CAR_Public/060320.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, March 20, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 56

                            Headlines

360NETWORKS INC: May Hearing Set for $7M Stock Suit Settlement
ACS STATE: Calif. State Court Takes Camera Suit Under Submission
AMERICAN TACK: Recalls Nite Lite After Several Fire Reports
ARIZONA: Judge Rejects Bid to Lift Student Exemptions from AIMS
ARKANSAS: High Court Allows Teacher to Sue Van Buren District

BELLSOUTH CORP: Shareholders File Lawsuit Over $67M Sale Price
BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs Narrow Damages Claim in IPO Suit
CALIFORNIA: Judge Rules LA County Violated Prisoners' Rights
CALIFORNIA: Mental Health Care Ordered for State's Foster Kids
CAREER EDUCATION: Calif. Court Sets Case Conference for Nilsen

CAREER EDUCATION: Court Grants Motion for FLSA Notice in Vennet
CAREER EDUCATION: Fla. Court Stays Unfair Trade Practices Suit
CAREER EDUCATION: Ill. Court Mulls Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
CAREER EDUCATION: N.Y. Court Grants Motion for Suit Arbitration
CAREER EDUCATION: Parties Enter Discovery Stage in Calif. Cases

COLORADO: Rocky Flats Case Defense Lawyers Got $49.8M, DOE Says
DYNAMEX INC: Former, Present Drivers File Calif. Overtime Suit
DYNAMEX INC: Former Worker Files FLSA Violations Lawsuit in N.Y.
DYNAMEX INC: Reaches Settlement for Ill. Drivers' Overtime Suit
ESKOM: Trade Union Mulls Suit V. South African Power Company

EXXON MOBIL: $5B Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Damages Remain Unpaid
FLORIDA: $2M Remains Untaken in Port St. Lucie Utility Fees Suit
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Fla. Couple Wants to Join Fridge Settlement
GUAM: Court Consolidates Lawsuits Over Earned Income Tax Credit
H-E-B: Recalls Baby Foods on Reports of Glass Pieces Inside Jars

HOS TRADING: Issues Alert on Sulfite-Containing Fungus Product
KANSAS: Wichita Police Officers Launch Race Discrimination Suit
KENTUCKY: Judge Finds Local Lawyers in Breach of Duty to Clients
LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Settles Securities Fraud Suit for $3.5M
MARATHON OIL: Faces Lawsuit in W.Va. Over Defective Gasoline

MARATHON OIL: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Certain Claims in Singh Case
NORBOURG GROUP: Montreal Lawyer May be in Conflict of Interest
NORTEL NETWORKS: Insurers Boost Settlement With $228.5M Payment
OHIO: Steubenville Traffic Camera May be Permanently Banned
OHIO: Hamilton County Ordered to Pay for Wrongful Detentions

OHIO: Court Sets Limit on Traffic Camera Lawsuit V. Girard City
OHIO: Kenneth Blackwell Agrees to Remove Social Security Numbers
REFCO INC: Underwriters Move to Stall Probe Pending Discovery
ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Agilent Shareholders Urged to File Claims
ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Intersil Shareholders Urged to File Claims

SIPEX CORP: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 6, 2006
STOCK EXCHANGES: Antitrust Settlement Hearing Set May 1, 2006
SWISHER INTERNATIONAL: Merging with HB Fairview to Settle Suit
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Students Fees Ruling Appeal Criticized
WARBURG PINCUS: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set April 24, 2006

WASHINGTON: Workers, National Group File Suit Over Union Dues
WDET 101.9: Exec Accused of Embezzling In-kind Contributions
XCHANGE INC: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set May 1, 2006


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BAUSCH & LOMB: Stull, Stull & Brody Files Securities Fraud Suit
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Murray, Frank Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                            *********


360NETWORKS INC: May Hearing Set for $7M Stock Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, U.S.D.J., of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a
settlement fairness hearing for the proposed $7 million
settlement in the matter, "In re 360networks Securities
Litigation (02 CV 4837 (MGC)."  The case was brought on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired 360networks,
Inc. subordinate voting shares between April 20, 2000 and June
28, 2001, inclusive.

The hearing will be on May 18, 2006, 10:00 a.m. at the Daniel
Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom
14A, New York, New York.

Deadline for filing proof of claim and release is June 8, 2006.  
Deadline for filing request for exclusion and objection is May
11, 2006.

The suits against 360networks alleged that throughout the class
period, the Company reported strong year-over-year revenue
growth, when it has, in fact, diminishing revenue growth (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 19, 2002).  The complaint alleged that in
order to create the impression that the Company was continuing
to experience growth, the Company engaged in a series of
reciprocal transactions with certain competitors for the
purchase and sale of dark fiber optic cable -- the so-called
dark fiber swap (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 19, 2002).

The complaint claimed that as a result of these transactions,
the Company artificially inflated its operating results and
materially misrepresented its financial results at all relevant
times.  The suit names certain officers and directors of the
company as defendants along with the accounting firm
PriceWaterhouseCoopers, LLP (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 19,
2002).

For more information, contact 360networks Securities Litigation
c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, Post
Office Box 91035, Seattle, WA  98111-9135, Phone: (866) 630-
2245; Web site: http://www.360networksclassaction.com.  
Representing the Lead Plaintiff is of David r. Scott of Scott +
Scott, LLC, 108 Norwich Ave, P.O. Box 192, Colchester,
Connecticut 06415.

Representing the defendants are: Samuel Kadet of Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Four Times Square, New York, New York
10036-6522; and Robert J. Jossen of Dechert LLP, 30 Rockefeller
Plaza, New York, New York 10112-2200.


ACS STATE: Calif. State Court Takes Camera Suit Under Submission
----------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Court Judge Linda Quinn took under submission a class
action alleging that contracts secured by a red-light camera
company with San Diego and several other San Diego County
cities, violate state law, The Fox6 News reports.

During a two-week trial before Judge Quinn, attorneys for the
plaintiffs said the contracts were illegal because ACS State and
Local Solutions Inc. made money only when the cameras caught
motorists running red lights, meaning the company decided who
was ticketed, instead of law enforcement.  Attorneys for the
camera company though countered that their contracts were legal
and a court ultimately decides whether a motorist has run a red
light.  The judge is expected to rule on the lawsuit within 30
days.

In October 2001, a different judge dismissed 300 red-light
tickets in San Diego, saying a private company had too much
control over the program.  Since then, San Diego and other
cities in the county, have reinstated red-light camera programs.

Previously, it was uncertain whether the class action against
the operator of California's traffic camera system was going
forward, especially after the plaintiffs' withdrawal of a
similar suit filed against two cities.  Attorneys representing
thousands of motorists who sued San Francisco and San Diego,
however, later said that they would continue to sue ACS and
Local Solutions, a company that operates the camera systems
throughout California, (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 24, 2006).

Plaintiffs are represented by lawyers: Brian Burchett of
Sullivan Hill Lewin Rez & Engel, A Professional Law Corporation,
550 West C Street, Suite 1500, San Diego, California 92101-3540,
(San Diego Co.), Phone: 619-233-4100; Rapifax: 619-231-4372; and
Eugene G. Iredale, 105 West "F" Street, Fourth Floor, San Diego,
California 92101, (San Diego Co.), Phone: 619-233-1525, Fax:
619-233-3221.


AMERICAN TACK: Recalls Nite Lite After Several Fire Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
American Tack & Hardware Co. Inc. of Saddle River, New Jersey,
is recalling about 35,000 units of "Forever-Glo Nite Lites."

The company said an electrical short circuit in the nite lite
can cause it to overheat and smolder or melt which can burn
consumers or result in a fire.  AmerTac has received nine
reports of incidents involving the recalled nite lites smoking,
burning, melting and/or charring.  No injuries have been
reported.

The recalled "Forever-Glo Nite Lites" look like small picture
frames that are plugged into the wall.  Only model numbers 75001
or 75002 with a manufacture date of April 2004 or later are
included in this recall.  Model 75001 is white or bronze-colored
and has molded scroll-work around the front of the nite lite.   
"Model 75001" is printed on the back of the nite lite.  Model
75002 is silver-colored and has a punched tin frame.  "Model
C8A5" is printed on the back.  Both nite lite models measure
about 3 inches by 3 inches and are about 1/4 inch thick.  
"AmerTac" and a circle with the month and year of manufacture
are indicated on the back of the nite lites.

The nite lites were made in China, and sold at hardware stores,
lighting showrooms and home centers nationwide from May 2004
through December 2005 for about $3.

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled nite lites
immediately.  If the units are plugged into the wall, turn off
the power at the circuit box and remove the light from the wall
socket and contact the firm for a full refund or two free
replacement nite lites.

Picture of the recalled nite lites:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06109a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06109b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06109c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06109d.jpg

Consumer Contact: American Tack, Phone: (800) 420-7511 between 8
a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday: Web site:
http://www.amertac.comor http://www.recall-center.com.


ARIZONA: Judge Rejects Bid to Lift Student Exemptions from AIMS
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Raner C. Collins refused to retreat on his
order prohibiting the state of Arizona from applying its new
high school graduation test to students learning the English
language, The Associated Press reports.

Essentially, the judge denied a request by state Superintendent
of Public Instruction Tom Horne to temporarily put the judge's
order on hold while he appeals to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals.

Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) is a math,
reading and science test.  Beginning this spring, high school
students must pass the test to get a diploma.

Mr. Horne's lawyer argued that Judge Collins should stay his
AIMS order, since vital and broad public interests are at stake,
irreparable harm is certain and imminent, and there are
debatable legal issues.  Judge Collins though rejected his
arguments and stated in an order that repeatedly referred to the
years that have passed since a 2000 ruling by the judge's
predecessor, "The state has failed to comply with federal law
for nearly six years."  Any hardship caused the state "is
negligible when compared to the irreparable harm ELL students
have suffered for nearly six years due to the state's inaction,"
Judge Collins said.

Plaintiffs in the class action challenging the adequacy of
Arizona's instruction for approximately 150,000 English Language
Learning (ELL) students argued that the state's failure to
improve ELL programs made it unfair for the state to impose the
mandate on those students, and Judge Collins agreed in a
December 2005 order.  Department of Education officials revealed
that approximately 1,400 ELL students would be affected by the
exemption this year.

Judge Collins is also considering a motion by the state to
distribute to schools the $21 million in daily fines that the
state accumulated for failing to meet a deadline set by the
judge to improve and adequately funding the program.  He has
scheduled an April 3 hearing on whether a law passed March 2
satisfies his order.

Previously, Judge Collins ordered the Legislature to improve and
adequately fund Arizona's educational programs for students
learning the English language and set fines that would rise to
$2 million a day if deadlines aren't met.  The order was part of
a 13-year-old education class action entitled, "Flores, et al.
v. Arizona, State of, et al.," which was originally filed in
1992 on behalf of Nogales Unified School District students and
parents, (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 20, 2005).

Judge Collins ordered fines to start at $500,000 a day beginning
15 days after the January 9 start of the Republican-led
Legislature's 2006 regular session if lawmakers haven't fixed
the programs and increased their funding.  The fines would
eventually rise to $1 million a day and $1.5 million at
designated points beyond that until reaching $2 million a day at
the end of the session, (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 20, 2005).

In his 2000 ruling, the other judge ruled that Arizona's
programs were inadequately funded, leaving shortfalls in such
areas as teacher training, class sizes and instructional
material, in violation of a federal civil rights law requiring
equal opportunities in education.

The suit is styled, "Flores, et al. v. Arizona, State of, et
al., Case No. 4:92-cv-00596-RCC," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona, under Judge Raner C. Collins.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Timothy Michael Hogan of Arizona
Center for Law in the Public Interest, 202 E. McDowell Rd., Ste.
153, Phoenix, AZ 85004, Phone: 602-258-8850, Fax: 602-258-8757,
E-mail: thogan@aclpi.org.  

Representing the defendants are, Lynne Christensen Adams and
Jose A. Cardenas of Lewis & Roca, LLP, 40 N. Central Ave.,
Phoenix, AZ 85004-4429, Phone: 602-262-5372 and 602-262-5790,
Fax: 602-734-4015 and 602-734-3852, E-mail: ladams@lrlaw.com and
JCARDENAS@LRLAW.COM.


ARKANSAS: High Court Allows Teacher to Sue Van Buren District
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Arkansas Supreme Court cleared the way for a Van Buren
schoolteacher to launch a class action against his district, The
Associated Press reports.

Steven Jones alleges he and others were not fully paid for the
time they worked.  In their ruling, justices upheld a Crawford
County Circuit Court ruling that gave Mr. Jones a class-
certification against the Van Buren School District.

In 2003, Mr. Jones filed a complaint against the district,
claiming breach of contract, since teachers were not paid for
time worked in the morning or for afternoon faculty meetings,
and at other times during the day.  He also argued in his suit
that teachers' 30-minute lunch periods were shortened due to
teacher duties.

The school district countered that Mr. Jones's contract was
based on a daily rate and not an hourly rate.  It also said
there was no school board policy establishing a fixed number of
hours for each working school day.


BELLSOUTH CORP: Shareholders File Lawsuit Over $67M Sale Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several BellSouth Corp. shareholders initiated a lawsuit in
Georgia's Fulton County Superior Court that seeks to stop the
Company's acquisition by San Antonio, Texas-based AT&T.  The
investors are arguing the $67 billion sale price is too low,
according to Bloomberg News.

The suit accuses Company Chairman and CEO Duane Ackerman,
President and Chief Operating Officer Mark Feidler, and Company
board members of violating their fiduciary duty to investors by
failing to seek a better offer.  The plaintiffs are seeking
class action status on behalf of all Company shareholders.

According to the complaint, which was filed on March 9, 2006,
"The terms of the proposed transaction were not the result of an
auction process or active market check.  It was arrived at
without a full and thorough investigation by the individual
defendants of strategic alternatives and the proposed
transaction is intrinsically unfair and inadequate."

Company spokesman Jeff Battcher told Bloomberg that Bellsouth
would fight the suit saying, "BellSouth feels this lawsuit is
completely merit less."

AT&T, which plans to acquire Company in an all-stock deal,
agreed to terms that at the time represented a 17.9 percent
premium over where BellSouth shares were trading.  Analysts had
long expected that AT&T, given several close ties between the
companies, would acquire the Company.  Currently, they are
partners in owning Cingular Wireless, the nation's largest
cellphone provider.

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, BellSouth -- http://www.bellsouth.com
-- is local exchange carrier (ILEC) for nine states from
Louisiana to Kentucky.  It owns 40% of Cingular Wireless, a
mobile phone operator in the U.S. after its acquisition of rival
AT&T Wireless.


BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs Narrow Damages Claim in IPO Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in BIOLASE Technology, Inc.'s class action have filed
a third amended complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

On January 18, 2006, the court granted BIOLASE's motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' second amended complaint but gave them
leave to amend.  The third amended complaint continues to allege
that BIOLASE and its officers violated the federal securities
laws by:

     (1) failing to disclose material information,

     (2) making false statements, and

     (3) taking actions to artificially inflate and maintain the
         market price of the Company's common stock.  

However, the third amended complaint seeks damages only on
behalf of an alleged class of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired BIOLASE common stock pursuant or traceable to
BIOLASE's March 2004 public offering.

BIOLASE Technology -- http://www.biolase.com-- (NASDAQ: BLTI)  
is a medical technology company that develops, manufactures and
markets lasers and related products focused on technologies for
improved applications and procedures in dentistry and medicine.  
The Company's products incorporate patented and patent pending
technologies focused on reducing pain and improving clinical
results.

The suit is styled "Van Dam Holdings Ltd. v. Biolase Technology,
Inc., et al., Case No. 8:04-cv-947," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, under Judge David
O. Carter.  Lead plaintiffs Alan Harvey and Elizabeth Paul are
represented by Dale Joseph MacDiarmid, Lionel Z. Glancy, Peter
Arthur Binkow of Glancy Binkow and Goldberg, 1801 Avenue of the
Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067, USA, Phone: 310-201-
9150.


CALIFORNIA: Judge Rules LA County Violated Prisoners' Rights
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Dean D. Pregerson tentatively ruled in
a class action against Los Angeles County that it violated
thousands of jail inmates' rights by requiring them to sleep on
mattresses on concrete floors, The Associated press reports.

Stephen Yagman, the attorney who filed the suit on behalf of
about 24,000 inmates, told The Associated Press that the county
could face damages of $100 million if the ruling becomes final
and if more plaintiffs join the case.  Mr. Yagman previously
argued that floor sleeping deprived inmates of their dignity and
violated their due process rights under the 14th Amendment.

In his ruling, Judge Pregerson said the practice indicated an
"endemic problem" in "dysfunctional," overcrowded facilities.  
He further stated, "There is something inherently wrong with
what is happening at the institution when it reaches a level
where so many sleep on the floor."

However, David D. Lawrence, a private attorney representing the
county, argued that requiring inmates to sleep on floors would
be illegal only if it resulted in poor health or unsafe
conditions.  He pointed out, "It's not an issue of numbers; this
is the largest jail in the country.  It doesn't follow that
because there's a lot of them, there's a single constitutional
violation."

After hearing from both sides Judge Pregerson gave attorneys
time to make additional arguments before he issues a final
ruling.

The sheriff's department, which runs the county jail system,
stopped having inmates sleep on floors last September by opening
additional facilities and granting early release to some
prisoners convicted of misdemeanors, Marc Klugman, chief of the
Correctional Services Division told The Associated Press.

For more details, contact Stephen Yagman of Yagman & Yagman &
Reichmann, 723 Ocean Front Walk, Venice, California 90291,
Phone: (310) 452-3200, Web site: http://www.yagmanlaw.net/;
David A. Lawrence of Couzens, Lansky, Fealk, Ellis, Roeder &
Lazar, P.C., 39395 West 12 Mile Road, Suite 200, Farmington
Hills, Michigan 48331-2913, (Oakland Co.), Phone: 248-489-8600,
Fax: 248-489-4156.


CALIFORNIA: Mental Health Care Ordered for State's Foster Kids
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge A. Howard Matz ordered the state of
California to provide mental health services to foster children
who otherwise could face institutionalization, The San Francisco
Chronicle reports.

The federal judge issued the decision in a class action that
challenged keeping abused and neglected children with mental
health problems in hospitals and group homes.  In a recently
issued preliminary injunction, Judge Matz said, "The unmet
mental health needs and the harms of unnecessary
institutionalization are no less grave now" than when advocates
for the children filed the lawsuit in 2002.

The injunction directed state officials to begin "therapeutic
foster care" and family-based "wraparound" services, such as
counseling and health care, for children within six months.  It
could affect more than 50,000 children being denied such care
across the state, according to Patrick Gardner of the National
Center for Youth Law in Oakland, California, an attorney
representing the children.  More than 80,000 children are in
foster care in California.

Mr. Gardner told The San Francisco Chronicle, "It means that
you're not going to see the kinds of failures that happen in
families that are overstressed.  These are some of the most
vulnerable kids in the state."  In particular, he cited the case
of a mentally ill teenager who slashed the throat of a 75-year-
old Berkeley woman a year ago near the Berkeley Rose Garden.  
The woman survived.  Attorneys discussed the case at a March 15
hearing. A report about where the girl could serve her sentence
on an assault charge is due in two weeks.

Additionally, Mr. Gardner reiterates, "Most kids, if given the
opportunity to succeed at home, can avoid being criminalized by
essentially what are behaviors that come about by their mental
illness.  We would hope that we could provide these services
before something so serious happens."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of five children in the custody
of Los Angeles County officials, who settled their part of the
case in 2003. As part of the agreement, the county shut a
children's shelter where youths had reported being abused and
neglected.

The plaintiffs asked the judge to force the state to take
similar steps.  Attorneys for the children wrote last year in
court papers, "For many children, the absence of these services
has resulted in the unnecessary and preventable decline in their
mental health."

A consortium of state and national public-interest groups,
including the Western Center on Law and Poverty and the American
Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, represented the
children.

The suit is styled, "Katie A, et al. v. Diana Bonta, et al.,
Case No. 2:02-cv-05662-AHM-SH," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California under Judge A. Howard
Matz with referral to Judge Stephen J. Hillman.  Representing
the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Patrick H. Gardner of National Center For Youth Law,
         405 14th St., 15th Fl., Oakland, CA 94612, Phone: 510-
         835-8098;

     (2) Alison Barkoff of Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law,
         1101 15th Street Northwest, Suite 1212, Washington, DC
         20005, US, Phone: 202-467-5730, E-mail:
         alisonb@bazelon.org;

     (3) Melinda R. Bird of Protection & Advocacy, 3580 Wilshire
         Blvd., Ste. 902, Los Angeles, CA 90010-2512, Phone:
         213-427-8747, E-mail: melinda.bird@pai-ca.org; and

     (4) Lew Hollman of Center for Law in the Public Interest,
         3250 Ocean Park Blvd., Ste. 300, Santa Monica, CA
         90405-3219, Phone: 310-314-1947.

Representing the defendants are, Jerry M. Custis of Montery
County Counsel, Children's Services Div., 201 Centre Plz Dr
Suite 1, Monterey Park, CA 91754-2143, Phone: 323-526-6257; and
Sandra L. Goldsmith, CAAG - Office of the Attorney General of
California, 300 S. Spring St., Ste. 1702, Los Angeles, CA 90013,
Phone: 213-897-2000, Fax: 213-897-2805.


CAREER EDUCATION: Calif. Court Sets Case Conference for Nilsen
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Barbara scheduled a March 7, 2006 case management conference for
the class action filed against Career Education Corporation and
its subsidiary Brooks Institute of Photography (BIP).  The suit
is Nilsen v. Career Education Corporation, et al.

Three former students of BIP filed the suit on behalf of all
students who attended BIP from February 4, 2001, to the present.
The complaint primarily alleged that BIP violated the California
Education Code, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and
California unfair competition law by allegedly misleading
potential students regarding BIP's placement rates and by
engaging in false and misleading advertising.  The plaintiffs
sought injunctive relief, disgorgement profits, punitive
damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 11, 2005, the Company filed a demurrer, a request to
the Court to dismiss, to all causes of action in the complaint.
The Court granted the demurrer and allowed the plaintiffs to
file an amended complaint.  The parties also engaged in limited
discovery related solely to the issue of class certification.  
On August 17, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their First Amended
Complaint, alleging:

     -- violations of the California Education Code,

     -- violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies
        Act,

     -- false advertising in violation of California's unfair
         competition law; and

     -- fraud, and unfair competition.  

Each cause of action in the plaintiffs' first amended complaint
arises primarily from allegations that the defendants made
misrepresentations to the plaintiffs concerning their career
prospects.  The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, injunctive
relief, disgorgement of profits, punitive damages, interest and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 17, 2005, defendants filed a motion to stay the case
pending the outcome of the administrative proceeding involving
BIP and the California Bureau for Private Postsecondary and
Vocational Education (BPPVE).  Defendants also filed a demurrer
to the plaintiffs' first amended complaint, and a motion to
compel arbitration and stay the action pending the
administrative proceeding, if necessary.  

On December 6, 2005, the Court granted the motion to stay the
action pending the administrative proceeding, and reserved
ruling on the defendants' demurrer and motion to compel
arbitration.  The Court set a case management conference on
March 7, 2006, and indicated that if the administrative
proceeding is not completed by this date, it may vacate the
stay, hear the defendants' remaining motions, and allow the case
to proceed, subject to the Court's rulings on defendants'
outstanding motions.


CAREER EDUCATION: Court Grants Motion for FLSA Notice in Vennet
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
granted plaintiff's motion to send a Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) notice for the purported class action filed against
Career Education Corporation, American InterContinental
University, Inc. (AIU Online) and the president of the Company's
Online Education Group, for violations of federal labor law.

The suit, styled "Paul Vander Vennet, et. al. v. American
InterContinental University, Inc., et. al.," was filed on August
24, 2005 by former admissions advisors of AIU, alleging that the
defendants violated the FLSA the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.  The defendants
allegedly failed to pay the plaintiffs for all of the overtime
hours they allegedly worked.

The plaintiffs are seeking certification as a class under the
FLSA and, on August 24, 2005, filed a motion for FLSA Notice.  
On December 22, 2005, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to
send FLSA Notice, and plaintiffs' counsel has distributed such
notice to current and former employees.  Defendants deny all of
the material allegations in the complaint and are vigorously
defending the claims and opposing class certification.

The suit is styled, "Vennet, et al. v. American Intercontinental
University Online, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04889," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under
Judge William T. Hart.  Representing the plaintiffs is Robin B.
Potter of Robin Potter & Associates P.C., 111 East Wacker Drive,
Suite 2600, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 861-1800, E-mail:
robinpotter@igc.org.

Representing the defendants is James M. Gecker of Katten Muchin
Rosenman, LLP, 525 West Monroe Street, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL
60661, Phone: 312-902-5200, E-mail: james.gecker@kattenlaw.com.


CAREER EDUCATION: Fla. Court Stays Unfair Trade Practices Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hillsborough County Superior Court in Florida stayed the
class action "Benoit, et al., v. Career Education Corporation,
et al.," pending arbitration.  Aside from the company, the suit
also names as defendants one of the Company's subsidiaries,
Ultrasound Technical Services, Inc. (UDS).

The action is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who
have been enrolled in the Medical Billing and Coding Program
(MBC program) at the Tampa campus of UDS in the last four years.
The complaint alleges that the defendants breached enrollment
contracts with the plaintiffs and other class members and
violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
(the FDUTPA) by:

     (1) failing to properly train students,

     (2) offer and require sufficient hours of course work,
         provide properly trained instructors, provide
         appropriate curriculum consistent with the represented
         degree, award the represented degree, provide adequate
         career placement services, and

     (3) by misrepresenting that they would provide such
         services.

The complaint also alleges that the defendants "padded" the MBC
program curriculum to charge greater tuition, purportedly in
violation of the FDUTPA.  Plaintiffs seek actual damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as the Court deems
appropriate.

On October 11, 2005, the Court ordered that the lawsuit be
stayed pending completion of arbitration pursuant to the
arbitration agreement contained within each of the plaintiffs'
enrollment individual agreements.


CAREER EDUCATION: Ill. Court Mulls Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
has yet to rule on Career Education Corporation's motion to
dismiss the second amended class action filed against it and two
of its executive officers, John M. Larson and Patrick K. Pesch.

Between December 9, 2003, and February 5, 2004, six purported
class actions were filed on behalf of certain purchasers of the
Company's common stock.  The complaints alleged that in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, the defendants made
certain material misrepresentations and failed to disclose
certain material facts about the condition of the Company's
business and prospects during the putative class periods,
causing the respective plaintiffs to purchase shares of the
Company's common stock at artificially inflated prices.  

The plaintiffs further claimed that Mr. Larson and Mr. Pesch are
liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Act.  The
plaintiffs asked for unspecified amounts in damages, interest,
and costs, as well as ancillary relief.  Five of these lawsuits
were found related to the first filed lawsuit, captioned,
"Taubenfeld v. Career Education Corporation, et al. (No. 03 CV
8884)," and were reassigned to the same judge.

On March 19, 2004, the court ordered these six cases to be
consolidated and appointed Thomas Schroeder as lead plaintiff.
On April 6, 2004, the court appointed the firm of Goodkind
Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, which represents Mr. Schroeder,
as lead counsel.  On June 17, 2004, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint, which the Company moved to
dismiss on July 30, 2004.  

On February 11, 2005, the Company`s motion to dismiss was
granted, without prejudice.  On April 1, 2005, plaintiffs filed
a second amended complaint, which the Company moved to dismiss
on May 20, 2005.  Plaintiffs filed their response brief on July
8, 2005, and the Company's reply brief is due August 8, 2005.  
In addition, the court has issued an order changing the caption
of this matter to "In re Career Education Corporation Securities
Litigation."

The suit is styled "In re Career Education Corporation
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-08884," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under
Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Anthony F. Fata and Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Faucher
         and Cafferty, LLP 30 North LaSalle Street Suite 3200
         Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 782-4880;

     (2) Joshua Lifshitz, Bull & Lifshitz, LLP 18 East 41st
         Street New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 213-6222

     (3) Andrei V. Rado, Steven G. Schulman, Peter Seidman,
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP One Pennsylvania
         Plaza 49th Floor New York, NY 10119-0165 Phone:
         (212) 594-5300

Representing the Company are Karl Richard Barnickol, Mary Ellen
Hennessy, Joni S. Jacobsen, David H. Kistenbroker, Katten Muchin
Zavis Rosenman, 525 West Monroe Street Suite 1600 Chicago, Il
60661-3693 Phone: (312) 902-5200.


CAREER EDUCATION: N.Y. Court Grants Motion for Suit Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted Career Education Corporation's motion, seeking
arbitration for the class action filed against it.  The suit is
styled, "Onate and Lawrence, et al. v. The Katharine Gibbs
Corp.-New York, the Katharine Gibbs Corp. - Melville, and Career
Education Corp."

The suit was filed on August 12, 2005 on behalf of persons who
enrolled or attended the Katharine Gibbs School (New York) and
the Katharine Gibbs School (Melville) between January 1, 2002
and June 30, 2005.  Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have
injured them as a result of what they describe as false and
misleading practices.  Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for
violations of the New York General Obligations law, the New York
Education Law as well as for unjust enrichment and punitive
damages.  They alleged that defendants misrepresented placement
and graduation rates, as well as requirements for admissions.
They also alleged that defendants misrepresented the reputation
of the schools and what defendants would provide in the way of
job placement assistance.

On October 11, 2005, the Court granted defendants' motion to
compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement
contained within each of the plaintiffs' individual enrollment
agreements.

The suit is styled, "Onate, et al. v. The Katherine Gibbs Corp.
- New York, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-07196-AKH," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

     (2) Michael D. Braun of Braun LawGroup, P.C., Janet Lindner
         Spielberg, of Counsel, 12400 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 920
         Los Angeles, CA 90025, Phone: (310) 442-7755;

     (3) Laurence Paskowitz of Paskowitz & Associates, 60 East
         42nd Street, 46th Floor, New York, NY 10165, Phone:
         (212)-685-0969, Fax: (212)-685-2306, E-mail:
         classattorney@aol.com;

     (4) Christopher J. Gray of 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.

Representing the defendants is Adam Benjamin Landa of Greenberg
Traurig, LLP (NYC), 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166, Phone:
2128012100, Fax: 2128059290, E-mail: landaa@gtlaw.com.


CAREER EDUCATION: Parties Enter Discovery Stage in Calif. Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-trial discovery is ongoing in amended class actions filed
against Career Education Corporation and one of its subsidiaries
Brooks Institute of Photography for violations of the state's
business and professionals code.  The suits are pending in the
Superior Court of Santa Barbara County in California.

On March 21, 2005, a suit, styled "Thurston, et al., v. Brooks
College, Ltd., et al." was filed against Brooks College, one of
the Company's subsidiaries on behalf of all current and former
attendees of Brooks College.  The complaint alleged that Brooks
College violated the California Business and Professionals Code
and Consumer Legal Remedies Act by allegedly:

     (1) misleading potential students regarding Brooks
         College's admission criteria, transferability of
         credits, and retention and placement statistics, and

     (2) engaging in false and misleading advertising.

Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, restitution, unspecified
punitive and exemplary damages, attorneys' fees, interest,
costs, and other relief.

On June 7, 2005, Brooks College filed a motion to compel
arbitration and stay proceedings, which is currently pending.  
On June 24, 2005, the Court ruled that this action was related
to the case, captioned, "Outten, et al. vs. Career Education
Corporation, et al." and stayed the lawsuit until an initial
status conference.

Earlier, an amended complaint captioned "Outten, et al., v.
Career Education Corporation, et al." was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against
the Company and American InterContinental University (AIU), one
of its subsidiaries.  The Company filed an answer to the amended
complaint, denying all material allegations therein, and have
raised various affirmative defenses.

On October 6, 2004, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which added individuals who are current and former employees of
AIU.  The second amended complaint alleges that AIU violated the
California unfair competition law, the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, and the California Education Code, and
engaged in common law consumer fraud by allegedly misleading
potential students regarding AIU's placement, retention, and
matriculation rates, and engaging in financial aid and admission
improprieties.  The lawsuit appears to have been brought on
behalf of all current and prior attendees of AIU residing in
California.  The plaintiffs, on behalf of the putative class,
seek injunctive relief, restitution, unspecified punitive and
exemplary damages, attorneys' fees, interest, costs, and other
relief.

On March 10, 2005, the Company filed an answer to the second
amended complaint as well as a cross-complaint.  On June 24,
2005, the court ruled that this action was related to "Thurston
v. Brooks College."  The parties are engaged in pre-trial
discovery.


COLORADO: Rocky Flats Case Defense Lawyers Got $49.8M, DOE Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) said that attorneys
defending former operators of the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons
plant west of Denver, Colorado were paid $49.8 million so far to
fight a losing legal battle against thousands of neighbors of
the plant, The Rocky Mountain News reports.

Up to now bills are still being submitted.  Some published
reports even indicated that they total $61 million.  However,
not all of them will necessarily be paid in full, according to
the energy department, which owns Rocky Flats and indemnified
the contractors who operated it for four decades while it made
nuclear weapons.

The bills are for legal work in a 16-year legal fight that
resulted last month in a million-dollar jury verdict for the
neighbors.  Attorneys for the former plant operators, Dow
Chemical Co. and Rockwell International Corp., vowed to appeal
the verdict.

In a trial that began in Oct. 2005, residents who owned property
near the site, claimed that Dow Chemical Co., which operated the
site from the 1950s through 1975, and Rockwell International
Corp., which took over in 1975 and operated the plant until it
was shut down in 1989, improperly stored or otherwise mishandled
plutonium-laced waste, resulting in contamination of soil and
groundwater.  According to the suit, both firms operated the
plant under a DOE contract (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 23,
2006).  

Those residents, who are the named plaintiffs in the suit,
claimed that large fires at the plant and windstorms and other
natural events helped to spread the waste outside the plant's
boundaries.  That contamination, plus what the property owners
said was a stigma attached to houses near the plant, resulted in
plummeting property values.  They also contend that Dow,
Rockwell and the DOE have covered up how harmful the plant
really was, (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 23, 2006).

Much of the case centers on an FBI raid at the site in the
summer of 1989.  Rockwell, which ran Rocky Flats at the time,
pleaded guilty in 1992 to 10 federal environmental crimes and
paid a fine of $18.5 million, (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 23,
2006).

The class action was specifically brought on behalf of owners of
about 12,000 parcels of property in about five square miles east
of the Rocky Flats plant in Jefferson County.  Jurors decided in
favor of the property owners after a four-month trial before
Colorado U.S. District Judge John Kane.

The jury decided that Dow and Rockwell sloppily handled
radioactive plutonium at the plant, allowing the substance to
pollute the neighbors' property and interfering with their use
and enjoyment of what they owned.

Both companies though contended that they safely and properly
handled the plutonium during the four decades of the weapons
factory's operation and that only minuscule amounts too small to
harm anyone ever escaped from the plant.

DOE's arrangement with the Rocky Flats contractors called for
the government to pay any damages such as the million-dollar
jury verdict as well as legal expenses to defend against such
claims.  The energy department is also liable for legal fees for
lawyers on the winning side who represented the property owners.

Merrill Davidoff, one of the lawyers for the property owners,
told The Rocky Mountain News that before the trial started last
year, he questioned why the government didn't settle the case
for the benefit of the property owners instead of spending so
much money fighting the lawsuit.

Built in the 1950s during the Cold War era, the plant has been
shut down ever since.  Its 6,500-acre site underwent
environmental cleansing and is slated to become a wildlife
refuge, (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 23, 2006).

The suit was styled, "Cook, et al v. Rockwell Intl. Corp., Case
No. 1:90-cv-00181-JLK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, under Judge John L. Kane.  Representing
the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Gary B. Blum of Silver & DeBoskey, P.C., 1801 York St.,
         Denver, CO 80206, U.S.A, Phone: 303-399-3000, Fax: 303-
         399-2650, E-mail: blumg@s-d.com;

     (2) Stanley M. Chesley of Waite, Schneider, Bayless &
         Chesley Co., L.P.A., 1513 Fourth and Vine Tower, One
         West Fourth St., Cincinnati, OH 45202, U.S.A, Phone:
         513-621-0268;

     (3) Merrill Gene Davidoff, Jennifer E. MacNaughton, Peter
         B. Nordberg, Ellen T. Noteware, Bernadette M. Rappold,
         Stanley B. Siegel and David F. Sorensen of Berger &
         Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust St., Philadelphia, PA
         19103, U.S.A, Phone: 215-875-3084, 215-875-3000 and
         215-875-3051, Fax: 215-875-4671, 215-875-4604 and 215-
         875-5707, E-mail: mdavidoff@bm.net,
         jmacnaughton@bm.net, pnordberg@bm.net,
         enoteware@bm.net and dsorensen@bm.net;

     (4) Bruce H. DeBoskey of Silver & Deboskey, P.C., 1801 York
         St. #700, Denver, CO 80206-5607, U.S.A, Phone: 303-399
         -3000;

     (5) Kenneth A. Jacobsen of Jacobsen Law Offices, LLC, 12
         Orchard Lane, Wallingford, PA 19086, U.S.A., Phone:
         610-566-7930, Fax: 610-566-7940;

     (6) David Evans Kreutzer of Colorado Department of Law,  
         1525 Sherman St., 5th Floor, Denver, CO 80203, U.S.A,
         Phone: 303-866-5667, Fax: 303-866-3558, E-mail:
         david.kreutzer@state.co.us;

     (7) Louise M. Roselle of Waite, Schneider, Bayless &
         Chesley Co., L.P.A., 1513 Fourth and Vine Tower, One
         West Fourth St., Cincinnati, OH 45202, U.S.A, Phone:
         513-621-0267, Fax: 513-381-2375, E-mail:
         louiseroselle@wsbclaw.com;

     (8) Clisham, Satriana & Biscan, LLC, 1512 Larimer St., #400
         Denver, CO 80202, U.S.A, Phone: 303-468-5403, Fax: 303-
         942-7290, E-mail: satrianad@csbattorneys.com;

     (9) Holly Brons Shook of Silver & DeBoskey, P.C., 1801 York
         St., Denver, CO 80206, U.S.A, Phone: 303-399-3000, Fax:
         303-399-2650, E-mail: shookh@s-d.com;

    (10) Ronald Simon of Simon & Associates, 1707 N. St., N.W.
         Washington, DC 20036, U.S.A, Phone: 202-429-0094, Fax:
         202-429-0075, E-mail: ron@1707law.com; and

    (11) John David Stoner of Chimicles & Tikellis, L.L.P., 361
         West Lancaster Ave., One Haverford Centre, Haverford,
         PA 19041-0100, U.S.A

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Joseph John Bronesky and Christopher Lane of Sherman &
         Howard, L.L.C.- 17th St., Denver, CO, U.S.
         District Court Box 12, 633 Seventeenth St., #3000
         Denver, CO 80202, U.S.A, Phone: 303-299-8450 and 303-
         299-8422, Fax: 303-298-0949 and 303-298-0940, E-mail:
         jbronesk@sah.com and clane@sah.com;

    (ii) Wendy S. White, Timothy P. Brooks, Patrick M. Hanlon,
         Amy Horton, Franklin D. Kramer and Edward J. Naughton  
         Of Goodwin Procter, LLP-DC, 1800 Massachusetts Ave.,
         N.W. #800, Washington, DC 20036, U.S.A, Phone:  202-
         828-2000, Fax: 828-2000;

   (iii) Michael K. Isenman of Goodwin Procter, LLP-DC, 901 New
         York Ave., NW #700, Washington, DC 20001, U.S.A, Phone:
         202-346-4000, Fax: 202-346-4444, E-mail:
         misenman@goodwinprocter.com;

    (iv) Lester C. Houtz of Bartlit, Beck, Herman, Palenchar &
         Scott-Colorado, 1899 Wynkoop St., #800 Denver, CO
         80202, U.S.A., Phone: 303-592-3177, Fax: 303-3140, E-
         mail: lester.houtz@bartlit-beck.com;

     (v) Douglas J. Kurtenbach, S. Jonathan Silverman, Mark S.
         Lillie and David M. Bernick of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP-
         Illinois, 200 East, Randolph Drive, #5400 Chicago, IL
         60601, U.S.A, Phone: 312-861-2225, 312-861-2089 and
         312-861-2248, Fax: 861-2200, 312-660-0452 and 312-861-
         2200, E-mail: mlillie@kirkland.com and
         dbernick@kirkland.com;

    (vi) Douglas M. Poland of LaFollette, Godfrey & Kahn, P.O.
         Box 2719, One East Main St., Madison, WI 53703-2719,
         U.S.A, Phone: 608-257-3911, Fax: 608-257-0609, E-mail:
         dpoland@gklaw.com; and

   (vii) Louis W. Pribila of Dow Chemical Company, 2030 Dow
         Center, Midland, MI 48674, U.S.A, Phone: 517-638-9511,
         Fax: 638-9410.


DYNAMEX INC: Former, Present Drivers File Calif. Overtime Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dynamex, Inc. faces a purported class action filed in the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County by a former
Company driver.  The suit alleged that the Company unlawfully
misclassified its California drivers as independent contractors,
rather than employees.

Filed on April 15, 2005, the suit asserted, as a consequence,
entitlement on behalf of the purported class claimants to
overtime compensation and other benefits under California wage
and hour laws, reimbursement of certain operating expenses, and
various insurance and other benefits and the obligation of the
Company to pay employer payroll taxes under federal and state
law.


DYNAMEX INC: Former Worker Files FLSA Violations Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dynamex, Inc. faces a purported class action that was launched
by Alfonso Delesline, a former Company employee in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Filed on January 20, 2006, the suit is alleging that the Company
unlawfully failed to pay wages for work performed for which they
received no compensation as well as for overtime work for which
they received no overtime pay to which the employees were
entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New
York Labor Law and the supporting New York State Department of
Labor regulations (NYLL).  The plaintiff seeks recovery of
unpaid wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
additional liquidated damages for unreasonably delayed payment
of wages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the action.

The suit is styled, "Delesline v. Dynamex, Inc., Case No. 1:06-
cv-00417-LTS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Laura Taylor Swain.
Representing the plaintiffs are, Jeffrey M. Gottlieb of Gottlieb
& Associates, 150 East 18th Street, Suite OHR, New York, NY
10003, Phone: (718) 888-8788, Fax: (718) 939-2672; and Seth
Richard Lesser and Fran L. Rudich of Locks Law Firm, PLLC, 110
East 55th Street, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-838-3333, Fax:
212-838-3735, E-mail: slesser@lockslawny.com and
frudich@lockslawny.com.


DYNAMEX INC: Reaches Settlement for Ill. Drivers' Overtime Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dynamex, Inc. settled a purported class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, by a former Company driver on behalf of himself and
other past or present Company drivers.  

The suit, filed on Feb. 4, 2005, alleged that the Company's
drivers are employees of the Company, rather than independent
contractors, and as a consequence, are entitled to overtime
compensation and other benefits under federal and state wage and
hour laws.

On February 8, 2006, the case was settled and an Agreed Order of
Dismissal was entered at no material cost to the Company.

The suit is styled, "McClure v. Dynamex, Inc., case no. 1:05-cv-
00711," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, under Judge Wayne R. Andersen.  The
plaintiffs are represented by John William Billhorn of Billhorn
Law Firm, 515 N. State Street, Suite 2200, Chicago, IL 60610,
Phone: (312) 464-1450, E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com.

The Company is represented by Joseph R. Marconi of Johnson &
Bell, Ltd., 55 East Monroe Street, Suite 4100, Chicago, IL
60603, Phone: (312) 372-0770, E-mail: marconij@jbltd.com.


ESKOM: Trade Union Mulls Suit V. South African Power Company
------------------------------------------------------------
The Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) invited
members of the public to join in a class action to sue South
African electricity supply company, Eskom, after thousands of
Western Cape residents suffered damage during recent power
failures, The Independent Online reports.

However, organized business believes there is no point in suing,
since the Company does not have the money to pay out claims.

Those who suffered damage range from ordinary people whose
computers or other electronic equipment were damaged by power
surges, to big business and farmers who suffered huge production
losses during the erratic power cuts.  The province is estimated
to have suffered losses of about $210,586,681.58 (R1.3 billion).

The trade union federation called on its members and the public
to join a class action to sue the Company for damages, including
losses in earnings and profits.  COSATU said that it is
supporting lost-production claims from business and general
members of the public to build a case forcing the Company to pay
compensation for the province's electricity crisis.

Recently the Company failed to attend a public meeting, where
various trade unions, the small business sector and individuals
agreed to hold protest action against it.

Mike Louw, spokesperson for COSATU, told The Independent Online
that they had not yet consulted lawyers, but were waiting for
the public to file their claims with their offices.  He also
said that Eskom had failed to attend another meeting, with the
provincial electricity risk management committee.  Mr Louw
pointed out, "Eskom is committed to showing disregard for
feelings of the people and even government.  They have no sense
of respect."

COSATU has recorded business losses of more than R1.3 billion
and was waiting for individually owned business also to stake
their claim.  "Eskom has been difficult to get hold of as we've
invited them to the meeting.  They committed to coming and did
not arrive," according to Mr. Louw, adding, "We are looking for
suitable, responsible people at Eskom to engage with us and
provide adequate information to the public."

Fani Zulu, spokesman for Eskom, told Weekend Argus that at this
stage, claims could only be justified once facts on the matter
were presented to them and that each case was based on its own
merits. Mr. Zulu said he would respond to questions on Eskom's
absence at both meetings later.

Meanwhile, organized business in the Western Cape ruled out
suing Eskom.  Earlier, Colin Boyes, Cape Town Regional Chamber
of Commerce deputy director, said the power cuts had already
cost the regional economy hundreds of millions of rands.  
Outages are expected to continue for at least the next three
months as repairs continue at the Koeberg nuclear plant.

Mr. Boyes later said, "I am not aware that Eskom will be able to
pay out the hundreds of millions of rands lost by Western Cape
businesses."  He added, "What we are doing is trying to ensure
that a structured system is put in place so that we can be
forewarned of possible electrical failures so that businesses
don't have to suffer the absolute disaster they have incurred."  
The cuts a week ago resulted in disruption to fuel production at
the Chevron refinery in Milnerton, which resulted in petrol
being shipped to Cape Town from Durban.

A consultant at the public consumer watchdog, the Western Cape
Consumer Protector, said their office had "strangely enough" not
received any complaints from ordinary consumers.


EXXON MOBIL: $5B Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Damages Remain Unpaid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Exxon Mobil Corp. has yet to pay the $5 billion punitive damages
it was ordered to award fishermen and communities affected by a
1989 oil spill in Prince William Sound, south of Anchorage,
according to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.  In March of that
year, the firm's Exxon Valdez tanker ran aground on Bligh Reef,
contaminating seawater with 11 million gallons of crude oil.

The $5 billion class action award is calculated on one year of
the oil company's profits.  Considering that Exxon Mobil made
$36 billion in profit last year, the 32,000 fishermen, food
processors and Alaska natives who remained unpaid are
'seething,' according to the report.  Exxon spent $2.3 billion
to clean up the site.  It paid $300 million in actual damage
claims.

The suit was styled "Sea Hawk Seafoods Inc. et al. v. EXXON
Corporation et al. (3:89-cv-00095-HRH)," filed in the U.S.
District Court of Alaska under Judge H. Russel Holland.  
Representing the defendants are: John F. Clough, III of Clough &
Associates, POB 211187, Auke Bay, AK 99821, U.S., Phone: 907-
790-1912; Fax: 907-790-1913; and Douglas J. Serdahely of Patton
Boggs LLP, 601 West 5th Avenue, Suite 700, Anchorage, AK 99501
US, Phone: 907-263-6300; Fax: 907-263-6345; E-mail:
dserdahely@pattonboggs.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are: Charles W. Coe of the Law
Office of Charles W. Coe, 805 W 3rd Avenue, #10, Anchorage, AK
99501 U.S., Phone: 907-276-6173; Fax: 907-279-1884; E-mail:
charlielaw@gci.net; and Lloyd B. Miller of Sonosky, Chambers,
Sachse, Miller & Munson, LLP, 900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 700,
Anchorage, AK 99501, U.S., Phone: 907-258-6377; Fax: 907-272-
8332; E-mail: lloyd@sonosky.net.


FLORIDA: $2M Remains Untaken in Port St. Lucie Utility Fees Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Some $2 million remains to be distributed in the suit over
drainage fees billing in Port St. Lucie that was settled three
years ago, according to The Palm Beach Post.

In 2003, judges ordered Port St. Lucie to repay owners of 45,000
vacant lots $14.4 million in storm-water utility fees.  
Homeowners had argued in court they were improperly billed for
drainage fees in the mid-1990s.  The lawsuit was filed in 1997.

The $2 million is in a bank in Fort Pierce.  Fort Pierce
attorney Harold Melville, lawyer for the class members, is
managing the distribution of the fund.  He hopes to update
addresses a third time before mailing a new round of checks in a
few months to about 5,000 property owners.  Mr. Melville updates
Circuit Judge Ben Bryan about the development of the case each
August.

Mr. Melville distributed $7 million after mailing settlement
checks in October 2003.  He distributed another $1 million in
October 2004.

For more information on awards and claims, call: (772) 461-4414
or (772) 461-4774.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Fla. Couple Wants to Join Fridge Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
An Estero, Florida couple initiated a lawsuit against General
Electric Co., seeking damages for a faulty refrigerator that was
not included in the nationwide class action settlement the
company agreed to last year, The Naplesnews.com reports.

Paula and Garlond Evers of Rookery Point say their GE
refrigerator exhibits the same symptoms as the refrigerators
listed in the class action settlement last year.  Mrs. Evers
told The Naplesnews.com that their GE refrigerator had wavering
temperature controls, which resulted in puddles of water on the
floor, spoiled food, and eventually, total failure of the unit.  

Their refrigerator, with model number PSC23MGNACC, was not one
of the 304 model numbers listed in the settlement GE agreed to
in December 2005.  The couple wants to be reimbursed for up to
$5,000 of the $5,343 they spent on their original GE
refrigerator, a replacement Maytag refrigerator, repair charges,
new parts, food, ice and gasoline, according to a statement
filed by Mrs. Evers.  Small claims courts cap settlements at
$5,000.

The nationwide class action settlement that the Company agreed
to in December entitles owners of faulty refrigerators with one
of the 304 model numbers and one of 24 corresponding serial
numbers to a new refrigerator if the Company cannot repair the
unit after three free attempts.  Those owners can also get 100
percent reimbursements for out-of-pocket repair expenses, even
if the repair attempt was not by a Company technician.  Owners
who keep their repaired units get one-year extended warranties.

The Company agreed to the class-action settlement after
acknowledging moisture problems - such as wavering temperature
controls and puddles on the floor - in certain GE and Hotpoint
brand refrigerators manufactured in 2001 and 2002 in the
company's Bloomington, Ind., plant.  All of those refrigerators
have model numbers beginning in BSY, DSS, ESS, GSH, GSS, GST,
GSZ, HSS, HST or SSS.  GE sent out about 450,000 notices to
refrigerator owners in its database who could benefit from the
settlement.  It also had to post notices in national
publications, such as Parade, USA Weekend, People magazine,
Better Homes & Gardens and Readers' Digest.

The suit was filed by Bill Turner, of Naples, who brought the
class action in May 2005.  Mr. Turner has already received a
$225.95 reimbursement check for repair.  His suit alleged that
at the time of sale, the refrigerators contained a defect that
results in the formation of excessive moisture, especially in
the icemaker compartment, which causes, among other things,
development of iron oxide or rust, puddling on the floor beneath
the refrigerator and rust or water running down the side of the
refrigerator.  

The settlement will not be officially approved until April 27,
when a federal judge will decide if the terms are fair and if
the Company kept its promise, Scott Weinstein, Mr. Turner's
attorney told The Naplesnews.com.  As far as Mr. Weinstein
knows, about nine people out of tens of thousands have opted not
to be a part of the class action settlement.  The last day to
opt out was March 14, 2006.

For more information about the class action settlement and a
complete list of model numbers, call: 1-866-839-4463 or visit:
http://www.geappliances.com/classaction.


GUAM: Court Consolidates Lawsuits Over Earned Income Tax Credit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Court Judge James Robard consolidated three class
actions filed against Guam for failing to pay the Earned Income
Tax Credit, according to KUAM News.

The report said the decision also paves the way for the parties
to proceed with a proposed $90 million settlement that awaits
court approval or resume negotiations to accommodate all of the
parties' concerns.

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).  Ms.
Torres is represented by lawyer Peter Perez.

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. Babauta Santos is
represented by Mike Philips.


H-E-B: Recalls Baby Foods on Reports of Glass Pieces Inside Jars
----------------------------------------------------------------
H-E-B is recalling its entire H-E-B Baby Food and Mom's Organic
Choice product lines.  As of the afternoon of March 15, all H-E-
B baby food and Mom's Organic Choice product lines was removed
from shelves due to a few customer reports of pieces of glass
being found inside the baby food jars of H-E-B peas, carrots and
applesauce.

According to Winell Herron, H-E-B Group Vice-President of Public
Affairs, there have been no reports of injuries associated with
the incidents, however the company is taking the issue very
seriously and taking all necessary precautions.

"Though these reports have been isolated to just a few products
in the H-E-B baby food and Mom's Organic Choice line, as a
company, we are committed to absolute and complete food safety.  
As a result of that commitment, coupled with the fact that we
are dealing with a children's product, we have made the decision
to pull all of our H-E-B baby food and Mom's Organic Choice
products from our shelves," said Winell Herron, H-E-B Group
Vice-President of Public Affairs.

Mr. Herron said that H-E-B will launch a full investigation into
the incidents and work closely with its H-E-B baby food
suppliers to ensure all safety measures are being taken when
manufacturing the product.

H-E-B is encouraging anyone who has any H-E-B baby food and/or
Mom's Organic Choice product in their pantries to remove it and
take it to their nearest H-E-B store for a full refund.

Customers contact: H-E-B, Phone: 1-800-432-3113.


HOS TRADING: Issues Alert on Sulfite-Containing Fungus Product
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ho's Trading Inc. of Brooklyn, New York, is recalling Fortune
Star White Fungus, because they contain undeclared sulfites.  
People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of
serious or life-threatening reactions if they consume this
product.

The recalled Fortune Star White Fungus products are packed in 3
oz., uncoded bags.  The products were sold nationwide.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in Fortune Star
White Fungus, which did not declare sulfites on the label.  The
consumption of 10 milligrams or more of sulfites per serving has
been reported to elicit severe reaction in some asthmatics.  
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.  
No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

Consumers who have purchased Fortune Star White Fungus should
return it to the place of purchase.  Consumers with questions
may contact the company at 1-718-622-2288.


KANSAS: Wichita Police Officers Launch Race Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-one black police officers filed a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, complaining of
discriminatory treatment, The Associated Press reports.

The suit, which seeks no monetary damages, alleges that the
plaintiffs and other minority officers were denied desirable job
assignments, promotion opportunities, supervisory positions,
training, equal pay, bonuses and other employment benefits.  It
was brought against the city of Wichita and Police Chief Norman
Williams.

"They're looking really for change," Uzo Ohaebosim, one of the
attorneys representing the officers told The Associated Press.
According to the suit, the police chief has not adequately
investigated complaints from minority officers and failed to
take steps to eliminate problems with department working
conditions.

The suit cited examples of discrimination, including: racist
cartoons posted in a squad room, white officers got longer lunch
breaks, no white officers responded when a black officer made an
officer-in-trouble call, and a black officer was required to
provide proof of an appointment that kept her from attending a
meeting, although her white peers did not have to do so.  In
essence, the suit alleges that the city failed to "effectively
enforce policies prohibiting race and ethnicity discrimination
and retaliated against minorities who have protested defendants'
discriminatory policies, pattern and/or practices."

The suit is styled, "Fulcher, et al. v. City of Wichita, et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-02095-JWL-DJW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas under Judge John W. Lungstrum
with referral to Judge David J. Waxse.  Representing the
plaintiffs are, Uzo L. Ohaebosim and Lawrence W. Williamson, Jr.
of Shores, Williamson & Ohaebosim, LLC, 301 N. Main, 1400 Epic
Center, Wichita, KS 67202, Phone: 316-261-5400, Fax: 316-261-
5404, E-mail: u.ohaebosim@swolawfirm.com and
l.williamson@swolawfirm.com.


KENTUCKY: Judge Finds Local Lawyers in Breach of Duty to Clients
----------------------------------------------------------------
A special judge in Boone County, Kentucky found three attorneys
guilty of deceiving their clients out of tens of millions of
dollars from a settlement reached in a massive lawsuit against
the maker of the diet drug fen-phen, The Kentucky Post reports.

In a ruling handed down last March 15, Senior Judge William Wehr
ruled that the attorneys from central Kentucky took more than
$100 million in fees and expenses out of a $200 million
settlement.  In addition, the judge found that they set up a $20
million charitable fund that paid them more in income and
expenses than it gave in grants to nonprofit organizations.

Judge Wehr stated, "Simple arithmetic shows that the ...
attorney fees and other costs yields a figure far in excess of
any contracted for ... in this case."  He adds, "In reality,
they were passing out money to themselves and others like it was
theirs to do with as they wished."  Such actions amount to a
breach of their fiduciary duty, the judge ruled.

William Johnson, a Frankfort attorney who represents the three
lawyers, could not be reached for comment on the matter.  But,
Bob Sanders, a Covington attorney who represents the fund, told
The Kentucky Post that he planned to pursue an appeal of Judge
Wehr's decision.

Essentially, Judge Wehr ruled that the money the three lawyers
made above the fees their clients agreed to should be set-aside
in a constructive trust.  He also ruled that the charitable fund
must return the money and may continue to operate only if it
receives funds from other sources.

Judge Wehr still must decide whether the attorneys are entitled
to any money, and whether all of their fees should go into the
trust.

Lexington attorney Angela Ford, who filed the lawsuit seeking
the money back on behalf of 380 people, is also seeking punitive
damages against attorneys Shirley Cunningham Jr. and William
Gallion of Lexington, and Melbourne Mills Jr. of Versailles.

Judge Wehr, or a jury, will also have to decide how the money in
the trust, which eventually could total hundreds of millions of
dollars, will be shared between Ms. Ford and her clients.  A
hearing in the case is scheduled for April 12.

Ms. Ford's suit stemmed from the secret settlement of a lawsuit
against the makers of fen-phen, which users said gave them
various health risks and injuries.  Similar lawsuits against
fen-phen were filed across the country.

The Kentucky fen-phen lawsuit originally was certified as a
class action, but later decertified because of the settlement.
Boone Circuit Judge Jay Bamberger, whose actions in it were
recently condemned by the state Judicial Conduct Commission,
handled the case.

As a result of the reprimand, Judge Bamberger, who retired in
early 2004 and was working as a special senior judge, retired
from that post, losing 40 percent of his pension.

Judge Wehr parenthetically referred to the commission's actions
in ruling that Judge Bamberger's approval of the original
settlement made little sense.

After the drug's manufacturer agreed to pay $200 million to
settle the case, it walked away, leaving the details of the
award's distribution to the plaintiffs' lawyers and Judge
Bamberger.  The lawyers set up a grid to pay 431 clients, an
amount that totaled $74 million.  They also set up a charitable
fund called the Kentucky Fund for Healthy Living, and deposited
$20 million of the settlement award in it.

Judge Wehr said the three attorneys had contracts with their
clients to take 30 to 33 percent of their individual
settlements.  A fourth attorney, Stan Chesley of Cincinnati, was
to receive a percentage of those attorneys' fees.  The three
Kentucky attorneys also agreed to make no settlement claims
without the knowledge of their clients.

Instead, according to Judge Wehr, all four attorneys each took
at least $20 million.  They paid millions to other attorneys and
$3 million to non-attorneys, for a total of $106 million.  The
judge pointed out, "Their justification for all this is a
blanket order (entered by a now reprimanded judge) approving
their expenditures, which does not afford them the protection
they desire, for it does not identify either a percentage or a
dollar amount which they are allowed to charge."

Judge Wehr also questioned why contingency fees were shared with
non-lawyers, which he said was not allowed.  And, according to
him, the three Kentucky attorneys accepted directors' fees and
expenses of more than $85,000 from the Kentucky Fund.  They did
all of that with neither the knowledge nor approval of their
clients, according to the judge, a former Campbell Circuit Court
judge.

He further pointed out, "There is no disclosure of any
settlement details to the clients."  There was no agreement by
the (clients) to fund a charitable corporation in the amount of
$20 million and have these attorney defendants continue to make
money from that claim.

Despite the findings, Judge Wehr did not rule against Mr.
Chesley, who was a defendant in Ms. Ford's suit.  Mr. Chesley
did not have a contract with any of the plaintiffs in the
original suit.  Rather, he was hired by the three Kentucky
lawyers to negotiate the settlement with the drug maker.


LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Settles Securities Fraud Suit for $3.5M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lattice Semiconductor Corp. reached an agreement in principle
with plaintiffs to settle the consolidated class action filed in
2004 against the Company and certain of its current and former
executive officers.  The agreement does not contain any
admission of fault or wrongdoing on the part of Lattice or any
of the individual defendants in the litigation.

The agreement in principle contemplates that plaintiffs will
receive a payment of $3,500,000 in exchange for a release of the
Company and the individual defendants from all claims asserted
in the litigation.  Lattice expects that the entire amount of
the settlement will be paid by its insurer under the terms of
its director and officer liability insurance policy, and that
payment of the settlement amount will not affect Lattice's
current or future financial results.  

The agreement in principle is subject to the negotiation and
completion of the usual and customary documentation for such a
settlement, including a Stipulation of Settlement, and is
subject to and conditioned upon final court approval.

Lattice faced several complaints filed on behalf of a putative
class of investors who purchased the Company's stock between
April 22, 2003 and April 19, 2004.  The complaints alleged
violations of federal securities laws arising out of the
Company's restatement of financial results for the first,
second, and third quarters of 2003 (Class Action Reporter, Dec.
1, 2006).

These cases were amended and consolidated into a single action.  
In the amended and consolidated complaint filed January 27,
2005, the Company's former President and its former Controller
were added as defendants.

In September and October 2004, two shareholder derivative
complaints were filed, purportedly on behalf of the Company, in
the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of
Washington, against all of its current directors, certain former
directors, and certain executive officers.  The derivative
plaintiffs make allegations substantially similar to those in
the putative class action complaints, as well as allegations of
breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement,
waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment.

The suit is styled "Autumn Partners, LLC v. Lattice
Semiconductor Corporation et al., case no. 6:04-cv-01255-AA,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon,
under Judge Ann L. Aiken.  Representing the Company is Lois O.
Rosenbaum, Timothy W. Snyder, Stoel Rives, LLP, 900 S.W. Fifth
Avenue, Suite 2600, Portland, OR 97204, Phone: (503) 294-9293,
Fax: (503) 294-9113, E-mail: lorosenbaum@stoel.com or
twsnider@stoel.com.  

Representing the plaintiffs are: Tamara J. Driscoll, Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP 1700 7th Avenue,
Suite 2260, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: (206) 749-5544, Fax: (206)
749-9978, E-mail: tdriscoll@lerachlaw.com; and

Dennis J. Herman, William S. Lerach, Lerach Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLC, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San
Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 288-4545, Fax: (415) 288-4534,
E-mail: dennish@lerachlaw.com.  


MARATHON OIL: Faces Lawsuit in W.Va. Over Defective Gasoline
------------------------------------------------------------
Marathon Oil Corporation is a defendant in a purported class
action styled, "Loudermilk Services, Inc., et al. v. Marathon
Ashland Petroleum, LLC, et al."

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia and alleges that the
Company's Catlettsburg refinery sold defective gasoline to
wholesalers and retailers, causing permanent damage to storage
tanks, dispensers and related equipment, resulting in lost
profits, business disruption, and personal and real property
damages.  Plaintiffs seek class action status.

In 2002, Marathon Petroleum Company (MPC) conducted extensive
cleaning operations at affected facilities but denies that any
permanent damages resulted from the incident.  MPC previously
settled with many of the potential class members in this case
and intends to vigorously defend this action.

The suit is styled, "Loudermilk Services, Inc., et al. v.
Marathon Ashland Petroleum, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-
00966," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia under Judge Robert C. Chambers.  
Representing the plaintiffs are, Gregory B. Breedlove of
Cunningham Bounds Crowder Brown & Breedlove, P.O. Box 66705,
Mobile, AL 36660, Phone: 251/471-6191, Fax: 251/479-1031, E-
mail: gbb@cbcbb.com; and James M. Cawley, Jr. of Suite 2110, 440
Louisiana Street, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713/426-1700, Fax:
713/425-5325, E-mail: jay@jaycawley.net.

Representing the defendants are, Joseph S. Beeson of ROBINSON &
McELWEE, P.O. Box 1791, Charleston, WV 25326-1791, Phone: 304-
344-5800, Fax: 344-9566; and Jeffrey V. Mehalic of LAW OFFICES
OF JEFFREY V. MEHALIC, P.O. Box 11133, Charleston, WV 25339-
1133, Phone: 304/346-3462, Fax: 346-3469.


MARATHON OIL: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Certain Claims in Singh Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
A New York federal judge entered an order dismissing certain
plaintiff's claims against the defendants in a class action,
styled, "Singh v. Ashland Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04827-
AKH."  The judge also directed the court clerk to mark the case
closed.

On April 8, 2005, Shiva Singh instituted a class action in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York in New York County
against Ashland, and the individual members of Ashland's
Board of Directors.  The complaint also named Marathon Oil
Corporation, Marathon Petroleum Company ("MPC") and Credit
Suisse First Boston LLC ("CSFB") as defendants.

The complaint stated that Mr. Singh held Ashland common stock
and that the complaint was brought on behalf of Mr. Singh and
others similarly situated.  The action arose from the
transaction proposed at that time in which Ashland would
transfer its entire 38 percent interest in MPC as well as
certain other businesses to the Company.  The complaint alleged
breach of fiduciary duty as well as aiding and abetting breach
of fiduciary duty and negligence against Ashland, its directors,
the Company and MPC. The complaint alleged breach of fiduciary
duty and negligence as well as aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty and negligence against CSFB.

On September 20, 2005, the federal judge from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York entered an order
dismissing certain of the plaintiff's negligence claims against
CSFB and the aiding and abetting claims against all defendants
and directed the court clerk to mark the case closed.  This case
is not currently pending.

The suit is styled, "Singh v. Ashland Inc., et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-04827-AKH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein.  
Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Thomas R. Trowbridge, III of Baker Botts, L.L.P. (NYC),
         30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10112, Phone: (212)
         408-2500, Fax: (212)-259-2520, E-mail:
         thomas.trowbridge@bakerbotts.com;  

     (2) Lawrence Jay Portnoy of Davis Polk & Wardwell, 450
         Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 450-
         4000, Fax: (212) 450-3874, E-mail: portnoy@dpw.com; and

     (3) Julie A North of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, 825
         Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 474-
         1000, Fax: (212) 474-3700, E-mail: jnorth@cravath.com.


NORBOURG GROUP: Montreal Lawyer May be in Conflict of Interest
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Montreal securities regulator says that an attorney from the
province who specializes in class actions, is in potential
conflict of interest for his actions in trying to recover money
from Canada's bankrupt Norbourg Group of mutual funds, The
Montreal Gazette reports.

Jean St-Gelais, president of the Autorite des marches financiers
du Quebec (AMF), said in a recent news conference that Yves
Lauzon may be in conflict of interest because he's trying to
recoup $1.8 million he personally invested in the Company while
heading a class action against the investment firm on behalf of
other investors.  Mr. St-Gelais added that Mr. Lauzon was also
representing Eric Asselin, the Company's former vice-president
in charge of finances.  Though no charges were laid against Mr.
Asselin to date some are expected.

Mr. Lauzon is attempting through a Quebec Superior Court
judgment to have the AMF refund the $1.8-million check he wrote
the Company three days before it shut down.  He claims the AMF
didn't do enough to protect investors.

In the separate class action filed recently through Mr. Lauzon's
office, the AMF is among the defendants along with Company
founder Vincent Lacroix and accounting firm KPMG, LLP.

Meanwhile, the AMF is preparing its own civil suit against Mr.
Lacroix as well as other individuals and companies associated
with what Mr. St-Gelais called "a sad saga."  He pointed out
that lawyers usually take 20 to 30 per cent of winnings in class
actions as their fee while 100 per cent of funds recovered
through an AMF court action goes to the affected investors.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Insurers Boost Settlement With $228.5M Payment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Insurers for Nortel Networks Corp. will pay $228.5 million to
settle two fraud lawsuits, increasing to $2.7 billion the amount
investors will receive, Bloomberg reports.

The insurers' payouts stem from their liability coverage for
Nortel officers and directors, David Bershad, a lawyer for the
investors told Bloomberg.  The Company, which is the largest
telephone-equipment maker in North America and is based in
Brampton, Ontario, revealed back in Feb. 8, 2005 that it will
pay more than $2.47 billion in cash and stock to end shareholder
suits claiming damages from an accounting fraud.

The added money makes the settlement the fourth largest for a
U.S. class-action securities fraud suit.  According to data
compiled by Bloomberg, the top three settlements were by Enron
Corp. at $7.1 billion, followed by WorldCom Inc. at $6.1
billion, and finally by Cendant Corp. at $3.2 billion.  "It's an
extremely significant result," says Mr. Bershad, of New York's
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman.

On March 10, the Company said that it would restate financial
results for the third time in as many years because it booked
sales too soon.  For the first nine months of 2005, revenue
would be cut by $162 million and earnings by $95 million,
according to a Company statement.  Preliminary figures indicated
that the Company reported a fourth-quarter net loss of $2.21
billion after a $2.5 billion legal expense tied to previous
accounting errors.  The announcement will lead to revisions on
restatements from 2004 and before, a setback for Chief Executive
Officer Mike Zafirovski, who spent his first four months in
office resolving claims from the earlier mistakes.

A $3.2 billion accounting fraud led the Company to fire
officials including Chief Executive Officer Frank Dunn.  Errors
included improperly boosting sales by accelerating the booking
of fiber-optic equipment contracts.  Investors claimed 10 senior
executives created improper reserves and used the money to make
it appear the company was profitable.

As part of the settlement, which must be approved by two federal
judges in New York, the Company agreed to make changes in
corporate governance.  A non-executive chairman will stand for
annual election, and the way executives are paid will be
changed, according to Sean Coffey, a lead lawyer in the case.  
He told Bloomberg, "We think the company will be a terrific
example of a robust corporate democracy."

Lawyers say that the though the agreement contains no admission
of wrongdoing, it doesn't cover ongoing investigations by U.S.
and Canadian regulators.

Among insurers making the cash payments will be units of Warren,
New Jersey-based Chubb Corp., Mr. Coffey told Bloomberg.  Mr.
Dunn is among the officers and directors covered.  None of them
will though make out-of-pocket payments, adds Mr. Bershad.

For more details, contact John P. ("Sean") Coffey of Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, LLP, Phone: (212) 554-1409, E-mail:
sean@blbglaw.com, Web site: http://www.blbglaw.com/;and David  
Bershad of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, Phone: 212-
946-9325, Fax: 212-273-4381, E-mail: dbershad@milbergweiss.com,
Web site: http://www.milbergweiss.com/.  


OHIO: Steubenville Traffic Camera May be Permanently Banned
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson County Common Pleas Judge David Henderson heard on
March 9 a request by attorney Gary Stern for a permanent
injunction against the use of automatic traffic cameras in
Steubenville, according to The Intelligencer.

Henderson took the request under advisement, saying he would
issue an opinion on whether the city didn't follow its own
traffic camera ordinance and/or whether the ordinance is
unconstitutional, the report said.

The City Council is working on a new automated traffic camera
ordinance, and is waiting for Judge Henderson's ruling to see
exactly what language must be changed.

Steubenville attorney Gary Stern filed the suit against the city
and camera manufacturer Traffipax Inc. on behalf of his wife,
who received one of the $85 tickets issued by a traffic camera.  
The attorney argued that the cameras are illegal and
unconstitutional because, for one, under the ordinance,
motorists don't have the right to appeal.  The lawsuit also said
the city does not follow the terms of its own ordinance which
requires a 14-day notice before installing the cameras.  Judge
Henderson ordered the removal of speed cameras in December.  In
February, he ruled that a class action could proceed against the
city of Steubenville and Traffipax.

The suit is styled, "April Stern v. The City of Steubenville,
Ohio and Traffipax, Inc., Case No. 05 CV 524," filed in the
Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County, Ohio, under Judge
David E. Henderson. Representing the Plaintiff is Gary M. Stern
Of Stern, Stern & Stern Co., LPA, 108 South Fourth St.,
Steubenville, OH 43952, Phone: (740) 284-1211, Web site:
http://www.sternlawyer.com/complaint.htm.


OHIO: Hamilton County Ordered to Pay for Wrongful Detentions
------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in Cincinnati ruled that the Hamilton County
Justice Center was wrong in imprisoning hundreds of people
because of their failure to pay fines, The Kentucky Post
reports.

U.S. District Judge S. Arthur Spiegel said the county's public
attorneys should have sought court hearings to determine
defendants' ability to pay their fines.  The hearings are vital
because they allow judges to declare a poor defendant indigent
and wave the fine, the report said.  Judge Spiegel said the
problem dates back to 1982.  He ordered the payment of $100 per
day of imprisonment, although he hasn't written a final order.

Robert Newman, the Cincinnati lawyer who filed the class action
against Hamilton County said there are some 500 people eligible
for the awards.  He did not name the amount of possible total
claims.

The suit is styled "Powers v. Hamilton Co Publ Def, et al.
(1:02-cv-00605-SAS)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.  Also representing the plaintiff is
Lisa Talmadge Meeks of Newman & Meeks Co., LPA, 617 Vine Street,
Suite 1401, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513/639-7000; E-mail:
lisameeks@newman-meeks.com.

Representing the defendants is: David Todd Stevenson, Hamilton
County Prosecutor, Civil Unit, 230 E Ninth Street, Suite 4000
Cincinnati, OH 45202-2151, Phone: 513-946-3120; E-mail:
dstevens@prosecutor.hamilton-co.org.


OHIO: Court Sets Limit on Traffic Camera Lawsuit V. Girard City
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John Stuard of Trumbull County Common Pleas Court has
certified a class action against the city of Girard's use of
automatic traffic camera, but limited it to those who paid
speeding fines, Vindy.com reports.

The judge earlier allowed authorities to continue using the
camera, but ordered that fines collected from the date of his
ruling be put into an interest-bearing escrow account, and not
into the city's coffers (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 24, 2006).  
$60 of the $85 fine goes to the city, and the remaining goes to
Traffipax of Columbia, MD, the company contracted to install and
operate the device.  Judge Stuard ordered that Traffipax's
portion of the fine also be placed in escrow.  

Judge Stuard had rejected a motion by Trafficpax to dismiss
complaint of fraud against the company.  He said facts
supporting fraud claims need to be proved at a hearing to
succeed but do not necessarily need to be a part of the
complaint.

Councilman Daniel Moadus and and co-counsel Kim Kohli filed the
complaint.  Mr. Moadus is represented by James A. Denney, 1631
S. State Street, Girard, Ohio, (Trumbull Co.).  The city of
Girard is represented by John Solomon.


OHIO: Kenneth Blackwell Agrees to Remove Social Security Numbers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell agreed to remove Social
Security numbers from financial documents posted on his agency's
Web site and to take steps to prevent the numbers from being
posted there in the future, The Associated Press reports.  The
State Secretary made the decision in a hearing before U.S.
District Judge Michael Watson in Ohio.

Sec. Blackwell's office also is creating an online sign-in
system requiring a password to search the financial files,
Frederick Erny, a private attorney representing Mr. Blackwell in
the case told The Associated Press.  The settlement resolves a
federal class action filed last March 2, 2006, by a southwest
Ohio truck driver whose Social Security number appeared on Sec.
Blackwell's Web site without his knowledge.

Both sides will submit a final written document with complete
details of the settlement to the judge within ten days, Mr. Erny
told The Associated Press.  He added that Sec. Blackwell was
sensitive to the concerns raised by the lawsuit "and thought as
a policy matter we should try to resolve the issue."

Sec. Blackwell acted correctly after initial resistance to
removing the numbers, according to Christian Jenkins, an
attorney representing truck driver Darrel Estep.  He told Th
Associated Press, "What we've seen here is a 180-degree about-
face and a decision to do the right thing.  I see that as a very
good result in a very short time."

Left unresolved by the agreement, however, was a law requiring
documents posted by the secretary of state to provide a Social
Security number as an identification measure.  Sec. Blackwell is
working with lawmakers to address the discrepancy, spokesman
Carlo LoParo told The Associated Press.  Both Democrats and
Republicans plan legislation to keep the numbers private.

The Social Security numbers appear on records of debts and other
financial information used by banks and creditors in making
loans and by law must be posted on the Internet within three
days by the secretary of state.  

Sec. Blackwell's office says most of the records were filed by
attorneys or banks, rather than the people whose Social Security
numbers were included.  In addition, Sec. Blackwell's office
also says that he didn't remove the numbers in the past because
the state's only role was posting the documents and because
state law didn't address the specific situation of removing
Social Security numbers on these particular documents.

The suit is styled, "Estep v. Blackwell, Case No. 1:06-cv-00106-
MHW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio under Judge Michael H. Watson.  Representing the
plaintiffs are, Stacy Ann Hinners, Christian A Jenkins and Marc
David Mezibov of Mezibov & Jenkins, 401 East Court St., Ste.
600, Cincinnati, Ohio, Phone: 513-723-1600, Fax: 513-723-1620,
E-mail: shinners@mezibovjenkins.com, cjenkins@mezibovjenkins.com
and mmezibov@mezibovjenkins.com; and John Charles Murdock of
Murdock Goldenberg Schneider & Groh, LPA, 35 East Seventh
Street, Suite 600, Cincinnati, OH 45202-2015, Phone: 513-345-
8291, E-mail: jmurdock@mgsglaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, Matthew D. Shuler and Frederick
Michael Erny of Dinsmore & Shohl - 1, 1900 Chemed Center, 255 E.
5th Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-977-8200, Fax: 513-
977-8560, E-mail: matthew.shuler@dinslaw.com; and
fred.erny@dinslaw.com.


REFCO INC: Underwriters Move to Stall Probe Pending Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
The underwriters of Refco Inc.'s 2005 public offering is
unwilling to open its books to creditors for the moment,
according to Dow Jones.

The underwriters, a group of eight Wall Street investment banks,
asked the bankruptcy court handling Refco's case to stall the
investigation of their books pending discovery in a number of
Refco-related securities class action in federal court.  U.S.
District Judge Gerald Lynch, who is overseeing about 20 Refco-
related lawsuits, wants to coordinate discovery in all the Refco
suits to save time and money, according to the report.

Refco's creditors committee has asked the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
in New York for the right to look at the books of the eight
banks that underwrote Refco's $583 million public offering in
August 2005.  They are insisting the underwriters should have
known about $430 million in hidden debt owed to Refco by Refco
Group Holdings, Inc.  The discovery of the debt led to the
bankruptcy filing of Refco Inc. and its 23 affiliates.

The eight underwriters are Goldman Sachs Group, Credit Suisse
First Boston, Deutsche Bank, J. P. Morgan & Chase Co., Sandler
O'Neil & Partners, Bank of America Corp., HSBC Holdings Plc and
Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.

A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York appointed Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger &
Grossmann and Grant & Eisenhofer as lead plaintiffs' lawyers in
the securities class action against Refco Inc.'s underwriters
and directors, Bloomberg reported (Class Action Reporter, Feb.
8, 2005).

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Joseph Mazur, et al. v. Refco, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, One Pennsylvania Plaza,
         Suite 1910, New York, NY, 10119, Phone: 212.279.5050,
         Fax: 212.279.3655, E-mail:
         JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com

     (2) Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA), One
         Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 2109, Phone: 617.542.8300,
         Fax: 617.230.0903, E-mail: info@bermanesq.com

     (3) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
         80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
         mail: info@dyershuman.com

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

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

     (6) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         (Melville), 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY,
         11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com

     (7) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San
         Diego), 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA,
         92101, Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423,

     (8) Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen P.L.L.P., Suite 301, 660
         Pennsylvania Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC, 20003-
         4335, Phone: 202.544.9840, Fax: 202.544.9850,

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

    (10) Paskowitz & Associates, Phone: 800.705.9529, E-mail:
         classattorney@aol.com

    (11) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, 100 Park
         Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone:
         212.661.1100, Fax: 212.661.8665, E-mail:
         info@pomerantzlaw.com

    (12) Sarraf Gentile LLP, 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1005,
         New York, NY, 10018, Phone: 212.868.3610, Fax:
         212.918.7967,

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

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

    (15) 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

    (16) Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP (New York), 485 Seventh
         Avenue, Suite 1000, New York, NY, 10018, Phone: (212)
         239-4340, Fax: (212) 239-4310, E-mail:
         lawyer@lawssb.com

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

    (18) 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

    (19) Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY,
         10022-6689, Phone: 877.370.7703, Fax: 212.486.2093,
         E-mail: IRRep@wolfpopper.com

    (20) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (LA), 1801 Ave. of the
         Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: (310)
         201-915, Fax: (310) 201-916, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com  

    (21) Grant & Eisenhofer, PA, 1201 N. Market Street, Suite
         2100, Wilmington, DE, 19801, Phone: 302.622.7000, Fax:
         302.622.7100, E-mail: info@gelaw.com

    (22) 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

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

    (24) Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 16 West 46th Street 7th Floor,
         New York, NY, 10036, Phone: 212.490.9550, Fax:
         212.986.0158, E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com


ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Agilent Shareholders 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:

Agilent Technologies  (A)     Nov. 17, 99 - Dec. 6, 00
Antigenics            (AGEN)  Feb. 3, 00 - Dec. 6, 00
Avanex                (AVNX)  Feb. 3, 00 - Dec. 6, 00
Backweb Technologies  (BWEB)  Jun. 7, 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: Intersil Shareholders 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:

Internet Capital Group  (ICGE)  Aug. 4, 99 - Dec. 6, 00
Intersil Corp.          (ISIL)  Feb. 24, 00 - Dec. 6, 00
Interwoven, Inc.        (IWOV)  Oct. 8, 99 - Dec. 6, 00
Intraware, Inc.         (ITRA)  Feb. 25, 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.


SIPEX CORP: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 6, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Francisco Division, will hold a fairness for the proposed $6
million settlement in the matter, "In re Sipex Corporation
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 05-CV-00392-WHA."  The
case was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired the Company's common stock between April 10, 2003 and
January 20, 2005.

The hearing will be held on April 6, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. before
the Honorable William H. Alsup at the U.S. Courthouse, 450
Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California.  

Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is on May 8, 2006.  Any
objections to the settlement must be filed by March 24, 2006.  

For more details, contact David A. Priebe of DLA Piper Rudnick
Gray Cary U.S., LLP, 2000 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA
94303-2248, Phone: 650-833-2000; Fax: 650-833-2001; E-mail:
david.priebe@dlapiper.com; Uri Seth Ottensoser of Bernstein
Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, NY
10016, Phone: 212-779-1414, Fax: 212-779-3218, Web site:
http://www.bernlieb.com;Dale Richard Bish of Wilson Sonsini  
Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone:
650-804-4018, E-mail: dbish@wsgr.com; and Boris Feldman of
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto,
CA 94304-1050, Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail:
boris.feldman@wsgr.com.


STOCK EXCHANGES: Antitrust Settlement Hearing Set May 1, 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness haring for the proposed settlement in the
matter: "In re: Stock Exchanges Options Trading Antitrust
Litigation (MDL No. 1283, Case No. 99CV0962)."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons, firms,
corporations and other entities that during period from January
22, 1990 through April 30, 2003, purchased and/or sold one or
more Class Option Contracts and/or paid transaction costs,
including without limitation all fees and other charges,
incurred in connection with the purchase and/or sale of one or
more Class Option Contracts.

The hearing will be held on May 22, 2006 at 2:00 p.m.  Any
objections to the settlement must be filed by May 1, 2006.

For more details, contact Options Trading Antitrust Litigation
c/o Berdon Claims Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9007, Jericho,
NY 11753-8917, Phone: (866) 208-0188; Craig C. Corbitt of Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette, LLP, 44 Montgomery Street, Suite
3400, Suite 3400, San Francisco, CA 94104-2301, Phone: (415)
693-0700; Andrew David Friedman, Samuel K. Rosen and Stuart D.
Wechsler of Wechsler, Harwood, L.L.P., 488 Madison Avenue, New
York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 935-7400; Joseph C. Kohn of Kohn,
Swift & Graf, P.C., One South Broad Street, Suite 2100,
Philadelphia, PA 19107-3389, Phone: (215) 238-1700; and Thomas
James McKenna of Gainey & McKenna, 485 Fifth Avenue, 3rd Floor,
New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 983-1300.


SWISHER INTERNATIONAL: Merging with HB Fairview to Settle Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Swisher International, Inc. shareholders have adopted a Plan of
Merger with HB Fairview Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, and HB Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of HB Fairview.  HB Merger Sub will be merged with
and into Swisher International and Swisher International will
become wholly owned by HB Fairview.

The merger agreement is being entered into in connection with a
proposed settlement of a purported stockholder class action
pending in Delaware state court, and the completion of the
merger is contingent upon court approval of that settlement.  
The holders of a majority voting power of the outstanding shares
of Swisher International voted to adopt the merger agreement at
a meeting duly noticed and held March 15, 2006.

The merger, which is contingent upon certain customary
conditions, is currently expected to be completed in the second
quarter of 2006.  Under the Plan of Merger, Swisher
International stockholders (other than HB Fairview) would
receive a cash payment of $7 per share.

Swisher International, Inc. -- http://www.swisher.com/-- offers  
hygiene services and products to businesses across the country.  
For more information, contact Thomas C. Byrne, Phone: +1-954-
713-1160, E-mail: tbyrne@newrivercapital.com.


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Students Fees Ruling Appeal Criticized
----------------------------------------------------------------
The University of California (UC) should reconsider its apparent
decision to appeal a recent ruling by San Francisco Superior
Court Judge James Warren, which awarded $33.8 million to
thousands of students whom UC hit with unexpected fee increases
in 2003, The InsideBayArea.com reports.

The university's rationale for keeping the case alive falls
short morally as well as legally.  To spend more money defending
the case would be improper and, in our estimation, foolish,
according to an InsideBayArea.com article.

In a court opinion released on March 6, UC was ordered to pay
$33.8 million to rectify the damages incurred after thousands of
professional students faced unexpected fee increases.  The
multi-million dollar lawsuit, filed by eight UC professional
students in 2003, stipulated the university breached its
contract with more than 50,000 professional students -- around
9,000 of who saw their fees more than double.  Judge Warren said
in the court opinion that in: "university-wide publications"
such as student catalogues, the university made a promise to
professional students that fees would remain constant, and they
did not follow through, (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 10, 2006).

The biggest chunk of money, $28 million of the $33.8 million
awarded, goes to 9,163 professional school students - business,
law, medical, etc. - with the other $5.3 million targeted for
other students.

Judge Warren specifically ruled that bills sent to students
before fees rose were binding contracts, and terms outlined in
each university fee schedule released from 1996 to 2003 were not
"vague or indefinite."  The judge cited that the key statement
accompanying prior fee schedules read "Increases in the fee
apply to new students only. The fee will remain the same for
each student for the duration of his or her enrollment in the
professional degree program."

In addition, Judge Warren pointed out, "The promise was stated
with clarity, and the parties understood what was expected of
them.  A reasonable person would be entitled to rely on the
university's representation that the ... fee would remain the
same throughout his or her enrollment, regardless of what
happened to the rest of tuition."

Attorneys for UC argued that there was no contract, that
students were told "repeatedly" that fees were subject to change
and that students were aware that increases dictated by a state
budget crisis were likely.  With regards to professional
students, fees almost tripled in three years, from $6,000 in the
2002-03 academic year to as much as $15,258 in the fall of 2005.  
Mo Kashmiri, the class-action's lead plaintiff and a student at
UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law when the fees increased,
and others were forced to drop out of school temporarily or take
additional jobs to earn extra money to pay the difference.


WARBURG PINCUS: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set April 24, 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona will hold a
fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the matter:
"Hanley v. Warburg Pincus Cap, et al., Case No. 4:96-cv-00390-
FRZ."  The case was brought on behalf of all persons who
tendered their warrants to acquire Magma Cooper Company common
stock at an exercise price of $8.50, expiration November 30,
1995 self-tender at $8.25 per warrant.

The hearing will be held on April 24, 2006, at 10:00 a.m.,
before the Honorable Frank R. Zapata, at the U.S. Courthouse,
405 West Congress St., Courtroom 5A, Tucson, Arizona 85701.

Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is on December 31,
2006.  

For more details, contact Magma Cooper Warrants Securities
Litigation, c/o RSM McGladrey, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O.
Box 1387, Blue Bell, PA 19422, Phone: (800) 222-2760; and Jay W.
Eng and Wendy H. Zoberman of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt
& Pucillo, Esperante Bldg., 222 Lakeview Ave., Ste. 900, West
Palm Beach, FL 33401, Phone: 561-835-9400, Fax: 561-835-0322, E-
mail: jeng@bermanesq.com and wzoberman@bermanesq.com.


WASHINGTON: Workers, National Group File Suit Over Union Dues
-------------------------------------------------------------
A group of current and former state workers launched a federal
lawsuit against the Washington Federation of State Employees
over what they call improper and forced union dues, Associated
Press reports.

The suit seeks class-action status, and was filed on March 15,
2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington.  Plaintiffs named in the suit are:

     (1) Andre Opsal,

     (2) Darrel Mollenhour,

     (3) Debbie Koepp,

     (4) James Szpek,

     (5) Joanne Rice,

     (6) Kimberly Johnson,

     (7) Liz Flugel,

     (8) Maxine Dunkelman,

     (9) Patricia Woodward, and

    (10) Stephen Sergi.

They allege that their due process rights were violated, since
union officials did not say how their dues were being spent.  
Some of them also claim that they have been fired, because they
refused to pay union dues or the legally required alternative
fees.

Backed by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation,
the statewide class action seeks to stop the Washington
Federation of State Employees from forcing 40,000 workers to pay
union dues, (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 16, 2006).  

Tim Welch though, a spokesman for the Washington Federation of
State Employees says that the Right to Work Foundation is just
trying to undermine strong union contracts that benefit workers.

The suit is styled, "Opsal, et al. v. Washing Federation of
State Employees, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00079-EFS," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington
under Judge Edward F. Shea.  Representing the plaintiffs are,
Stephen Ross Matthews of Phillabaum Ledlin Matthews & Sheldon,
421 West Riverside, Suite 900, Spokane, WA 99201-0413, Phone:
509-838-6055, Fax: 15096251909, E-mail: sm@spokelaw.com.


WDET 101.9: Exec Accused of Embezzling In-kind Contributions
------------------------------------------------------------
The general manager of an FM station facing class action over
allegations that the station tricked listeners regarding its
donation campaign, has been charged with felony embezzlement.

Michael Coleman, general manager of WDET 101.9 FM, was charged
in Ann Arbor at his former employer, Michigan Public Media,
which operates the city's public radio station, WUOM 91.7 FM,
Crains Detroit.com reports.

Two other former employees, Justin Ebright, and Jeremy
Nordquist, were similarly charged.  Mr. Ebright was development
director; Mr. Nordquist, account executive.  Timothy Slottow,
executive vice president and CFO at the University of Michigan
said financial improprieties committed by the three involve
converting in-king corporate contributions for personal use.  
In-kind contributions involve companies donating of services,
goods or money in exchange for on-air mentions.

WDET is facing a class action in Wayne County Circuit Court over
allegations that the station tricked listeners into making
donations by delaying news that their favorite shows were being
canceled, the report said.


XCHANGE INC: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set May 1, 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts will
hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the
matter: "In re: Xchange, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:01-cv-10322-RWZ."  The case was brought on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Exchange Applications, Inc., a/k/a Xchange, Inc. during the
period December 9, 1998 to September 29, 2000.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Rya W. Zobel in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, John
Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Courtroom 12,
Boston, MA 02210 at 2:00 p.m., on May 1, 2006.  

Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is on May 29, 2006.  
Any objections to the settlement must be filed by April 14,
2006.

For more details, contact In re: Xchange, Inc. Securities
Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, Claims Administrator,
P.O. Box 2463, 2710 Concord Road, Suite 5, Aston, PA 19014,
Phone: (866) 274-4004, Web site: http://www.strategicclaims.net;
and James F. Conway, III and Dennis J. Johnson of Johnson &
Perkinson, 1690 Williston Road, South Burlington, VT 05403,
Phone: 802-862-0300, Fax: 802-862-0060, E-mail:
jconway@jpclasslaw.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BAUSCH & LOMB: Stull, Stull & Brody Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly
traded securities of Bausch & Lomb, Inc. (NYSE: BOL) between
January 27, 2005 and December 22, 2005, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendant violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false statements
concerning Bausch & Lomb's results.  Specifically, defendants
issued positive statements while concealing material adverse
information about the true nature of Bausch & Lomb'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 Companys
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 news, Bausch & Lomb's stock fell to a close of $72.00 per
share on December 23, 2005, a decline of over $7.00 from its
close on December 22, 2005.  It is alleged that, prior to these
revelations of accounting fraud the Companys top officers and
directors illegally reaped over $29 million in insider trading
proceeds.

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


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Murray, Frank Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all securities purchasers of Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V.
(CBI) between March 9, 2005 and February 3, 2006, inclusive.

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

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

Despite this announcement, defendant Gerald Glenn, maintained a
positive outlook for the Company's performance.  On January 27,
2006, the Company disclosed in a filing with the SEC that it had
entered into a lucrative "Stay Bonus Agreement" with the
Company's Vice President and Controller, Tommy Rhodes, valued at
over $1.74 million, in an apparent attempt to cover up its
previously announced "accounting improprieties" and to silence a
potential whistle-blower.

On February 3, 2006, as further evidence that CBI's problems
were much more serious than defendants had suggested at the
time, the Company announced, without explanation, that it had
fired defendants Glenn and Robert B. Jordan.  On February 4,
2006, in reaction to this news, the price of CBI stock plummeted
again, falling to $22.33 per share, or 23%, from its closing
price of $29.00 on February 3, 2006.

For more information, visit:
http://www.murrayfrank.com/CM/NewCases/NewCases.asp.

Plaintiff's counsel is Eric J. Belfi and Bradley P. Dyer of
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, Phone: (800) 497-8076, Phone: (212)
682-1818; Fax: (212) 682-1892; E-mail: info@murrayfrank.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  * * *