 50,000
individuals employed at 24 Hour Fitness locations throughout
California.

Under the settlement, 24 Hour Fitness will pay up to $38 million
to resolve claims alleging violations of the law for, among
other things:

     (1) failing to pay overtime wages to certain managers at 24
         Hour Fitness;

     (2) failing to pay hourly club employees for all hours
         worked, including overtime hours worked;

     (3) failing to provide mandatory meal and rest breaks;

     (4) improper deduction of earned commissions and bonus
         wages; and

     (5) requiring employees to pay for and maintain uniforms at
         their own costs.

This global settlement resolved the claims contained in seven
separate class actions filed against 24 Hour Fitness.

The plaintiffs' class was collectively represented by Gregory G.
Petersen of the law firm of Castle, Petersen & Krause LLP
(Gregory G. Petersen, Phone: 949-417-5600; 866-855-4CPK (toll-
free); Fax: 949-417-5610); Rene Barge of the law firm Spiro,
Moss, Barness, Harrison & Barge LLP; James M. Trush of the Trush
Law Office; Greg K. Hafif of the Law Offices of Herbert Hafif,
APC; and Larry A. Sackey of the Law Offices of Larry A. Sackey.


ACUITY BRANDS: Fined $700T for Failing to Report Lights' Defects
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission said that Acuity
Brands Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia has agreed to pay a $700,000
civil penalty for defects in its lighting products.  The
penalty, which has been provisionally accepted by the
Commission, settles allegations that the company failed to
report to CPSC in a timely manner about defects and hazards in
more than 1.4 million of its Lithonia Lighting products.

CPSC conducted four investigations into the timeliness of
Acuity's reporting.  In the first matter, Acuity manufactured
and sold 1.2 million ELM and ELM2 emergency lights.  The lights
were installed near exit doors in buildings such as schools,
offices, and shopping centers, to aid in evacuation in an
emergency.  The lights had an electrical component that could
overheat and pose a fire hazard when connected to 277-volt
electrical systems.

CPSC alleged that from January 1996 through September 2000,
Acuity received reports of 109 emergency light failures at 33
sites, including lights that smoked, melted, ruptured, and
caught on fire.  Acuity learned of one person who suffered a
burned finger.  Before reporting the hazard and incidents to
CPSC in October 2000, Acuity unilaterally made a change to these
lights that reduced the fire hazard, and Acuity replaced many of
the lights.  In April 2001, CPSC and Acuity announced a recall.

In the second matter, Acuity manufactured and sold 52,600 indoor
high intensity discharge (HID) lights.  The HID lights had
acrylic lenses and reflectors, and were used in a variety of
locations including retail spaces, warehouses, and gymnasiums.  
The lights had an electrical component that could leak fluid.  
The fluid could degrade the lights' acrylic lenses and
reflectors, causing these components or pieces of them, to crack
and fall from high ceilings and injure people.

CPSC alleged that from May 2003 through January 2004, Acuity
received reports of 197 HID light failures at 18 sites,
including 56 incidents in which lenses, reflectors, or pieces
fell.  Acuity learned of one person who suffered a forehead
laceration and eye injury.  Before reporting to CPSC in February
2004, Acuity unilaterally stopped using the defective component
and replaced many of the lights.  CPSC and Acuity announced the
recall of these HID lights in March 2004.

The third matter involved 40,600 HID lights with the same uses
and defects as described above, but which were manufactured by
Acuity during an earlier period of time.  CPSC alleged that from
September 2003 through June 2004, Acuity received reports of 91
of these additional HID lights or similar lights failing,
including 60 incidents of lenses or reflectors that cracked but
did not fall and 31 incidents of lenses or reflectors that
cracked and fell.  Before reporting to CPSC in October 2004,
Acuity unilaterally replaced many of these lights and stopped
using the defective component.  CPSC and Acuity announced an
expansion of the recall described above in March 2005.

In the final matter, Acuity manufactured and sold 120,000 HID
lights with defective cords.  The cords dripped a fluid that
degraded the acrylic lenses and reflectors, causing them, or
pieces of them, to crack and fall from high ceilings risking
injury to people below.

CPSC alleged that from June 2002 through September 2004, Acuity
learned of 15 sites at which 510 lights were reported as
failing, more than 286 cracking reflectors, 19 falling
reflectors, and at least 202 cords that dripped fluid but had
not yet caused reflectors to crack.  During this period, Acuity
unilaterally arranged to replace over 2,000 of these lights.  
Acuity reported to CPSC in September 2004 and recalled these
lights in March 2005.

Federal law requires manufacturers, retailers, and distributors
to report to CPSC immediately (within 24 hours) after obtaining
information reasonably supporting the conclusion that a product
contains a defect which could create a substantial risk of
injury to the public, presents an unreasonable risk of serious
injury or death, or violates a federal safety standard.

In agreeing to settle this matter, Acuity does not admit CPSC's
allegations and denies that it violated any law.


AIRLINES: Tanzanian Firm Lodges Price-Fixing Complaint in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sisimizi Ltd. based in Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania, filed antitrust
suit against 11 major airlines and three cargo carriers,
according to Engineering News.  The airlines are:

     (1) British Airways Plc,

     (2) Deutsche Lufthansa,

     (3) UAL Corp.,

     (4) Japan Airlines Corp.,

     (5) Air France-KLM,

     (6) Asiana Airlines,

     (7) Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd.,

     (8) Singapore Airlines,

     (9) Korean Airlines Co.,

    (10) Scandinavian airline SAS

    (11) Chile's LAN Airlines

The cargo carriers named in the suit are:

     (1) Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings Inc., and

     (2) its Polar Air Cargo unit, Nippon Cargo Airlines Co.,
         and Cargolux.

The suit accuses the airlines of conspiring to fix fuel price
surcharges for cargo flights.  It seeks unspecified damages.

The complaint seeking class-action status was filed on February
28 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  
The European Union's executive arm and the U.S. Justice
Department have already raided a number of carriers on both
sides of the Atlantic as part of a global investigation
disclosed last month.

Sisimiz said it had used KLM cargo to ship woodcarvings to New
York.

The suit is styled "Sisimizi, Ltd. v. Air France-KLM et al.
(1:06-cv-01107)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, under Judge James F. Holderman.  
Representing the plaintiff are:

     (1) Craig Essenmacher of Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP 500
         Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10110, U.S., Phone: (212)
         608-1900;

     (2) Merrick Scott Rayle of Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP,
         500 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10110, U.S., Phone:
         (212) 608-1900; and

     (30 Imtiaz A. Siddiqui of Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP, 500  
         Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10110, U.S., Phone: (212)
         608-1900.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Insurance Firms Back Review of Laughlin Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC)
filed an Amici Curiae brief in the multi-state class appeal of
the case Laughlin v. Allstate Insurance Co., according to the
Insurance Journal.  The brief supports a petition for
discretionary review in the case.

The suit was filed in Washington by Laughlin, a Washington
resident, raising questions over underinsured motorists coverage
provision.  Plaintiffs from 19 different states petitioned the
trial court to certify a multi-state class action.  The case has
been certified, but the insurer sought and was given
discretionary review, albeit limited.  The insurance carrier has
filed a petition for discretionary review with the Washington
State Supreme Court.

"NAMIC is participating in this appeal because one state court
should not have the authority to interfere with another state's
regulation of its insurance industry or the adjudication of
state specific insurance claims," stated NAMIC State Affairs
Manager Christian John Rataj.

According to the report, NAMIC and the other Amici Curiae
parties argued that the trial court's granting of a multi-state
class action:

     (1) raises significant constitutional due process of law,
         and commerce clause questions;

     (2) is inconsistent with the constitutional principle of
         "Comity" (the doctrine that one state should respect
         the legal decisions and executive actions of another
         state); and

     (3) would act as an extra-territorial regulation of the
         department of insurance in the 19 class action states
         involved in the case.

The Amici Curiae brief: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?677.


AMERICAN EQUITY: Williams Case Moves After Several Substitutions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff lawyers in a case against American Equity Mortgage and
ABN Amro in Illinois filed a reply to affirmative defenses
lodged by defendants in January, The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.

The suit relates to a case filed by Stephen Tillery and Lisa
Kernan last year on behalf of Cassandra Williams.  Plaintiffs
moved several times for judge substitution after Chief Judge
Edward Ferguson assigned the case to Circuit Judge George
Morgan.  Because of substitutions made by the plaintiffs, the
case moved from Judge Morgan to Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron,
Circuit Judge Andy Matoesian, Circuit Judge Daniel Stack, and
Associate Judge Ralph Mendelsohn in August.  In the meantime,
two plaintiffs were added: Judy and Charles Kinworthy.


AMERICAN SUZUKI: Recalls All-Terrain Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Suzuki Motor Corp. of Brea, California is recalling
1,900 Suzuki 2005 Model Year Eiger ATVs.  

The company said certain 2005 Eiger model year ATVs were
assembled with an improperly manufactured plastic fuel tank.  
The thin portion of these tanks could develop a fuel leak,
posing a fire hazard.  Suzuki has received no reports of
incidents or injuries.

The recall involves certain Suzuki 2005 model year LT-F400FK5
and LT-A400FK5 (Eiger) ATVs.  These models are available in
yellow, green, or red color.  Below is a list of make, model and
vehicle identification numbers (VIN) involved in the recall.

Year/Make  Model         Vehicle Identification
2005        Eiger 4WD 5-Speed  LT-F400FK5
                              5SAAK46A*57105591 ~
                               5SAAK46A*57106610
2005        Eiger 4WD Auto   LT-A400FK5
                               5SAAK46K*57108892 ~
                               5SAAK46K*57110274

The U.S.-made products are sold by Suzuki ATV dealers nationwide
from March 2005 through February 2006 for between $5,200 and
$5,350.

Consumers with recalled ATVs are being sent direct notice from
Suzuki.  Consumers are advised to stop using these vehicles
immediately and contact a local Suzuki ATV dealer to schedule an
appointment for a free repair.

Picture of the recalled product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06534.jpg

Consumer Contact: Suzuki, Phone: (800) 444-5077 (toll-free)
between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. PT Monday through Friday; Web
site: http://www.suzukicycles.com.


AQUANTIVE INC: N.Y. Court Sets IPO Settlement Fairness Hearing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
set an April 24, 2006 fairness hearing for the final approval of
the settlement of the consolidated class action filed against
aQuantive, Inc. (formerly Avenue A, Inc.).  The suit was styled,
"In re Avenue A, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation."

The consolidated complaint relates to several previously filed
class action complaints against the Company, the first of which
was originally filed on June 15, 2001.  Plaintiffs filed the
consolidated complaint on behalf of themselves and all others
who acquired the Company's common stock between February 28,
2000 and December 6, 2000, pursuant or traceable to the
Company's prospectus dated February 28, 2000.  The complaint
also named as defendants:

     (1) Morgan Stanley & Co.,

     (2) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.,

     (3) Thomas Weisel Partners, LLC, and

     (4) RBC Dain Rauscher, Inc.,

     (5) Brian P. McAndrews, President and Chief Executive
         Officer;

     (6) Nicolas Hanauer, Chairman of the Board; and

     (7) Robert Littauer, former Chief Financial Officer

The complaint claims violations of of 15 U.S.C. 77k (Section 11
of the Securities Act of 1933), and violation of 15 U.S.C.
78j(b) (Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
and 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5 (Exchange Act Rule 10b-5) against all
defendants.  The complaint alleges violation of 15 U.S.C. 77o
(Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933) and violation of 15
U.S.C. 78t(a) (Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934) against the individual defendants.  Plaintiffs seek
monetary damages.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws in
connection with disclosures contained in the Company's
prospectus dated February 28, 2000, for its initial public
offering of common stock.  The complaint alleges incorrect
disclosure or omissions in the Company's prospectus relating
generally to commissions to be earned by the underwriters and
certain allegedly improper agreements between the underwriters
and certain purchasers of the Company's common stock.  It also
alleges that the SEC and/or other regulatory authorities are
investigating underwriting practices similar to those alleged in
the complaint.

On July 15, 2002, the issuer defendants as a group filed a
motion to dismiss the claims alleged in the consolidated
complaints.  On October 8, 2002, the court entered an order
dismissing, without prejudice, all of the claims against
Mr. McAndrews, Mr. Hanauer and Mr. Littauer.  On
February 19, 2003, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the claims against it under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and denied its motion to dismiss
the claims against it under Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933.

By action of a special committee of disinterested directors (who
were neither defendants in the litigation nor members of the
Company's Board of Directors at the time of the actions
challenged in the litigation), the Company recently decided to
accept a settlement proposal presented to all issuer defendants.
In this settlement, plaintiffs will dismiss and release all
claims against the Company and Mr. McAndrews, Mr. Hanauer and
Mr. Littauer, in exchange for a contingent payment by the
insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring the
issuers in all of the consolidated IPO cases, and for the
assignment or release of certain potential claims that the
Company may have against the underwriters.  The Company will not
be required to make any cash payments in the settlement, unless
the pro rata amount paid by the insurers in the settlement on
our behalf exceeds the amount of the insurance coverage, a
circumstance that the Company believes is not likely to occur.

On July 31, 2003, the Company conditionally approved the
proposed partial settlement.  The settlement would provide,
among other things, a release of the Company and of the
individual defendants for the conduct alleged to be wrongful in
the consolidated complaint.  The Company would agree to
undertake other responsibilities under the settlement, including
agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain
potential claims the Company may have against its underwriters.
Any direct financial impact of the proposed settlement is
expected to be borne by the Company's insurance carriers.

In June 2004, an agreement of settlement was submitted to the
court for preliminary approval.  The court requested that any
objections to preliminary approval of the settlement be
submitted by July 14, 2004, and the underwriter defendants
formally objected to the settlement. The plaintiffs and issuer
defendants separately filed replies to the underwriter
defendants' objections to the settlement on August 4, 2004. The
court granted the motion for preliminary approval, and now
notice will be given to all class members of the settlement, a
"fairness" hearing will be held and if the court determines that
the settlement is fair to the class members, the settlement will
be approved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


AQUANTIVE INC: Plaintiffs Drop Name in Ill. Spyware Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
aQuantive, Inc. reports that plaintiffs in the class action
"Stephen Sotelo v. DirectRevenue, LLC, et al., Case No. 05CH
05883," voluntarily dismissed the Company without prejudice from
the lawsuit.

The suit, originally filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, Chancery Division and later transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, alleges that DirectRevenue and certain other named
defendants deceptively downloaded harmful spyware to plaintiffs'
and putative class members' computers, and seeks compensatory
and injunctive relief.  Plaintiffs asserted two claims against
the Company, unjust enrichment and trespass to chattels, both of
which related to allegations that the Company sent intrusive
advertisements.  The company filed a motion to dismiss these
claims, which was granted as to the unjust enrichment claim.  
Accordingly, the only claim remaining against the Company is
trespass to chattels.

In November 2005, plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss the
Company, without prejudice, from this lawsuit.  Thus, the
Company is no longer a party to this litigation.

The federal suit is styled, "Sotelo v. Directrevenue, LLC, et
al., Case No. 1:05-cv-02562," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Virginia M.
Kendall.  Representing the plaintiff/s are, Shawn Michael
Collins of The Collins Law Firm, 1770 North Park Street, Suite
200, Naperville, IL 60563, Phone: (630) 527-1595, E-mail:
smc@collinslaw.com; and Norman Benjamin Berger of Varga Berger
Ledsky Hayes & Casey, 224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 350,
Chicago, IL 60604, Phone: (312) 341-9400, E-mail:
nberger@vblhc.com.  

Representing the defendant/s are, Bradford P. Lyerla of
Marshall, Gerstein & Borun, 233 South Wacker Drive, 6300 Sears
Tower, Chicago, IL 60606-6357, Phone: (312) 474-6300, E-mail:
blyerla@marshallip.com; and Matthew J. Gehringer of Perkins
Coie, LLP, 131 South Dearborn, Suite 1700, Chicago, IL 60603-
5559, Phone: (312) 324-8400, E-mail: mgehringer@perkinscoie.com.


BRITISH AIRWAYS: Faces Several Allegations of Cargo Price-Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
British Airways is facing at least 15 class actions in the U.S.
over allegations that it conspired with rival airlines to fix
cargo prices, according to The Independent.

A suit filed in February was styled, "Adams v. British Airways
et al." filed in the U.S. District for the Eastern District of
New York under Judge John Gleeson, with referral to Judge Cheryl
L. Pollak.  Representing the plaintiff Joan Adams is Gina Marie
Tufaro of Abbey Gardy LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY
10016, Phone: 212-889-3700, E-mail: gtufaro@abbeygardy.com.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Suit Launched in N.Y. Over Dolan Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action was filed against Cablevision Systems
Corp. and its individual directors in, among other
jurisdictions, the New York Supreme Court for Nassau County
relating to the Dolan family group's proposal to acquire the
outstanding, publicly held interests in Cablevision.  

On October 24, 2005, the Company received a letter from the
Dolan family group withdrawing that proposal and recommending
the consideration of a special dividend.  On November 17, 2005,
the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the New
York Supreme Court action to relate to the special dividend
proposed by the Dolan family group.  The amended complaint
sought, among other things, to enjoin the payment of the special
dividend proposed by the Dolan family group.  

On February 9, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint adding allegations related to the December 19, 2005
announcement that the Board had decided not to proceed with the
proposed special dividend, and the January 31, 2006 announcement
that the Board is expected to begin reconsideration of a
possible special dividend at its regularly scheduled meeting in
March 2006.


CAREMARK RX: Tenn. Court Yet to Rule on Venue Transfer Motion
-------------------------------------------------------------
A motion is filed seeking a new venue for the private class
action "Moeckel v. Caremark RX, Inc., et al.," which is pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
against Caremark, Inc. and Caremark Rx, Inc.  The suit was filed
on behalf of the John Morrell Employee Benefits Plan.

The suit filed by Robert Moeckel filed alleged that the
defendants act as a fiduciary as that term is defined in the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and that
Caremark Rx and Caremark have breached certain purported
fiduciary duties under ERISA.  The suit seeks unspecified
monetary damages and injunctive relief.

The Company and Caremark Rx filed motions seeking the complete
dismissal of this action on various grounds.  In August 2005,
Caremark Rx was dismissed from the action.  Caremark has filed a
motion seeking to transfer venue for the case, which motion is
pending before the court.

The suit is styled, "Moeckel v. Caremark RX, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:04-cv-00633," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee under Judge Aleta A. Trauger.  
Representing the plaintiff/s are, Rebecca Cothran Blair and John
A. Day of Branham & Day, P.C., 5300 Maryland Way, Suite 300,
Brentwood, TN 37027, Phone: (615) 742-4880, E-mail:
rblair@branhamday.com and jday@branhamday.com; and Mike Miller
of Solberg Stewart Miller & Tjon, 1129 Fifth Avenue South, P.O.
Box 1897, Fargo, ND 58107-1897, Phone: (701) 237-3166, E-mail:
mmiller@solberglaw.com.

Representing the defendant/s are, Paul Savage Davidson, Joseph
A. Woodruff and Jennifer L. Weaver of Waller, Lansden, Dortch &
Davis, Nashville City Center, 511 Union Street, Suite 2100,
Nashville, TN 37219, Phone: (615) 244-6380, Fax: (615) 244-6380
E-mail: pdavidson@wallerlaw.com, joseph.woodruff@wallerlaw.com
and jennifer.weaver@wallerlaw.com; and Frank E. Pasquesi of
Ungaretti & Harris, 3500 Three First National Plaza, Chicago, IL
60602-4283, Phone: (312) 977-4400.


CINERGY CORP: Ohio State Court Dismisses Shareholder Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported shareholder class action filed in the Court of
Common Pleas in Hamilton County, Ohio against Cinergy Corp. and
each of the members of the Board of Directors was recently
dismissed.

Filed in May 2005, the suit alleged that the defendants breached
their duties of due care and loyalty to shareholders by agreeing
to the merger agreement between Duke and the Company and was
seeking to either enjoin or amend the terms of the merger.  The
Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the lawsuit in July 2005, which was granted in November of 2005.  
The plaintiffs did not file an appeal and the case is closed.


COMPUCREDIT CORP: Continues to Face N.C. Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CompuCredit Corp. and five of the Company's subsidiaries
continue to face a purported class action filed in the Superior
Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina, entitled, "Knox, et
al. vs. First Southern Cash Advance, et al., No. 5 CV 0445."

The plaintiffs allege that in conducting a so-called "payday
lending" business, certain of the Company's Retail Micro-Lending
and Servicing segment subsidiaries violated various laws
governing consumer finance, lending, check cashing, trade
practices and loan brokering.  The plaintiffs further allege
that the Company is the alter ego of its subsidiaries and is
liable for their actions.  The plaintiffs are seeking damages of
up to $75,000 per class member.


COVINGTON DIOCESE: Litigants Object to Settlement Monitor
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs and defendants in the sex abuse suit by priests in
the Diocese of Covington are opposed to the appointment of
Matthew Garretson as monitor in the settlement of the case,
according to The Kentucy Post.

Mr. Garretson of Ohio previously administered the Archdiocese of
Cincinnati's $3 million sexual abuse payments.  The plaintiff's
lawyer said his involvement in the Cincinnati settlement raises
fears regarding the fairness of the pending distribution of the
settlement money.

Diocese attorney Carrie Huff and plaintiff's attorney, Robert
Steinberg, filed separate affidavits opposing Mr. Garretson's
appointment, the report said.

Special Judge John Potter approved on Jan. 31 an $85 million
settlement between sexual abuse victims and the Roman Catholic
Diocese of Covington, Kentucky, according to CBS News (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 2, 2006).  The settlement covers 361
victims who claimed they were abused over a 50-year period by
priests in the diocese.  The settlement was initially approved
in July.

                       Settlement Hearing

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

                         Case Background

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

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


EASTMAN KODAK: Plaintiffs File Amended Consolidated Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An amended consolidated securities class action was filed
against Eastman Kodak Co. and two of its current executives in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.

On June 13, 2005, a purported shareholder class action was filed
against the Company and two of its executives in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  On June 20, 2005 and August 10, 2005, similar lawsuits
were filed against the same defendants in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of New York.  The cases have been
consolidated in the Western District of New York and the lead
plaintiffs are John Dudek and the Alaska Electrical Pension
Fund.  

The complaints filed in each of these actions alleged claims
under the Securities Exchange Act on behalf of a proposed class
of persons who purchased securities of the Company between April
23, 2003 and September 25, 2003, inclusive.  The substance of
the Complaints is that various press releases and other public
statements made by the Company during the proposed class period
allegedly misrepresented the Company's financial condition and
omitted material information regarding, among other things, the
state of the Company's film and paper business.  

An amended complaint was filed on January 20, 2006, containing
essentially the same allegations as the original complaint but
adding an additional named defendant.  Defendants' initial
responses to the Complaints are not yet due.  

The suit is styled, "McClain v. Eastman, Case No. 6:05-cv-06326-
MAT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of New York under Judge Michael A. Telesca.  Representing the
plaintiff/s are:  

     (1) Stuart Berman of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of
         Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, US, Phone: 610-667-
         7706;

     (2) Eugene Welch of Harris, Chesworth, O'Brien, Johnstone,
         Welch & Leone, 300 Linden Oaks, Ste. 100, Rochester, NY
         14625, Phone: 585-899-1400, Fax: 585-899-1426, E-mail:
         ewelch@rochester.rr.com; and

     (3) Samuel H. Rudman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
         & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road, Suite 406,
         Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100.

Representing the defendant/s are, Carolyn G. Nussbaum of Nixon
Peabody, LLP, Clinton Square, P.O. Box 31051, Rochester, NY
14603, Phone: (585) 263-1558, Fax: 866-947-0625, E-mail:
cnussbaum@nixonpeabody.com; and John C. Millian of Gibson, Dunn
& Crutcher, LLP, 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC
20036, Phone: (202) 955-8213.


EQUIFAX INC: Calif. Court Dismisses Claims in Standfacts' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court of the Central District of California
dismissed several claims in a purported lawsuit styled,
"Standfacts Credit Services, et al. v. Experian Informations
Solutions, Inc., Equifax Inc., and TransUnion, LLC."

On March 25, 2004, the National Credit Reporting Association,
Inc. (NCRA), a trade association of mortgage credit information
resellers, and, separately, 23 of NCRA's members, commenced
suits against Equifax Consumer Services, Experian and TransUnion
alleging various violations of antitrust and unfair practices
laws.  After a variety of rulings on procedural and substantive
issues, including grants on two occasions of all or part of
defendants' motions to dismiss, the remaining claims of all
plaintiffs have been consolidated under a Third Amended
Complaint, filed June 29, 2005, in an action captioned,
"Standfacts Credit Services, et al. v. Experian Informations
Solutions, Inc., Equifax Inc., and TransUnion, LLC," pending in
the U.S District Court of the Central District of California.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all resellers that have
purchased information from defendants since March 2000, and
allege that the defendants have conspired to monopolize, have
discriminated among resellers in pricing and have treated
resellers unfairly.  The amended complaint seeks injunctive
relief and unspecified amounts of damages.

On August 12, 2005, the defendants moved to dismiss the
antitrust claims and for summary judgment on the unfair
practices claims.  The District Court granted defendants'
motions to dismiss all claims except for one remaining Sherman
Act, Section 1 conspiracy claim and a state law claim based on
the same theory.  The Company denies any liability or wrongdoing
or that a class action is appropriate.

The suit is styled, "Standfacts Credit Services et al. v.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:04-cv-
00358-DOC-PJW, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California under Judge David O. Carter with referral
to Judge Patrick J. Walsh.  Representing the plaintiff/s are,
Stephanie L. Dieringer of Hulett Harper Stewart, 550 West C.
St., Ste. 1770, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-338-1133, E-
mail: sldieringer@hulettharper.com; and Jonathan W. Cuneo of
Cuneo Law Group, 317 Massachusetts Ave., NE Suite 300,
Washington, DC 20002, Phone: 202-789-3960.

Representing the defendant/s are, Teresa T. Bonder of Alston &
Bird, One Atlantic Ctr., 1201 W Peachtree St., Atlanta, GA
30309-3424, Phone: 404-881-7000, E-mail: tbonder@alston.com; and
Thomas Demitrack of Jones Day, North Point, 901 Lakeside Avenue,
Cleveland, OH 44114-1190, Phone: 216-586-3939, E-mail:
tdemitrack@jonesday.com.  


EQUIFAX CONSUMER: Continues to Face Consumer Fraud Suit in Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery was concluded in a putative consumer class action
filed against Equifax Consumer Services, Inc., which is pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The case is styled, "Robbie Hillis v. Equifax Consumer Services,
Inc. and Fair Isaac, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv-03400-BBM."  It was
filed on November 19, 2004, and asserts that defendants have
jointly sold the Company's Score Power credit score product in
violation of certain procedural requirements under the Credit
Repair Organizations Act (CROA).  Plaintiff contends that the
Company and Fair Isaac are "credit repair organizations" under
CROA and that the transaction by which he purchased Score Power
was in violation of CROA and fraudulent.  Plaintiff seeks
certification of a class on behalf of all individuals who
purchased such services from defendants within the five-year
period prior to the filing of the complaint.  Plaintiff seeks
unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 23, 2005, the District Court denied defendants' partial
motions to dismiss the case and the defendants have answered,
denying all liability or wrongdoing.  Discovery is concluded.
Plaintiff has filed motions for class certification and partial
summary judgment.  The Company denies any liability or
wrongdoing and rejects the idea that a class action is
appropriate.

The suit is styled, "Hillis v. Equifax Consumer Services, Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-03400-BBM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, under Judge Beverly
B. Martin.  Representing the plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Michael Lee McGlamry, Charles Neal Pope, Wade H.
         Tomlinson, Pope McGlamry Kilpatrick Morrison & Norwood,
         925 The Pinnacle, P.O. Box 191625, 3455 Peachtree Road,
         N.E., Atlanta, GA 31119-1625, Phone: 404-523-7706, E-
         mail: efile@pmkm.com;  

     (2) Arthur R. Miller, Arthur R. Miller, P.C., Areeda Hall
         225, Cambridge, MA 02138, Phone: 617-495-1278; and

     (3) Michael C. Spencer or Melvyn I. Weiss, Milberg Weiss
         Bershad & Schulman, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th Floor,
         New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212-594-5300.

Representing the defendant/s are, Craig Edward Bertschi, Audra
Ann Dial, Cindy Dawn Hanson, Kilpatrick Stockton, 1100 Peachtree
Street, Suite 2800, Atlanta, GA 30309-4530, Phone: 404-815-6500,
E-mail: cbertschi@kilpatrickstockton.com,
adial@kilpatrickstockton.com, chanson@kilpatrickstockton.com;
and Kenneth M. Kliebard and Todd L. McLawhorn, Howrey, LLP,
Suite 3400, 321 North Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone:
312-595-2255, Fax: 312-264-0362, E-mail: kliebardk@howrey.com or
mclawhornt@howrey.com.  


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Fourth Amended CROA Complaint Filed in Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs recently filed a Fourth Amended Complaint in an
action captioned, "Steven G. Millett and Melody J. Millett v.
Equifax Information Services, LLC and Equifax Consumer Services,
Inc."  The suit was originally filed on June 16, 2004 in the
U.S. District Court for Kansas, but was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

In this Complaint, filed on Oct. 18, 2005, plaintiffs for the
first time asserted, among other allegations, that the Company
sold its Credit Watch product in violation of certain procedural
requirements under the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA).  
The complaint is similar to the claims made by plaintiff in the
case: "Hillis v. Equifax Consumer Services, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:04-cv-03400-BBM."

Plaintiffs seek certification of a class on behalf of all
individuals who purchased the CreditWatch product from the
Company from September 9, 2001 to the present, and unspecified
damages, attorney's fees and costs.  The Company filed a partial
motion to dismiss.  Discovery is ongoing.  The Company denies
any liability or wrongdoing.

The suit is styled, "Millett, et al. v. Equifax Credit
Information Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-02122-TWT,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, under Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr.  Representing the
plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Leslie J. Bryan, Doffermyre Shields Canfield Knowles &
         Devine, 1355 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 1600,
         Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: 404-881-8900, E-mail:
         lbryan@dsckd.com

     (2) Barry R. Grissom, Law Office of Barry R. Grissom,
         Building 7-Suite 220, 7270 West 98th Terrace, Overland
         Park, KS 66212-6166, Phone: 913-341-6616, Fax: 913-341-
         4780

     (3) B. Joyce Yeager, Yeager Law Firm, LLC, Building 7,
         Suite 220, 7270 West 98th Terrace, Overland Park, KS
         66212, Phone: 913-648-6673, Fax: 913-648-6921, E-mail:         
         jyeager@joyceyeagerlaw.com  

Representing the Company is Cindy Dawn Hanson, Kilpatrick
Stockton, 1100 Peachtree St., Ste. 2800, Atlanta, GA 30309-4530,
Phone: 404-815-6500, E-mail: chanson@kilpatrickstockton.com.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Faces Lawsuits Over August 2003 Power Outage
--------------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Corporation continues to face litigation related to
the widespread power outages in various states in the U.S. and
parts of Southern Canada on August 14, 2003.  

The outages affected approximately 1.4 million customers in the
Company's service area.  The U.S.-Canada Power System Outage
Task Force's final report in April 2004 on the outages
concludes, among other things, that the problems leading to the
outages began in the Company's Ohio service area.  Specifically,
the final report concluded, among other things that the
initiation of the August 14, 2003 power outages resulted from:

     (1) an alleged failure of both the Company and the East
         Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement (ECAR)
         to assess and understand perceived inadequacies within
         the FirstEnergy system;

     (2) inadequate situational awareness of the developing
         conditions; and

     (3) a perceived failure to adequately manage tree growth in
         certain transmission rights of way

The Task Force also concluded that there was a failure of the
interconnected grid's reliability organizations, Midwest
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (MISO) and PJM
Interconnection, LLC, to provide effective real-time diagnostic
support.  The Company said in a regulatory filing that it
believes that the final report does not provide a complete and
comprehensive picture of the conditions that contributed to the
August 14, 2003 power outages and that it does not adequately
address the underlying causes of the outages.  The Company
remains convinced that the outages couldn't be explained by
events on any one utility's system.

The Company and its affiliates are defending six separate
complaint cases before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio
(PUCO) relating to the August 14, 2003 power outage.  Two such
cases were originally filed in Ohio State courts but
subsequently dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and further appeals were unsuccessful.  In both such cases, the
individual complainants -- three in one case and four in the
other -- sought to represent others as part of a class action.  

The PUCO dismissed the class allegations, stating that its rules
of practice do not provide for class action complaints.  Of the
four other pending PUCO complaint cases, three were filed by
various insurance carriers either in their own name or as
subrogees in the name of their insured.  In each such case, the
carriers seek reimbursement against various FirstEnergy
companies (and, in one case, against PJM, MISO and American
Electric Power Co. as well) for claims they paid to their
insureds allegedly due to the loss of power on August 14, 2003.  
The listed insureds in these cases, in many instances, are not
customers of any FirstEnergy company.  

The fourth case involves the claim of a non-customer seeking
reimbursement for losses incurred when its store was burglarized
on August 14, 2003.  In addition to these six cases, the Ohio
Companies were named as respondents in a regulatory proceeding
that was initiated at the PUCO in response to complaints
alleging failure to provide reasonable and adequate service
stemming primarily from the August 14, 2003 power outages.

One complaint was filed on August 25, 2004 against the Company
in the New York State Supreme Court.  In this case, several
plaintiffs in the New York City metropolitan area allege that
they suffered damages as a result of the August 14, 2003 power
outages.  None of the plaintiffs are customers of any
FirstEnergy affiliate.  The Company's motion to dismiss the case
was granted on September 26, 2005.

Additionally, the Company was named in a complaint filed in
Michigan State Court by an individual who is not a customer of
any FirstEnergy company.  A responsive pleading to this matter
is not due until on or about December 1, 2005.  No estimate of
potential liability has been undertaken in this matter.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Unit Faces Suit in Ohio Over W.H. Sammis Plant
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Edison Co. (OE), an electric utility operating subsidiary
of FirstEnergy Corp., was named as a defendant in a class action
complaint in Jefferson County, Ohio Common Pleas Court, which is
seeking compensatory and punitive damages to be determined at
trial based on claims of negligence and eight other tort counts
alleging damages from W.H. Sammis Plant air emissions.

Filed on August 22, 2005 by two named plaintiffs, the suit is
also seeking injunctive relief to eliminate harmful emissions
and repair property damage and the institution of a medical
monitoring program for class members.


GOOGLE: Calif. Fraud Suit to Proceed Despite Settlement in Ark.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys representing plaintiffs in a Northern California
"click fraud" class action against Google say the purported
settlement announced on March 8 in a similar case between Google
and click fraud victims may have little impact on their case.  A
hearing for nationwide class certification in AIT v. Google will
be held May 14, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Brian Kabateck, partner with Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, and
Darren Kaplan, partner with Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP, who
represent Google's Adword customers in the U.S. in the AIT v.
Google litigation, say they cannot comment on the Arkansas
settlement and are reserving judgment on its merits until after
they have seen the terms.

"Since the announcement provided little information as to the
terms and conditions of the settlement, it is impossible to
fairly evaluate the proposed settlement and to determine whether
it is a good result for the class," says Mr. Kabateck.  "Once we
learn more, we will decide what, if anything, we are prepared to
do in order to protect the interests of the Google customers we
represent."

The proposed Arkansas settlement still must be preliminarily
approved by the court and then finally approved by the class.  
"The U.S. District Court may end up certifying a nationwide
class in our case before the settlement can be finally approved
in Arkansas," says Mr. Kaplan.  "If we are successful in
certifying a class in our case in the U.S. District Court, the
proposed settlement in Arkansas will not resolve anything."

Online search engine Google Inc. agreed to pay $90 million,
including lawyers' fees, to settle a 'click fraud' suit filed
against it by advertisers, Associated Press reports.  Under the
settlement, eligible advertisers in Google's network during the
past four years will be granted an account credit that could be
used toward future ads distributed by Google (Class Action
Reporter, March 10, 2006).

The suit was styled "Click Defense, Inc. v. Google, Inc. (5:05-
cv-02579-RMW)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte,
with referral to Patricia V. Trumbull.  Representing the
defendant are: Daralyn J. Durie of Keker & Van Nest LLP, 710
Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-391-5400,
Fax: 415-397-7188; E-mail: ddurie@kvn.com; and David J. Silbert
of Keker & Van Nest, L.L.P., 710 Sansome Street, San Francisco,
CA 94111-1704, Phone: (415) 391-5400; E-mail: djs@kvn.com.

Representing the plaintiff(s) are: Richard L. Kellner of
Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, N/A, 350 S. Grand Ave, 39th Floor,
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Los A, Phone: 213-217-5000; Fax: 213-217-5010; E-mail:
rlk@kbklawyers.com; and Frank E. Marchetti of Kabateck Brown
Kellner, LLP, 350 Souih Grand Avenue, 39th Floor, Los Angeles,
CA 90071-3801, Phone: 213-217-5000; Fax: 213-217-5010.


GROUP 1: State, Federal Antitrust Pacts Get Preliminary Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Group 1 Automotive, Inc. said that preliminary court approval
were granted to the settlements for the three class actions
filed against certain of its Texas dealerships, the Texas
Automobile Dealers Association (TADA), and certain new vehicle
dealerships in Texas that are members of TADA.

Two state court class actions and one federal court class action
were initially filed, alleging that since January 1994, Texas
dealers have deceived customers with respect to a vehicle
inventory tax and violated federal antitrust and other laws.

In April 2002, the state court in which two of the actions are
pending certified classes of consumers on whose behalf the
action would proceed.  In October 2002, the Texas Court of
Appeals affirmed the trial court's order of class certification
in the state action.  The defendants requested that the Texas
Supreme Court review that decision, and the Court declined that
request on March 26, 2004.  The defendants petitioned the Texas
Supreme Court to reconsider its denial, and that petition was
denied on September 10, 2004.  

In the federal antitrust action, in March 2003, the federal
district court also certified a class of consumers. Defendants
appealed the district court's certification to the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals, which on October 5, 2004, reversed the class
certification order and remanded the case back to the federal
district court for further proceedings.  In February 2005, the
plaintiffs in the federal action sought a writ of certiorari to
the U.S. Supreme Court in order to obtain review of the Fifth
Circuit's order.  The defendants notified the U.S. Supreme Court
that they would not respond to the writ unless requested to do
so by the Court.

Also in February 2005, settlement discussions with the
plaintiffs in the three cases culminated in formal settlement
offers pursuant to which the Company could settle the state and
federal cases.  The proposed settlements contemplate the
Company's dealerships issuing certificates for discounts off
future vehicle purchases, refunding cash in some circumstances,
and paying attorneys' fees and certain costs.  Dealers
participating in the settlements would agree to certain
disclosures regarding inventory tax charges when itemizing such
charges on customer invoices.  

In June 2005, the Company's Texas dealerships and certain other
defendants in the lawsuits entered settlements with the
plaintiffs in each of the cases.  The settlements are contingent
upon and subject to court approval.  The state court
preliminarily approved the settlement of the state court actions
in December 2005.  As a result of that settlement, the state
court certified a settlement class of certain Texas automobile
purchasers.  

Dealers participating in the settlement, including a number of
the Company's Texas dealership subsidiaries, are expected to
issue certificates for discounts off future vehicle purchases,
refund cash in some circumstances, pay attorneys' fees, and make
certain disclosures regarding inventory tax charges when
itemizing such charges on customer invoices.  In addition,
participating dealers have funded and will fund certain costs of
the settlement, including costs associated with notice of the
settlement to the class members.  The federal action settlement
does not involve the certification of any additional classes.

If final court approval is granted, the Company does not believe
that these settlements will have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.


KINDER MORGAN: Appeals Court Sends Consumer Suit to Regulator
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Colorado Court of Appeals on Thursday upheld a district
judge's earlier ruling recommending that the consumer suit filed
by the city of Aspen against energy firm Kinder Morgan be heard
before an industry regulator and not in the courts, Aspen Daily
News reports.

The city sued Kinder Morgan in Colorado's 9th District Court in
2004 alleging that consumers in the highlands of Aspen are
paying the same price for natural gas with lower heating
capacity.  City Attorney John Worcester, who filed the lawsuit
said: "Natural gas delivers a certain number of BTUs of energy
per volume, but, when you bring it to altitude, the volume
increases, but the heating capacity does not increase.  So, you
get less heat per volume."

District Judge T. Peter Craven dismissed the case in September
2004, saying it should be heard by the Colorado Public Utilities
Commission.  The city appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals.  
On Thursday, the Court of Appeals upheld Judge Craven's ruling.

According to the report, Kinder Morgan officials previously said
that gas bills are adjusted to compensate for the lower heating
value per volume, but those adjustments are not necessarily
outlined in customers' bills.


LIFELINE SYSTEMS: Files Additional Disclosures Under Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lifeline Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: LIFE) reached an agreement in
principle to settle the purported shareholder class action
brought in connection with the Company's proposed acquisition by
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.  The disposal is pursuant
to a merger agreement entered into by the Company, Philips and
DAP Merger Sub, Inc., on January 18, 2006.

Under the settlement, which is still subject to court approval,
the Company agreed to make certain additional disclosures.  On
March 11, the company filed a Current Report on Form 8-K
providing certain information beyond that provided in its Proxy
Statement, dated February 22, 2006, which was first mailed to
shareholders on or about February 24, 2006.  Upon receiving
final court approval, the litigation will be dismissed and all
claims against all defendants will be resolved.

The special meeting of shareholders of the Company will be held
as scheduled at the offices of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP, 60 State Street, Boston, Massachusetts, on Tuesday,
March 21, 2006 at 11:00 a.m. local time.

Lifeline Systems, Inc. said in February it has been served with
a purported shareholder class action against Lifeline, its
directors and DAP Merger Sub, Inc.  The complaint was filed on
February 17, 2006 in Massachusetts Superior Court, Middlesex
County, and challenges the price of and the process leading to
Lifeline's previously announced merger agreement with
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. and DAP Merger Sub (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 24, 2006).

Lifeline Systems -- http://www.lifelinesys.com-- established in  
1974, provides personal response services and emergency call
systems in the U.S. and Canada.  The Company expects to report
that, as of December 31, 2005, it supported approximately
470,000 subscribers from its response centers in Massachusetts,
Ontario and Quebec.  Lifeline also supplies emergency response
equipment and services to owners and developers of independent
and assisted living and continuing care retirement communities
across North America.  


MOTOROLA INC: Continues to Face Iridium Securities Suit in D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola, Inc. was named as one of several defendants in
putative securities class action arising out of alleged
misrepresentations or omissions regarding the Iridium satellite
communications business.  The suits, originally filed on April
22, 1999 were consolidated in the District of Columbia under
"Freeland v. Iridium World Communications, Inc., et al." on
March 15, 2001.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Federal securities laws
arising from alleged material misrepresentations or omissions
regarding difficulties in the satellite communications business
of Iridium World Communications, LTD, Iridium LLC and Iridium
Operating LLC.  The alleged class consists of purchasers of all
Iridium securities during the period from September 9, 1998 to
March 29, 1999.

The suit is styled, "Freeland, et al. v. Iridium World Comm, et
al., Case No. 1:99-cv-01002" filed in the U.S. Distrcit Court
for the District of Columbia under Judge Nanette K. Laughrey.  
Representing the plaintiff/s are, Douglas Graham Thompson, Jr.
of Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran, 1050 30th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20007, Phone: (202) 337-8000, Fax: 202-337-8090,
E-mail: dgt@ftllaw.com; and Eric J. Belfi of Murray, Frank &
Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801, New York, NY 10016,
Phone: (212) 682-1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-mail:
ebelfi@murrayfrank.com.

Representing the defendant/s are, Jeffrey L. Willian of Kirkland
& Ellis, 200 East Randolph Drive, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: 312-
861-2000, Fax: 312-861-2200, E-mail: jwillian@kirkland.com; and
James F. Moyle of Clifford Chance US LLP, 31 West 52nd Street,
New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 878-8508, Fax: 212-878-8375, E-
mail: james.moyle@cliffordchance.com.


MOTOROLA INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Wireless Telephones
--------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola, Inc. is a defendant in several cases arising out of
its manufacture and sale of wireless telephones.

On May 26, 2000, a purported nationwide class action styled,
"Naquin, et al., v. Nokia Mobile Phones, et al.," was filed
against Motorola, Inc. and several other cellular phone
manufacturers and carriers in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.  The case alleges that
the failure to incorporate a remote headset into cellular phones
rendered the phones defective by exposing users to biological
injury and health risks.  In the Second Supplemental and
Amending Class Action Complaint, plaintiffs seek compensatory
damages and injunctive relief.

Similar state class actions were filed:

     (1) On April 19, 2001, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
         City, Maryland, styled, "Pinney and Colonell v. Nokia,
         Inc., et al."

     (2) On April 19, 2001, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas,
         Philadelphia County, styled,  "Farina v. Nokia, Inc.,
         et al."  

     (3) On April 20, 2001, in the Supreme Court of the State of
         New York, County of Bronx, styled, "Gilliam, et al., v.
         Nokia, Inc., et al.,"

     (4) On June 8, 2001, in the Superior Court of Fulton
         County, State of Georgia, styled, "Gimpelson v. Nokia,
         Inc, et. al."

During 2001, after removal to federal court, the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL Panel) transferred these five
cases to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
(MDL Court) for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
in the matter called "In re Wireless Telephone Radio Frequency
Emissions Products Liability Litigation."

In 2005, as a result of a decision of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the Pinney, Gilliam, Farina, and
Gimpelson cases were remanded to the state courts from which
they were removed (Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and
Georgia, respectively).  The Fourth Circuit decision also
reversed the MDL Court's dismissal of the Naquin case on
preemption grounds.  Naquin was thus remanded to the MDL Court
for further proceedings.

On December 23, 2005, and again on February 9, 2006, plaintiff
filed amended complaints in Farina.  Defendants filed
preliminary objections to the amended complaints.  On January
31, 2006, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in Pinney.
Both amended complaints seek compensatory and punitive damages
and injunctive relief.  Farina also seeks declaratory relief and
treble and statutory damages.  

For the first time plaintiffs in both Farina and Pinney added
allegations that cellular telephones sold without headsets are
defective because they present a safety risk when used while
driving.  On February 17, 2006, a newly added defendant to the
Farina and Pinney cases removed the cases to federal court.  
Motorola asserted additional grounds for the Pinney removal in
papers filed on February 22, 2006.  Also, on January 30, 2006,
plaintiff dismissed Gimpelson without prejudice.  

On February 15, 2006, the MDL Court issued a suggestion to the
MDL Panel to transfer Naquin from the MDL Court to the federal
court in Louisiana.  On February 22, 2006, defendants filed a
motion to reconsider that suggestion based on the removal of
Farina and Pinney to the federal court.

During 2001 and 2002, several additional cases were filed
alleging that use of a cellular phone caused a malignant brain
tumor:

     (i) "Murray v. Motorola, Inc., et al.," filed November 15,
         2001, in the Superior Court of the District of
         Columbia;

    (ii) "Agro et. al., v. Motorola, Inc., et al.," filed
         February 26, 2002, in the Superior Court of the
         District of Columbia;  

   (iii) "Cochran et. al., v. Audiovox Corporation, et al.,    
         filed February 26, 2002, in the Superior Court of
         the District of Columbia and

    (iv) "Schofield et al., v. Matsushita Electric Corporation
         of America, et al.," filed February 26, 2002, in the
         Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Each complaint seeks compensatory damages in excess of $25
million, consequential damages in excess of $25 million and
punitive and/or exemplary damages in excess of $100 million.
These cases were removed to federal court and transferred to the
MDL Court.  On July 19, 2004, the MDL Court found that there was
no federal court jurisdiction over Murray, Agro, Cochran and
Schofield and remanded those cases to the Superior Court for the
District of Columbia.  On November 30, 2004, defendants moved to
dismiss the Murray, Agro, Cochran and Schofield complaints.  
That motion remains pending before the Superior Court for the
District of Columbia.

In another case styled, "Brower v. Motorola, Inc., et al., filed
April 19, 2001, in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Diego, also seeks relief on behalf of
an individual who had brain cancer.  A first amended complaint
was filed in Brower to add class allegations that defendants
engaged in deceptive and misleading actions by falsely stating
that cellular phones are safe and by failing to disclose studies
that allegedly show cellular phones can cause harm.  Brower
seeks injunctive relief, restitution, compensatory and punitive
damages and disgorgement of profits.  

On September 9, 2002, "Dahlgren v. Motorola, Inc., et al.," was
filed in the D.C. Superior Court containing class claims similar
to Brower.  Dahlgren seeks injunctive and equitable relief,
actual damages, treble or statutory damages, punitive damages
and a constructive trust.  

These two cases were also removed to federal court and
transferred to the MDL Court.  On June 10, 2005, the Dahlgren
case was remanded to the Superior Court for the District of
Columbia.  On December 9, 2005, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint in Dahlgren.  Defendants moved to dismiss Dahlgren on
February 3, 2006.  On February 15, 2006, the MDL Court remanded
Brower to California state court.


MOTOROLA INC: Howell Plaintiffs Appeal Suit's Dismissal in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the purported class action "Howell v. Motorola,
Inc., et al." appealed their case's dismissal.

The suit was filed against the Motorola, Inc. and several of its
officers and employees in the Illinois District Court on July
21, 2003, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and violations of
the Employment Retirement Income Security Act.  The complaint
alleged that the defendants had improperly permitted
participants in the Company's 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan to
purchase or hold shares of common stock of Motorola because the
price of the Company's stock was artificially inflated by a
failure to disclose vendor financing to Telsim Mobil
Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. in connection with the sale of
telecommunications equipment by the Company.  The plaintiff
sought to represent a class of participants in the Plan for
whose individual accounts the Plan purchased or held shares of
common stock of the Company from May 16, 2000 to the present,
and sought an unspecified amount of damages.  

On October 3, 2003, plaintiff filed an amended complaint
asserting three claims for breach of fiduciary duties under
ERISA against 24 defendants grouped into five categories and
seeking an unspecified amount of damages.  On September 23,
2004, the Illinois District Court dismissed the plan committee
defendants from the case, without prejudice.  On October 15,
2004, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (the "Howell
Complaint") and a motion for class certification.  On December
3, 2004, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment seeking
to dismiss the Howell Complaint and a corresponding motion to
deny class certification.  

On September 30, 2005, the Illinois District Court granted
defendants' motion and dismissed the Howell Complaint.  
Plaintiff filed an appeal to the dismissal on October 27, 2005.  
In addition, on October 19, 2005, plaintiff's counsel filed a
motion seeking to add a new lead plaintiff and assert the same
claims set forth in the Howell Complaint.

The suit is styled, "Howell v. Koenemann, et al., Case No. 1:03-
cv-05044," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer with
referral to Judge Nan R. Nolan.  Representing the plaintiff/s
are, Edwin J. Mills of Stull, Stull & Brody, Six East 45th
Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 687-7230, E-mail:
ssbny@aol.com; and Robert D. Allison of Robert D. Allison &
Associates, 122 S. Michigan Avenue, Ste. 1850, Chicago, IL
60603, Phone: 427-4500, E-mail: rdalaw@ix.netcom.com.

Representing the defendant/s are, Michael A. Warner of Seyfarth
Shaw, 55 East Monroe Street, Suite 4200, Chicago, IL 60603,
Phone: (312) 346-8000; and Sarah Kotler of Arnold & Porter, 555
Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-1202, Phone: (202)
942-5000.


MOTOROLA INC: Still No Trial Set for Ill. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola, Inc. faces a consolidated securities class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
styled, "In Re: Motorola Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:03-cv-00287 (N.D. Ill.)."

Originally, "Barry Family LP v. Carl F. Koenemann," was filed
against the former chief financial officer of Company on
December 24, 2002 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, alleging breach of fiduciary
duty and violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.  It was consolidated with 18
additional putative class action complaints, filed in
various federal courts against the Company, its former chief
financial officer and other individuals.

The case alleges the price of Motorola's stock was artificially
inflated by a failure to disclose vendor financing to Telsim Mobil
Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. (Telsim), in connection with
the sale of telecommunications equipment by Motorola, as well as
other related aspects of the Company's dealings with Telsim.
In each of the complaints, plaintiffs proposed a class period
of February 3, 2000 through May 14, 2001, and sought an
unspecified amount of damages.

On August 25, 2004, the Illinois District Court issued its
decision on the Company's motion to dismiss, granting the motion
in part and denying it in part. The court dismissed without
prejudice the fraud claims against the individual defendants and
denied the motion to dismiss as to the Company. The plaintiffs
chose not to file an amended complaint.

The court, declined to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims that the
individual defendants were controlling persons of the Company.
During 2005, the Court certified the case as a class action.
No trial date is scheduled at present.

A copy of the Consolidated Class Action Complaint is posted at
http://securities.stanford.
edu/1026/MOT03-01/20031015_r05c_0300287.pdf

Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer oversees the case. Representing
the plaintiff/s are, Michael I. Behn of Behn & Wyetzner,
Chartered, 950 55 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60601,
Phone: 312-629-0000, Fax: 312-327-0266, E-mail:
mbehn@behnwyetzner.com; and Deborah R. Gross of 1515 Locust
Street, 2nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19102, Phone: (215) 561-3600.

Representing the defendant/s are, Robert D. Allison of Robert D.
Allison & Associates, 122 S. Michigan Avenue, Ste. 1850, Chicago,
IL 60603, Phone: 427-4500, E-mail: rdalaw@ix.netcom.com; and
Allegra R. Rich of Seyfarth Shaw, 55 East Monroe Street, Suite
4200, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone:(312) 346-8000, E-mail:
arich@seyfarth.com.


NEWMONT MINING: Colo. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Newmont Mining Corporation reports that the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado consolidated several securities
class actions that were filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between July 28, 2004 and April 26,2005.

On June 8, 2005, UFCW Local 880 & Retail Food Employers Joint
Pension Fund filed a putative class action against the Company
and Wayne W. Murdy, Pierre Lassonde and Bruce D. Hansen. Zoe
Myerson filed similar purported class actions in the same court
on June 15, 2005 by John S. Chapman and on June 20, 2005.  Each
of these complaints alleges, among other things, that the
Company and the individual defendants violated certain antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws by failing to disclose
alleged operating deficiencies.  The complaints seek unspecified
monetary damages and other relief.  In October 2005, the court
consolidated these cases.

The consolidated suit is styled, "UFCW Local 880-Retail Food
Employers Joint Pension Fund v. Newmont Mining Corporation, et
al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01046-MSK-BNB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado under Judge Marcia S. Krieger
with referral to Judge Boyd N. Boland.  Representing the
plaintiff/s are, Darby K. Kennedy and Kip Brian Shuman of Dyer &
Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO 80218-1417, U.S.A,
Phone: 303-861-3003, Fax: 303-830-6920, E-mail:
dkennedy@dyershuman.com and KShuman@DyerShuman.com.

Representing the defendant/s are, Pamela Robillard Mackey and
Lee David Foreman of Haddon, Morgan, Mueller, Jordan, Mackey &
Foreman, PC, 150 East 10th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203, U.S.A,
Phone: 303-831-7364, Fax: 303-832-2628, E-mail:
pmackey@hmflaw.com and lforeman@hmflaw.com.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Records $2.47B Litigation Expense in Q4 Result
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks Ltd. said its net loss in the fourth quarter of
2005 included a litigation expense of $2.474 billion, or $0.57
per common share on a diluted basis, as a result of an agreement
reached in principle for the proposed settlement of certain
shareholder class action litigation and a tax benefit of
approximately $140 million related to a liability release as a
result of a transfer pricing resolution.  The Company is in
continuing mediation discussions regarding the proposed
settlement.

                        OTPP Settlement

The Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board (OTPP) and several
plaintiffs reached agreement in principle with Nortel Networks
Corp. to settle two major securities-related class actions.  The
conditional settlement is for approximately $2.4 billion in cash
and Nortel common stock (all figures in U.S. dollars and at the
current NYSE price).  OTPP is a court-appointed Co-Lead
Plaintiff in the securities class actions (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 10, 2006).

The settlement, which is subject to a number of conditions, is
part of a global settlement between Nortel (and certain of its
current and former directors) and the lead plaintiffs for two
separate securities fraud class actions ("Nortel I" and "Nortel
II") currently pending against the company in the U.S. District
Court in New York, New York (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 10,
2006).

In 2004, OTPP and the New Jersey Department of the Treasury were
appointed by a U.S. federal judge to head the prosecution of the
"Nortel II" case, the second of two major cases arising from the
disclosure of significant accounting improprieties at Nortel in
recent years.  The "Nortel II" case is being prosecuted on
behalf of persons who purchased Nortel common stock between
April 24, 2003 and April 27, 2004.  (The earlier "Nortel I"
class period is October 24, 2000 through February 15, 2001.)

The contingent settlement announced settles the securities fraud
claims being prosecuted against the company and certain of its
directors in "Nortel II", as well as the claims asserted in the
earlier "Nortel I" case.

The total consideration Nortel is paying to the two investor
classes comprises $575 million in cash, plus 14.5% of the
company's current equity (approximately 628 million shares).  
Based on the $3.02 closing price of Nortel common stock on
February 7, 2006, the settlement equity would be worth
approximately $1.9 billion.

The settlement was reached after an extensive mediation process
presided over by Senior U.S. District Judge Robert W. Sweet.  
The mediation process culminated this week in an intensive two-
day session in New York involving the top management of Nortel
and senior representatives from Ontario Teachers' and other
plaintiffs.

The payment by the Company will be allocated equally between the
two investor classes using an allocation formula worked out
between the Nortel I and Nortel II lead plaintiffs with the
active assistance of Judge Sweet.

The settlement in principle has at least three significant
conditions, including governance provisions, insurance issues
and securities regulators' approvals for issuing the 628 million
Nortel settlement shares.

If the conditions to the settlement are satisfied, the
settlement must be approved by the Honourable Loretta A. Preska,
U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York,
after notice to the Nortel II class.

Ontario Teachers' was represented in the "Nortel II" litigation
and the settlement negotiations by New-York based outside
counsel at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.

                       OPTrust Settlement

The OPSEU Pension Trust (OPTrust) reached conditional settlement
of a major U.S. securities class action against Nortel Networks
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 10, 2006).  

OPTrust was appointed by U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman
as sole Lead Plaintiff in this action, which is pending in
Federal Court in the Southern District of New York (In Re Nortel
Networks Corp. Securities Litigation, 01-CIV-1855).

Under the settlement, Nortel will pay financial compensation of
approximately US$2.4 billion (based on current share prices),
consisting of US$575 million in cash and approximately 628
million common shares.

Compensation will be shared equally between the members of the
OPTrust class, which covers the class period October 24, 2000 to
February 15, 2001, and the members of a subsequent class covered
by a second securities class action for the period April 24,
2003 to April 27, 2004 (the Nortel II litigation).

The settlement is conditional on, among other things, corporate
governance reforms to be agreed between the plaintiffs and
Nortel, and the negotiation of further settlement payments from
insurance carriers.  The settlement is also subject to court
approval and to applicable regulatory approvals.

Senior Judge Robert W. Sweet of the Southern District of New
York successfully mediated the intense discussions leading to
these arrangements.  The mediation was initiated following Judge
Sweet's appointment by Judges Berman and Preska, and took
several months of protracted discussions (including an intensive
two day session this week involving the top management of Nortel
and senior representatives from OPTrust and other plaintiffs) to
culminate in the conditional settlement announced.  Judge Sweet
will continue to work with the parties to resolve outstanding
issues.

The OPSEU Pension Trust has been represented in this litigation
by David J. Bershad, Steven G. Schulman and Daniel B. Scotti of
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, and Murray Gold of the
Canadian law firm of Koskie Minsky LLP.

OPTrust manages one of Canada's largest pension funds and
administers the OPSEU Pension Plan, with more than $10 billion
in assets under management.

The case is styled "Weinstein, et. al v. Nortel Networks, et. al
(1:01-cv-01855-RMB-MHD)," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York under Judge Richard M. Berman,
with referral to Judge Michael H. Dolinger.  Representing the
defendant(s) is Richard F. Albert of Morvillo, Abramowitz,
Grand, Iason & Silberberg, P.C., 565 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY
10017, Phone: (212) 856-9600.  Representing the plaintiffs are
Steven G. Schulman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
(NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-
946-9356; Fax: 212-273-4406; E-mail: sschulman@milbergweiss.com;  
and Daniel Bernard Scotti of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, Phone: 10119
(212) 594-5300; Fax: 212-868-1229; E-mail: dscotti@milberg.com.


PIPELINE MECHANICAL: Settles Carbon Monoxide Leak Suit in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rochon Genova LLP, counsel for the class in the 125 Parkway
Forest Drive carbon monoxide suit against Pipeline Mechanical
Services Ltd. reached a settlement on behalf of the class
members.  The settlement will provide varying amounts of
compensation to eligible class members depending on the extent
of carbon monoxide-related injuries.  A base amount of $500 will
be available for those class members who resided at the
apartment building at 125 Parkway Forest Drive in Toronto on
December 11 and/or 12, 1998 when a carbon monoxide leak occurred
at the building, without the need to provide supporting medical
documentation.

The settlement was made without any admission of liability on
the part of the defendants and is subject to court approval.  
The Approval Hearing will be heard by Mr. Justice Maurice
Cullity on April 13, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. at 361 or 393 University
Avenue in Toronto.  The location and court room number will be
confirmed and posted at http://www.rochongenova.com/in advance  
of the hearing.

For settlement agreement, claim forms, and other exhibits, see:
http://www.rochongenova.com/.

The suit was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
(Court File No.: 01-CV-210000 CM) by Elham Badali and 686234
Ontario Ltd. against Pipeline Mechanical Services Ltd.

     Class Counsel:
     Rochon Genova LLP
     121 Richmond St., Suite 903
     Toronto ON M5H 2K1
     Phone: (416) 363-1867 or 1-866-881-2292
     Fax: (416) 363-023
     Web site: http://www.rochongenova.com


RAYTHEON CO: Court Yet to Rule on Dismissal Motion V. ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
yet to rule on Raytheon Company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action, filed against it.  The suit alleged
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA).

In May 2003 two purported class actions entitled, "Benjamin Wall
v. Raytheon Company et al. (Civil Action No. 03-10940-RGS)," and
"Joseph I. Duggan, III v. Raytheon Company et al. (Civil Action
No. 03-10995-RGS)," were filed on behalf of participants in the
Company's savings and investment plans who invested in the
Company's stock between August 19, 1999 and May 27, 2003.

The two class action complaints are brought pursuant to the
ERISA.  Both complaints allege that the Company and certain
officers and directors breached ERISA fiduciary and co-fiduciary
duties arising out of the Company's savings and investment
plans' investment in the Company stock.  In September 2003,
these actions were consolidated.  In April 2004, a second
consolidated amended complaint was filed on behalf of
participants and beneficiaries in the Company's savings and
investment plans, which invested in the Company's stock since
October 7, 1998.  In October 2004, the defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended ERISA Complaint.

In September 2005, the Court heard the motion to dismiss, but
declined to decide the motion subject to a trial on a statute of
limitations issue, which is scheduled for June 2006.

The suit is styled, "Wall v. Raytheon CO. et al., Case No. 1:03-
cv-10940-RGS," filed in the U.S. District Court fort the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Richard G. Stearns.  
Representing the plaintiff/s are, Edward W. Ciolko and Mark K.
Gyandoh of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Three Bala Plaza East,
Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-
667-7056, E-mail: eciolko@sbclasslaw.com; and
mgyandoh@sbclasslaw.com; and Peter H. LeVan, Jr. of Hangley
Aronchick Segal & Pudlin, One Logan Square, 27th Floor,
Philadephia, PA 19103-6933, US, Phone: 215-496-7071, Fax: 215-
585-0300, E-mail: plevan@hangley.com.

Representing the defendant/s are, Rebecca Ruby Anzidei and James
P. Gillespie of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, Suite 1200, 655 Fifteenth
St., N.W. Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-879-5046 and
202-879-5000, Fax: 202-879-5200, E-mail: ranzidei@kirkland.com
and jgillespie@kirkland.com; and James F. Kavanaugh, Jr. of
Conn, Kavanaugh, Rosenthal, Peisch & Ford, LLP, Ten Post Office
Square
Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-482-8200, Fax: 617-482-6444, E-
mail: jkavanaugh@ckrpf.com.


REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: Lawyer Requests N.J. Venue for Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for Regeneration Technologies filed a motion in Baton
Rouge federal court on Friday to transfer a class action lodged
against the company in Louisiana to New Jersey, according to
2theAdvocate.

New Orleans lawyer Deborah A. Van Meter asked U.S. Judge Frank
Polozola to delay taking any action on the case against
Regeneration Technologies, the report said.  Regeneration
Technologies is accused of selling looted body parts from
corpses to hospitals for tissue transplants.  Ms. Van Meter's
team has requested that the cases be heard in New Jersey, where
five of the cases were filed.  Ms. Van Meter said there are 14
pending cases against the company in various states.

A New York medical supply company is facing a class action in
federal court in Baton Rouge, Louisiana for illegally selling
tissue and bone to Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center
and other hospitals in the state, Associated Press reported
earlier (Class Action Reporter, March 7, 2006).

According to the report, Darrel Bourque learned in January that
the tissue transplanted in his neck during spinal surgery a year
ago came from Biomedical Tissue Services.  Mr. Bourque is
advised to undergo blood testing to determine whether he has
contracted a disease as a result of the tissue transplant.  The
suit is seeking:

     (1) damages,

     (2) establishment of a comprehensive medical monitoring  
         program, and

     (3) treatment of any future disease or complication related
         to the implants.

Biomedical Tissue Services owners Michael Mastromarino and
Joseph Nicelli and others are accused of illegally removing
tissues from funeral parlors and city morgues.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration previously ordered
Biomedical Tissue Services Ltd. to stop manufacturing operations
after an investigation by the agency revealed "serious and
widespread" deficiencies in the firm's activities.

Authorities, including New Jersey, New York and federal health
officials, are investigating the Fort Lee, New Jersey firm.  
Also under investigation are Biomedical Tissue founder Michael
Mastromarino, and a number of New York funeral homes, according
to Allentown Morning Call (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 13,
2006).

The suit is styled "Bourque et al. v. Regeneration Technologies,
Inc. et al. (3:06-cv-00170-FJP-DLD)" filed in the U.S. District
Court of Louisiana under Judge Frank J. Polozola, with referral
to Docia L. Dalby.  Representing the plaintiff is Philip Bohrer
of Bohrer Law Firm, 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B, Baton
Rouge, LA 70809, Phone: 225-925-5297; Fax: 225-231-7000; E-mail:
phil@bohrerlaw.com.  Representing the defendant is Deborah A.
Van Meter of McGlinchey Stafford- N.O., 643 Magazine Street, New
Orleans, LA 70130, Phone: 504-586-1200; Fax: 504-596-2800; E-
mail: dvanmeter@mcglinchey.com.


SANOFI-SYNTHELABO: Faces Federal Suits Over Sleeping Drug Ambien
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Times recently reported that last year some 26.5
million prescriptions of Ambien were filled and the manufacturer
made some $2.2 billion in sales for a drug they advertise that
will put you asleep.  But some Ambien users nationwide
experience bizarre side effects of sleep walking, sleep eating
and memory loss that landed them in Jail, they lost their jobs
or they were seriously injured, without any memory of what
happened to them.

Scientific research confirms that Ambien is a powerful hypnotic
that can reel people into sleepwalking and sleep eating instead
of a good nights sleep.
         
New York City Attorney Susan Chana Lask filed a class action
complaint in the Southern District of New York on March 6, 2006,
Case No. 06CIV1762.  Ms. Lask interviewed people nationwide and
an expert pharmacologist-all confirmed the dangerous side
effects of Ambien.  

Four class representatives relate their experiences in the
Complaint of taking Ambien for good nights sleep and waking up
only to find themselves in jail, driving cars while in a
hypnotic state and binge eating at night where their spouses
shoveled food from their mouths.

Attorney Susan Chana Lask explains: "The purpose of our lawsuit
is to insure Ambien warns consumers and doctors about the
adverse side effects of sleep walking and sleep eating because
it is unfair to Ambien users to enter this hypnotic state then
sleep walk and drive, putting themselves and others in danger."

"You don't want to be that other person crossing the road when
an Ambien user is hypnotically driving towards you.  The worst
part of those side effects is that these people have absolutely
no memory of what happened to them after they took Ambien."  The
filed complaint is at http://www.appellatebrief.com/ambien.html.

The class representatives range from a housewife in Florida, a
Texas woman studying for her CPA, a Lab Technician in New York
and a Lieutenant in the US Navy.  

The suit is styled "Makinen et al. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo et al.
(1:06-cv-01762-LLS)" filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Louis L. Stanton.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Susan Chana Lask, 244 Fifth
Avenue, Suite 2369, New York, NY 10001, U.S. Phone:
212-358-5762.


U.S. AGGREGATES: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set March 24
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on behalf of all persons who
purchased U.S. Aggregates, Inc. common stock during the period
beginning April 25, 2000 through April 2, 2001, inclusive.

The hearing will be held on March 24, 2006, at 10:00 a.m.,
before the Honorable Claudia Wilken at the United States
Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, to determine:

     (1) whether the proposed settlement of the claims in the
         litigation for the sum of $3,500,000 in cash should be
         approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate;

     (2) whether, thereafter, this litigation should be
         dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the
         Stipulation of Settlement dated as of November 10, 2005
         ("Stipulation");

     (3) whether the plan of allocation is fair, reasonable and
         adequate and therefore should be approved; and

     (4) whether the application of lead counsel for the payment
         of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses
         incurred in connection with this litigation should be
         approved.

For more details, contact Joy Ann Bull of LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA
GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San
Diego, CA 92101, Website: http://www.lerachlaw.com.


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

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

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

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


                 New Securities Fraud Cases


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Bruce G. Murphy Lodges Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Bruce G. Murphy initiated a class action on
behalf of all securities purchasers of Chicago Bridge & Iron Co.
N.V. (NYSE:CBI) between March 9, 2005 and February 3, 2006,
inclusive.

CBI is a global engineering, procurement, and construction
company.  According to the complaint, the Company repeatedly
reported strong financial results in filings with the SEC and in
publicly disseminated press releases.  The Company also reported
to have a "record backlog" of construction projects that would
generate significant revenues and contribute to the Company's
continuing growth.  These statements were materially false and
misleading, because defendants failed to disclose that the
Company's purportedly positive results and guidance were the
result of, in material part, fraudulent accounting.

On October 26, 2005 the truth began to emerge, because on that
day, the Company announced that it would not be able to timely
file its report for the third quarter of 2005 with the SEC.  In
reaction to this news, the price of CBI stock fell $6.21 per
share in a single day.  On October 31, 2005, the Company
revealed in a press release that the delay in releasing its
results for the third quarter of 2005 "was precipitated by a
memo from a senior member of CB&I's accounting department
alleging accounting improprieties, including the determination
of claim recognition on two projects and the assessment of costs
to complete two projects."  According to the release, the
Company's Audit Committee had commenced an independent
investigation of the matter.

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

On February 4, 2006, in reaction to this news, the price of CBI
stock plummeted again, falling to $22.33 per share, or 23%, from
its closing price of $29.00 on February 3, 2006.

For more details, contact Bruce G. Murphy of Law Offices of
Bruce G. Murphy, 265 Llwyds Lane, Vero Beach, FL 32963, Phone:
(772) 231-4202, E-mail: brucemurphy@webtv.net.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Bruce G. Murphy Files N.Y. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Bruce G. Murphy has filed a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired
the securities of Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
(Nasdaq:TTWO) between October 25, 2004 and January 27, 2006,
inclusive.  The Law Offices of Bruce G. Murphy is seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against defendants Take-Two, Paul Eibeler, Karl H. Winters, and
Gary Lewis.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
made numerous misrepresentations about the success of the
Company's video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, and the
strong contribution that it was making to the Company's overall
revenues.  As alleged in the Complaint, defendants failed to
disclose that it had improperly hid pornographic materials
directly in the programming of the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
game.  

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

On January 27, 2006, the last day of the Class Period, it was
announced that the City Attorney for the City of Los Angeles had
filed an action against the Company and its subsidiary for
making misleading statements in the marketing of Grand Theft
Auto: San Andreas, and engaging in unfair competition. The
action sought disgorgement of the Company's profits from the
sales of the game in California before the game was re-rated.

In direct response to this announcement, Take-Two's stock price
plunged approximately $2.34 per share, or 13.7%, on more than 21
million shares traded - approximately ten times the average
daily trading volume during the preceding 12 months. Prior to
the announcement, however, company insiders, including the
defendants, were able to capitalize on the inflated stock price,
and sell more than 661,000 shares of their personally-held Take-
Two stock for proceeds of over $18 million.

For more details, contact Bruce G. Murphy of Law Offices of
Bruce G. Murphy, 265 Llwyds Lane, Vero Beach, FL 32963, Phone:
(772) 231-4202, E-mail: brucemurphy@webtv.net.


                            *********


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  * * *