CAR_Public/060315.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, March 15, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 53

                            Headlines

ADOLOR CORP: Asks Pa. Court to Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
ALABAMA: Motorists' Suit Questions Hundreds of Traffic Tickets
BRISTOL-MYERS: May Hearing Set for $185M Stock Suit Settlement
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Fiduciary Duty Claim Stands in Media Suit
CLASSIC DELIGHT: Recalls Egg Salad for Possible Health Hazard

DIRECTREVENUE LLC: Settles Spyware Suit in Ill. Circuit Court
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs in Alberta Suit Withdraw from Deal
GEORGIA CASH: Payday Loans Lawsuit Remanded to Ga. State Court
GUAM: Judge Removes Attorney General from Tax Refunds Lawsuit
HIBERNIA FOODS: Lawyers in Securities Lawsuit Face Indictment

ILLINOIS: Court Certifies Suit Over Disabled People's Residence
INDIANA: March 22 Hearing Set for American Legion Gaming Suit
INVESTORS FINANCIAL: Continues to Face Securities Suits in Mass.
JANUS CAPITAL: Colo. Court Dismisses Fund Investors' Complaint
KING PHARMACEUTICALS: April 10, 2007 Stock Suit Trial Set

LEVEL 3: Continues to Face Right-of-Way Suits in Ill., Idaho
MCDONALD'S OF MARIN: $1.45M Settlement Reached in Calif. Lawsuit
MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: Commodity Suit Pact Awaits Final Approval
MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: Kern Dropped From Kan. Gas Suit, NNG Remains
OVERTURE SERVICES: IPO Pact Fairness Hearing Set April 24, 2006

PAND ENTERPRISES: Paying $90T in N.Mex Teen Harassment Lawsuit
PERFORMANCE INC: Recalls Bicycle Resistance Trainers for Repair
PIZZA HUT: Reaches Settlement in Calif. FLSA Violations Lawsuit
POMEROY IT: Court Rejects Stock Fraud Suit Filed by CEO's Wife
PRIMUS FINANCIAL: Agrees to Mediate Interest-Rate Markups Suit

REVLON INC: Continues to Face Amended Securities Suit in N.Y.
ROBERTSON STEPHENS: F5 Networks Investors Urged to File Claims
ROBERTSON STEPHENS: QuickLogic Investors Urged to File Claims
ROHM & HAAS: Plastics Additives Antitrust Suits Consolidated
SOUTH CAROLINA: Continues to Face Right-of-Way Lawsuit in S.C.

SOUTH CAROLINA: Plaintiffs Appeal Right-of-Way Suit's Dismissal
TACO BELL: Discovery Proceeds in Calif. ADA Violations Lawsuit
U.S.: Tort Costs $260B in 2004, Towers Perrin Report Shows
WASHINGTON GROUP: Faces Several Suits in La. Over Levee Failure
XTO ENERGY: Aug.`05 Settlement Payment Ended Colo. Royalty Suit

XTO ENERGY: No Ruling Yet on Kans. Antitrust Suit Certification

                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BAUSCH & LOMB: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
BAUSCH & LOMB: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
COOPER COMPANIES: Charles Johnson Lodges Calif. Securities Suit
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Suit in Idaho
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Pomerantz Haudek Files Stock Suit in Idaho


                            *********


ADOLOR CORP: Asks Pa. Court to Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adolor Corporation is asking the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, its director and
certain officers.

On April 21, 2004, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the
Company, one of its directors and certain of its officers
seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of
persons who purchased common stock between September 23, 2003
and January 14, 2004.  The complaint alleges violations of
Section 10(b) and section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), in connection with the
announcement of the results of certain studies in the Company's
Phase III clinical trials for Entereg(R), which allegedly had
the effect of artificially inflating the price of the Company's
common stock.  This suit has been consolidated with three
subsequent actions asserting similar claims under the caption,
"In re Adolor Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 2:04-cv-
01728."

On December 29, 2004, the District Court issued an order
appointing the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund as
Lead Plaintiff.  The appointed Lead Plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint on February 28, 2005.  The
Complaint purported to extend the class period, so as to bring
claims on behalf of a putative class of Adolor shareholders who
purchased stock between September 23, 2003 and December 22,
2004.

The complaint also adds as defendants the Board of Directors,
asserting claims against them and the other defendants for
violation of Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 in connection with the Company's public offering of stock
in November 2003.  The Company and its management and director
defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on April 29, 2005.
The plaintiffs responded to the motion to dismiss on June 28,
2005, and the defendants' reply was filed on August 12, 2005.

The suit is styled "Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund
v. Adolor Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-01728-RBS,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, under Judge R. Barclay Surrick.  Representing the
plaintiffs are, Ramzi Abadou, Laura Andracchio, Nicholas J.
Licato, Scott Saham, Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP, 401 B
St., STE. 1700, San Diego CA, 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, E-
mail: ramzia@lcsr.com; and Marc S. Henzel, Law Offices of Marc
S. Henzel, 273 Montgomery Avenue, Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd PA
19004, Phone: 610-660-8000, E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com.

Representing the defendants are, Michael S. Doluisio, Jeffrey G.
Weil, Dechert, Price & Rhoads, 1717 Arch Street, 4000 Bell
Atlantic Tower, Philadelphia PA 19103-2793, Phone: 215-994-2749,
Fax: 215-994-2222, E-mail: michael.doluisio@dechert.com; and
John A. Ducoff, Allan E. Kraus, Jason Rockwell, Laurie B.
Smilan, Latham & Watkins LLP, One Newark Center 16th floor,
Newark, NJ 07101-3174, Phone: 973-639-1234.


ALABAMA: Motorists' Suit Questions Hundreds of Traffic Tickets
--------------------------------------------------------------
A suit filed against Autaugaville is asking to void 317 traffic
tickets allegedly issued by uncertified police officers,
according to the United Press International.

Ricardo Matthews and Cleo Frank Jackson filed the class action
in U.S. District Court in Montgomery against police officers and
city officials (Class Action Reporter, March 3, 2006).  The
defendants are:

     (1) Michael McCollum;

     (2) Donnie Martin;

     (3) Wyatt Lee Seger III;

     (4) Mayor Curtis Jackson; and

     (5) Police Chief LeVan Johnson.

The men claimed the tickets they received were issued by
officers not yet certified by the Alabama Peace Officers
Standards and Training Commission.  Mr. Matthews was ticketed
for driving with suspended license, and for being uninsured.
Mr. Jackson was ticketed once for speeding.  Their suit seeks
the return of all fines and court costs for traffic cases made
by uncertified officers from Feb. 1, 2004 to the present, along
with unspecified damage amounts.

The suit is styled "Matthews et al v. Town of Autaugaville et al
Delores R. Boyd (2:06-cv-00185-DRB)," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Alabama under Judge Delores R.
Boyd.  Representing the plaintiffs is Jim Lee DeBardelaben of
Jim L. DeBardelaben Attorney At Law, P.O. Box 152, Montgomery,
AL 36101-0152, Phone: 334-265-9206, Fax: 265-9299; E-mail:
dgoollaw@aol.com.  Representing the defendant is J. Robert Faulk
of McDowell, Faulk & McDowell, Prattville, Alabama, (Autauga &
Elmore Cos.).


BRISTOL-MYERS: May Hearing Set for $185M Stock Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Stanley R. Chesler of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey will hold a hearing for the proposed
$185 million settlement in the matter, "In Re Bristol-Myers
Squibb Securities (Civil Action No. 00-1990 (SRC) Litigation).
The case was brought on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased the common stock of Bristol-Myers Squibb between Oct.
19, 1999 and March 20, 2002, inclusive, relating to the Bristol-
Myers Squibb investigational compound, omapatrilat (VANLEV(TM))
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 13, 2006).

The hearing will be on May 11, 2006, 10:30 a.m., before the,
Clarkson S. Fisher Building & U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom 5E, 402
East State Street, Trenton, New Jersey.

Deadline for filing proof of claim and release is June 30, 2006.
Deadline for filing request for exclusion and objection is April
27, 2006.

The settlement also includes provisions regarding the Company's
commitment to the public disclosure of the results of certain
clinical trials, and the registration of trials on an
appropriate publicly-accessible database. The Company admitted
no wrongdoing while agreeing to enter the settlement.

Representing the plaintiffs are Allyn Zissel Lite and Michael A.
Patunas, Lite, Depalma, Greenberg and Rivas, LCC, Two Gateway
Center 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000,
E-mail: alite@ldgrlaw.com, and mpatunas@ldgrlaw.com; and Robert
J. Berg, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 2050 Center Ave.
Suite 200, Fort Lee, NJ 07024 by Phone: 201-592-3201, by E-mail:
berg@bernlieb.com.

Representing the Company is William J. O'Shaughnessy of Mccarter
& English, ESQS., Four Gateway Center, 100 Mulberry Street, PO
Box 652, Newark NJ, 07101-0652, Phone: (973) 622-4444, E-mail:
woshaughnessy@mccarter.com.

For more details, contact: Bristol-Myers Squibb Securities
Litigation, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims
Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6399, Merrick, NY 11566-9000,
(888) 252-4402.  Copies of the Notice and Proof of Claim Form is
available at: http://www.gardencitygroup.com.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Fiduciary Duty Claim Stands in Media Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation and each of its directors
continue to face a suit alleging breach of fiduciary duty in
relation to the exchange of the Rainbow Media Group tracking
stock for Cablevision NY Group common stock.  The suit is filed
in Delaware Chancery Court.

In August 2002, purported class actions filed on behalf of all
holders of publicly traded shares of Rainbow Media Group
tracking stock.  The actions sought to:

     (1) enjoin the exchange of Rainbow Media Group tracking
         stock for Cablevision NY Group common stock,

     (2) enjoin any sales of "Rainbow Media Group assets," or,
         in the alternative, award rescissory damages,

     (3) if the exchange is completed, rescind it or award
         rescissory damages,

     (4) award compensatory damages, and

     (5) award costs and disbursements

The actions were consolidated into one action on September 17,
2002, and on October 3, 2002, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated action.  The action was stayed by
agreement of the parties pending resolution of a related action
brought by one of the plaintiffs to compel the inspection of
certain Company books and records.  On October 26, 2004, the
parties entered into a stipulation dismissing the related
action, and providing for the Company's production of certain
documents.  On December 13, 2004, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint.  The Company has filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint.  On April 19, 2005, the court
granted that motion in part, dismissing the breach of contract
claim but declining to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty
claim on the pleadings.


CLASSIC DELIGHT: Recalls Egg Salad for Possible Health Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Classic Delight, Inc. of St. Marys, Ohio is recalling "Egg Salad
on Vienna Bread, Pilot good to go" 4.5-oz. Sandwiches,
distributed by Pierre Foods, Inc. of Cincinnati, Ohio.  The
company says the product may be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes, an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people and
others with weakened immune systems.

Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headaches, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women, the company
said.  No illnesses resulting from the consumption of this
product have been reported to date.

The Egg Salad sandwiches were packaged frozen, 12 4.50 oz.
sandwiches per case, lot code 5355, and distributed to Pilot
Travel Centers LLC located in: Ohio, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Utah,
Nevada, Oregon, Iowa, Montana, Kentucky, Tennessee, North
Carolina, Mississippi, Arkansas, West Virginia, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, South Dakota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Idaho,
Florida, Illinois, Colorado, Georgia, New York, Texas,
California, Washington, Arizona and Indiana.  The frozen
sandwiches are to be thawed and sold as a single service item at
the Pilot locations.

The recall is voluntarily being conducted by Classic Delight
after it was notified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
that a random sample of this sandwich lot taken and analyzed by
the Ohio Department of Agriculture was positive for Listeria
monocytogenes.  Classic Delight Inc. has ceased the production
and distribution of this product and Pilot Travel Centers LLC
has voluntarily pulled all products as the FDA and the Company
continue their investigation as to what caused the problem.

Consumers who have purchased this product are advised to return
it to the place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 1-800-274-9828.


DIRECTREVENUE LLC: Settles Spyware Suit in Ill. Circuit Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
DirectRevenue, LLC has settled a suit filed against it in April
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, according to Suzi
Turner at http://blogs.zdnet.com/Spyware/index.php?p=792.

The suit alleged that the New York adware company has
deceptively downloaded harmful and offensive spyware to
unsuspecting users' computers, the eWEEK.com reports (Class
Action Reporter, April 7, 2005).  Specifically, it claimed that
DirectRevenue "unlawfully used and damaged plaintiffs' computers
to make money for themselves while willfully disregarding
plaintiffs' rights to use and enjoy their personal property."

According to the suit, the spyware infiltrated users' computers
to learn their Internet browsing habits and track their Internet
use.  In addition, the suit stated that DirectRevenue
deceptively prevents users from removing its spyware, thus
overwhelming computers with unsolicited advertisements (Class
Action Reporter, April 7, 2005).

The suit also contended that DirectRevenue's business model is
to pay independent distributors, which are often small companies
that dropped out of the spam business or that develop peer-to-
peer file sharing or screensavers, several cents per
installation to install its software (Class Action Reporter,
April 7, 2005).

According to the post by Ms. Turner, the suit seeks no cash
settlement, but individuals may file claims for damages against
DirectRevenue.

She said the terms of this settlement include:

     (1) DirectRevenue will destroy any personally identifiable
         information about computer users including Social
         Security Numbers, bank account information, email
         addresses, etc. and must no longer collect such
         information;

     (2) DirectRevenue will force users to affirmatively accept
         installation of their software and disclose information
         about the functionality of the software separate from
         the EULA;

     (3) DirectRevenue is prohibited from installing software by
         Active X, security exploits or any other method that
         does not require users' affirmative consent; and

     (4) DirectRevenue will not distribute software at sights
         targeted to children.

Settlement document: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?68c.

The case (1:05-cv-02562) is filed against DirectRevenue, and The
Best Offers Network, LLC (f/k/a BetterInternet, LLC) by Stephen
Sotelo on behalf of the class.

DirectRevenue is represented by Neal H. Klausner, Esq. of Davis
& Gilbert LLP, 1740 Broadway, New York, NY 10019.  The class is
represented by David J. Fish of Shawn M. Collins, Esq., The
Collins Law Firm, P.C., 1770 N. Park St. Suite 200, Naperville,
Illinois 60563.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs in Alberta Suit Withdraw from Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Corp. received notice from counsel for the
purported class in its action in Alberta, Canada that the group
would not be proceeding with the previously announced settlement
agreement.

On November 6, 2003, a class action was commenced proposing to
represent a class of customers who obtained loans in Alberta,
Canada and alleging, among other things, that the check cashing
fee charged to customers in connection with Fast Cash Advances
by National Money Mart, the Company's wholly owned Canadian
subsidiary, is a breach of various legislation.  The pending
settlement, which was announced by the Company on January 10,
2006, was a compromise of the disputed claims and the Company
does not admit to any wrongdoing or liability.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com-- is an
international financial services company serving under-banked
consumers.  Its customers are typically lower- and middle-income
working-class individuals.  It provides check cashing, short-
term consumer loan programs, Western Union money order and money
transfer products, reloadable VISA(R) branded debit cards,
electronic tax filing, bill payment services, and legal document
preparation services.


GEORGIA CASH: Payday Loans Lawsuit Remanded to Ga. State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court in Georgia approved plaintiff's motion
to remand a class action filed against:

     (1) Georgia Cash America, Inc.,

     (2) Cash America International, Inc. (together with Georgia
         Cash America, Inc., "Cash America"),

     (3) Daniel R. Feehan, and

     (4) several unnamed officers, directors, owners and
         stakeholders of Cash America

to the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia.

On August 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed a purported class
action in the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia against the
defendants.  The lawsuit alleges many different causes of
action, among the most significant of which is that Cash America
has been making illegal payday loans in Georgia in violation of
Georgia's usury law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act and
Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Community State Bank (CSB) has for some time made loans to
Georgia residents through Cash America's Georgia operating
locations. The complaint in this lawsuit claims that CSB is not
the true lender with respect to the loans made to Georgia
borrowers and that its involvement in the process is a mere
subterfuge.  Based on this claim, the suit alleges that Cash
America is the "de facto" lender and is illegally operating in
Georgia.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's
fees, punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory
damages.  Cash America removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia and filed a motion to
compel the plaintiff to arbitrate his claim, in addition to
denying the plaintiff's allegations and asserting various
defenses to his claim.  The court approved a motion by the
plaintiff to remand the case to Georgia state court on December
13, 2005.  As of February 15, 2006, the entirety of this case is
before the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia and the parties
are awaiting the State Court's ruling on certain motions,
including a motion to compel arbitration.

In response to the Strong case, and to further assert the
Company's right to arbitrate that dispute, Cash America and CSB
filed a separate complaint against Mr. Strong on September 7,
2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia to compel Strong to arbitrate the claims he asserts in
his suit.  The court dismissed Cash America's complaint on
February 7, 2006, based on a finding of a lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.  Cash America is likely to appeal this dismissal.

The remanded federal suit is styled "Strong v. Georgia Cash
America Inc. et al., case no. 1:04-cv-02611-WSD," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, under
Judge William S. Duffey, Jr.  Representing the plaintiffs are
Roy E. Barnes, Jennifer Auer Jordan and John Frank Salter, Jr.
of The Barnes Law Group, LLC, P.O. Box 489, Marietta, GA 30061,
Phone: 770-419-8505, Fax: 770-590-8958, E-mail:
roy@barneslawgroup.com, jennifer@barneslawgroup.com,
john@barneslawgroup.com.

Representing the Company are Claudia Callaway, John Garrett
Parker, and Sabrina Rose Smith of Paul Hastings Janofsky &
Walker, 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Tenth Floor, Washington,
DC 20004-2400, Phone: 202-508-9500, E-mail:
claudiacallaway@paulhastings.com, johnparker@paulhastings.com,
sabrinarosesmith@paulhastings.com.


GUAM: Judge Removes Attorney General from Tax Refunds Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ricardo Martinez issued an order dismissing
Attorney General Douglas Moylan from a suit over tax refunds on
March 10, KUAM News reports.  The governor general has signed
the contract recognizing the right of Guam's governor to retain
independent counsel, the report said.

Charmaine Torres filed class action in July 2004 to demand
Earned Income Tax Credit refunds dating back 1995, full amount
of tax credit, and guarantees to ensure the government will pay
tax credits in the future.  The suit challenged another deal
involving taxpayers (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 6, 2006).

In February 2004, Julie Babauta Santos filed a class action that
resulted to a settlement between the attorney general and then-
acting Gov. Kaleo Moylan.  The agreement would have paid about
$60 million of the $120 million owed to taxpayers in EITC
refunds dating back to 1998, the report said.  But Gov. Felix
Camacho did not approve of the settlement.  He increased the
settlement to $90 million, specifying this will come from 15% of
the money set aside for tax refunds each year.  The deal also
includes two additional tax years.

Ms. Santos' attorney, Mike Phillips, earlier said taxpayers will
be allowed to claim the credit on their tax forms for this tax-
filing season, however, it's not clear when their EITC refunds
will be paid (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 6, 2006).

The Santos case could be consolidated with similar lawsuits
filed by Ms. Torres as well as Mary Grace Simpao and Christina
Naputi, according to the report.


HIBERNIA FOODS: Lawyers in Securities Lawsuit Face Indictment
-------------------------------------------------------------
The multi-million-euro class action against failed Irish firm
Hibernia Foods was dealt a blow on reports two of its lawyers
will be indicted for wire fraud and money laundering, according
to The Irish Post.ie.

Steven Schuman and David Bershad, partners with New York law
firm Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman are facing indictment on
charges they routinely made illegal payments to plaintiffs who
appeared in securities class actions brought by the firm.

Hibernia Foods, its former chairman Oliver Murphy, Chief
Financial Officer Colm Delves, and accountant
PricewaterhouseCoopers are facing a suit over allegations the
defendants had access to adverse undisclosed information about
Hibernia's business operations and financial condition.  The
suit is brought on behalf of purchases of Hibernia's shares
between August 1999 and October 2003.  Mr. Murphy and Mr. Delves
are accused of selling shares worth $26 million and $4.4 million
respectively during this period, the report said.  A hearing on
the case is set later this year.

Hibernia went into receivership in October 2003 because of a
EUR24 million debt owed to GMAC, a subsidiary of General Motors.


ILLINOIS: Court Certifies Suit Over Disabled People's Residence
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thousands of Illinois' developmentally disabled residents moved
a step closer to having a choice over where they live after a
recent ruling by a federal judge.  U.S. District Court Judge
James Holderman granted class action status in a lawsuit that
charges the State of Illinois with violating the civil rights of
people with developmental disabilities by effectively forcing
them into large institutions rather than offering them the
choice of living in smaller community settings.

"This ruling means that thousands of Illinois residents, in
addition to the nine original plaintiffs, will benefit from any
relief obtained in this lawsuit," said Barry Taylor of Equip for
Equality, counsel for the plaintiffs.

Equip for Equality is the federally-mandated protection and
advocacy agency for persons with disabilities in Illinois.

"The judge's decision is an enormous step forward," said Max
Lapertosa, a lawyer with Access Living, co-counsel in the suit.
Access Living is Chicago's Center for Independent Living and
works toward the full equality, inclusion, and empowerment of
people with disabilities.  "People with developmental
disabilities have the right to choose to live in integrated
community settings that best fit their needs.  And that choice
must remain with them, not with the State."

Seven years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that unnecessary
institutionalization is discrimination under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.  As a result, most states have invested in
community-based housing and services, but Illinois has dragged
its feet.  Illinois currently ranks 49th among states in its
efforts to place people with developmental disabilities in small
integrated settings.

"The situation in Illinois is reminiscent of Henry Ford's saying
'You can have any color Model T you want, as long as it's
black,'" said Benjamin Wolf of the American Civil Liberties
Union of Illinois, co-counsel in the case.

"In Illinois, the State is essentially telling developmentally
disabled adults they can live anywhere they want as long as it
is an institution.  The state's funding decisions have robbed
people of any real choice about their living situation."

Under Judge Holderman's ruling, the plaintiff class is now
comprised of people with developmental disabilities who are
unnecessarily institutionalized in private state-funded
institutions and those at risk of unnecessary
institutionalization.  The latter group includes those living
with elderly parents who one day will no longer be able to care
for them at home.  Now, Illinois gives them no choice but
institutionalized care.

Ultimately, plaintiffs in this case are seeking an order that
would require the state to provide them a choice to live within
a smaller community setting.  Community living provides more
independence, privacy, and integration in the community.

"I want to live with friends in a small house or apartment and
have my own room," says plaintiff Stanley Ligas. "I can do a lot
of things on my own, and I want to be able to cook for myself."
Instead, Ligas has been forced to live in a large institution
for the past 12 years in order to receive Medicaid services,
despite his repeated requests to move into the community.

In his FY07 budget proposal, Governor Blagojevich failed to
include any additional funding for community-based services for
people with developmental disabilities.  Advocates view this
lawsuit as the only viable vehicle to achieve the State's
compliance with federal law.

"Now that we've cleared this important legal hurdle, we're
looking forward to litigating this case to make a positive
change in the lives of people with disabilities in Illinois,"
says John Grossbart, the partner at Sonnenschein Nath &
Rosenthal LLP leading that firm's efforts.

The decision granting class certification follows previous
rulings by Judge Holderman denying three Motions to Intervene
filed by the Illinois Health Care Association, parents whose
adult children live at Misericordia, and parents who are
affiliated with Voice of the Retarded.  In denying the motions
to intervene, Judge Holderman found that the plaintiffs'
complaint was simply seeking to provide people with
developmental disabilities opportunities to choose where they
live.

The plaintiffs are represented by four public interest
organizations, Equip for Equality, Access Living, the American
Civil Liberties Union of Illinois and the Public Interest Law
Center of Philadelphia, and the law firm Sonnenschein Nath &
Rosenthal LLP, which is working in this case as trial counsel on
a pro bono basis.

The suit was styled "Ligas et al. v. Maram et al. (1:05-cv-
04331)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  Representing the defendants is Karen
Elaine Konieczny, Illinois Attorney General's Office, 160 North
LaSalle Street, Suite N-1000, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone:
(312)793-2380; E-mail: aidd1534@idpa.state.il.us.  Representing
the plaintiffs is Barry Charlton Taylor of Equip for Equality,
20 North Michigan, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312)
341-0022.


INDIANA: March 22 Hearing Set for American Legion Gaming Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The New Haven American Legion Post 330 has filed two class
actions against the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission over
excise officers' pursuit of illegal gambling, The Journal
Gazette reports.

The Post filed one suit in Allen Superior Court, seeking an
immediate court order to put the commission's administrative
process to revoke the firm's liquor license on hold pending the
final outcome of the case.  The other suit is filed in U.S.
District Court in Indianapolis.

Two excise officers raided the post in June, and issued citation
of violating illegal gambling laws of Indiana.  It was fined
$500.  The state suit claims the commission first tried to
enforce a law out of its jurisdiction with a citation and a $500
fine.  It also states the post has a charity gaming license
through the Department of Revenue, whose records show the post
has an annual bingo charity license, according to the report.

The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Commission Chairman Dave Heath,

     (2) Judge U-Jung Choe,

     (3) prosecutor Jennifer Drewry,

     (4) excise officers John Barchak and April Tackett,

     (5) other commission employees

A March 22 hearing has been scheduled for the state court
lawsuit.

The federal suit is styled "American Legion Post 330 v. Heath et
al. (1:06-cv-00390-DFH-TAB)," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana under Judge David Frank
Hamilton, with referral to Judge Tim A. Baker.  The plaintiff is
represented by Arend J. Abel of Cohen & Malad, LLP, One Indiana
Square, Suite 1400, Indianapolis, IN 46204, Phone: 317-636-6481;
Fax: 317-636-2593; E-mail: aabel@cohenandmalad.com.


INVESTORS FINANCIAL: Continues to Face Securities Suits in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Investors Financial Services Corp. and five of its officers are
named as defendants in three purported class action complaints
that were filed on or about August 4, 2005, August 15, 2005 and
September 30, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts.

Among other things, the complaints filed on August 4, 2005 and
August 15, 2005 assert that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during
the period October 15, 2003 until July 15, 2005.  The complaint
filed on September 30, 2005 asserts that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
during the period July 16, 2003 until July 15, 2005.

The allegations in the complaints predominantly relate to the
Company's October 2004 restatement of its financial results, and
the Company's July 2005 revision of public guidance regarding
its future financial performance.  The complaints seek
unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs. The Company
disputes the lawsuits' merits and claims.

The first identified complaint is styled, "The Archdiocese of
Milwaukee Support Fund, et al. v. Investors Financial Services
Corp., et al., Case No. 05-CV-11627," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.  Plaintiff firms
involved in this litigation are:

     (1) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com;

     (2) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., Esquire at 261
         Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone:
         215.886.1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net;

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

     (4) Scott & Scott, LLC, P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue,
         Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone: 860.537.5537, Fax:
         860.537.4432, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com; and

     (5) Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor,
         New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, Fax:
         info@whhf.com.


JANUS CAPITAL: Colo. Court Dismisses Fund Investors' Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted to
Janus Capital Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the class action
"Davis v. Bailey, et al. Case Number 05-MK-42" filed against it
and several related entities.

The suit relates to the submission of claims as class members
under numerous class actions.  The Davis action was filed on
behalf of fund investors and alleges that the Company failed to
make appropriate filings to ensure that its mutual funds
participated in various class action settlements, and that the
Company and others thereby breached fiduciary duties owed to
mutual fund shareholders.  The action asserts claims under
Sections 36(a) and (b), and 47(b) of the Investment Company Act
and for breach of fiduciary duty.

On December 22, 2005, the court granted Janus' motion to
dismiss, resulting in all of the federal claims being dismissed
with prejudice and all of the state claims being dismissed
without prejudice.

The suit is styled, "Davis, et al. v. Bailey, et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-00042-WYD-OES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, under Judge Wiley Y. Daniel.  Representing
the plaintiffs are, Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III of Cauley,
Bowman, Carney & Williams, PLLC, P.O. Box 25438, 11311 Arcade
Drive #200, Little Rock, AK 72221-5438 U.S.A., Phone: 501-312-
8500, Fax: 501-312-8505; and Kevin Scott Hannon of Hannon Law
Firm, LLC, 1641 Downing Street, Denver, CO 80218, U.S.A, Phone:
303-861-8800, Fax: 861-8855, E-mail: khannon@hannonlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, Scott Pringle Sinor and Tucker
K. Trautman of Dorsey & Whitney, LLP-Colorado, District Court
Box Number 2, 370 Seventeenth Street, #4700, Denver, CO 80202-
5647 U.S.A., Phone: 303-629-3400, Fax: 303-629-3450, E-mail:
sinor.scott@dorsey.com or trautman.tucker@dorsey.com.


KING PHARMACEUTICALS: April 10, 2007 Stock Suit Trial Set
---------------------------------------------------------
King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. continues to face a consolidated
amended securities class action in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee.

Beginning in March 2003, 22 purported class action complaints
were filed by securities holders against the Company, certain of
its directors, former directors, its executive officers, former
executive officers, a subsidiary, and a former director of the
subsidiary in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Tennessee, alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933
and/or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with
the underpayment of rebates owed to Medicaid and other
governmental pricing programs, and certain transactions between
the Company and the Benevolent Fund.  The 22 complaints were
later consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee.

In addition, holders of Company's securities filed two class
action complaints alleging violations of the Securities Act of
1933 in Tennessee state court.  Those two cases were removed to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee,
where these two cases were consolidated with the other class
actions.

The District Court has appointed lead plaintiffs in the
consolidated action, and those lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint on October 21, 2003 alleging that
the Company, through some of its executive officers, former
executive officers, directors, and former directors, made false
or misleading statements concerning the business, financial
condition, and results of operations during periods beginning
February 16, 1999 and continuing until March 10, 2003.
Plaintiffs in the consolidated action also named the
underwriters of the Company's November 2001 public offering as
defendants.

On August 12, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee ruled on defendants' motions to dismiss.
The Court dismissed all claims as to Jones Pharma Incorporated,
a predecessor to one of the Company's wholly owned subsidiaries,
King Pharmaceuticals Research and Development, Inc., and as to
defendants Dennis Jones and Henry Richards.  The Court also
dismissed certain claims as to five other individual defendants.
The Court denied the motions to dismiss in all other respects.
Following the Court's ruling, on September 20, 2004, the Company
and the other remaining defendants filed answers to plaintiffs'
consolidated amended complaint.  Discovery in this action has
commenced.  The Court has set a trial date of April 10, 2007.

The suit is styled, "Juenger v. King Pharmaceuticals, et al.,
Case No. 2:03-cv-00077," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee under Judge Thomas W. Phillips
with referral to Judge Dennis H. Inman.  Representing the
plaintiffs are, K. Kidwell King, Jr. of King & King, 125 South
Main Street, Greeneville, TN 37743, Phone: 423-639-6881, E-mail:
kking2@aol.com; and John C. Browne of Bernstein, Litowitz,
Berger & Grossman, LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor
New York, NY 10019-6028, Phone: 212-554-1400, Fax: 212-554-1441,
E-mail: johnb@blbglaw.com.

Representing the defendant are, Andrew L. Colocotronis of Baker,
Donelson, Bearman & Caldwell, P.O. Box 1792, Knoxville, TN
37901-1792, Phone: 865-549-7000, E-mail:
acolocotronis@bakerdonelson.com; and Scott Dodson of Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher, 1050 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, DC
20036-5303, Phone: 202-887-3772, Fax: 202-530-9654, E-mail:
sdodson@gibsondunn.com.


LEVEL 3: Continues to Face Right-of-Way Suits in Ill., Idaho
------------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications, Inc., is a defendant in several right-
of-way lawsuits that were filed in either state or federal
courts.

In July 2001, the Company was named as a defendant in, "Koyle,
et al. v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et al.," a purported two
state class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho.  In November 2005, the court granted class
certification only for the state of Idaho and that decision is
facing appeal.

In April 2002, the Company and two of its subsidiaries were
named as a defendant in, "Bauer, et al. v. Level 3
Communications, LLC, et al.," a purported class action covering
22 states, filed in State Court in Madison County, Illinois.

In September 2002, the Company and Williams Communications, LLC
were named as defendants in, "Smith, et al. v. Sprint
Communications Company, L.P., et al.," a purported nationwide
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  In April 2005, the Smith plaintiffs filed
a Fourth Amended Complaint, which did not include Level 3 or
Williams Communications, Inc. as a party, thus ending both
companies' involvement in the Smith case.

On February 17, 2005, the Company and Williams Communications,
LLC, were named as defendants in, "McDaniel, et al., v. Qwest
Communications Corporation, et al.," a purported class action
covering 10 states filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

These actions involve the companies' right to install its fiber
optic cable network in easements and right-of-ways crossing the
plaintiffs' land.  In general, the companies obtained the rights
to construct their networks from railroads, utilities, and
others, and have installed their networks along the right-of-way
so granted.

Plaintiffs in the purported class actions assert that they are
the owners of lands over which the companies' fiber optic cable
networks pass, and that the railroads, utilities, and others who
granted the companies the right to construct and maintain their
networks did not have the legal authority to do so.  The
complaints seek damages on theories of trespass, unjust
enrichment and slander of title and property, as well as
punitive damages.


MCDONALD'S OF MARIN: $1.45M Settlement Reached in Calif. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Aid of Marin and other attorneys of restaurant workers are
asking the Marin County Superior Court to approve a settlement
reached with Michael Magruder and Magruder Inc., former owner of
all seven McDonald's restaurants in Marin County (McDonald's of
Marin), California to resolve a class action against the
restaurant franchise.

The restaurants involved are in Mill Valley, Corte Madera, San
Rafael and Novato.  If the settlement is ultimately approved by
the court, the defendants will pay up to $1,450,000.00 to settle
the case.  The net settlement proceeds will be paid to employees
who worked for Magruder from July 20, 2000 through December 31,
2004.  The case is Gutierrez v. Magruder, Case No. CV 043269
filed in Marin County Superior Court.

In July 2004, a class action was filed against the restaurant
franchise on behalf of employees who worked at McDonald's of
Marin restaurants.  The suit alleged that the employees did not
receive the wages due them under state and federal law and were
retaliated against for speaking out about wage policies.  On
March 9, 2006, Superior Court Judge the Honorable Michael
Dufficy preliminarily approved the class action settlement.

Mr. Magruder, who no longer owns the McDonald's restaurant
chain, denied all liability in the lawsuit.

Plaintiffs in this case are represented by:

     Talamantes/Villegas/Carrera, LLP
     Tiburon, Legal Aid of Marin, and
     Chavez and Gertler of Mill Valley

Plaintiffs' attorney, Legal Aid of Marin Executive Director, Roy
Chernus states, "We are delighted that the defendant made a
serious attempt with this settlement to compensate the workers
for the minimum wage and other legal violations alleged to have
occurred while they worked in the McDonald's restaurants here in
Marin."

Talamantes/Villegas/Carrera attorney, Karen Carrera added, "Our
clients encourage eligible current and former McDonald's
employees to step forward, get paid, and participate in this
very important settlement.  It is very important for our clients
that those individuals who worked at these restaurants receive a
benefit from this case, which has been litigated for over two
years."  Jonathan Gertler, attorney for the plaintiffs stated,
"Our clients are the true heroes of this case.  As immigrant
workers, they were courageous enough to stand up to company like
McDonald's to demand not only to be properly compensated, but
also to be treated with respect and dignity."

Counsel for Magruder stated, "Mr. Magruder firmly believes that
he fully complied with California's complicated labor laws.  The
Company settled this matter due to the lack of some business
records necessary to fully defend his business practices."

Current and or former employees who worked for McDonald's
restaurants in Marin County from July 20, 2000 to December 31,
2004 are advised to contact the Settlement Administrator,
Rosenthal & Company at (800) 207-0343 with questions about how
to participate in the settlement.

For more information, contact Roy Chernus of Legal Aid of Marin,
Phone: 415-492-0230; or Karen Carrera of
Talamantes/Villegas/Carrera, LLP, Phone: 415-789-9798; or Jon
Gertler of Chavez & Gertler LLP, Phone: 415-381-5599.


MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: Commodity Suit Pact Awaits Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company is one of dozens of
companies named as defendants in a January 20, 2004 consolidated
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The suit alleges that the defendants have engaged in unlawful
manipulation of the prices of natural gas futures and options
contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX)
during the period January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2002.  The
Company is mentioned as a company that has engaged in wash
trades on Enron Online (an electronic trading platform) that had
the effect of distorting prices for gas trades on the NYMEX.
The plaintiffs to the class action do not specify the amount of
alleged damages.

On September 9, 2005, the Company and counsel for the plaintiffs
executed a stipulation and agreement of settlement, which, upon
final approval by the court following notice to all class
members, the Company will be dismissed from the lawsuit.  The
settlement was filed with the court on February 2, 2006 and
approved by the court on a preliminary basis on February 8,
2006.  If finally accepted by the court, the settlement will not
have a material impact upon the Company.

The suit is styled, "In re Natural Gas Commodity Litigation,
Case No. 1:03-cv-06186-VM-AJP," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Victor
Marrero and Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Ali Oromchian, Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran, 601
         Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111, by Phone:
         (415)-398-8700;

     (2) Christopher J. Gray, Law Office of Christopher J. Gray,
         P.C, 460 Park Avenue 21st Floor, New York, NY 10022,
         Phone: (212) 838-3221, Fax: (212) 508-3695, E-mail:
         gray@cjgraylaw.com;

     (3) Christopher Lovell, Gary S. Jacobson, Lovell, Stewart,
         Halebian, L.L.P., 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10110,
         Phone: (212) 608-1900; and

     (4) Louis F. Burke, Louis F. Burke, P.C., 460 Park Avenue,
         21st Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 682-1700,
         Fax: (212) 808-4280.

Representing the defendant are, Robert A. Jaffe of Kutak, Rock,
L.L.P., 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 922-
9155; and Gregory Copeland, Holly Roberts, J. Michael Baldwin,
Baker Botts, L.L.P., One Shell Plaza, 910 Louisiana, Houston, TX
07002, Phone: (713) 229-1234.


MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: Kern Dropped From Kan. Gas Suit, NNG Remains
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kern River Gas Transmission Company and Northern Natural Gas
Company, subsidiaries of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company
(MEHC), were named as defendants in a nationwide class action
which had been pending in the 26th Judicial District, District
Court, Stevens County, Kansas, Civil Department since May 20,
1999.  Other defendants, generally pipeline and gathering
companies, are also named in the suit.

On June 8, 2001, the two subsidiaries along with a number of
interstate pipeline companies were named in the suit.  The
plaintiffs allege that the defendants have engaged in
mismeasurement techniques that distort the heating content of
natural gas, resulting in an alleged underpayment of royalties
to the class of producer plaintiffs.

On May 12, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
a fourth amended petition alleging a class of gas royalty owners
in Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming.  The court granted the motion
for leave to amend on July 28, 2003.  Kern River was not a named
defendant in the amended complaint and has been dismissed from
the action.  Northern Natural Gas filed an answer to the fourth
amended petition on August 22, 2003.

On January 4, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their class
certification motion and brief in support of that motion.
Northern Natural Gas filed its joint brief and expert affidavits
in opposition to class certification on February 22, 2005.  The
plaintiffs filed their reply brief in support of class
certification on March 18, 2005.  Northern Natural Gas believes
that this claim is without merit.


OVERTURE SERVICES: IPO Pact Fairness Hearing Set April 24, 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold an April 24, 2006 fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement in a consolidated securities class action filed
against Overture Services, Inc., a provider of commercial search
services on the Internet, including sponsored search services.

On July 12, 2001, the first of several purported securities
class actions was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against certain underwriters
involved in Overture's initial public offering, Overture, and
certain of Overture's current and former officers and directors.

The Court consolidated the cases against Overture.  Plaintiffs
allege, among other things, violations of the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 involving
undisclosed compensation to the underwriters, and improper
practices by the underwriters, and seek unspecified damages.
Similar complaints were filed in the same court against numerous
public companies that conducted initial public offerings of
their common stock since the mid-1990s.  All of these lawsuits
were consolidated for pretrial purposes before Judge Shira
Scheindlin.

On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
alleging Rule 10b-5 claims of fraud.  On July 15, 2002, the
issuers filed a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with
applicable pleading standards.  On October 8, 2002, the Court
entered an Order of Dismissal as to all of the individual
defendants in the Overture IPO litigation, without prejudice.

On February 19, 2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the
Rule 10b-5 claims against certain defendants, including
Overture.  On August 31, 2005, the Court entered an order
confirming its preliminary approval of a settlement proposal
made by plaintiffs, which includes settlement of, and release of
claims against, the issuer defendants, including Overture.  On
October 7, 2003, the Yahoo! Inc. completed the acquisition of
Overture.  A settlement fairness hearing for the shareholder
class is currently set for April 24, 2006.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


PAND ENTERPRISES: Paying $90T in N.Mex Teen Harassment Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) settled,
for $90,000 and other relief, its sexual harassment and
retaliation lawsuit against Pand Enterprises, Inc., doing
business as a McDonald's restaurant franchise.  The suit accused
Pand of subjecting a class of teenage male employees to sexual
harassment by a male supervisor.

The suit is styled "EEOC v. Pand Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a
McDonald's Restaurant (Civil Action No. CIV- 05-204," filed in
U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico.  It alleged
that the supervisor's abuse of the young workers included
unwanted touching, requests for sex and sexual remarks.  The
agency further charged that one young male employee's work hours
were cut in retaliation for opposing the sexual harassment.  The
young men, some who were only 15 years old at the time, worked
as part-time crew members at the McDonald's franchise at 925 San
Pedro N.E. in Albuquerque, a statement from EEOC said.

"We commend Pand Enterprises for working cooperatively with us
to reach this agreement," said EEOC Phoenix Regional Attorney
Mary Jo O'Neill.  "The consent decree includes important
provisions to ensure that discrimination does not occur again at
this workplace."

The consent decree was submitted to, and approved by, the
federal district court.  The decree requires training and other
relief to prevent future discrimination.  Sexual harassment and
retaliation violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color,
religion, sex (including sexual harassment or pregnancy) or
national origin and protects employees who complain about such
offenses from retaliation.

EEOC Phoenix District Director Chester V. Bailey said, "We are
hopeful that this settlement will help other young workers
become aware of their rights under Title VII.  No covered
employee, no matter the age, gender, or citizenship status,
should be afraid to report workplace discrimination or
harassment to the EEOC."

Edgar Hernandez, a class member, stated in Spanish, "Yo estoy
muy agradecido al EEOC por sus esfuerzos y muy contento que se
resolvi› este caso.  Mi esperanza es que por medio de esta
resolucin, manejadores y empleados, incluyendo empleados
jovenes, aprendan algo de sus responsabilidades y derechos bajo
la ley."

Translation: "I am very grateful to the EEOC for its efforts and
very happy that this case was resolved.  My hope is that through
this settlement, managers and employees, including young
employees, will learn something about their responsibilities and
their rights under the law."

Contact information, Mary Jo O'Neill, Regional Attorney, Phone:
(602) 640-5044; Veronica Molina-Cunningham, Trial Attorney,
Phone: (505) 248-5231; TTY: (505) 248-5240.


PERFORMANCE INC: Recalls Bicycle Resistance Trainers for Repair
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Performance Inc. of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, is recalling
10,200 units of 2006 Performance Travel Trac Trainers.

The company said the base of the trainer has a blocking
mechanism that can break causing the bicycle to disengage from
the stand, posing a fall hazard.  Performance has received two
reports of the bike trainers breaking, though no injuries have
been reported.

Trainers are folding stands that lift and apply resistance to
the rear wheel of a standard bike, converting it to a stationary
trainer.  The CenturyV trainers are gloss black with red and
white decals running vertically along the rear face of the rear
support legs.  The left leg has an additional vertical red
"Travel Trac CenturyV" decal.  The Travel Trac Mag Force+ has
gray front legs and red rear legs.  The right rear leg has a
large vertical decal on its rear face with "Mag Force" in large
yellow letters and "Travel Trac" in small white letters.  The
recalled models' UPC and item numbers are printed on the
packaging.  The item number is also printed on the bottom of the
last page of the owner's manual.  These are the recalled models:

Model                          Item #    UPC
Travel Trac CenturyV Fluid  40-2317  400012288654
Travel Trac CenturyV Fluid+  40-2318  400012289804
Travel Trac CenturyV Mag+  40-2319  400012289989
Travel Trac Mag Force+   40-2323  400012290206

The trainers are made in Italy and sold at Performance stores
nationwide, as well as Performance's Web site and catalogs, from
August 2005 through February 2006 for about $300.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using these bicycles
trainers and contact Performance to obtain a free repair kit.

Picture of the recalled product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06107.jpg

Consumer Contact: Performance, Phone: (800) 553- 8324 between 9
a.m. and 8 p.m. ET Monday through Friday; Web site:
http://www.performanceinc.com.


PIZZA HUT: Reaches Settlement in Calif. FLSA Violations Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pizza Hut, Inc. reached a settlement in a class action filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of California, alleging
violations of the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The suit, captioned, "Coldiron v. Pizza Hut, Inc.," was filed on
August 13, 2003, alleging that the Company's current and former
Pizza Hut Restaurant General Managers (RGMs) were improperly
classified as exempt employees.  There is also a pendent state
law claim, alleging that current and former RGMs in California
were misclassified under that state's law.  Plaintiff seeks
unpaid overtime wages and penalties.

On May 5, 2004, the District Court granted conditional
certification of a nationwide class of RGMs under the FLSA
claim, providing notice to prospective class members and an
opportunity to join the class.  Approximately 12 percent of the
eligible class members have joined the litigation as of June 29,
2005 (although a number were later stricken by the District
Court, as described below).  Once class certification discovery
is completed, the Company intends to challenge the propriety of
conditional class certification.

On July 20, 2004, the District Court granted summary judgment on
Ms. Coldiron's individual FLSA claim.  The Company believes that
the District Court's summary judgment ruling in favor of Ms.
Coldiron is clearly erroneous under well-established legal
precedent.  Ms. Coldiron also filed a motion to certify an
additional class of current and former California RGMs under
California state law, a motion for summary judgment on her
individual state law claims and a motion requesting that the
District Court enter summary judgment on the damages that FLSA
class members would be due upon successful prosecution of the
class-wide litigation.  The Company opposed all three motions.

On April 1, 2005, the District Court issued an order granting
Ms. Coldiron's motion to certify a California state law class.
On April 15, 2005, the Company filed a petition for review of
that order by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
On May 5, 2005, the District Court sua sponte filed an order
extending the opt-in cut-off date in the FLSA action until
September 1, 2005.  On May 13, 2005, the District Court sua
sponte amended its April 1, 2005 order to identify the
California class claims and appoint class counsel.  On May 27,
2005, the Company filed a petition for review of the amended
order by the Ninth Circuit.  The Ninth Circuit has not yet ruled
on either petition.

On June 30, 2005, the District Court granted the Company's
motion to strike all FLSA class members who joined the
litigation after July 15, 2004.  The effect of this order is to
reduce the number of FLSA class members to only approximately 87
(or approximately 2.5% of the eligible class members).

In November 2005, the parties agreed to a settlement. The
Company believes that the Court will preliminarily and finally
approve definitive settlement documents within sixty to ninety
days following submission of the documents to the Court.

The suit is styled, "Ann Coldiron v. Pizza Hut Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:03-cv-05865-TJH-Mc," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California under Judge Terry J.
Hatter.  Representing the plaintiffs are Bicvan T. Brown, Rex
Hwang, Justian Jusuf, Gregory G. Petersen, and H. Ernie Nishii
of Castle Petersen and Krause, 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 1250
Newport Beach, CA 92660, Phone: 949-417-5600, E-mail:
justian@cpk-law.com; and Catherine Starr of Catherine Starr Law
Offices, 24325 Crenshaw Blvd, Suite 211, Torrance, CA 90505
Phone: 310-539-4806, Fax: 310-539-2454.

Representing the Company are, Andra Barmash Greene, Layn R.
Phillips, Henry Shields, Jr. and Bruce A. Wessell, Irell &
Manella, 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900, Los Angeles, CA
90067-4276, Phone: 310-277-1010, fax: 310-203-7199, E-mail:
lphillips@irell.com, hshields@irell.com or bwessell@irell.com;
and George A McNamee, III, Richard S. Ruben, Ellen Laguerta Uy,
Paula Maxine Weber, Pillsbury Winthrop, 725 S. Figueroa St.,
Ste. 2800, Los Angeles, CA 90017-5406, Phone: 213-488-7100.


POMEROY IT: Court Rejects Stock Fraud Suit Filed by CEO's Wife
--------------------------------------------------------------
The state court complaint filed against Pomeroy IT Solutions,
Inc. (NASDAQ:PMRYE) by plaintiff, Jennifer Sierra Pomeroy on
Feb. 24, was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.  The suit
against the Company and certain officers and directors alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty and other claims.  According to the
notice of dismissal filed by the plaintiff, she was not paid any
money to dismiss her lawsuit and she agrees to never bring these
claims again.

"We are pleased that the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all
claims against the Company and its directors and officers, we
look forward to continuing to focus our energies on our
customers and employees, and not on protracted non-meritorious
litigation," said Kevin Gregory, Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer.

Mrs. Pomeroy, wife of Pomeroy IT Chief Executive Steve Pomeroy,
lodged the suit in Kenton County Circuit Court, alleging fraud,
negligence and breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the
defendants.  She was seeking unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages for the decreased value of her 39 shares of
common stock, according to The Enquirer (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 27, 2006).

Pomeroy provides outsourcing, application development, systems
integration and other maintenance and support services. The
Company maintains a workforce of more than 3,000 skilled,
technical employees.

The suit is Case No. 06-CI-00515, captioned Jennifer Sierra
Pomeroy vs. Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc.  Mrs. Pomeroy is
represented by Eric C. Deters, Esq. of Eric C. Deters &
Associates, P.S.C. 5247 Madison Pike Independence, KY 41051.


PRIMUS FINANCIAL: Agrees to Mediate Interest-Rate Markups Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Primus Financial Services Inc. agreed to mediate a consumer
discrimination class action against the company, according to
Automotive News.

Primus, a unit of Ford Motor Co., is accused of being biased by
letting auto dealers mark up the wholesale interest rates it
charges for car loans, the report said.  It did not admit
wrongdoing, but agreed to:

     (1) cap interest-rate markups at 2.5 percentage points on
         loans of as much as 60 months, 2 points on loans of 61
         to 72 months and 1.5 points on longer loans; and

     (2) pay for consumer education efforts and to extend
         favorable loan terms to minority consumers.

The suit was filed in Nashville.  A settlement hearing is set in
May.

Chicago lawyer Kenneth Rojc represents the auto lenders and
dealers.  He said there are still two major racial bias cases
against financial institutions that allow dealer interest-rate
markups.  The suits are filed against Toyota Financial Services
and Primus.

For more information, contact Kenneth J. Rojc of Nisen &
Elliott, LLC, 200 West Adams Street, Suite 2500, Chicago,
Illinois 60606, (Cook Co.), Phone: 312-346-7800; Fax: 312-346-
9316.


REVLON INC: Continues to Face Amended Securities Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Revlon, Inc. and certain of its present and former officers are
defendants in an amended securities class action pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit also names as defendant REV Holdings Inc., a Delaware
corporation and the predecessor of REV Holdings LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company (REV Holdings).  It was initially
filed on September 27, 2000, on behalf of Dan Gavish, Tricia
Fontan and Walter Fontan individually and allegedly on behalf of
all others similarly situated who purchased the securities of
the Company and REV Holdings between October 2, 1998 and
September 30, 1999.  The complaint, amended by the plaintiffs in
November 2001, alleged, among other things, that Revlon, Inc.,
certain of its present and former officers and directors and REV
Holdings Inc. violated, among other things, Rule 10b-5 under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

On September 29, 2004, the court dismissed the Second Gavish
Action, without prejudice.  Company counsel has subsequently
received a second amended complaint.

The suit is styled "Gavish, et al. v. Revlon, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:00-cv-07291-SHS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Sidney H. Stein.
Representing the plaintiffs are Jules Brody and Aaron Lee Brody
of Stull Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 687-7230 Fax: (212) 490-2022 E-
mail: ssbny@aol.com; and Joseph Harry Weiss of Weiss & Yourman,
551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, NY 10176 Phone:
212 682-3025 Fax: 212 682 3010 E-mail: jweiss@wynyc.com.


ROBERTSON STEPHENS: F5 Networks Investors Urged to File Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities Arbitration Law Firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A.
(K&T) advises all Robertson Stephens customers who are eligible
to participate in the Settlement of "In Re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)", to explore
all of their legal options against Robertson Stephens, one of
the non-settling defendant underwriters.

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

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

F5 Networks, Inc.  (FFIV)        Jun. 4,  99 - Dec. 6, 00
Immersion Corp.    (IMMR)        Nov. 12, 99 - Dec. 6, 00
Informatica Corp.  (INFA)        Apr. 28, 99 - Dec. 6, 00
InsWeb Corp.       (INSW)        Jul. 22, 99 - Dec. 6, 00

Several defendant underwriters, including Robertson Stephens,
have not settled with the Class Members of the Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation.  Therefore, K&T urges investors
who suffered substantial losses to proceed with a securities
arbitration claim against Robertson Stephens, rather than
waiting for a potential class action settlement.  Empirical
evidence shows that investors may achieve an overall higher rate
of recovery by filing an individual securities arbitration
claim.

Accordingly, K&T -- http://www.nasd-law.com-- plans to assist
individual investors who purchased and/or received an allocation
of shares through an IPO to recover their financial losses from
Robertson Stephens, in securities arbitration claims before the
National Association of Securities Dealers and the New York
Stock Exchange.  Additionally, because the IPO Litigation is not
the exclusive remedy for injured investors, K&T strongly
encourages all eligible IPO Settlement recipients to contact
Lawrence L. Klayman, Esquire, at 888-997-9956 to discuss their
legal options and/or the possibility of pursuing an individual
securities arbitration claim.


ROBERTSON STEPHENS: QuickLogic Investors Urged to File Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities Arbitration Law Firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A.
(K&T) advises all Robertson Stephens customers who are eligible
to participate in the Settlement of "In Re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)", to explore
all of their legal options against Robertson Stephens, one of
the non-settling defendant underwriters.

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

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

Quest Software, Inc.  (QSFT) Aug. 13, 99 - Dec. 6, 00
QuickLogic Corp.      (QUIK) Oct. 14, 99 - Dec. 6, 00
Sequenom, Inc.        (SQNM) Jan. 31, 00 - Dec. 6, 00
Silicon Image, Inc.   (SIMG) Oct.  5, 99 - Dec. 6, 00

Several defendant underwriters, including Robertson Stephens,
have not settled with the Class Members of the Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation.  Therefore, K&T urges investors
who suffered substantial losses to proceed with a securities
arbitration claim against Robertson Stephens, rather than
waiting for a potential class action settlement.  Empirical
evidence shows that investors may achieve an overall higher rate
of recovery by filing an individual securities arbitration
claim.

Accordingly, K&T -- http://www.nasd-law.com-- plans to assist
individual investors who purchased and/or received an allocation
of shares through an IPO to recover their financial losses from
Robertson Stephens, in securities arbitration claims before the
National Association of Securities Dealers and the New York
Stock Exchange.  Additionally, because the IPO Litigation is not
the exclusive remedy for injured investors, K&T strongly
encourages all eligible IPO Settlement recipients to contact
Lawrence L. Klayman, Esquire, at 888-997-9956 to discuss their
legal options and/or the possibility of pursuing an individual
securities arbitration claim.


ROHM & HAAS: Plastics Additives Antitrust Suits Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
Rohn & Haas Co. continues face several class actions in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which
are alleging antitrust law violations with its sale of plastics
additives.

Nine private federal court civil antitrust actions were later
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, including one that originally had been filed in
State Court in Ohio and another involving an individual direct
purchaser claim that was filed in federal court in Ohio.

These actions have been brought against the Company and other
producers of plastics additives products by direct purchasers of
these products and seek civil damages as a result of alleged
violations of the antitrust laws.  The named plaintiffs in all
but one of these actions are seeking to sue on behalf of all
similarly situated purchasers of plastics additives products.
Federal law provides that persons who have been injured by
violations of Federal antitrust law may recover three times
their actual damages plus attorneys' fees.

In addition, in August 2005, a new indirect purchaser class
action antitrust complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, consolidating all but
one of the indirect purchaser cases that previously had been
filed in various state courts, including Tennessee, Vermont,
Nebraska, Arizona, Kansas and Ohio.  The only remaining state
court indirect action is the one filed in California.

The indirect purchaser class action antitrust complaint is
styled, "D.R. Ward Construction Co., et al. v. Rohm & Haas
Company, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-04157-LDD," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under
Judge Legrome D. Davis.  Representing the plaintiffs is Krishna
B. Narine of The Law Office Of Krishna B. Narine, 7839
Montgomery Avenue, Third Floor, Elkins Park, PA 19027, Phone:
215-782-3240, E-mail: knarine@kbnlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are Stephen W. Armstrong, Peter
Breslauer, Lathrop B. Nelson, III and Richard L. Scheff of
Montgomery Mccracken Walker & Rhoads, LLP, 123 S. Broad ST.,
Philadelphia, PA 19109, Phone: 215-772-7552, 215-772-7271, 215-
772-7473 and 215-772-7502, Fax: 215-772-7620 and 215-731-3733 E-
mail: sarmstrong@mmwr.com, pbreslauer@mmwr.com, lnelson@mmwr.com
and rscheff@mmwr.com.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Continues to Face Right-of-Way Lawsuit in S.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G) was served as a co-
defendant in a purported class action styled, "Collins v. Duke
Energy Corporation, Progress Energy Services Company, and
SCE&G," which was filed in South Carolina's Circuit Court of
Common Pleas for the Fifth Judicial Circuit.  Since its filing
back in August 21, 2003, the plaintiffs have dismissed
defendants Duke Energy and Progress Energy and are proceeding
against the Company only.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for the alleged improper use
of electric transmission and distribution easements but have not
asserted a dollar amount for their claims.  Specifically, the
plaintiffs contend that the licensing of attachments on electric
utility poles, towers and other facilities to non-utility third
parties or telecommunication companies for other than the
electric utilities internal use along the electric transmission
and distribution line right-of-ways constitutes a trespass.

It is anticipated that this case may go to trial in 2006.  The
Company is confident in the propriety of its actions.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Plaintiffs Appeal Right-of-Way Suit's Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the South Carolina's Circuit Court of Common
Pleas for the Ninth Judicial Circuit's dismissal of the class
action filed against SCANA Corporation, styled "Douglas E.
Gressette, et al., v. South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G) and
SCANA Corporation."

The case alleges the Company made improper use of certain
easements and right-of-ways by allowing fiber optic
communication lines and/or wireless communication equipment to
transmit communications other than the Company's electricity-
related internal communications.  The plaintiff asserted causes
of action for unjust enrichment, trespass, injunction and
declaratory judgment.  The plaintiff did not assert a specific
dollar amount for the claims.

The Company believes its actions are consistent with governing
law and the applicable documents granting easements and right-
of-ways, it stated in a regulatory filing.  The Court granted
the Company's motion to dismiss and issued an Order dismissing
the case on June 29, 2005.  The plaintiff has appealed.


TACO BELL: Discovery Proceeds in Calif. ADA Violations Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the class action "Moeller, et al. v.
Taco Bell Corp.," which is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

On December 17, 2002, Taco Bell Corp. was named as the defendant
in a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California entitled, "Moeller, et al. v.
Taco Bell Corp."  On August 4, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that alleges, among other things, that the Company
discriminated against the class of people who use wheelchairs or
scooters for mobility by failing to make its approximately 220
company-owned restaurants in California accessible to the class.

Plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural and
structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to the
path of travel and use of the facilities by persons with
mobility-related disabilities (including parking spaces, ramps,
counters, restroom facilities and seating) do not comply with
the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Unruh Civil
Rights Act, and the California Disabled Persons Act (CDPA).
Plaintiffs have requested:

     (1) an injunction from the District Court ordering Taco
         Bell to comply with the ADA and its implementing
         regulations;

     (2) that the District Court declare Taco Bell in violation
         of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and

     (3) monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, are seeking the minimum
statutory damages per offense of either $4,000 under the Unruh
Act or $1,000 under the CDPA for each aggrieved member of the
class. Plaintiffs contend that there may be in excess of 100,000
individuals in the class.  For themselves, the four named
plaintiffs have claimed aggregate minimum statutory damages of
no less than $16,000, but are expected to claim greater amounts
based on the number of Company outlets they visited at which
they claim to have suffered discrimination.

On February 23, 2004, the District Court granted Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  The District Court certified a
Rule 23(b)(2) mandatory injunctive relief class of all
individuals with disabilities who use wheelchairs or electric
scooters for mobility who, at any time on or after December 17,
2001, were denied, or are currently being denied, on the basis
of disability, the full and equal enjoyment of the California
Restaurants.  The class includes claims for injunctive relief
and minimum statutory damages.

Pursuant to the parties' agreement, on or about August 31, 2004,
the District Court ordered that the trial of this action be
bifurcated so that stage one will resolve Plaintiffs' claims for
equitable relief and stage two will resolve Plaintiffs' claims
for damages.  The parties are currently proceeding with the
equitable relief stage of this action.  During this stage, the
Company filed a motion to partially decertify the class to
exclude from the Rule 23(b)(2) class claims for monetary
damages.  The District Court denied the motion. Plaintiffs filed
their own motion for partial summary judgment as to liability
relating to a subset of the California Restaurants.  The
District Court denied that motion as well.  Discovery is
ongoing.

The suit is styled, "Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp., Case
No. 3:02-cv-05849," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Martin J. Jenkins.
Representing the plaintiffs are, Timothy P. Fox of Fox &
Robertson, P.C., 910-16th Street, Suite 610, Denver, CO 80202,
Phone: 303-595-9700, Fax: 303-595-9705, E-mail: tfox@foxrob.com;
and Brad Seligman of The Impact Fund, 125 University Avenue,
Berkeley, CA 94710, Phone: 510-845-3473 ext. 304, Fax: 510-845-
3654, E-mail: bs@impactfund.org.

Representing the defendant are, Gregory A. Eurich and Jimmy Goh
of Holland & Hart, LLP, 555 17th Street, Suite 3200, Denver, CO
80202, Phone: 303-295-8000, E-mail: geurich@hollandhart.com and
jgoh@hollandhart.com; and Gregory F. Hurley of Greenberg
Traurig, LLP, 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1700, Costa Mesa, CA
92626, Phone: 714 708-6564, Fax: 714 708-6501, E-mail:
sautters@gtlaw.com.


U.S.: Tort Costs $260B in 2004, Towers Perrin Report Shows
----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. tort costs reached a record $260 billion in 2004, or
approximately $886 per person, according to the U.S. Tort Costs
and Cross-Border Perspectives: 2005 Update from the Tillinghast
business of Towers Perrin.  This surpassed the previous record
set in 2003 by $16 billion.  The 2005 Update analyzes U.S. tort
costs from 1950 through 2004, with projections through 2007.

U.S. tort costs grew at a slightly faster pace in 2004 (5.9%)
than in 2003 (5.5%), but still well below the high growth rates
seen in 2001 and 2002, which averaged 14% each year.  The 5.9%
growth rate was less than the overall U.S. economic growth (as
measured by gross domestic product -- GDP) of 6.6%.  Since 1950,
growth in tort costs has exceeded GDP growth by an average of 2%
to 3%.

Asbestos claims contributed to the surge in tort costs earlier
this decade, but were less of a factor in 2004.  In fact, the
impact of insured asbestos losses, which totaled approximately
$5 billion in 2004, was less than in each of the prior three
years.

"There were several years when insurance companies were
significantly increasing their cost estimates for asbestos-
related liabilities," said Russ Sutter, Principal.  "Our study
indicated that asbestos-related tort costs are still a major
issue; however, there were fewer upward reevaluations during
2004."

U.S. tort cost growth since 1950 far exceeds U.S. population
growth. Even after adjusting for inflation, tort costs per
capita have risen by a factor of more than nine between 1950 and
2004.

                 International Tort Costs

The study also examined tort costs in several other
industrialized nations and found that U.S. tort costs exceed
other countries' by a sizeable margin, when measured as a ratio
to economic output (measured by GDP).  The U.S. had a 2.2% ratio
of tort costs to GDP, compared with Germany (1.1%), Japan (0.8%)
and the U.K. (0.7%).  Aside from Italy (1.7%), the other
countries examined in the study have tort costs comparable to
historic levels observed in the U.S. in the 1960s and 1970s.

"Our comparison of international tort costs was somewhat
surprising, since we had been hearing anecdotally that tort cost
trends in the U.S. were making their way overseas.  We saw a
greater disparity in tort costs than we were expecting between
the U.S. and other countries," said Steve Lowe, leader of the
firm's global P/C insurance consulting practice.  "Tort costs in
the U.S. far surpass those of the other countries we examined,
partly a result of different health care systems and legal
systems. However, this difference may raise the issue of
competitiveness of U.S. products in a global marketplace."

             Medical Malpractice Tort Costs Increase

Medical malpractice tort costs totaled $28.7 billion in 2004, up
from $26.5 billion in 2003.  Since 1975, medical malpractice
costs have increased at an annual rate of 11.7% versus 9% for
all other tort costs, according to Tillinghast.

"The growth rate for medical malpractice costs continues to
lessen," Sutter said.  "Some of the moderation may be
attributable to various state tort reforms enacted during the
past decade."

           Commercial Growth Outpaces Personal Growth

Commercial tort costs have outpaced personal tort costs since
1990, according to Tillinghast.  Personal tort costs have
changed annually by an average of 3.7% since 1990 and 5.0% since
1999, while commercial cost changes have averaged 5.9% since
1990 and 11.6% since 1999.  Even after removing insured asbestos
losses, the growth rate for commercial tort costs over the last
13 years remains higher than the personal rate.

"The battle lines of the tort reform debate ebb and flow with
changing patterns in tort costs each year; personal and
commercial tort cost trends can point to where the next set of
debates may lie," Sutter said.  "In the near term, we expect
commercial tort costs to continue growing at a faster rate than
personal tort costs so the tort reform debate will likely
consist of the business community on one side, countered by
consumer advocates and the trial bar on the other side.

Consumers will sit on the sidelines and may be confused by the
whole matter.  This is in direct contrast to past debates where
personal lines costs were increasing rapidly."

                       Future Implications

Given current trend patterns, Tillinghast expects U.S. tort
costs to increase approximately 6.5% for the next three years.

A number of factors may influence the growth of tort costs in
the near future, including:

-- Whether litigation related to directors and officers of
publicly held companies has peaked;

-- How significant the costs from litigation pertaining to
certain prescription drugs will be;

-- Whether the damages sustained from Hurricane Katrina -- and
any future catastrophic events -- will lead to material tort
litigation costs.

"There are a number of emerging issues that have the potential
to impact tort costs going forward, such as recent lawsuits in
the pharmaceuticals industry, the impact of class action reform
passed by U.S. Congress in early 2005 and obesity-related
litigation. There are also familiar culprits, like asbestos
claims," said Sutter.

The methodology used in Tillinghast's report incorporates three
cost components: benefits paid or expected to be paid to third
parties (losses), defense costs and administrative expenses.
Administrative expenses are identified separately in the report.
While Tillinghast outlines why these are a real cost of the tort
system, it takes no position on the efficiency of the insurance
industry's administrative expenses.

Tillinghast has not included costs incurred by federal and state
court systems in administering actual suits.  Certain indirect
costs are also omitted, such as those associated with litigation
avoidance.

U.S. Tort Costs and Cross-Border Perspectives: 2005 Update is
the ninth study of U.S. tort costs published by the Tillinghast
business of Towers Perrin.  The first study was completed in
1985.  The study examines only one side of the U.S. tort system:
the costs.  No attempt has been made to measure or quantify the
benefits of the tort system, such as a systematic resolution of
disputes, and the study makes no conclusion that the costs of
the U.S. tort system outweigh the benefits, or vice versa.  The
report is conducted entirely by Tillinghast; it is not funded or
subject to approval by any outside organization.  The report is
available at http://www.towersperrin.com/tillinghast.

Towers Perrin -- http://www.towersperrin.com/tillinghast-- is a
global professional services firm that helps organizations
improve performance through effective people, risk and financial
management.


WASHINGTON GROUP: Faces Several Suits in La. Over Levee Failure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Group International, Inc. is a defendant in class
action related to the New Orleans levee failure during Hurricane
Katrina.

From July 1999 through May 2005, the Company performed
demolition, site preparation, and environmental remediation
services for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) on the
east bank of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (Industrial
Canal) in New Orleans, Louisiana (Task Order 26).  All the work
performed by the Company and its subcontractors was directed,
supervised and approved by the USACOE.

On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans.
The storm surge created by the hurricane flooded the east bank
of the Industrial Canal and overtopped the Industrial Canal
levee floodwall, flooding the Lower Ninth Ward and other parts
of the City.

Between September 19, 2005 and January 3, 2006, seven personal
injury and property damage class actions were filed in Louisiana
state and federal court naming the Company as one of numerous
defendants including The City of New Orleans an The Board of
Commissioners for the Orleans Parish Levee District and its
insurer St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company.  Plaintiffs
claim that defendants were negligent in their design,
construction and maintenance of the New Orleans levees and
assert their claims under the Federal Class Action Fairness Act
of 2005, 28 U.S.C. 12(d)(2).

The alleged class of plaintiffs are all residents and property
owners of the Parishes of Orleans and Jefferson in the State of
Louisiana, who incurred damages arising out of the breach and
failure of the hurricane protection levees and floodwalls along
the 17th Street Canal, the London Avenue Canal, and the
Industrial Canal...in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

In all of the lawsuits to date, the only specific allegation
against the Company is that it contracted to level and clear
abandoned industrial sites along the Industrial Canal between
the floodwall and the canal and plaintiffs believe the use of
heavy vehicles and/or other heavy construction equipment along
the Industrial Canal between the floodwall and the canal damaged
the levee and/or floodwall and caused and/or contributed [to]
the...breach in the levee and/or floodwall.  Plaintiffs allege
damages as high as $200 billion and demand attorneys' fees and
costs.  The Company has substantial liability insurance coverage
in the event that it is found to have any liability in this
matter.  While it cannot predict the adequacy of the coverage
with certainty, the Company believes it to be adequate to cover
any potential liability, which could be imposed on it as a
result of these class actions.

The actions, which are all currently pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, are
styled:

     (1) "Berthelot, et al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC,
         et al., Case No. 05-4182,

     (2) "Vodanovich, et al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC,
         et. al., Case No. 05-5237,

     (3) "Kirsch, et al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC, et
         al., Case No. 05-6073,

     (4) "Ezell v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC, et al., Case
         No. 05-6314,

     (5) "Brown, et al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC, et
         al., Case No. 05-6324,

     (6) "LeBlanc, et al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC, et
         al., Case No. 05-6327, and

     (7) "Tauzin v. The Board of Commissioners for the Orleans
         Parish Levee District, et al., Case No. 06-0020.


XTO ENERGY: Aug.`05 Settlement Payment Ended Colo. Royalty Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
XTO Energy, Inc. said the District Court of La Plata County,
Colorado entered a final judgment approving the $5.1 million
settlement for the class action filed against the Company and
styled, "Burkett, et al. v. J.M. Huber Corp. and XTO Energy
Inc."

The suit also names as defendant J.M. Huber Corporation.  The
plaintiffs allege that the defendants have deducted in their
calculation of royalty payments expenses of compression,
gathering, treatment, dehydration, or other costs to place the
natural gas produced in a marketable condition at a marketable
location.  The plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting
of all lessors and their successors in interest who own or have
owned mineral interests located in La Plata County, Colorado and
that are leased to or operated by Huber or the Company, except
to the extent that the lessors or their successors have
expressly authorized deduction of post-production expenses from
royalties.

The Company acquired the interests of Huber in producing
properties in La Plata County effective October 1, 2002, and has
assumed the responsibility for certain liabilities of Huber
prior to the effective date, which may include liability for
post-production deductions made by Huber.  On February 17, 2005,
the Company agreed to a settlement of $5.1 million, resulting in
an additional loss of approximately $2 million that has been
recorded in our consolidated income statement for the six months
ended June 30, 2005.

On June 21, 2005, the court entered a final judgment approving
the settlement on a class-wide basis.  The final judgment
releases the Company from any royalty claims concerning post-
production costs relating to the properties.  No appeals from
the final judgment were filed, so the litigation was concluded.
The Company paid this settlement in August 2005.


XTO ENERGY: No Ruling Yet on Kans. Antitrust Suit Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
XTO Energy, Inc. is awaiting the decision of the District Court
of Stevens County, Kansas on a motion to certify a new class
action, styled "Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et al.," which
was filed against one of the Company's subsidiaries.

The action was filed in the District Court of Stevens County,
Kansas, against natural gas pipeline owners and operators.  The
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of plaintiffs consisting of
all similarly situated gas royalty owners either from whom the
defendants had purchased natural gas or measured natural gas
since January 1, 1974 to the present.  The new petition alleges
the same improper analysis of gas heating content that had
previously been alleged in the "Price," until it was removed
from the case by the filing of the amended class action
petition.

The previous "Price" case is styled, "Price, et al. v. Gas
Pipelines, et al. (formerly "Quinque" case)."  It was filed in
June 2001, on behalf of a class of plaintiffs consisting of all
similarly situated gas working interest owners, overriding
royalty owners and royalty owners either from whom the
defendants had purchased natural gas or who received economic
benefit from the sale of such gas since January 1, 1974.

In all other respects, the new petition appears to be identical
to the amended class action petition in that it has a proposed
class of only royalty owners, alleges conspiracy, unjust
enrichment and accounting, and only applies to gas measured in
Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming.

The court held an evidentiary hearing in April 2005 to determine
whether the amended class should be certified, and the Company
is awaiting the Court's decision.


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 12-13, 2006
BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Marina del Rey
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 22-23, 2006
PACIFIC NORTHWEST CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Hotel Monaco, Seattle
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BAUSCH & LOMB: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that a
securities class action has been filed on behalf of shareholders
who purchased the common stock and other securities of Bausch &
Lomb, Inc. (NYSE: BOL) between January 27, 2005 and December 22,
2005, inclusive.   The class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Bausch & Lomb.  No
class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


BAUSCH & LOMB: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP initiated a
class action on behalf of an institutional investor in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of Bausch & Lomb, Inc. (NYSE:BOL) publicly traded
securities between January 27, 2005 and December 22, 2005.

The complaint charges Bausch & Lomb and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Bausch & Lomb engages in the development, manufacture, and
marketing of eye health products.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made positive but false statements about Bausch & Lomb's results
and business, while concealing material adverse information
about the true nature of the Company's revenues, the lack of
adequate internal controls and the underpayment of taxes
resulting in tens of millions of dollars in penalties, which
ultimately resulted in the restatement of the Company's
financials over a period of five years.

On December 22, 2005, after the markets closed, the Company
provided an update on an internal investigation related to its
Brazil subsidiary and announced that it would restate its
financial results for 2000 through the first half of 2005.

On this disclosure, Bausch & Lomb's stock price dropped to as
low as $71.54 per share, a 9% decline from its close on December
22, 2005 -- the equivalent of a $374 million market
capitalization loss.  However, according to the complaint, prior
to these revelations of accounting fraud the Company's top
officers and directors illegally reaped over $29 million in
insider trading proceeds.

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


COOPER COMPANIES: Charles Johnson Lodges Calif. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles H. Johnson & Associates filed a class action on behalf
of all purchasers of The Cooper Companies (NYSE:COO) between
July 29, 2004 and November 21, 2005, including persons who
received Cooper shares in exchange for shares of Ocular Sciences
in the January 2005 merger between Cooper and Ocular Sciences,
Inc.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Southern Division, against defendant
Cooper and one or more of its officers and/or directors.  The
action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities.

For more details, contact Neil Eisenbraun, Esq. of Charles H.
Johnson & Associates, 2599 Mississippi Street, New Brighton, MN
55112, Phone: (651) 633-5685, E-mail: cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Suit in Idaho
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, initiated a Class action in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho on behalf of a
class  consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Micron Technology, Inc. between
February 24, 2001 and February 13, 2003.

The Complaint charges Micron and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning Micron's business and operations caused
the Company's stock price to become artificially inflated,
inflicting damages on investors.  Micron manufactures and
markets semiconductor devices worldwide, including a series of
Dynamic Random Access Memory ("DRAM") products, which provide
data storage and retrieval.  The Complaint alleges that during
the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded, but
failed to disclose to the investing public that:

     (1) Micron engaged in illegal anti-competitive behavior to
         suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the prices
         of DRAM sold to original equipment manufacturers in
         violation of No. 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act;

     (2) Micron's financial results throughout the Class Period
         were materially inflated as a direct result of the
         Company's illegal price-fixing; and

     (3) the Company's financial projections during the Class
         Period lacked a reasonable basis because they were
         issued while the Company involved itself in illegal
         price-fixing activities.

The Complaint further alleges that, as a result of defendants'
false and misleading statements during the Class Period, Micron
shares traded at inflated prices, enabling the Company to issue
more than $632 million worth of debt during 2003, sell over $480
million worth of warrants, and complete numerous stock-for-stock
acquisitions.  Additionally during the Class Period, Company
insiders sold approximately $4.5 million worth of their
personally held Micron shares at artificially inflated prices.

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy and Michael Goldberg
of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888)
773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site:
http://www.glancylaw.com.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Pomerantz Haudek Files Stock Suit in Idaho
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho,
against Micron Technology Inc. and certain of its officers, on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of the Company from
February 24, 2001 to February 13, 2003, inclusive.  The
complaint alleges violations of Section 20(a) and Section 10(b)
of The Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.

Micron Technology, a Delaware corporation, engages in the
manufacture and marketing of semiconductor devices. The
complaint alleges that during the class period, Micron, along
with others in the industry, engaged in a conspiracy to suppress
and eliminate competition by fixing the prices of Dynamic Random
Access Memory (DRAM).  DRAM is the most commonly used
semiconductor memory product used in personal computers.  Micron
and other manufacturers conspired to raise the price of DRAM
sold to certain original equipment manufacturers of personal
computers and servers.

In June of 2002, Micron received a subpoena from the Antitrust
Division of the Department of Justice ("DOJ") related to an
industry-wide investigation into alleged anti-competitive
practices among DRAM manufacturers.  At the time, Micron's
management refuted any wrongdoing.

In September 2004, Infineon, Micron's competitor, pled guilty to
participating in a criminal conspiracy from July 1, 1999 to June
15, 2002.  In November 2004, Micron finally admitted that the
DOJ's investigation revealed evidence of price fixing by Micron
employees.

The complaint further alleges that defendants' issued a series
of false and misleading statements to the market, artificially
inflating the Company's stock. More specifically, the Defendants
failed to disclose the following materially adverse facts to the
market:

     (1) that Micron engaged in illegal anti-competitive
         behavior to suppress and eliminate competition by
         fixing the prices of DRAM;

     (2) that Micron's financial results throughout the Class
         Period were materially inflated as a direct result of
         the price-fixing conspiracy due to the Company's
         illegal behavior of price-fixing; and

     (3) that the Company's financial projections during the
         class period lacked a reasonable basis because they
         were issued while the Company involved itself in an
         illegal price-fixing scheme.

For more details, contact Teresa L. Webb or Carolyn S. Moskowitz
of the Pomerantz Firm, Phone: 888.476.6529, E-mail:
tlwebb@pomlaw.com and csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com.


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *