CAR_Public/060322.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, March 22, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 58

                            Headlines

ACLARA BIOSCIENCES: IPO Pact Fairness Hearing Set April 24, 2006
ADHERIS INC: Mass. Court Dismisses Suit Over Prescription Data
AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. Court Okays Securities Suit Settlement
ART TECHNOLOGY: Mass. Court Refuses to Dismiss Securities Suit
C.P. PARTNERS: Ad Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set March 27, 2006

COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Settlement Hearing Set on Ill. Junk Fax Suit
CURRENT USA: Recalls 12-Gallon Aquariums Due to Shock Hazard
EXELON CORP: Ill. Community to Discuss Tritium Spill Suit Today
FOODS INC: Issues Alert on Mexican Bread with Undeclared Milk
GLOBAL CROSSING: Settles Consolidated Stock, ERISA Suits in N.Y.

GOOGLE INC: Blacklisted Web Site Files Anti-Trust Suit in Calif.
IBASIS INC: IPO Settlement Fairness Hearing Set April 24, 2006
INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS: Inks Settlement for Del. Securities Suit
LABRANCHE & CO: Amended Consolidated Stock Suit Filed in N.Y.
LABRANCHE & CO: Court Rejects Claims in Consolidated Stock Suit

LEXAR MEDIA: Shareholders Opposed to Micron Merger File Lawsuit
LIBYA: Victims of IRA Terrorism Seeking Redress in U.S. Courts
LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: IPO Fairness Hearing Set April 24, 2006
LOUISIANA: Loses Final Appeal on Tangipahoa River Flooding Suit
MANNATECH INC: Has 60 Days to Respond to Consolidated Stock Suit

MICHIGAN: Faces Lawsuit Over On-Line Sex-Offender Registry
MICHIGAN: Court Sides with Plaintiffs in Medicaid Refill Lawsuit
MISSOURI: Boone County Oncologist Sued for Defrauding Patients
MIVA INC: Calif. Court Dismisses Payday's Click-Fraud Lawsuit
MIVA INC.: Court Nixes Suit, Gives Plaintiffs Leave to Amend

MIVA INC.: Dismissal Motion Filed in Ark. Click-Fraud Lawsuit
MIVA INC.: Faces Internet Gambling, Unfair Trade Suits in Calif.
MOTIENT CORP: Court Junks Breach of Fiduciary Duties Lawsuit
NETFLIX INC: Calif. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
NIGERIA: Ethnic Group Sues Over Veracity, Legality of Census

NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces "Hidden City" Tickets Suits in Mich.
NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Privacy Suits Dismissed, Another on Appeal
PINNACLE FOODS: Issues Allergy Alert on Brownie Mix with Walnuts
RIDGEWOOD ORGANIZATION: Ad Suit Settlement Trial Set April 24
REPUBLIC TITLE: Real Estate Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 4

SUNTRIPS: Airlines, Hotels Sue to Recover Payments After Sale
TASER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Ariz.
TASER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over Device's Safety
THESTREET.COM INC: IPO Suit Fairness Hearing Set April 24, 2006
TREX CO: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Va.

UICI: Settles Tex., Okla. Lawsuits Opposing Proposed Disposal
UNION PACIFIC: Suit by Laramie County Residents Returned to Wyo.
WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Wash. Securities Suit's Dismissal
ZURICH AMERICAN: Enters $171.7M Settlement for Bid-Rigging Suit


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CHICAGO BRIDGE: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Klafter & Olsen Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
H&R BLOCK: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in Miss.
MILLS CORP: Kahn Gauthier Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Va.
NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Bernard Gross Files Stock Suit in Ill.

PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Shalov Stone Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
PHH CORP: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.J.
PHH CORP: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.J.


                         *********


ACLARA BIOSCIENCES: IPO Pact Fairness Hearing Set April 24, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold an April 24, 2006 a final approval hearing for the
proposed settlement in a suit over ACLARA BioSciences, Inc.'s
initial public offering (IPO).

ACLARA, with which Monogram Biosciences, Inc. merged in December
2004, and certain of its former officers and directors were
named as defendants in a securities class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
suit was filed on November 13, 2001 and is now captioned,
"ACLARA BioSciences, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation."  It names several of the underwriters involved in
ACLARA's initial public offering, or IPO, as defendants.  This
class action is brought on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of ACLARA common stock from the time of ACLARA's
March 20, 2000 IPO through December 6, 2000.

The central allegation in this action is that the underwriters
in the ACLARA IPO solicited and received undisclosed commissions
from, and entered into undisclosed arrangements with, certain
investors who purchased ACLARA stock in the IPO and the after-
market.  The complaint also alleges that the ACLARA defendants
violated the federal securities laws by failing to disclose in
the IPO prospectus that the underwriters had engaged in these
allegedly undisclosed arrangements.  More than 300 issuers who
went public between 1998 and 2000 have been named in similar
lawsuits.

In July 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss all complaints
against issuers and individual defendants affiliated with
issuers (including ACLARA defendants) was filed by the entire
group of issuer defendants in these similar actions. On February
19, 2003, the Court in this action issued its decision on the
defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss.  This decision dismissed
the Section 10(b) claim as to ACLARA, but denied the motion to
dismiss Section 11 claim as to ACLARA and virtually all of the
other defendants.

On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs in the consolidated class
action announced a proposed settlement with ACLARA and the other
issuer defendants.  The proposed settlement, which was approved
by ACLARA's board of directors, provides that the insurers of
all settling issuers will guarantee that the plaintiffs recover
$1 billion from non-settling defendants, including the
investment banks who acted as underwriters in those offerings.
In the event that the plaintiffs do not recover $1 billion, the
insurers for the settling issuers will make up the difference.
Under the proposed settlement, the maximum amount that could be
charged to ACLARA's insurance policy in the event that the
plaintiffs recovered nothing from the investment banks would be
approximately $3.9 million. The Company believes that it had
sufficient insurance coverage to cover the maximum amount that
itmay be responsible for under the proposed settlement.  On
August 31, 2005, the Court granted unconditional preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement. The Court set the
settlement fairness hearing for April 24, 2006.


ADHERIS INC: Mass. Court Dismisses Suit Over Prescription Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Suffolk Superior Court in Massachusetts dismissed a
purported class action filed against Adheris, Inc., which was
acquired by Ventiv Health, Inc. in February 2006.

The class action filed on February 20, 1998 is styled, "John
Weld, Jr., on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Elensys Care Services, Inc. and Glaxo
Wellcome, Inc. (Civil Action No. 98-0897F)."  On July 15, 1998,
Mr. Weld's complaint was amended to include another plaintiff
and to add Warner-Lambert, Merck, Hoffman La-Roche, BioGen and
BioTech as additional defendants.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendants violated the
plaintiff's right to privacy and confidentiality by sending the
plaintiff letters based on the plaintiff's prescription history
and by CVS sharing the plaintiff's prescription data with The
Company and the other parties.  The plaintiff sought damages and
injunctive relief in this lawsuit.

On February 23, 2006, the court due to the class plaintiffs'
failure to prosecute the action decertified the class in this
action and the case was dismissed as to one of the two named
plaintiffs.  The dismissal was stayed for 60 days in order to
allow a new party and a new law firm to continue the litigation
if a suitable class representative and class counsel step
forward.  The second named plaintiff was permitted to proceed on
an individual basis.


AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. Court Okays Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Akamai
Technologies, Inc., certain of its officers and directors and
the underwriters of its October 28, 1999 initial public offering
of common stock.

Between July 2, 2001 and November 7, 2001, purported class
action seeking monetary damages were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the company
as well as against the underwriters of the company's October 28,
1999 initial public offering of common stock.

The complaints were filed allegedly on behalf of persons who
purchased the company's common stock during different time
periods, all beginning on October 28, 1999 and ending on various
dates.  The complaints were similar and allege violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act primarily based on
the allegation that the underwriters received undisclosed
compensation in connection with the company's initial public
offering.

On April 19, 2002, a single consolidated amended complaint was
filed, reiterating in one pleading the allegations contained in
the previously filed separate actions.  The consolidated amended
complaint defines the alleged class period as October 28, 1999
through December 6, 2000.

A Special Litigation Committee of the Company's Board of
Directors authorized management to negotiate a settlement of the
pending claims substantially consistent with a Memorandum of
Understanding that was negotiated among class plaintiffs, all
issuer defendants and their insurers.  The parties negotiated a
settlement that was subject to approval by the Court.

On February 15, 2005, the Court issued an Opinion and Order
preliminarily approving the settlement, provided that the
defendants and plaintiffs agree to a modification narrowing the
scope of the bar order set forth in the original settlement
agreement.  The parties agreed to a modification narrowing the
scope of the bar order and, on August 31, 2005, the Court issued
an order preliminarily approving the settlement.


ART TECHNOLOGY: Mass. Court Refuses to Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
deferred a final order of dismissal of a consolidated class
action filed against Art Technology Group, Inc. and certain of
its former officers.

The Company and certain of the company's former officers were
named as defendants in seven purported class action that have
been consolidated into one action currently pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts under the
caption, "In re Art Technology Group, Inc. Securities Litigation
(Master File No. 01-CV-11731-NG)."

The case alleged that the company, and certain of the company's
former officers, have violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule SEC 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, which generally may subject issuers of securities
and persons controlling those issuers to civil liabilities for
fraudulent actions in connection with the purchase or sale of
securities The case was originally filed in 2001, and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed in March 2002.  In
April 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case.  On
September 4, 2003, the court issued a ruling dismissing all but
one of the plaintiffs' allegations.  The remaining allegation
was based on the veracity of a public statement made by one of
the company's former officers.

In August 2004, the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss
and motion for summary judgment as to the remaining allegation,
which the court granted in September 2005.  The plaintiffs have
moved for leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint,
which, if allowed, would revive some of the claims previously
dismissed by the court.  The court deferred a final order of
dismissal of plaintiffs' case to allow it time to consider
plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second consolidated
amended complaint.  The Company opposed that motion.

The suit was styled "In Re: Art Technology Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:01-cv-11731-NG," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge
Nancy Gertner.     Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Theodore M. Hess-Mahan and Thomas G. Shapiro, Shapiro
         Haber & Urmy LLP, 53 State Street, Boston, MA 02108,
         Phone: 617-439-3939, Fax: 617-439-0134, E-mail:
         ted@shulaw.com

     (2) David C. Katz, Weiss & Lurie, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite
         1600, New York, NY 10176, Phone: 212-682-3025, Fax:
         212-682-3010, E-mail: dkatz@wllawny.com

     (3) Douglas M. Risen, Sherrie R. Savett, Berger & Montague,
         P.C., 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
         Phone: 215-875-3000,

     (4) Patrick K. Slyne, Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th
         Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-687-7230, Fax:
         212-490-2022

Representing the Company are Dyan Finguerra-DeCharme, Mary Jo
Johnson, William H. Pane, Jeffrey B. Rudman and Matthew A. Stowe
of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, 399 Park Avenue,
New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-230-8800, Fax: 212-230-8888; and
Nancy Margaret Gorton, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr,
LLP, 60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-742-9100, E-
mail: maryjo.johnson@wilmerhale.com,
william.paine@wilmerhale.com, jeffrey.rudman@wilmerhale.com,
matthew.stowe@wilmerhale.com.


C.P. PARTNERS: Ad Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set March 27, 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department,
Chancery Division will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement in the matter: "Erold S. Rawson v. C.P. Partners,
L.L.C., d/b/a Comfort Inn-O'hare, Case No. 03 CH 15165."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons who were sent
facsimiles of material advertising the commercial availability
of any services by or on behalf of C.P. Partners, LLC, doing
business as Comfort Inn O'Hare and with respect to whom
Defendant cannot provide evidence of prior express permission
for the sending of such faxes, and which were sent to telephone
numbers within Illinois within 4 years of the date of service of
the summons and complaint upon Defendant.

The final fairness hearing will take place on March 27, 2006 at
11:00 a.m., in Room 1703 of the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, Daley Center, 50 W. Washington, Chicago, Illinois,
60602.

Any objections to the settlement must be made by March 10, 2006.
Submission of the proof of claim must also be made by March 10,
2006.

For more details, contact Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin,
LLC, (12094) 120 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1800, Chicago, IL
60603, Phone: (312) 739-4200, Fax: 312-419-0379, E-mail:
edcombs@aol.com, Web site: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?6ba.


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Settlement Hearing Set on Ill. Junk Fax Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the
matter: "James Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Case No.
05 C 2713."  The case was brought on behalf of all persons and
entities who in June 2004 had ownership, control, or authority
over a telephone number to which Robert Brunke of Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc. sent a certain facsimile advertisement for
Equity Loan Balance Transfers.

For more details, contact Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin,
LLC, (12094) 120 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1800, Chicago, IL
60603, Phone: (312) 739-4200, Fax: 312-419-0379, E-mail:
edcombs@aol.com, Web site: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?6be.


CURRENT USA: Recalls 12-Gallon Aquariums Due to Shock Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Current U.S.A. Inc., of Vista, California, is recalling 1,000
AquaPod 12-Gallon Aquariums.

The company said these aquariums have three power cords, two for
the aquarium lamps and one for the air pump.  When only one of
the two lamp cords is plugged in, the unplugged lamp cord can
become energized, posing an electrical shock hazard to
consumers.

Current USA Inc. has received nine reports of electrical
problems with these aquariums, resulting in seven consumers
suffering shocks by touching unplugged, energized lamp cords.

This recall affects AquaPod Aquariums with model number 7050.
The model number is not written on the aquariums, but is on the
owner's manual and the packaging.  Only aquariums without a
white label containing the manufacturer date and a bar code,
which is attached to light reflector inside lid of the aquariums
are included in this recall.  To check if your unit has a white
sticker, open the aquarium lid and look on the bottom left
corner of the light reflector.  If your AquaPod 12-Gallon System
has a white label with a date in black letters and bar code, it
is not included in the recall.  Model numbers 7051 and 7052
aquariums also are not included in the recall.

The aquariums were made in China and sold in Pet stores
nationwide, pet merchandise catalogs, and by Web retailers from
December 2005 through January 2006 for about $240.

Consumers are advised to stop using these aquariums immediately
by turning off the power at the breaker switch and unplugging
all the cords.  Consumers are advised to contact their local
retailer or call the firm for information on receiving a free
replacement aquarium.

Consumer Contact, USA Inc., Phone: (866) 276-8872 (toll-free)
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. PT Monday through Friday; Web site:
http://www.current-usa.com.


EXELON CORP: Ill. Community to Discuss Tritium Spill Suit Today
---------------------------------------------------------------
A public discussion about a class action filed against Exelon
Corp. over tritium spills will be held March 22, 2006, 6:00 p.m.
at Reed-Custer High School, 249 Comet Dri., Illinois, according
to Morris Daily Herald.

The meeting is specific to the tritium spills at Braidwood,
Byron Generating Station near Rockford, and Dresden Station at
Morris, Nuclear Information Resource Service spokesman, Paul
Gunter, said.

A group of residents who live two miles from tritium spills at
the Braidwood Generating Station filed a suit against energy
companies Commonwealth Edison, its parent company Exelon Corp.,
and Exelon Generation Co., LLC on March 13, according to STNG
Wire (Class Action Reporter, March 16, 2006).  The suit was
filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago.

The suit alleged Exelon spilled hazardous wastes into ground
water and land since 1996, depreciating the value of the
plaintiffs' property (Class Action Reporter, March 16, 2006).
Tritium is a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen that emits
a very low level of radiation and is found in virtually all of
the earth's water.  It is produced in greater concentrations in
commercial nuclear reactors and is discharged into the
environment under federal operating permits.

The lawsuit is seeking class-action status, reimbursement for
past purchases of bottled water, compensation for the loss of
use and enjoyment of property, and injunctive relief in the form
of future bottled water services, future water monitoring and
public health studies.  The suit also seeks that the defendants
fund and the court supervises a medical monitoring program.
Plaintiffs are not alleging personal injuries in the suit.

Eleven Braidwood families filed a second multi-count complaint
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
(Class Action Reporter, March 21, 2006).

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.

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.

The Chicago suit was styled "Duffin et al. v. Exelon Corporation
et al. (1:06-cv-01382)," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Suzanne B. Conlon.
Representing the plaintiffs is Nicholas Evans Sakellariou of
McKeown, Fitzgerald, Zollner, Buck, Hutchison & Ruttle, 2455
Glenwood Avenue, Joliet, IL 60432, Phone: (815) 729-4800.


FOODS INC: Issues Alert on Mexican Bread with Undeclared Milk
-------------------------------------------------------------
State Agriculture Commissioner Patrick H. Brennan is alerting
consumers that Foods, Inc., d/b/a Maizteca Bakery of New York is
recalling 1.5 pound packages of "Maizteca Mexican Bread" due to
an undeclared milk ingredient.

People who have allergies to milk may run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume this
product, a statement in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Web site states.  The recalled "Maizteca Mexican Bread" comes in
an uncoded plastic package.  It was sold in New York and
Connecticut.

The problem was discovered as a result of routine sampling by
New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food
Inspectors and subsequent analysis by the Department's Food
Laboratory personnel revealed the presence of a milk ingredient
in product packages, which did not declare a milk ingredient on
the label.

No illnesses have been reported to date to this Department in
connection with the problem.  Consumers who have purchased
"Maizteca Mexican Bread" are advised to return it to the place
of purchase.


GLOBAL CROSSING: Settles Consolidated Stock, ERISA Suits in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Global Crossing Limited reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities fraud class action styled, "In Re:
Global Crossing Ltd. Securities & "ERISA" Litigation, Case No.
1:02-md-01472-GEL."  The suit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

Following the Company's April 27, 2004 announcement that the
Company expected to restate certain of its consolidated
financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31,
2003, eight separate class action all purporting to be brought
on behalf of Company shareholders were commenced against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors in the U.S.
District Courts in New Jersey, New York and California.

The cases were consolidated and transferred by the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to Judge Gerard Lynch of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York based
on his past involvement in prior cases involving the Company.
On February 18, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated class action complaint against the Company and two
of its past and present officers.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the Company
defrauded the public securities markets by issuing false and
misleading statements that failed to disclose or indicate:

     (1) that the Company had materially understated its accrued
         cost of access liabilities by as much as $80 million,

     (2) that the Company lacked sufficient internal controls to
         prevent material misstatements,

     (3) that the Company lacked sufficient internal controls to
         properly record and report accrued cost of access
         liabilities and operating expenses,

     (4) that its financial statements were not prepared in
         accordance with generally accepted accounting
         principles,

     (5) that the Company did not, contrary to its
         representations, consistently monitor the accuracy of
         its systems that measured cost of access,

     (6) that the Company's results were materially inflated,
         and

     (7) that the Company did not have a "clean" balance sheet.

The consolidated amended complaint, on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased or acquired the Company's common stock
between December 9, 2003 and April 26, 2004, asserted claims
under the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Plaintiffs contended that the
Company's misstatement or omissions artificially inflated the
price of the Company's stock, which declined when the "true"
costs were disclosed.  Plaintiffs sought compensatory damages as
well as other relief.

The Company and the lead plaintiffs agreed in principle to
settle the litigation under the terms of a proposed settlement
agreement that remains subject to final negotiation and court
approval.  The proposed settlement agreement contemplates the
creation of a settlement fund by the Company, subject to
reimbursement in full by the Company's directors and officers
liability insurance carrier.  If the case is not settled,
defendants anticipate filing a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

The suit is styled, "In Re: Global Crossing Ltd. Securities &
"ERISA" Litigation, Case No. 1:02-md-01472-GEL, filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under
Judge Gerard E. Lynch.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jeffrey S. Abraham of Abraham & Associates, One Penn
         Plaza, Suite # 1910, New York, NY 10119, Phone: (212)
         714-2444;

     (2) Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq., Sidney S. Liebesman, Esq. or
         Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. of Chase Manhattan Centre, 1201
         N. Market St., Wilmington, DE, 19801, Phone: (302) 622-
         7149, Fax: (302) 622-7100;

     (3) Kenneth A. Elan of Law Office of Kenneth A. Elan, 217
         Broadway, Suite 606, New York, NY 10007, Phone: (212)
         619-0261;

     (4) Gregory M. Egleston of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz,
         LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         (212) 779-1414, Fax: (212) 779-3218, E-mail:
         egleston@bernlieb.com;

     (5) John Halebian of Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP, 500
         Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10110, Phone: (212) 608-1900,
         Fax: (212) 719-4677, E-mail: jhalebian@lshllp.com.

Representing the defendants are, Ralph C. Ferrara and Joseph P.
Moodhe of Debevoise & Plimpton, 919 Third Avenue, New York, NY
10022, Phone: (212) 909-6000 and (212) 909-6284, E-mail:
jpmoodhe@debevoise.com; and Carolyn G. Nussbaum of Nixon,
Peabody, L.L.P, Clinton Square, P.O. Box 31051, Rochester, NY
14603, Phone: (585) 263-1000.

For more details, visit: http://www.globalcrossinglitigation.com


GOOGLE INC: Blacklisted Web Site Files Anti-Trust Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
KinderStart.com is suing online search engine Google Inc. for
alleged wrongful banning of the company's Web site from the
latter's list, Associated Press reports.

The Norwalk, California-based company filed a civil complaint on
March 17 in U.S. District Court in San Jose, asking to represent
owners of all Web sites blacklisted by Google's search engine
since January 2001.  It is seeking class certification for the
suit.

KinderStart's complaint relates to Google's system of ranking
Web sites according to the content's relevance to a request.
Because competition is high, some Web sites engage in devious
schemes to raise their status.  Google ensures the veracity of
its index by taking these fraudsters' Web sites off.  In worst
cases, it exiles these Web sites, according to the report.

In its complaint, KinderStart alleged that Google have
wrongfully banned some Web sites.  It also said that these Web
sites could no longer be restored because Google does not
disclose its procedures.  It said it was dropped from Google's
index a year ago without being informed.

KinderStart alleges the practice is anti-competitive.  According
to the company, its Web site traffic has plunged by 70% after it
was dropped from Google's index.  It claims to have more than 10
million visits a month.

KinderStart also claims Google misled the public by positioning
its search engine as an objective source for finding Internet
content.  The suit seeks unspecified financial damages and a
court order that would require Google to change its practices.

KinderStart's lawyer is Gregory Yu of Chen-Yu Enterprises LLC
1601 Bayshore Hwy, Suite 311, Burlingame, California, (San Mateo
Co.).


IBASIS INC: IPO Settlement Fairness Hearing Set April 24, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold an April 24, 2006 a final approval hearing for the
proposed settlement in litigation regarding iBasis, Inc.'s
initial public offering (IPO).

Beginning July 11, 2001, the Company was served with several
class action complaints that were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it and
several of its officers, directors, and former officers and
directors, as well as against the investment banking firms that
underwrote its November 10, 1999 initial public offering of
common stock and the company's March 9, 2000 secondary offering
of common stock.  The complaints were filed on behalf of persons
who purchased the company's common stock during different time
periods, all beginning on or after November 10, 1999 and ending
on or before December 6, 2000.

The complaints were similar to each other and to hundreds of
other complaints filed against other issuers and their
underwriters, and allege violations of the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 primarily based on
the assertion that there was undisclosed compensation received
by the company's underwriters in connection with the company's
public offerings and that there were understandings with
customers to make purchases in the aftermarket.  The plaintiffs
sought an undetermined amount of monetary damages in relation to
these claims.   On September 4, 2001, the cases against the
company were consolidated.  On October 9, 2002, the individual
defendants were dismissed from the litigation by stipulation and
without prejudice.

On June 11, 2004, the company and the individual defendants, as
well as many other issuers named as defendants in the class
action proceeding, entered into an agreement-in-principle to
settle this matter, and on June 14, 2004, this settlement was
presented to the court.  The district court granted a
preliminary approval of the issuers' settlement on February 15,
2005, subject to certain modifications to the proposed bar
order, to which plaintiffs and issuers agreed.

On August 31, 2005, the court issued a preliminary order further
approving the modifications to the settlement and certifying the
settlement classes.  The court appointed Garden City Group as
the notice administrator for the settlement and ordered that
notice of the settlement be distributed to all settlement class
members beginning on November 15, 2005 and completed by January
15, 2006.  The deadline for filing objections to the settlement
is March 24, 2006, and the fairness hearing has been set for
April 26, 2006.


INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS: Inks Settlement for Del. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Insight Communications Company, Inc. reached a memorandum of
understanding to settle the consolidated securities class action
filed against it and each of its directors in the Delaware Court
of Chancery.

Between March 7 and March 15, 2005, five purported class action
were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery naming Insight
Communications Company, Inc. and each of its directors as
defendants.  Three of the lawsuits also named The Carlyle Group
as a defendant.  The cases were subsequently consolidated under
the caption, "In Re Insight Communications Company, Inc.
Shareholders Litigation (Civil Action No. 1154-N)," and, on
April 11, 2005, a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed
against each director and The Carlyle Group.

The Complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendant
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the company's
stockholders in connection with a proposal from Sidney R.
Knafel, Michael Willner, together with certain related and other
parties, and The Carlyle Group to acquire all of the company's
outstanding, publicly-held Class A common stock.

The Complaint also alleged that the proposed transaction
violated the company's Charter and that The Carlyle Group aided
and abetted the alleged fiduciary duty breaches.  The Complaint
sought:

     (1) the certification of a class of the company's
         stockholders;

     (2) a declaration that the proposed transaction violates
         the company's Charter;

     (3) an injunction prohibiting the defendants from
         proceeding with the proposed transaction;

     (4) rescission or other damages in the event the proposed
         transaction is consummated;

     (5) an award of costs and disbursements including
         attorneys' fees; and

     (6) other relief.

On July 28, 2005, the parties to the action entered into a
memorandum of understanding setting forth the terms of a
proposed settlement of the litigation which, among other things,
provides that the buyers shall proceed with the merger, subject
to the terms and conditions of the merger agreement including
the "majority of the minority" stockholder voting condition, and
under which the defendants admit to no wrongdoing or fault.

The memorandum of understanding contemplated certification of a
plaintiff class consisting of all record and beneficial owners
of the company's Class A common stock, other than the buyers,
during the period beginning on and including March 6, 2005,
through and including the date of the consummation of the
merger, a dismissal of all claims with prejudice, and a release
in favor of all defendants of any and all claims related to the
merger.

The proposed settlement is subject to a number of conditions,
including consummation of the merger, which closed on December
16, 2005, the plaintiffs' approval of a definitive settlement
agreement and final court approval of the settlement.


LABRANCHE & CO: Amended Consolidated Stock Suit Filed in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class action "In re NYSE
Specialists Securities Litigation, Case No. 03-8264," filed
against LaBranche & Co., Inc., lodged an Amended Consolidated
Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws and
Breach of Fiduciary Duty.

The amended suit adds Robert A. Martin as a plaintiff.  The suit
is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

On October 16, 2003 through December 16, 2003, four purported
class action were brought by persons or entities who purchased
and/or sold shares of stocks of NYSE-listed companies for which
LaBranche & Co. LLC and any other NYSE specialist firm acted as
specialist, including:

     (1) Pirelli v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8264,

     (2) Marcus v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8521,

     (3) Empire v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8935,
         and

     (4) California Public Employees' Retirement System
         (CalPERS) v. The New York Stock Exchange, Inc., et al.,
         No. 03 CV 9968

On March 11, 2004, a fifth action asserting similar claims,
"Rosenbaum Partners, LP v. The New York Stock Exchange, Inc., et
al. No. 04 CV 2038," was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York by an individual plaintiff who
does not allege to represent a class.

On May 27, 2004, the court consolidated these lawsuits.  The
court named the following lead plaintiffs: California Public
Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) and Empire Programs, Inc.
On September 15, 2004, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint
for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws and Breach of
Fiduciary Duty alleging that they represent a class consisting
of all public investors who purchased and/or sold shares of
stock listed on the NYSE from October 17, 1998 to October 15,
2003.

Plaintiffs alleged that the Company, LaBranche & Co. LLC, Mr.
LaBranche and other NYSE specialist firms and their respective
parents and affiliates violated Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and
Section 20(a) by failing to disclose improper specialist
trading, improperly profiting on purchases and/or sales of NYSE-
listed securities and breaching and/or aiding and abetting
breaches of fiduciary duty.  Plaintiffs also name the NYSE as a
defendant.  Plaintiffs sought unspecified money damages,
restitution, forfeiture of fees, commissions and other
compensation, equitable and/or injunctive relief, including an
accounting of and the imposition of a constructive trust and/or
asset freeze on trading proceeds, and attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses.

On December 12, 2005, defendants' motion to dismiss was granted
in part and denied in part.  The court dismissed plaintiffs'
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) claims against all defendants
for conduct that occurred before January 1, 1999 and dismissed
plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims against all
defendants.  The court also dismissed all claims against the
NYSE and certain claims against certain parents and affiliates
of specialists other than LaBranche & Co. LLC.

On February 2, 2006, plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws and
Breach of Fiduciary Duty, adding Robert A. Martin as a
plaintiff.  This complaint is otherwise identical to plaintiffs'
Consolidated Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities
Laws and Breach of Fiduciary Duty.

The suit is styled, "In Re: NYSE Specialists Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-08264-RWS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Robert W. Sweet.  Representing the plaintiffs are, Mario Alba,
Jr. of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP,
58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747, Phone:
631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail: malba@lerachlaw.com;
and Robert Craig Finkel of Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third Avenue,
New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 759-4600, E-mail:
rfinkel@wolfpopper.com.

Representing the defendants are, E. Michael Bradley of John E.
Lavelle, Esq., 38 Willis Avenue, Mineola, NY 11501, Phone: (212)
326-3863, Fax: (212) 755-7306, E-mail: embradley@jonesday.com;
and Deborah S. Burstein of King & Spalding, LLP, 1185 Avenue of
the Americas, New York, NY 10036, Phone: (212) 556-2347, Fax:
(212) 556-2222.


LABRANCHE & CO: Court Rejects Claims in Consolidated Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed certain claims in a consolidated securities class
action filed against LaBranche & Co., Inc.  The suit is styled
"In re LaBranche Securities Litigation, No. 03 CV 8201."

On October 16, 2003 through December 16, 2003, nine purported
class action were filed by purchasers of the Company's common
stock, including:

     (1) Sofran v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8201,

     (2) Semon v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8255,

     (3) Haug v. LaBranche & Co. Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8265,

     (4) Labul v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8365,

     (5) Murphy v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8462,

     (6) Strain v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8509,

     (7) Yopp v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8783,

     (8) Ferris v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8806,
         and

     (9) Levin v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8918.

On March 22, 2004 the court consolidated these lawsuits under
the caption, then named these lead plaintiffs: Anthony Johnson,
Clyde Farmer, Edwin Walthall, Donald Stahl and City of Harper
Woods Retirement System.

On June 7, 2004, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint.  On July 12, 2004, plaintiffs filed a Corrected
Consolidated Class Action Complaint.  Plaintiffs alleged that
they represent a class consisting of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock
during the period beginning on August 19, 1999 and concluding on
October 15, 2003.

Plaintiffs alleged that the Company, LaBranche & Co. LLC, and
certain of its and/or LaBranche & Co. LLC's past or present
officers and/or directors, including George M.L. LaBranche, IV,
William J. Burke, III, James G. Gallagher, Alfred O. Hayward,
Jr., Robert M. Murphy and Harvey S. Traison, violated Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by failing to disclose
improper specialist trading.  Plaintiffs also allege that two
other of the Company's past or present officers and/or
directors, S. Lawrence Prendergast and George E. Robb, Jr., also
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified money damages, attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses.

On December 12, 2005, motions to dismiss were granted in part
and denied in part.  The court dismissed the Section 10(b)
claims in their entirety against Messrs. Burke, Gallagher and
Traison, dismissed the Section 10(b) claims for the period
August 19, 1999 through December 30, 2001 against Messrs.
LaBranche, Murphy and Hayward, and dismissed the Section 20A
claim against Mr. Gallagher.

The suit was styled, "In re LaBranche Securities Litigation, No.
03 CV 8201," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Robert W. Sweet.  Representing
the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert Craig Finkel and James Abram Harrod, III of Wolf
         Popper, LLP, 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022,
         Phone: (212) 759-4600, Fax: (212) 486-2093, E-mail:
         rfinkel@wolfpopper.com and jharrod@wolfpopper.com;

     (2) Mark Casser Gardy of Abbey, Gardy, L.L.P., 212 East
         39th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 889-3700,
         E-mail: mgardy@abbeygardy.com;

     (3) Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia,
         Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 58 South Service Road,
         Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100,
         Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com; and

     (4) Shane Thomas Rowley of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, 320 East
         39th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 983-9330,
         Fax: (212) 983-9331, E-mail: srowley@faruqilaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, E. Michael Bradley of John E.
Lavelle, Esq., 38 Willis Avenue, Mineola, NY 11501, Phone: (212)
326-3863, Fax: (212) 755-7306, E-mail: embradley@jonesday.com;
and Irwin Howard Warren of Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, 767
Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10153, Phone: (212) 310-8000, Fax:
(212) 310-8007, E-mail: mark.ribaudo@weil.com.


LEXAR MEDIA: Shareholders Opposed to Micron Merger File Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lexar Media, Inc. and certain of its directors were named as
defendants in stockholder class actions that were filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Alameda.  The suit asserts claims relating to the March 8, 2006
merger agreement with Micron Technology, Inc.

Filed on March 9, 2006 and March 10, 2006, respectively, the
complaints allege that, among other things, the defendants
engaged in self-dealing and breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the merger agreement, and that the consideration
to be received by the company's stockholders pursuant to the
merger agreement is inadequate.

Plaintiffs seek, among others, unspecified monetary damages,
attorneys' fees and certain forms of equitable relief, including
enjoining the consummation of the merger, rescinding the merger
agreement and imposing a constructive trust.


LIBYA: Victims of IRA Terrorism Seeking Redress in U.S. Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers acting for victims of Irish Republican Army atrocities
are preparing a class action against Libya, and its government
officials accused of supplying war materials to Irish
terrorists.

The civil action will be launched next month in New York or
Washington D.C., The Observer reports, citing lawyers for IRA
victims.  The 'spearhead group' will be composed of around 20
plaintiffs.  The lawsuit is similar to that filed by relatives
of victims of the 9/11 terror attacks in the U.S. against rich
Saudis accused of financing al-Qaeda, the report said.

Victims' groups hope hundreds of people from Northern Ireland,
Britain, the U.S. and beyond will join the class action.
According to lawyers, up to 6,000 people were killed or injured
with Libyan-supplied guns and explosives.

The suit will name as defendant Libyan leader Colonel Muammar
Gadaffi, and Nasser Ali Ashour, who in the mid-Eighties was
third in command of Libyan intelligence.

Jason McCue is leading the case for the London-based legal firm
H20.  Mr. McCue said he and his colleagues plan to use two
American laws in its case: the 1996 Foreign Sovereignty Immunity
Act, and the Torture Victims Protection Act 1991.  The first
will be used by U.S. citizens, the second by British.  The case
will be fought on a no win, no fee basis.

Libya is linked with bomb explosions on the Shankill Road in
Belfast, Ireland in 1993; in London in the early 90s; and in
Canary Wharf and Manchester.  Survivors of the attacks and
relatives of those who died are seeking millions of pounds in
compensation and an apology from Libya, the report said.

For more information, contact Mr. McCue of H2O Law, 40-43
Chancery Lane, London C2A 1JQ, Phone: +44 (0) 20 7405 4700; Fax:
+44 (0) 20 7061 9461; E-mail: enquiries@h2o-law.com; Web site:
http://www.h2o-law.com.


LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: IPO Fairness Hearing Set April 24, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold an April 24, 2006 a final approval hearing for the
proposed settlement in litigation regarding the Lionbridge
Technologies, Inc.'s initial public offering to customers.

On July 24, 2001, a purported securities class action,
captioned, "Samet v. Lionbridge Technologies, Inc., et al., (01-
CV-6770)," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and certain underwriters involved in the
Company's initial public offering.

The complaint asserted, among other things, that omissions
regarding the underwriters' alleged conduct in allocating shares
in the Company's initial public offering to the underwriters'
customers.  In March 2002, the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York entered an order dismissing
without prejudice the claims against the Company and its
officers and directors (the case remained pending against the
underwriter defendants).

On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
naming as defendants not only the underwriter defendants but
also the Company and certain of its officers and directors.  The
amended complaint asserts claims under both the registration and
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws relating to,
among other allegations, the underwriters' alleged conduct in
allocating shares in the Company's initial public offering and
the disclosures contained in the Company's registration
statement.

The Company understands that various plaintiffs have filed
approximately 1,000 lawsuits making substantially similar
allegations against approximately 300 other publicly traded
companies in connection with the underwriting of their public
offerings.  On July 15, 2002, the Company, together with the
other issuers named as defendants in these coordinated
proceedings, filed a collective motion to dismiss the complaint
on various legal grounds common to all or most of the issuer
defendants.

In October 2002, the claims against officers and directors were
dismissed without prejudice.  In February 2003, the Court issued
its ruling on the motion to dismiss, ruling that the claims
under the antifraud provisions of the securities laws could
proceed against the Company and a majority of the other issuer
defendants.

In June 2003, the Company elected to participate in a proposed
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation. If
ultimately approved by the Court, this proposed settlement would
result in the dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the
litigation against the Company and against any other of the
issuer defendants who elect to participate in the proposed
settlement, together with the current or former officers and
directors of participating issuers who were named as individual
defendants.

The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of
any claims against underwriter defendants, and the litigation as
against those defendants is continuing.  The proposed settlement
provides that the class members in the class action cases
brought against the participating issuer defendants will be
guaranteed a recovery of $1 billion by insurers of the
participating issuer defendants.  If recoveries totaling $1
billion or more are obtained by the class members from the
underwriter defendants, however, the monetary obligations to the
class members under the proposed settlement will be satisfied.

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary
to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would come
from participating issuers' directors and officers liability
insurance policy proceeds, as opposed to funds of the
participating issuer defendants themselves.  A participating
issuer defendant could be required to contribute to the costs of
the settlement if that issuer's insurance coverage were
insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share of the
settlement costs.  The Company expects that its insurance
proceeds will be sufficient for these purposes and that it will
not otherwise be required to contribute to the proposed
settlement.

Consummation of the proposed settlement is conditional upon
obtaining approval by the Court.  On September 1, 2005, the
Court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement, directed
that notice of the terms of the proposed settlement be provided
to all class members and scheduled a fairness hearing for April
24, 2006, at which objections to the proposed settlement will be
heard.  Thereafter, the Court will determine whether to grant
final approval to the proposed settlement.

If the proposed settlement is not consummated, the Company
believes that the underwriters may have an obligation to
indemnify it for the legal fees and other costs of defending
this suit.

The suit was styled, "Samet v. Lionbridge Technologies, Inc., et
al., (01-CV-6770)," in relation to "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 21 MC 92," 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.


LOUISIANA: Loses Final Appeal on Tangipahoa River Flooding Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana's Supreme Court has rejected the State's final appeal
in a class action filed by victims of the Tangipahoa River
flooding in 1983, according to The Times-Picayune.

Byard Edwards, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, filed the suit
in 1984 alleging that the improper design of a nearby Interstate
12 highway created a dam that blocked the river's drainage
caused the flooding.  The suit was lodged on behalf of about
1,300 plaintiffs.  After being assigned to several judges, the
case landed in Judge Ray Chutz.  At the Department of
Transportation and Development's request, damages and liability
were determined separately.  In 1999, Judge Chutz found the
Transportation Department liable for the I-12 design.  In 2002,
Special Master Thomas Tanner awarded the plaintiffs $92 million.

Mr. Edwards said the total amount of the judgment is now $257
million because legal interest begins accruing from the date the
suit was filed.  He said he has offered to settle the case for
lower amounts several times, but now he wants the full amount,
according to the report.

The State does not plan to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme
Court, said Kris Wartelle, spokeswoman for the Louisiana
Attorney General's office.


MANNATECH INC: Has 60 Days to Respond to Consolidated Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mannatech, Inc. faces a consolidated class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico styled, "In re
Mannatech, Incorporated Securities Litigation."  Previously, the
three securities class actions were filed:

     (1) On August 1, 2005, Mr. Jonathan Crowell filed a
         putative class action against the company and Mr.
         Samuel L. Caster, the Chief Executive Officer, in the
         United States District Court for the District of New
         Mexico, on behalf of himself and all others who
         purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common
         stock between August 10, 2004 and May 9, 2005,
         inclusive, and who were damaged thereby;

     (2) On August 30, 2005, Mr. Richard McMurry filed a class
         action lawsuit against the Company, Mr. Caster, Mr.
         Terry L. Persinger, the Company's President and Chief
         Operating Officer, and Mr. Stephen D. Fenstermacher,
         the Company's Chief Financial Officer; and

      (3) On September 5, 2005, Mr. Michael Bruce Zeller filed a
         class action against the Company, Mr. Caster, Mr.
         Persinger, and Mr. Fenstermacher.

The allegations in these class actions are substantially
identical.  The complaints alleged the company violated Section
10(b), Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, alleging that defendants artificially inflated the
value of the Company's common stock by knowingly allowing
independent contractors to recklessly misrepresent the efficacy
of the Company's products during the purported class period.

On December 12, 2005, the Court granted a motion to consolidate
the three putative class actions.  These lawsuits were
consolidated into the civil action styled, "In re Mannatech,
Incorporated Securities Litigation."

Also, on January 4, 2006, the Court granted a motion in the
consolidated putative class action to appoint "The Mannatech
Group," consisting of Mr. Austin Chang, Ms. Naomi S. Miller, Mr.
John C. Ogden, and the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 51 Pension
Fund, as lead plaintiffs.  The January 4, 2006 court order also
appointed the law firms Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP as lead counsel, and Freedman Boyd Daniels Hollander
& Goldberg, P.A. as liaison counsel, for the putative class.  On
March 3, 2006, the plaintiffs in the consolidated cases filed a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Securities Fraud.  The
Company has sixty days in which to file a response.


MICHIGAN: Faces Lawsuit Over On-Line Sex-Offender Registry
----------------------------------------------------------
Bingham Farms attorney Thomas Lazar has filed a federal class
action on behalf of eight men required to register on Michigan's
public sex offender registry for 25 years,

Mr. Lazar argues the registration requirement violates the
plaintiffs' right to due process.  He is asking U.S. District
Judge Patrick Duggan to allow the plaintiffs to press their suit
as John Doe I-VIII.

The sex-offender registry was launched by the state in 1995 to
alert communities to the proximity of predators who posed a
continuing threat to children and others vulnerable to sexual
assault.  It became available on-line in 1999.   Five state
lawmakers are now taking the first comprehensive review of the
registry after the list grew out of proportion its accuracy can
no longer be maintained.

The suit is styled, "Doe v. Michigan State Police (2:06-cv-
10214-PJD-PJK)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District Court of Michigan under Judge Duggan, with
referral to Paul J. Komives.  Representing the defendant is
Margaret A. Nelson, Michigan Department of Attorney General,
P.O. Box 30736, Lansing, MI 48909, Phone: 517-373-6434; E-mail:
nelsonma@michigan.gov.

Contact information for Mr. Lazar: Lazar Consulting Services,
30600 Telegraph Road, Suite 3250, Bingham Farms, MI 48025,
Phone: 248-644-2833; E-mail: lazlaw1@earthlink.net.


MICHIGAN: Court Sides with Plaintiffs in Medicaid Refill Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge David Lawson has required Michigan
pharmacists to fill prescriptions of patients on Medicaid even
if the customer says he can't afford a co-payment, according to
Detroit News.

The ruling was issued in a class action by Jeanette Beeker, of
Saginaw, and four other Michigan residents.  The suit was filed
against the state on behalf of nearly 1.5 million recipients of
Medicaid.

Pharmacists charge adult Medicaid patients $1 for the co-payment
for generic drug prescriptions and $3 for name-brand drugs.
They are required to fill prescriptions on the first instance
the Medicaid patient says he can't afford a co-payment, but is
not obliged in succeeding cases.

The suit is styled, "Beeker et al. v. Olszewski et al. (1:05-cv-
10089-DML-CEB)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan under Judge David M. Lawson, with
referral to Charles E. Binder.  Representing the plaintiffs is
Jacqueline Doig of Center For Civil Justice (Saginaw), 320 S.
Washington, 2nd Floor, Saginaw, MI 48607-1115, Phone: 989-755-
3120; Fax: 989-755-3558; E-mail: jdoig@ccj-mi.org.

Representing the defendant is Morris J. Klau, MI Department of
Attorney General (Detroit), 3030 W. Grand Boulevard, Suite 10-
200, Detroit, MI 48202, Phone: 313-456-0281; E-mail:
klaum@michigan.gov.


MISSOURI: Boone County Oncologist Sued for Defrauding Patients
--------------------------------------------------------------
A former oncologist in Boone County is facing a class action for
administering diluted drugs and billing patients the full price
of the medication.

James Hueser and 22 physicians are accused of shortchanging
chemotherapy patients in a suit filed in Boone Country Circuit
Court, Associated Press reports.  The plaintiff is Ron Merchant,
whose wife, Artie Jean Merchant, died in 2003 of non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma.  His suit seeks compensatory damages for over billings
and punitive damages to "deter future wrongful conduct" by the
defendants.  The lawsuit also alleges fraud, breach of contract
and civil conspiracy, according to the report.  Defendants
include:

     (1) Medical Network Technologies LLC, an affiliated
         company; and

     (2) former associates of Hueser in the Boone Clinic medical
         partnership.

According to the report, an affidavit filed by U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services investigator Daniel Coney revealed
that between at least February 1999 and December 2001, Hueser
"routinely billed Medicare for larger doses than were actually
given to the patients."

Mr. Hueser already surrendered his license and paid a $1 million
fine to settle accusations of Medicare fraud with the U.S.
attorney's office in Kansas City.

Representing Medical Network Technologies and two doctors in the
partnership is David L. Knight of Knight & Salladay, 1203 West
Broadway, Columbia, Missouri 65203-2125, (Boone Co.), Phone:
573-256-7205; Fax: 573-875-5873.

For more information, contact Anthony L. DeWitt of Bartimus,
Frickleton, Robertson & Gorny, A Professional Corporation, 715
Swifts Highway, Jefferson City, Missouri 65109, (Cole Co.),
Phone: 573-659-4454; Fax: 573-659-4460.


MIVA INC: Calif. Court Dismisses Payday's Click-Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Los Angeles Division, dismissed a putative class action filed
against Miva, Inc. (formerly Findwhat.com, Inc.) and
Advertising.com, Inc. by Payday Advance Plus, Inc.

The suit, filed on October 19, 2005, alleged that
Advertising.com, a MIVA Media Network distribution partner,
engaged in click fraud to increase revenues to themselves with
MIVA's alleged knowledge and participation.  The lawsuit was
brought on behalf of a putative class of individuals who were
allegedly overcharged by the defendants' and sought monetary
damages, restitution, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees,
injunctive relief, and other remedies.

On January 3, 2006, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint for improper venue because the Complaint was filed in
violation of the forum selection clause in MIVA's contract with
the plaintiff, which requires that all disputes be filed in New
York.  The plaintiff filed a request for voluntary dismissal of
the case on February 1, 2006, and the court dismissed the case
on February 2, 2006.  The plaintiff indicated that they may re-
file the lawsuit in New York.

The suit was styled, "Payday Advance Plus, Inc. v. Findwhat.Com
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-07531-PA-SH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge Percy Anderson with referral to Judge Stephen J. Hillman.
Representing the plaintiffs is Lionel Z. Glancy of Glancy Binkow
and Goldberg, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles,
CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150.

Representing the defendants are, Sharon Ben-Shahar, Terry W.
Bird and Thomas R Freeman of Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim
Drooks and Lincenberg, 1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor, Los
Angeles, CA 90067-2561, Phone: 310-201-2100, Fax: 310-201-2110,
E-mail: sbs@birdmarella.com; and Richard R. Hays, Matthew D.
Richardson and David J. Stewart of Alston & Bird, One Atlantic
Center, 1201 West Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA 30309-3424,
Phone: 404-881-7000.


MIVA INC.: Court Nixes Suit, Gives Plaintiffs Leave to Amend
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
dismissed a consolidated the securities class action filed
against Miva, Inc. (formerly Findwhat.com, Inc.) and certain of
its officers and directors, but granted plaintiffs leave to
submit a further amended complaint.

Beginning on May 6, 2005, five putative securities fraud class
action were filed, alleging that the Company and the individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the individual defendants also
violated Section 20(a) of the Act as "control persons" of
MIVA.  Plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf of a
class of the company's investors who purchased Company stock
between January 5, 2004 and May 4, 2005.

Plaintiffs allege generally that, during the putative class
period, the Company made misleading statements and omitted
material information regarding the goodwill associated with a
recent acquisition and certain material weaknesses in its
internal controls. Plaintiffs assert that the Company and the
individual defendants made these misstatements and omissions in
order to keep its stock price high to allow certain individual
defendants to sell stock at an artificially inflated price.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief.

On June 13 and July 7, 2005, the Company and the other
defendants moved to dismiss each of these complaints for failure
to comply with the mandatory pleading requirements of the Reform
Act and also served answers to the complaints.  In response to
the motions to dismiss, Plaintiffs requested leave to file a
consolidated amended complaint.

On July 27, 2005, the Court consolidated all of the outstanding
lawsuits under the case style "In re MIVA, Inc. Securities
Litigation," selected lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the
consolidated cases, and granted Plaintiffs leave to file a
consolidated amended complaint, which is due on or before August
16, 2005.  The Company and the other defendants would then have
until September 6, 2005, to file an answer and/or a motion to
dismiss.  The Company and the other defendants moved to dismiss
the complaint on September 8, 2005.

On December 28, 2005, the Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss.  The Court granted plaintiffs leave to submit a further
amended complaint, which was filed on January 17, 2006.  On
February 9, 2006, Defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss.

The suit is styled "Zucco Partners, LLC v. Findwhat.com et al.,
Case No. 2:05-cv-00201-JES-DNF," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, under Judge John E.
Steele.  Representing the plaintiffs are Chris A. Barker of
Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., 300 W. Platt St., Suite 150, Tampa,
FL 33606, Phone: 813/489-1001, Fax: 813/489-1008, E-mail:
cbarker@barkerrodemsandcook.com; and Christopher S. Polaszek of
Milberg, Weiss, Bershad & Schulman LLP, 5200 Town Center Circle,
Suite 600, Tower One, Boca Raton, FL 33486-1018, Phone: 561-361-
5000, Fax: 561-367-8400, E-mail: cpolaszek@milbergweiss.com.
Representing the Company is Joseph G. Foster, Porter, Wright,
Morris & Arthur, P.A., 5801 Pelican Bay Blvd., Suite 300,
Naples, FL 34108, Phone: 239/593-2900, Fax: 239/593-2990, E-
mail: jfoster@porterwright.com.


MIVA INC.: Dismissal Motion Filed in Ark. Click-Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Miva, Inc. (formerly Findwhat.com, Inc.) filed a motion to
dismiss against a putative class filed against it and others in
the industry, and pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas, alleging breach of contract,
unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy.

Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, LLC, U.S. Citizens for Fair
Credit Card Terms, Inc., Savings 4 Merchants, Inc., and Max
Caulfield d/b/a Caulfield Investigations, filed the suit in
Miller County Circuit Court in Arkansas on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, against eleven search
engines, web publishers, or performance marketing companies as
defendants, including the Company.  The plaintiffs' claims are
predicated on the allegation that the plaintiffs have been
charged for clicks on their advertisements that were not made by
bona fide customers.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a putative class of
individuals that "were overcharged for (pay per click)
advertising," and seeks monetary damages, restitution,
prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, and other remedies.

The Company was served in March 2005, and the case was removed
by certain of the company's co-defendants to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division,
on March 31, 2005. Two plaintiffs - Savings 4 Merchants and U.S.
Citizens for Fair Credit Card Terms, Inc. - voluntarily
dismissed themselves from the case, without prejudice, on April
4, 2005.

An Order remanding the case was entered on July 11, 2005, and
the case is stayed while that Order is on appeal to the Eighth
Circuit.  The Company has not assessed the validity of the
claims or the amount of potential damages beyond those facts
necessary to file its Motion to Dismiss.

On October 7, 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) for failure to
state claims upon which relief may be granted.  On October 14,
2005, the Company timely filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to
Ark. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The court has not yet ruled on these motions.  On January 9,
2006, the court stayed the case for 60 days to permit two
defendants, Google Inc. and AskJeeves, Inc., to mediate with the
Plaintiffs.  The court will enter a new scheduling order for the
case after the stay expires.

The suit is styled, "Lane's Gifts LLC, et al v. Yahoo! Inc., et
al., case no. 4:05-cv-04027-HFB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Arkansas under Judge Harry F.
Barnes.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John C. Goodson, Keil & Goodson, P.O. Box 618,
         Texarkana, AR 75504, Phone: (870) 772-4113, Fax: (870)
         773-2967, E-mail: jcgoodson@kglawfirm.com

     (2) Stephen F. Malouf, Law Offices of Stephen F. Malouf,
         P.C., 3506 Cedar Springs Road, Dallas, TX 75219, Phone:
         (214) 969-7373

     (3) James M. Pratt, Jr., P.A., 144 Washington NW, Post
         Office Box 938, Camden, AR 71701, Phone: 870-836-7328,
         Fax: 870-837-2405, E-mail: jamiepratt@cablelynx.com

Representing the Company are L. Wren Autrey and Ned A. Stewart,
Autrey Autrey & Stewart, 501 East Sixth St., P.O. Box 960,
Texarkana, AR 75504, Phone: 870-773-5684, Fax: 870-773-2900, E-
mail: lwautrey@cs.com; and Richard Hays. Rick Holcomb and David
J. Stewart, Alston & Bird, One Atlantic Center, 1201 West
Peachtree St., Atlanta, GA 30309-3424, Phone: (404) 881-7000


MIVA INC.: Faces Internet Gambling, Unfair Trade Suits in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miva, Inc. (formerly Findwhat.com, Inc.) continues to face a
putative class action that was filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of San Francisco, by two
individuals, Mario Cisneros and Michael Voight, "on behalf of
themselves, all other similarly situated, and/or for the general
public."  The suit also names other Internet search sites and
service providers.

The complaint alleges that acceptance of advertising for
Internet gambling violates several California laws and
constitutes an unfair business practice. The complaint seeks
unspecified amounts of restitution and disgorgement as well as
an injunction preventing the Company from accepting paid
advertising for online gambling.  Three of the Company's
industry partners, each of whom is a co-defendant in the
lawsuit, have asserted indemnification claims against the
Company for costs incurred as a result of such claims arising
from transactions with the Company.

The suit is styled, "Mario Cisneros et al, v. Yahoo! Inc., et
al, case no. CGC-04-433518," filed in the California Superior
Court in San Francisco County, under Judge Richard A. Kramer.
Representing the plaintiffs are Kathrein R. Reed and Ira P.
Rothken.  Lawyers for the Company are David T. Biderman, Robert
Harvey Binzel, Janet L. Cullum, Charles H. Dick, Jr., Albert
Gidari, Richard Jay Idell, Matthew P. Kanny, David H. Kramer,
Thomas P. Laffey, Ryan M. Malone, Laurence F. Pulgram, John C.
Rawls, David O. Stewart.


MOTIENT CORP: Court Junks Breach of Fiduciary Duties Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Courts have dismissed a lawsuit filed by Legacy
Limited against multiple defendants, including officers and
directors of Motient Corp., Tejas Securities and C&TA,
consultant to Motient.

The complaint was originally filed on August 16, 2005 by
Highland Legacy, a hedge fund controlled by former Motient
Director James D. Dondero.  It alleged, among other things, that
Motient's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Motient.
It sought recovery of fees paid to certain defendants by
Motient.

In dismissing the suit, the Delaware Court ruled that Highland
failed to introduce facts necessary to support its allegations
that the defendant directors of Motient lacked the independence
necessary to properly evaluate the transactions in question, or
that the challenged transactions were not a valid exercise of
their business judgment.

In fact, the Court concluded, "Ultimately, the complaint makes
generalized allegations that do not raise a reasonable doubt
that the challenged transactions were the product of due care."
The Court also found that Mr. Dondero's allegation that the
board formed an executive committee to exclude him from the
board after he had filed his suits to be false, since that board
action actually preceded Highland's now discredited lawsuit.

Motient filed multiple lawsuits against Mr. Dondero.  In the
suits, Motient alleges that Mr. Dondero, while still a member of
Motient's board and in an apparent scheme to gain control of the
company, materially harmed shareholder value by attempting to
manipulate Motient's stock price by leaking non-public and
misleading information.  As noted in one of Motient's lawsuits,
and as further detailed in the Form 8-K Motient filed on October
6, 2005, "[Mr.] Dondero has a history of aggressive actions in
connection with his investments... For Dondero, litigation is
often an essential component of the investment strategy."

Christopher Downie, Chief Operating Officer of Motient, said the
Company is committed to seeing through its own claims against
Mr. Dondero, to recover damages on behalf of the company's
shareholders.

Motient -- http://www.motient.com-- is a nationwide provider of
terrestrial wireless data solutions for Fortune 500 companies
and the small to medium size enterprise business market.  It is
the controlling shareholder of TerreStar Networks Inc., a
development-phase satellite communications company, and a
minority shareholder of Mobile Satellite Ventures, LP, an
established satellite communications company.


NETFLIX INC: Calif. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
dismissed a consolidated securities class action filed against
Netflix, Inc. and some of its officers, styled, "In re Netflix,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:04-cv-02978-FMS."

Between July 22 and September 9, 2004, seven purported
securities class action were filed against the Company and, in
the aggregate, Reed Hastings, W. Barry McCarthy, Jr., and Leslie
J. Kilgore.  These class actions were consolidated in January
2005, and a consolidated complaint was filed on February 24,
2005.

The complaint alleges violations of certain federal securities
laws, seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between October 1, 2003
and October 14, 2004.  The plaintiffs allege that the Company
made false and misleading statements and omissions of material
facts based on its disclosure regarding churn and delivery
speed, claiming alleged violations by each named defendant of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and alleged violations by
certain of its officers of Section 20A of Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

On June 28, 2005, the Court dismissed the action with leave to
amend.  Plaintiffs did so amend, and the Company filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint.  Following a hearing on that
motion, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice on
November 18, 2005.

The suit is styled, "In re Netflix, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 3:04-cv-02978-FMS," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Fern M.
Smith.  Representing the plaintiffs are Arthur L Shingler, III,
David R. Scott, Neil R. Rothstein, Scott + Scott, LLC 401 B
Street, Suite 401, San Diego, CA 92101 USA Phone: 619-233-4565
Fax: 619-233-0508, E-mail: Ashingler@scott-Scott.com and
Drscott@scott-Scott.com; and Brian O O'Mara and William S.
Lerach of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP,
401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101 USA Phone: 619/
231-1058 Fax: (619) 231-7423 Email: Briano@lerachlaw.com and
Billl@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the Company are Cynthia A. Dy and Cameron Powers
Hoffman of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Phone: 650/493-9300 Fax: 650-565-5100
E-mail: cdy@wsgr.com and choffman@wsgr.com.


NIGERIA: Ethnic Group Sues Over Veracity, Legality of Census
------------------------------------------------------------
The Idoma of Benue State filed a class action at a Federal High
Court in Makurdi asking the federal government to stop a 2006
census in Benue State pending clarifications, the Vanguard
reports.

The Registered Trustees of Idoma National Forum and three of its
principal officers want the census stopped until all the local
government areas thickly populated by the Idoma people are
properly enumerated.  The officers of Idoma National Forum are
S.A. Odeh, Francis Ondoma and Cletus Ikese.

The plaintiffs alleged that seven of the nine local governments
in Benue State, where most Idoma live, were not properly
enumerated by the National Population Commission.  They said the
errors could work against the exercise, citing a failed effort
to de-populate the Idoma in a 1991 census because of erroneous
figures.  Idoma residents in Okopkwu local government
successfully challenged the wrong figures ascribed to them at
the Census Tribunal, leading to the nullification of the census
result.

According to This Day, the plaintiffs are also seeking a court
order to set aside the enumeration area demarcation and trial
census in the affected local government areas as well as a
declaration that the exercises infringed on the constitutional
rights of the Idoma people to be demographically demarcated and
properly counted.

The affected local council areas are Ado, Apa, Ohimini,
Ogbadibo, Oju, Obi and Otukpo.  The actual census is set March
21 to 25, 2006.  The trial judge has granted a motion on notice
for the abridgement of the time and accelerated hearing of the
case, the report said.


NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces "Hidden City" Tickets Suits in Mich.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Airlines Corp. is a defendant in several purported
class actions pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan over "hidden city" tickets.

The Company is a defendant in an antitrust class action, styled,
Chase v. Northwest Airlines and Airline Reporting Corporation,
Case No. 96-74711), filed in Michigan federal court on October
1996.  The action purports to be brought on behalf of a class
defined as all persons who purchased tickets on certain routes
into Northwest's hubs at Detroit, Minneapolis/St. Paul and
Memphis from October 11, 1992 to the present.

The complaint alleges that Northwest's imposition of
restrictions prohibiting the sale of "hidden city" tickets
constitutes monopolization in violation of the Sherman Act.  It
seeks injunctive relief, unspecified damages for the class, and
costs and attorneys' fees.

The attorneys for the plaintiff in Chase also filed three
additional class actions in the same court against other
airlines and the Company with parallel allegations similar to
those in Chase, including allegations that the defendant
airlines conspired to deter hidden city ticketing.  These cases
are:

     (1) "Keystone Business Machines, Inc. v. U.S. Airways and
         Northwest Airlines (U.S. D.C. Eastern District of
         Michigan, Civ. Action No. 99-72474);

     (2) BLT Contracting, Inc. v. U.S. Airways, Northwest
         Airlines and the Airline Reporting Corporation (U.S.
         D.C. Eastern District of Michigan, Civ. Action No. 99-
         72988); and

     (3) Volk and Nitrogenous Industries Corp. v. U.S. Airways,
         Northwest Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and the Airline
         Reporting Corporation (U.S. D.C. Eastern District of
         Michigan, Civ. Action No. 99-72987).

All were assigned to the judge in the Chase case.  The Company
believes these cases are without merit and intends to defend
against them.  In November 2000, the plaintiffs filed their
class certification motion and defendants filed their summary
judgment motion.  On May 16, 2002, the Court entered an Order
granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification and denying
defendants' motion for summary judgment.  The Court has not yet
set a trial date.


NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Privacy Suits Dismissed, Another on Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Airlines Corp. is a defendant in several purported
class actions pending in federal court in Minnesota, North
Dakota and Tennessee over certain passenger records to the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

In 2004, several purported class actions were filed, and
subsequently consolidated, in federal court in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota alleging violations by the
Company of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Fair
Credit Reporting Act and various state laws in connection with
the release by the Company of certain passenger records to the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration in late 2001.  The
suits were consolidated under the caption, "In re Northwest
Airlines Privacy Litigation, Civ. File No. 04-126."

Additionally, similar purported class actions were filed in
federal court in North Dakota, styled:

     (1) "Dyer v. Northwest Airlines Corp. (U.S.D.C. District of
         North Dakota, Case No. A1-04-033)," and

     (2) in Federal Court in Tennessee, "Copeland v. Northwest
         Airlines Corp. (U.S.D.C. Western District of Tennessee,
         Civil File No. 04-CV-2156)."

On June 6, 2004, the District Court in the Minnesota action
granted Company's motion for summary judgment on all claims and
that decision is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit.  On September 8, 2004, the District Court in
the North Dakota action granted Company's motion for summary
judgment on all claims and the plaintiffs did not seek appellate
review.  On February 28, 2005, the Tennessee District Court
dismissed the Tennessee case and plaintiffs did not appeal.

The suit is styled, "In re Northwest Privacy Litigation, Case
No. 0:04-cv-00126-PAM-JSM," on appeal from the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge Paul A. Magnuson
with referral to Judge Janie S. Mayeron.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Eric J. Belfi of Murray Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275
         Madison Ave., Ste. 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-
         682-5434, E-mail: ebelfi@murrayfrank.com;

     (2) Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. of Reinhardt Wendorf &
         Blanchfield, 332 Minnesota St., Ste. E-1250, St. Paul,
         MN 55101, Phone: 651-287-2100, E-mail:
         g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com; and

     (3) Richard J. Fuller of Mansfield Tanick & Cohen, PA, 220
         S. 6th St., Ste. 1700, Minneapolis, MN 55402-4511,
         Phone: (612) 339-4295, Fax: (612) 339-3161, E-mail:
         fuller@mansfieldtanick.com.
Representing the defendants are, Theresa M. Bevilacqua, Thomas
W. Tinkham and Daniel J. Brown of Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, 50 S.
6th St., Ste. 1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498, Phone: 612-340-
7883 and 612-340-2600, Fax: 612-340-2868, 612-340-2807 and 612-
340-8800, E-mail: tinkham.tom@dorsey.com,
brown.daniel@dorsey.com and bevilacqua.theresa@dorsey.com.


PINNACLE FOODS: Issues Allergy Alert on Brownie Mix with Walnuts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle Foods Group Inc. of Mountain Lakes, New Jersey is
recalling a limited production run of Duncan Hines Double Fudge
Brownie mix due to undeclared walnuts ingredient.

The Brownie mix was manufactured by a co-packer for distribution
by Pinnacle.  The company said the recall applies only to
"DUNCAN HINES(R) CHOCOLATE LOVER'S DOUBLE FUDGE BROWNIES" with
Retail Carton UPC Code: 6-44209-33247-2.  "Best If Used By Code"
located on bottom of carton: Jan. 9, 2007.

The Brownie mix was sold at Wal-Mart stores in Oklahoma, Texas,
Kansas, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana and Georgia.

These cartons may contain `Walnut Brownie' mix rather than the
`Double Fudge Brownie' mix and could therefore contain nuts not
listed on the carton.  People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to walnuts may run the risk of a serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product.

This voluntary recall was initiated after the Company received
call from a consumer informing the Company that the "DUNCAN
HINES(R) CHOCOLATE LOVER'S DOUBLE FUDGE BROWNIES" he purchased
actually contained a walnut brownie mix.  There have been no
reports of illness as a result of this incident.

People who are allergic to or have a severe sensitivity to
treenuts should not consume this product.  Consumers are advised
to return the product to the store where it was purchased for a
full refund.  The product is safe to eat by people who are not
allergic to nuts.  Consumer contact: Phone: 1-800-554-5680.

This announcement applies only to the "DUNCAN HINES(R) CHOCOLATE
LOVER'S DOUBLE FUDGE BROWNIES and does not apply to any other
Duncan Hines products sold by Wal-Mart in the above 12 states.


RIDGEWOOD ORGANIZATION: Ad Suit Settlement Trial Set April 24
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department,
Chancery Division will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement in the matter: "Jerold S. Rawson and Creatine Fun,
Inc. v. Levin Robin d/b/a The Ridgewood Organization, 03 CH
10844."  The case was brought on behalf of all persons who on or
after June 27, 1998 were sent advertising faxes by The Ridgewood
Organization.

The hearing will take place on April 24, 2006 at 11:00 a.m.,
before Judge McGann in Room 1703 of the Richard J. Daley Center,
50 W. Washington, Chicago, Illinois, 60602.

For more details, contact Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin,
LLC, (12094) 120 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1800, Chicago, IL
60603, Phone: (312) 739-4200, Fax: 312-419-0379, E-mail:
edcombs@aol.com, Web site: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?6bc.


REPUBLIC TITLE: Real Estate Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 4
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois will hold a fairness
hearing for the proposed settlement in the matter: "IN RE: RUIZ
V. REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY, No. 04 CH 8043 (12094)."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons who participated
in settlements of the purchase, sale or refinance of
residential, Illinois real estate in which Republic Title
Company was the settlement agent from February 1, 1998 to the
date of Final Approval of this settlement, and all of such
persons, parents, siblings, spouses, children or any other
family members, and their subsidiaries, affiliates, successors
and assigns, but excluding Settlement Defendants and their
affiliates.

The fairness hearing will take place on April 4, 2006 at 2:00
p.m., in Room 2305 of the Richard J. Daley Center, Chicago, IL
60602.

For more details, contact Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin,
LLC, (12094) 120 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1800, Chicago, IL
60603, Phone: (312) 739-4200, Fax: 312-419-0379, E-mail:
edcombs@aol.com, Web site: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?6bb.


SUNTRIPS: Airlines, Hotels Sue to Recover Payments After Sale
-------------------------------------------------------------
Troubled travel firm Suntrips in New Jersey is facing a suit
filed by travel agents in Carmel and Colorado, who allege they
haven't been paid promised commissions, according to Mercury
News. The suit seeks class-action status.

Airlines and hotels have also filed suit to recoup payments,
Peter Gallic, president of Crystal Hospitality, which recently
bought the company's name, including entire operation, which
includes 100 employees and a client database.  The acquisition
did not include SunTrip's entire operation, which includes 100
employees and a client database.

SunTrips was brought down by the rise of online discount sites.
All its deals booked before April 5 have been cancelled and
refunds are being processed, said SunTrips president, Matthew
Holliday, in an e-mail responding to a Mercury News' questions.

SunTrips -- http://www.suntrips.com-- files about 160,000
people a year to Hawaii, Mexico and other sunny spots.


TASER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Ariz.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Taser International, Inc. is a defendant in a consolidated
securities class action pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona.

Beginning on or about January 10, 2005, numerous securities
class actions were filed against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors.  These actions were filed on behalf of
the purchasers of the Company's stock in various class periods,
beginning as early as May 29, 2003 and ending as late as January
14, 2005.  The majority of these lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona. Four actions were
filed in New York and one Michigan.

The New York and Michigan actions were transferred to the
District of Arizona.  Judge Susan Bolton consolidated the class
actions and Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel were selected.  The
Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint (which became the
operative complaint for all of the class actions) on August 29,
2005.  The operative class period is May 29, 2003 to January 11,
2005.  The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint, which has been fully briefed for the Court but has
not yet been decided.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things,
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and seeks unspecified
monetary damages and other relief against all defendants.  The
consolidated amended complaint generally alleges that the
Company and the individual defendants made false or misleading
public statements regarding, among other things, the safety of
the Company's products and the Company's ability to meet its
sales goals, including the validity of a $1.5 million sales
order with the Company's distributor, Davidson's, in the fourth
quarter of 2004.  The consolidated complaint also alleges that
product defects were leading to excessive product returns by
customers.


TASER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over Device's Safety
------------------------------------------------------------
Taser International, Inc. is a defendant in a class action
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, styled, "Village of Dolton v. Taser International
Inc."

In August 2005, the Company was served with a summons and
complaint in which the Plaintiff alleges that defendant misled
the plaintiff about the safety of the TASER device when they
purchased the TASER device and are seeking damages.  The
plaintiff is seeking to certify the lawsuit as a class action.
The Company has filed an answer to the complaint and a motion to
dismiss.

In October 2005, the Company filed a declaration of the former
chief of police for the Village of Dolton, which refutes many of
the allegations made in the complaint and the Company filed a
motion for sanctions.  In the same month, the Court issued an
order partially granting the Company's Motion to Dismiss, and
denied the balance of the motions.  The case is now moving
forward with discovery.

The suit is styled, "Village of Dolton v. Taser International
Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-04126," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge James F.
Holderman.  Representing the plaintiffs is John K. Vrdolyak of
Edward R. Vrdolyak, Ltd., 741 North Dearborn St., Chicago, IL
60610, Phone: (312) 482-8200.   Representing the defendants is
David Thomas Ballard of Barnes & Thornburg, One North Wacker
Drive, Suite 4400, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: 312-357-1313, E-
mail: dballard@btlaw.com.


THESTREET.COM INC: IPO Suit Fairness Hearing Set April 24, 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 TheStreet.com,
Inc.'s initial public offering (IPO).

On December 5, 2001, a class action alleging violations of the
federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York naming as defendants
TheStreet.com, Inc., certain of its former officers and
directors and James J. Cramer, a current director, and certain
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering (The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Chase H&Q, Thomas Weisel Partners
LLC, FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, and Merrill Lynch Pierce
Fenner & Smith, Inc.).

Plaintiffs allege that the underwriters of TheStreet.com, Inc.'s
initial public offering violated the securities laws by failing
to disclose certain alleged compensation arrangements (such as
undisclosed commissions or stock stabilization practices) in the
offering's registration statement.  The plaintiffs seek damages
and statutory compensation against each defendant in an amount
to be determined at trial, plus pre-judgment interest thereon,
together with costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.
Similar suits were filed against over 300 other issuers that had
initial public offerings between 1998 and December 2001, and
they have all been consolidated into a single action.

Pursuant to a Court Order dated October 9, 2002, each of the
individual defendants to the action, including Mr. Cramer, has
been dismissed without prejudice.  On June 8, 2004, the Company
and its individual defendants (together with the Company's
insurance carriers) entered into a settlement with the
plaintiffs.  The settlement is subject to a hearing on fairness
and approval by the court overseeing the litigation.

Although the lawsuit against the Company is an independent cause
of action vis-a-vis the lawsuits pending against other issuers
in the consolidated proceeding, and no issuer is liable for any
wrongdoing allegedly committed by any other issuer, the proposed
settlement between the plaintiffs and the issuers is being done
on a collective basis.

Generally, under the terms of the settlement, in exchange for
the delivery by the company's insurers and those of the other
defendants of an undertaking guaranteeing that the plaintiffs
will recover, in the aggregate, at least $1 billion from the
underwriters, and the assignment to the plaintiffs by the
issuers of their interests in claims against the underwriters
for excess compensation in connection with their IPOs, the
plaintiffs will release the non-bankrupt issuers from all claims
against them (the bankrupt issuers will receive a covenant not
to sue) and their individual defendants. The costs and expenses
of the settlement are expected to be borne by the Company's
insurers.

Pursuant to an Opinion and Order dated February 15, 2005, the
court, subject to certain minor modifications, preliminarily
approved the settlement.  Such modifications have been made and
were approved by the Court pursuant to an Order dated August 31,
2005.  The court also appointed the Notice Administrator for the
settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement be
distributed to all settlement class members beginning on
November 15, 2005.  The settlement fairness hearing was
scheduled for April 24, 2006.


TREX CO: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Va.
------------------------------------------------------------
Trex Company is a defendant in a consolidated securities class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Virginia, alleging violations of federal securities laws.

Commencing on July 8, 2005, two class actions named as
defendants, the Company, Robert G. Matheny, a director and the
former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Paul D. Fletcher, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company.

Plaintiffs and defendants agreed that the two lawsuits should be
consolidated, and on December 27, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated class action complaint.  The complaints principally
allege that the company, Mr. Matheny and Mr. Fletcher violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of and Rule 10b-5 under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, making false and
misleading public statements concerning the company's operating
and financial results and expectations.  The complaints also
allege that certain directors of the company sold shares of the
company's common stock at artificially inflated prices.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages.

The suit is styled, "Mehigan, et al. v. Trex Company, Inc. et
al., Case No. 5:05-cv-00047-gec-bwc," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Virginia under Judge Glen E.
Conrad with referral to Judge B. Waugh Crigler.  Representing
the plaintiffs are, Eric Lechtzin of SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY, LLP,
280 KING OF PRUSSIA ROAD, RADNOR, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706,
Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail: elechtzin@sbclasslaw.com; and Lionel
Z. Glancy of GLANCY & BINKOW, LLP, 1801 AVENUE OF THE STARS, LOS
ANGELES, CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, Fax: 310-201-9160.

Representing the defendants are, Christian J. Mixter, 1111
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004, Phone: 202-739-
5073, Fax: 739-3001 and Marc J. Sonnenfeld of Morgan Lewis &
Bockius, LLP, 1701 MARKET STREET, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2921,
Phone: 215-963-5572, Fax: 215-963-5001, E-mail:
msonnenfeld@morganlewis.com.


UICI: Settles Tex., Okla. Lawsuits Opposing Proposed Disposal
-------------------------------------------------------------
UICI reached an agreement in principle to resolve purported
class actions filed in Texas and Oklahoma relating to the
pending acquisition of UICI by a group of private equity firms
led by The Blackstone Group.

Under the terms of the proposed settlements, the claims of the
named plaintiffs and the proposed class of public shareholders
will be settled and released as to all defendants.

The proposed settlements are subject to several conditions,
including the negotiation of final documentation, court approval
and completion of the pending acquisition.  In connection with
the settlements, supplemental disclosures were included in
UICI's proxy statement/prospectus, dated February 28, 2006,
provided to shareholders in connection with the special meeting
of UICI stockholders to be held on March 29, 2006, at which
shareholders will be asked to vote on the transaction.

In addition, the purchasers have agreed, in the event the
termination fee becomes payable pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, to unilaterally waive their right to receive
any portion of the termination fee in excess of $50 million.

According to a Nov. 23, 2005 issue of Class Action Reporter, the
suits were styled:

     (1) Green Meadows Partners L.P. v. UICI, et al., filed on
         September 15, 2005 in the District Court of Dallas
         County, Texas, E-101st Judicial District, Case No. 05-
         09693;

     (2) Ruediger v. UICI, et al., filed on September 28, 2005
         in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, D-95th
         Judicial District, Case No. 05-10033;

     (3) Scott v. UICI, et al., filed on September 30, 2005 in
         the District Court of Oklahoma County, State of
         Oklahoma, Case No. CJ-2005-7731;

     (4) Pepper v. UICI, et al., filed on October 11, 2005 in
         the District Court of Oklahoma County, State of
         Oklahoma, Case No. CJ-2005-7967; and

     (5) Bauer v. William J. Gedwed, et al., filed on October 6,
         2005 in the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas,
         Case No. 236-214443-05

Previously, plaintiffs in a pending shareholder derivative
action, styled "In re UICI Derivative Litigation," pending in
the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 352nd Judicial
District, Lead Cause No. 352-206106-04," filed an amended
petition asserting similar claims.

The petitions generally challenge the price to be paid in the
proposed transaction and the process leading up to the
transaction.

Headquartered in North Richland Hills, Texas, UICI --
http://www.uici.net-- through its subsidiaries offers insurance
(primarily health and life) to niche consumer and institutional
markets.


UNION PACIFIC: Suit by Laramie County Residents Returned to Wyo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is sending back to
Wyoming a class action alleging improper profiting by Union
Pacific Railroad, Casper Star Tribune reports.

The case left Wyoming after U.S. District Judge Alan Johnson
ruled in 2001 that his court didn't have jurisdiction to hear
the case, which involves claims under both federal and state
law.  The suit, filed by Warren D. Nicodemus and John and Norma
Morris, all of Laramie County, accused Union Pacific of
generating huge profits by allowing telecommunications companies
to bury fiber optic cable under railroad rights of way.

The suit is styled "Nicodemus, et al. v. Union Pacific Corp, et
al. (2:01-cv-00009-ABJ)."  Representing the defendants are: Ron
Bodinson of Shook Hardy & Bacon, 84 Corporate Woods, 10801
Mastin, Suite 1000, Overland Park, KS 66210-1669, Phone:
913/451-6060; Fax: 451-8879; and Raymond W Martin of Sundahl
Powers Kapp & Martin, P.O. Box 328, Cheyenne, WY 82003-0328,
Phone: 307/632-6421; Fax: 307/632-7216; E-mail:
rmartin@spkm.org.

Representing the plaintiffs are: Kim D. Cannon of Davis &
Cannon, P.O. Box 728, Sheridan, WY 82801-0728, Phone: 307/672-
7491; Fax: 307/672-8955; and John B Massopust of Zelle Hofmann
Voelbel Mason & Gette, LLP, 33 South 6th Street, Suite 4400,
Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: 612/339-2020; Fax: 336-9100.


WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Wash. Securities Suit's Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss a
consolidated amended securities complaint filed against it and
some of its current and former officers in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington.

On April 8, 2005, a holder of the company's common stock, on
behalf of himself and purportedly on behalf of a class of the
company's stockholders, filed an action in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, or the Washington
Court, alleging violations of the federal securities laws
arising out of, among other things, the company's announcement
on March 15, 2005 that the company were restating some of the
company's financial results for interim periods of 2004.

Subsequently, a number of other related purported class action
also alleging violations of the federal securities laws were
filed by holders of the company's common stock.  The various
actions were consolidated by the Washington Court, and are
referred to herein as the Action.  On October 3, 2005, a
consolidated amended complaint was filed in the Action and the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The
motion is currently pending before the Washington Court.

The suit is styled, "Pius v. Watchguard Technologies Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00678-JLR," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington under Judge James
L. Robart.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Aelish M. Baig and Tamara J Driscoll LERACH COUGHLIN
         STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS, Phone: 415-288-4545 and
         206-749-5544, Fax: 206-749-9978, E-mail:
         AelishB@lerachlaw.com and tdriscoll@lerachlaw.com;

     (2) Juli Farris Desper and Lynn Lincoln Sarko of KELLER
         ROHRBACK, 1201 3RD AVE., STE. 3200, SEATTLE, WA 98101-
         3052, Phone: 206-623-1900, Fax: 206-623-3384, E-mail:
         jdesper@KellerRohrback.com and
         lsarko@kellerrohrback.com;

     (3) W. Scott Zanzig of HALL ZANZIG ZULAUF CLAFLIN
         MCEACHERN, 1200 5TH AVE., STE. 1414, SEATTLE, WA 98101,
         Phone: 206-292-5900, Fax: 206-292-5900, E-mail:
         szanzig@hallzan.com.

Representing the defendants are, Stephen M. Knaster, James N.
Kramer and Justin M. Lichterman of ORRICK HERRINGTON &
SUTCLIFFE, 405 HOWARD ST., 7TH FLOOR, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105,
Phone: 415-733-5700, E-mail: sknaster@orrick.com,
jkramer@orrick.com and jlichterman@orrick.com; and Louis David
Peterson of HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, 1221 SECOND AVE.,
STE. 500, SEATTLE, WA 98101-2925, Phone: 206-623-1745, Fax: 206-
623-7789 (fax), E-mail: ldp@hcmp.com.


ZURICH AMERICAN: Enters $171.7M Settlement for Bid-Rigging Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said that Zurich
American Insurance Company (Zurich) will pay $151.7 million in
restitution and reform its business practices to settle
allegations that it unlawfully rigged bids for commercial
insurance and made undisclosed payments to brokers for steering
clients to Zurich.

"Zurich participated in schemes with brokers and other insurers
that inflicted financial harm on businesses and damaged the
marketplace," said Mr. Lockyer. "This settlement holds Zurich
accountable for its misconduct, compensates clients it harmed,
and provides reforms and ongoing enforcement by Attorneys
General to help ensure the company does not commit similar
abuses in the future."

The settlement resolves antitrust and unfair business practices
investigations by Mr. Lockyer and Attorneys General in nine
other states.  Mr. Lockyer within weeks will formally file
California's settlement in state court.

The alleged bid-rigging scheme worked like this: Insurers
submitted phony, inflated bids, knowing there was no real
competition and that the winner had been predetermined.  The
designated winner also would submit an inflated bid, but lower
than its "competitors."  Brokers then told clients that the
winning bid was the best deal available.  Brokers guaranteed the
"losers" they would win other bids pursuant to the same, rigged
process, and allegedly threatened to punish insurers who balked
at participating.

The clandestine bid rigging defrauded business clients and
caused them to pay artificially high prices for commercial
insurance, officials said.  The investigation by Mr. Lockyer and
other Attorneys General found that Zurich played a central role
in the bid rigging scheme, along with major brokers and other
insurers.

The second targeted practice involved undisclosed "contingent"
payments made by insurers to brokers.  In addition to standard
commissions, which were disclosed to insured businesses, major
national insurers allegedly made secret payments to brokers
based on how much clients the broker steered to them and kept
for them.

The contingent payments posed a potential conflict of interest
for brokers by creating an incentive to sell insurance that
earned them extra fees, instead of coverage that best fit the
needs and pocketbooks of their clients.  The contingent payments
should have been fully disclosed to business clients, said
Lockyer, so they had all material information they needed to
make informed decisions.

                         Settlement Terms

The restitution will be provided to Zurich customers eligible to
receive compensation in a private class action now pending in
New Jersey federal court.  The money will be allocated among the
settling states under a schedule to be developed by the private
class action counsel, in consultation and cooperation with the
Attorneys General.  That allocation plan, which must be approved
by the New Jersey federal court, and other factors will
determine how much of the $151.7 million ultimately goes to
eligible California businesses, said Mr. Lockyer.

Aside from the restitution, the settlement requires Zurich to
pay the states a total of $20 million to cover their costs and
fees.

To guard against future unlawful practices, the settlement
requires Zurich to adopt specific reforms of the way it conducts
its business.  Zurich will be prohibited from submitting
artificially inflated bids or colluding with others to rig bids.
And prior to a commercial insurance policy taking effect, Zurich
must disclose to prospective clients whether the compensation it
pays a broker includes contingent compensation.

Zurich also will be required to implement a compliance program
that includes employee training and other measures to prevent,
report and punish improper conduct.  If an Attorney General
believes Zurich has violated the settlement's terms, the
Attorney General must notify Zurich and give the company a
chance to cure the alleged violation.  If Zurich fails to remedy
the problem within 60 days from the notification date, the
Attorney General can go to court to compel compliance.

In addition to California, the other settling states include:
Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.

Lockyer in October 2004 launched an investigation into bid
rigging and contingent payments in the commercial insurance
industry.  The broader investigation remains ongoing.


Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 6-7, 2006
2006 CLASS ACTION & UCL CONFERENCE

Bridgeport CE
Renaissance Hollywood Hotel, Los Angeles, CA
Contact: http://reconferences.com/classaction.htm;818-783-7156

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio lodged a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.  The complaint seeks
damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of
all investors who purchased CBI common stock from March 9, 2005
through and including February 14, 2006.

To view the complaint, visit:
http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/ChicagoBridge-Cplt.pdf.

The lawsuit claims that CBI and a number of individual
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t, and SEC
Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, promulgated there
under.

CBI designs, builds and maintains processing, treatment and
storage facilities worldwide for clients in the energy and water
industries.

According to plaintiff's complaint, the Company issued
materially false and misleading statements during the Class
Period.  Specifically, plaintiff alleged that:

     (1) CBI failed to disclose that it had improperly
         recognized revenue on two projects for which it was
         unable to collect payment;

     (2) that CBI lacked adequate internal controls to ensure
         the accuracy of its reported results and guidance; and

     (3) that CBI's financial results were not prepared in
         accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles and revenue and earnings were therefore
         materially overstated.

The Company's stock price plummeted when the truth emerged in a
series of public disclosures beginning in the fall of 2005, the
complaint says.  Among them:

     (1) on October 26, 2005, CBI announced a delay in the
         release of its third quarter financial results.  In
         reaction to the news, the stock dropped approximately
         21% from $29.68 to $23.47;

     (2) On October 31, 2005, CBI disclosed that the delay "was
         precipitated by a memo from a senior member of the
         Company's accounting department alleging accounting
         improprieties, including the determination of claim
         recognition on two projects and the assessment of costs
         to complete two projects."  As a result, the stock fell
         another $1.02 per share to close at $21.25;

     (3) On January 27, 2006, in a current report filed with the
         SEC on a Form 8-K, the Company disclosed that it had
         entered into a lucrative "Stay Bonus Agreement" with
         the Company's Vice President and Controller, Tommy
         Rhodes, valued at over $1.8 million.  The complaint
         alleges that Rhodes was being paid over $1.8 million
         for releasing claims arising out of his accusations
         that the Company, among other things, was improperly
         recording revenue and earnings;

     (4) On February 3, 2006, CBI announced, without
         explanation, the termination of Defendant Gerald M.
         Glenn, the Company's chairman, president and chief
         executive officer, and Defendant Robert B. Jordan, the
         Company's executive vice president and chief operating
         officer.  The stock dropped 23% to $22.33 per share
         from $29.00; and

     (5) Finally, before the market opened on February 15, 2006,
         the Company announced that it was slashing its 2005
         guidance and that the Company was in communication
         with the SEC regarding the audit committee
         investigation.  The stock dropped an additional $0.77
         per share from its prior close of $22.95.

For more information, contact Michael J. Pucillo, Esq. or Jay W.
Eng, Esq. of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo,
Esperante Building, 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 900, West Palm
Beach, FL 33401, Phone: (800) 349-4612; E-mail:
lawfla@bermanesq.com.


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Klafter & Olsen Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Klafter & Olsen LLP initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of a class of persons who purchased the securities of Chicago
Bridge & Iron Co. NV (CBI) between March 9, 2005 and February
15, 2006, inclusive.

The suit filed against CBI and certain of its officers, alleged
that during the Class Period, defendants reported fraudulent
financial results and provided fraudulent guidance premised on
improper conduct and accounting concerning several significant
projects.  The truth began to emerge on October 26, 2005 when
CBI announced that it would not be able to timely file its third
quarter financials.

On October 31, 2005, the Company revealed that this delay "was
precipitated by a memo from a senior member of CBI's accounting
department alleging accounting improprieties, including the
determination of claim recognition on two projects and the
assessment of costs to complete two projects."

Indications of the scope of CBI's improper conduct came on
February 3, 2006 when CBI announced that it had fired Gerald
Glenn (its President, CEO and Chairman) and Robert Jordan (its
COO), and on February 15, when CBI announced that it was
slashing its earnings guidance for 2005 by half to between $0.40
to $0.50 per share principally due to "issues related to
unapproved change orders and claims on several projects,
including those previously announced."

CBI also revealed that the SEC was investigating these matters.
The cumulative effect of these announcements was to drive CBI
stock down by $7.50 per share.  During the Class Period, Glenn,
Jordon and other senior managers sold over 715,837 shares of CBI
shares for proceeds of more than $30.8 million.

For more information, contact Klafter & Olsen LLP --
http://www.klafterolsen.com-- Phone: 202/261-3553.


H&R BLOCK: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of H&R Block,
Inc. (HRB) (NYSE: HRB) between January 31, 2005 and March 14,
2006, inclusive.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, Western Division, against defendant HRB
and Mark A. Ernst, the Company's Chairman, President and Chief
Executive Officer.  The action charges that defendants violated
federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class
Period, which statements had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the Company's securities.  No
class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-
mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


MILLS CORP: Kahn Gauthier Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Va.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC (KGS) initiated a securities class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, on behalf of shareholders who purchased, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of The Mills Corporation
(NYSE: MLS), including (A) (NYSE: MLS-PE) = MILLS CORP PFD SER E
(B) (NYSE: MLS-PG) = MILLS CORP DEP SHS (C) (NYSE: MLS-PC) =
MILLS CP 9% PFD C, between the dates of July 29, 2004 and
November 21, 2005. No class has yet been certified in this
action.

The Complaint that has been filed alleges that defendants have
violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of
materially false statements regarding Mills' business and
operations.  On November 9, 2005, Mills disclosed, among other
things, weakness in its internal controls.  On January 6, 2006,
Mills announced it will restate its financial statements for
2000 through 2004, and for the first three quarters of 2005,
eliminate jobs and write off projects, which will result in
approximately $77 million in charges for the fourth quarter.

For more details, contact Lewis Kahn of KGS, Phone: 1-866-467-
1400, ext. 100, or 504-648-1850, E-mail: lewis.kahn@kglg.com.


NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Bernard Gross Files Stock Suit in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. initiated a class action,
numbered 06-1493, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, before the Honorable George M. Marovich,
on behalf of purchasers of Northfield Laboratories, Inc.
securities during the class period between February 20, 2004 and
February 21, 2006, including purchasers in the May 2004 and
February 2005 stock offerings, who have been damaged thereby.

The action is pending against defendants Northfield
Laboratories, Inc. and Steven A. Gould, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer.  The Complaint charges defendants with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities
Act of 1933.  The complaint alleges that during the class period
defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading
statements regarding the safety profile and history of PolyHeme,
a blood substitute, by failing to disclose the data from the ANH
study concerning ten patients who had heart attacks within seven
days of taking PolyHeme, that two of those patients died and
that none of the patients taking real blood experienced heart
attacks.

On February 22, 2006, a story in The Wall Street Journal
reported that the data available to defendants from the ANH
clinical trial, but not to the public, revealed that ten of 81
patients who received PolyHeme suffered a heart attack within
seven days, and two of those died.  The data further showed
defendants that none of the 71 patients in the ANH clinical
trial who received real blood were found to have suffered a
heart attack.  In the aftermath of receiving this data,
defendants shut down the ANH clinical study in 2000 and kept
this highly adverse data hidden from the public view.

Defendants, in a press release on February 22, 2006, responding
to The Wall Street Journal article, did not dispute the data
concerning the patient heart attacks and deaths from the ANH
clinical trial.  Rather, defendants admit that they did not
publish the data concerning patient heart attacks and deaths,
and defendant Gould stated in the press release that "(w)e
believe that publishing the full data upon closing the study,
would have shown that PolyHeme could not be isolated as the
cause of the observed serious adverse events."

The market was stunned by the disclosure of the secret, adverse
data from the long-closed ANH clinical trial and the market
price of Northfield's common stock fell with the belated
disclosures.  On February 21, 2006, the day before the
disclosure by The Wall Street Journal, Northfield's common stock
closed at a price of $12.23 per share.  On February 22, 2006, on
extraordinary volume of more that 4.1 million shares,
Northfield's common stock closed at a price of $11.64 per share.
The price continued to drop as the market absorbed all of the
news, including the announcement on February 24, 2006, by U.S.
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Finance
Committee, that he has begun an inquiry into the matter.

For more details, contact The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross,
P.C., Suite 450, John Wanamaker Building, Juniper and Market
Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, Phone: 1-866-561-3600
or (215) 561-3600, Fax: (215) 561-3000, E-Mail:
debbie@bernardmgross.com, Web site:
http://www.bernardmgross.com.


PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Shalov Stone Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP commenced a class action on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of PainCare Holdings, Inc. (PRZ)
between August 27, 2002, and March 15, 2006.  The lawsuit, which
names as defendants PainCare and certain of its ranking
executives, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.

The complaint alleges that PainCare and the individual
defendants violated the federal securities laws by overstating
and exaggerating the company's financial health.  In particular,
according to the complaint, PainCare went on a buying spree,
growing its business by corporate acquisition, but accounting
for such acquisitions in violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP).

Accordingly, the company overstated its earnings by failing to
comply with GAAP in recording its non-cash growth.  On March 15,
2006, the last day of the class period, the company announced
that it would have to restate its financial figures going back
to 2000 -- to its founding -- in order to adjust for the
improper accounting of its corporate acquisitions.

In the wake of the revelation of the defendants' wrongful
conduct, the company's stock sunk to new lows, having recently
traded at under $1.75 per share -- down from its class period
high of $5.25 per share.  In just the first day of trading
following the announced restatement, PainCare's stock dropped
12.6%, on extremely heavy volume, down over 50% from its class
period high.

For more information, contact Thomas G. Ciarlone, Jr., at Shalov
Stone & Bonner LLP, 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000, New York,
New York 10018, Phone: (212) 239-4340; E-mail:
tciarlone@lawssb.com.


PHH CORP: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
PHH Corporation (NYSE: PHH) stocks between May 12, 2005 and
March 1, 2006, inclusive.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey, against the company and certain key officers and
directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.

For more information, contact, Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., at 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046, E-
mail: FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net; Phone: (215) 886-1900.


PHH CORP: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of PHH
Corporation (NYSE: PHH) between May 12, 2005 to March 1, 2006,
inclusive.  The suit seeks to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey against defendants PHH, Terence W.
Edwards (CEO and President) and Neil J. Cashen (CFO).  A copy of
the complaint is available at http://www.milbergweiss.com.

The Complaint alleges that defendants' Class Period statements,
made in press releases and SEC filings, were materially false
and misleading for these reasons: (i) the Company materially
overstated its deferred tax assets, by tens of millions of
dollars; (ii) the Company's reported net income was materially
overstated; (iii) the Company's internal controls over financial
reporting had material weaknesses, were not effective and
adversely affected the Company's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data; and (iv) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's reported results were materially
inflated and deceived investors.

On March 1, 2006, the Company issued a press release revealing
that the Company's reported results were materially overstated,
for the reasons discussed above, and that an ongoing accounting
review would prevent it from timely filing with the SEC its
annual report on Form 10-K.  The Company also announced that it
had replaced its Chief Financial Officer, defendant Neil J.
Cashen.  In response to this announcement, the price of PHH
common stock dropped from $28.73 per share on March 1, 2006 to
$26 per share on March 2, 2006, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

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


                            *********


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  * * *