CAR_Public/060321.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, March 21, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 57

                            Headlines

3CI COMPLETE: Court Grants Final Approval to $32.5M Settlement
AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Shareholders File Securities Suits in E.D. Pa.
ARDEN REALTY: Faces Calif. Lawsuits Over General Electric Merger
AUTOBYTEL INC: Still No Hearing Date for Calif. Securities Suit
BAYER CORP: Final Baycol Settlement Hearing Set June 9

BEST BUY: Accused of Unauthorized Credit Card Deal with AOL
CENTURYTEL INC: Suit Over Maintenance Services Billing Certified
CHAPARRAL NETWORK: Calif. Court Issues Judgment in Stock Suit
CORNELL COMPANIES: N.Mex. Inmate's Strip Search Suit Continues
CORNELL COMPANIES: Tex. Court Okays Securities Suit Settlement

DIVERSIA CORP: Court Sets Final Approval Hearing for IPO Pact
DOT HILL: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. Calif.
EMDEON CORP: N.Y. Sets Final Approval Hearing for IPO Settlement
EXELON CORP: Families Sue Over Nuclear Plant Waste Leak in Ill.
EXXONMOBIL CORP: Facing $535M Suit Over Gasoline Leakage in Md.

FIDELITY FEDERAL: Formulates Strategy for Fla. DPPA Lawsuit
FLORIDA: Circuit Judge Unravels $7M Fire Fee Suit Settlement
H&R BLOCK: Parker & Waichman Investigates IRA Products for Fraud
H&R BLOCK: Faces Suit Over Retirement Savings Plans Marketing
HYPERCOM CORP: 2nd Consolidated Amended Ariz. Stock Suit Filed

INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Expects Amended Consolidated Complaint
IPASS INC: Amended Securities Fraud Suit in Calif. Due March 30
JAKKS PACIFIC: Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Still Pending in NY
KVH INDUSTRIES: R.I. Court Mulls Class Status for Stock Lawsuit
LOUISIANA: School Workers' Suit Gets 2nd Chance at Certification

NATIONAL PHYSICIANS: Stay Lifted in TCPA Complaint in N.Y.
NORTEL NETWORKS: Solves Insurance Issues in US$228M Settlement
ORTHO-MCNEIL: Sued Over Evra Birth Control Patch-Related Death
SILICON IMAGE: Calif. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Suit
SIMON PROPERTY: Faces Ga., N.Y. Consumer Suits Over Gift Cards

TISSUE COMPANIES: Suit Filed Over Alleged Body-Snatching Scheme
TNS INC: Shareholder Files Lawsuit Over Proposed Sale Disposal
TRANSMETA CORP: N.Y. Court Set to Approve IPO Suit Settlement
TRUSTSTREET PROPERTIES: Tex. Court to Hear Arguments on "Lewis"
V.I. TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Former Worker's Overtime Suit in N.Y.

VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Mass.

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

H&R BLOCK: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in Miss.
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Murray Frank Files Securities Suit in Idaho
PROQUEST CO: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in Mich.

                            *********


3CI COMPLETE: Court Grants Final Approval to $32.5M Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The court overseeing a securities class action against 3CI
Complete Compliance Corp.'s controlling stockholder, Stericycle,
Inc., has issued a final judgment approving the terms of the
settlement in the case.  In addition, the court issued an order
approving the plan of allocation of the settlement funds.

Class members in the suit consist of all persons who held
Company common stock on September 30, 1998, or acquired common
stock during the class period (September 30, 1998 to February
10, 2005), with certain exclusions.  The settlement excludes
persons who purchased 3CI common stock for the first time after
February 10, 2005.

The court order provides for $.60 per share to be allocated as
the consideration for the Company common stock transferred to
Stericycle by the final judgment and to be paid to class members
who file validated claims and who held their shares as of the
March 14, 2006 date of the final judgment.

The court approved an award of attorneys' fees to counsel for
the class of $10,833,333, plus out-of-pocket expenses of
$391,385.  The court also approved the payment of an aggregate
of $1 million in retention bonuses to 3CI employees and an
aggregate of approximately $75,000 to the class representative
and the members of 3CI's special committee of the Board.  The
balance of the $32.5 million settlement fund, after deducting
such payments, fees and expenses, will be paid to class members
who filed validated claims for their alleged damages in
proportion to the length of time that they held Company common
stock during the class period.

Under the terms of the court's orders, all shares of 3CI common
stock held by class members were transferred to Stericycle as of
March 14, 2006.  The class administrator handling claims in the
class action has indicated that as of February 28, 2006, holders
of in excess of 2,500,000 shares of 3CI common stock have
submitted claims.  The shares transferred to Stericycle by the
final judgment, together with other shares owned directly or
indirectly by Stericycle, will enable Stericycle to acquire the
remaining shares of 3CI common stock which are not held by class
members by means of a short-form merger.

The court's final judgment is subject to appeal.  The lawsuit,
in which a class of certain of the Company's minority
stockholders and the Company are plaintiffs, is pending in the
First Judicial District Court, Caddo Parish, Louisiana.

The suit is styled Robb et al. v. Stericycle, Inc., et al, cause
no.467704-A."  The plaintiffs originally asserted numerous
claims of minority stockholder oppression, breach of fiduciary
duty and unjust enrichment against:

     (1) the Company,

     (2) Waste Sytems Inc. (WSI),

     (3) the four affiliates of Stericycle who are or were
        directors of 3CI Complete Compliance Corporation, and

     (40 Otley L. Smith III, 3CI's President and Chief Executive
         Officer (Class Action Reporter, January 5, 2005).

A Joint Petition filed later in the proceedings claimed that
Louisiana defendants wrongfully:

     (i) diverted 3CI's cash and assets,

    (ii) manipulated and increased 3CI's debt to WSI,

   (iii) directly and indirectly increased Stericycle's and
         WSI's percentage ownership of 3CI,

    (iv) forced 3CI to declare significant cash dividends on its
         Preferred Stock payable to WSI,

     (v) usurped 3CI's corporate opportunities,

    (vi) misappropriated 3CI's customers,

   (vii) unfairly competed with 3CI, and

  (viii) operated 3CI with the goal of maximizing Stericycle's
         profitability and furthering Stericycle's integration
         plan.

3CI Complete Compliance, d/b/a American 3CI (OTC Bulletin Board:
TCCC), is a medical waste management services company.

For more information, contact Matthew D. Peiffer, Chief
Financial Officer, Phone: 972-375-0006.


AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Shareholders File Securities Suits in E.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amkor Technology, Inc. faces several securities fraud class
actions in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

On January 23, 2006, a purported securities class action
entitled, "Nathan Weiss et al. v. Amkor Technology, Inc. et
al.," was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania against the Company and certain of its current
and former officers.  Subsequently, other law firms have filed
related cases, which will likely be consolidated with the
initial complaint.  The complaints allege, among other things,
that Amkor engaged in "channel stuffing" and made certain
materially false statements and omissions in its disclosures
during the putative class period of October 2003 to July 2004.

The first identified complaint is styled, "Nathan Weiss, et al.
v. Amkor Technology, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  Plaintiff firms
involved in this or similar litigation are:

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

     (2) Goldman Scarlato & Karon, PC, Phone: 888-753-2796;

     (3) 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;

     (4) 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;

     (5) Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, 1515 Locust Street,
         2nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215-561-
         3600, Fax: 215-561-3000, E-mail:
         bmgross@bernardmgross.com;

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

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

     (8) Stull, Stull & Brody (Los Angeles), 10940 Wilshire
         Boulevard - Suite 2300, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, Phone:
         310.209.2468; and

     (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.


ARDEN REALTY: Faces Calif. Lawsuits Over General Electric Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arden Realty, Inc. faces two purported class actions in Los
Angeles County Superior Court over its proposed merger with
General Electric Capital Corporation.

On December 23, 2005, a purported stockholder class action
related to merger agreement was filed in Los Angeles County
Superior Court naming the Company and each of its directors as
defendants.  The lawsuit, styled, "Charter Township of Clinton
Police and Fire Retirement System v. Arden Realty, Inc., et al.
(Case No. BC345065)," alleges, among other things, that $45.25
per share in cash to be paid to the holders of shares our common
stock in connection with the merger is inadequate and that the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to our
stockholders in negotiating and approving the merger agreement.
The complaint seeks the following equitable relief:

     (1) declaring that the lawsuit is properly maintainable as
         a class action and certification of the plaintiff as a
         class representative;

     (2) declaring that the defendants have breached their
         fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiff and other
         members of the class;

     (3) enjoining the merger and, if such transaction is
         consummated, rescinding the transaction;

     (4) enjoining the triggering of "acceleration" clauses
         related to stock options upon a change of control;

     (5) requiring the defendants to uphold their fiduciary
         duties and to fully insulate themselves from any
         conflicts of interest that interfere with such duties;
         and

     (6) awarding attorneys' and experts' fees to the plaintiff.

A second purported stockholder class action, styled, "Dwyer v.
Arden Realty, Inc., et al. (Case No. BC345468)," was filed in
Los Angeles County Superior Court on January 4, 2006 against the
same defendants as in Charter Township.  The Dwyer complaint
purports to allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty,
indemnification and injunctive relief.  The complaint seeks the
following relief:

     (i) declaring that the lawsuit is properly maintainable as
         a class action and certification of the plaintiff as a
         class representative;

    (ii) preliminarily and permanently enjoining defendants from
         proceeding with, consummating or closing the proposed
         transaction;

   (iii) in the event the transaction is consummated, rescinding
         the transaction;

    (iv) awarding compensatory damages against defendants; and

     (v) awarding plaintiff attorneys' fees and costs.


AUTOBYTEL INC: Still No Hearing Date for Calif. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Autobytel, Inc. is a defendant in a consolidated securities
class action filed against it and certain of its current
directors and current and former officers, which is pending the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Between October and December 2004, five separate purported class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against the Company and certain of its
current directors and current and former officers.  The claims
were brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased shares
during the period July 24, 2003 through October 21, 2004.  The
claims alleged in all of these purported class actions were
virtually identical, and purported to allege violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

In this regard, the plaintiffs allege that the firm
misrepresented and omitted material facts with respect to the
Company's financial results and operations during the time
period between July 24, 2003 and October 20, 2004.  The
complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs, as well as accountants' and experts'
fees.

On January 28, 2005, the Court ordered the consolidation of the
currently pending class actions into a single case pursuant to a
stipulation for consolidation signed by all parties.  On March
14, 2005, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the
selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel.  On June 30,
2005, the lead plaintiff filed and served a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The putative class period is July 24,
2003 to October 21, 2004.

Defendants filed and served a motion to dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint on August 1, 2005 and filed their
reply brief on February 17, 2006.  The hearing was set for March
13, 2006, but the parties filed a stipulation to take the
hearing off-calendar without prejudice to re-noticing the
hearing in the future.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Scott Tanne, et al. v. Autobytel, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-CV-
8987," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California under Judge Christina A. Snyder with referral to
Judge Jeffrey W. Johnson.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

     (1) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401
         East Pratt, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
         410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (2) 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;

     (3) Lim, Ruger & Kim, LLP, 1055 West Seventh Street, Suite
         2800, Los Angeles, CA, 90017, Phone: 213-955-9500, Fax:
         213-955-9511, E-mail: info@lrklawyers.com;

     (4) 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;

     (5) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr,
         New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com;

     (6) Pomerantz,Haudek, Block, Grossman & Gross, 100 Park
         Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone:
         212.661.1100;

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

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

     (9) Smith & Smith LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
         Bensalem, PA, 19020, Phone: (866) 759-2275, E-mail:
         howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com.


BAYER CORP: Final Baycol Settlement Hearing Set June 9
-------------------------------------------------------
Hon. Mark I. Bernstein, of the Philadelphia Court of Common
Pleas, granted on March 16, preliminary approval of a national
class action settlement, which will reimburse union health and
welfare funds, self-insured employers, and insurers (third-party
payors), for losses caused by the withdrawal of Baycol(R)
cholesterol medication in August 2001.

The defendants are Bayer Corporation and GlaxoSmithKline, who
jointly marketed the drug.  Extensive negotiations in the case
followed the Court's ruling in April 2005, which certified a
national class of those third-party payors.

The company said Settlement Notices and claim forms will be
mailed to class members in the near future.  Each participating
class member will receive compensation keyed to the volume of
their Baycol(R) purchases just before Baycol(R) was withdrawn.
The settlement allows each class member to choose between two
alternative methods to measure their purchase costs in order to
accommodate class members who may not have detailed records of
each covered prescription.

The company said that because the settlement is based on a
formula, the total value of the settlement will not be
determined until all the claims are processed.  However,
plaintiffs' counsel is satisfied that this settlement will
provide an optimal recovery for the class members.  Furthermore,
because the settlement provides that defendants will pay fees
and expenses for plaintiffs' counsel, compensation for class
members will not be reduced by litigation costs.

The Court set June 9, 2006 for a final approval hearing.  If the
settlement is approved at that time, class members will have
until September 16, 2006 to submit their claims and participate
in the settlement.

The plaintiff class was represented by Stewart L. Cohen and
William D. Marvin, of Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C.; Steven A.
Schwartz, Morris M. Shuster, and Daniel B. Scott, of Chimicles &
Tikellis, LLP; Ira Schochet of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff &
Sucharow LLP, and Ellen Meriwether of Miller Faucher and
Cafferty LLP.



BEST BUY: Accused of Unauthorized Credit Card Deal with AOL
-----------------------------------------------------------
Electronics retailer Best Buy Co., Inc. is facing a complaint
filed by a customer who alleges the company illegally used her
account to sign up to America Online's Internet service,
TwinCities.com reports.

The suit was filed March 15 by Marianna Gergel in California
Superior Court in Los Angeles.  Ms. Gergel alleges Best Buy used
her credit-card data to open an AOL account for her without her
permission when she bought a laptop computer last March.  She
asks to represent Californians whom Best Buy signed up with AOL
without consent.  America Online has promoted its Internet
services through Best Buy stores since April 2003.

Headquartered in Richfield, Minnesota, Best Buy --
http://www.bestbuy.com-- operates a chain of about 700 stores
in the U.S. and Canada offering a wide variety of electronic
gadgets, movies, music, computers, and appliances.


CENTURYTEL INC: Suit Over Maintenance Services Billing Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court in Michigan certified as class action a suit
alleging that CenturyTel, Inc. unjustly and unreasonably billed
its customers for inside wire maintenance services.

Barbrasue Beattie and James Sovis, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, filed the suit on October 28,
2002, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan (Case No. 02-10277).  The legal action sought
unspecified money damages and injunctive relief under various
legal theories on behalf of a purported class of over two
million customers in telephone markets.

On March 10, 2006, the Court certified the class action status
of the suit and issued, ruling that the billing descriptions
CenturyTel used for these services during an approximately 18-
month period between October 29, 2000 and May 2002 were legally
insufficient.  The company plans to appeal this decision.  The
Court's order does not specify the award of damages, the scope
of which remains subject to significant fact-finding.  At this
time, the company said it couldn't reasonably estimate the
amount or range of possible loss; however, it believes it is
significantly below the level of revenues billed for such
services during the above period.

The suit is styled, "Beattie, et al. v. Centurytel Inc." under
Judge David M. Lawson.  Representing the plaintiffs are: Gregory
J. Boulahanis of Boulahanis & Assoc., 21905 Garrison Avenue,
Dearborn, MI 48124, Phone: 313-277-2550; Fax: 313-277-2550; and
George G. Burke, III of Mindell, Malin, 25505 W. Twelve Mile
Road, Suite 1000, Southfield, MI 48034-1811, Phone: 248-353-
5595; Fax: 248-353-5595.

Representing the defendants are: Jennifer L. Frye of Dickinson
Wright (Ann Arbor), 301 N. Liberty, Suite 500, Ann Arbor, MI
48104, Phone: 734-623-7075; Fax: 734-623-1625; E-mail:
jfrye@dickinsonwright.com; and David J. Houston of Dickinson
Wright, 215 S. Washington Square, Suite 200, Lansing, MI 48933-
1888, Phone: 517-371-1730; E-mail: dhouston@dickinsonwright.com.


CHAPARRAL NETWORK: Calif. Court Issues Judgment in Stock Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
entered a final judgment in a purported class action filed
against Chaparral Network Storage, Inc. (now acquired by Dot
Hill Systems Corporation) and certain of its former officers and
directors.

The lawsuit, among other things, alleges violations of federal
securities laws and purports to seek damages on behalf of a
class of shareholders who purchased Chaparral securities during
a defined period prior to Dot Hill's acquisition of the Company.
In May 2005, the Second Amended Complaint was dismissed with
leave to amend.  Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint,
which the Court again dismissed with leave to amend in November
2005 as to the Company and certain other defendants.  Plaintiffs
declined to amend within the proscribed period, and final
judgment was entered in February 2006.

The suit is styled, "In re Robert T Harvey Securities
Litigation, 8:04-cv-00876-DOC-PJW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, under Judge David
O. Carter.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Brian Barry, Jill Levine Betts of Brian Barry Law
         Offices, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste 307, Los
         Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-788-0831, E-mail:
         bribarry1@yahoo.com or jilllevine1@yahoo.com;

     (2) Kenneth J. Catanzarite and Jim T. Tice, Catanzarite Law
         Offices, 2331 W Lincoln Ave, Anaheim, CA 92801, Phone:
         714-520-5544, E-mail: kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com or
         jtice@catanzarite.com;

     (3) Laurence M. Rosen, Rosen Law Firm, 350 Fifth Avenue,
         Suite 5508, New York, NY 10118, Phone: 212-686-1060, E-
         mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com or jtice@catanzarite.com

Representing the Company is Eric H. Macmichael and Meghan Oryan
Spieker of Cooley Godward, 4401 Eastgate Mall, San Diego, CA
92121, Phone: 858-550-6000, E-mail: mspieker@cooley.com.


CORNELL COMPANIES: N.Mex. Inmate's Strip Search Suit Continues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cornell Companies, Inc. still faces a lawsuit filed by a
detainee at the Lincoln County Detention Center (LCDC) in the
U.S. District Court of New Mexico (Santa Fe).

The lawsuit relates to the former LCDC policy that required
strip searches for all detainees and inmates and alleges that
such policy violates a detainee's Fourth Amendment right.  The
lawsuit was filed as a putative class action brought on behalf
of all inmates who were searched at the facility from May 2002
to July 2005.  This lawsuit is in its early stages and no
discovery has been conducted.


CORNELL COMPANIES: Tex. Court Okays Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division gave its approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Cornell
Companies, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors.

In March and April 2002, the company, Steven W. Logan (its
former President and Chief Executive Officer), and John L.
Hendrix (its former Chief Financial Officer), were named as
defendants in four federal putative class actions styled:

     (1) Graydon Williams, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
         Similarly Situated v. Cornell Companies, Inc, et al.,
         case no. H-02-0866, in the United States District
         Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
         Division;

     (2) Richard Picard, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
         Similarly Situated v. Cornell Companies, Inc., et al.,
         case no. H-02-1075, in the United States District
         Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
         Division;

     (3) Louis A. Daly, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
         Similarly Situated v. Cornell Companies, Inc., et al.,
         case No. H-02-1522, in the United States District Court
         for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division,
         and

     (4) Anthony J. Scolaro, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
         Similarly Situated v. Cornell Companies, Inc., et al.,
         case No. H-02-1567, in the United States District Court
         for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division

The aforementioned lawsuits were putative class actions brought
on behalf of all purchasers of our common stock between March 6,
2001 and March 5, 2002 and relate to our restatement in 2002 of
certain financial statements.  The lawsuits involved disclosures
made concerning two prior transactions executed by the Company:
the August 2001 sale-leaseback transaction and the 2000
synthetic lease transaction.  These four lawsuits were
consolidated into the Graydon Williams action and Flyline
Partners, LP was appointed lead plaintiff.  As a result, Flyline
Partners, LP, filed a consolidated complaint.  Richard Picard
and Anthony Scolaro were also named as plaintiffs.

Since then, the court allowed plaintiffs to file an amended
consolidated complaint.  The amended consolidated complaint
alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5
promulgated under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act, Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act") and/or Section 15 of the Securities
Act.  The amended consolidated complaint seeks, among other
things, restitution damages, compensatory damages, rescission or
a rescissory measure of damages, costs, expenses, attorneys'
fees and expert fees.

In an order entered April 1, 2005, the court granted the motion
to dismiss with respect to the plaintiffs' securities fraud
claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5.  The court denied the motion to dismiss as to
the remaining claims covering the Company's secondary offering
in 2001.  Subject to court approval and documentation, the
parties agreed to settle this matter.  Under the proposed
agreement, the Company has not admitted any wrongdoing.
Settlement in the amount of $7 million will be funded through
the Company's Directors' and Officers' liability insurance.

In February 2006, the court approved the settlement of this
matter.  Under the settlement agreement, Cornell has not
admitted any wrongdoing.  Settlement in the amount of $7.0
million has been funded through our directors' and officers'
liability insurance.  During the fourth quarter of 2005, we
recorded the settlement charge of $7.0 million and the related
reimbursement of $7.0 million from our director's and officer's
liability insurance.  The charge and reimbursement have been
recognized in general and administrative expenses in our
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income
(Loss) for the year ended December 31, 2005.  The liability is
carried in accounts payable and accrued liabilities and the
reimbursement is included in other receivables at December 31,
2005.  The insurance carrier funded the reimbursement in 2005
into a trust account and funds were disbursed from the trust
account to plaintiffs' counsel's escrow account upon court
approval of the settlement in February 2006.

The suit is styled, "Williams, et al. v. Cornell Companies, et
al., Case No. 4:02-cv-00866," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas under Judge Vanessa D.
Gilmore.  Representing the plaintiffs are, Roger B. Greenberg of
Schwartz Junell, et al., 909 Fannin, Ste. 2700, Houston, TX
77010, Phone: 713-752-0017, Fax: 713-752-0327, E-mail:
rgreenberg@schwartz-junell.com; and Thomas E. Bilek of Hoeffner
and Bilek, LLP, 1000 Louisiana, Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002,
Phone: 713-227-7720, Fax: 713-227-9404, E-mail: tbilek@hb-
legal.com.

Representing the defendants are, Paul R. Bessette of Akin Gump,
et al., 300 W. 6th St., Ste. 2100, Austin, TX 78746, Phone: 512-
499-6200, Fax: 512-499-6290, E-mail: pbessette@akingump.com; and
Timothy R. McCormick of Thompson & Knight, Ste. 3300, 1700
Pacific St., Dallas, TX 75201, Phone: 214-969-1103, Fax: 214-
880-3253, E-mail: timothy.mccormick@tklaw.com.


DIVERSIA CORP: Court Sets Final Approval Hearing for IPO Pact
-------------------------------------------------------------
Diversia Corp. reports that the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York will hold an April 24, 2006 final
approval hearing for the proposed settlement in litigation
regarding distribution of shares in Healtheon Initial Public
Offering.

In December 2002, the Company and certain of its officers and
directors were named as defendants in a class action shareholder
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, now captioned,  "In re Diversa Corp.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-
9699."  In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege the
Company and certain of its officers and directors, and the
underwriters (the "Underwriters") of its initial public
offering, or IPO, violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, based on allegations that the
registration statement and prospectus prepared in connection
with the Company's IPO failed to disclose material facts
regarding the compensation to be received by, and the stock
allocation practices of, the Underwriters.  The complaint also
contains claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on
allegations that this omission constituted a deceit on
investors.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.

This action is related to "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Case No. 21 MC 92," in which similar
complaints were filed by plaintiffs (the "Plaintiffs") against
hundreds of other public companies (collectively, the "Issuers")
that conducted IPOs of their common stock in the late 1990s and
2000 (collectively, the "IPO Cases").  On January 7, 2003, the
IPO Case against the Company was assigned to U.S. Judge Shira
Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York, before whom the
IPO Cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes.

In February 2003, the Court issued a decision denying the motion
to dismiss the Sections 11 and 15 claims against the Company and
its officers and directors, and granting the motion to dismiss
the Section 10(b) claim against the Company without leave to
amend.  The Court similarly dismissed the Sections 10(b) and 20
claims against two of the Company's officers and directors
without leave to amend, but denied the motion to dismiss these
claims against one officer/director.

In June 2003, Issuers and Plaintiffs reached a tentative
settlement agreement and entered into a memorandum of
understanding providing for, among other things, a dismissal
with prejudice and full release of the Issuers and their
officers and directors from all further liability resulting from
Plaintiffs' claims, and the assignment to Plaintiffs of certain
potential claims that the Issuers may have against the
Underwriters.  The tentative settlement also provides that, in
the event that Plaintiffs ultimately recover less than a
guaranteed sum of $1 billion from the Underwriters in the IPO
Cases and related litigation, Plaintiffs would be entitled to
payment by each participating Issuer's insurer of a pro rata
share of any shortfall in the Plaintiffs' guaranteed recovery.

In the event, for example, the Plaintiffs recover nothing in
judgment against the Underwriter defendants in the IPO Cases and
the Issuers' insurers therefore become liable to the Plaintiffs
for an aggregate of $1 billion pursuant to the settlement
proposal, the pro rata liability of our insurers, with respect
to the Company, would be $5 million, assuming that 200 Issuers
which approved the settlement proposal, and their insurers, were
operating and financially viable as of the settlement date.  The
Company is covered by a claims-made liability insurance policy
that would satisfy our insurers' pro rata liability described in
this hypothetical example.

In June 2004, the Company executed a settlement agreement with
the Plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the memorandum of
understanding.  On February 15, 2005, the Court issued a
decision certifying a class action for settlement purposes and
granting preliminary approval of the settlement subject to
modification of certain bar orders contemplated by the
settlement.  In addition, the settlement is still subject to
statutory notice requirements as well as final judicial
approval.

On August 31, 2005, the Court reaffirmed class certification and
preliminary approval of the modified settlement in a
comprehensive order.  In addition, the Court approved the form
of notice to be sent to members of the settlement classes, which
was published and mailed beginning November 15, 2005.  The Court
has set a final settlement fairness hearing on the settlement
for April 24, 2006.  The settlement is still subject to
statutory notice requirements as well as final judicial
approval.  The Company is covered by a claims-made liability
insurance policy, which it believes will satisfy company
insurers' pro-rata liability under this settlement.

The suit is styled, "In re Diversa Corp. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-9699," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Shira Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


DOT HILL: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dot Hill Systems Corp. is a defendant in several securities
fraud class actions that were filed in the Southern District of
California.

In late January and early February 2006, numerous complaints
purporting to be class actions were filed against the Company.
The complaints allege violations of federal securities laws
related to alleged inflation in its stock price in connection
with various statements and alleged omissions to the public and
to the securities markets and declines in our stock price in
connection with the restatement of certain of its quarterly
financial statements for fiscal year 2004, and seeking damages
therefore.

The first identified complaint is styled, "Matt Brody, et al. v.
Dot Hill Systems Corporation, et al.," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.
Plaintiff firms involved in this or similar litigation are:

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

     (2) 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;

     (3) 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;

     (4) 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;

     (5) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr.,
         New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@murrayfrank.com;

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

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

     (8) Stull, Stull & Brody (Los Angeles), 10940 Wilshire
         Boulevard - Suite 2300, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, Phone:
         310.209.2468.


EMDEON CORP: N.Y. Sets Final Approval Hearing for IPO Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emdeon Corp. (formerly WebMD) said that the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York will hold an April 24,
2006 final approval hearing for the proposed settlement in
litigation regarding distribution of shares in Healtheon Initial
Public Offering.

In the summer and fall of 2001, seven purported class actions
were filed against Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and Goldman
Sachs & Co., underwriters of the initial public offering of the
Company, which was then known as Healtheon, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  Three of these
suits also named the Company and certain former officers and
directors of the Company as defendants.  These suits were filed
in the wake of reports of governmental investigations of the
underwriters' practices in the distribution of shares in certain
initial public offerings.  Similar suits were filed in
connection with over 300 other initial public offerings that
occurred in 1999, 2000 and 2001.

The complaints against the Company and its former officers and
directors alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 under that Act and Section
11 of the Securities Act of 1933 because of failure to disclose
certain practices alleged to have occurred in connection with
the distribution of shares in the Healtheon IPO.  Claims under
Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 were also brought
against the underwriters.  These claims were consolidated, along
with claims relating to over 300 other initial public offerings,
in the Southern District of New York.

The plaintiffs have dismissed the claims against the four former
Company officers and directors without prejudice, pursuant to
Reservation of Rights and Tolling Agreements with those
individuals.

On July 15, 2002, the issuer defendants in the consolidated
action, including the Company, filed a joint motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaints.  On February 18, 2003, the District
Court denied, with certain exceptions not relevant to the
Company, the issuer defendants' motion to dismiss.

After a lengthy mediation under the auspices of former U.S.
District Judge Nicholas Politan, the issuer defendants in the
consolidated action (including the Company), the affected
insurance companies and the plaintiffs reached an agreement on a
settlement to resolve the matter among the participating issuer
defendants, their insurers and the plaintiffs.  The settlement
calls for the participating issuers' insurers jointly to
guarantee that plaintiffs recover a certain amount in the IPO
litigation and certain related litigation from the underwriters
and other non-settling defendants.  Accordingly, in the event
that the guarantee becomes payable, the agreement calls for the
Company's insurance carriers, not the Company, to pay the
Company's pro rata share.

The Company and virtually all of the approximately 260 other
issuer defendants who are eligible have also elected to
participate in the settlement. Although the Company believes
that the claims alleged in the lawsuits were primarily directed
at the underwriters and, as they relate to the Company, were
without merit, we believe that the settlement is beneficial to
the Company because it reduces the time, expense and risks of
further litigation, particularly since virtually all of the
other issuer defendants will participate and our insurance
carriers strongly support the settlement.

On June 10, 2004, plaintiffs submitted to the court a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Defendant Issuers
and Individuals.  On February 15, 2005, the court certified the
proposed settlement class and preliminarily approved the
settlement, subject to certain modifications, to which the
parties agreed.  On August 31, 2005, the court ordered that
notice be mailed to the class members beginning on November 15,
2005, and no later than January 15, 2006, and scheduled a
hearing for final approval of the settlement for April 24, 2006.

The suit is styled, "In re WebMD (f/k/a Healtheon) IPO
Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 6768," related to "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS)
(S.D.N.Y.)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Shira Scheindlin.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


EXELON CORP: Families Sue Over Nuclear Plant Waste Leak in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eleven Braidwood families filed a multi-count complaint Tuesday
against Exelon Corporation and Commonwealth Edison Corporation
related to:

     -- a series of violations of nuclear waste laws, and

     -- admitted contaminations of property near the Braidwood
        nuclear plant in Braidwood, Will County, Illinois.

Illinois injury lawyer, Todd A. Smith of Power Rogers & Smith --
http://www.prslaw.com-- made the filing (Case No. 06 L 172)
March 14 at the Will County Courthouse in Joliet, Illinois.

Reported leaks from the Braidwood nuclear plant of a radioactive
substance called tritium into the soil and ground of property
surrounding the Braidwood Nuclear Reactor, adjacent to
Braidwood, Illinois, were first revealed last November.  In
addition to leaks identified in 2003 -- reported only recently
by Exelon -- three other separate contaminations through leakage
of tritium have been identified from 1996, 1998 and 2000.

"These 11 families, and others in the area, have worked hard to
develop their homes and provide for their families only now to
have radioactive contamination do destruction to their
significant efforts," said Todd A. Smith of Power, Rogers and
Smith.

The lawsuit filed for the 11 families contains 7 counts,
including claims for the creation of a nuisance from the
contamination on property, and near their property, for
violations of nuclear waste laws and the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act, the Illinois Water Pollutant Discharge Act, the
Illinois Ground Water Protection Act, and claims for diminution
of property.

The suit contends that the acknowledged millions of gallons of
tritium leakage into the ground jeopardizes the ground water
over an extensive area and creates an enormous detrimental
stigma for hundreds of citizens in the area.

"Tritium is a radioactive product of the operation of the
Braidwood Reactor, and is sent by Exelon through a piping system
that passes through adjacent properties, and is discharged by
Exelon into the Kankakee River. Over a period of years, multiple
leaks from that piping system have occurred resulting in
millions of gallons of tritium deposits into the ground
resulting in hazardous waste contaminating the ground water,"
said Mr. Smith.

The families bringing the action citing violations of nuclear
waste laws at Braidwood nuclear plant are:

     (1) Michael D. Sheck and Wendy Sheck;

     (2) James Annis and Christine Annis;

     (3) Dwayne Bawcum;

     (4) Terry Chastain and Colleen Chastain;

     (5) Vincent DeSalvo and Judith DeSalvo;

     (6) Harold Gonis and Kathleen Gonis;

     (7) Lowell Lide;

     (8) Gerry Sikic;

     (9) Vivian Fisher;

    (10) Thomas Zimmer and Judith Zimmer; and

    (11) John Zubik.


EXXONMOBIL CORP: Facing $535M Suit Over Gasoline Leakage in Md.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three Jacksonville residents in Baltimore County, Maryland were
named plaintiffs in a class action over gasoline leakage from
underground pipes of ExxonMobil Corp., Baltimore Sun reports.

The suit was filed in Baltimore County Circuit Court on March
17, alleging that ExxonMobil's negligence in monitoring its
pipes now threatens the area's drinking water source.  State
environmental officials believe gasoline escaped at the rate of
675 gallons a day for 37 days before it was reported to state
environmental regulators Feb. 17, according to the report.

The suit also identifies as defendant Storto Enterprises, a
service station operator.  It seeks punitive damages of $535
million, and an order against ExxonMobil to clean up the
contamination and pay for well testing and the cost of
connecting affected residents and businesses to an alternative
water supply or the costs of carbon filtration systems.

Representing the plaintiffs is the law firm of Peter G. Angelos.
For more information, contact Mary V. McNamara-Koch of Law
Offices of Peter G. Angelos, One Charles Center, 100 North
Charles Street, 22nd Floor, Baltimore, Maryland 21201,
(Independent City), Phone: 410-649-2000; Phone: 800-252-6622 (
Toll Free); Fax: 410-659-1780, 1781, 1782; Fax: 410-649-2111,
2112.


FIDELITY FEDERAL: Formulates Strategy for Fla. DPPA Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity Federal Bank & Trust is the sole defendant in the
purported class action, styled, "James Kehoe v. Fidelity Federal
Bank & Trust," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.

In this action, filed on July 1, 2003, James Kehoe, on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated persons, alleged that the
Company violated the Driver Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) by
obtaining driver registration information from the State of
Florida for use in its marketing efforts.  Mr. Kehoe seeks as
damages the statutory minimum of $2,500 per class member.  Mr.
Kehoe has alleged that the class numbers over 560,000
individuals.

On June 14, 2004, the Court granted the Company's Motion for
Summary Judgment and entered a Final Judgment in favor of
Fidelity Federal against Kehoe ruling that there could be no
statutory minimum damages award unless there were some actual
damages.  This issue was only one of several raised by the
Company.  The Court did not rule on the other issues.

Mr. Kehoe appealed that ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of
Appeals and on August 26, 2005, the Circuit Court reversed the
Trial Court's Order of Summary Judgment and remanded this case
back to the Trial Court for further proceedings, stating that if
there was a finding of damages that such damages could be no
less then the statutory minimum per class member.  Consequently,
the potential damages that could be awarded would be the result
of multiplying the statutory minimum of $2,500 per class member
by the total class of defendants.

However, the Circuit Court also stated that the Trial Court "in
its discretion, may fashion what it deems to be an appropriate
award."  The Circuit Court also stated that, "the use of the
word `may' suggests that the award of any damages is permissive
and discretionary."  The Company intends to petition the Supreme
Court for a Writ of Certiorari to appeal the Circuit Court's
ruling.

In addition, the Company intends to schedule a class
certification hearing and at the hearing assert a variety of
viable theories opposing certification.  The Company in
consultation with counsel, concluded that the case should not be
certified as a class action and that, even if it were, given the
facts of this case, the damages would not be material.


FLORIDA: Circuit Judge Unravels $7M Fire Fee Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Peter Lopez threw out a $7 million
settlement in a class action over the city's fire rescue fee,
which had been deemed unconstitutional, Miami Herald reports.

The judge determined parties to the 2004 settlement knew the
money was going only to just seven people, cutting off more than
80,000 potential claimants.

In May 2004, lawyer Hank Adorno and City Manager Joe Arriola
agreed to the deal, avoiding a trial.  The City Commission
approved the agreement the following November believing the
settlement covers all taxpayers.  But it turned out that only
five Miami landlords and two others who helped organize the suit
received the money.  The city last year sued to undo the deal.

Acting on the suit, the judge determined that Mr. Adorno and the
plaintiffs deliberately concealed the details of the deal, and
ordered the return of $3.5 million that the city paid.

The original recipients of the money were Eva Nagymihaly,
Kenneth Merker, Gordon Willitts and Jean and Jocelyne Prosper,
and Judy Clark and Peter Clancy.


H&R BLOCK: Parker & Waichman Investigates IRA Products for Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parker & Waichman, LLP launched an investigation into possible
consumer fraud violations related to Express IRAs sold by H&R
Block (HRB).

Earlier, Eliot Spitzer, the New York State Attorney General,
filed a $250 million civil suit against H&R Block.  The suit
alleged that H&R Block advised approximately 500,000 tax return
customers to invest in individual retirement accounts but that
it failed to disclose hidden fees that in many cases surpassed
the interest earned on the accounts.  The New York State suit
alleged that as many as 85 percent of H&R Block customers who
invested in Express IRAs actually lost money.

For more information, contact Parker & Waichman, Phone: 1-800-
LAW-INFO (1-800-529-4636); Web site: http://www.yourlawyer.com.


H&R BLOCK: Faces Suit Over Retirement Savings Plans Marketing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP filed a class action against H&R Block
in the U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Missouri, on behalf
of Florida residents who enrolled in H&R Block's "Express IRA."
The suit alleged violations of state consumer protection
statutes related to the firm's marketing of retirement savings
plans known as "Express IRAs."

The complaint, like the one recently filed by New York State
Attorney General against H&R Block, alleges that H&R Block
fraudulently marketed Express IRAs to is tax customers, causing
hundreds of thousands of mostly low-income clients to lose
money.  The complaint alleges that H&R Block steered its tax
customers into unsuitable, poor performing, fee ridden
retirement accounts, called Express IRAs, which were marketed as
paying "great rates" and a "better way to save."  In fact, for
many H&R Block customers, the interest earned on the Express
IRAs did not even cover the fees charged by H&R Block and H&R
Block did not adequately disclose the fees associated with the
Express IRAs to its customers, the complaint claims.

The suit is styled, "Adams v. H&R Block Inc et al. (4:06-cv-
00231-GAF)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri under Judge Gary A. Fenner.  Representing
the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kip D. Richards of Walters, Bender, Strohbehn &
         Vaughan, PC, 1100 Main, P.O. Box 26188, Kansas City, MO
         64196, Phone: (816)421-6620; Fax: (816)421-4747; E-
         mail: krichards@wbsvlaw.com;

     (2) J. Michael Vaughan of Walters Bender Strohbehn &
         Vaughan P.C. 2500 City Center Square P.O. Box 26188
         Kansas City, MO 64196, Phone: (816) 421-6620; Fax:
         (816) 421-4747; E-mail: mvaughan@wbsvlaw.com; and

     (3) R. Frederick Walters of Walters Bender Strohbehn &
         Vaughn, PC, 1100 Main Street, 2500 City Center Square,
         P.O. Box 26188, Kansas City, MO 64196, Phone: (816)421-
         6620; Fax: (816)421-4747; E-mail: fwalters@wbsvlaw.com.


HYPERCOM CORP: 2nd Consolidated Amended Ariz. Stock Suit Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hypercom Corp. faces a second consolidated amended securities
fraud class action complaint in U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona.

On February 8, 2005, a purported shareholder class action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
against the Company, then president, chief executive officer and
chairman, and then executive vice president and chief financial
and administrative officer.  Thereafter, five other
substantially similar purported shareholder class action
complaints were filed in the same court.  All such actions were
filed purportedly on behalf of purchasers of common stock during
the period from April 30, 2004 through February 3, 2005.

The complaints alleged that the Company's financial statements
for the first three quarters of 2004 were misstated, and that
the defendants had violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on our announcement on February 4, 2005 that certain
leases in the United Kingdom had been incorrectly accounted for
as sales-type leases, rather than operating leases and that the
Company would restate its financial statements for the first
three quarters of 2004.  These actions sought damages in an
unspecified amount.

On May 31, 2005, all six class actions were consolidated into a
single class action.  On June 9, 2005, the Court appointed a
lead plaintiff, consisting of a group of individual investors.
On August 8, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint, containing substantially the
same allegations as the prior complaints.  On September 22,
2005, the Company moved to dismiss this complaint.

On January 25, 2006, following a hearing, the Court dismissed
the complaint without prejudice and allowed the lead plaintiff
until February 23, 2006 to file an amended complaint.  On
February 23, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a second
consolidated amended class action complaint against the Company,
and its former executive vice president and chief financial and
administrative officer, containing substantially the same
allegations as the prior complaints, including that financial
statements for the first three quarters of 2004 were misstated
and that internal controls were deficient.

The suit is styled, "Ray v. Hypercom Corporation, et al., Case
No. 2:05-cv-00455-NVW," filed in the U.S. District Court for
District of Arizona under Judge Neil V. Wake.  Representing the
plaintiffs are, Francis Joseph Balint, Jr. of Bonnett Fairbourn
Friedman & Balint, PC, 2901 N Central Ave., Ste. 1000, Phoenix,
AZ 85012-3311, Phone: 602-274-1100, Fax: 602-274-1199, E-mail:
fbalint@bffb.com; and Stuart L. Berman of Schiffrin & Barroway,
LLP, 280 King of Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-
7706, Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail: ecf_filings@sbclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, Nicole Healy, Bruce Gordon
Vanyo and Lloyd Winawer of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650
Page Mill Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone: 650-496-4334, 650-
320-4904 and 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail:
nhealy@wsgr.com, bvanyo@wsgr.com and lwinawer@wsgr.com.


INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Expects Amended Consolidated Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. anticipates plaintiffs in a
securities fraud suit filed against it in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina will lodge an
amended consolidated complaint this month.

On February 15, 2005, a purported class action complaint was
filed by Mirco Investors, LLC on behalf of itself and all other
similarly situated purchasers against us and certain of its
senior officers.  The complaint alleges violations of sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, and focuses on
statements that are claimed to be false and misleading regarding
a Phase 3 clinical trial of the Company's dry eye product
candidate, diquafosol.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages
on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of its securities
during the period from June 2, 2004 through February 8, 2005.

Four additional proposed stockholder class actions were filed in
the same court, making substantially the same allegations
against the same parties as defendants and seeking certification
of the same class of purchasers.  These individual lawsuits were
consolidated into a single civil action, and a lead plaintiff
appointed.  The Company anticipates that an amended consolidated
complaint may be filed in March 2006.

The suit is styled, "Mirco Investors, LLC v. Inspire Pharma, et
al., Case No. 1:05-cv-00118-WLO," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina under Judge
William L. Osteen.  Representing the plaintiffs are, Leslie
Bruce Mcdaniel Of Mcdaniel & Anderson, L.L.P., P.O. Box 58186,
RALEIGH, NC 27658-8186, Phone: 919-872-3000, Fax: 919-790-9273,
E-mail: mcdas@mcdas.com; and Kristi Stahnke Mcgregor of Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, 5200 TOWN CTR. CIR., STE. 600,
BOCA RATON, FL 33486, Phone: 561-361-5022, Fax: 561-367-8400, E-
mail: kmcgregor@milbergweiss.com.

Representing the defendants are, William Mark Conger of
Kilpatrick Stockton, L.L.P., 1001 W. Fourth St., Winston-Salem,
NC 27101, Phone: 336-607-7309, Fax: 336-734-2633, E-mail:
mconger@kilpatrickstockton.com; and barry m. Kaplan of Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 5100, Seattle,
WA 98104, US, Phone: 206-883-2500, Fax: 206-883-2699.


IPASS INC: Amended Securities Fraud Suit in Calif. Due March 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
iPass, Inc. and certain of its executive officers are defendants
in a consolidated securities fraud class action in U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

Starting January 14, 2005, three purported class action
complaints were filed against the Company and certain of its
officers.  On March 2, 2005, these cases were consolidated as
"In re iPass Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-00228-
MHP."  On April 22, 2005, David Lutzke and Rhonda Lutzke were
named lead plaintiffs.  On July 5, 2005, plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Amended Complaint.  Named as defendants together
with us are Kenneth D. Denman, Donald C. McCauley, Anurag Lal
and Jon M. Russo.

The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 during an alleged "class period" from April 22, 2004 to
June 30, 2004 by failing to inform investors of certain
operational issues that allegedly led to declines in our
revenue, earnings and growth prospects.  The Company and the
individual defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

The motion was heard on January 23, 2006, and the motion was
granted on February 27, 2006.  The court granted plaintiffs
leave to file an amended complaint, which shall be due by March
30, 2006. The case is at an early stage and no trial date has
been set. No discovery is expected to take place unless and
until plaintiffs file a complaint that survives the individual
defendants' motion to dismiss.

The suit is styled, "In re iPass Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:05-cv-00228-MHP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Marilyn H. Patel.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Elizabeth P. Lin of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,
         LLP, 355 South Grand Ave., Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA
         90071, Phone: 213/617-1200, Fax: (213) 617-1975, E-
         mail: elin@milbergweiss.com;

     (2) Andrew N. Friedman of Cohen Mistein Hausfeld & Toll,
         PLLC, 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3600, Seattle, WA 98104,
         Phone: 206 521-0080, Fax: 206 621-0166, E-mail:
         afriedman@cmht.com; and

     (3) Bruce G. Murphy of Law Offices of Bruce G. Murphy, 265
         Llwyds Lane, Vero Beach, FL 32963, Phone: 772-231-4202,
         Fax: 772-231-4042.

Representing the Company is Mary Beth O'Connor of Cooley
Godward, LLP, Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Palo
Alto, CA 94306, Phone: (415) 843-5594, Fax: (650) 849-7400, E-
mail: mboconnor@cooley.com.


JAKKS PACIFIC: Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Still Pending in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jakks Pacific, Inc. is a defendant in a consolidated securities
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleging violations of federal securities
laws.

Several suits were initially filed against the Company, namely:

     (1) Garcia v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action No.
         04-8807 (filed on November 5, 2004),

     (2) Jonco Investors, LLC v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al.,
         Civil Action No. 04-9021 (filed on November 16, 2004),

     (3) Kahn v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action No.
         04-8910 (filed on November 10, 2004),

     (4) Quantum Equities L.L.C. v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al.,
         Civil Action No. 04-8877 (filed on November 9, 2004),
         and

     (5) Irvine v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action
         No. 04-9078 (filed on November 16, 2004).

The complaints allege that defendants issued positive statements
concerning increasing sales of its World Wrestling Entertainment
(WWE) licensed products which were false and misleading because
the WWE licenses had allegedly been obtained through a pattern
of commercial bribery, its relationship with the WWE was being
negatively impacted by the WWE's contentions and there was an
increased risk that the WWE would either seek modification or
nullification of the licensing agreements with the Company.
Plaintiffs also allege that the Company misleadingly failed to
disclose the alleged fact that the WWE licenses were obtained
through an unlawful bribery scheme.

The plaintiffs are purchasers of the Company's common stock, who
purchased from as early as October 26, 1999 to as late as
October 19, 2004.  The suits seek compensatory and other damages
in an undisclosed amount, alleging violations of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by each of the defendants (namely the
Company and Messrs. Friedman, Berman and Bennett), and
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by Messrs.
Friedman, Berman and Bennett.

On January 25, 2005, the Court consolidated the Class Actions
under the caption, "In re JAKKS Pacific, Inc. Shareholders Class
Action Litigation, Civil Action No. 04-8807."  On May 11, 2005,
the Court appointed co-lead counsels and provided until July 11,
2005 for an amended complaint to be filed and a briefing
schedule thereafter with respect to a motion to dismiss.  The
motion to dismiss has been fully briefed.

The suit is styled "In re JAKKS Pacific, Inc. Shareholders Class
Action Litigation, Civil Action No. 04-8807," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Kenneth M. Karas.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation
are:

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

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

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

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

     (v) 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

    (vi) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr,
         New York, NY, 10016 Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com

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

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

    (iv) 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


KVH INDUSTRIES: R.I. Court Mulls Class Status for Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
KVH Industries Inc. faces a class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Rhode Island against the
Company and certain of our officers are named as defendants.

The suit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 under that
statute, as well as claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of purchasers of our
securities in the period October 1, 2003 and July 2, 2004 and
seeks certain legal remedies, including compensatory damages.
The Teamsters Affiliates Pension Plan has been appointed lead
plaintiff.  This matter consolidates into one action eight
separate complaints filed between July 24, 2004 and September
15, 2004.

On January 14, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.  The court denied this motion in
part and granted it in part.  On October 14, 2005, the Company
answered the consolidated complaint and denied liability and all
allegations of wrongdoing.  Subsequently, on December 13, 2005,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  That motion
is currently pending.

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

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


LOUISIANA: School Workers' Suit Gets 2nd Chance at Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Baton Rouge U.S. Magistrate Stephen Riedlinger is recommending
that a federal court reconsider an overtime suit filed by
employees of three south Louisiana school systems, 2theAdvocate
reports.

The magistrate wants U.S. District Judge John Parker to review a
January decision sanctioning the workers' attorneys for failing
to meet a deadline to have the suit certified.  He is making the
recommendation after learning that the legal work of Jack
Harang, a New Orleans lawyer, was disrupted by Hurricane
Katrina.  In a motion filed days after Judge Parket made a
ruling, Mr. Harang explained that the storm forced him to
transfer his practice to Alabama.  The move limited his access
to his e-mail account, thus impeding his work.

The suit was filed in February 2004 in Baton Rouge Federal Court
on behalf of hourly school workers in East Baton Rouge, St.
Helena and Iberville parishes.  Plaintiffs accused the school
districts of violating Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying
overtime to teachers' aides, custodians, secretaries, assistant
coaches, bus drivers, cafeteria and maintenance workers and
other hourly employees.


NATIONAL PHYSICIANS: Stay Lifted in TCPA Complaint in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
National Physicians Datasource LLC (NPD), a subsidiary of WebMD
Health Corp., continues to face a class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging
that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) by sending unsolicited fax advertisements.

Filed by Ari Weitzner M.D., P.C., a Brooklyn ophthalmologist,
the suit claims that faxes allegedly sent by NPD, which
publishes The Little Blue Book, were sent in violation of the
TCPA.  The lawsuit potentially seeks damages in excess of
$5,000,000.  The Court had temporarily stayed the lawsuit
pending resolution of relevant issues in a related case. On
February 21, 2006, the Court lifted the stay.  The case is now
expected to proceed to the responsive pleading stage.

The suit is styled, "Weitzner v. National Physicians Datasource
LLC, Case No. 1:05-cv-02531-CBA-SMG," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge Carol B.
Amon.  Representing the plaintiff is Todd C. Bank, Law Office of
Todd C. Bank, 119-40 Union Pike, Fourth Floor, Kew Gardens, NY
11415, Phone: 718-520-7125, E-mail: TBLaw101@aol.com.

Representing the Company is Richard A. Johnston of Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, 399 Park Avenue, New York, NY
10022, Phone: 212 230-8800, Fax: 212 230-8888.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Solves Insurance Issues in US$228M Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel(x) and lead plaintiffs in two significant shareholder
class actions pending in the Southern District of New York
agreed on insurance and corporate governance matters related to
a previously-announced settlement.

Nortel's insurers earlier agreed to pay US$228.5 million towards
the settlement and Nortel agreed with the insurers to certain
indemnification obligations.  The Company believes that these
indemnification obligations would be unlikely to materially
increase its total cash payment obligations under the proposed
settlement.  These insurance payments would not reduce the
amounts payable by the Company.

Nortel has also agreed to certain corporate governance
enhancements, including the codification of certain of its
current governance practices (such as the annual election by its
directors of a non-executive Board chair) in its Board of
Directors written mandate and the inclusion in its annual proxy
circular and proxy statement of a report on certain of its other
governance practices (such as the process followed for the
annual evaluation of the Board, committees of the Board and
individual directors).

As previously announced, under the terms of the proposed global
settlement contemplated by the agreement in principle, the
Company would make a payment of US$575 million in cash, issue
628,667,750 of its common shares (representing 14.5% of its
equity), and contribute one-half of any recovery in the existing
litigation by Nortel against Messrs. Frank Dunn, Douglas Beatty
and Michael Gollogly, the Company's former senior officers who
were terminated for cause in April 2004.  The cash amount is to
bear interest commencing March 23, 2006 at a prescribed rate and
is to be held in escrow on June 1, 2006 pending satisfactory
completion of all conditions to the proposed settlement.  The
proposed settlement would contain no admission of wrongdoing by
the Company or any of the other defendants.

The proposed global settlement remains conditioned on the
settlement encompassing all pending and proposed shareholder
class actions commenced against the Company and certain other
defendants following the Company's announcement of revised
financial guidance during 2001, and the Company's revisions of
its 2003 financial results and restatement of other prior
periods effected during the first half of 2005.  Discussions are
ongoing regarding a process to resolve the Canadian actions as
part of the terms of this proposed global settlement.  The
proposed global settlement would also be conditioned on the
receipt of all required court, securities regulatory and stock
exchange approvals.

The Company and the lead plaintiffs are continuing discussions
towards a definitive settlement agreement.  At this time, there
can be no assurance that such an agreement can be reached, that
each of the actions noted above can be brought into, or
otherwise bound by, the proposed settlement, if finalized, or
that the proposed settlement would receive the required court
and other approvals.  These settlement discussions are being
mediated by U.S. District Court Judge, the Honourable Robert W.
Sweet.

The Company will continue to cooperate fully with the U.S. and
Canadian securities regulators and law enforcement authorities
in their ongoing investigations relating to the Company's
accounting restatements, and the proposed settlement does not
relate to these ongoing investigations.  The proposed settlement
also does not encompass the previously disclosed related ERISA
action and the previously disclosed pending application in
Canada for leave to commence a derivative action against certain
current and former officers and directors of Nortel.

Nortel on the Net: http://www.nortel.com/news.


ORTHO-MCNEIL: Sued Over Evra Birth Control Patch-Related Death
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parker & Waichman, LLP filed a suit against Ortho-McNeil
Pharmaceutical, Inc., a division of Johnson and Johnson Inc., on
behalf the family of a 20-year-old woman who died from a
pulmonary thromboembolism (blood clot) after using the Ortho
Evra contraceptive patch for 10 months.

According to Parker & Waichman, in June 2004, the decedent awoke
gasping for air and collapsed.  Paramedics arrived and found the
decedent in an idioventricular rhythm and immediately began
advanced cardiac life support.  The decedent was taken by
ambulance to Methodist Hospital in Indianapolis, Indiana, where
efforts to resuscitate her failed.  The decedent was pronounced
dead at 6:54 p.m. on June 4, 2004 at 20 years of age.  An
autopsy revealed the immediate cause of death was pulmonary
thromboembolism, Parker & Waichman.  The suit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in Newark,
New Jersey.

On November 10, 2005, Ortho McNeil, in conjunction with the FDA,
issued a warning about the increased risks of blood clots
associated with Ortho Evra.  In the new warning, Ortho-McNeil
admitted for the first time that women who use the patch will be
exposed to up to 60% more estrogen than they would be exposed to
if they were taking a birth control pill with 35 micrograms of
estrogen.  The patch is only intended to deliver 20 micrograms
of estrogen.  The FDA's announcement on this warning is at
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2005/NEW01262.html. It is
widely understood that increased exposure to estrogen greatly
increases the risk of blood clots, which can cause serious
injury or death.

Pulmonary thromboembolism is a type of embolism that occurs when
an artery in either lung becomes blocked.  In most cases, the
blockage is caused by one or more blood clots that travel to the
lungs from another part of the body.  Usually these clots
migrate from the legs, but they can also form in the pelvic
vein.  Pulmonary thromboembolism can be fatal or may result in
pulmonary arterial obstruction, pulmonary obstruction, pulmonary
infarction, chronic pulmonary hypertension, dyspenea and
tachypnea.  Symptoms may include shortness of breath, difficulty
breathing, anxiety, chest pain, fainting and convulsions.

Treatment may include long-term use of anticoagulant medications
and/or surgery.  Recent reports have indicated that the risk of
developing blood clots, pulmonary thromboembolism, heart attack
and stroke may be significantly higher with the Ortho Evra patch
than with oral contraceptive use.

It is alleged that Ortho-McNeil was aware of the increased
medical risks associated with Ortho Evra before the drug was
approved and that, once approved, the company failed to
adequately warn patients about these risks.  Evidence shows that
the risk of blood clots, heart attack and stroke associated with
Ortho Evra is significantly higher than with oral contraceptive
pills.  The incidence of embolisms and thrombotic injuries in
Phase III trials of Ortho Evra was reportedly six times greater
than the incidence of such events in oral contraceptives using
the hormone levonorgestral.

The FDA has logged 9,116 reports of adverse reactions to the
patch in a 17-month period, whereas Ortho Tri-Cyclen, a birth
control pill, only generated 1,237 adverse reports in a six-year
period.  During a 12-month period, 44 serious injuries or deaths
have been associated with Ortho Evra, whereas only 17 such
reports were linked to the birth control pill during a similar
time period. The pattern is further magnified when usage rates
are considered: Ortho Tri-Cyclen has six times the number of
users as Ortho Evra.

Ortho Evra is an adhesive, transdermal birth control patch that
is worn on the torso.   The patch is intended to release 150 mcg
of norelgestromin and 20 mcg of ethinyl estradiol into the
bloodstream per 24 hours. It is replaced once a week for three
weeks, and no patch is worn during the fourth week during
menstruation. The regimen is then repeated.  Ortho Evra was
approved by the FDA in November 2001, and over 4 million women
have used Ortho Evra since its approval.  Ortho Evra continues
to be marketed aggressively to both consumers and physicians.

For more information on Ortho Evra, visit
http://www.orthopatchlawsuit.comor
http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/Ortho_Evra_Patch.

The suit is styled, "Scott et al. v. Johnson & Johnson et al.
(2:06-cv-00953-KSH-PS)," filed under Judge Katharine S. Hayden,
with referral to Patty Shwartz.  Representing the plaintiffs
are: Melanie H. Muhlstock and Jerrold S. Parker of Parker &
Waichman, 1 Gateway Center Suite 2500, Newark, NJ 07102, Phone:
(973)-297-1020; E-mail: mmuhlstock@yourlawyer.com.


SILICON IMAGE: Calif. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
scheduled a June 9, 2006 hearing to consider Silicon Image,
Inc.'s motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended
complaint (Second CAC) in securities class action, styled,
"Curry v. Silicon Image, Inc., Steve Tirado, and Robert Gargus."
The suit was filed against the Company on behalf of purchasers
of common stock from October 19,2004 to January 24,2005.

Commenced on January 31, 2005, the lawsuit alleged that we and
certain of our officers and directors made alleged misstatements
of material facts and violated certain provisions of Sections
20(a) and 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

On April 27, 2005, the Court issued an order appointing lead
plaintiff and approving the selection of lead counsel.  On July
27, 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint
("CAC").  The CAC no longer named Mr. Gargus as an individual
defendant, but added Dr. David Lee as an individual defendant.

The CAC also expanded the class period from June 25, 2004 to
April 22, 2005.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the CAC on
September 26, 2005.  Plaintiffs subsequently received leave to
file, and did file, a second consolidated amended complaint
("Second CAC") on December 8, 2005.  The Second CAC extends the
end of the class period from April 22, 2005 to October 13, 2005
and adds additional factual allegations under the same causes of
action against us, Mr. Tirado and Dr. Lee.  The complaint also
adds a new plaintiff, James D. Smallwood.  Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Second CAC on February 9, 2006 and that
motion is to be heard on June 9, 2006.

The suit is styled, "Landon Curry, et al. v. Silicon Image,
Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-00456," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Maxine
M. Chesney.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are Charles
J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Suite
2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:
pivenlaw@erols.com; and Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP, 500 Fifth
Avenue, New York, NY, 10110, Phone: 212.608.1900, Fax:
212.719.4677, E-mail: info@lshllp.com.


SIMON PROPERTY: Faces Ga., N.Y. Consumer Suits Over Gift Cards
--------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Property Group, LP, is a defendant in three legal
proceedings relating to the sale of co-branded, bank-issued gift
cards.  The suits are styled:

     (1) "Betty Benson and Andrea Nay-Richardson vs. Simon
         Property Group, Inc., and Simon Property Group, L.P.,
         Superior Court of Cobb County, State of Georgia, Case
         No.: 04-1-9617-42, filed December 9, 2004;"

     (2) "Christopher Lonner vs. Simon Property Group, Inc.,
         Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
         Westchester, Case No.: 04-2246, filed February 18,
         2004;" and

     (3) "Aliza Goldman, individually and on behalf of all
         others similarly situated vs. Simon Property Group,
         Inc., Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
         Nassau, filed February 7, 2005."

Each of these proceedings has been brought by a private
plaintiff as a purported class action and alleges violation of
state consumer protection laws, state abandoned property and
contract laws or state statutes regarding gift certificates or
gift cards and seeks a variety of remedies including unspecified
damages and injunctive relief.


TISSUE COMPANIES: Suit Filed Over Alleged Body-Snatching Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
Claimants' litigation firm Motley Rice LLC and co-counsel
Rubenstein & Rynecki filed a class action against several human
tissue processing firms and New York funeral homes on behalf of
the victims of an alleged body harvesting scheme.

The suit, filed in Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of Kings, is on behalf of:

     (1) Dainis Zeltins of Brooklyn, N.Y.,

     (2) Josephine Olivo of Staten Island, N.Y., and

     (2) all others similarly situated, whose family members' or
         loved ones' bodies were illegally harvested of tissue
         and bone for use in human transplants.

The defendants allegedly stole body parts from the corpses
without prior consent of the decedents (while they were alive)
or the decedents' next-of-kin.  The body parts were then sold
for use as transplantation material in living human beings.  The
result of these transplants has been several known, and
potentially thousands of unknown, cases of infectious disease in
transplant patients, the suit alleged.

Defendants in the case include:

     (1) Biomedical Tissue Services (BTS) along with four of its
         employees or agents;

     (2) LMC Tissue Recovery Services;

     (3) MCM Tissue Recovery Services, Inc.;

     (4) Chris Aldorasi Funeral Service;

     (5) Daniel George & Son Funeral Home, Inc.;

     (6) English Brothers Funeral Home;

     (7) Frank Restivo Funeral Home;

     (8) New York Mortuary Services, Inc.; and

     (9) several individuals.

Following the death of his brother, Richard Zeltins, in April
2003, Dainis Zeltins entrusted the David George & Son Funeral
Home in Brooklyn, N.Y., with the care of his brother's body,
which was to be cremated.  In September 2005, a New York City
detective came to the home of Dainis Zeltins and presented him
with an allegedly forged release that allowed for the harvesting
of tissue from the corpse of Mr. Zeltins.

Similarly, plaintiff Josephine Olivo entrusted the funeral home
of English Brothers Funeral Home in Brooklyn with the body of
her husband, Anthony, after he passed away in April 2003.  In
September of 2005, she, too, was approached by New York City
detectives and presented with a forged release allowing for the
harvesting of tissue from her husband's deceased body.  Both Mr.
Zeltins and Mr. Olivo were to have been cremated without any
prior tissue harvesting.  Court documents show falsified records
associated with more than 60 tissue extractions performed by
Biomedical Tissue Services.

"A funeral home should be the most trusted partner a loved one
deals with after losing someone close to them.  The fact that
these defendants violated that trust in such an ugly manner is
unthinkable," stated Motley Rice attorney Kevin Dean.  "Not only
do my clients have to now relive the grief of losing their loved
ones, but they will also spend the rest of their lives knowing
that their bodies were gruesomely violated after their death."

Four of the defendants, Dr. Michael Mastromarino and Joseph
Nicelli of BTS, and Lee Cruceta, and Christopher Aldorasi, Dr.
Mastromarino's assistants, were recently charged in State
Supreme Court in Brooklyn, N.Y., for operating a corrupt $4.6
million enterprise to harvest human tissue from funeral homes
and sell it for use in transplants and research.  Hospitals
nationwide have reported receipt of the illegally harvested and
potentially dangerous tissue.  Motley Rice is also representing
individuals who may have received the stolen tissue during
transplant surgery.

For more information, contact Motley Rice LLC --
http://www.motleyrice.com-- Phone: call 1-800-768-4026; or
Sally W. Comollo of Motley Rice, Phone: 843-216-9121; E-mail:
SComollo@motleyrice.com.


TNS INC: Shareholder Files Lawsuit Over Proposed Sale Disposal
-------------------------------------------------------------
TNS, Inc. said that a purported class action was filed on March
13 against the firm and each of its directors by a purported
shareholder of TNS, seeking to enjoin the proposed disposal of
the company's outstanding shares.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that TNS' directors
violated their fiduciary duties to its stockholders by causing
TNS to negotiate for the sale of TNS at an unfair price and by
not taking adequate measures to ensure that the interests of
TNS' public stockholders are properly protected.  The complaints
seek an unspecified amount of damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees. TNS believes the complaint is without merit.

The Special Committee of its Board of Directors has retained
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. as its financial advisor.
Deutsche Bank will assist the Special Committee in its review of
the non-binding proposal from members of senior management led
by John J. McDonnell, Jr., its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, to acquire the outstanding shares of TNS for a cash
price of $22.00 per share.  Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and
Morris, Nichols, Arsht and Tunnell LLP have been engaged to
provide legal advice to the Special Committee.

TNS previously announced on March 13, 2006, that the Board of
Directors had established the Special Committee consisting of
three independent directors to act on behalf of TNS with respect
to the proposal and any alternatives in the context of
evaluating what is in the best interests of TNS and its public
stockholders.  The Special Committee intends to carefully review
the proposal and potential alternatives with the assistance of
its advisors and will respond to the proposal upon completion of
its review.  However, there can be no assurance as to the
timeframe for the Special Committee process nor whether any
transaction will result.

TNS cautions its stockholders and others considering trading in
its securities that:

     (1) the Board of Directors of TNS has just received the
         proposal;

     (2) the process of considering the proposal is only in its
         beginning stages;

     (3) no decisions whatsoever have been made by the Special
         Committee of the Board in respect of TNS' response, if
         any, to the proposal and stockholders are not now being
         asked to take any action with respect to the proposal;

     (4) the Special Committee will proceed in an orderly and
         timely manner to consider the proposal and its
         implications; and

     (6) there can be no assurance that the proposed transaction
         or any other transaction will be approved or completed.

TNS -- http://www.tnsi.com-- (NYSE-TNS) provides business-
critical network and data communications services for
transaction-oriented applications.


TRANSMETA CORP: N.Y. Court Set to Approve IPO Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York is
set to grant final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated class action, styled, "In re Transmeta Corporation
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01 CV
6492."

The suit was filed against Transmeta Corporation, certain of its
directors and officers, and certain of the underwriters for its
initial public offering, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The complaints allege that the prospectus issued in connection
with the Company's initial public offering on November 7, 2000
failed to disclose certain alleged actions by the underwriters
for that offering, and alleges claims against the Company and
several of its officers and directors under Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and under Sections
10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended.

Similar actions have been filed against more than 300 other
companies that issued stock in connection with other initial
public offerings during 1999-2000.  Those cases have been
coordinated for pretrial purposes as "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)."

In July 2002, the Company joined in a coordinated motion to
dismiss filed on behalf of multiple issuers and other
defendants.  In February 2003, the Court granted in part and
denied in part the coordinated motion to dismiss, and issued an
order regarding the pleading of amended complaints.  Plaintiffs
subsequently proposed a settlement offer to all issuer
defendants, which settlement would provide for payments by
issuers' insurance carriers if plaintiffs fail to recover a
certain amount from underwriter defendants.

Although the Company and the individual defendants believe that
the complaints are without merit and deny any liability, but
because they also wish to avoid the continuing waste of
management time and expense of litigation, they accepted
plaintiffs' proposal to settle all claims that might have been
brought in this action.  The Company and the individual
Transmeta defendants expect that their share of the global
settlement will be fully funded by their director and officer
liability insurance.  Although the Company and the Transmeta
defendants have approved the settlement in principle, it remains
subject to several procedural conditions, as well as formal
approval by the Court.

The suit is styled "In re Transmeta Corporation Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01 CV 6492 (SAS)
(S.D.N.Y.)," related to "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under
Judge Shira Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation
are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


TRUSTSTREET PROPERTIES: Tex. Court to Hear Arguments on "Lewis"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Dallas County, Texas set a May 3, 2006
hearing date for oral arguments on plaintiffs' appeal of the
dismissal of a purported class action filed against Trustreet
Properties, Inc.

On January 18, 2005, Robert Lewis and Sutter Acquisition Fund,
LLC, two limited partners in the Income Funds, filed a class
action on behalf of the limited partners of the Income Funds
against the Company, CNLRP, the Income Funds, the general
partners of the Income Funds, CNL Restaurant Investments, Inc.
and CNL Restaurant Capital Corp. in the District Court of Dallas
County, Texas (Cause No. 05-00083).

The complaint alleged that the general partners of the Income
Funds breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed Mergers between the Income Funds and subsidiaries of
the operating partnership of the Company and that the Company
and CNLRP aided and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties.  The complaint further alleged that the Income Funds'
general partners violated provisions of the Income Funds'
partnership agreements and demanded an accounting as to the
affairs of the Income Funds.  The plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified compensatory and exemplary damages and equitable
relief, including an injunction of the Mergers.

On April 26, 2005, a supplemental plea to jurisdiction hearing
was held with a ruling expected May 13, 2005.  On May 2, 2005,
the plaintiffs amended their lawsuit to add allegations that the
general partners of the Income Funds, with CNLRP and USRP,
prepared and distributed a false and misleading final proxy
statement filing to the limited partners of the Income Funds and
the shareholders of CNLRP and USRP.  On May 26, 2005, the Court
entered a Final Order Dismissing Action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.  On June 22, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a
Notice of Appeal of the Order of Dismissal.  On September 7,
2005, the plaintiffs filed an appellants' brief.  On November 7,
2005, the Company and the other defendants filed their Brief of
Appellees'.  On December 12, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their
Appellants' Reply Brief.  The court has scheduled oral argument
on the appeal for May 3, 2006.


V.I. TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Former Worker's Overtime Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
V.I. Technologies reached a settlement for an overtime lawsuit
filed by a former employee of the Melville, New York plant,
which is pending in New York State Court.

The Company divested the Melville, New York plant to Precision
Pharma Services, Inc. (Precision) in August 2001.  Precision is
also a party to the suit.  The suit, which was filed on February
2, 2005, is a class action in which the lead plaintiff,
representing the class, claims that the Company underpaid
overtime to employees of the processing plant.  The complaint
alleges an amount in excess of $125,000 in unpaid overtime plus
the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys' fees due from
the two defendants.

The Company and lead plaintiff have submitted a mutually agreed
upon settlement with the U.S. District Court and are awaiting
court approval.  At December 31, 2005, the Company believes that
it has sufficient reserves to cover its litigation of this
matter.


VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Viisage Technology, Inc. is a defendant in a consolidated
securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against the Company, Bernard C.
Bailey, William K. Aulet and Denis K. Berube and other members
of the Company's Board of Directors.

In March and April 2005, eight putative class actions were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against Viisage, Bernard C. Bailey, William K. Aulet (our former
Chief Financial Officer) and Denis K. Berube and other members
of Viisage's board of directors.  These lawsuits were
consolidated into one action under one case, captioned, "In re:
Viisage Technology Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 05-
10438-MLW."  The so-called Turnberry Group was designated as
lead plaintiff and its counsel was designated as lead counsel.

The amended consolidated complaint, which was filed in February
2006, alleges violations of the federal securities laws by us
and certain of our officers and directors arising out of
purported misstatements and omissions in our SEC filings related
to the litigation involving the Georgia drivers' license
contract and related to our reported material weaknesses in
internal controls over financial reporting, which allegedly
artificially inflated the price of our stock during the period
May 12, 2004 through March 2, 2005.

The Company is not able to estimate the amount of the loss
allegedly suffered by members of the putative class or the
amount of legal costs and internal efforts associated with
defending ourselves and our officers and directors.  The Company
believes that the allegations and claims made in this lawsuit
are wholly without merit and we intend to defend the action
vigorously.  It is our intention to file a motion to dismiss
this case.  This motion is due to be filed by April 3, 2006.

The consolidated complaint is styled, "In re: Viisage Technology
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 05-10438-MLW," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Baron & Budd, P.C., 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100,
         Dallas, TX, 75219, Phone: 800-946-9646, E-mail:
         info@baronbudd.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) 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;

     (4) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East
         Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
         410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com;

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

     (6) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (New York, NY), 805 Third
         Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Phone:
         212.687.1980, Fax: 212.687.7714, E-mail:
         info@kaplanfox.com;

     (7) Klafter & Olson LLP, 2121 K St., NW Suite 800,
         Washington, DC, 20037, Phone: 202.261.3553, Fax:
         202.261.3533, E-mail: info@klafterolsen.com;

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

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

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

    (11) Roy Jacobs & Associates, 350 Fifth Avenue Suite 3000,
         New York, NY, 10118, E-mail:
         classattorney@pipeline.com;

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

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

    (14) Seeger Weiss LLP (New York Old Address), 40 Wall
         Street. The Trump Building, New York, NY, 10005, Phone:
         212.584.0700, E-mail: info@seegerweiss.com;

    (15) Shapiro, Haber & Urmy LLP, 75 State Street, Boston, MA,
         02109, Phone: 617.439.3939, Fax: 617.439.0134, E-mail:
         info@shulaw.com; and

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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


H&R BLOCK: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP, filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri, Western
Division, on behalf of all persons who purchased the common
stock of H&R Block, Inc. (NYSE: HRB) between January 31, 2005
through March 14, 2006, inclusive against defendants HRB and
Mark A. Ernst, the Company's Chairman, President, and CEO.  The
case name is Michael Nettie v. H&R Block, Inc., et al.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.  In particular, in February 2005, California
Attorney General Bill Lockyer sued the Company over its highly
publicized referral anticipation loans (RALs) seeking "hundreds
of millions of dollars" on behalf of customers and
$20 million in civil penalties.

Mr. Lockyer's action joins a long list of lawsuits that have
targeted HRB's RALs -- cash advances that the Company arranges
for customers so they won't have to wait an extra one to four
weeks for a check from the federal government they are otherwise
entitled to receive.  In return for the loans, customers must
agree to give a percentage of their tax refunds to HRB and its
banking partners.

Further, the Company reported inflated earnings during the Class
Period.  As reported on or about February 23, 2006, the Company
must restate results for fiscal 2004 and 2005, plus previous
2006 quarters, because of errors in calculations regarding its
state effective income tax rate.  Reportedly, the errors
resulted in the Company understating state income tax
liabilities by at least $32 million as of the end of April 2005.
Indeed, on March 13, 2006, the Company announced it would delay
filing its quarterly report on SEC Form 10-Q until it has
completely sorted out its problems.

Finally, on March 15, 2006, New York Attorney General Elliot
Spitzer sued HRB alleging that the Company over the last four
years opened more than 500,000 "Express IRA" accounts, an
individual retirement account ("IRA") that can take the form of
either a Traditional IRA or a Roth IRA, for clients of its tax-
preparation service; but 85% of the customers who opened the
accounts paid the Company fees in excess of what they earned in
interest.  According to Mr. Spitzer's complaint, the program
exploited lower income, working families who were led to believe
the plan presented an excellent opportunity to save for
retirement.  Mr. Spitzer's complaint further avers that Mr.
Ernst was aware of the improper fee practices along with other
high-ranking members of management.

Revelations concerning the Company's improper practices
concerning the Express IRA scheme hammered the Company's stock.
By late afternoon trading on March 15, 2006, the Company's price
per share was down 5.5% at $20.28; earlier, shares traded as low
as $19.80 per share, passing the previous 52-week low of $21.58
set on March 16, 2006.

HRB's use of these improper practices served to artificially
inflate the Company's reported earnings during the Class Period
because the Company's earnings were generated through an
improper and unsustainable business practice.  Accordingly, the
Company's Class Period statements concerning its compliance with
applicable laws and regulations were false.

Also, the Company, having disclosed the existence of -- and
touted the success of -- the Express IRA plan and the RALs
program, was obligated to disclose the risks associated with the
business, including that members of management, e.g., Mr. Ernst,
were aware that these plans (or at least how they were
implemented) ran afoul of certain regulations.  Failure to
disclose this information constituted material omissions, the
ultimate disclosure of which harmed the Company's stockholders.

For more details, contact Gregory M. Nespole, Esq., Gustavo
Bruckner, Esq., Paulette S. Fox, Esq., or Derek Behnke of Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP, Phone: 270 Madison Ave.,
New York, New York 10016, Phone: (800) 575-0735, E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com, Web site: http://www.whafh.com.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Murray Frank Files Securities Suit in Idaho
--------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities
of Micron Technology, Inc. between February 24, 2001 and
February 13, 2003, inclusive.  Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
charges Micron and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Micron
manufactures and markets semiconductor devices worldwide.

The complaint alleges that at the start of the Class Period,
Micron and its employees (along with others in its industry)
were engaged in a scheme to manipulate the price of dynamic
random access memory, a type of computer memory semiconductor
chip, commonly known as DRAM. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that during the Class Period, defendants falsified the
Company's public statements and financial reporting by
concealing the following material adverse facts from the
investing public:

     (1) that Micron and its co-conspirators had entered into
         and engaged in a combination and conspiracy in the
         United States and elsewhere to suppress and eliminate
         competition by fixing the prices of DRAM to be sold to
         certain original equipment manufacturers of personal
         computers and servers;

     (2) that Micron's publicly reported sales and earnings had
         been improperly inflated due to illegal price-fixing
         activities during the Class Period; and

     (3) that as a result of defendants' participation in the
         illegal price-fixing activities, Micron's sales and
         earnings reports and forward-looking price forecasts
         issued during the Class Period were false and
         misleading.

According to the complaint, as a result of defendants' false and
misleading Class Period statements, the Company's shares traded
at inflated prices enabling the Company to issue more than $632
million worth of debt during 2003, sell over $480 million worth
of warrants and complete numerous stock-for-stock acquisitions
using the Company's inflated shares as acquisition currency.
Insiders also sold approximately $4.5 million worth of their own
personally held Micron stock at inflated prices during the Class
Period.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi and Bradley P. Dyer of
Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-
1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-mail: info@murrayfrank.com; and
http://www.murrayfrank.com/CM/NewCases/NewCases.asp.


PROQUEST CO: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in Mich.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.,
filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of purchasers of
ProQuest Company (NYSE:PQE) common stock from January 9, 2003
through February 8, 2006.

The complaint charges ProQuest and certain of its officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. ProQuest
publishes solutions for the education, automotive, and power
equipment markets.  The complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and financial
results.  As a result of defendants' false statements, ProQuest
stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class
period, reaching a high of $37.89 per share on April 12, 2005.

Then, on February 9, 2006, prior to the market opening, the
Company announced that it had discovered material irregularities
in its accounting and would have to restate certain of its
previously issued financial statements.  On this news,
ProQuest's stock plunged to as low as $21.90 per share, before
closing at $24.19 per share on heavy volume.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known or
recklessly disregarded by the defendants but concealed from the
investing public during the Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) the Company lacked requisite internal controls, and, as
         a result, the Company's projections and reported
         results were based upon defective assumptions and/or
         manipulated facts; and

     (2) the Company's financial statements were materially
         misstated due to its failure to properly defer income
         and royalty payments and its improper capitalization of
         royalty expenses, thereby overstating its revenue and
         income.

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