CAR_Public/060327.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, March 27, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 61

                            Headlines

ACE LTD: Awaits Motion to Dismiss Ruling in Pa. Securities Suit
ACE LTD: Insurance Policyholders' Suit Dismissal Ruling Pending
ACE LTD: N.J. Court Stays Policyholders' Suits V. Subsidiaries
AETNA US: Ala. Federal Court Requests CAFA Issue Briefing
AMEDISYS INC: Appeals Court Orders Review of Stock Suit Status

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Que. Court Certifies Credit Card Holders' Suit
AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE: Calif. Seeks $50M Restitution for Borrowers
AURORA BIOSCIENCES: Ex-Officers Face Lawsuit Over Vertex Merger
BIOMEDICAL TISSUE: Bone Transplant Patient Files Lawsuit in N.J.
CELL THERAPEUTICS: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Stock Suit

CENTURYTEL LIGHTCORE: Faces Right of Way Lawsuit in Illinois
CITIGROUP INC: Judge Throws Out Damages Against Former Workers
CONNECTICUT: Court Certifies Cities' Suit V. Trash Authority
DANCO LABORATORIES: FDA Reports Mifeprex Abortion-Related Deaths
EMERITUS CORP: Enters $5M Settlement for Texas Jury Decision

FINOVA CAPITAL: Thaxton Loan Suit Certification Overturned
FROZEN SPECIALTIES: Issues Allergy Alert on Cheese Pizza Bites
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Retirees File ERISA Suit Over Stock Losses
HERTFORDSHIRE OIL: Trial on Buncefield Suit Tentatively Set Oct.
JOHNSON MATTHEY: Utah Firm Charged With Violating Environ. Laws

JORDACHE LTD: Recalls Hooded Sweatshirt on Strangulation Risk
KINDER MORGAN: Discovery Proceeds for Styrene Leak Suit in Ohio
KINDER MORGAN: N.Mex. Appeals Court Mulls Bravo Dome Unit Case
LAFAYETTE UTILITIES: Facing New Complaint Over 'Excessive Rates'
MAINE: Hagen Berman Ordered to Pay $10.8M in Malpractice Suit

MIRVAC GROUP: Aussie Firm's Luxury Apartment Lawsuit Proceeds
NETFLIX INC: Ruling on Settlement of DVD Renters' Suit Delayed
NEW YORK: Court Partially Grants Motion to Dismiss ERISA Lawsuit
NOVARTIS CORP: Former Employee Files $225M Overtime Suit in N.Y.
OPTION ONE: Pa. Court Dismisses Kahn Case, Compels Arbitration

PREMIERE GLOBAL: Discovery Proceeds in Md. TCPA Violations Suit
PRINTCAFE SOFTWARE: April Hearing Set for Stock Suit Settlement
RAINFOREST CAFE: Faces Consolidated Labor Lawsuit in California
SEPRACOR INC: Discovery Proceeds in Mass. Securities Fraud Suit
SILICON STORAGE: Calif. Court Dismisses Consolidated Stock Suit

SOS STAFFING: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 11
SPRING STREET: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 13
SPX CORP: Plaintiffs Seek Class Status For ERISA Suit in N.C.
SPX CORP: Seeks Dismissal of N.C. Consolidated Securities Suit
STILLWATER MINING: Mont. Court Considering Stock Suit Dismissal

TOWN AND COUNTRY: Faces Suit Over Magazine Acquisition Merger
TRI-CONTINENTAL CORP: Sued for Refusing to Deliver Investor List

WALTER INDUSTRIES: Faces Civil Suit in Ala. Over Foundry Sand

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

H&R BLOCK: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Miss.
H&R BLOCK: Schatz Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Miss.
MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Law Firms Lodge Wis. Securities Fraud Suit
MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Wis. Securities Suit
NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Federman Sherwood Files Ill. Stock Suit

NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Lasky Rifkind Files Stock Suit in Ill.
PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in Fla.
PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in Fla.

                           *********

ACE LTD: Awaits Motion to Dismiss Ruling in Pa. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
ACE Ltd. continues to defend itself against a consolidated
securities fraud class action, "In Re Ace Limited Securities
Litigation," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

Following the filing of a civil suit against Marsh & McLennan
Companies, Inc. by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
(NYAG), the Company was named in four putative securities class
actions on October 14, 2004.  The Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) consolidated the suits in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  

The Court has appointed as lead plaintiffs Sheet Metal Workers'
National Pension Fund and Alaska Ironworkers Pension Trust.  
Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on
September 30, 2005, naming the Company, Evan G. Greenberg, Brian
Duperreault, and Philip V. Bancroft as defendants.  Plaintiffs
assert claims solely under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Act (control
person liability).

Plaintiffs allege that the Company public statements and
securities filings should have revealed that insurers, including
certain Company entities and brokers, allegedly conspired to
increase premiums and allocate customers through the use of "B"
quotes and contingent commissions and that the Company's
revenues and earnings were inflated by these practices.

On October 28, 2005, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated securities actions.
Defendants argued that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged any
actionable misrepresentations under the securities laws, and
that defendants could not be held liable for any failures to
disclose information.  Defendants also argued that the
individual defendants could not be held liable for statements
they did not make that plaintiffs had not adequately pled
scienter, and that plaintiffs had not adequately pled loss
causation.  Plaintiffs filed a response and the motion to
dismiss remains pending.  

The suit is styled, "In Re Ace Limited Securities Litigation,
Case No. 2:05-md-01675-TJS," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge TIMOTHY J.
SAVAGE.  Representing the plaintiffs are, TOR GRONBORG, UDOKA
NWANNA and DEBRA J. WYMAN of LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN
& ROBBINS, LLP, 401 B STREET, SUITE 1700, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101,
Phone: 619-231-1058, E-mail: torg@lerachlaw.com,
udokan@lerachlaw.com and debraw@lerachlaw.com.


ACE LTD: Insurance Policyholders' Suit Dismissal Ruling Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
ACE Ltd., ACE INA Holdings, Inc. ACE USA, and a number of
insurers were named as defendants in a series of federal
putative nationwide class actions brought by policyholders.  

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL)
consolidated these cases in the District of New Jersey.  On
August 1, 2005, plaintiffs in the New Jersey consolidated
proceedings filed two consolidated amended complaints one
concerning commercial insurance and the other concerning
employee benefit plans.

In the commercial insurance complaint, the plaintiffs named ACE
Limited, ACE INA Holdings, Inc., ACE USA, Inc., ACE American
Insurance Co., Illinois Union Insurance Co., and Indemnity
Insurance Co. of North America.  They allege that insurers,
including certain Company entities, and brokers conspired to
increase premiums and allocate customers through the use of "B"
quotes and contingent commissions.  

In addition, the complaints allege that the broker defendants
received additional income by improperly placing their clients'
business with insurers through related wholesale entities that
act as intermediaries between the broker and insurer.  
Plaintiffs also allege that broker defendants tied the purchase
of primary insurance with the placement of such coverage with
reinsurance carriers through the broker defendants' reinsurance
broker subsidiaries.  In the commercial insurance consolidated
complaint, plaintiffs assert the following causes of action
against the Company: Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act (RICO), federal antitrust law, state antitrust
law, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust
enrichment.

In the employee benefits complaint, the plaintiffs named ACE
Limited, ACE USA, and Insurance Company of North America.  They
allege that insurers, including certain Company entities, and
brokers conspired to increase premiums and allocate customers
through the use of "B" quotes and contingent commissions.  In
addition, the complaints allege that the broker defendants
received additional income by improperly placing their clients'
business with insurers through related wholesale entities that
act as intermediaries between the broker and insurer. Plaintiffs
also allege that defendants improperly charged communication
fees, which plaintiffs claim are also known as "enrollment fees"
or "service/administrative fees."  

Plaintiffs also allege that insurers transferred their insureds'
business, with which they had direct contracts with and no
broker involvement, to insurance brokers in exchange for the
insurance brokers steering additional business to the insurers.  
Plaintiffs also allege that broker defendants tied the purchase
of primary insurance with the placement of such coverage with
reinsurance carriers through the broker defendants' reinsurance
broker subsidiaries.  In the employee benefits consolidated
complaint, plaintiffs assert the following causes of action
against the Company: Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act (RICO), federal antitrust law, state antitrust
law, Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

In both cases, the plaintiffs have sought unspecified
compensatory damages and reimbursement of expenses, including
legal fees.

On November 29, 2005, the Company and other property and
casualty insurer defendants filed motions to dismiss the
commercial insurance complaint.  In that motion, defendants
argued that plaintiffs' federal antitrust and RICO claims were
barred by the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which limits antitrust and
some other types of liability for insurance activities regulated
by state law.  Defendants also argued that plaintiffs had not
adequately alleged proximate cause or conspiracy.

They also argued that plaintiffs' claims alleged fraud and were
subject to heightened pleading standards, which plaintiffs could
not meet, and that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged the
elements of a RICO claim, including the existence of an
enterprise or a pattern of racketeering activity.  Finally,
defendants argued that plaintiffs' state-law antitrust claims
were deficient for many of the same reasons that the federal
claims were alleged to be deficient, and that plaintiffs had not
adequately alleged any state common-law claims.  Plaintiffs have
filed a response and the motion to dismiss remains pending.  


ACE LTD: N.J. Court Stays Policyholders' Suits V. Subsidiaries
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several subsidiaries of ACE Ltd. are defendants in state court
class actions that have allegations similar to the federal
putative nationwide class actions brought by insurance
policyholders against the Company and other defendants in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  The state
court cases involve:

     (1) Illinois Union Insurance Company, an ACE subsidiary,
         which was named in: "Van Emden Management Corporation
         v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al., (Case No.
         05-0066A; Superior Court of Massachusetts, filed
         January 13, 2005); and

     (2) ACE American Insurance Co., an ACE subsidiary, which
         was named in a state court lawsuit in Florida: "Office
         Depot, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. et al.,
         (Case No. 502005CA004396; Circuit Court of the 15th
         Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County Florida, filed
         June 22, 2005).

The Van Emden and Office Depot were stayed pending resolution of
the consolidated proceedings in the District of New Jersey or
until further order of the Court.  Plaintiffs in Office Depot
have appealed the Court's order staying the case.


AETNA US: Ala. Federal Court Requests CAFA Issue Briefing
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama rules
that the complaint in the class action styled, "Main Drug, Inc.
v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc., No. 2:05-CV-292-F, 2005 WL
3440636 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 14, 2005)," was not filed with the bona
fide intent of having it immediately served.  Thus, it did not
"commence" before Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) became law,
according to McGlinchey Stafford of http://www.cafalawblog.com.   

The case is between a group of pharmacies and an insurance
company over reimbursements for brand-name prescriptions.  The
allegedly "shorted" pharmacies first filed suit in Alabama state
court on February 9, 2005 (which preceded CAFA's effective date
by 9 days), but waited until February 28, 2005 to file the
summonses with the clerk's office.  The Company took full
advantage of this hiccup by Main Drug's counsel, and removed the
action, asserting federal jurisdiction under CAFA, as well as
federal question jurisdiction under Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).  Main Drug moved to remand, and U.S.
District Judge Mark E. Fuller held that the class's claims were
not preempted by ERISA, but that the delay in filing summonses
deferred the action's commencement date to post-CAFA, thereby
potentially allowing CAFA to apply.

In winning this preliminary skirmish, the Company argued that
state law controls when a case is actually "commenced" under
CAFA, and that under Alabama law, an action does not commence
unless the complaint is served with the "bona fide intention" of
having it immediately served.  Main Drug, realizing that it was
in a tight spot, countered that Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure
3(a) provides that an action is commenced when the complaint is
filed, and the bona fide intent requirement only arises when
statute of limitations issues are broached, which were absent
here.

After affirming the Company's argument that CAFA commencement
issues are settled pursuant to state law, Judge Fuller applied
the bona fide standard to determine the meaning of "commence" in
section 9 of CAFA.  Judge Fuller concluded that "by
intentionally not filing the summons along with the complaint,
the Plaintiff objectively failed to show a bona fide attempt to
proceed with the action," and thus, the action did not
"commence" until Main Drug filed the summonses on February 28,
2005, which was obviously post-CAFA.

However, the Company did not escape the state court, since after
determining that CAFA applied to the action, Judge Fuller then
turned to whether the action satisfied CAFA's amount in
controversy requirement.  Concluding that the court had
insufficient information to determine this issue, the judge
ordered the parties to brief the issue, particularly as to
whether the party attempting to avoid federal jurisdiction or
the party attempting to invoke federal jurisdiction under CAFA
carries the burden of proof.

The suit is styled, "Main Drug, Inc. v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00292-MEF-VPM," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Alabama under Judge
Mark E. Fuller with referral to Judge Vanzetta P. McPherson.  
Representing the plaintiffs are, Lynn W. Jinks, III of Jinks
Daniel & Crow, LLC, PO Box 350, Union Springs, AL 36089-0350,
Phone: 334-738-4225, Fax: 334-738-4229, E-mail:
ljinks@jinkslaw.com; and Robert G. Methvin, Jr. of McCallum,
Methvin & Terrell, 2201 Arlington Avenue South, Birmingham, AL
35205, Phone: (205) 939-0199, Fax: 205-939-0399, E-mail:
rgm@mmlaw.net.

Representing the defendants are, Richard Wolfe Cohen of Lowey,
Dennenberg, Bemporad & Selinger, PC, The Gateway, 11th Floor,
One North Lexington Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601, Phone: (914)
997-0500, Fax: 914-997-0035, E-mail: rcohen@ldbs.com; and Susan
Kennedy of Slate Kennedy, LLC, 166 Commerce Street, Suite 350
Montgomery, AL 36104, Phone: 334-262-3300, Fax: 334-262-3301, E-
mail: skennedy@slatekennedy.com.

For more details, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?6ea
(Main Drug Opinion).


AMEDISYS INC: Appeals Court Orders Review of Stock Suit Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the
certification of the consolidated securities lawsuit filed
against Amedisys, Inc. and certain of its executive officers.

On August 23 and October 4, 2001, two class actions were filed,
which have since been consolidated, on behalf of all purchasers
of our common stock between November 15, 2000 and June 13, 2001,
against the Company and three of its executive officers, in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.  In
May of 2003, the trial court certified the class, and we
appealed that decision.  On February 17, 2005, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the trial court's
certification order and remanded the case for further
proceedings relative to class certification.  The parties agreed
to a stay of all depositions and other discovery (subject to
certain limited exceptions) pending a ruling on class
certification.

The suits seek damages based on the decline in our stock price
following an announced restatement of earnings for the fourth
quarter of 2000 and first quarter of 2001, alleging that our
management knew or were reckless in not knowing the facts giving
rise to the restatement.

The lead suit is styled, "Unger, et al. v. Amedisys, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:01-cv-00703-JJB-SCR," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana under Judge James J.
Brady.  Representing the plaintiffs is Jody E. Anderman of
LeBlanc & Waddell, LLP, 5141 Bluebonnet Blvd. Baton Rouge, LA
70809-5000 Phone: 225-768-7222.  

Representing the Company are James R. Swanson and Loretta G.
Mince of Correro Fishman Haygood Phelps Weiss Walmsley &
Casteix, 201 St. Charles Avenue, 46th Floor, New Orleans, LA
70170-4600 Phone: 504-586-5252, E-mail: jswanson@cfhlaw.com and
lmince@cfhlaw.com.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Que. Court Certifies Credit Card Holders' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quebec courts have certified one and set aside three of four
class actions that alleged certain banks in Canada penalized
credit card holders even after paying their bills on time, The
Gazette reports.

On March 21, Quebec Superior Court Justice Denis Jacques allowed
11 financial institutions to have four of the suits heard as one
because of their similarities in regard to Quebec Consumer
Protection Act Section 126, which concerns grace period for
payments.  The suits were temporarily set aside until there is a
decision in the fifth case, according to the report.

The institutions are: Bank of Montreal, the Toronto-Dominion
Bank, HSBC Bank of Canada, the National Bank of Canada, the
Royal Bank of Canada, the Laurentian Bank, the Amex Bank of
Canada, the MBNA Bank of Canada, the Canadian Imperial Bank of
Commerce, Citibank Canada and Canadian Tire Bank.  

On May 22, Quebec Superior Court Justice Marie-France Courville
allowed to proceed the suit filed by Sheri Aberback-Ptack
against American Express Canada in 2004.  Ms. Sheri Aberback-
Ptack is suing on behalf of those who incurred a finance charge
or interest penalty after paying their account either by
Internet, telephone or automatic banking machine on or before
the due date.  Any Amex card holder who has paid their bill by
Internet, telephone or ATM since March 15, 2001, is eligible to
be part of Mr. Aberback-Ptack's class action.  The lawsuit
alleged violation of both the Cardholder Agreement signed with
Amex and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act.

According to the report, credit card agreements and Section 126
of the provincial act require that account statements must be
mailed to consumers no less than 21 days before the date on
which the creditor may impose credit charges.

Ms. Averback-Ptack is represented by Arthur Wechsler, 2101-1
Place Ville-Marie 21e Et., Montreal, Quebec, Canada. (Montreal
Dist.)


AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE: Calif. Seeks $50M Restitution for Borrowers
----------------------------------------------------------------
California officials filed a formal settlement with Ameriquest
Mortgage Co. to avail of a $325 million that the company is
distributing as restitution for victims of alleged predatory
lending practices by the company, Los Angeles Times reports.

Ameriquest Mortgage agreed in January to pay $295 million in
restitution and an additional $30 million to compensate
authorities for investigative costs.  California, one of 49
states that is involved in the settlement, expects to receive as
much as $50 million, said Thomas Papageorge, head of consumer
protection for the Los Angeles County district attorney's
office.

"[B]ut it will be at least spring 2007 before those payments go
out to people," he said.  In California, about 108,000 borrowers
who received loans from Ameriquest beginning in 1999 will be
eligible to share in the restitution, the report said.

Ameriquest was sued for predatory lending in many jurisdictions
across the country.  Many of those cases have recently been
consolidated in the federal District Court in Chicago before
Judge Marvin E. Aspen.  Claims against Ameriquest include
allegations of misrepresentation, overcharge of fees, failure to
provide necessary information about loan terms, and violations
of various state and federal consumer protection laws (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 25, 2006).

Many of the homeowners affected by Ameriquest's practices paid
thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in questionable fees
and charges.  Many of the pending lawsuits allege that consumers
retained the right to cancel their mortgages and thus may
legally recover some or all of the points paid and other finance
charges.  For many consumers, the remedy potentially available
through private litigation would provide $10,000 dollars or more
in relief (Class Action Report, Jan. 25, 2006).

Pending class actions against Ameriquest include:

     (1) Cheryl Williams and Duvall Naughton, et al. v.
         Ameriquest Mortgage Company, Case No. 05-CV-6189 (New
         York, NY) (national class);

     (2) George Barber, et al. v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company,
         Case No. 3:04-cv-1296-J-32TEM (Florida);

     (3) Luke Ricci, et al. v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company, Case
         No. 05-1214 JRT/FLN (Minnesota);

     (4) Tonya Sumner Brown, et al. v. Ameriquest Capital Corp.
         and Ameriquest Mortgage Company, Case No. 8:05-cv-
         00285-AHS-RNB (California);

     (5) Adolph Peter Kurt Burggraff, et al. v. Ameriquest
         Capital Corp. and Ameriquest Mortgage Company, Case No.
         2:04-cv-09715-MMM-MC (California);

     (6) Nona Knox, Albert Knox, Maria Torres, Heladio Arellanes
         and Maria Arellanes, et al. v. Ameriquest Mortgage
         Company, Argent Mortgage Company, and Does 1-100,
         inclusive, Case No. 3:05-cv-00240-SC (California);

     (7) Isabelle M. Murphy, David R. Murphy, Lynn Gay, David M.
         Wakefield, and Janet Wakefield, et al. v. Ameriquest
         Mortgage Company, Case No. 1:04-cv-12651-RWZ
         (Massachusetts); and

     (8) Latonya Williams, Duwayne Williams, Daisybel Tolbert
         and William F. Tolbert, et al. v. Ameriquest Mortgage
         Company, Case No. 8:05-cv-01036-EAK-EAJ (Florida).


AURORA BIOSCIENCES: Ex-Officers Face Lawsuit Over Vertex Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action captioned, "Marguerite Sacchetti v.
James C. Blair, et al.," was filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Diego, naming as defendants
all of the directors of Aurora Biosciences Corporation, who
approved the merger of Aurora and Vertex Pharmaceuticals, which
closed in July 2001.

The plaintiffs, who filed the suit in December 17, 2003, claim
that Aurora's directors breached their fiduciary duty to Aurora
by, among other things, negligently conducting a due diligence
examination of Vertex by failing to discover alleged problems
with VX-745, a Vertex drug candidate that was the subject of a
development program which was terminated by Vertex in September
2001.  

Vertex has certain indemnity obligations to Aurora's directors
under the terms of the merger agreement between Vertex and
Aurora, which could result in Vertex liability for attorney's
fees and costs in connection with this action, as well as for
any ultimate judgment that might be awarded. There is an
outstanding directors' and officers' liability policy, which may
cover a significant portion of any such liability.  The
defendants are fighting this suit.


BIOMEDICAL TISSUE: Bone Transplant Patient Files Lawsuit in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The D'Arcy Law Firm, P.C., joined with Motley Rice LLC, of Mt.
Pleasant, S.C., and Cohen Placitella & Roth of Red Bank, N.J.,
in filing a suit over allegedly illegally harvested and
unscreened body parts used in transplant surgery.

Together, the firms are currently investigating in excess of 500
potential cases in these matters.  The suit, filed in District
Court of New Jersey, is on behalf of Ned Jackson of Omaha,
Nebraska, who allegedly received illegally harvested and
untested bones as part of a routine back surgery at Alegent
Health Immanuel Medical Center in Omaha.  It is alleged that
these bones were part of the alleged tissue-harvesting scheme
that took place in New Jersey and New York, and that is
currently subject of an indictment in Brooklyn, New York.

On August 12, 2003, Mr. Jackson underwent what should have been
a routine back surgery at Alegent Health Immanuel Medical
Center, at which time he received an allograft bone cage in his
back.  Two years later, in the fall of 2005, he received a call
from his surgeon informing him that the bone used in his surgery
was obtained from BTS.  With its founders currently under
indictment, it is alleged that BTS played a role in a human
tissue and bone harvesting and distribution scheme that resulted
in patients nationwide receiving tissue implants that were
allegedly illegally acquired and potentially diseased.  

Mr. Jackson subsequently was subjected to several rounds of
testing which resulted in the news that he had been infected
with Hepatitis B and C, a liver disease for which there is no
cure.  In fact, according to the Center for Disease Control and
Prevention, 70 percent of all Hepatitis C patients will develop
chronic liver disease.

"It is shocking that innocent victims such as Mr. Jackson have
had to endure such an emotionally distressing, and now
physically debilitating, situation," stated attorney Patrick
D'Arcy.  "Not only is he faced with a life sentence of liver
disease that we believe came from the bone transplant, but he
cannot remove these dreadful parts from his back."

Two of the defendants were recently charged in State Supreme
Court in Brooklyn, N.Y., for operating a corrupt $4.6 million
enterprise that allegedly plotted to carve up cadavers at New
York City funeral homes, including those named in this suit, and
sell the human bones and skin to tissue banks and distributors
for transplants.  Hospitals nationwide have reported receipt of
this illegally harvested and potentially dangerous tissue.  

The law firms believe that due to poor industry regulations, the
problem may extend far beyond what has been included in the
recent BTS case.  Anyone who has received a tissue transplant or
bone graft and has been inexplicably diagnosed with Hepatitis,
HIV, Syphilis or other infectious diseases should take the
necessary steps to protect their legal rights.

The D'Arcy Law Firm and Motley Rice will be trying this case
together with co-counsel Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C., of Red
Bank, New Jersey and Rod Rhem of Rehm, Bennett & Moore, LLC,
P.C., in Lincoln, Nebraska.

The suit is styled "Jackson v. Biomedical Tissue Services, Ltd.
et al. (2:06-cv-01323-WJM-RJH)" filed under Judge William J.
Martini with referral to Ronald J. Hedges.  Representing the
plaintiff is Patrick T. D'arcy of D'arcy Law Firm, PC, Central
Park, 331 E. Jimmie Leeds Road, Suite 3, Absecon, NJ 08201,
Phone: (609) 748-3700.


CELL THERAPEUTICS: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Stock Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cell Therapeutics, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The securities lawsuits assert claims arising under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder on behalf of a class of purchasers of common
stock during the period from June 7, 2004 to March 4, 2005, or
the Class Period.  Plaintiffs allege that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by, among other things, making
false statements of material facts and/or omitting to state
material facts to make the statements not misleading, in
connection with the results of the Company's STELLAR clinical
trials for its drug XYOTAX.

On November 7, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated and
Amended Class Action Complaint against the Company, James Bianco
and Jack Singer.  The Consolidated and Amended Complaint asserts
claims arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder on behalf of a
class of purchasers of common stock during the period from
November 14, 2003 to March 7, 2005, or the Class Period.

On January 6, 2006, the Company filed a motion to dismiss this
class action complaint, to which the plaintiffs filed an
opposition on February 21, 2006.  No estimate of possible loss
or range of loss resulting from the lawsuit can be made at this
time.  The Company believes that the allegations in the
foregoing actions are without merit and intend to defend the
actions vigorously.

The suit is styled, "Heywood v. Cell Therapeutics Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:05-cv-00396-RSM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington under Judge Ricardo S.
Martinez.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michelle M. Backes of SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY, 280 KING OF
         PRUSSIA RD., RADNOR, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706, E-
         mail: mbackes@sbclasslaw.com;

     (2) Tamara J. Driscoll of LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER
         RUDMAN & ROBBINS, 1700 SEVENTH AVENUE, STE. 2260,
         SEATTLE, WA 98101, Phone: 206-749-5544, Fax: 206-749-
         9978, E-mail: tdriscoll@lerachlaw.com;

     (3) Douglas C. McDermott of HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO,
         LLP, 1301 5TH AVE., STE. 2900, SEATTLE, WA 98101,
         Phone: 206-623-7292, E-mail: doug@hbsslaw.com; and

     (4) Jay H. Zulauf of HALL ZANZIG ZULAUF CLAFLIN MCEACHERN,
         1200 5TH AVE., STE. 1414, SEATTLE, WA 98101, Phone:
         206-292-5900, Fax: 206-292-5901, E-mail:
         jzulauf@hallzan.com.

Representing the defendant are, Daniel J Dunne, Jr. and Robin
Wechkin of HELLER EHRMAN, LLP, 701 5TH AVE., STE. 6100, SEATTLE,
WA 98104-7098, Phone: 206-447-0900, Fax: 206-447-0375, E-mail:
daniel.dunne@hellerehrman.com & robin.wechkin@hellerehrman.com.


CENTURYTEL LIGHTCORE: Faces Right of Way Lawsuit in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
An Illinois couple Melvin and Patricia Genebacher are suing
telephone company CenturyTel LightCore for allegedly putting
fiber optic cables in their property without permission, Quincy
Herald Whig reports.

The Fowler, Adams County residents filed the class action in
February on behalf of landowners who were in similar
circumstances.  The suit claimed that CenturyTel has installed
hundreds of miles of fiber optic cable in the state without
permission.  Plaintiff's attorney, Chris Schuering, said the
land is along Ill. 104 east of Quincy that goes through the
Genenbachers' farmland.  The suit is seeking unspecified
damages.  A case management hearing is scheduled before Adams
County Judge Scott Walden in Quincy June 28, according to the
report.

CenturyTel is a full service rural local exchange carrier in 26
states.  CenturyTel's LightCore fiber network consists of more
than 14,500 route miles.  In 2005, the company added more than
106,100 DSL (high-speed Internet) connections and 100,400 long
distance lines, and generated free cash flow of over $463
million.

The plaintiffs are represented by two Chicago law firms and the
local law firm of Goehl, Schuering, Cassens and Bier
(http://www.gsclawnet.com/). Mr. Schuering's address is Goehl,  
Schuering & Cassens, Quincy, Illinois, (Adams Co.).


CITIGROUP INC: Judge Throws Out Damages Against Former Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan
reversed a decision by the securities industry's self-regulatory
arm to award $448,000 in damages to two WorldCom Inc. investors
last year, Reuters reports.

In January 2005, an arbitration panel of the National
Association of Securities Dealers awarded the amount to
Elizabeth and Donald Rich against former Citigroup Inc. brokers
Philip Spartis and Amy Elias.  Elizabeth Rich had been a
WorldCom employee, and exercised stock options under an
arrangement established by Spartis.  The Riches sought $1.31
million in damages for losses from investing in WorldCom and
other securities.

Judge Cote's decision said the panel ignored evidence that the
plaintiffs had not opted out of an investor class suing
WorldCom's banks over the phone company's 2002 bankruptcy.  She
also said there is no evidence that the NASD panel intended the
award to compensate the Riches for other investing losses they
may have suffered.  

The "panel exceeds its power when it issues an award arising
from claims concerning a security which is the subject of a
class action settlement, bar order, and releases," Judge Cote
said.  The award should only be for WorldCom trading losses, not
damages, according to her.

WorldCom emerged from Chapter 11 protection as MCI Inc., which
was later acquired by Verizon Communications Inc.

Culver Halliday, a partner at Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC in
Louisville, Kentucky, represented the Riches.  Jeffrey Liddle, a
partner at Liddle & Robinson LLP in New York, represented the
former brokers.


CONNECTICUT: Court Certifies Cities' Suit V. Trash Authority
------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Court Judge Dennis G. Eveleigh allowed 70 cities and
towns to sue a regional trash authority for attempting to pass
to consumers the cost of a $220 million failed deal with now-
defunct Enron Corp., Associated Press reports.

The cities had agreements to dispose trash at the Connecticut
Resources Recovery Authority's Mid-Conn Project.  The suit was
originally filed by the cities of New Hartford and Barkhamsted.

In a ruling on March 22, Judge Eveleigh said: "The court finds
that several of the statements made by CRRA have been
misleading, and that the existence of these statements has made
it difficult, if not impossible" for the towns to join for the
purposes of the suit.  The judge cited letters written in 2004
and 2005 by CRRA President Thomas Kirk to the 70 municipalities
in central Connecticut.  

According to the report, the judge said the CRRA misled the
public by:

     (1) saying the towns would have to shoulder costs of the
         lawsuit through increased disposal fees;

     (2) it has substantial legal fees in defending itself in
         the lawsuit, without disclosing that insurance carriers
         had paid for most of those costs; and

     (3) not telling them that costs incurred in making the
         failed $220 million loan to Enron potentially could be
         recouped through various indemnification agreements
         made with law firms advising the authority on the
         transaction.

CRRA entered into an agreement to loan Enron $220 million in
exchange for some $28.5 million a year payment from Enron
between 2001 to 2012 for operating a Hartford trash-to-energy
plant, the power produced from which will be sold by Enron.  But
Enron filed for bankruptcy in 2001.  The authority only
recovered $111 million after the collapse.

Barkhamsted, New Hartford and Winchester is represented by David
S. Golub of Silver Golub & Teitell LLP, 184 Atlantic Street,
P.O. Box 389, Stamford, Connecticut 06904, (Fairfield Co.),
Phone: 203-325-4491; Fax: 203-325-3769.


DANCO LABORATORIES: FDA Reports Mifeprex Abortion-Related Deaths
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration informs regarding two
additional deaths following medical abortion with mifepristone
(Mifeprex).  

The Agency received verbal notification of the deaths in the
U.S. from the manufacturer, Danco Laboratories.  At this time
the FDA is investigating all circumstances associated with these
cases and is not able to confirm the causes of death.  However,
all providers of medical abortion and their patients need to be
aware of the specific circumstances and directions for use of
this drug and all risks including sepsis when considering
treatment.  In particular, physicians and their patients are
advised to fully discuss early potential signs and symptoms that
may warrant immediate medical evaluation.

The approved Mifeprex regimen for a medical abortion through 49
days' pregnancy is:

     -- Day One: Mifeprex Administration: 3 tablets of 200 mg of
        Mifeprex orally at once,

     -- Day Three: Misoprostol Administration: 2 tablets of 200
        mcg of misoprostol orally at once,

     -- Day 14: Post-Treatment: the patient must return to
        confirm that a complete termination has occurred.  If
        not, surgical termination is recommended to manage
        medical abortion treatment failures,

     -- The safety and effectiveness of other Mifeprex dosing
        regimens, including use of oral misoprostol tablets
        intra-vaginally, has not been established by the FDA.

These recommendations are consistent with warnings in the
Prescribing Information and information for the patient in the
Medication Guide.  FDA also emphasizes that healthcare
professionals and patients should be aware of:

     -- All providers of medical abortion and emergency room
        health care providers should investigate the possibility
        of sepsis in patients who are undergoing medical
        abortion and present with nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea
        and weakness with or without abdominal pain, and without
        fever or other signs of infection more than 24 hours
        after taking misoprostol.  To help identify those
        patients with hidden infection, strong consideration
        should be given to obtaining a complete blood count.
       
     -- FDA recommends that physicians suspect infection in
        patients with this presentation and consider immediately
        initiating treatment with antibiotics that includes
        coverage of anaerobic bacteria such as Clostridium
        sordellii.
       
     -- FDA does not have sufficient information to recommend
        the use of prophylactic antibiotics.  Reports of fatal
        sepsis in women undergoing medical abortion are very
        rare (approximately 1 in 100,000).  Prophylactic
        antibiotic use carries its own risk of serious adverse
        events such as severe or fatal allergic reactions.  
        Also, prophylactic use of antibiotics can stimulate the
        growth of "superbugs," bacteria resistant to everyday
        antibiotics.  Finally, it is not known which antibiotic
        and regimen (what dose and for how long) will be
        effective in cases such as the ones that have occurred.

As previously provided in the FDA's July 19, 2005 Public Health
Advisory, updated on November 4, 2005, the Agency is aware of
four previous confirmed deaths from sepsis in the United States,
from September 2003 to June 2005, in women following medical
abortion with mifepristone (Mifeprex) and misoprostol.   All
four cases of fatal infection tested positive for Clostridium
sordellii.   All four cases involved the off-label dosing
regimen consisting of 200 mg of oral Mifeprex followed by 800
mcg of intra-vaginally placed misoprostol.  In addition, FDA
tested drug from manufacturing lots of mifepristone and
misoprostol and found no contamination with Clostridium
sordellii.  

The FDA does not know whether these new deaths were caused by
sepsis or, if they were, if they were caused by infection with
Clostridium sordellii.  However, FDA, in conjunction with the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID),
is conducting a public workshop on May 11, 2006.  

This scientific workshop entitled, "Emerging Clostridial
Disease," at the CDC Conference Center, Atlanta, Georgia, is
being conducted to discuss the scientific and medical
circumstances associated with reports of morbidity and mortality
associated with C. sordellii and C difficile infections.  These
reports include cases and clusters of C. sordellii toxic shock
syndrome following treatment with mifepristone, C. sordellii
sepsis associated with skin grafts, and rapidly fatal toxin-
mediated cases of community-associated C. difficile infection.   
The primary goal of the workshop is to bring together scientific
and public health experts to develop a draft research agenda
leading to a better understanding of the virulence,
pathogenesis, host factors, and non-antimicrobial risk factors
contributing to those reports.   

Information pertaining to Mifeprex can be found at:
http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/mifepristone/default.htm

Information pertaining to Emerging Clostridial Diseases Public
Workshop can be found at:
http://www.fda.gov/cder/meeting/clostridia_disease.htm

               
EMERITUS CORP: Enters $5M Settlement for Texas Jury Decision
------------------------------------------------------------
Emeritus Corporation said it has agreed to a settlement with the
plaintiffs in the San Antonio, Texas case that resulted in a
verdict in February 2005.  A statement from the company did not
specify the nature of the suit, except that the claim arose from
an event occurring in 2003.

Under the settlement agreement, the Company will pay
approximately $5.0 million.  The Company had reflected the
entire verdict amount in its 2004 financial statements.  As a
result of this settlement, the Company will record a gain of
$13.4 million in its first quarter 2006 results.  

Emeritus Corporation (AMEX:ESC) -- http://www.emeritus.com--  
provides of assisted living and related services to senior
citizens.


FINOVA CAPITAL: Thaxton Loan Suit Certification Overturned
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina's class
certification for the consolidated lawsuit filed against FINOVA
Capital Corporation over its loan to The Thaxton Group, Inc. and
several related entities.

Between October 17, 2003 and January 13, 2004, the Company was
served with and named as a defendant (with other parties) in
five lawsuits that relate to its loan to The Thaxton Group Inc.
and several related entities (collectively the "Thaxton
Entities").  Under its loan agreement, the Company has a senior
secured loan to the Thaxton Entities of approximately $108
million at December 31, 2005.  The Thaxton Entities were
declared in default under their loan agreement with the Company
after they advised it that they would have to restate earnings
for the first two fiscal quarters of 2003, and had suspended
payments on their subordinated notes.  

As a result of the default, the Company exercised its rights
under the loan agreement, and accelerated the indebtedness.  The
Thaxton Entities then filed a petition for bankruptcy protection
under chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcy code in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on October 17,
2003, listing assets of approximately $206 million and debts of
$242 million.  The Thaxton Group had approximately 6,800 holders
of its subordinated notes that were issued in several states,
with a total subordinated indebtedness of approximately $122
million.

The first lawsuit, a complaint captioned, "Earle B. Gregory, et
al., v. FINOVA Capital Corporation, James T. Garrett, et al.,
(the Gregory action)," was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Lancaster County, South Carolina, Case No. 2003-CP-29-967, and
was served on the Company on October 17, 2003.  An amended
complaint was served on November 5, 2003, prior to the deadline
for FINOVA to answer, plead, or otherwise respond to the
original complaint.  The Gregory action was properly removed to
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on
November 17, 2003, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1334 and 1452.  
The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court,
but the U.S. District Court denied this motion in an order dated
December 18, 2003.

The second Thaxton-related complaint, captioned, "Tom Moore,
Anna Nunnery, et al., v. FINOVA Capital Corporation, Moore & Van
Allen PLLC, and Cherry, Bekaert & Holland LLP, Case No. 8:03-
372413 (Moore)," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina on November 25, 2003, and was served
on the Company on December 2, 2003.  The third complaint,
captioned, "Sam Jones Wood and Kathy Annette Wood, et al., v.
FINOVA Capital Corporation, Moore & Van Allen PLLC, and Cherry,
Bekaert & Holland LLP, (Wood)," was filed in the Superior Court
for Gwinnett County, Georgia, Case No. 03-A13343-B, and was
served on the Company on December 9, 2003.  The Company properly
removed the Wood action to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta Division) on January 5,
2004.  

The fourth complaint, captioned, "Grant Hall and Ruth Ann Hall,
et al., v. FINOVA Capital Corporation, Moore & Van Allen PLLC,
and Cherry, Bekaert & Holland LLP, Case No. 03CVS20572, (Hall),"
was filed in the Mecklenberg County, North Carolina, Superior
Court, and was also served on the Company on December 9, 2003.  
The Company properly removed the Hall action to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
(Charlotte Division) on January 5, 2004.  The fifth complaint,
captioned, "Charles Shope, et al., v. FINOVA Capital
Corporation, Moore & Van Allen PLLC, and Cherry, Bekaert &
Holland LLP, Case No. C204022 (Shope)," was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division, and was served on the Company on January 13, 2004.

Each of the five Thaxton-related lawsuits are styled as class
actions, purportedly brought on behalf of certain defined
classes of people who had purchased subordinated notes from the
Thaxton Entities.  The complaints by the subordinated note
holders allege claims of fraud, securities fraud, and various
other civil conspiracy and business torts in the sale of the
subordinated notes.  Each of the complaints seeks an unspecified
amount of damages, among other remedies.

Upon motion by the Company to the U.S. Judicial Panel for
MultiDistrict Litigation (Docket 1612), all five Thaxton-related
actions were transferred on June 18, 2004 to the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Carolina for coordinated pre-
trial proceedings (the "MDL Litigation").  In June 2005, the
South Carolina District Court certified the MDL Litigation as a
class action.

On October 6, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit issued an order granting the Company's petition for
permission to appeal the order of the South Carolina District
Court certifying the class action cases and staying further
proceedings in the South Carolina District Court during the
pendency of the appeal or until the further order of the Court
of Appeals.

The Fourth Circuit heard oral arguments on the petition on
February 2, 2006.  On March 14, 2006, the Fourth Circuit issued
its ruling, reversing the South Carolina District Court's class
certification, stating, that in light of the Adversary
Proceeding, class certification is not the superior method for
the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.

The suit is styled, "In re The Thaxton Group Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 8:04-cv-02612-GRA, MDL-1612," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina under
Judge G. Ross Anderson, Jr.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Gilbert Scott Bagnell of Bagnell and Eason, P.O. Box
         11852, Columbia, SC 29211-1852, Phone: 803-748-1333,
         Fax: 803-748-1300, E-mail:
         gilbagnell@bagnellandeason.com;

     (2) Erica Busch and Declan Maher Butvick of Moses & Singer,
         LLP, 1301 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019,
         Phone: (212) 554-7879, Fax: (212) 554-7700, E-mail:
         ebusch@mosessinger.com and dbutvick@mosessinger.com;

     (3) Thomas E. Lydon of McAngus Goudelock and Courie, P.O.
         Box 12519, Columbia, SC 29211, Phone: 803-779-2300,
         Fax: 803-748-0526, E-mail: tlydon@mgclaw.com; and

     (4) David Mark Rabinowitz of Buist Moore Smythe McGee, 1301
         Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019, Phone: 212-
         554-7898, E-mail: drabinowitz@mosessinger.com.

Representing the defendants are, Allen Jackson Barnes and
Elizabeth Van Doren Gray of Sowell Gray Stepp and Laffitte, P.O.
Box 11449, Columbia, SC 29211, Phone: 803-929-1400 and 803-231-
7827, Fax: 803-929-0336 and 803-231-7877, E-mail:
jbarnes@sowell.com and egray@sowell.com; and Daniel P. Shapiro
of Goldberg Kohn Bell Black Rosenbloom and Moritz, 55 E. Monroe
Street, Suite 3700, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: 312-201-3963, Fax:
312-332-2196, E-mail: daniel.shapiro@goldbergkohn.com.


FROZEN SPECIALTIES: Issues Allergy Alert on Cheese Pizza Bites
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frozen Specialties, Inc. Holland, Ohio is recalling some lots of
Kroger Cheese Pizza Bites because they contain undeclared soy.  
The company said people who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to soy run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The products are not harmful unless the consumer is allergic to
soy.  The recall applies only to products with a retail UPC Code
of 11110-82334 and Sell By dates of Feb. 17, 2007, Mar. 03, 07,
Mar. 06, 07, Mar. 08, 07 and Mar. 14,07.  The "Sell By" code is
printed on each package on the right side of the back panel near
the package seal.  This recall applies only to Kroger Cheese
Pizza Bites packaged in 20.0 oz./40 count retail packages.

The Kroger Cheese Pizza Bites were sold at Kroger, Dillon, King
Soopers, Frys, Smiths and Jay C stores and also the Food 4 Less
stores in California, Nevada and Chicago area.

No illnesses have been reported to date.  The recall was
initiated after it was discovered that an ingredient containing
soy was not listed in the ingredient statement on package.

Consumers who are allergic to soy are advised not to consume the
Kroger Cheese Pizza Bites and return the product to store where
purchased for refund.  Consumers with questions may contact
Kroger's at 800-632-6900.

Frozen Specialties, Inc. is taking this voluntary action to
ensure the safety of its consumers and is working closely with
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in the recall process.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Retirees File ERISA Suit Over Stock Losses
------------------------------------------------------------
Two retired General Electric Company employees are suing the
company for violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, The Record reports.

Pensioners Umberto Cavalieri and Floyd Miklic claim GE reported
inflated stock values from 1997 to 2001 because the company
counted as earnings money that should have gone into the
reserves of the Employers Reinsurance unit of the company.  The
suit alleged GE did not accurately disclose the true nature,
extent and risks of these problems until Nov. 18, 2005.

GE had to put $9.4 billion into the fund when it sold the
insurance unit to Swiss Reinsurance.  The move drove down the
price of the stock.  The plaintiffs, whose pension options
included purchasing company stock, incurred losses as a result.  
The retirees claim they opted for stock because they sold as
high as $50.  The shares went down to $35 when the gap emerged.  
According to the suit, 67.28%, $16.8 billion, of the company's
total retirement plan is in company stocks purchased by the
employees, which are, in part, matched by GE.

According to the report, the suit also claims management had an
inherent conflict in full disclosure because its compensation is
tied to the stock's performance and there are a substantial
number of shares held in the pension plan.

The retirees' co-council is Jeffrey Sherrin of O'Connell and
Aronowitz, P.C., 54 State Street, Albany, New York 12207-1885
(Albany Co.), Phone: 518-462-5601; Telecopier: 518-462-2670.


HERTFORDSHIRE OIL: Trial on Buncefield Suit Tentatively Set Oct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A U.K. High Court adjourned until at least October a hearing on
the proposed class action filed on behalf of victims of the
Buncefield oil depot fire in Hertfordshire, according to BBC
News.

Charles Gibson QC, counsel for Hertfordshire Oil Storage Ltd.,
said claims were being processed, making it "important that
sufficient time is allowed for that process to continue,
unhindered by litigation".  Senior Master Turner has requested a
progress report to be submitted by the middle of July.

U.K.-based law firm Collins Solicitors in February applied for
group litigation order against Hertfordshire Oil Storage (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 6, 2006).  Collins Solicitors expects to
represent more than 200 fire victims from an oil depot explosion
in December.  People who claimed they lost jobs or suffered
post-traumatic stress, as a direct result of the explosion are
expecting claims to come at several million pounds.

Collins Solicitors on the Net: http://www.collinslaw.co.uk;  
Hertfordshire Oil Storage Ltd. Phone: 01442 263738; Fax: 01442
234698.  


JOHNSON MATTHEY: Utah Firm Charged With Violating Environ. Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
A 29-count federal indictment was returned on March 23 in Salt
Lake City, Utah, charging Johnson Matthey, Inc. and two managers
with committing conspiracy, concealment by trick, scheme and
device, and Clean Water Act (CWA) violations.

A statement from the Justice Department and Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) says the defendants were:

     (1) Johnson Matthey, Inc., gold and silver refining
         company;

     (2) John David McKelvie, current director of Gold and
         Silver Operations for North America and Europe and
         former general manager of the Salt Lake City facility;
         and

     (3) Paul Card Greaves, former plant manager.

"The indictment in this case alleges that the defendants
violated the laws that protect our environment and conspired to
conceal the high level of pollutants they discharged by cheating
on required tests and submitting false information regarding the
amount of selenium they discharged," said Sue Ellen Wooldridge,
Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's
Environment and Natural Resources Division.

"This investigation and indictment underscore the Department's
continuing commitment to prosecuting individuals and companies
who knowingly pollute our Nation's waters, and try to hide their
illegal conduct from regulators."

"The defendants are charged with not only illegally discharging
contaminated waste water, but also engaging in a concerted
effort to cover it up," said Granta Y. Nakayama, EPA's Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.  "[The]
indictment demonstrates that EPA considers the behavior that is
alleged to be a very serious violation of our Nation's
environmental laws, and that both companies and their senior
managers will be held accountable."

"The defendants' excessive release of selenium into sewers and
attempts to conceal their conduct shows a blatant disregard for
the law," said Acting U.S. Attorney Steven Sorenson for the
District of Utah.  "This indictment is evidence of our
commitment to ensuring the health and safety of the people of
Utah."

Johnson Matthey, Inc.-based in Wayne, Pennsylvania-owns
facilities throughout the U.S. in addition to the silver and
gold refinery in Salt Lake City, where it refines gold and
silver from a semi-refined product called dore.

As part of the refining process at Johnson Matthey, Inc.'s Salt
Lake City facility, impurities such as selenium are separated
from the gold and silver being refined, and accumulate in the
wastewater.  Selenium is an element, which is known to
accumulate in living organisms, causing damage to kidney and
liver tissue and to nervous and circulatory systems in humans.  
It is also linked to deformation and various other reproductive
problems in waterfowl.

Johnson Matthey, Inc. held a permit from the Central Valley
Water Reclamation Facility (Central Valley) which required the
company to limit the amount of selenium it discharged into
sewers to 3.47 parts per million during the time period covered
by the indictment.  The indictment alleges that the company
exceeded its monthly limit on selenium discharges during at
least 12 separate months between January 2000 and May 2002.

Johnson Matthey, Inc. and the individual defendants were charged
with conspiring to conceal the Salt Lake City facility's
discharges of selenium-contaminated water in excess of permit
limits by:

     (1) By shutting off wastewater discharging to the sampling
         point when personnel from Central Valley came on site
         to sample the wastewater to conceal high levels of
         selenium discharged from the facility;

     (2) By "cherry-picking" samples of wastewater with low
         selenium content to submit to laboratories for testing,
         and then submitting only those testing results to
         Central Valley, thereby avoiding monetary penalties for
         exceeding permit limits.  Johnson Matthey, Inc.'s
         permit required that samples taken be representative of
         the volume and nature of monitored discharges; and

     (3) By diluting the wastewater with fresh water from a hose
         in order to misrepresent the concentration of selenium
         discharged during normal operations.  Johnson Matthey,
         Inc.'s permit prohibited use of dilution water to
         achieve compliance with the standards in its permit.

The indictment charges the company and both individual
defendants with conspiracy.  Johnson Matthey and Mr. Greaves are
charged with twelve counts, and Mr. McKelvie is charged with 11
counts of discharging pollutants in excess of permit limits.  In
addition, Mr. McKelvie was charged with seven counts of
concealing Johnson Matthey, Inc. high selenium levels by
performing selective sampling.  

Johnson Matthey, Inc. and Greaves were both charged with ten
counts of concealment.  Johnson Matthey, Inc. and Mr. Greaves
were also charged with three counts of rendering inaccurate a
monitoring method by shutting off the wastewater flow during
monitoring, and violating the permit by diluting wastewater
samples.  Each of those crimes carries a maximum penalty of five
years of prison, and a $250,000 fine for individual defendants,
and $500,000 for corporate defendants.

Charges in an indictment are merely accusations.  Each of the
defendants is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty
in federal court.

The case is being prosecuted by Andrea Steward and Richard
Poole, Trial Attorneys in the Environmental Crimes Section of
the Department of Justice in Washington.

Acting U.S. Attorney Stephen J. Sorenson commended Special Agent
Ted Owens of the EPA, under the direction of Lori A. Hanson,
Special Agent in Charge of the EPA's Criminal Investigation
Division for Region 8, for investigating the case.


JORDACHE LTD: Recalls Hooded Sweatshirt on Strangulation Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Jordache Ltd., of New York, New York, is recalling 30,000 "U.S.
Polo Association" youth hooded sweatshirts with drawstring.

The company said the garments have a drawstring through the
hood, posing a strangulation hazard to children.  In February
1996, CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist by
drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts.  
No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled youth hooded fleece garments have drawstrings.  
They were sold in a variety of colors and have "U.S. Polo Assn."
written on them.  A sewn-in tag also reads, "U.S. Polo Assn".
The style number for these garments is 12-5169.

The sweatshirts were made in China and sold at JC Penney stores
nationwide from September 2005 through December 2005 for about
$40.

Consumers are advised to remove or cut the drawstrings to
eliminate the hazard, or return the garment to the store where
purchased for a refund.

Consumer Contact: Jordache Ltd. Phone: (888) 295-3267 (toll-
free) between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday; On
the Net: http://www.jcpenny.com;E-mail: bpalmer@jeans-wear.com.


KINDER MORGAN: Discovery Proceeds for Styrene Leak Suit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated class action over styrene
gas leak in Cincinnati, Ohio, which names as a defendant Queen
City Terminals, Inc., a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan Bulk
Terminals, Inc.

On August 28, 2005, a railcar containing the chemical styrene
began leaking styrene gas in Cincinnati, Ohio while en route to
a terminal operated by Queen City.  The railcar was sent by the
Westlake Chemical Corporation from Louisiana, transported by
Indiana & Ohio Railway, and consigned to Westlake at its
dedicated storage tank at the Queen City terminal.  The railcar
leak resulted in the evacuation of many residents and the
alleged temporary closure of several businesses in the
Cincinnati area.  Within three weeks of the incident, seven
separate class action complaints were filed in the Hamilton
County Court of Common Pleas, including case numbers: A0507115,
A0507120, A0507121, A0507149, A0507322, A0507332, and A0507913.

On September 28, 2005, the court consolidated the complaints
under consolidated case number A0507913.  Concurrently, thirteen
designated class representatives filed a Master Class Action
Complaint against Westlake Chemical Corporation, Indiana and
Ohio Railway Corporation, Queen City Terminals, Inc., Kinder
Morgan Liquids Terminals, LLC, Kinder Morgan GP, Inc. and Kinder
Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., collectively the defendants, in
the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, case number A0507105.  
The complaint alleges negligence, absolute nuisance, nuisance,
trespass, negligence per se, and strict liability against all
defendants stemming from the styrene leak.  It seeks
compensatory damages in excess of $25,000, punitive damages, pre
and post-judgment interest, and attorney fees.

The claims against the Indiana and Ohio Railway and Westlake are
based generally on an alleged failure to deliver the railcar in
a timely manner, which allegedly caused the styrene to become
unstable and leak from the railcar.  The plaintiffs allege that
The Kinder Morgan had a legal duty to monitor the movement of
the railcar en route to its terminal and guarantee it's timely
arrival in a safe and stable condition.

On October 28, 2005, Kinder Morgan filed an answer denying the
material allegations of the complaint.  On December 1, 2005, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  On December
12, 2005, Kinder Morgan filed a motion for an extension of time
to respond to plaintiffs' motion for class certification in
order to conduct discovery regarding class certification.  On
February 10, 2005, the court granted our motion for additional
time to conduct class discovery.  The court has not established
a scheduling order or trial date, and discovery is ongoing.


KINDER MORGAN: N.Mex. Appeals Court Mulls Bravo Dome Unit Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The New Mexico Court of Appeals is set to hear oral arguments in
the suit filed against the company by royalty owners of Bravo
Dome Carbon Dioxide Unit.

Filed in the 8th Judicial District Court, Union County New
Mexico, the suit is styled, "J. Casper Heimann, Pecos Slope
Royalty Trust and Rio Petro LTD, individually and on behalf of
all other private royalty and overriding royalty owners in the
Bravo Dome Carbon Dioxide Unit, New Mexico similarly situated v.
Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, L.P., No. 04-26-CL."  It involves a
purported class action against Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, L.P.
alleging that it failed to pay the full royalty and overriding
royalty (royalty interests) on the true and proper settlement
value of compressed carbon dioxide produced from the Bravo Dome
Unit in the period beginning January 1, 2000.  

The complaint purports to assert claims for violation of the New
Mexico Unfair Practices Act, constructive fraud, breach of
contract and of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
breach of the implied covenant to market, and claims for an
accounting, unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief.  The
purported class is comprised of current and former owners,
during the period January 2000 to the present, who have private
property royalty interests burdening the oil and gas leases held
by the defendant, excluding the Commissioner of Public Lands,
the U.S. of America, and those private royalty interests that
are not unitized as part of the Bravo Dome Unit.

The plaintiffs allege that they were members of a class
previously certified as a class action by the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico in the matter: "Doris
Feerer, et al. v. Amoco Production Company, et al., USDC
N.M. Civ. No. 95-0012 (the "Feerer Class Action")."  Plaintiffs
allege that Kinder Morgan CO2 Company's method of paying royalty
interests is contrary to the settlement of the Feerer Class
Action.  Kinder Morgan CO2 Company has filed a Motion to Compel
Arbitration of this matter pursuant to the arbitration
provisions contained in the Feerer Class Action Settlement
Agreement, which motion was denied by the trial court.  An
appeal of that ruling has been filed and is pending before the
New Mexico Court of Appeals.  No date for arbitration or trial
is currently set.  Oral arguments are scheduled to take place
before the New Mexico Court of Appeals on March 23, 2006.


LAFAYETTE UTILITIES: Facing New Complaint Over 'Excessive Rates'
----------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney for residents suing Louisiana's Lafayette Utilities
System over allegedly excessive electricity bills is appealing
the dismissal of the suit last year, 2theAdvocate reports.  

After State District Judge Durwood Conque dismissed a suit filed
by Matthew Eastin and Elizabeth Naquin, a new complaint is being
filed with the Lafayette Public Utilities Authority.  Judge
Conque dismissed the suit in November saying the proper
procedure in appealing LUS rates is through the LPUA.  Now, the
complaint is asking the LPUA to refund the alleged historical
overcharges and "in-lieu-of-tax" payments made by LUS to the
city, according to the report.  It also claims the fuel cost
rate of the electricity bill is too high.  LUS pays the city
general fund about $16 million each year, the report noted.  

Defendants in the case are councilmen and City-Parish President
Joey Durel.  The plaintiffs are represented by a Plaquemine law
firm that specializes in class actions, according to the report.


MAINE: Hagen Berman Ordered to Pay $10.8M in Malpractice Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A jury in U.S. District Court in Portland ordered Seattle-based
class action law firms, Hagen Berman Sobol and Shapiro to pay
$10.8 million for dumping a group of clients, Portland Press
Herald reports.

The jury found that Hagens Berman lawyers Steve Berman of
Seattle and Thomas Sobol of Cambridge, Massachusetts violated
their duty when they abandoned a case they were handling on
behalf of three small water-bottling companies in Maine.  

Glenwood Farms, Carrabassett Spring, and Tear of the Clouds LLC
had employed the firm to settle a labeling suit with Nestle
Waters North America, the owner of Poland Spring Water Co.  
Glenwood Farms and Carrabassett Spring were awarded $3.9 million
each under the ruling.  Tear of the Clouds was awarded $3
million.

Judge George Singal told jurors to return on March 30 for a two-
day trial on punitive damages.

The suit was styled, "Glenwood Farms Incorporated, et al. v.
IVEY, et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-00217-GZS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maine.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Bill Robitzek of Berman and Simmons, 85 Exchange
         Street, Portland, ME, Phone: 207-774-5277, E-mail:
         wrobitzek@bermansimmons.com;

     (2) Rob Morris and Tuck Irwin of Irwin, Tardy and Morris,
         Portland, ME, Phone: 207-772-0303, E-mail:
         rmorris@itmlaw.com; and

     (3) Lee Bals of Marcus Clegg and Mistretta, Portland, ME,
         Phone: 207-828-8000, E-mail: lbals@mcm-law.com.

Representing the defendant is Peter J. Detroy, III and Russell
Pierce of Norman, Hanson & Detroy, Phone: 207-774-7000, E-mail:
pdetroy@nhdlaw.com and rpierce@nhdlaw.com.


MIRVAC GROUP: Aussie Firm's Luxury Apartment Lawsuit Proceeds
-------------------------------------------------------------
Solicitors for Australia's developer, Mirvac Group, obtained
orders requesting documents in a "golden tower" case filed
against it in federal court, The Australian reports.  

The suit involves buyers of the luxury apartment in Mirvac's
Tower Five at Yarra's Edge.  Clients want Mirvac to rescind
their purchase contracts after the color of the "golden" luxury
apartment tower they were promised turned out brown.  The
plaintiffs alleged breach of the Trade Practices Act.  They
include high-profile restaurateur Jimmy Sui, who bought two
apartments for $3.5 million.  Apartments in the building mostly
sold for more than $1 million.

At a directions hearing on March 21, solicitors obtained orders
requiring that documents relating to the personal finances and
investing experience of one of the buyers be made available by
April 3.

The class action is being pursued by the law firm Slater &
Gordon (http://www.slatergordon.com.au/).


NETFLIX INC: Ruling on Settlement of DVD Renters' Suit Delayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco Superior Court Judge Thomas Mellon Jr. postponed
approval of a settlement in a class action against DVD rental
service Netflix Inc., pending decision on attorney's fees,
Associated Press reports.

The judge is planning to reduce the fee being asked by two San
Francisco lawyers representing the interests of 5.5 million
current and former Netflix subscribers.  The attorneys, Adam
Gutride and Seth Safier, had filed papers seeking $2.3 million
in fees to be paid by Netflix.  Judge Mellon also plans to limit
the fees of attorneys who objected to an earlier settlement to
$100,000.  

Netflix was sued for allegedly exaggerating the speed at which
it delivers movies to subscribers.  It was accused of delaying
shipments to frequent renters to accommodate customers who do
not return DVDs quickly.  The scheme helps Netflix because the
company charges a flat monthly fee and provides postage-paid
envelopes for DVD returns.

Netflix reached agreement in the class action five months ago,
but the Federal Trade Commission and several attorneys objected
to a provision that would have allowed the company to
automatically charge people after the free month of DVD rentals
expires.  The revised settlement allows Netflix to charge only
people who notify the company that they want to continue the
service.  It raised the estimated cost of the settlement to
$8.95 million from $4 million, assuming Netflix pays $2.53
million in attorney fees.

The agreement provides that eligible subscribers under an
original plan of paying $17.99 per month to keep up to three
DVDs at time, may check out four DVDs at a time for a month at
no additional charge; and about 3.7 million former subscribers
will be offered a free month of the $17.99 rental plan.  The
agreement covers subscribers through Jan. 15, 2005, when the
company changed its service terms to prioritize customers who
keep their movies longer.

Adam J. Gutride is based in 835 Douglass St., San Francisco,
California, (San Francisco Co.).


NEW YORK: Court Partially Grants Motion to Dismiss ERISA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
granted in part a New York Community Bancorp, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss a putative class action filed against it and several of
its officers for allegedly violating the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.

Filed on November 9, 2004, the suit was brought on behalf of a
putative class of participants in the New York Community Bank
Employee Savings Plan.  The defendants moved to dismiss the
ERISA action.

On February 6, 2006, the Court granted in part and denied in
part the Company's motion to dismiss.  The Court ruled that one
of the two putative class representatives did not have standing
under ERISA, but found that there were issues of fact concerning
the standing of the other putative class representative.  The
Court ordered that limited discovery commence expeditiously to
address the Plaintiff's standing under ERISA.

The suit is styled, "Caltagirone, v. New York Community Bancorp
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-04872-LDW-JO," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge
Leonard D. Wexler with referral to Judge James Orenstein.  
Representing the plaintiffs are, Edwin J. Mills of Stull, Stull
& Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-687-
7230, Fax: 212-490-2022, E-mail: ssbny@aol.com.

Representing the Company are, David H. Kistenbroker, Pamela G.
Smith and Jonathan G. Rose of Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman,
Phone: (312) 902-1061 and 202-625-3500, Fax: 202-339-8258, E-
mail: jonathan.rose@kmzr.com.


NOVARTIS CORP: Former Employee Files $225M Overtime Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A former Novartis Corp. sales representative filed a $225
million class action over overtime pay in U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  

The suit was filed by Simona Lopes on behalf of herself and all
other Novartis employees in similar sales positions statewide
and nationwide. She is represented in the class action matter by
Steven Wittels of Sanford, Wittels & Heisler LLP, with offices
in Washington, DC, New York City and Ft Lee, NJ.

In a statement, it is alleged that in the almost three years
that Simona Lopes worked for the company, she was expected to
work more than 40 hours a week, but her paychecks never included
the overtime pay she was entitled to.

"Ms. Lopes and the class are entitled to unpaid overtime premium
wages for their work beyond 40 hours a week," Mr. Wittels said.
"We are seeking class certification under Rule 23 to include all
Novartis' sales representatives who were denied the overtime pay
to which they are legally entitled."  The suit was filed against
Novartis under both the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
New York State Labor Law and Regulations.

In addition to the national opt-in class filed in New York,
three suits were filed for opt-out statewide class actions in
New York, New Jersey and California.  In the California action,
Co-counsel Grant Morris of the Grant Morris Law Firm said,
"Novartis needs a wake up call that this behavior must stop,
employees must be treated in accordance with the law, and they
are simply not doing that."

Novartis has been one of the fastest growing global
pharmaceutical companies in the world in the recent past.  In
2004, Novartis Group's sales reached $28.2 billion and Novartis
Pharmaceuticals' sales topped $18.5 billion.

In the New York action which is both a state and national class,
the suit claims that New York employees of Novartis involved in
product sales were misclassified by the company as exempt from
federal and state overtime requirements.  Current and former
employees affected include sales representatives, sales
consultants, team leaders/sales representatives, senior sales
representatives, trusted advisor sales representatives,
bilingual sales representative and assumptions sales
representatives.

David Sanford of Sanford, Wittels & Heisler said, "If the class
action is approved by the Court, the suit could potentially
benefit thousands of New York-based Novartis sales employees and
Novartis employees nationwide who worked for the company since
2003, are working for the company now or will work for the
company in the future."

The complaint asks for back overtime on behalf of Ms. Lopes and
the class, as well as for liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, attorneys' fees, court costs and other compensation
allowed under state and federal fair labor law.

The suit was styled "Velez et al. v. Novartis Corporation et al.
(1:04-cv-09194-GEL)," under Judge Gerard E. Lynch.  Representing
the plaintiffs are: Lisa Goldblatt of Snaford, Wittels &
Heisler, LLP, 2121 K Street, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, DC
20037, U.S., Phone: (202) 942-9124; and Jeremy Heisler of
Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP 950 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New
York, NY 10022, Phone: (646) 456-5695; E-mail:
jeremy.heisler@verizon.net.

Representing the defendants are: Thomas G. Abram of Vedder,
Price, Kaufman & Kammholz, P.C., 805 Third Avenue, Suite 2200,
New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 407-7700; and Vincent R.
Fitzpatrick of White & Case LLP (NY), 1155 Avenue of the
Americas, New York, NY 10036, Phone: (212)-819-8569, Fax: (212)-
819-8113; E-mail: vfitzpatrick@whitecase.com.


OPTION ONE: Pa. Court Dismisses Kahn Case, Compels Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently addressed an
arbitration motion in a class action, styled, "Kahn v. Option
One Mortgage Corp., No. 05-5268, 2006 WL 156942 (E.D. Pa. Jan.
18, 2006)," according to McGlinchey Stafford of
http://www.cafalawblog.com. The suit was filed in federal court  
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

Rather than file in state court and face a possible remand
battle, the plaintiffs instead initially filed their putative
class action in federal court, alleging minimal diversity of
citizenship and more than $5 million in controversy.  Among the
myriad of claims, the plaintiffs asserted state law claims for
breach of contract and unfair trade practices arising out of the
fees charged by the Company when class members paid off their
mortgage loans post foreclosure.  The Company chose not
challenge the validity of federal jurisdiction over the claims
asserted by the plaintiffs, so the Court merely observed in a
footnote that there was no jurisdictional challenge.

After paying lip service to CAFA, U.S. District Judge Michael M.
Baylson addressed the merits of the Company's motion to compel
arbitration, and concluded that the plaintiffs' claims were
covered by the arbitration clause at issue.  Accordingly, the
Court granted the Company's motion to compel arbitration and
dismissed the case, ordering the plaintiffs to proceed to
resolve their claims by arbitration.

The suit is styled, "KAHN et al v. OPTION ONE MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, Case No. 2:05-cv-05268-MMB,' filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under
Judge MICHAEL M. BAYLSON.  Representing the plaintiffs is STUART
A. EISENBERG of MCCULLOUGH & EISENBERG, P.C., 530 W. STREET
ROAD, SUITE 201, WARMINSTER, PA 18974, Phone: 215-957-6411, Fax:
215-957-9140, E-mail: mlawoffice@aol.com.

Representing the defendants are, LAUREN GRAHAM DELEHEY and MARK
S. MELODIA of REED, SMITH SHAW AND MC CLAY, 136 MAIN STREET,
PRINCETON FORRESTAL VILLAGE, STE. 250, P.O. BOX 7839, PRINCETON,
NJ 08543-7839, Phone: 215-851-8100 and 609-520-6015, E-mail:
mmelodia@reedsmith.com.

For more details, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?6e9
(Kahn Opinion).


PREMIERE GLOBAL: Discovery Proceeds in Md. TCPA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against one of
Premiere Global Services, Inc.'s subsidiaries, Xpedite in the
Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Paul Worsham filed the suit on February 22, 2005, alleging that
Xpedite transmitted pre-recorded telephone calls advertising
Data Communications services to telephone numbers in Maryland,
including to Mr. Worsham's telephone number, in violation of the
TCPA, as amended, and applicable Federal Communication
Commission (FCC) rules.  The complaint also alleges violations
of federal caller identification requirements under FCC rules
and violations of the Maryland Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.  The complaint seeks statutory damages under the federal
and Maryland statutes for each of four alleged violations of the
two statutes and injunctive relief.


PRINTCAFE SOFTWARE: April Hearing Set for Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
will hold a final fairness hearing on April 2006 for the
settlement of the amended securities class action styled,
"Citiline Holdings, Inc. v. Printcafe Software, Inc., Marc Olin,
Joseph Whang, Amos Michelson, et al.," which was filed against
PrintCafe Software, Inc. and certain of its directors.

The suit was initially filed in June 2003 against the Company,
now a wholly owned subsidiary of Electronics For Imaging, Inc.,
and certain of Printcafe's officers.  The complaint alleges that
the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and misleading
statements in connection with Printcafe's initial public
offering and subsequent press releases.

While the Company believes this lawsuit is without merit, the
parties have reached an agreement in principle to fully and
finally resolve this litigation, subject to the Court's approval
of the proposed class action settlement.  The parties executed a
written Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement
dated September 23, 2005 and jointly moved for the Court's
preliminary approval of the settlement on September 29, 2005.  
On December 20, 2005, the Court preliminarily approved the
proposed settlement, certified the settlement class and directed
the issuance of notice. In accordance with class action
procedures, the court also scheduled a final hearing in April
2006 to consider final approval of the settlement.

The suit is styled "CITILINE HOLDINGS v. PRINTCAFE SOFTWARE, et
al., Case No. 2:03-cv-00959-DWA-ARH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under Judge
Donetta W. Ambrose.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jack G. Fruchter, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, One Penn
         Plaza, Suite 2805, New York, NY 10119, Phone: (212)
         279-5050

     (2) David A. Rosenfield and Samuel H. Rudman, Lerach,
         Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, 200
         Broadhollow Road, Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone:
         (631) 367-7100

     (3) Gerald L. Rutledge and Alfred G. Yates, Law Offices of
         Alfred G. Yates, Jr., 429 Forbes Avenue, 519 Allegheny
         Building, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Phone: (412) 391-5164,
         E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com

     (4) Marc A. Topaz, Schiffrin & Barroway, 280 King of
         Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: (215) 667-7706

Representing the Company are Roy W. Arnold and Traci Sands Rea
of Reed Smith, 435 Sixth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1886,
Phone: (412) 288-3131, E-mail: trea@reedsmith.com and
rarnold@reedsmith.com; and Douglas J. Clark, David L. Lansky,
and Nicholas I. Porritt of Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati,
650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050.


RAINFOREST CAFE: Faces Consolidated Labor Lawsuit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rainforest Cafe, Inc. is a defendant in a consolidated class
action filed in the Superior Court of California in San
Bernardino alleging violations of wage and hour laws.

Originally two suits were filed.  One was filed one February 18,
2005, in the Superior Court of California in San Bernardino by
Michael D. Harrison, et al.  The other one was filed on
September 20, 2005, in the Superior Court of California in Los
Angeles by Dustin Steele, et al.

On January 26, 2006, both lawsuits were consolidated into one
action by the state Superior Court in San Bernardino.  The
lawsuits allege that the Company violated wage and hour laws,
including not providing meal and rest breaks, uniform violations
and failure to pay overtime.  Plaintiffs seek to recover
damages, including unpaid wages, reimbursement for uniform
expenses and penalties imposed by state law.


SEPRACOR INC: Discovery Proceeds in Mass. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class
actions filed against Sepracor, Inc. and certain of its current
and former officers and a current director in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Several suits were initially filed on behalf of certain persons
who purchased the Company's common stock and/or debt securities
during different time periods, beginning on various dates, the
earliest being May 17, 1999, and all ending on March 6, 2002.  
These complaints allege violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and the rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  Primarily they allege that the defendants made
certain materially false and misleading statements relating to
the testing, safety and likelihood of approval of tecastemizole
(formerly SOLTARA) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or
FDA.

On April 11, 2003, two consolidated amended complaints were
filed, one on behalf of the purchasers of the Company's common
stock and the other on behalf of the purchasers of its debt
securities.  These consolidated amended complaints reiterate the
allegations contained in the previously filed complaints and
define the alleged class periods as May 17, 1999 through
March 6, 2002.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss both
consolidated amended complaints on May 27, 2003.  On March 11,
2004, the court, while granting in part the motion to dismiss,
did allow much of the case to proceed.

On September 8, 2005, in both the debt purchasers' action and
the equity purchasers' action, the district court granted the
plaintiff's motion for class certification.  The parties are
currently engaged in discovery.

The suit is styled "In Re: Sepracor, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:02-cv-12338-MEL," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Morris E. Lasker.    
Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

     (2) Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory M. Nespole or David L.
         Wales of Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-545-
         4600, E-mail: nespole@whafh.com or wales@whafh.com; and  

     (3) David Pastor of Gilman and Pastor, LLP, Stonehill
         Corporate Center, 999 Broadway, Suite 500, Saugus, MA
         01906, Phone: 781-231-7850, Fax: 781-231-7840 e-mail:
         dpastor@gilmanpastor.com.

Representing the defendants is Mary Jo Johnson of Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, 60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109,
Phone: 617-526-6750, Fax: 617-526-5000 or E-mail:
maryjo.johnson@wilmerhale.com.


SILICON STORAGE: Calif. Court Dismisses Consolidated Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted Silicon Storage Technology, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a
consolidated securities fraud class action filed against it and
certain of its directors and officers.  The court though gave
plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.

In January and February 2005, multiple putative shareholder
class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, following the Company's
announcement of anticipated financial results for the fourth
quarter of 2004.  On March 24, 2005, the putative class actions
were consolidated under the caption, "In re Silicon Storage
Technology, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. C 05 00295 PJH
(N.D. Cal.)."  

On May 3, 2005, the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton appointed the
"Louisiana Funds Group," consisting of the Louisiana School
Employees' Retirement System and the Louisiana District
Attorneys' Retirement System, to serve as lead plaintiff and the
law firms of Pomeranz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP and
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo to serve as lead
counsel and liason counsel, respectively, for the class.

The lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint on July 15, 2005.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages on alleged violations of federal securities laws during
the period from April 21, 2004 to December 20, 2004.  The
Company moved to dismiss the complaint on September 16, 2005.  
Plaintiff served an opposition to the motion to dismiss on
November 4, 2005.  The Company's reply in further support of the
motion to dismiss was filed on December 19, 2005.  

On January 18, 2006, the Court heard arguments on the motion to
dismiss.  On March 10, 2006, the Court granted our motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, with leave to file
an amended complaint.  Pursuant to the Court's Order, any
amended complaint must be filed no later that April 14, 2006.  
The Company intends to take all appropriate action in response
to these lawsuits.

The suit is styled, "In re Silicon Storage Technology, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-00295-PJH," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
under Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.  Representing the plaintiffs is
Christopher T. Heffelfinger of Berman DeValerio Pease & Tabacco,
P.C., 425 California Street, Suite 2025, San Francisco, CA
94104, Phone: 415/433-3200, Fax: 415-433-6382, E-mail:
cheffelfinger@bermanesq.com.  

Representing the Company are Jonathan B. Gaskin and Robert P.
Varian of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 405 Howard Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-773-5700, Fax: 415-773-5759,
E-mail: jgaskin@orrick.com or rvarian@orrick.com.


SOS STAFFING: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 11
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Third Judicial District Court, Salt Lake County, State of
Utah will hold a fairness hearing for proposed settlement in the
matter, "William Doane v. JoAnn W. Wagner, et al., Case No. 03-
0920804."  The case was brought on behalf of all record owners
of SOS Staffing Services, Inc. common stock during the period
beginning on September 10, 2003 through and including the date
of the consummation of the Company's merger with Hire Calling
Holding Company on November 3, 2003.

The hearing will be held on April 11, 2006 at 8:45 a.m. before
the Honorable Robert K. Hilder, at the Third Judicial District
Court of Utah, Salt Lake Department, 450 South State St., Salt
Lake City, Utah 84111.

For more details, contact Erik A. Christiansen of Parsons Behle
& Latimer, 201 South Main Street, Suite 1800, Salt Lake City, UT
84111, Phone: 801-532-1234, Fax: 801-536-6111, Web site:
http://www.parsonsbehlelaw.com/default.asp.


SPRING STREET: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 13
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the
matter: "Caleb McArthur v. Spring Street Networks, Inc., Index
No.: 100766/04."  The case was brought on behalf of all natural
persons who became paying subscribers to Spring Street Network
Inc.'s personals websites during the period from September 7,
2001 to March 23, 2005.

Caleb McArthur filed the lawsuit claiming among other things
that Spring Street failed to make certain disclosures required
by New York General Business Law, section 394-c (the "Dating
Services Act") in its subscription agreements.  Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that Spring Street failed to provide in its
subscription agreements:

     (1) that subscribers are permitted to cancel the
         subscription agreement, and receive full refunds if
         they do so within 3 days after execution of the
         subscription agreement;

     (2) that subscribers are permitted to place their
         memberships on hold for up to one year;

     (3) a 'Dating Service Consumer Bill of Rights', setting
         forth customer rights under New York law; and

     (4) a 'fair and reasonable policy for the situation in
         which a purchaser moves to permanently reside at a
         location outside the service area' of Defendant.

Plaintiffs also claim that Defendant entered into 473,717 such
contracts.

The hearing will take place in the courtroom of Judge Debra
James, Room 1254, 111 Centre Street New York, New York, 10013 at
10:00 a.m. on April 13, 2006.

The deadline for submitting a proof of claim and any objections
to the settlement is on March 31, 2006.  

For more details, contact Jay Edelson, Esq. of Blim & Edelson,
LLC, 53 W. Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1642, Chicago, Illinois
60604, Phone: (312) 913-9400, Fax: 888-325-4652, Fax: (312) 913-
9401, E-mail: classinfo@blimlaw.com, Web site/s:
http://www.blimlaw.comand  
http://www.springstreetnetworks.com/settlement.html.


SPX CORP: Plaintiffs Seek Class Status For ERISA Suit in N.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
SPX Corporation faces a purported class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
alleging breaches of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (ERISA) by:

     -- the Company,

     -- its then general counsel, and
     
     -- the Administrative Committee

regarding one of the Company's 401(k) defined contribution
benefit plans arising from the plan's holding of Company stock.

On April 23, 2004, a class complaint seeking unspecified
monetary damages was filed North Carolina federal court on
behalf of participants in our employee benefit plans.  On June
10, 2005 a first amended complaint was filed in the ERISA suit,
adding as defendants certain current and former directors and
Administrative Committee members.  The first amended complaint
generally tracks the factual allegations in the Securities Class
Action. O n July 25, 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
the amended ERISA complaint in its entirety.  That motion is
fully briefed for ruling by the District Court.  On September 8,
2005, the plaintiffs moved the Court to certify the proposed
class in the ERISA suit.  The Company opposed that motion and it
is fully briefed for ruling by the District Court.

The suit is styled, "Reichert v. SPX Corp., et al., Case No.
3:04-cv-00192," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina under Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
with referral to Judge Carl Horn, III.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Marc L. Ackerman, Jason L. Brodsky and Brodsky & Smith,
         LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004,  
         Phone: 610/667-6200;

     (2) Todd Collins and Sheryl S. Levy of Berger & Montague,
         P.C., 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365,
         Phone: 215/875-3040; and

     (3) Geraldine Sumter of Ferguson, Stein, Chambers, Adkins,
         Gresham & Sumter, P.A., P.O. Box 36486, Charlottte, NC
         28236-6486, Phone: 704-375 8461, Fax: 704-334 5654, E-
         mail: gsumter@fergusonstein.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are, Ross B. Bricker, Ronald L.
Marmer and Anton R. Valukas of Jenner & Block, One IBM Plaza,
Chicago, IL 60611-3608, Phone: 312/923-4524; and David Calep
Wright, III and Julian Hugh Wright, Jr. of Robinson Bradshaw &
Hinson, P.A., 101 N. Tryon Street, Suite 1900, Charlotte, NC
28246, Phone: 704-377-8322 and 704-377-8352, Fax: 704-373-3922
and 704-373-3952, E-mail: dwright@rbh.com and jwright@rbh.com.


SPX CORP: Seeks Dismissal of N.C. Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
SPX Corporation asked the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina to dismiss the consolidated class
actions filed against it and certain of its current and former
executive officers.

Beginning in March 2004, multiple class action complaints
seeking unspecified monetary damages were filed or announced by
certain law firms representing or seeking to represent
purchasers of our common stock during a specified period against
us and certain of our current and former executive officers in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiffs generally
allege that we made false and misleading statements regarding
the forecast of our 2003 fiscal year business and operating
results in order to artificially inflate the price of our stock.  
These complaints were consolidated into a single amended
complaint against the company and our former Chairman, Chief
Executive Officer and President.  

On September 20, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated action in its entirety.  That motion is fully
briefed for ruling by the District Court.

The litigation is styled "Belafey, et al. v. SPX Corporation, et
al., Case No. 3:04cv99," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina under Judge Robert J.
Conrad, Jr. with referral to Judge Carl Horn, III.  Representing
the Company are David C Wright, III and Julian H. Wright of
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, PA, Mail: 101 No Tryon St Suite
1900, Charlotte, NC 28246 USA, Phone: 704-377-2536; and Ross B.
Bricker, Anton R. Valukas and Ronald L. Malmer of Jenner &
Block, One IBM Plaza, Chicago, IL 60611-3608 Phone: 312/923-
4524.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

     (2) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York),
         200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone:
         631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173,

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

     (4) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington,
         DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower,
         Washington, DC, 20005, Phone: 202.408.4600, Fax:
         202.408.4699, E-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com

     (5) Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, 320 East 39th Street, New York,
         NY, 10016, Phone: 212.983.9330, Fax: 212.983.9331, E-
         mail: Nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com

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

     (7) 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,

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

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

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

    (11) 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


STILLWATER MINING: Mont. Court Considering Stock Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana will
continue to hear Stillwater Mining Co.'s motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its senior officers on June 24, 2005.

In 2002, nine lawsuits were filed on behalf of a class of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of the
Company from April 20, 2001 through and including April 1, 2002.
They assert claims against the Company and certain of its
officers under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiffs challenge the accuracy of
certain public disclosures made by the Company regarding its
financial performance and, in particular, it's accounting for
probable ore reserves.

In July 2002, the court consolidated these actions, and in May
2003, the case was transferred to federal district court in
Montana.  In May 2004, defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' second amended complaint, and in June 2004,
plaintiffs filed their opposition and defendants filed their
reply.

Defendants have reached an agreement in principle with
plaintiffs to settle the federal class action subject to
documentation and court approval.  Under the proposed agreement,
any settlement amount will be paid by the Company's insurance
carrier and will not involve any out-of-pocket payment by the
Company or the individual defendants.  In light of the proposed
settlement, the parties have requested that the hearing on
defendants' motion to dismiss be taken off calendar, without
prejudice to their right to reinstate the motion in the event
the parties are not successful in negotiating the terms of the
final settlement papers.

The suit is styled, "In re Stillwater Mining Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-00093-RFC," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Montana under Judge Richard
F. Cebull.  Representing the plaintiffs are, Susan M. Greenwood
of MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN, One Pennsylvania Plaza,
49th Floor, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-594-5300, Fax: 868-
1229; and Lawrence P. Kolker of WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN &
HERZ, LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-
545-4600.

Representing the defendants are, Harriet S. Posner of SKADDEN,
ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400
Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-687-5600; and Stephen H.
Foster of HOLLAND & HART, P.O. Box 639, Billings, MT 59103-0639,
Phone: 406-252-2166, Fax: 252-1669.


TOWN AND COUNTRY: Faces Suit Over Magazine Acquisition Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Town and Country Trust, was named as a defendant in a
putative class action styled, "Lee Foster v. The Town and
Country Trust, et al.," which was filed in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, Maryland.

On February 2, 2006, an individual shareholder, Lee Foster,
filed the suit, against the Company and each of its trustees.  
The complaint asserted that the trustees breached alleged
fiduciary duties to plaintiff (and other shareholders) by
entering into the December 19, 2005 merger agreement with
Magazine Acquisition.  The complaint sought, among other things,
an injunction preventing Magazine Acquisition from acquiring the
Company.  By order dated February 21, 2006, the Court on our
motion dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, but allowed plaintiff 30 days
within which to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on March 2, 2006.  The
amended complaint seeks disgorgement of benefits allegedly
received by our trustees as a result of alleged breaches of
duties, monetary damages, and an award of attorneys' fees,
expenses and costs.  The amended complaint alleges that our
trustees breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiff (and other
shareholders) by entering into the December 19, 2005 merger
agreement with Magazine Acquisition without, according to
plaintiff, having fully informed themselves about our "true
value;" by agreeing to the initial $20 million break-up fee
under such agreement; and by subsequently approving an amendment
to the merger agreement on February 16, 2006 and agreeing to
increase the break-up fee to $28 million in connection with the
execution of the amendment.  

In addition, the amended complaint accuses Company trustees of
having favored their own interests over the interests of Company
shareholders.  Finally, the amended complaint alleges that
Company trustees breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiff
(and other shareholders) by allegedly not making full disclosure
of all material facts in the proxy statement, dated January 26,
2006, which was mailed to shareholders on or around January 30,
2006, and the supplement to the proxy statement, dated February
24, 2006, which was mailed to shareholders on or around February
27, 2006.


TRI-CONTINENTAL CORP: Sued for Refusing to Deliver Investor List
----------------------------------------------------------------
Western Investment Hedged Partners L.P. has initiated legal
action to compel Tri-Continental Corporation (NYSE:TY) to
provide a list of its stockholders, pursuant to law.  

The Western Group, which currently owns over 7% of Tri-
Continental, is seeking to maximize the value of Tri-Continental
for all stockholders and is soliciting proxies to elect its
nominees to the Tri-Continental board of directors at Tri-
Continental's May 4, 2006 annual meeting.

Tri-Continental, a closed-end fund managed by J.&W. Seligman &
Co. Inc., has prevented the Western Group from contacting the
owners of almost 45% of Tri-Continental by refusing to turn over
the requisite stockholder information to one of the participants
in the Western Group.  The litigation, brought in Supreme Court,
New York, asks the Court to, among other things, compel Tri-
Continental to make available the stockholder list in question.

Art Lipson of Western Investment, commenting on the suit,
stated: "Tri-Continental's refusal to produce a stockholders'
list hits the bottom of the barrel in corporate governance.  It
begs the question, why is TY's Board dead set against
stockholders talking with each other?  I believe the answer is
obvious -- Seligman's performance record for Tri-Continental is
indefensible.  TY's poor performance is a predictable result of
so-called "independent" directors with little or no other
investment experience having held their board seats for a
collective 93 years, with each serving on at least 22 other
Seligman fund boards."

"We believe that many of our fellow investors share our outrage
at Tri-Continental's illegal denial of the fundamental right of
its investors to communicate amongst themselves.  Responsible,
effective corporate governance is grounded in open
communication, and any company that seeks to impede it
absolutely deserves to answer in court."

Mr. Lipson continued, "We simply wish to put our case before all
of the Tri-Continental stockholders.  Seligman has brought this
situation upon itself with embarrassingly low investment returns
and a failure to address the sizeable discount to underlying
value at which Tri-Continental has traded for years."

Based in New York, J. & W. Seligman -- http://www.jwseligman.com
-- rivately held asset manager that offers a variety of mutual
funds and other investment products to individual and
institutional investors.


WALTER INDUSTRIES: Faces Civil Suit in Ala. Over Foundry Sand
-------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Industries, Inc. continues to face a purported civil
class action in the Circuit Court of Calhoun County, Alabama,
styled, "Isaiah Evans, et al. v. Walter Industries, Inc., U.S.
Pipe and Foundry Company, Inc., et al., Case No. CV:05-258."

Isaiah Evans filed the suit on April 8, 2005.  The case was
filed against 18 foundries in the Anniston, Alabama area
alleging state law tort claims in the creation and disposal of
foundry sand alleged to contain lead and PCB's.  The plaintiffs
are seeking damages for personal injury and property damage.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


H&R BLOCK: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Miss.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, initiated a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri against
H&R Block, Inc. (NYSE: HRB) and certain of its officers and
directors, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
the publicly traded securities of HRB between June 12, 2002 and
March 15, 2006.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by publicly issuing a series of false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and financial
prospects, thus causing HRB's shares to trade at artificially
inflated prices.

In particular, the complaint alleges that the true facts, which
were known by each of the defendants, but concealed from the
investing public during the Class Period, were that: HRB
knowingly engaged in fraudulent business practices by steering
low and middle-income customers to its Express IRA -- a
retirement account in which most customers have lost money
because the Express IRA's fees exceeded the return on interest
earned on the account; HRB marketed the Express IRA in a
fraudulent manner by, for example, failing to adequately
disclose fees; and HRB failed:

     (1) to adequately disclose that the Express IRA earned a
         negative rate of return because of fees, but instead,
         falsely described the rate as "great" and the account
         as a "better way to save";

     (2) to adequately disclose the fees associated with the
         Express IRA in a format comprehensible to customers and
         falsely claimed fees were lower than they in fact were;
  
     (3) to inform customers that the value of their accounts
         would decline over time unless they made large and
         continuing contributions to the Express IRA because the
         fees far exceeded the low rate of return; and

     (4) to disclose the tax consequences and penalties
         associated with early withdrawal of funds from the
         Express IRA.

In addition, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
the Company experienced material weaknesses in internal controls
relating accounting for state income taxes and HRB has disclosed
that it would have to restate its financial statements for the
fiscal years-ended April 30, 2004 and April 30, 2005 because HRB
understated its state income taxes by at least $32 million.

The complaint alleges that after the truth about HRB began to be
revealed on February 23, 2006, HRB's stock price declined from
$25.19 per share to $20.63 per share, a decline of approximately
16%.

For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox, Joel B. Strauss,
Donald R. Hall, Jeffrey P. Campisi and Laurence D. King of
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER, LLP, Phone: (800) 290-1952, (212) 687-
1980 and (415) 772-4700, Fax: (212) 687-7714 and 415-772-4707,
E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com.


H&R BLOCK: Schatz Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Miss.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri behalf of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of H&R
Block Corporation (HRB) between June 12, 2002 and March 15,
2006, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements.  Specifically, HRB engaged in fraudulent business
practices by steering customers to its Express IRA -- a
retirement account in which most customers have lost money
because the Express IRA's fees exceeded the return on interest
earned on the account.  HRB marketed the Express IRA in a
fraudulent manner by failing to adequately disclose the
following:

     (1) that the Express IRA earned a negative rate of return
         because of fees;

     (2) that the fees associated with the Express IRA were not
         presented in a format comprehensible to customers;

     (3) that the value of customer's accounts would decline
         over time unless they made large and continuing
         contributions to the Express IRA because the fees far
         exceeded the low rate of return; and

     (4) that there were tax consequences and penalties
         associated with early withdrawal of funds from the
         Express IRA.

Additionally, HRB announced that it would restate its financials
for the years-ended April 30, 2004 and April 30, 2005 because
HRB understated its state income taxes by at least $32 million.

After the truth about HRB began to be revealed on February 23,
2006, HRB's stock price fell approximately 16%, from $25.19 per
share to $20.63 per share.

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa of
Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.


MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Law Firms Lodge Wis. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP, & Sarraf Gentile, LLP, initiated a
class action on behalf of all persons who purchased the
securities of Merge Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: MRGE) between
August 2, 2005 and March 16, 2006, inclusive.  The action is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the company's
securities. Specifically, in January 2005, Merge announced an
all-stock merger between Merge and Cedara Software Corp., which
was completed on June 1, 2005, and which Merge represented to
the market as highly successful. Meanwhile, the company
concealed:

     (1) that it lacked adequate internal controls;

     (2) that its financial statements for the second and third
         quarters of 2005 were unreliable; and

     (3) that its financial projections were irresponsible
         considering the knowledge defendants possessed
         concerning the company's actual financial situation.

For more details, contact Joseph Gentile of Sarraf Gentile, LLP,
485 Seventh Ave., Suite 1005, New York, NY 10018, Phone: (212)
868-3610, E-mail: joseph@sarrafgentile.com, Web site:
http://www.sarrafgentile.com;and Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP,  
485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000, New York, New York 10018, Phone:
(212) 239-4340, Fax: (212) 239-4310, E-mail: lawyer@lawssb.com,
Web site: http://www.lawssb.com/.


MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Wis. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin,
Milwaukee Division, on behalf of all persons who purchased Merge
Technologies, Inc. securities (including purchasers of common
stock, purchasers of call options, and sellers of put options
(Nasdaq: MRGE) between August 2, 2005 through March 16, 2006,
inclusive.

The defendants are Merge Technologies, Inc., d/b/a Merge
Healthcare, Richard A. Linden, the Company's CEO, President,
Director and Chairman of the Executive Committee, and Scott T.
Veech, the Company's CFO, Secretary and Treasurer.  The case is
Maiden v. Merge Technologies, Inc., et al.  

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

In particular, the complaint alleges, as it concerns the all-
stock merger between the Company and Cedara Software Corp.,
first announced in January 2005 and completed June 1, 2005, that
Merge represented to the investment community that the merger
was highly-successful and that the Company maintained a strong
financial position, while concealing:

     (1) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

     (2) the Company's financial statements for the second
         and third quarters of 2005 were unreliable; and

     (3) that the Company's financial projections were
         irresponsible considering the knowledge defendants
         possessed concerning the Company's actual financial
         situation.

As a result, on February 24, 2006, Merge announced that it was
delaying the issuance of its fourth quarter 2005 results in
order to allow additional time to complete an audit of the
Company's financial statements, and in particular, an
investigation into the recording of certain large sales
contracts as deferred revenue.

Then, on March 17, 2006, Merge reported, inter alia:

     (i) that the accounting improprieties in fact necessitated
         that management delay the completion of the Company's
         financial statements for the fiscal year ended December
         31, 2005;

    (ii) that its audit committee, with the assistance of
         outside counsel, was investigating anonymous
         complaints;

   (iii) that it anticipates a report of material weaknesses in
         the Company's internal control over financial
         reporting;

    (iv) the suspension of its registration statement on
         Form S-3 relating to issuance of common stock upon
         exchange of exchangeable shares of "Merge/Cedara
         ExchangeCo Ltd.;" and

     (v) that its audit committee concluded that its previously
         issued financial statements for the second and third
         quarters 2005, should no longer be relied upon.

Initial news of the Company's improper practices concerning the
Cedara merger came as a surprise to investors and caused the
stock to decline from its February 23, 2006 close of $24.50 per
share to $20.50 by the end of trading on February 24 -- a one
day decline of 16.3 percent.  The Company's March 17, 2006
announcement of, inter alia, the delay of its fiscal year 2005
financial results and unreliability of second and third quarter
2005 financial results, at the close of trading on March 17,
2006, Merge stock was $15.85, down from a previous day's closing
price of $17.97, or an additional 11 percent.

Merge's use of these improper practices served to artificially
inflate the Company's reported earnings during the Class Period.
Failure to disclose this information constituted material
omissions, the ultimate disclosure of which harmed the Company's
investors.  Accordingly, the Company's Class Period statements
concerning its compliance with applicable laws and regulations
were false.

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


NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Federman Sherwood Files Ill. Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against
Northfield Laboratories, Inc. (Nasdaq: NFLD).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.  The class period is
from February 20, 2004 through February 21, 2006.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of FEDERMAN &
SHERWOOD, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102,
Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com, Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com.


NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Lasky Rifkind Files Stock Suit in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., a law firm with offices in New York and
Chicago, announces that a lawsuit has been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
securities of Northfield Laboratories, Inc. (NASDAQ:NFLD)
between February 20, 2004 and February 21, 2006, inclusive.  The
lawsuit was filed against Northfield and Steven A. Gould.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that Defendants issued a series of materially false and
misleading statements regarding the safety of PolyHeme, a blood
substitute.  More specifically, the Company failed to disclose
negative data from an ANH study concerning ten patients who had
heart attacks within seven days of taking PolyHeme, and that two
of those patients had subsequently died.

On February 22, 2006, the Wall Street Journal reported that data
available to the Company from the ANH trial, but not the public,
indicated that ten out of eighty one patients who received
PolyHeme suffered a heart attack within seven days, and two
subsequently died.  When this was revealed in the article on
February 22, 2006, shares of Northfield reacted negatively,
falling from $12.23 per share to $11.64 per share, or a one-day
decline of 5%.  Shares have continued to fall in reaction to an
inquiry by Senator Charles E. Grassley, Chairman of the U.S.
Senate Finance Committee, as well as an inquiry by the SEC.

For more details, contact Leigh Lasky, Esq. of The Law Firm of
Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., Phone: 800-495-1868, E-mail:
investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com.  


PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, initiated a securities
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of PainCare Holdings, Inc. (AMEX:
PRZ) between August 27, 2002 and March 15, 2006, inclusive.  The
class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.

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 PainCare securities.  
No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action in
the in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock
and other securities of PainCare Holdings, Inc. (AMEX: PRZ)
between August 27, 2002 and March 15, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that PainCare and the individual
defendants violated the federal securities laws by overstating
and exaggerating the company's financial health.  In particular,
according to the complaint, PainCare went on a buying spree,
growing its business by corporate acquisition, but accounting
for such acquisitions in violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP).  Accordingly, the company
overstated its earnings by failing to comply with GAAP in
recording its noncash growth.  On March 15, 2006, the last day
of the class period, the company announced that it would have to
restate its financial figures going back to 2000--to its
founding--in order to adjust for the improper accounting of its
corporate acquisitions.

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

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law
Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, Phone (888) 643-6735 or (610) 660-8000,
Fax: (610) 660-8080, E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com, Web site:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.



                            *********


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  * * *