CAR_Public/060323.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, March 23, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 59

                           Headlines

ACCREDITED HOME: Only One Claim Remains in Calif. FCRA Suit
ACCREDITED HOME: Loan Officers Launch Overtime Wage Suit in Ga.
ADVANCE AMERICA: Awaiting Ruling on Arbitration Appeal in Fla.
ADVANCE AMERICA: Payday Loan Lawsuit Remanded to State Court
ADVANCE AMERICA: N.C. Court Orders Arbitration, Nixes Kucan Suit

AMERICAN MEDICAL: Wash. Court Keeps Director in Overbilling Suit
ANDRX CORP: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. Fla.
ANDRX CORP: Fla. Court Gives Final OK to Wellbutrin Settlement
ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: PwC Told to Produce Aussie Operations Data
BLACK HILLS: Settles Claims in N.Y. Natural Gas Suit for $2.6M

BRUSH WELLMAN: Faces Beryllium Suits in State, Federal Courts
CENTURYTEL INC: Customers File Suit in Mich. Over Unjust Billing
DRIVE FINANCIAL: Suit Targets Debt Collection Mail in Texas
EMESS DESIGN: Recalls ElectroPlasma Lamps Due to Burn Hazard
FINLAND: Multiple-Plaintiff Suit Review Favorable, Report Says

FIRST NLC: Accused of Violating Credit Reporting Act in Illinois
FRUIT OF THE LOOM: Court Approves $42M Settlement in Stock Suits
GUAM: Court Orders Mediation to Settle Tax Refund Litigations
GULF SOUTH: Faces Hurricane Katrina-Related Suits in E.D. La.
HEWLETT-PACKARD: HP Pavilion Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval

INVERNESS MEDICAL: Iron Supplement Fails Packaging Standards
LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: FL Court Mulls Stock Lawsuit Dismissal
MASTERCARD INC: Awaiting Amended Interchange Fees Complaint
MASTERCARD INC: N.Y. Court Sets Trial for Conversion Fee Case
MERRILL LYNCH: High Court Cuts Back Broker's Securities Suit

MILLS CORP: Mass. Seeks Lead Plaintiff Status in Stock Lawsuit
NETGEAR INC: Settles Calif. Consumer Suit Over Wireless Products
NEW CENTURY: Appellate Court Denies Motion to Appeal Lum Case
NEW CENTURY: Calif. Court Grants Motion to Limit Labor Lawsuit
NEW CENTURY: Calif. Court Reverses Dismissal of FCRA Lawsuit

NEW CENTURY: Accused of Violating Calif. Credit Reporting Act
NEW CENTURY: Files Responses to Loan Fee Fraud Suit in N.D. Ind.
OLYMPUS AMERICA: Recalls Film Cameras Due to Overheating Hazard
PHILIPS CONSUMER: Recalls Plasma TV with Defective Capacitors
PLAYPOWER LT: Recalls Swings on Danger of Top Beam Disconnecting

REAL FINANCIAL: Mich. Man Claims Fraud in Real Estate Deals
ROYAL GROUP: Audit Committee Named in Canadian Securities Suit
SIMON PROPERTY: Ga. Court Blocks Suit Over Expired Gift Cards
SPLIT CAPITAL: British Court Rejects "Group Litigation" Attempt
SUPPORTSOFT INC: Calif. Court Mulls Class Status for Stock Suit

SUPPORTSOFT INC: N.Y. Settlement Fairness Hearing Set April 2006
TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS: N.Y. Court Okays Stock Suit Agreement
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: Teachers to Get $17.45M in Back-Pay
VISTEON CORP: Mich. Court Mulls Dismissal Motion V. ERISA Suit
VISTEON CORP: Mich. Court Mulls Dismissal Motion V. Stock Suit

VITAS HEALTHCARE: Settles Calif. Nurses' Overtime Suit for $19M
ZURICH NORTH: $100M Bid-Rigging Suit Settlement in Final Stages

               New Securities Fraud Cases

NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Brodsky Smith Files Stock Suit in Ill.
PHH CORP: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.J.
PHH CORP: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.J.

                       *********


ACCREDITED HOME: Only One Claim Remains in Calif. FCRA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., is a defendant in a purported
class action "Phillips v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding
Company, et al.," in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

The complaint, which was filed in September 2005, alleged
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in connection
with prescreened offers of credit that the Company made.  The
plaintiff sought to recover, on behalf of her and similarly
situated individuals, damages, pre-judgment interest,
declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and any
other relief the court may grant.

On January 4, 2006, plaintiff re-filed the action in response to
the court's December 9, 2005, decision granting motion to:

     (1) dismiss with prejudice plaintiff's claim that the offer
         of credit failed to include the clear and conspicuous
         disclosures required by FCRA,

     (2) strike plaintiff's request for declaratory and
         injunctive relief, and

     (3) sever plaintiff's claims as to the Company from those
         made against other defendants unaffiliated with the
         Company.

Plaintiff's remaining claim is that the Company's offer of
credit did not meet FCRA's "firm offer" requirement.  A motion
to certify a class has not yet been filed, and there has been no
ruling on the merits of either the plaintiff's individual claims
or the claims of the putative class.

The suit is styled, "Pamela Phillips, et al. v. Accredited Home
Lenders Holding Company, et al., Case No. 8:05-cv-00851-CJC-
RNB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California under Judge Cormac J. Carney with referral to
Judge Robert N. Block.  Representing the plaintiffs are, Kevin
K. Eng, Edward S. Zusman and David S. Markun of Markun Zusman &
Compton, Phone: 415-438-4515 and 310-454-5900, E-mail:
keng@mzclaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, Patricia L. McClaran and
Michael J. Steiner of Severson & Werson, 1 Embarcadero Ctr.,
Ste. 2600, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-398-3344, E-mail:
plm@severson.com.


ACCREDITED HOME: Loan Officers Launch Overtime Wage Suit in Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., faces purported class action
styled, "Williams, et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.,"
which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia by former commissioned loan officers of the
Company.

The two named plaintiffs filed the suit in June 2005.  The
complaint alleged that the Company violated federal law by
requiring the plaintiffs to work overtime without compensation.
The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated employees, the allegedly unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs of suit.

A motion to certify a collective class was filed, but a hearing
date has not yet been set.  There has been no ruling on the
merits of either the plaintiffs' individual claims or the claims
of the putative class, and the ultimate outcome of this matter
and the amount of liability, if any, which may result, is not
presently determinable.

The suit is styled, "Williams, et al. v. Accredited Home
Lenders, Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-01681-TWT," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge
Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.  Representing the plaintiffs are, Paul J.
Lukas of Nichols Kaster & Anderson, 80 South 8th Street, 4600
IDS Center, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: 612-256-3200, E-mail:
lukas@nka.com; and Edward D. Buckley of Buckley & Klein, 1180
West Peachtree Street, Suite 1100, Atlantic Center Plaza,
Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: 404-781-1100, Fax: 404-781-1101, E-
mail: edbuckley@buckleyklein.com.

Representing the defendant is Lisa A. Schreter of Littler
Mendelson, PC, 3348 Peachtree Road, NE Suite 1100, Atlanta, GA
30303-1226, Phone: 404-233-0330, Fax: 404-233-2361, E-mail:
lschreter@littler.com.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Awaiting Ruling on Arbitration Appeal in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., its subsidiary
McKenzie Check Advance of Florida, LLC, and certain of its
officers, directors and employees are defendants in a putative
class action commenced by former customers, Wendy Betts and
Donna Reuter, in Florida.

The putative class action styled, "Betts and Reuter vs. McKenzie
Check Advance of Florida, LLC et al.," was filed by Ms. Betts
and Ms. Reuter in February 2001 in the Circuit Court of Palm
Beach County.  It alleged that McKenzie, by and through the
actions of certain of the Company's officers, directors and
employees, engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices and
violated Florida's criminal usury statute, Consumer Finance Act,
and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The suit seeks unspecified damages, and McKenzie or the other
defendants could be required to refund fees and/or interest
collected, refund the principal amount of payday cash advances,
pay multiple damages and pay other monetary penalties.

Defendants' motion for summary judgment was originally granted
as to Ms. Betts' claims, but later reversed by a Florida
appellate court.  This decision is currently on appeal to the
Florida Supreme Court.  Ms. Reuter's claims were originally
dismissed and defendants' motion to compel arbitration granted
by the state trial court.  This ruling is currently on appeal to
the Florida Supreme Court.  The Florida Supreme Court stayed the
appeal of Ms. Reuter's claims pending the U.S. Supreme Court's
review of "Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc., v. Cardegna, et al.,"
which held that a substantially similar arbitration agreement
was unenforceable.

On February 21, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the
Florida Supreme Court's holding in Buckeye.  The U.S. Supreme
Court held that where a contract contained an arbitration
clause, any challenge to the validity of the contract is a
question for an arbitrator rather than a state or federal court.
The Company believes that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Buckeye should be binding on Ms. Reuter's claims and that the
Florida Supreme Court will reach a decision that is consistent
with the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Buckeye.

A second Florida lawsuit was filed in August 2004 in the Circuit
Court of Palm Beach County by former customers Gerald Betts and
Ms. Reuter against the Company, a subsidiary Advance America,
Cash Advance Centers of Florida, Inc., and certain of the
company's officers and directors.  The allegations are nearly
identical to those alleged in the first Betts and Reuter
lawsuit.  The Company filed motions to dismiss, to stay the
proceedings pending determination of dispositive actions by the
Florida Supreme Court in the original Betts and Reuter case, and
to compel arbitration.  Proceedings in this case have been
stayed pending the disposition of the appeals in the original
Betts and Reuter case.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Payday Loan Lawsuit Remanded to State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., along with certain
of its officers were named as defendants in a purported class
action that was filed in the State Court of Cobb County,
Georgia, and styled, "King and Strong v. Advance America, Cash
Advance Centers of Georgia, Inc., et al."

On August 6, 2004, Tahisha King and James E. Strong, who were
customers of BankWest, the lending bank for whom the Company,
marketed, processed and serviced payday cash advances in
Georgia, filed a putative class action against the Company,
William M. Webster, IV, its Chief Executive Officer, and other
unnamed officers, directors, owners and "stakeholders," alleging
various causes of action including that the Company's Georgia
subsidiary made illegal payday loans in the state in violation
of Georgia's usury law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act and
Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The complaint alleges that BankWest was not the "true lender" on
the advances that were marketed, processed and serviced for
BankWest in Georgia and the company, was the "de facto" lender.
The complaint seeks compensatory damages, attorneys' fees,
punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory damages.
The Company removed the state court action to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division,
however the action was remanded back to the State Court of Cobb
County in December 2005.  The action will now proceed in state
court.


ADVANCE AMERICA: N.C. Court Orders Arbitration, Nixes Kucan Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The General Court of Justice for the Superior Court Division for
New Hanover County, North Carolina issued an order granting
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers Inc.'s motion for
arbitration, staying the proceedings and denying class
certification for the suit styled, "Kucan, et al. vs. Advance
America, Cash Advance Centers of North Carolina, Inc. et al."

The suit also names as defendants the Company's subsidiary that
operates in North Carolina and William M. Webster, IV, its Chief
Executive Officer.  The court also heard motions for summary
judgment and class certification, but has yet to issue a ruling.

On July 27, 2004, John Kucan, Welsie Torrence and Terry Coates,
each of whom is a customer of Republic Bank & Trust Company, the
lending bank for whom the company process, market and service
payday cash advances in North Carolina.  The plaintiffs are
alleging, among other things, that the Company, and not the
lending bank, are the "true lender" and are therefore offering
usurious payday cash advances in violation of numerous consumer
protection statutes.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the relationship
between its subsidiary that operates in North Carolina and
Republic is a "rent a charter" relationship and therefore the
bank is not the "true lender" on the payday cash advances.  The
lawsuit also claims that the payday cash advances are made,
administered and collected in violation of numerous North
Carolina consumer protection laws.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction barring the Company from
continuing to do business in North Carolina, the return of the
principal amount of the payday cash advances made to the
plaintiff class since August 2001, the return of any interest or
fees associated with those advances, treble damages, attorneys'
fees and other unspecified costs.  The case is in its
preliminary stages.

Thus far the only substantive motions the Company has filed are
motions to dismiss or stay proceedings and compel arbitration.
On November 19, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class
certification.  On November 16, 2004, North Carolina Superior
Court Judge Ernest Fulwood denied the Company's motion to have
the case designated as a complex business case and assign it to
the North Carolina Business Court and instead granted the
plaintiffs' motion to designate the case as exceptional and
assign it to a specific Superior Court judge. The ruling does
not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

Plaintiffs' counsel indicated at the hearing held prior to the
ruling, and in papers filed in support of their motion for class
certification (which has not yet been fully briefed or set for a
hearing), that the distributions to the Company's stockholders
of substantially all of the net income earned by the Company in
the form of cash dividends may be the subject of a fraudulent
conveyance claim.  At the hearing, plaintiffs' counsel indicated
that they might seek injunctive relief to return such payments
or to hold them in escrow pending a judgment in this lawsuit.
Plaintiffs' complaint contains a fraudulent conveyance claim but
seeks no specific relief with respect to that claim.

On December 1, 2004, North Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice
I. Beverly Lake, Jr. signed a commission appointing Special
Superior Judge D. Jack Hooks, Jr. to hear the case.  On March
10, 2005, Judge Hooks heard arguments on motions to stay
discovery pending a decision on possible arbitration and, on May
11, 2005, issued a ruling allowing limited discovery on the
issues of arbitration, personal jurisdiction and class
certification and then stated his intent to set a date to hear
these motions together.  Arguments on defendants' motions to
dismiss and/or compel arbitration and plaintiff's motion for
class certification were held in October and November 2005, and
the parties are waiting for a ruling on these motions.

In addition, in September 2004, Republic filed an action in
federal court in North Carolina against the three plaintiffs who
have sued the Company, seeking a declaratory judgment that all
disputes their customers have shall be submitted to arbitration
and an injunction preventing the plaintiffs from pursuing
disputes in a non-arbitral forum. A motion to dismiss Republic's
lawsuit was granted on February 10, 2005, on grounds that
Republic lacks standing.

On February 18, 2005, Republic filed a motion to alter or amend
the judgment and for reconsideration, which was denied. Republic
has filed an appeal of these orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit.  On December 30, 2005, the court issued
an Order granting defendants' motion for arbitration, staying
the proceedings and denying class certification.  The plaintiffs
have appealed this Order to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Wash. Court Keeps Director in Overbilling Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Court Judge Jerome Leveque in Washington rejected a
motion to dismiss the operations manager of American Medical
Response from a suit accusing the firm of overbilling patients
for its ambulance services, The Spokesman-Review.com reports.

Attorneys for AMR sought to have Jerry Lueck, the company's
director of operations in Spokane, dismissed from the case
saying the state's Consumer Protection Act does not hold
individual employees of a corporation liable for "unfair and
deceptive" practices, only corporate officers.  The judge
rejected the argument without elaborations, siding with
plaintiffs' contention to keep the accused in the case for
potential liabilities.

The suit was filed in December by Lori E. Davis-Bacon and
Lorraine and Doug Bacon, all of Spokane.  The plaintiffs alleged
"unfair and deceptive business practices" in the city where AMR
has exclusive contract.  Plaintiffs' attorney plans to have the
suit certified as class action so he can pursue the litigation
on behalf of an estimated 30,000 city patients transported by
AMR since 1998.

According to the report, the attorney for the plaintiff plans to
include Randy Strozyk, the ambulance company's regional vice
president.  The defendant's attorney suggested to the court the
filing a motion for mandatory arbitration to keep the lawsuit
from going to a jury trial or becoming a class action.

Mr. Strozyk admitted at a meeting of the City Council's Public
Safety Committee that according to AMR's audit, some Spokane
city residents were overbilled $320,689 for 911 ambulance
services in the past two years.

The plaintiffs' attorney is D. Roger Reed of Reed & Giesa, P.S.
222 North Wall, Suite 410, Spokane, Washington 99201, (Spokane
Co.), Phone: 509-838-8341; Fax: 509-838-6341.  AMR's attorney is
Paul Turner of Seattle.


ANDRX CORP: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrx Corporation and it's Chief Executive Officer faces a
securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, on behalf of persons who purchased
the Company's common stock on March 9, 2005 through September 5,
2005.

The complaint seeks damages under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and alleges that during the class period, the
Company failed to properly disclose the status of its compliance
with the cGMP established by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA).

The complaint also alleges that the plaintiffs suffered damages
as a result of its disclosure on September 6, 2005 that FDA
placed the Company in OAI status and a subsequent decline in the
trading price of its common stock from $17.94 on September 5,
2005 to a closing price of $14.89 on September 6, 2005.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Jerry Lowry, et al. v. Andrx Corporation, et al., Case No. 05-
CV-61640," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, under Judge William P. Dimitrouleas.  The
plaintiff firms in the litigation are:

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

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

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

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


ANDRX CORP: Fla. Court Gives Final OK to Wellbutrin Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
entered a final judgment approving the settlement of a
consolidated class action filed against Andrx Corporation and
certain of its current and former officers and directors.  The
suit alleged material misrepresentations regarding the
expiration dating for the Company's generic versions of
Wellbutrin SR/Zyban.

Seven complaints were initially filed, alleging that the Company
knew that its products would not receive timely FDA Approval.
All of these cases were consolidated and on October 20, 2003,
the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida against the Company and Richard J. Lane, its former
Chief Executive Officer, alleging a class period from March 1,
2002 through March 4, 2003.

After the District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
this complaint, on March 5, 2004, the plaintiffs further amended
their complaint.  This matter was settled in March 2005 for
$2,500.  The court approved this settlement on October 7, 2005.
The proposed settlement does not require a material payment by
the Company, as its insurance carrier will mainly pay the
settlement proceeds.  On January 11, 2006, the court entered a
final judgment approving the settlement and dismissing the case
with prejudice.


ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: PwC Told to Produce Aussie Operations Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Court Judge Margaret Stone has ordered accounting firm
PricewaterhouseCoopers in Australia to produce the computer hard
drive containing data related to the audit of Aristocrat Leisure
Ltd. years ago, according to Townsville Bulletin.

The Australian slot machines maker, Aristocrat, is facing a
shareholder class action for allegedly misleading the market
over a profit downgrade in 2002.  Documents relating to any
report, assessment or review prepared for Aristocrat by PwC
between January 2002 and May 2003 are being dug up for
evaluation by experts.  Judge Stone also has orders prepared to
ask PwC for documents held by Aristocrat's U.S. operations, the
report said.

PwC initially said the documents had been lost, although later
it produced some data.  But the law firm for the plaintiffs,
Morris Blackburn Cashman, claimed these were incomplete.  PwC
afterwards said the data has been found, but it continued to
refuse to hand them saying they were not recoverable.

The securities suit against Aristocrat is claiming damages of
$86.37 million (A$115 million) for losses when shareholders sold
their stock, according to an Australian newspaper report (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 17, 2006).

For more information, contact Maurice Blackburn Cashman, P.O.
BOX 523J, Melbourne VIC 3001, Web site: http://www.mbc.aus.net;
E-mail: mail@mbc.aus.net; Phone: 03 9605 2700; Fax:  03 9600
2401; DX 466 Melbourne VIC.  PwC's lawyer is Mallesons Stephen
Jaques http://www.mallesons.com/.


BLACK HILLS: Settles Claims in N.Y. Natural Gas Suit for $2.6M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Black Hills Corporation reached a $2.6 million settlement of all
claims against it in a consolidated class action styled, "In re
Natural Gas Commodity Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-06186-VM-
AJP."  The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On August 18, 2003, Cornerstone Propane Partners, L.P. commenced
a putative class action against over thirty energy companies.
The suit is styled, "Cornerstone Propane Partners, L.P. v.
Reliant Energy Services, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 03-CV-6168,
(U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York)

The Complaint, which names the Company and Enserco Energy Inc.
as defendants, asserted claims for an unspecified amount of
damages, based upon alleged violations of the Commodity Exchange
Act.  General allegations in the Complaint asserted that
defendants manipulated natural gas futures contracts through
false reporting of prices and volumes.  Similar specific
allegations were made against the Company and Enserco, based
upon claims that former traders at Enserco reported false price
and volume information to trade publications.

Other defendants are alleged to have manipulated spot market gas
prices by engaging in "wash trades" and/or by "churning" natural
gas trades.  Initially, the plaintiff seeks an order certifying
the proceeding as a class action according to applicable rules.

On October 1, 2003, Roberto E. Calle Gracey commenced a putative
class action against a group of defendants that sets forth
claims and demands similar to those described above with respect
to the Cornerstone Propane Litigation.  The Company and Enserco
Energy, Inc. are named as defendants in this action as well,
which is styled, "Gracey v. American Electric Power Company,
Inc., et al., Civ. No. 03-CV-7750, (U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York).

On December 5, 2003, the actions cited above were consolidated,
with other actions involving similar claims against other
parties, in a civil action captioned, "In re Natural Gas
Commodity Litigation, 03 CV 6186(VM)," U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  All further proceedings
relative to these matters will be conducted in the consolidated
action.  The consolidated class action now includes claims
against a number of companies, based upon a variety of alleged
misconduct.  The claims against Enserco comprise a relatively
small part of only one category of the total claims included in
this lawsuit.  Enserco denied all claims for damages, and joined
in motions to dismiss, which were unsuccessful.

Notwithstanding the Company's continued belief that the Class
Plaintiffs present a flawed theory to recover actual damages as
a result of the alleged conduct of former Enserco traders, in
the third quarter of 2005 Enserco made a business decision to
seek a settlement of claims made against it, due to mounting
defense costs, and settlements by other defendant companies,
which further increase the Company's ongoing share of joint-
defense expenses.  In early October 2005, motions to certify the
action to proceed as a class action were granted.

On October 28, 2005, the Company reached a tentative settlement
with Plaintiffs, pursuant to which the Company would pay $2.6
million in full and final settlement of all claims.  The parties
await approval of the final settlement documents.  The
accompanying 2005 consolidated financial statements include a
$2.6 million accrual for the settlement.

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

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

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

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

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

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


BRUSH WELLMAN: Faces Beryllium Suits in State, Federal Courts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brush Wellman Inc., a subsidiary of Brush Engineered Materials,
Inc. is a defendant in four purported class actions pending in
various state and federal courts.  Plaintiffs alleged they
contracted, or were placed at risk of contracting, chronic
beryllium disease or other lung conditions as a result of
exposure to beryllium.

                       Manuel Marin Lawsuit

The first purported class action is "Manuel Marin, et al. v.
Brush Wellman Inc.," filed in Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County, case number BC299055, on July 15, 2003.  The
named plaintiffs are Manuel Marin, Lisa Marin, Garfield Perry
and Susan Perry.  The defendants are Brush Wellman, Appanaitis
Enterprises, Inc., and Doe Defendants 1 through 100.

A First Amended Complaint was filed on September 15, 2004,
naming five additional plaintiffs.  The five additional named
plaintiffs are Robert Thomas, Darnell White, Leonard Joffrion,
James Jones and John Kesselring.  The plaintiffs allege that
they have been sensitized to beryllium while employed at the
Boeing Company. The plaintiffs' wives claim loss of consortium.

The plaintiffs purport to represent two classes of approximately
250 members each, one consisting of workers who worked at Boeing
or its predecessors and are beryllium sensitized and the other
consisting of their spouses.  They have brought claims for
negligence, strict liability - design defect, strict liability -
failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, breach of implied
warranties, and unfair business practices.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, medical monitoring,
medical and health care provider reimbursement, attorneys' fees
and costs, revocation of business license, and compensatory and
punitive damages.  Messrs. Marin, Perry, Thomas, White,
Joffrion, Jones and Kesselring represent current and past
employees of Boeing in California; and Ms. Marin and Ms. Perry
are spouses.  Defendant Appanaitis Enterprises, Inc. was
dismissed on May 5, 2005.

                       Neal Parker Lawsuit

The second purported class action is "Neal Parker, et al. v.
Brush Wellman Inc.," filed in Superior Court of Fulton County,
State of Georgia, case number 2004CV80827, on January 29, 2004.
The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, case number 04-CV-606, on May 4, 2004.

The named plaintiffs are Neal Parker, Wilbert Carlton, Stephen
King, Ray Burns, Deborah Watkins, Leonard Ponder, Barbara King
and Patricia Burns.  The defendants are Brush Wellman; Schmiede
Machine and Tool Corporation; Thyssenkrupp Materials NA Inc.,
d/b/a Copper and Brass Sales; Axsys Technologies, Inc; Alcoa,
Inc.; McCann Aerospace Machining Corporation; Cobb Tool, Inc.;
and Lockheed Martin Corporation.  Messrs. Parker, Carlton, King
and Burns and Ms. Watkins are current employees of Lockheed.
Mr. Ponder is a retired employee, and Ms. King and Ms. Burns and
Ms. Watkins are family members.

The plaintiffs have brought claims for negligence, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, civil conspiracy and punitive
damages.  The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction requiring
the defendants to fund a court-supervised medical monitoring
program, attorneys' fees and punitive damages.

On March 29, 2005, the Court entered an order directing
plaintiffs to amend their pleading to segregate out those
plaintiffs who have endured only subclinical, cellular and
subcellular effects from those who have sustained actionable
tort injuries, and that following such amendment, the Court will
enter an order dismissing the claims asserted by the former
subset of claimants, dismissing Count I of the Complaint, which
sought the creation of a medical monitoring fund; and dismissing
the claims against defendant Axsys Technologies Inc.

On April 20, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a Substituted Amended
Complaint for Damages, contending that each of the eight named
plaintiffs and the individuals listed on the attachment to the
original Complaint, and each of the putative class members have
sustained personal injuries; however, they allege that they
identified five individuals whose injuries have manifested
themselves such that they have been detected by physical
examination and/or laboratory test.

                       George Paz Lawsuit

The third purported class action is "George Paz, et al. v. Brush
Engineered Materials Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, case number
1:04-CV-597, on June 30, 2004.   The named plaintiffs are George
Paz, Barbara Faciane, Joe Lewis, Donald Jones, Ernest Bryan,
Gregory Condiff, Karla Condiff, Odie Ladner, Henry Polk, Roy
Tootle, William Stewart, Margaret Ann Harris, Judith Lemon,
Theresa Ladner and Yolanda Paz.  The defendants are Brush
Engineered Materials Inc.; Brush Wellman Inc.; Wess-Del Inc.;
and the Boeing Company.

Plaintiffs seek the establishment of a medical monitoring trust
fund as a result of their alleged exposure to products
containing beryllium, attorneys' fees and expenses, and general
and equitable relief.  The plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf
of a class of present or former Defense Contract Management
Administration (DCMA) employees who conducted quality assurance
work at Stennis Space Center and the Boeing Company at its
facility in Canoga Park, California; present and former
employees of Boeing at Stennis; and spouses and children of
those individuals.

Messrs. Paz and Lewis and Ms. Faciane represent current and
former DCMA employees at Stennis.  Mr. Jones represents DCMA
employees at Canoga Park. Messrs. Bryan, Condiff, Ladner, Polk,
Tootle and Stewart and Ms. Condiff represent Boeing employees at
Stennis.  Ms. Harris, Ms. Lemon, Ms. Ladner and Ms. Paz are
family members.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 28, 2004,
which was granted and judgment was entered on January 11, 2005;
however, the plaintiffs have filed an appeal, and the case is
now in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, case
number 05-60157.  Brush Engineered Materials Inc. was dismissed
for lack of personal jurisdiction on the same date, which
plaintiffs have not appealed.

                      Gary Anthony Lawsuit

The fourth purported class action is "Gary Anthony v. Brush
Wellman Inc., et al.," filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, case number 01718, on March
3, 2005.  The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, case number 05-CV-1202, on
March 14, 2005.

The only named plaintiff is Gary Anthony.  The defendants are
Brush Wellman Inc., Gary Kowalski, and Dickinson & Associates
Manufacturers Representatives.  The plaintiff purports to sue on
behalf of a class of current and former employees of the U.S.
Gauge facility in Sellersville, Pennsylvania who have ever been
exposed to beryllium for a period of at least one month while
employed at U.S. Gauge.  The plaintiff has brought claims for
negligence.  Plaintiff seeks the establishment of a medical
monitoring trust fund, cost of publication of approved
guidelines and procedures for medical screening and monitoring
of the class, attorneys' fees and expenses.


CENTURYTEL INC: Customers File Suit in Mich. Over Unjust Billing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
granted class action status to the suit "Beattie, et al v.
CenturyTel Inc., (Case No. 02-10277)," filed by Barbrasue
Beattie and James Sovis.

The plaintiffs, who filed the suit on October 28, 2002, allege
that the Company unjustly and unreasonably billed customers for
inside wire maintenance services, and seek unspecified money
damages and injunctive relief under various legal theories on
behalf of a purported class of over two million customers in the
Company's telephone markets.

On March 10, 2006, the Court certified the class action status
of the suit and issued a ruling that the billing descriptions
the company used for these services during an approximately 18-
month period between October 29, 2000 and May 2002 were legally
insufficient. The company plan to appeal this decision.  The
Court's order does not specify the award of damages, the scope
of which remains subject to significant fact-finding.

The suit is styled, "Beattie, et al. v. Centurytel, Inc., Case
No. 1:02-cv-10277-DML," filed in the U.S District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan under Judge David M. Lawson.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Gregory J. Boulahanis of Boulahanis & Assoc., 21905
         Garrison Avenue, Dearborn, MI 48124, Phone: 313-277-
         2550, Fax: 313-277-2550;

     (2) George G. Burke, III of Mindell, Malin, 25505 W. Twelve
         Mile Road, Suite 1000, Southfield, MI 48034-1811,
         Phone: 248-353-5595, Fax: 248-353-5595; and

     (3) Elwood S. Simon of Elwood S. Simon Assoc., 355 S.
         Woodward Avenue, Suite 250, Birmingham, MI 48009,
         Phone: 248-646-9730, Fax: 248-258-2335, E-mail:
         esimon@esimon-law.com.

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


DRIVE FINANCIAL: Suit Targets Debt Collection Mail in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
Houston consumer protection attorney Richard Tomlinson filed a
suit against Drive Financial Services, L.P. alleging numerous
violations of federal and state consumer protection laws while
attempting to collect debts.

According to the lawsuit, filed on behalf of Houston resident
Velincia Plummer and others (Case 4:06-cv-00068), Drive made it
a practice to send people who fell behind in their payments a
letter that violated the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and the Texas Debt Collection Act.  Among other alleged
violations, the letter threatens wage garnishment and pretends
to be from an attorney or law firm, when in fact it was sent by
Drive.  Both are violations of consumer protection laws.

"Federal and state consumer protection laws make it clear that
lenders can't use overly aggressive and threatening tactics in
an effort to collect a debt," said Mr. Tomlinson.  "This lawsuit
should alert consumers that they can fight back when they
receive a threatening demand by having it reviewed by an
attorney.  It may be a violation of federal or state law."

Mr. Tomlinson believes that Drive, which boasts on its Web site
that is has more than 10,000 dealer partnerships across North
America, sent such letters to at least 800 -- and perhaps as
many as 2,500 -- Texas residents.

The Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act includes an array
of consumer protections, such as barring debt collector from
threatening to sue, harassing the consumer, using profane
language, calling repeatedly, calling after 9:00 p.m. or before
8:00 a.m., calling at work against the consumer's wishes,
misrepresenting the amount owed or the status of the debt, and
falsely stating that the consumer has committed a crime or
similar wrongdoing.  Under the Act, a debt collector must cease
all communications after the consumer informs them in writing
that they refuse to pay or want the debt collector to stop
calling.

For more information, contact th Law Office of Richard
Tomlinson, Phone: 713-627-2100 ext. 101; Web site:
http://www.houstonconsumerlaw.com.


EMESS DESIGN: Recalls ElectroPlasma Lamps Due to Burn Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Emess Design Group LLC, of Ellwood City, Pennsylvania, is
recalling 21,300 Coca-Cola ElectroPlasma Lamps.

The company said a burn hazard involving the product is possible
with an electric arc between the metal bottle cap and a human
contact point.  It could happen once the distance between the
metal cap and the contact point is sustained at about 1/8-inch
away from the metal cap.  The firm has received reports of two
incidents involving an electrical arc to the finger, including
one report of a minor burn.

These lamps are in the shape of a Coca-Cola bottle.  They are
about 13.5 inches high.  The inside of ElectroPlasma lamps
simulate lightning bolts.  A label on the bottom of the black
base of the lamp reads, "Model No: 23-103," and "Lipan
Industrial Co., Ltd."

The lamps were made in China and sold at Rite Aid stores
nationwide during January 2006 for about $40.  Consumers are
advised to stop using the recalled lamp immediately and return
the item to a Rite Aid retailer for a full refund.

Consumer Contact: Emess Design Group's Customer Service Center,
Emess Design Group, LLC at 1 Early Street, Ellwood City, PA
16117, Attention Customer Service Department, Phone: (800) 678-
2579 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.  Web
site: http://www.emessdesign.com.


FINLAND: Multiple-Plaintiff Suit Review Favorable, Report Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
The working group examining the possibility of introducing class
actions in Finland looks set to deliver a favorable review of
the issue that has been under discussion for more than 10 years,
a March 15 issue of Helsingin Sanomat reported.

Consumer authorities and environmental organizations favor a law
giving consumers better chances of filing suits against large
companies even for small compensation.  But business and
industrial interests are against it because it would put them at
the payer's position, according to the report.  They contend
that Finnish civil law already provides sufficient protection to
consumers.

Under the current proposal, class actions may be filed by the
Consumer Ombudsman or in environmental damage cases by the
environmental officials.  The working group's recommendation is
for submission to the Minister of Justice Leena Luhtanen.


FIRST NLC: Accused of Violating Credit Reporting Act in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
First NLC Financial Services, LLC, a subsidiary of Friedman
Billings Ramsey Group, Inc. was named in a putative class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.  The suit is styled, "Cerda v. First NLC Financial
Services, LLC."

The suit alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(CFRA), 15 U.S.C.  1681 et seq.  The Company is contesting this
lawsuit vigorously, but it cannot predict the likely outcome of
this lawsuit or the likely impact it will have on the Company.

The suit is styled, "Cerda v. First NLC Financial Services, LLC,
Case No. 1:06-cv-00735," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Mark Filip.
Representing the plaintiffs is Daniel A. Edelman of Edelman,
Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, 120 South LaSalle Street, 18th
Floor, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 739-4200, E-mail:
courtecl@aol.com.

Representing the defendants is Ralph T. Wutscher of Noonan &
Lieberman, Ltd., 105 W. Adams, Suite 3000, Chicago, IL 60603,
Phone: (312) 431-1455, Fax: (312) 431-1456, E-mail:
rwutscher@noonanandlieberman.com.


FRUIT OF THE LOOM: Court Approves $42M Settlement in Stock Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has approved settlements totaling $42 million in
two securities class action filed against Fruit of the Loom
Inc., Associated Press reports.

The suits were filed by investors and the New England Health
Care Employees Pension in 1998 and 2000 in U.S. District Court
in Bowling Green.  They alleged that the company's former top
officers issued misleading statements to boost the company's
stock price.

The New England Health Care Employees Pension Fund filed the
suit on Sept. 30, 1998 on behalf of all those who purchased the
Class A Common Stock and publicly traded options of Fruit of the
Loom, Inc. between July 24, 1996 and September 5, 1997.
Defendants were:

     (1) Fruit of the Loom

     (2) William F. Farley,

     (3) Bernhard Hansen,

     (4) Richard C. Lappin,

     (5) G. William Newton,

     (6) Burgess D. Ridge,

     (7) Larry K. Switzer, and

     (8) John D. Wigodsky

The persons named in the case had served as company officer
(Class Action Reporter, June 15, 2001).

According to the Associated Press report, it was unknown how
many stockholders could collect cash from the settlement, but
notices were mailed to more than 28,000 people in the two
lawsuits.  People who purchased stock will receive $1.01 to
$4.07 per share, depending upon when the stock was purchased.
The settlement is allocated as:

Settlement Amount             Class Period

$23.2 million   stock purchased July 24, 1996 to Sept. 5, 1997
$19.1 million   stock purchased Sept. 28, 1998 to Nov. 4, 1999

Fruit of the Loom, based in Bowling Green, Kentucky, filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 1999 after posting a net
loss of $576.2 million.  It was rescued from bankruptcy by by
Warren Buffett's Berkshire-Hathaway Inc. in 2002.

The pension fund's suit was styled "New England Health v. Fruit
of the Loom, et al. (1:98-cv-00099-JHM)," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky under Judge
Joseph H. McKinley.  Representing the defendant is E. Kenly Ames
of English, Lucas, Priest & Owsley LLP, 1101 College Street,
P.O. Box 770, Bowling Green, KY 42102-0770, Phone: 270-781-6500;
Fax: 270-782-7782; E-mail: kames@elpolaw.com.  Representing the
defendants is Amber L. Eck of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman & Robbins LLP, 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, Phone: 619-231-7423.


GUAM: Court Orders Mediation to Settle Tax Refund Litigations
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Court Judge Ricardo Martinez has granted Governor Felix
Camacho's request for global mediation to solve the issue
hanging over the settlement of three tax refund class actions
that his government is facing, KUAM News reports.

The lawsuits concern tax refunds under the Earned Income Tax
Credit.  They were filed in 2004 by Julie Babauta Santos,
Charmaine Torres, and subsequently by Mary Grace Simpao with
Christina Naputi.  The suits were consolidated recently by
District Court Judge James Robard (Class Action Reporter, March
20, 2006).

Settlement talks that ensued after the class actions originally
contemplated a $60 million payment of the $120 million owed to
taxpayers in EITC refunds dating back to 1998.  It was entered
into by Attorney General Douglas Moylan and then-acting Gov.
Kaleo Moylan.  But Gov. Felix Camacho did not approve of the
settlement.  He increased the settlement to $90 million,
specifying this will come from 15% of the money set aside for
tax refunds each year.  Attorney General Moylan was dismissed
from the suit by Judge Martinez earlier this month.

Under the order approving a mediation, parties have thirty days
to agree to a mediator and conduct a global mediation.  They
have a month to file a report regarding the status of settlement
discussions.

Ms. Torres is represented by lawyer Peter Perez.  Ms. Babauta
Santos is represented by Mike Philips.


GULF SOUTH: Faces Hurricane Katrina-Related Suits in E.D. La.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP was named as a defendant in two
Hurricane Katrina-related class actions seeking an unspecified
amount of damages.  The company was acquired in December of 2004
by Boardwalk Pipelines, LP, along with at least eight other
interstate pipelines and major natural gas producers.

The lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.  The lawsuits allege that the
dredging of canals, including pipeline canals for the purpose of
installing natural gas pipelines, throughout the marshes of
Southeastern Louisiana, and the failure to maintain such canals,
caused damage to the marshes and that undamaged marshes would
have prevented all, or almost all, of the loss of life and
destruction of property caused by Hurricane Katrina.  These
cases are in a very early stage and, as such, the Company cannot
reasonably estimate the amount of loss, if any.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: HP Pavilion Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge John Corbett O'Meara entered on March
16 an order granting final approval to a nationwide settlement
of one of three cases filed against Hewlett-Packard Company
(HPQ), according to Washington, D.C. law firm Mehri & Skalet,
PLLC.  The suit was filed on behalf of consumers who purchased
certain models of HP Pavilion desktop computers.

The settlement provides cash payments, reimbursement of out-of-
pocket expenses and/or discount certificates to thousands of
consumers who experienced recurring "hanging, freezing or
locking" problems with their computers.

The class actions, pending in federal court in Michigan and in
state courts in California and Illinois, allege that certain
models of the HP Pavilion desktop computers contain a defective
motherboard that causes the computers to frequently stop working
or "hang, freeze, or lock" while performing basic functions.

Consumers who purchased an HP Pavilion model 8655c, 8660c,
8750c, xl756, or xl759 may be entitled to a cash payment of
$75.00 and/or a $50.00 discount certificate.  Consumers who
purchased an HP Pavilion model 8754c or 8755c may be entitled to
a cash payment of $40.00 and/or a $50.00 discount certificate.
In addition, consumers who purchased any of these models may
also be eligible for up to $750.00 in reimbursement of money
spent to repair recurring "hanging, freezing or locking"
problems with their computers.

The deadline for consumers to file claims in the settlement is
May 1, 2006.

For more information about the settlement, or to receive a claim
form, visit http://www.hppavilionsettlement.comor call 1-877-
874-7559.


INVERNESS MEDICAL: Iron Supplement Fails Packaging Standards
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Inverness Medical Nutritionals Group, of Freehold, New Jersey,
is recalling 64,000 Walgreens High Potency Iron Supplement.

The company said the iron supplements are not in child-resistant
packaging as required by the Poison Prevention Packaging Act.
Ingesting multiple iron supplements at once can cause serious
injury or death to young children.  No injuries or incidents
have been reported.

The recalled supplements were sold in a brown plastic bottle.
"Walgreens Finest High Potency Iron Supplement" is printed on
the yellow and green label on the bottle.

The supplements were manufactured in the U.S. and sold at
Walgreens retail stores nationwide from April 2005 through
October 2005 for about $5.  Consumers are advised to keep this
product out of reach of children and return it to Walgreens for
a free replacement.

Picture of the recalled product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06116.jpg

Consumer Contact: Inverness, Phone:  1-(888) 698-5032 between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.  Web site:
http://www.walgreens.com.


LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: FL Court Mulls Stock Lawsuit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Tampa Division is set to hear plaintiff's motion for class
certification of a consolidated securities suit filed against
Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc. and certain of its present and
former officers and directors.

Nine suits were initially filed in the U.S. District Courts for
the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, and the Central
District of California, Southern Division, alleging violations
of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

In August 2004, four complaints were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida under the
caption "Primavera Investors v. Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 8:04-CV-919-T-23EAJ."  John Lee, Chris Cowley,
Dwight Mamanteo, Scott Purcell and Mark Rabold, were appointed
co-lead Plaintiffs.  In September 2004, the other five
complaints filed in the Central District of California were
transferred to the Middle District of Florida for consolidation
with the "Primavera Investors" action.

The Lead Plaintiffs served their Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint on January 12, 2005.  The Amended Complaint
alleges that the Prospectus issued in connection with the
Company's initial public offering in May 2002 contained material
misrepresentations and omissions regarding the Company's
historical financial condition and regarding a personal stock
transaction by the Company's chief executive officer.

The Lead Plaintiffs further generally allege that during the
proposed Class Period of May 21, 2002, through May 13, 2004, the
defendants engaged in improper revenue recognition with respect
to certain of the Company's business transactions, failed to
maintain adequate internal controls, and knowingly disclosed
unrealistic but favorable information about market demand for
and commercial viability of the Company's products to
artificially inflate the value of the Company's stock.  The
Amended Complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
other relief.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 29, 2005.
Plaintiffs' response to the company's Motion to Dismiss was
filed on June 3, 2005.  The Motion to Dismiss was denied in
December 2005, and the defendants served their Answer and
Affirmative Defenses to the Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint on December 16, 2005.  The Lead Plaintiffs Motion for
Class Certification is presently due April 2006.

The suit is styled, "Primavera Investors v. Liquidmetal Tech.,
et al., 8:04-cv-00919-SDM-EAJ," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, under Judge Steven D.
Merryday.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

     (3) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (D.C.),
         1100 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 730, Washington,
         DC, 20036, Phone: 202.822.6762, Fax: 202.828.8528, E-
         mail: info@lerachlaw.com;

     (4) Marc S. Henzel, 210 West Washington Square, Third
         Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19106, Phone: 215.625.9999,
         Fax: 215.440.9475, E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com;

     (5) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (Boca Raton,
         FL) 5355 Town Center Road - Suite 900, Boca Raton, FL,
         33486, Phone: 561.361.5000, Fax: 561.367.8400;

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

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

     (8) The Brualdi Law Firm, 29 Broadway - Suite 1515, New
         York, NY, 10006, Phone: 212.952.0602, Fax:
         212.952.0608;

     (9) 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; and

    (10) Geller Rudman, PLLC, 197 South Federal Highway, Suite
         200, Boca Raton, FL, 33432, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax:
         888.262.3131, e-mail: info@geller-rudman.com.

Representing the defendants are, Michael L. Chapman and Tracy A.
Nichols, Holland & Knight, LLP, 100 N. Tampa St., Suite 4100,
P.O. Box 1288, Tampa, FL 33601-1288, Phone: 813/227-8500, Fax:
813/229-0134, E-mail: michael.chapman@hklaw.com and
tracy.nichols@hklaw.com; and Tiffani G. Lee, Holland & Knight
LLP, 701 Brickell Ave., Suite 3000, P.O. Box 015441, Miami, FL
33131-5441, Phone: 305/374-8500 ext: 7725, Fax: 305/789-7799, E-
mail: tiffani.lee@hklaw.com.


MASTERCARD INC: Awaiting Amended Interchange Fees Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard, Inc., was named as a defendant in several federal
class actions over interchange fees, which will soon be
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York for coordination of pre-trial proceedings.

Interchange fees represent a sharing of payment system costs
among the financial institutions participating in a four-party
payment card system such as the Company's.  Typically,
interchange fees are paid by the merchant bank (the acquirer) to
the cardholder bank (the issuer) in connection with transactions
initiated with the payment system's cards.  These fees reimburse
the issuer for a portion of the costs incurred by it in
providing services, which are of benefit to all participants in
the system, including acquirers and merchants.

The Company or its members establish a default interchange fee
(MIF) in certain circumstances that applies when there is no
other interchange fee arrangement between the issuer and the
acquirer.  The Company establishes a variety of MIF rates
depending on such considerations as the location and the type of
transaction, and collects the MIF on behalf of the institutions
entitled to receive it and remits the MIF to eligible
institutions.

In July 2002, a purported class action was filed by a group of
merchants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California against MasterCard International, Visa U.S.A.,
Inc., Visa International Corp. and several member banks in
California alleging, among other things, that MasterCard's and
Visa's interchange fees contravene the Sherman Act.  The suit
seeks treble damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees
and injunctive relief.

On March 4, 2004, the court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice
in reliance upon the approval of the settlement agreement in the
U.S. merchant lawsuit by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, which held that the settlement and release
in that case extinguished the claims brought by the merchant
group in the present case.

The plaintiffs have appealed the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York's approval of the U.S. merchant
lawsuit settlement and release to the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals and have also appealed the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California's dismissal of the present
lawsuit to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On January 4, 2005, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued
an order affirming the District Court's approval of the U.S.
merchant lawsuit settlement agreement, including the District
Court's finding that the settlement and release extinguished
such claims. Plaintiffs did not seek certiorari of the Second
Circuit's decision with the U.S. Supreme Court.  The appeal to
the Ninth Circuit is currently pending and oral argument was
held on December 7, 2005.

On October 8, 2004, a purported class action was filed by a
group of merchants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against MasterCard International, Visa
U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Corp. and several member banks
in California alleging, among other things, that MasterCard's
and Visa's interchange fees contravene the Sherman Act and the
Clayton Act.

The complaint contains similar allegations to those brought in
the interchange case described in the preceding paragraph, and
plaintiffs have designated it as a related case.  The plaintiffs
seek damages and an injunction against MasterCard (and Visa)
setting interchange and engaging in "joint marketing
activities," which plaintiffs allege include the purported
negotiation of merchant discount rates with certain merchants.
On November 19, 2004, MasterCard filed an answer to the
complaint.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 25, 2005.
The Company moved to dismiss the claims in the complaint for
failure to state a claim and, in the alternative, also moved for
summary judgment with respect to certain of the claims.  On July
25, 2005, the court issued an order granting the Company's
motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
On August 10, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
Plaintiffs' opening appeal brief was filed on November 28, 2005.
The Company filed its opposition brief to plaintiffs' appeal on
December 26, 2005.

On June 22, 2005, a purported class action was filed by a group
of merchants in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut against
MasterCard International Incorporated, Visa U.S.A., Inc. Visa
International Service Association and a number of member banks
alleging, among other things, that the Company' and Visa's
purported setting of interchange fees violates Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.

In addition, the complaint alleges the Company's and Visa's
purported tying and bundling of transaction fees also
constitutes a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The
suit seeks treble damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys'
fees and injunctive relief.  Since the filing of this complaint,
there have been approximately forty similar complaints (the
majority styled as class actions although a few complaints are
on behalf of individual plaintiffs) filed on behalf of merchants
against the Company and Visa (and in some cases, certain member
banks) in federal courts in California, New York, Wisconsin,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky and Connecticut.

The claims in these complaints are generally brought under
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.  Specifically, the
complaints contain some or all of the following claims:

     (1) that MasterCard's and Visa's interchange fees violate
         Section 1 of the Sherman Act;

     (2) that MasterCard and Visa have enacted and enforced
         various rules, including the no surcharge rule, in
         violation of Section 1 or 2 of the Sherman Act;

     (3) that MasterCard's and Visa's purported bundling of the
         acceptance of premium credit cards to standard credit
         cards constitutes an unlawful tying arrangement;

     (4) that MasterCard's and Visa's purported bundling of the
         acceptance of commercial cards to consumer credit cards
         constitutes an unlawful tying arrangement; and

     (5) that MasterCard and Visa have unlawfully tied and
         bundled transaction fees. In addition to the claims
         brought under federal antitrust law, some of these
         complaints contain certain state law consumer
         protection and common law claims based upon the same
         conduct described above, and some of the complaints
         allege that the claims in these actions are not barred
         by the settlement agreement in the U.S. merchant
         lawsuit.

These interchange-related litigations also seek treble damages
in an unspecified amount (although several of the complaints
allege that the plaintiffs expect that damages will range in the
tens of billions of dollars), as well as attorneys' fees and
injunctive relief.

On October 19, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation issued an order transferring these cases to Judge
Gleeson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York for coordination of pre-trial proceedings.  Plaintiffs'
amended consolidated class action complaint is due to be filed
by April 24, 2006.  The Court has indicated that it will allow
new discovery to proceed upon the filing of the complaint.


MASTERCARD INC: N.Y. Court Sets Trial for Conversion Fee Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
set a May 15, 2006 trial date for the consolidated class action
"In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation, Master
Docket No. 1:01-md-1409."

MasterCard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International
Corp., several member banks including Citibank (South Dakota),
N.A., Citibank (Nevada), N.A., Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A.,
Bank of America, N.A. (USA), MBNA, and Diners Club are
defendants in a number of federal putative class actions that
allege, among other things, violations of federal antitrust laws
based on the asserted one percent currency conversion "fee."

Pursuant to an order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, the federal complaints have been consolidated in MDL
No. 1409 before Judge William H. Pauley III in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  In January 2002,
the federal plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint
(MDL Complaint) adding MBNA Corporation and MBNA America Bank,
N.A. as defendants.

This pleading asserts two theories of antitrust conspiracy under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act:

     (1) an alleged "inter-association" conspiracy among
         MasterCard (together with its members), Visa (together
         with its members) and Diners Club to fix currency
         conversion "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of
         "no less than 1% of the transaction amount and
         frequently more;" and

     (2) two alleged "intra-association" conspiracies, whereby
         each of Visa and MasterCard is claimed separately to
         have conspired with its members to fix currency
         conversion "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of
         "no less than 1% of the transaction amount" and "to
         facilitate and encourage institution-and collection-of
         second tier currency conversion surcharges."

The MDL Complaint also asserts that the alleged currency
conversion "fees" have not been disclosed as required by the
Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z.

Defendants moved to dismiss the MDL Complaint.  On July 3, 2003,
Judge Pauley issued a decision granting the Company's motion to
dismiss in part.  Judge Pauley dismissed the Truth in Lending
claims in their entirety as against the Company, Visa and
several of the member bank defendants.  Judge Pauley did not
dismiss the antitrust claims.  Fact and expert discovery in this
matter have closed.  On November 12, 2003 plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification, which was granted on October 15,
2004.

On March 9, 2005, Judge Pauley issued a decision on defendants'
motion to reconsider the class certification decision.  The
judge ruled that the arbitration provisions in the cardholder
agreements of member bank defendants, Bank One, MBNA, Providian,
Household and Bank of America are valid as to those respective
banks and the Company and, consequently, cardholders of those
banks can no longer participate in the class action certified in
his earlier decision and must pursue any claims through
arbitration.

Plaintiffs moved for further reconsideration, which was denied
by Judge Pauley on June 16, 2005.  In addition, Judge Pauley
declined to give effect to the arbitration clauses in the
Citibank and Chase cardholder agreements both banks have
appealed that decision.  Briefing on the appeal is complete but
no date has been set for oral argument.  The trial date has been
set for May 15, 2006.

The suit is styled, "In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 1:01-md-01409-WHP," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
William H. Pauley, III.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Richard David Greenfield of Greenfield & Goodman, LLC,
         7426 Tour Drive, Easton, MD 21601, Phone: (410) 745-
         4149, Fax: 410 745-4158;

     (2) Tor Gronborg of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman
         & Robbins, LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San
         Diego, CA 92101, US, Phone: (619)-231-1058, Fax: (619)-
         231-7423, E-mail: torg@lerachlaw.com;

     (3) Gabriel Oliver Koppell of Law Offices of G. Oliver
         Koppell & Assoc., 99 Park Avenue, Ste. 800, New York,
         NY 10016, Phone: (917) 368-0400, Fax: (212) 973-9494,
         E-mail: okoppell@koppellaw.com; and

     (4) David A. Langer of Berger & Montague, 1622 Locust St.,
         Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: (215) 875-4644, Fax:
         (215) 875-5707, E-mail: dlanger@bm.net.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Bruce A. Colbath of Weil, Gotshal & Manges, 767 Fifth
         Ave., New York, NY 10153, E-mail:
         mark.ribaudo@weil.com.

    (ii) Charles E. Buffon of Covington and Burling, 1201
         Pennsylvania Ave., P.O. Box 7566, Washington, DC 20044,
         Phone: (202) 662-6000;

   (iii) Peter E. Greene of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
         Flom, L.L.P., Four Times Square, New York, NY 10036,
         Phone: (212) 735-3000; and

    (iv) Mark S. Stewart of Ballard, Spahr, Andrews and
         Ingersoll, 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor,
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599, Phone: (215) 864-8117.


MERRILL LYNCH: High Court Cuts Back Broker's Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court limiting
securities lawsuits effectively barred a former broker's class
action against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Bloomberg News
reports.  The case is Merrill Lynch v. Dabit, 04-1371.

The suit against the investment bank alleged losses arising from
the firm's erroneous positive forecasts.  In an 8-0 decision,
the high court said, a 1998 federal law bars large class actions
by investors who claim they were tricked into keeping worthless
stocks and bonds.  The 1998 Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act allows suits seeking to represent more than 50
investors only for purchasers and sellers of securities, not by
people who simply hold investments.

The 1998 law bars large class actions "in connection with the
purchase or sale of a covered security" from being filed under
state law, according to the report.  The high court's ruling
reverses a lower court decision.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court, said that to
rule otherwise would allow "wasteful, duplicative litigation,"
according to Associated Press.  The report says the decision
does not shut the door to lawsuits filed by individual
stockholders, but rather to suits brought on behalf of large
groups.

Merrill Lynch faced lawsuits after a 2002 probe by the New York
attorney general into the company's practices.  It agreed to a
$100 million fine in 2002.

Employee claims of lost income due to Merrill Lynch fraud
continues to proceed, according to Associated Press.

Based in New York, Merrill Lynch -- http://www.merrilllynch.com
-- offers financial services for private, institutional, and
government clients, including mutual fund, insurance, annuity,
trust, and clearing services, in addition to traditional
investment banking and brokerage. The company has operations in
more than 35 countries around the world.


MILLS CORP: Mass. Seeks Lead Plaintiff Status in Stock Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Massachusetts filed a motion in federal court
seeking to become lead plaintiff in a securities class action
filed against Mills Corp, Boston.com News.

The motion was filed on March 21 in Federal Court in Virginia by
Attorney General Tom Reilly and Treasurer Timothy Cahill.
Massachusetts is seeking the return of more than $5 million in
dollars in lost state pension funds that were invested in Mills
Corp. stocks.

Mills Corp. announced on Feb. 16 it was restating its financial
results for the past three years to correct accounting errors
and overstatement of its operations funds.  The announcement
sparked a flurry of lawsuits in January alleging the company
defrauded investors by issuing false statements about its
financial condition and the status of pre-development projects
from Aug. 14, 2003, to Jan. 1, 2006.

The Mills Corp. -- http://www.millscorp.com-- is a real estate
investment trust that develops and manages shopping centers
across the country.


NETGEAR INC: Settles Calif. Consumer Suit Over Wireless Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
NetGear, Inc. reached a settlement for a consumer fraud class
action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of
Santa Clara, on behalf of all persons or entities in the U.S.
who purchased the Company's wireless products other than for
resale.

In June 2004, a lawsuit, entitled, "Zilberman v. NETGEAR, Civil
Action CV021230," was filed against the Company.  The complaint
purports to be a class action on behalf of all persons or
entities in the U.S. who purchased the Company's wireless
products other than for resale.  Plaintiff alleges that the
Company made false representations concerning the data transfer
speeds of the company'swireless products when used in typical
operating circumstances, and is requesting injunctive relief,
payment of restitution and reasonable attorney fees.

Similar lawsuits have been filed against other companies within
the company's industry.  In November 2005, without admitting any
wrongdoing or violation of law and to avoid the distraction and
expense of continued litigation, the Company and the Plaintiff
received preliminary court approval for a proposed settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement, the Company will:

     (1) issue each eligible class member a promotional code
         which may be used to purchase a new wireless product
         from NETGEAR's online store, www.buynetgear.com, at a
         15% discount during the redemption period;

     (2) include a disclaimer regarding wireless signal rates on
         our wireless products packaging and user's manuals and
         in our press releases and advertising that reference
         wireless signal rates;

     (3) donate $25,000 worth of our products to a local, not-
         for-profit charitable organization to be chosen by
         NETGEAR; and

     (4) agree to pay, subject to court approval, up to $700,000
         in attorneys' fees and costs. None of the foregoing
         benefits will be provided unless and until the court
         grants final approval of the settlement agreement.

The court has scheduled a hearing date of March 21, 2006 for
final approval of the settlement.  The Company recorded a charge
of $802,000 relating to this proposed settlement during the year
ended December 31, 2005.

For more details, contact Jordan L. Lurie and Zev B. Zysman of
Weiss & Lurie, 10940 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 2300, LOS ANGELES,
CALIFORNIA 90024, Phone: (310) 208-2800, Fax: (310) 209-2348,
Web site: http://www.netgearsettlement.com/.


NEW CENTURY: Appellate Court Denies Motion to Appeal Lum Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals denied plaintiff's motion for leave to
appeal and affirmed the Supreme Court of the State of New York
in Riverhead, Suffolk County's previous ruling, granting New
Century Mortgage Corp.'s motion to dismiss a class action
complaint filed by Elaine Lum against it.

Filed in December 2003, the complaint alleged that certain
payments the Company makes to mortgage brokers, sometimes
referred to as yield spread premiums, interfered with the
contractual relationship between Ms. Lum and her broker.  The
complaint seeks damages related thereto for fraud, wrongful
inducement/breach of fiduciary duty, violation of deceptive acts
and practices, unjust enrichment and commercial bribing.  It
also seeks class certification for similarly situated borrowers
in the State of New York.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on January 30, 2004.  The
judge granted that motion and dismissed all claims on March 23,
2004.  On April 12, 2004, the plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal, seeking review of the court's order granting the motion
to dismiss.  On June 20, 2005, the Appellate Division of the
Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Brooklyn, New
York, affirmed the order granting New Century Mortgage's motion
to dismiss the complaint.  Plaintiff/appellant filed a motion
with the appellate division for reargument and/or for leave to
appeal to the Court of Appeals, which the Court denied in
October 2005.

In February 2006, the Court of Appeals denied
plaintiff/appellant's motion for leave to appeal and affirmed
the Supreme Court's previous ruling, granting the Company's
motion to dismiss the complaint.


NEW CENTURY: Calif. Court Grants Motion to Limit Labor Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Orange County, California, granted New
Century Mortgage Corp.'s motion to strike portions of the
complaint in an amended class action filed against it, which is
alleging violations of the state's labor laws.

In March 2005, Daniel J. Rubio, a former employee of the Company
filed the suit, alleging failure to pay overtime wages, failure
to provide meal and rest periods, and that the Company engaged
in unfair business practices in violation of the California
Labor Code. The complaint seeks recovery of unpaid wages,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company was served on March 22, 2005.  The Company filed a
motion to strike and demurrer to the complaint in May 2005. On
July 8, 2005, the court overruled the demurrer and granted the
motion to strike.  The amended complaint was filed in July 2005
and the Company filed its answer in August 2005.  In December
2005, the Company filed a motion to strike portions of the
complaint, which was granted in its favor.


NEW CENTURY: Calif. Court Reverses Dismissal of FCRA Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
reversed it earlier decision to dismiss certain claims in a
class action filed against New Century Mortgage Corporation, New
Century TRS Holdings, Inc. and Home123 Corporation, alleging
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

In July 2005, Pamela Phillips filed the suit, claiming that New
Century TRS, New Century Mortgage and Home123 accessed consumer
credit reports without authorization because the prescreened
offers of credit did not qualify as firm offers of credit. The
case also alleges that certain disclosures were not made in a
clear and conspicuous manner.  The case also alleges that
certain disclosures were not made in a clear and conspicuous
manner.

The proposed class consists of all persons nationwide whose
consumer reports were obtained or used by the New Century
Entities in connection with a credit transaction not initiated
by the consumer and who did not receive a firm offer of credit
from the New Century Entities.  A proposed sub-class consists of
all persons whose consumer reports were obtained or used by the
New Century Entities in connection with a credit transaction not
initiated by them, and who received a written solicitation to
enter a credit transaction which did not provide clear and
conspicuous disclosures as required by 15 U.S.C. section
1681m(d).  The complaint seeks damages of not more than $1,000
for each alleged violation, declaratory relief, injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees and costs.

The New Century Entities and Home123 filed a motion to dismiss
certain claims in October 2005.  In November 2005, the Court
granted the motion to dismiss these claims.  In early March
2006, the court, on its motion, reversed its prior ruling on the
motion to dismiss citing the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals recent
decision in the "Murray v. GMAC Mortgage Corporation" case.

The suit is styled, "Pamela Phillips v. New Century Financial
Corporation et al., Case No. 8:05-cv-00692-DOC-RNB," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
under Judge David O. Carter.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Douglas Bowdoin, 255 South Orange Avenue, Suite 800
         Orlando, FL 32801, Phone: 407-422-0025, E-mail:
         ctassi@bowdoinlaw.com

     (2) Kathleen Clark Knight, Terry Smiljanich, James Hoyer
         Newcomer & Smiljanich, 1 Urban Centre, 4830 W Kennedy
         Blvd, Ste 550, Tampa, FL 33609, Phone: 813-286-4100, E-
         mail: kknight@jameshoyer.com or
         tsmiljanich@jameshoyer.com

     (3) Nicholas A Siciliano or David Edward Weeks, Masry &
         Vititoe, 5707 Corsa Ave, 2nd Fl, Westlake Village, CA
          91362-0903, Phone: 818-991-8900

Representing the Company are Daniel Alberstone, David Bryan
Dreyfus, Bruce A. Friedman, Pauline A. Massih, Alschuler
Grossman Stein and Kahan, Water Garden - North Tower, 1620 26th
Street, 4th Floor, Santa Monica, CA 90404-4060, Phone: 310-907-
1000, Fax: 310-907-2000.


NEW CENTURY: Accused of Violating Calif. Credit Reporting Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
New Century Mortgage Corp. was named as a defendant in a class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Division, which alleges violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

The plaintiff, Mary Forrest, who filed the suit on January 2006,
is claiming that the originator accessed prescreened credit
reports without authorization, because the offers of credit
allegedly did not qualify as firm offers of credit.  The
proposed class consists of persons with Wisconsin addresses to
whom the originator sent a particular prescreened offer of
credit after November 20, 2004.  In February 2006, the Company
filed both its answer and a motion to transfer the case to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The suit is styled, "Forrest v. New Century Mortgage
Corporation, Case No. 2:06-cv-00010-RTR, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin under Judge
Rudolph T. Randa.  Representing the plaintiffs is John D.
Blythin of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, 3620 E. Layton Ave., Cudahy,
WI 53110, Phone: 414-482-8000, Fax: 414-482-8001, E-mail:
jblythin@ademilaw.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are, Sarah J. Friday of Kravit Hovel
Krawczyk & Leverson, SC, 825 N. Jefferson St., 5th Fl.,
Milwaukee, WI 53202, Phone: 414-271-7100, Fax: 414-271-81335, E-
mail: sjf@kravitlaw.com; and Bruce A. Friedman of Alschuler
Grossman Stein & Kahan, LLP, 9th Tower, 1620 26th St., 4th Fl.,
Santa Monica, CA 90404-4060, Phone: 310-907-1000, Fax: 310-907-
2000.


NEW CENTURY: Files Responses to Loan Fee Fraud Suit in N.D. Ind.
----------------------------------------------------------------
New Century Mortgage Corporation files its answer and
affirmative defenses in a class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for Northern District of Indiana.

The suit alleges that the Company violated the Indiana High Cost
Loan Act by allegedly making loans with fees greater than
permitted by law unless certain disclosures are made.  Patricia
and Stephen Jeppesen filed the suit in October 2005 on behalf of
all persons who obtained a mortgage loan from the Company after
January 1, 2005 on their principal residence in Indiana.  A
second claim in the complaint alleges that the Company
improperly charged a document preparation fee.  The class also
consists of all persons in Indiana who paid a document
preparation fee to the Company in the six years prior to the
filing of the complaint.  The complaint seeks statutory damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, restitution and other relief.

In December 2005, the Company filed its answer and affirmative
defenses and plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to strike
certain affirmative defenses.

The suit is styled, "Jeppesen et al v. New Century Mortgage
Corporation et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00372-RL-PRC," filed in the
U.S. District court for the Northern District of Indiana, under
Judge Rudy Lozano.  Representing the plaintiffs are Daniel A.
Edelman and Heather A. Piccirilli, Edelman Combs Latturner &
Goodwin LLC, 120 S LaSalle Street Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60603,
phone: 312-739-4200, Fax: 312-419-0379, E-mail: CourtECL@aol.com
or hpiccirilli@edcombs.com.

Representing the Company are Richard E Gottlieb and Arthur F.
Radke, Dykema Gossett Rooks Pitts PLLC, 10 South Wacker Drive
Suite 2300, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: 312-627-2196, Fax: 312-
627-2302, E-mail: rgottlieb@dykema.com or aradke@dykema.com.


OLYMPUS AMERICA: Recalls Film Cameras Due to Overheating Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Olympus America Inc., of Melville, New York, is recalling 1.2
million Olympus-Brand 35mm Film Cameras in the U.S.

The company said a defect with the flash circuit in these
cameras can cause it to smoke and overheat when the camera is
turned on.  This poses a possible burn hazard to consumers.
Olympus America Inc. has received 21 reports of camera or flash
circuitry overheating in the U.S. with no reports of injuries.

The recall includes the Infinity Twin, AF-1 Twin, Infinity Zoom
200 series, AZ 200 series, and Quantary Infinity Zoom 222
Olympus-brand 35mm film cameras.  The model name is printed on
the face of the camera. These cameras have a built-in flash.

The cameras were made in Japan and sold at department,
electronic and camera stores, and mail-order retailers
nationwide from January 1989 through December 1995 for between
$220 and $365.

Consumers are advised to stop using these cameras and contact
Olympus for information on receiving the free repair for this
defect.

Picture of recalled camera:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06112a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06112b.jpg

Consumer Contact: Olympus, Phone: (800) 480-1247 between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday; Web site:
http://www.olympusamerica.com.


PHILIPS CONSUMER: Recalls Plasma TV with Defective Capacitors
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philips Consumer Electronics North America, of Atlanta, Georgia,
in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
is recalling 11,800 plasma flat panel televisions with Ambilight
feature.

The company said the arcing by capacitors inside the left and
right side of the back cabinets of these TVs can pose a safety
risk.  Philips has received nine reports of arcing by the
capacitors.  The results of such incidents were contained within
the TVs due to the use of flame retardant materials resulting
only in damage to the TV.  There have been no injuries reported.

The recall involves only certain 42 and 50 inch, 2005 model
Philips branded Plasma Flat Panel Televisions with Ambilight
technology, which is an ambient lighting feature that projects a
soft light onto the wall behind the TV to enhance the display.
They were manufactured with these model, date codes, and serial
numbers:

Model     Production  Serial Range
                    Began Ended  Beginning  Ending
42PF9630A/37 April 05  July 05   AG1A0518xxxxxx AG1A0528xxxxxx
50PF9630A/37 May 2005  Aug. 2005 AG1A0519xxxxxx AG1A0533xxxxxx
50PF9630A/37 June 2005 Aug. 2005 YA1A0523xxxxxx YA1A0534xxxxxx
50PF9830A/37 June 2005 Aug. 2005 AG1A0526xxxxxx AG1A0533xxxxxx

The Display Type are all plasma.

The model and serial numbers can be found on the back of the TV
on the label that looks like the sample in:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06536c.jpg

The serial number can also be obtained by pushing the following
keystrokes on the remote control: 123654, after which a customer
service menu ("CSM") will be displayed on the screen.  In the
menu, line 03 displays the type number and line 04 displays the
production code (identical to the serial number of the set).
Press the MENU button on the remote to exit the CSM.

The products were made in Belgium (AG) and Mexico (YA) and sold
at Consumer electronic stores nationwide from June 2005 through
January 2006 for between $3,000 and $5,000.

Consumers are advised to immediately turn off the Ambilight
feature (see instructions below) and contact Philips for
instructions on how to receive free in-home service to have
their TV repaired for free.

Consumer Contact: Philips' at V.P. Service, Philips Consumer
Electronics North America, 64 Perimeter Center East, Atlanta, GA
30346, Phone: (888) PHILIPS [888-744-5477]; Web site:
http://www.philips.com.


PLAYPOWER LT: Recalls Swings on Danger of Top Beam Disconnecting
----------------------------------------------------------------
PlayPower LT Farmington Inc., of Farmington, Missourui (formerly
Little Tikes Commercial Play Systems Inc.), in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling 3,600
"Max Play" Single Post and "Kid Builders Arch" Swing Sets.

The Company said the connection between the swing set's
horizontal top beam and the vertical end support post can break,
posing a risk of injury if the user falls to the ground or is
hit by the beam.  PlayPower LT has received 22 reports of cracks
at the connection between the swing's horizontal top beam and
the vertical end support post.  No injuries have been reported.

Both swing sets have metal frames in a variety of colors.  The
swings hang by chains from the top beam and have black flexible
rubber seats.  The frame of the "Max Play" Model 200096625 has
vertical support posts with a horizontal beam connected across
the top.  The frame of the "Kid Builders Arch" Model 200122457
has arched end posts with a horizontal beam across the top.

The swings were manufactured in the U.S. and sold by PlayPower
LT representatives directly to consumers from December 1997
through June 2004 for the "Max Play" Single Post Swing for about
$900, and from May 2002 through November 2005 for the "Kid
Builders Arch" Swing for about $1,800.

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled swing sets
immediately and remove the swing's chains and seats from the top
beam until a repair kit can be installed.  PlayPower LT is
contacting swing owners directly by mail and is providing free
repair kits.

Pictures of the swing:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06535a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06535b.jpg

Consumer Contact: PlayPower LT, Phone: (800) 265-9953 Ext. 206,
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET; E-mail: mike.hayward@ltcps.com;
Web site: http://www.littletikescommercial.com.


REAL FINANCIAL: Mich. Man Claims Fraud in Real Estate Deals
-----------------------------------------------------------
A Grosse Isle man filed a class action against 17 companies and
individuals in the real estate business, whom he alleged to have
helped defraud him in his residential properties purchases, The
Detroit News reports.

Blaise Repasky said he bought eight Detroit houses in 2004 for a
total cost of $940,000 based on individual appraisals that
showed the homes were worth a total of $967,500.  It turned out
after an investigation, however, that prior to his purchases,
the properties were sold for just $393,150, according to the
report.  He is including in his complaint a ninth Detroit home,
whose value is not included in court pleadings.

Mr. Repasky filed his suit U.S. District Court in Detroit.
Defendants in the suit includes:

     (1) Real Financial LLC,

     (2) Sheldon Lubin of Real Financial LLC,

     (3) A&S Appraisal Group Inc.,

     (4) Robert Willey of A&S Appraisal Group Inc.,

     (5) First Mortgage Fund Inc.,

Mr. Repasky said he bought the houses from First Mortgage at the
recommendation of the Real Financial executive, and appraisal of
A&S Appraisal.

The suit is styled, "Repasky v. Real Financial, L. L. C. et al.
(2:06-cv-11146-GER-DAS)," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Gerald E. Rosen,
with referral to Donald A. Scheer.  Representing the plaintiff
is Michael F. Loeckner of Loeckner & Kohl, 140 Elm St.,
Wyandotte, MI 48192, Phone: 313-283-4633.


ROYAL GROUP: Audit Committee Named in Canadian Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eight current and former officers and directors of Royal Group
Technologies Ltd. have been named in a new class action filed in
Ontario, Canada.

Protecting the pension assets of 290,000 Canadians, the proposed
representative plaintiff, Canadian Commercial Workers Industry
Pension Plan (CCWIPP), names as defendants:

     (1) Ralph Bren,

     (2) Gary Brown,

     (3) Dominic D'Amico,

     (4) Douglas Dunsmuir,

     (5) Ron Goegan,

     (6) Ronald Slaght,

     (7) Gregory Sorbara, and

     (8) Vic De Zen

Messrs. Bren, Slaght and Sorbara are current and former members
of the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of Royal Group.

"Ordinary Canadian families have lost millions of dollars and
hope for their future," says securities class action lawyer
Dimitri Lascaris.  "Up until now, there has been little
protection for them.  It's long overdue, and the Company looks
forward to having the merits of CCWIPP's case tested in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice."

Mr. Lascaris is speaking on behalf of Cavalluzzo Hayes Shilton
McIntyre and Cornish LLP and Siskind, Cromarty, Ivey & Dowler
LLP (the law firms representing CCWIPP).

In the class action, CCWIPP is seeking to act on behalf of all
persons and entities (except the defendants) who purchased
shares of Royal Group between February 26, 1998 and October 18,
2004.

In the Statement of Claim, it is alleged that, by participating
in or by permitting Royal Group to participate in numerous,
undisclosed related-party transactions, the defendants engaged
in conduct that was oppressive and unfairly prejudicial to the
class members.

The class action is a resumption of a class action first filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
in December 2004.  (Royal Group's stock is traded over the
Toronto Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange.)

Following the filing of the New York class action, Royal Group
moved for a dismissal of the New York class action, in part on
the basis that Canada was the preferable forum in which to
litigate CCWIPP's claims.  In an opinion and order issued on
November 21, 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer, Jr.
ruled that "Canada is an adequate forum to try class actions
based on violations of federal securities laws".

For more information, contact Dimitri Lascaris, Siskinds, Phone:
1-800-461-6166 (ext. 376), E-mail:
dimitri.lascaris@siskinds.com.


SIMON PROPERTY: Ga. Court Blocks Suit Over Expired Gift Cards
-------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia's Court of Appeals rejected a lawsuit accusing Simon
Property Group Inc. of wrongly reducing the value of gift cards
that were unused by customers, AJC.com reports.

The ruling reverses a decision by a trial court letting the case
proceed as class action in Cobb County.  The suit cited state
law concerning the disposition of unclaimed property.  The
Appeals Court refuted the application of the law saying the gift
cards are not abandoned property.

Simon deducts $2.50 a month from an unused gift card's value
after seven months, and the cards expire after about a year, the
report said, citing the appeals court.

The plaintiffs' attorney is John F. Salter of 224 Pine Ave.,
Albany, Georgia, (Dougherty Co.).  His co-counsel is Roy E.
Barnes of The Barnes Law Group LLC, 31 Atlanta Street, P.O. Box
489, Marietta, Georgia 30061, (Cobb Co.), Phone: 770-419-8505;
Fax: 770-590-8958.


SPLIT CAPITAL: British Court Rejects "Group Litigation" Attempt
---------------------------------------------------------------
A master at the High Court in London refused an application for
a "group litigation order" to pursue claims on behalf of 75
investors who lost money by investing in split capital
investment trusts.

Class Law, the firm working on a possible class action, told the
Financial Times earlier it would still pursue the claim but
issue writs for 300 investors instead.

Investors lost up to GBP500 million when the stock market
collapsed, revealing that the supposedly low-risk funds were
actually highly leveraged, and subject to cross-holdings.  To
help victims, U.K.'s Financial Services Authority set up a
GBP144 million compensation fund that should return up to
GBP48,000 of investors' money.

Fund Distribution Limited is assessing claims on behalf of 20
fund managers, banks and stockbrokers.  It is set to send 'first
distribution offers' to investors in zero-dividend preference
shares issued by split capital investment trusts.  According to
The Observer, investors who accept the offer from FDL will have
to relinquish all claims.  They will have six weeks to decide
the report said.  If they rejected the FDL offer, they could
still take individual action or use the ombudsman service,
Jonathan Davies, a partner with the law firm Reynolds Porter
Chamberlain told Observer.

Class Law on the Net: http://www.classlaw.co.uk/.


SUPPORTSOFT INC: Calif. Court Mulls Class Status for Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
set an April 21, 2006 hearing for plaintiffs' motion for class
certification for amended consolidated securities class action
filed against:

     (1) SupportSoft, Inc.,

     (2) Chief Executive Officer Radha R. Basu, and

     (3) Chief Financial Officer Brian M. Beattie.

Between December 9, 2004 and January 21, 2005, several purported
securities class action suits were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against the
Company, the company's CEO, Radha R. Basu, andformer CFO, Brian
M. Beattie.  These actions were consolidated on March 22, 2005
as "In re SupportSoft, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action
No.: 04-5222 SI."

The consolidated complaint alleges generally violations of
certain federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's common stock
between January 20, 2004 and October 1, 2004.  Plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that defendants made false and
misleading statements concerning the company's business and
guidance for the third quarter 2004, purportedly violating
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On July 15, 2005, the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend the Complaint.  The
plaintiffs subsequently filed a Corrected Amended Complaint on
August 19, 2005.  On November 21, 2005, the Court denied the
company's motion to dismiss the Corrected Amended Complaint.
Defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint on December 14,
2005 and the case is currently in discovery.

Plaintiffs moved for class certification on February 1, 2006 and
a hearing on plaintiffs' motion was scheduled for April 21,
2006.

The suit is styled, "Autumn Partners, LLC. v. Supportsoft, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-05222-SI," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Susan
Illston.  Representing the plaintiffs is Peter A. Binkow of
Glancy & Binkow, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, Fax: 310-201-9160, E-
mail: pbinkow@glancylaw.com.

Representing the Company are Sherry Hartel Haus, David L.
Lansky, and Peri Nielsen of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
650 Page Mill Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone: (650) 493-9300,
E-mail: sherry.haus@wilmerhale.com, dlansky@wsgr.com,
pnielsen@wsgr.com.


SUPPORTSOFT INC: N.Y. Settlement Fairness Hearing Set April 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against SupportSoft, Inc. and two
of its officers is set for April 24, 2006 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

In November 2001, a class action was filed against the Company
and two of its officers, alleging that its registration
statement and prospectus dated July 18, 2000 for the issuance
and initial public offering of 4,250,000 shares of the company's
common stock contained material misrepresentations and/or
omissions, related to alleged inflated commissions received by
the underwriters of the offering.  The defendants named in the
lawsuit are SupportSoft, Radha Basu, Brian Beattie, Credit
Suisse First Boston Corporation, Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. and
FleetBoston Robertson Stephens Inc.  The lawsuit seeks
unspecified damages as well as interest, fees and costs.

Similar complaints have been filed against 55 underwriters and
more than 300 other companies and other individual officers and
directors of those companies.  All of the complaints against the
underwriters, issuers and individuals have been consolidated for
pre-trial purposes before U.S. District Court Judge Scheindlin
of the Southern District of New York.  On June 26, 2003, the
plaintiffs announced that a proposed settlement between the
issuer defendants and their directors and officers had been
reached.  As a result of the proposed settlement, which is
subject to court approval, the Company anticipates that its
insurance carrier will be responsible for any payments other
than attorneys' fees prior to June 1, 2003.

On September 2, 2003, plaintiffs' executive committee advised
the Court that the lead plaintiff in the action against the
Company was unwilling to serve as a class representative, and
sought leave to seek a new class representative. On October 20,
2003, the Company was notified that a new class representative
would be substituted into the case against the Company, but its
attempts to formally confirm this substitution have not been
successful. At a court conference on March 4, 2004, plaintiffs'
executive committee advised the court that the negotiators for
plaintiffs and issuers have agreed on the terms of the
settlement.

During mid-2004, the plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval
of the proposed settlement. After full briefing and argument, on
February 15, 2005, the court issued an opinion preliminarily
approving the proposed settlement, contingent upon modifications
being made to one aspect of the proposed settlement the proposed
"bar order."  At a further conference on April 13, 2005, the
court set a further schedule for submission of documents
concerning the form and substance of class notice, and
tentatively set a Rule 23 public hearing on the fairness of the
proposed settlement for January 9, 2006.

On August 31, 2005, the court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and setting a public hearing on its
fairness for April 24, 2006 (the postponement from January 2006
to April 2006 was because of difficulties in mailing the
required notice to class members).  On October 27, 2005, the
court issued an order making some minor changes to the form of
notice to be sent to class members.  On January 17, 2006, the
court issued an order modifying the preliminarily settlement
approval order to extend the time within which notice must be
given to the class, which time had expired on January 15, 2006.

The suit is styled, "In Re SupportSoft, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "IN RE
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.
The plaintiff firms in 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, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax:
         610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com;

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

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

     (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.


TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS: N.Y. Court Okays Stock Suit Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
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:

     (1) Telecommunication Systems, Inc.;

     (2) certain of its current officers and a directors; and

     (3) several investment banks that were the underwriters of
         the Company's initial public offering.

The suit is styled, "Highstein v. Telecommunication Systems,
Inc., et al., case no. 01-CV-9500."  The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of damages.  The lawsuit purports to be a
class action suit filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
Class A Common Stock during the period August 8, 2000 through
December 6, 2000.

The plaintiffs allege that the Underwriters agreed to allocate
the Company's Class A Common Stock offered for sale in the
Company's initial public offering to certain purchasers in
exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and
agreements by those purchasers to make additional purchases of
the Company's Class A Common Stock in the aftermarket at pre-
determined prices.  The plaintiffs allege that all of the
defendants violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, and that the underwriters violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The claims against the Company of violation of Rule 10b-5 have
been dismissed with the plaintiffs having the right to re-plead.
On February 15, 2005, the Honorable Judge Shira A. Scheindlin,
entered an order preliminarily approving a settlement proposal
which the Company believe will result in a resolution that will
not materially impact the Company's consolidated results of
operations, financial position, or cash flows.

More than 300 other companies have been named in nearly
identical lawsuits that have been filed by some of the same law
firms that represent the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the
Company, and the Company believes that the majority of those
companies will participate in the same settlement if approved.

The suit is styled, "Highstein v. Telecommunication Systems,
Inc., et al., Case No. 01-CV-9500," related to "In Re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92
(SAS)," both pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  The
plaintiff firms in 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, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax:
         610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com;

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

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

     (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.


UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: Teachers to Get $17.45M in Back-Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
The University of Washington has agreed to compensate teachers
who alleged they were not given merit raise promised to them
under the school's policy, the Seattlepi.com reports.

The university will give $17.45 million in back-pay to faculty
members who did not receive the raise four years ago, as well as
2% raises to those who still work at the university.  The
settlement was approved on March 16 by the Board of Regents.  It
still requires the approval of King County Superior Court.

The settlement resulted from a class action brought by an
engineering professor Duane Storti, who claimed that UW
officials had promised 2% raises to the faculty in its
"University Handbook."  The university argued that it could
withhold raises during the 2002-03 academic year because of
inadequate funding.  But a Superior Court judge ruled in October
ordering the university to give out the payment due.

The suit was brought on behalf of 3,200 faculty members who did
not receive a merit raise in 2002-03 school year.  A lawyer for
the class said the amount of money each faculty member receives
will vary, but it will average several thousand dollars per
person.

The university also agreed to pay $50,000 to settle a public-
disclosure lawsuit that Storti filed alleging the university
would not provide documents related to the faculty salary
policy, according to the report.

The class is represented by Stephen Strong of Bendich, Stobaugh
& Strong Seattle, Washington (King Co.); Web site:
http://www.bs-s.com/.


VISTEON CORP: Mich. Court Mulls Dismissal Motion V. ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan is
set to hear oral arguments on Visteon Corporation's motion to
dismiss a consolidated class action alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which was filed
against it and of its current and former officers.

In March and April 2005, the Company and a number of current and
former employees, officers and directors were named as
defendants in three class actions brought under ERISA in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  In
September 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated
complaint, which generally alleges that: the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties under ERISA during the class period by
among other things:

     (1) continuing to offer the Company stock as an investment
         alternative under the Visteon Investment Plan,

     (2) failing to disclose complete and accurate information
         regarding the prudence of investing in the Visteon
         stock,

     (3) failing to monitor the actions of certain of the
         defendants, and

     (5) failing to avoid conflicts of interest or promptly
         resolve them.

The consolidated complaint was brought on behalf of a named
plaintiff and a putative class consisting of all participants or
beneficiaries of the Plans whose accounts included Visteon stock
at any time from July 20, 2001 through May 25, 2005.  Class
action status has not yet been certified in this litigation.  In
November 2005, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint on various grounds.  Oral argument on that
motion is scheduled for March 2006.

The suit is styled, "Skiles v. Visteon Corporation, et al., Case
No. 2:05-cv-71205-AC-DAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Avern Cohn with
referral to Judge Donald A. Scheer.  Representing the plaintiffs
are, Gary A. Gotto of Keller Rohrback (Phoenix), 3101 N. Central
Avenue, Suite 900, Phoenix, AZ 85012-2600, Phone: 602-248-2822,
E-mail: ggotto@kellerrohrback.com; and Elwood S. Simon of Elwood
S. Simon Assoc., 355 S. Woodward Avenue, Suite 250, Birmingham,
MI 48009, Phone: 248-646-9730, Fax: 248-258-2335, E-mail:
esimon@esimon-law.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Gabor Balassa and Michael A. Duffy of Kirkland & Ellis,
         Phone: 312-861-2186 and 312-861-2000, Fax: 312-861-2200
         and 312-861-2200, E-mail: maduffy@kirkland.com;

     (2) Jenice C. Mitchell of Foley & Lardner (Detroit), 500
         Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700, Detroit, MI 48226-3489,
         Phone: 313-234-7100, E-mail: jmitchell@foley.com; and

     (3) Paul J. Ondrasik, Jr. of Steptoe & Johnson
         (Washington), 1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington,
         DC 20036-1795, Phone: 202-429-3000, Fax: 202-429-3902,
         E-mail: pondrasik@steptoe.com.


VISTEON CORP: Mich. Court Mulls Dismissal Motion V. Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan is
set to hear oral arguments on Visteon Corporation's motion to
dismiss a securities class action filed against it and of its
current and former officers:

     (1) Peter Pestillo,

     (2) Michael Johnston,

     (3) Glenda J. Minor,

     (4) Daniel R. Coulson, and

     (5) James Palmer.

The shareholder suit was first filed in February 2005.  In July
2005, the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi was
appointed as lead plaintiff in the matter.  In September 2005,
the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which alleges,
among other things, that the Company and its independent
registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,
made misleading statements of material fact or omitted to state
material facts necessary in order to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of
purchasers of the Company's securities during the period between
June 28, 2000 and January 31, 2005.  Class action status has not
yet been certified in this litigation.  In December 2005, the
defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to
state a claim.  Oral argument on that motion is scheduled for
April 2006.

The suit is styled, "Ley v. Visteon Corporation, et al, Case No.
2:05-cv-70737-RHC-VMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan under Robert H. Cleland with
referral to Judge Virginia M. Morgan.  Representing the
plaintiffs are E. Powell Miller and Marc L. Newman of Miller
Shea (Rochester) 950 W. University Drive Suite 300 Rochester, MI
48307 Phone: 248-841-2200 E-mail: emiller335@aol.com; and Marc
A. Topaz, Schiffrin & Barroway (Radnor) 280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Michael A. Duffy of Kirkland & Ellis (Chicago), 200 E.
         Randolph Drive, Suite 6000, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone:
         312-861-2000, Fax: 312-861-2200, E-mail:
         maduffy@kirkland.com;

     (2) Jenice C. Mitchell of Foley & Lardner (Detroit), 500
         Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700, Detroit, MI 48226-3489,
         Phone: 313-234-7100, E-mail: jmitchell@foley.com;

     (3) Thomas P. Bruetsch, Bodman (Troy), 201 W. Big Beaver
         Road, Suite 500, Troy, MI 48084, Phone: 248-743-6000,
         E-mail: tbruetsch@bodmanllp.com.


VITAS HEALTHCARE: Settles Calif. Nurses' Overtime Suit for $19M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vitas Healthcare Corporation settled a class action alleging
failure to pay overtime wages and to provide meal and break
periods to California nurses, home health aides and licensed
clinical social workers.

The suit was filed against the company in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County, by Ann Marie Costa, Ana Jimenez,
Mariea Ruteaya and Gracetta Wilson.

Plaintiffs moved for class certification, and Vitas opposed this
motion.  The Company later reached an agreement, subject to
court approval, with the Plaintiff class to resolve this matter
for $19 million, inclusive of Plaintiffs' class attorneys' fees
and the costs of settlement administration.


ZURICH NORTH: $100M Bid-Rigging Suit Settlement in Final Stages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey that the October 2005
Memorandum of Understanding entered into between Zurich North
America and a proposed nationwide class of insurance purchasers
is one step closer to becoming a final settlement.

In the litigation, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, a
nationwide conspiracy between insurers and brokers to manipulate
the market for insurance through the use and payment of
undisclosed contingent commissions, bid rigging, and other
practices aimed at steering business and allocating customers
and markets.

Under the MOU, Zurich agreed to pay at least $100 million to
settle the claims in the MDL on the condition that Zurich
obtains regulatory support consistent with the terms of the MOU.
The regulatory settlements announced are important steps toward
satisfying that contingency, and may result in payments of in
excess of $150 million to be allocated among insurance
purchasers nationwide as consideration for settling their claims
in the litigation.

The parties are proceeding toward finalizing the terms of the
class action settlement agreement and, subject to completing
ongoing due diligence, will seek court approval of that
settlement.

The suit was styled "QLM Associates, Inc. v. Marsh & Mclennan
Companies, Inc. et al. (2:04-cv-05184-FSH-PS)," under Judge
Faith S. Hochberg with referral to Judge Patty Shwartz.
Representing the defendants are: Elliott Abrutyn of Morgan,
Melhuish & Abrutyn, 651 W. Mt. Pleasant Avenue Livingston, NJ
07039-1673, Phone: (973) 994-2500; E-mail:
eabrutyn@morganlawfirm.com; and Jonathan E. Richman (counsel not
admitted to USDC-NJ Bar) of Leboeuf, Lamb, Greene & Macrae, LLP,
125 West 55th, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 424-8000; E-
mail: jrichman@llgm.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are: Joseph P. Guglielmo (counsel
not admitted to USDC-NJ Bar) of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119,
Phone: (212) 594-5300; E-mail: jguglielmo@milbergweiss.com; and
Austin B. Cohen (counsel not admitted to USDC-NJ Bar) of Levin,
Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500,
Philadelphia, PA 19106, Phone: (215) 592-1500.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Brodsky Smith Files Stock Suit in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of Northfield Laboratories, Inc.
(NASDAQ: NFLD) between February 20, 2004 and February 21, 2006,
inclusive.  The class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

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

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


PHH CORP: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of PHH Corporation (NYSE: PHH)
between May 12, 2005 and March 1, 2006, inclusive.  The class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

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

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


PHH CORP: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. filed a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of PHH
Corporation (NYSE: PHH) 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 defendant PHH and one or more of its
executive officers.  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.


                            *********


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  * * *