CAR_Public/060328.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, March 28, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 62

                            Headlines

ALABAMA: Suit Challenges Interest on Properties Sold at Auction
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Illinois Court Denies Appeal of Remand Order
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: N.Y. Court Dismisses All Claims in Stock Suit
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Plaintiffs File Amended Md. Mutual Fund Suits
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Suit Over Hurricane Katrina Damages Proceeds

APPLETON PAPERS: Sued Over Alleged Pollution Caused by Ohio Mill
CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Former Accountant Files Calif. Overtime Suit
CROWLEY MARITIME: Opposes Amendment of Del. Stockholders' Suit
EGL INC: "P&D" Drivers Launch Lawsuit in Calif. Federal Court
EXELON CORP: Faces Additional Suit Over Chemical Spill in Ill.

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Sued Over Paxil, Paxil-Related Teen Suicides
HUNTSMAN INTL: Faces Consolidated Price-Fixing Lawsuit in Kans.
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Lawsuit Over 'Deformed' Tiburon Clutch
JACKSON HEWITT: Faces Calif. Suits for Refund Anticipation Loans
KMART CORP: Settles ADA Violations Lawsuit in Colo. for $13M

KPMG LLP: Proposes New Settlement Terms in Tax Shelter Lawsuit
LONGS DRUG: Calif. Court Sets Trial Date for Employment Lawsuit
NATIONAL HOME: Employee Launches Overtime Wage Suit in N.Y.
NEW YORK: Suit Over Spraypark Cryptosporidium Outbreak Continues
NIKE RETAIL: Mich. Racial Discrimination Suit Gets Class Status

NOVARTIS CORP: Former Employee Files $375M Overtime Suit in N.J.
OHIO: Judge Rules Traffic Camera Citations Invalid, Returns Fine
PACIFICORP: Loses Bid to Dismiss Ratepayers' Lawsuit in Oregon
PDI INC: Employees File Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Calif.
PDI INC.: Plaintiffs Oppose Dismissal Motion for N.J. Stock Suit

PORTLAND GENERAL: Ratepayers to Get Refund Under $10M Settlement
PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Mass. Court Mulls Lawsuit's Dismissal
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Former Executives Oppose $400M Settlement
SAC CAPITAL: Biovail Investors Claim Conspiracy, File $4B Suit
SEARS HOLDINGS: Continues to Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Ill.

SEARS HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Suit in Ill. Over Kmart Merger
SEARS HOLDINGS: October 2006 Trial Date Set for Ill. Stock Suit
SERONO SA: Faces Lawsuit Over AIDS Drug in Massachusetts Court
TYSON FOODS: High Court Blocks Grand Lake Property Owners' Suit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CHICAGO BRIDGE: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.
COCA-COLA: Motley Rice Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. Ga.
H&R BLOCK: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Miss.
H&R BLOCK: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in Miss.
MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in Wis.

MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Stock Suit in Wis.
NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Schatz & Nobel Files Stock Suit in Ill.
NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Suit in Ill.
PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Stock Suit in M.D. Fla.
PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in Fla.

                         *********

ALABAMA: Suit Challenges Interest on Properties Sold at Auction
---------------------------------------------------------------
A suit was filed in federal court over a state law that requires
delinquent taxpayers to pay additional interest to reclaim
properties sold at tax auctions, Alabama's al.com reports.

The suit, seeking class action status, was filed in U.S.
District Court by Stephen Deshazo, a Georgia man, against:

     -- Baldwin County, and
     -- Revenue Commissioner Phil Nix.  

It could award damages to all similarly affected property owners
over the last 13 years, the report said.  A similar suit has
been filed by Mobile lawyer Robert Clark against the Mobile
County.

According to the report, under Alabama law, the county tax
office sends warnings to property owners who fail to pay their
taxes before auctioning off properties in a tax sale.  The
original owner then has three years to buy back the property.  
Should he decide to do so, he is required to pay taxes, interest
and administrative fees and additional interest on the amount of
money over the taxes that the investor paid to win the auction.  
The interest is 12% annually.

Birmingham lawyer Danny Evans, who is handling both lawsuits,
said that the extra interest payment is improper and
unconstitutional because the county does not warn delinquent
taxpayers that they will be liable for the additional interest.

G. Daniel Evans is member of Evans & Sexton, P.C., 1736 Oxmoor
Road, Suite 101, Birmingham, Alabama 35209, (Jefferson & Shelby
Cos.).  Phone: 205-870-1970; Fax: 205-870-7763.


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Illinois Court Denies Appeal of Remand Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
denied AllianceBernstein's appeal of a decision to remand the
purported class action complaint entitled, "ERB et al. V.
Alliance Capital Management L.P.," back to state court.

The suit was filed in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County,
Illinois October 2003.  The plaintiff, purportedly a shareholder
in the Large Cap Growth Fund, alleged that AllianceBernstein
breached unidentified provisions of Large Cap Growth Fund's
prospectus and subscription and confirmation agreements that
allegedly required that every security bought for Large Cap
Growth Fund's portfolio must be a "1-rated" stock, the highest
rating that AllianceBernstein's research analysts could assign.

Plaintiff alleges that AllianceBernstein impermissibly purchased
shares of stocks that were not 1-rated.  In June 2004, plaintiff
filed an amended complaint in the Circuit Court of St. Clair
County, Illinois.  The amended ERB complaint allegations are
substantially similar to those contained in the previous
complaint, however, the amended ERB complaint adds a new
plaintiff and seeks to allege claims on behalf of a purported
class of persons or entities holding an interest in any
portfolio managed by AllianceBernstein's Large Cap Growth Team.

The amended ERB complaint alleges that AllianceBernstein
breached its contracts with these persons or entities by
impermissibly purchasing shares of stocks that were not 1-rated.  
Plaintiffs seek rescission of all purchases of any non-1-rated
stocks AllianceBernstein made for Large Cap Growth Fund and
other Large Cap Growth Team clients' portfolios over the past
eight years, as well as an unspecified amount of damages.  

In July 2004, AllianceBernstein removed the ERB action to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on the
basis that plaintiffs' claims are preempted under the Securities
Litigation Uniform Standards Act.  In August 2004, the District
Court remanded the action to the Circuit Court.  

In September 2004, AllianceBernstein filed a notice of appeal
with respect to the District Court's order.  In December 2004,
plaintiffs moved to dismiss AllianceBernstein's appeal.  In
September 2005, AllianceBernstein's appeal was denied.


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: N.Y. Court Dismisses All Claims in Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed the single remaining claim in the consolidated
securities class action filed against Alliance Capital
Management LP, styled, "Aucoin, et al. v. Alliance Capital
Management L.P., et al."  The suit named as defendants:

     (1) Alliance Capital Management Holding L.P.,

     (2) Alliance Capital Management Corporation,

     (3) AXA Financial Corporation,

     (4) Alliance Bernstein Investment Research and Management,
         Inc. (ABIRM),

     (5) certain current and former directors of the
         AllianceBernstein Funds, and

     (6) unnamed Doe defendants

The first suit filed named the AllianceBernstein Funds as
nominal defendants.  The Complaint was filed by an alleged
shareholder of the AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund.  The
Aucoin Complaint alleges, among other things:

     (i) that certain of the defendants improperly authorized
         the payment of excessive commissions and other fees
         from AllianceBernstein Fund assets to broker-dealers in
         exchange for preferential marketing services,

    (ii) that certain of the defendants misrepresented and
         omitted from registration statements and other reports
         material facts concerning such payments, and

   (iii) that certain defendants caused such conduct as control
         persons of other defendants.

The Complaint asserts claims for violation of Sections 34(b),
36(b) and 48(a) of the Investment Company Act, Sections 206 and
215 of the Advisers Act, breach of common law fiduciary duties,
and aiding and abetting breaches of common law fiduciary duties.
Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages
and punitive damages, rescission of their contracts with
Alliance Capital, including recovery of all fees paid to
Alliance Capital pursuant to such contracts, an accounting of
all AllianceBernstein Fund-related fees, commissions and soft
dollar payments, and restitution of all unlawfully or
discriminatorily obtained fees and expenses.

Since June 22, 2004, nine additional lawsuits making factual
allegations substantially similar to those in the first suit
were filed against the Company and certain other defendants.  
All nine of the lawsuits were brought as class actions filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
assert claims substantially identical to the Aucoin Complaint,
and are brought on behalf of shareholders of AllianceBernstein
Funds.

On February 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint that asserted claims substantially
similar to the lawsuits referenced above.  On April 14, 2005,
defendants moved to dismiss the Aucoin Consolidated Amended
Complaint.  On October 19, 2005, the District Court dismissed
each of the claims set forth in the Aucoin Consolidated Amended
Complaint, except for plaintiff's claim under Section 36(b) of
the Investment Company Act.

In January 2006, the District Court granted defendants' motion
for reconsideration and dismissed the remaining claim under
Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act.  Plaintiffs have
moved for leave to amend their consolidated complaint.

The suit was styled, "In re: Alliancebernstein Mutual Funds
Excessive Fee Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-04885-SWK," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Shirley Wohl Kram.  Representing the plaintiffs are
Jerome M. Congress, Kim Elaine Levy, Janine Lee Pollack, Michael
Robert Reese, Steven Schulman, Peter Edward Seidman of Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New
York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-594-5300, Fax: 212-868-1229, E-mail:
klevy@milberg.com, jpollack@milbergweiss.com,
mreese@milberg.com, sschulman@milbergweiss.com; and Marshall N.
Perkins and Charles J. Piven, The World Trade Center-Baltimore
401 East Pratt Street, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: (410) 332-
0030.

Representing the Company are Mark Holland and Mark Adam Kirsch
of Clifford Chance US, LLP (NYC), 31 West 52nd Street, New York,
NY 10019-6131, Phone: (212)-878-8432, Fax: (212)-878-8375, E-
mail: mark.holland@cliffordchance.com or
mark.kirsch@cliffordchance.com.  


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Plaintiffs File Amended Md. Mutual Fund Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed amended class actions with respect to four
claim types against Alliance Capital Management L.P. in the U.S.
District Court of Maryland.

On October 2, 2003, a purported class action complaint entitled,
"Hindo, et al. v. AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund, et
al.," was filed against:

     -- the Company,

     -- Alliance Capital Management Holding, L.P.,

     -- Alliance Capital Management Corporation (ACMC),

     -- AXA Financial Corporation,

     -- the AllianceBernstein Funds,

     -- the registrants and issuers of those funds,

     -- certain officers of the Company and certain other
        defendants not affiliated with the Company, and

     -- unnamed Doe defendants.

The Hindo Complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York by alleged shareholders of two of
the AllianceBernstein Funds.  The Complaint alleged that certain
of the Alliance defendants failed to disclose that they
improperly allowed certain hedge funds and other unidentified
parties to engage in "late trading" and "market-timing" of
AllianceBernstein Fund securities, violating Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Sections 206 and 215 of the Investment Advisers Act.  

Plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of compensatory damages
and rescission of their contracts with the Company, including
recovery of all fees paid to Alliance Capital pursuant to such
contracts.

Since October 2, 2003, 43 additional lawsuits making factual
allegations generally similar to those in the Hindo Complaint
were filed in various federal and state courts against the
Company and certain other defendants, and others may be filed.  
Such lawsuits have asserted a variety of theories for recovery
including, but not limited to, violations of the Securities Act,
the Exchange Act, the Advisers Act, the Investment Company Act,
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, certain
state securities statutes and common law.   All of these
lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of damages.

On February 20, 2004, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (MDL Panel) transferred all federal actions to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Mutual Fund
MDL).  On March 3, 2004 and April 6, 2004, the MDL Panel issued
orders conditionally transferring the state court cases against
the Company and numerous others to the Mutual Fund MDL.  
Transfer of all of these actions subsequently became final.  
Plaintiffs in three of these four actions moved to remand the
actions back to state court.  

On June 18, 2004, the Court issued an interim opinion deferring
decision on plaintiffs' motions to remand until a later stage in
the proceedings.  Subsequently, the plaintiff in the state court
individual action moved the Court for reconsideration of that
interim opinion and for immediate remand of her case to state
court, and that motion is pending.  Defendants were not yet
required to respond to the complaints filed in the state court
derivative actions.

On September 29, 2004, plaintiffs filed consolidated amended
complaints with respect to four claim types: mutual fund
shareholder claims; mutual fund derivative claims; derivative
claims brought on behalf of Alliance Holding; and claims brought
under ERISA by participants in the Profit Sharing Plan for
Employees of Alliance Capital.  All four complaints included
substantially identical factual allegations, which appear to be
based in large part on the SEC Order.  

The claims in the mutual fund derivative consolidated amended
complaint are generally based on the theory that all fund
advisory agreements, distribution agreements and 12b-1 plans
between the Company and the AllianceBernstein Funds should be
invalidated, regardless of whether market timing occurred in
each individual fund, because each was approved by fund trustees
on the basis of materially misleading information with respect
to the level of market timing permitted in funds managed by the
Company.  The claims asserted in the other three consolidated
amended complaints are similar to those that the respective
plaintiffs asserted in their previous federal lawsuits.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Suit Over Hurricane Katrina Damages Proceeds
----------------------------------------------------------------
A judge in Mississippi denied a request by Allstate Insurance
Co. to dismiss an insurance case filed by homeowners in relation
to the Hurricane Katrina disaster, the Jurist reports.  The suit
alleges that Allstate representatives falsely led the plaintiffs
to believe that flood damage would be covered by their hurricane
insurance policy.

U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter determined that a trial would be
necessary to determine the facts that could make Allstate
possibly liable for the damages that homeowners believe were
covered.  He, however, established that damages caused by wind
and rain must be covered under the hurricane insurance policies,
even if the jury determines that flood damages are not.

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood filed a similar class
action in Mississippi State Court in September.

Allstate Insurance Group -- http://www.allstate.com/-- led by  
Allstate Insurance Co., primarily writes personal
property/casualty and life insurance.  Established in 1931 by
Sears, Roebuck & Co., Allstate is the country's second-largest
property/casualty underwriter and ranks among the 25 largest
life and health insurers.


APPLETON PAPERS: Sued Over Alleged Pollution Caused by Ohio Mill
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appleton Papers, Inc. is a defendant in a purported class action
filed in Ohio federal court alleging that the Company released
and continues to release hazardous substances from a local paper
mill, including PCBs, dioxins and fluorochemicals, which
allegedly caused injury to them and/or damage to property.

In April 2005, eleven local residents who allegedly live, or
have lived, near the wastewater treatment plant of the West
Carrollton mill and two former mill employees (and one of their
spouses) filed the lawsuits in Montgomery County, Ohio court.

Those suits were later removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio.  The local resident plaintiffs
requested that the court certify the matter as a class action.  
The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages,
remediation and other relief.  

In 2005, the lawsuit commenced by the two former mill employees
was dismissed without prejudice.  The claims of the local
resident plaintiffs remain pending.


CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Former Accountant Files Calif. Overtime Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
California Pizza Kitchen, Inc. is a defendant in a purported
class action filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court in
California by a former accountant.

Filed on November 16, 2005, the suit alleges that the Company
improperly classified her and other non-Certified Public
Accountants as exempt from overtime.  Under the Wage Orders,
which are administrative regulations promulgated by the
California Industrial Welfare Commission and have the force and
effect of law, and the California Labor Code, an employer must
pay employees overtime unless they qualify under one of the
exemptions.

The plaintiff also alleges meal, rest period, and waiting time
penalties are due, and that these breaches constitute unfair
business practices.  The Company believes that its employees are
properly classified and plan to fully investigate these claims
and defend itself against them.  The Company has accrued a legal
settlement reserve of $600,000 based on an estimate of the
maximum costs that are to be incurred in connection with this
case.  


CROWLEY MARITIME: Opposes Amendment of Del. Stockholders' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a class action filed against Crowley Maritime
Corp. filed opposition briefs to motions to amend and intervene
in the case.

Crowley Maritime is a defendant in a purported class action and
complaint that was filed on November 30, 2004, in the Court of
Chancery in the State of Delaware against it and its Board of
Directors.  The suit alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
director defendants to the Company and its stockholders.  

Among other things, the complaint alleges that the defendants
pursued a corporate policy of entrenching the Company's
controlling stockholder, Thomas B. Crowley, Jr., and certain
members of the Crowley family by allegedly expending corporate
funds improperly.  The plaintiffs seek damages and other relief.  

On February 25, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint.  On September 30, 2005, the Court held a hearing
and requested additional briefing on several issues from the
plaintiff and the Company.  That motion was briefed and argued
on September 30, 2005.  

At oral argument, the plaintiffs proposed amending their
complaint.  On December 27, 2005, plaintiffs formally moved for
leave to amend their complaint, and another purported
stockholder filed a motion to intervene in the action.

On January 19, 2006, the Court ordered that defendants' motion
to dismiss is stayed pending resolution of the motion to amend
and motion to intervene.  Defendants' opposition briefs to the
motion to amend and motion to intervene were filed February 27,
2006.  


EGL INC: "P&D" Drivers Launch Lawsuit in Calif. Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
EGL, Inc. is a defendant in a purported class action filed by
one former and two current independent contractor pickup and
delivery (P&D) drivers of the Company on behalf of themselves
and similarly situated drivers in California.  The suit alleges
various causes of action based on their theory that the drivers
are employees and not independent contractors.  

Filed in California state court on September 12, 2005, the
complaint requests:

     (1) the matter be designated as a class action on behalf of
         all independent contractor P&D drivers working for EGL
         in California;

     (2) a declaratory judgment that EGL has violated the law;

     (3) an equitable accounting and an unspecified amount of
         damages; and

     (4) restitution in the form of business expenses, unpaid
         overtime, meal period compensation, unlawful deductions
         from wages, statutory penalties, interest, attorneys'
         fees and costs.

The Company removed the case to federal district court for the
Northern District of California, and the parties agreed to focus
only on the individual claims of the three named defendants in
the first phase of the proceedings.  In the event one or more of
the plaintiffs' claims survive the summary judgment phase, the
next phase would focus on whether the action is maintainable as
a class action.  

The suit is styled, "Narayan et al v. EGL, Inc. et al., Case No.
5:05-cv-04181-RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte with
referral to Judge Howard R. Lloyd.  Representing the plaintiffs
are, Lorraine Grindstaff and Jules Sandford of Patten Faith and
Sandford, 635 West Foothill Blvd., Monrovia, CA 91016-2097, US,
Phone: 626-359-9335, Fax: 626-303-2391, E-mail:
lgrindstaff@pfslaw.com and jsandford@pfslaw.com; and Aaron D.
Kaufmann of Hinton, Alfert & Sumner, 1646 N. California Blvd.,
Suite 600, Walnut Creek, CA 94596, Phone: (925) 932-6006, Fax:
(925) 932-3412, E-mail: kaufmann@hinton-law.com.

Representing the defendants is Karen J. Kubin of Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, 580 California Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94104-1036, Phone: 415-765-9522, Fax: 415-765-
9501, E-mail: kkubin@akingump.com.


EXELON CORP: Faces Additional Suit Over Chemical Spill in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Nuclear is facing another suit filed by 12 families over
tritium-laced water leaks at Braidwood Generating Station at
Braceville, Illinois, according to Chicago Tribune.  The
families are suing for loss of property value due to the leaks
that began in 1996, but which were reported only in December.

On March 13, about 200 gallons of tritiated water escaped from
the temporary tank yard at Braidwood Station after strong winds
destroyed a section of the concrete wall containing the liquid.  
Previously, 6 million gallons of tritiated water seeped into the
groundwater into the Kankakee River.

Tritium is a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen that emits
a very low level of radiation and is found in virtually all of
the earth's water.  It is produced in greater concentrations in
commercial nuclear reactors and is discharged into the
environment under federal operating permits.

                         Federal Lawsuit

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

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

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

                      Will County Lawsuit

Eleven Braidwood families filed a second multi-count complaint
against Exelon Corporation and Commonwealth Edison Corporation
related to:

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

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

Illinois injury lawyer, Todd A. Smith of Power Rogers & Smith --
http://www.prslaw.com-- made the filing (Case No. 06 L 172)
March 14 at the Will County Courthouse in Joliet, Illinois
(Class Action Reporter, March 21, 2006).

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

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

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

Mr. Smith said the 23 families are not involved in the class
action by the McKeown Law Firm of Joliet.

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


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Sued Over Paxil, Paxil-Related Teen Suicides
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glaxo SmithKline is facing a joint national class action filed
over its anti-depressant drug Paxil in federal court in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the company's hometown.

The plaintiffs are the mother of an 11-year old Wichita, Kansas
boy who committed suicide while on Paxil and a teenager from
Pflugerville, Texas, a small town outside of Austin, who
attempted suicide while taking Paxil.  They represent all
individuals under the age of 18 in the U.S. who attempted
suicide or the families of individuals who killed themselves as
a result of an adverse reaction to Paxil.  The complaint charges
include fraud, negligence, strict liability and breach of
warranty.

The FDA has required all antidepressant manufacturers to place a
black box warning in their labels alerting physicians and
patients to the increased risk of suicidality, which went into
effect in January 2005.

The Plaintiffs

11-year-old Trevor Blain was prescribed Paxil for "separation
anxiety disorder" by his pediatrician in October 2000.  He
immediately began having difficulty sleeping and had angry
outbursts while on Paxil, but his family did not make the
connection between his deteriorating behavior and the drug.  He
continued taking the medication as prescribed.  In early
November 2000, Trevor hanged himself with his dog's leash in the
family laundry room.  Although he survived the suicide attempt,
he remained comatose for several weeks and died on December 7,
2000.

17-year-old Tonya Brooks was a shy high school student.  Her
family doctor diagnosed her with "social anxiety disorder" and
prescribed Paxil in 2004.  She became agitated, aggressive and
had difficulty sleeping while taking Paxil.  She first attempted
suicide by taking an overdose of Paxil and a sleeping
medication, Ambien.  She survived the attempt and two days later
gouged a hole in her leg with a pair of scissors.  She was
hospitalized for several days.

Tonya is one of six youths featured in a new documentary film
entitled "Prescription: Suicide?" The film will be screened at
the upcoming Beverly Hills Film Festival on April 8, 2006.  The
documentary takes an intimate look at children and teens who
have committed suicide or attempted suicide while taking
antidepressants and the impact these tragic events have had on
their families.  

Tonya's mother, Cheryl Brooks stated, "No parent should have to
go through what we did." Explaining her horror when she found
her daughter sprawled on the bathroom floor after her suicide
attempt, Mrs. Brooks stated, "[T]here was blood everywhere....
[The manufacturers of these drugs] should be paying for this.
They gave these medicines to these kids - that's murder..."

Baum Hedlund partner, Karen Barth Menzies, commented on the
lawsuit, "Through our Paxil litigation, we've obtained documents
that show a seriously troubling mentality of profit over safety
and a callous disregard for the welfare of children.  That's
about as reprehensible as you can get.  Governmental regulators
around the world have now analyzed the actual data from the
clinical trials, not GSK's version of it, and have found an
increased risk of suicidality.  Yet the drug companies and their
hired mouthpieces in the medical academic community, including
the pediatric arm of the APA [American Psychiatric Association],
continue to downplay the Black Box Warning as an "over-reaction"
by FDA.  They continue to try to hide this risk from parents for
the sake of profits. The company wanted to make sure the rights
of all of these kids are protected by filing this lawsuit."

The lawsuit alleges that:

     -- Paxil is not approved for pediatric use.  It was
        introduced into the U.S. market on December 29, 1992,
        and is a well known antidepressant medication in the
        same class as Prozac, Zoloft, Effexor, Celexa and
        Lexapro (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or
        SSRI's).  Paxil is approved for marketing in the United
        States for conditions such as depression, obsessive
        compulsive disorder, panic disorder, and "social anxiety
        disorder."

     -- Although a number of clinical trials have been conducted
        in the pediatric population, Paxil has never been
        approved by the FDA for use in children/adolescents
        because the studies show that the drug doesn't work.

     -- The studies show a more than doubling of the risk and in
        one study, there was a nearly 6 times increase of
        suicidal thoughts and behavior compared to placebo.

     -- Not until 2002 was it recognized that GSK had been
        coding suicidal behavior as "emotional lability," thus
        hiding the risk.

     -- Notwithstanding the clinical trials which showed Paxil
        to be ineffective for pediatric patients and associated
        with an increased risk of serious, and possibly deadly,
        side effects, GSK engaged in a campaign to promote the
        use of Paxil for use with pediatric patients.

     -- GSK, faced with the negative results from the pediatric
        studies, began a campaign to reduce the negative impact
        of this bad study data.  GSK prepared a medical journal
        article regarding Study 329 that was not only "ghost
        written," but falsely stated that Paxil was superior to
        placebo among "four of the parameters," including one
        which was identified as a "primary outcome measure."  In
        fact, GSK knew that Paxil was not found to be superior
        to placebo amongst any of the "primary outcome
        measures."  Further, the article stated that "most
        adverse effects were not serious," and failed to list      
        suicide-related events as "serious."

     -- In a document directed to "all sales representatives
        selling Paxil," a GSK manager stated that, according to
        the "Keller" article, "Paxil demonstrates REMARKABLE
        Efficacy and Safety in the treatment of adolescent
        depression."  The document states that "the findings of
        this study provide evidence of the efficacy and safety  
        of Paxil in the treatment of adolescent depression."  As
        GSK well knew, study 329 found Paxil to be neither
        effective nor safe.

     -- GSK also hired doctors to go around the world and
        promote the use of Paxil for pediatric patients by way  
        of "posters" and lectures at medical conferences.  These
        "posters" and their presenters claimed that Paxil was
        effective for treating adolescent depression and free
        from serious side effects.  In fact, GSK knew that to be
        false.

     -- In internal, unpublished documents, which have been kept
        from public and regulatory scrutiny via the stratagem of
        over-broad "confidentiality" designations, GSK has made
        numerous admissions about Paxil's associated harmful
        side effects and lack of effectiveness in children and
        adolescents.  Notwithstanding these admissions, in
        flagrant and conscious disregard and indifference, GSK
        has denied publicly that such nexus exists, and has
        failed utterly to take any measures whatsoever to alert
        the public, the prescribing physicians, and the patients
        who take it, of the incipient dangers associated with
        Paxil.

     -- GSK has defrauded the medical profession, the Paxil
        patient population, and the general public in that it,
        among other acts:

        * Hired a firm to "ghostwrite" an article that was
          widely publicized which claimed, falsely, that Paxil
          was effective and safe for the treatment of depression
          with children and adolescents;

        * Hired doctors to present "posters" around the world at
          medical conferences which claimed, falsely, that Paxil
          was effective and safe for the treatment of depression
          with children and adolescents;

        * Fraudulently mischaracterized and miscoded adverse
          events involving self-harm with the term "emotional
          liability" so as to reduce the number of occurrences
          and hide their existence from the public and
          regulators;

        * Failed to inform the medical and research communities
          that a significant number of pediatric patients taking
          Paxil during clinical trials attempted acts of self-
          harm at a rate that was at least twice that for
          pediatric patients who took placebo;

        * Fraudulently claimed that Paxil's characteristic side
          effects of insomnia, agitation and anxiety were of
          little or no concern when in fact these effects are
          known to be among the most critical and deadly of the
          short-term risk factors for self-harm;

        * Fraudulently denied Paxil's association with serious
          or deadly thoughts or acts of self-harm when its own
          investigators informed GSK (and GSK determined itself)
          that Paxil was associated with such conditions;

        * Allowing the use of concomitant medications in
          clinical trials to lessen side effects in order to
          avoid the reporting of treatment-emergent adverse
          events, such as akathisia;

        * Aggressively promoted Paxil to doctors for use with
          pediatric patients even though Paxil was not, and is
          not, approved for use with children and adolescents.

      -- In early 2005, GSK updated Paxil's label to include a
         "black-box" warning, which is the strongest warning
          allowed for by FDA regulations.  That warning states:

             Suicidality in Children and Adolescents

Antidepressants increased the risk of suicidal thinking and
behavior (suicidality) in short-term studies in children and
adolescents with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and other
psychiatric disorders.  Anyone considering the use of PAXIL or
any other antidepressant in a child or adolescent must balance
this risk with the clinical need. Patients who are started on
therapy should be observed closely for clinical worsening,
suicidality, or unusual changes in behavior.  Families and
caregivers should be advised of the need for close observation
and communication with the prescriber.  PAXIL is not approved
for use in pediatric patients.

Pooled analysis of short-term (4 to 16 weeks) placebo-controlled
trials of 9 antidepressant drugs (SSRIs and others) in children
and adolescents with major depressive disorder (MDD), obsessive
compulsive disorder (OCD), or other psychiatric disorders (a
total of 24 trials involving over 4,400 patients) have revealed
a greater risk of adverse events representing suicidal thinking
or behavior (suicidality) during the first few months of
treatment in those receiving antidepressants.  The average risk
of such events in patients receiving antidepressants was 4%,
twice the placebo risk of 2%.  No suicides occurred in these
trials.

For more information, call Robin McCall, Media Relations
Director of Baum Hedlund and Karen Barth Menzies; 12100 Wilshire
Boulevard, Suite 950; Los Angeles, CA, 90025, Phone: 310-207-
3233; Fax: 310-820-7444E-mail: rmccall@baumhedlundlaw.com


HUNTSMAN INTL: Faces Consolidated Price-Fixing Lawsuit in Kans.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman International, LLC, is a defendant in putative class
action antitrust suits alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in
the MDI, TDI, and polyether polyols industries.  

The suits are now consolidated as the "Polyether Polyols Cases"
in multidistrict litigation known as "In re Urethane Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1616, Civil No. 2:04-md-01616-JWL-DJW," by
virtue of an initial order transferring and consolidating cases
filed August 23, 2004.  They are pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas.

Other defendants named in the Polyether Polyols Cases are Bayer,
BASF, Dow, and Lyondell.  Bayer recently announced that it
entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs.

These consolidated cases are in the early stages of class
certification discovery.  The pleadings of the plaintiffs do not
provide specifics about any alleged illegal conduct of the
defendants and the Company is not aware of any evidence of
illegal conduct by it or any of its employees.

The suit is styled, "In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, MDL
No. 1616, Civil No. 2:04-md-01616-JWL-DJW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas under Judge John W.
Lungstrum with referral to Judge David J. Waxse.  Representing
the plaintiffs are, Mario Nunzio Alioto of Trump Alioto Trump &
Prescott, LLP, 2280 Union Street, San Francisco, CA 94123,
Phone: 415-563-7200, Fax: 415-346-0679, E-mail:
malioto@tatp.com; and Arthur N. Bailey of Arthur N. Bailey &
Associates, 111 West Second Street, Suite 4500, Jamestown, NY
14701, Phone: 716-664-2967, Fax: 716-664-2983, E-mail:
artlaw@alltel.net.

Representing the defendants are, Floyd R. Finch, Jr. of
Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin, LLP - Kansas City, 4801 Main
Street - Ste. 1000, P.O. Box 219777, Kansas City, MO 64112,
Phone: 816-983-8128, Fax: 816-983-8080, E-mail:
ffinch@blackwellsanders.com; and James S. Jardine of Ray,
Quinney & Nebeker, 36 South State Street, Suite 1400, Salt Lake
City, UT 84111, Phone: 801-323-3337, Fax: 801-532-7543, E-mail:
jjardine@rqn.com.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Lawsuit Over 'Deformed' Tiburon Clutch
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai Motor America's claim that it offers "America's Best
Warranty(tm)" is going to be tested in a Los Angeles, California
Superior Court.  On March 22, 2006, Green Welling LLP, a San
Francisco class action law firm, filed suit against Hyundai for
refusing to cover repairs under its warranty to correct
defective clutch parts in 2003 Hyundai Tiburon GTs with six-
speed manual transmissions.

According to class action lawyer Robert Green, "We noticed an
unusual amount of 2003 Tiburon drivers complaining about their
clutches failing within the first 30,000 miles they drove the
car.  Not only was the clutch failing prematurely, but owners
were complaining that Hyundai refused warranty coverage for the
repairs needed to fix the problem."

Upon further investigation, Green Welling LLP said it discovered
that Hyundai found the clutch problem unusual as well and issued
a Technical Service Bulletin to its dealers in March 2004
referring to the 2003 Tiburon's clutch components as "deformed,"
and advised that the clutch could be repaired by replacing
certain parts with new, non-deformed parts.  Surprisingly, when
Tiburon owners came to dealerships to repair the defect, Hyundai
blamed the premature failure on the owner's driving habits and
refused to cover any costs for replacement parts or for labor to
repair the defect, the law firm said.

"Hyundai specifically lists two of the clutch parts it claims
are 'deformed' as parts covered under its warranty.  This clutch
failure is not a problem with individual drivers, this is a
problem with Hyundai's manufacturing," said attorney Jenelle
Welling.  "We have complaints of people going out-of-pocket for
nearly $2,000 just so they could drive their car again, " added
Green.  "We feel that owners of the 2003 Tiburon are entitled to
full coverage of the clutch repairs under the warranty.  Simply
stated, Hyundai is not upholding its end of the bargain."

If you purchased a 2003 Tiburon GT six-speed with manual
transmission and would like information concerning the Hyundai
lawsuit, contact Robert S. Green of Green Welling LLP
(http://www.classcounsel.com),Phone: (415) 477-6700.  


JACKSON HEWITT: Faces Calif. Suits for Refund Anticipation Loans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. is a defendant in purported
class actions in California state court in connection with the
provision of Refund Anticipation Loans (RAL).

On or about April 4, 2003, Canieva Hood and Congress of
California Seniors brought a purported class action suit against
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust (SBB&T) and the Company in the
Superior Court of California (San Francisco), subsequently
adding Cendant Corporation, in the Superior Court of California
(Santa Barbara, following a transfer from San Francisco).  The
suit sought declaratory relief as to the lawfulness of the
practice of cross-lender debt collection, the validity of
SBB&T's cross-lender debt collection provision and whether the
method of disclosure to customers with respect to the provision
is unlawful or fraudulent.

The Company was joined in the action for allegedly
collaborating, and aiding and abetting, in the actions of SBB&T.
The Company filed a demurrer and subsequently answered the
amended complaint, denying any liability.

The Court granted a motion to dismiss SBB&T and other banks,
which are third-party defendants on the ground that the claims
are preempted by federal law.  Plaintiffs appealed that
decision.  The Court stayed all other proceedings, pending
appeal.  

Additionally, Ms. Hood also filed a separate lawsuit against the
Company and Cendant on December 18, 2003 in the Ohio Court of
Common Pleas (Montgomery County) and is seeking to certify a
class in the action.  Subsequently, the plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed Cendant from this action.  The allegations relate to
the same set of facts as the California action.  

The Company filed a motion to stay or dismiss, which was denied,
and subsequently answered the Complaint, denying any liability.  
The case is in its discovery and pretrial stage.  The Company
also filed a motion to stay the action, or in the alternative to
add SBB&T as a third-party defendant, pending a decision in the
California appeal.  A decision by the Court is currently
pending.


KMART CORP: Settles ADA Violations Lawsuit in Colo. for $13M
------------------------------------------------------------
Kmart Corporation, which merged with Sears to become the Hoffman
Estates, Illinois-based Company, Sears Holdings Corp., reached a
settlement for a purported federal class action in Colorado
alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA).

The Company was named as a defendant in a pending pre-petition
nationwide class action relating to proper access to facilities
for the disabled under the ADA.  The class action is pending in
the U.S. District Court in Denver, Colorado.

On July 13, 2005, the court certified a nationwide class of
individuals who use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility and who
shop at Kmart.

On February 9, 2006, Kmart entered into a settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs in this action.  The settlement agreement
was submitted to the court for preliminary approval on March 13,
2006.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, if the settlement is
approved, Kmart will:

     (1) make certain renovations to Kmart stores over a seven
         and a half year period to improve accessibility for
         individuals who use wheelchairs or scooters for
         mobility;

     (2) revise certain policies, procedures, and training that
         relate to or affect individuals who use wheelchairs or
         scooters for mobility; and

     (3) pay approximately $13 million in damages-approximately
         $8 million in cash and $5 million in gift cards-to a
         sub-class of the class certified by the court to
         resolve claims for statutory minimum damages under
         disability statutes in seven states.


KPMG LLP: Proposes New Settlement Terms in Tax Shelter Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Accounting firm KPMG LLP reached a revised settlement with tax
shelter investors that lawyers who read the proposal estimate at
no more than $155 million, according to International Herald
Tribune.

The original $195 settlement, which was initially reached in
September, was slated to go to court for final approval on Feb.
24, 2006, but U.S. District Court Dennis Cavanaugh in Newark,
New Jersey rescheduled the hearing to give time for revisions.  
The initial settlement covered four tax shelters offered by KPMG
and was intended to return fees that investors paid to
accounting and law firms for certain shelters that the U.S.
Internal Revenue Service deemed unacceptable.

According to the report, under the revised settlement, 60 or so
investors who chose not to join can take part, and investors now
in the deal can elect not to participate.  Considering the
number of those who opted out, the final amount available is
unlikely to exceed $155 million and may drop to $125 million or
lower, the lawyers said.  Under the new settlement, Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman's original $30 million fee will be
reduced by 25%, according to the report.

Lawyers for KPMG requested the U.S. District Court in Newark,
New Jersey for a hearing in late May to approve the revised
deal.

                     Case Background

The Internal Revenue Service found the tax shelters, which  
helped taxpayers who bought them elude $2.5 billion in taxes, to  
be "abusive."  A grand jury in New York has indicted 19 people,  
including KPMG's former chief financial officers, former KPMG  
tax professionals and a former lawyer at Sidley, Austin, Brown &  
Wood LLP, which worked with KPMG, in connection with the shelter  
sales.

The settlement would compensation to former clients of KPMG and
Sidley Austin who participated in the tax shelters known as
Blips, Flip and Opis, as well as some former clients who
participated in a shelter called Short Option  
Strategy (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2005).  

Awards, which by law cannot cover back taxes and IRS penalties,  
will be a portion of the transaction fees that the taxpayers  
paid to arrange the shelters.  The average payout would be  
$750,000, according to Melvyn I. Weiss, a class action lawyer  
whose firm negotiated the settlement with KPMG.   

The four shelters were the subjects of KPMG's settlement  
agreement with federal prosecutors in New York in August.  Under  
that agreement, KPMG admitted criminal wrongdoing in creating  
fraudulent tax shelters and agreed to pay $456 million in  
penalties.  However, under that same agreement, KPMG won't face  
criminal prosecution as long as it complies with its terms.

The case before Judge Cavanaugh is among dozens of lawsuits  
brought by former KPMG clients in state and federal courts  
around the nation.  According to KPMG's deferred-prosecution  
agreement with federal prosecutors, KPMG sold the four shelters  
to about 600 wealthy people from 1996 to 2002.

The suit is styled, "Simon et al v. KPMG LLP et al, Case No.  
2:05-cv-03189-DMC-MF," filed in the U.S. District Court  
for the District of New Jersey, under Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh.  
Representing the plaintiffs are James E. Cecchi and Melissa E.  
Flax of Carella Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart & Olstein,  
PC, 5 Becker Farm Road, Roseland, NJ 07068, Phone:  
(973) 994-1700, Fax: (973) 994-1744, E-mail:  
jcecchi@carellabyrne.com and mflax@carellabyrne.com.

Representing the Defendants are, Dennis J. Drasco of LUM,  
DANZIS, DRASCO & POSITAN, LLC, 103 Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland,  
NJ 07068-1049, Phone: (973) 403-9000, E-mail:  
ddrasco@lumlaw.com; and Anthony J. Marchetta of Pitney Hardin,  
200 Campus Drive, Florham Park, NJ 07932, Phone: 973-966-8032,  
E-mail: amarchetta@pitneyhardin.com.


LONGS DRUG: Calif. Court Sets Trial Date for Employment Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A June 17, 2006 trial dated was slated for the California class
action against Longs Drug Stores Corporation, captioned, "Rankin
v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc."

As amended on January 19, 2005, the suit was originally filed in
the Superior Court of California, San Diego County on October
13, 2004.  It was certified as a class action on July 19, 2005
and alleges that the company's employment application violates
California Labor Code Section 432.8 by inquiring about criminal
convictions within the last seven years, without providing an
exception for misdemeanor marijuana convictions more than two
years old.

The plaintiff seeks to recover statutory damages and attorneys'
fees for him and all similarly situated individuals who applied
for employment with the company during the class period.  Trial
is set for June 17, 2006.


NATIONAL HOME: Employee Launches Overtime Wage Suit in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
National Home Health Care Corp. is a defendant in a class action
entitled, "Lerai Jones, et al. v. National Home Health Care
Corp.," which is alleging violations of the New York Labor Law
for unpaid overtime under state law.  

Filed on February 28, 2006 in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of New York, Index No. 06-102757, the suit
asserts that all hourly employees of the Company within New York
were not paid time and one-half their regular rate of pay for
all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week, as
required under State law.  The applicable statute of limitations
is six (6) years.


NEW YORK: Suit Over Spraypark Cryptosporidium Outbreak Continues
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit over a Cryptosporidium outbreak at the Seneca Lake
State Park Spraypark is proceeding at the State of New York
Court of Claims in Syracuse, according to WROC-TV.

Plaintiffs in the case are asking class action on behalf of all
persons who became ill with Cryptosporidiosis and/or were
otherwise damaged as a result of the Cryptosporidium outbreak in
2005.  They are seeking compensation for injuries and economic
damages against the State of New York Department of Parks,
Recreation, and Historical Preservation.

The state's health department closed the Seneca Lake State Park
Sprayground on August 15, 2005 after a Cryptosporidium
contamination was discovered at the Sprayground's water holding
tanks, which were used to recycle water.

Marler Clark and Rochester attorney Paul Nunes of Utterberg &
Kessler (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 2, 2006).  Mr. Nunes is
connected with Underberg & Kessler LLP, 300 Bausch & Lomb Place
Rochester, New York 14604 (Monroe Co.), Phone: 585-258-2800;
Fax: 585-258-2821.


NIKE RETAIL: Mich. Racial Discrimination Suit Gets Class Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Milton Shadur in Chicago certified as class
action a discrimination and harassment suit filed by current and
former employees of the Niketown Store on Michigan Avenue,
Associated Press reports.

Eighteen current and former employees of the athletic apparel
retailer claim store managers used 'racial slur' with black
workers and customers, and relegated black employees to lower-
paying, non-sales jobs, even falsely accusing some of theft,
according to Chicago's NBC5.com.  One of the plaintiffs is Larry
Posey of Chicago.  

The suit was filed Dec. 19, 2003.  It includes blacks who were
employed at the store from Dec. 17, 1999, to the present, said
Chicago attorney Ines Monte, who is representing the plaintiffs.  
At least 230 current and former Niketown employees could be
included in the lawsuit, according to her.

Judge Shadur set a status hearing in the case for March 29.

The suit was styled "Smith, et al. v. Nike Retail Svc Inc.
(1:03-cv-09110)."  Representing the plaintiffs are: Noelle
Christine Brennan of Brennan & Monte, Ltd., 321 South Plymouth
Court, Suite 1515, Chicago, IL 60604, Phone: (312) 431-1800; E-
mail: nbrennan@brennan-monte.com; and Randall D. Schmidt of
Mandel Legal Aid Clinic, 6020 South University Avenue, Chicago,
IL 60637, Phone: (312) 702-9611; E-mail: r-schmidt@uchicago.edu.

Representing the defendants are: Martin Peter Greene of Greene &
Letts, 111 West Washington, Suite 1650, Chicago, IL 60602,
Phone: (312) 346-1100; Email: mpgreene@greeneandletts.com; and
Kathryn M. Woodward of Greene & Letts, 111 West Washington,
Suite 1650, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312) 346-1100; E-mail:
kwoodward@greeneandletts.com.


NOVARTIS CORP: Former Employee Files $375M Overtime Suit in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A former Novartis Corp. sales representative is suing the
company for alleged unpaid overtime pay, according to
NorthJersey.com.

Marta Deyne of Monmouth County, New Jersey, is seeking $375
million in damages in the suit filed in state Superior Court in
Freehold, the report said.  Her lawyers claim that Ms. Deyne and
her colleagues routinely worked more than 40 hours a week for
the pharmaceutical giant but were not properly compensated.  

As sales representative, they've been "misclassified" as being
exempt from state and federal laws requiring that most employees
who work in excess of 40 hours be paid one-and-a-half times
their normal hourly wages for the extra time.  Ms. Deyne worked
for Novartis from September 2000 until July 2005.  Her lawyer
said she made no commission, and her job did not entail selling
drugs, but markets them.

A March 27 issue of the Class Action Reporter also mentioned of
former Novartis Corp. sales representative, Simona Lopes, who
filed a $225 million class action over overtime pay.  The suit
was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of herself and all other Novartis employees
in similar sales positions statewide and nationwide.  She is
represented in the class action by Steven Wittels of Sanford,
Wittels & Heisler LLP, with offices in Washington, DC, New York
City and Ft Lee, NJ.

Based in New York, Novartis Corp. -- http://www.us.novartis.com
-- is the North American unit of Novartis AG.  It handles
administration, sales, and marketing for a vast product line of
prescription drugs for nervous system and ophthalmic disorders,
cardiovascular diseases, and cancer; it also makes
dermatological products and drugs to prevent organ transplant
rejection.


OHIO: Judge Rules Traffic Camera Citations Invalid, Returns Fine
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson County Common Pleas Judge David Henderson has ordered
the return of the money collected from motorists caught speeding
by Steubenville's automated traffic camera, The Intelligencer
reports.  The judge said the citations were invalid because the
city's ordinance on the use of the traffic cameras wasn't
followed; however, he didn't rule that the cameras were
unconstitutional.  

Steubenville attorney Gary Stern filed the suit against the city
and camera manufacturer Traffipax Inc. on behalf of his wife,
who received one of the $85 tickets issued by a traffic camera.  
The attorney argued that the cameras are illegal and
unconstitutional because, for one, under the ordinance,
motorists don't have the right to appeal.  

The lawsuit also said the city does not follow the terms of its
own ordinance which requires a 14-day notice before installing
the cameras.  Judge Henderson ordered the temporary removal of
speed cameras in December.  In February, he ruled that a class
action could proceed against the city of Steubenville and
Traffipax.  In March, he granted the Sterns' request for
permanent injunction against it.  About 7,221 speeding notices
were mailed to drivers since the cameras were first used on
Sept. 22

Judge Henderson will have more hearings to determine how the
money will be returned since the injunction request was
classified as a class action, according to the report.  In his
ruling, the judge ruled that the city failed to comply with the
city ordinance requiring the publication of the list of streets
to be monitored by the traffic cameras and for signs to be
erected near where the traffic cameras would be placed prior to
the date of enforcement.  The city may appeal or rewrite the
ordinance.

Judge Henderson did not apply voluntary payment doctrine in his
ruling.  The doctrine provides that a person what he or she
believes is wrong without challenging the payment forfeits the
right to get the money back.  According to the report, he
apparently believed those who paid the ticket felt pressured to
do so because a bulk of the tickets were late in being mailed
and received only days before the due date.

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


PACIFICORP: Loses Bid to Dismiss Ratepayers' Lawsuit in Oregon
--------------------------------------------------------------
Multnomah County Circuit Judge Janice Wilson allowed a suit
accusing PacificCorp of overcharging electricity ratepayers to
proceed, according to The Portland Tribune.  

Judge Janice Wilson was assigned to replace Judge John
Wittmayer, who recused himself from the case after learning he
was a PacifiCorp ratepayer (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 28).  
Aside from rejecting PacificCorp's motion to dismiss the suit,
Judge Wilson granted the plaintiffs' request for additional
information from PacificCorp.

The decision to allow the case to proceed is similar to one
issued by Judge Wittmayer in December involving Portland General
Electric.  The case resulted to a $10 million settlement to
current and former ratepayers in Multnomah County.  That
agreement awaits Judge Wittmayer's approval.

Representing the plaintiffs are lawyers Linda Williams and Dan
Meek.

PacifiCorp -- http://www.pacificorp.com/-- provides more than  
1.6 million customers with reliable, efficient energy in the
U.S.  It has more than 8,400 megawatts of generation capacity
from coal, hydro, renewable wind power, gas-fired combustion
turbines, solar and geothermal. PacifiCorp operates as Pacific
Power in Oregon, Washington, Wyoming and California; and as Utah
Power in Utah and Idaho.  The company was acquired by
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company in 2006.


PDI INC: Employees File Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
PDI, Inc. is a defendant in a purported class action filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
San Francisco on behalf of certain of the company's current and
former employees, alleging violations of certain sections of the
California Labor Code.

The Company was served with the complaint on September 26, 2005.  
During the quarter ended September 30, 2005, the Company accrued
approximately $3.3 million for potential penalties and other
settlement costs relating to both asserted and unasserted claims
relating to this matter.

In October 2005, the Company filed an answer generally denying
the allegations set forth in the complaint.  In December 2005,
the Company reached a tentative settlement of this action,
subject to court approval.

As a result of the proposed deal, the Company reduced the
reserve relating to asserted and unasserted claims relating to
this matter to $600,000.  However, there can be no assurance
that the court will approve their tentative settlement, that the
reserve will be adequate to cover potential liability, or that
the ultimate outcome of this action will not have a material
adverse effect on the company's business, financial condition or
results of operations.


PDI INC.: Plaintiffs Oppose Dismissal Motion for N.J. Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are opposing PDI, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action pending in New Jersey
federal court against the Company, its former chief executive
officer and its chief financial officer.

In January and February 2002, three complaints that were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the
Court) alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the Exchange Act).  These complaints were brought as purported
shareholder class actions under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 established thereunder.

On May 23, 2002, the Court consolidated all three lawsuits into
a single action entitled, "In re PDI Securities Litigation,
Mater File No. 02-CV-0211," and appointed lead plaintiffs (Lead
Plaintiffs) and Lead Plaintiffs' counsel.  On or about December
13, 2002, Lead Plaintiffs filed a second consolidated and
amended complaint (Second Consolidated and Amended Complaint),
which superseded their earlier complaints.

In February 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Consolidated and Amended Complaint.  On or about August
22, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
dismissed the Second Consolidated and Amended Complaint without
prejudice to plaintiffs.

On October 21, 2005, Lead Plaintiffs filed a third consolidated
and amended complaint (Third Consolidated and Amended
Complaint).  Like its predecessor, the Third Consolidated and
Amended Complaint names the Company, its former chief executive
officer and its chief financial officer as defendants; purports
to state claims against the Company on behalf of all persons who
purchased its common stock between May 22, 2001 and August 12,
2002; and seeks money damages in unspecified amounts and
litigation expenses including attorneys' and experts' fees.

The essence of the allegations in the Third Consolidated and
Amended Complaint is that the Company intentionally or
recklessly made false or misleading public statements and
omissions concerning the company's financial condition and
prospects with respect to its marketing of Ceftin in connection
with the October 2000 distribution agreement with GSK, the
Company's marketing of Lotensin in connection with the May 2001
distribution agreement with Novartis, as well as its marketing
of Evista in connection with the October 2001 distribution
agreement with Eli Lilly and Company.

On December 21, 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Third Consolidated and Amended Complaint under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and Rules 9(b) and
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  On February
24, 2006, Lead Plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law in
opposition of the motion to dismiss the Third Consolidated and
Amended Complaint.  

The suit is styled, "In re PDI Securities Litigation, Mater File
No. 02-CV-0211," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New Jersey, under Judge Jose L. Linares,
with referral to Judge Ronald Hedges.  Representing the
plaintiff/s are Allyn Zissel Lite and Joseph DePalma of LITE,
DEPALMA, GREENBERG AND RIVAS, LCC, Two Gateway Center, 12TH
Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail:
alite@ldgrlaw.com and jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com.

Representing the defendant is Alan S. Naar of GREENBAUM, ROWE,
SMITH & DAVIS, Metro Corporate Campus one, P.O. Box 5600,
Woodbridge, NJ 07095-0988, Phone: (732) 549-5600, E-mail:
anaar@greenbaumlaw.com.


PORTLAND GENERAL: Ratepayers to Get Refund Under $10M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric will start notifying current customers
regarding a refund under a proposed $10 million settlement of a
class action filed against it by ratepayers, Associated Press
reports.  

On December 28, 2005, the parties agreed to a settlement by
which the Company will make refunds and payments totaling $10
million, inclusive of interest and plaintiffs' attorney fees,
costs, and expenses as approved by the Court's final order.  
Distribution to customers is limited to amounts collected during
the period 1999 through 2005.  The settlement is subject to
final approval by the Multnomah County Circuit Court following a
hearing currently scheduled for late July 2006 (Class Action
Reporter, March 24, 2006).

According to the report, attorneys in the case say the average
industrial customer would receive a refund of about $19,000.  
The average commercial customer would receive about $108 while
the average residential customer would receive about $16.

David Kafoury and Kafoury Brothers, LLC, filed the suit on
January 18, 2005 on behalf of all PGE customers who were billed
on their electric bills and paid amounts for Multnomah County
Business Income Taxes (MBIT) after 1996.  The plaintiffs alleged
that during the period 1997 through the third quarter 2004, PGE
collected in excess of $6 million from its customers for MBIT
that was never paid to Multnomah County.  The charges were
billed and collected under OPUC rules that allow utilities to
collect taxes imposed by the county.  As a member of Enron's
consolidated income tax return, the Company paid the tax it
collected to Enron.  The plaintiffs sought a judgment against
the Company for restitution of MBIT collected from customers
(Class Action Reporter, March 24, 2006).

The suit was styled, "David Kafoury, an individual, and Kafoury
Brothers, LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability Corporation, each as
representative of class, etc. v. Portland General Electric
Company, Case No. 0501-00627," filed in the Multnomah County
Circuit Court for the State of Oregon.


PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Mass. Court Mulls Lawsuit's Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts heard
oral arguments on Praecis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against
it and certain of its officers.

In December 2004 and January 2005, the Company, Chairman and
(now former) Chief Executive Officer Malcolm Gefter, President
and (now former) Chief Operating Officer Kevin F. McLaughlin,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer Edward C. English, and
former President and Chief Operating Officer William K. Heiden,
were named as defendants in three purported class action
securities lawsuits filed in the District of Massachusetts.

The purported class actions are captioned:  

     (1) "Katz v. Praecis Pharmaceuticals Inc., Malcolm Gefter,
         Kevin McLaughlin, Edward English and William K. Heiden,
         Civil Action No. 04-12581-GAO (filed December 9,
         2004),"

     (2) "Schwartz v. Praecis Pharmaceuticals Inc., Malcolm
         Gefter, Kevin McLaughlin, Edward English and William K.
         Heiden, Civil Action No. 04-12704-REK (filed December
         27, 2004)," and  

     (3) "Bassin v. Praecis Pharmaceuticals Inc., Malcolm L.
          Gefter, Ph.D., Kevin F. McLaughlin, Edward C. English
          and William K. Heiden, Civil Action No. 05-10134-GAO
          (filed January 21, 2005)."  

On February 7, 2005, a motion was filed to consolidate the Katz,
Schwartz and Bassin actions and to appoint lead plaintiffs and
lead counsel.  On February 18, 2005, the Company and the
individual defendants filed a brief response to that motion,
reserving their rights to challenge the adequacy and typicality,
among other things, of the proposed lead plaintiffs in
connection with class certification proceedings, if any.

On April 13, 2005, the Court entered an Order granting the
plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the three actions (as well as
each case that relates to the same subject matter that may be
subsequently filed in or transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts), appoint lead plaintiffs and
approve such plaintiffs' selection of co-lead counsel.  The
consolidated actions are now captioned, "in Re Praecis
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
04-12581-GAO."

On August 1, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  Lead plaintiffs generally allege securities fraud
during the period from November 25, 2003 through December 6,
2004.  

The consolidated amended complaint purports to assert claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleges
that the Company and the individually named defendants made
materially false and misleading public statements concerning the
Company's business and financial results, particularly relating
to statements regarding the commercialization of Plenaxis(R),
thereby allegedly causing plaintiffs to purchase the Company's
securities at artificially inflated prices.  At this time,
plaintiffs have not specified the amount of damages they are
seeking in the actions.

On September 12, 2005, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a Motion to Dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in
its entirety.  On October 24, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed an
Opposition to the Company's Motion to Dismiss and the defendants
filed a reply on November 14, 2005.

On January 17, 2006, the Court heard oral argument on the Motion
to Dismiss and took the matter under advisement.

The suit is styled, "In Re: Praecis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-12581-GAO," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under
Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Marc L. Godino of Glancy, Binkow & Goldbert, LLP, Suite
         311, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
         Phone: 310-201-9150;

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

     (3) Lawrence D. McCabe and Jacqueline Sailer of Murray,
         Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, New York, NY
         10016, Phone: 212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682-1892, E-mail:
         jsailer@murrayfrank.com.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Former Executives Oppose $400M Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two former Qwest Communications International Inc. executives on
Thursday filed a motion seeking to block a proposed $400 million
settlement between the telephone carrier and shareholders,
Reuters reports.

Former Chief Executive Joseph Nacchio and ex-Chief Financial
Officer, Robert Woodruff, who were excluded from the settlement,
told the judge the proposal violated their contracts with Qwest.  
According to them, their contracts indemnified them if damages
were awarded against them.

Qwest shareholders sued the company and 12 current and former
officers and directors, including several large pension funds,
after the company restated in 2002 $2.2 billion in revenue for
the previous two years.  Qwest stock dropped from a high of $64
per share to below $2 after the revelation.  A fifth
consolidated amended class action complaint names Arthur
Andersen LLP as defendant in the securities suit.  A May hearing
has been set to review the proposed settlement.

Mr. Nachio was indicted by a federal grand jury in Denver in
December on 42 counts of insider trading, which he denied to
have committed.

The suit is styled "New England Health, et al v. Qwest Comm Intl
Inc, et al, case no. 1:01-cv-01451-REB-CBS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado under Judge Robert
E. Blackburn.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

     (2) Leo W. Desmond, 2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite
         204, West Palm Beach, FL, 33409, Phone: 561.712.8000,
         E-mail: stocklaw@bellsouth.net

     (3) Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego,
         CA), 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San
         Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800.449.4900, E-mail:
         support@milberg.com


SAC CAPITAL: Biovail Investors Claim Conspiracy, File $4B Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A $4 billion class action was filed in U.S. District Court in
New Jersey by Lampf, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow on behalf of
shareholders of Biovail Corp. (NYSE:BVF) against defendants,
including:

     -- SAC Capital Management L.L.C. and its founder Steven A.
        Cohen,

     -- Scottsdale Arizona-based Gradient Analytics (formerly
        known as Camelback Research Alliance),

     -- Banc of America Securities L.L.C. and one of its
        securities analysts David Maris.

The lawsuit states that, "This action arises from a massive,
illegal and continuing stock market manipulation scheme, which
targeted the common stock of Biovail and severely harmed its
investors, and which has resulted in immense ill-gotten profits
for S.A.C. Capital and other extremely powerful hedge funds.

"At the core of this scheme was defendants' preparation of a
massive and fraudulent disinformation campaign attacking the
stock of Biovail and other targeted publicly-traded companies,
including the preparation of ostensibly objective, but in fact
biased, analyst reports; defendants' accumulation of short
positions in the stock of those companies -- i.e., bets that the
stock prices would decline; and defendants' subsequent
unleashing of the disinformation campaign and biased analyst
reports on the unsuspecting trading public -- thus bringing
about the sought-after stock price declines and the resulting
immense profits for defendants and commensurate harm to the
plaintiff," the lawsuit continues.  "Defendants' scheme thus
attacked the very basis for the financial markets -- the free
and fair disclosure and dissemination of information concerning
publicly-traded stocks."

In addition to SAC Capital Management L.L.C., Steven A. Cohen,
Gradient Analytics, Banc of America Securities L.L.C. and its
securities analyst David Maris, the suit names as defendants:

     -- S.A.C. Capital Advisors LLC,
     -- S.A.C. Capital Associates, LLC,
     -- S.A.C. Healthco Funds, LLC,
     -- Sigma Capital Management, LLC,
     -- Arthur Cohen, Joseph Healey,
     -- Timothy McCarthy,
     -- David Maris,
     -- James Carr Bettis,
     -- Donn Vickrey,
     -- Pinnacle Investment Advisors, LLC,
     -- Helios Equity Fund LLC,
     -- Hallmark Funds,
     -- Gerson Lehrman Group,
     -- Thomas Lehrman, and
     -- Patrick Duff.

The lawsuit states:

"S.A.C. Capital, a hedge fund conglomerate, is at the center of
this illegal scheme. S.A.C. Capital was founded and is run by
Steven Cohen, who has immense power in the financial markets.  
Through S.A.C. Capital, Steven Cohen controls at least $7
billion in capital, with his trading activity regularly
accounting for 3% of the daily volume of the New York Stock
Exchange (NYSE) and 1% of the NASDAQ daily volume.

"...In spring 2003, when Biovail in fact was poised for
substantial growth, S.A.C. Capital and the other defendants
launched a devastating attack on Biovail's stock.  In
furtherance of their scheme, after having taken short positions,
defendants manipulated the market for Biovail stock and
artificially lowered its stock price by, among other things,
disseminating materially false and misleading information
concerning Biovail and tortiously interfering with Biovail's
business.

"One of defendants' primary methods in executing their attack on
Biovail's stock was to "ghost write" negative and false analyst
reports concerning Biovail.  Defendants issued these reports
through Camelback and Gradient, which purported to provide
independent securities analysis to subscribers.

"In fact, Camelback and Gradient were anything but independent.
Instead, Camelback and Gradient permitted hedge fund clients
such as S.A.C. Capital to author reports -- nearly always
negative -- on companies, and then publicly release the report
as a product of its own independent research and analysis. These
reports-for-hire were referred to internally at Camelback and
Gradient as "hatchet jobs" and typically were released at the
behest of short-selling hedge funds.

"The attack on Biovail's stock provides a prototypical example
of defendants' abuse of analyst reports -- an abuse all the more
shocking in the wake of recent Wall Street analyst scandals.  In
June 2003, S.A.C. Capital commissioned a hatchet job on Biovail
from Camelback. S.A.C. Capital provided virtually all of the
information and opinions found in the report, which grossly
distorted and misstated the facts concerning Biovail's business
and accounting.  The report was merely transcribed by an
inexperienced Camelback "analyst" who had only recently
graduated college and held no investment analyst credentials.  
S.A.C. Capital instructed Camelback to hold the report for over
a week so that S.A.C.  Capital and other defendants could
establish short positions in Biovail stock.  Camelback then
issued the report on June 20, 2003, falsely representing that
the content constituted its own independent, unbiased analysis
that resulted in an "F" grade for Biovail.

"Over the next several weeks, other purportedly independent
analysts including defendant Mr. Maris, disseminated, at S.A.C.
Capital's direction, negative and false information concerning
new Biovail drugs, including Wellbutrin XL, and defendants did
not stop at false analyst reports.  Through defendant Gerson
Lehrman, defendants and those with whom they were working in
concert went so far as to pay doctors to provide quotes to the
financial press falsely implying that Biovail had implemented a
program to bribe doctors to prescribe Cardizem LA.  This
complete fabrication was disseminated to the financial markets
through The Wall Street Journal and Barron's and subsequently
throughout other financial media.

"By the end of July 2003, defendants' attack on Biovail's stock
was having its intended effect: in those six weeks, Biovail's
stock price declined 20%.  Defendants, however, were not
satisfied.  S.A.C. Capital had Camelback issue another negative
report at the end of July, again with a false and misleading
description of Biovail's business, including the false Gerson
Lehrman reports of bribery, and an additional negative Camelback
report in September 2003.

"At S.A.C. Capital's further instigation, in early October 2003,
Maris of BAS issued two false reports on Biovail based upon the
Camelback hatchet jobs.  In an attempt to lend credence to the
attacks on Biovail, Mr. Maris retained three accounting experts,
who he expected would rubber stamp that attack.  When those
accountants failed to support his preconceived conclusions,
Maris blatantly misrepresented their findings.  Mr. Maris's
false reports, together with yet another S.A.C. Capital
instigated Camelback hatchet job, led to an additional 14% drop
in the stock price of Biovail by October 2003.

"Similar orchestrated attacks continued during the spring of
2004 by which time Biovail's stock had been driven down over
50%, its business reputation devastated, its ability to access
capital markets severely curtailed, its ability to do business
substantially impaired, and hundreds of its employees laid off.  
Investors in Biovail stock were saddled with huge losses, while
the short-selling defendants reaped enormous profits at their
expense."

"We are bringing this class action to recover damages the
shareholders of this company have suffered, both compensatory
and punitive, as a result of defendants' egregious misconduct,"
said Thomas A. Gentile of Lampf, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow, the
lead attorney in the case.  "We look forward to our day in
court."

In February, Biovail Corporation filed a lawsuit in the Superior
Court in New Jersey alleging that various hedge funds and
analysts manipulated the market in order to drive down Biovail's
share price to benefit their own stock positions.  That lawsuit,
which seeks $6 billion in damages, claims the company's business
plans were disrupted, its stock price was attacked and its
shareholders were directly and materially damaged.

Both lawsuits come at a time when the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission and various Canadian regulators are engaged
in an effort to gain more oversight in the largely unregulated
hedge fund industry.

In early 2003, just months before the alleged manipulation of
Biovail's share price began, The Wall Street Journal reported
that the SEC was investigating allegations from several public
corporations that hedge funds and other private investment pools
were working together behind the scenes to spread negative
information about their stocks and encourage negative media
coverage in order to drive down stock prices and bolster their
trading positions.

In a September 2003 staff report, the SEC said: "The use of
short selling by hedge funds has led to allegations that some
hedge funds may be engaging in short selling as part of a
manipulative scheme.  Issuers have alleged that the hedge funds
accumulated bearish positions in their stocks (i.e., sold
securities short or purchased put options and credit-default
swaps) and subsequently issued critical reports regarding the
issuers in an attempt to drive down their security prices."

The suit is styled, "Del Giudice v. S.A.C. Capital Management,
LLC et al. (2:06-cv-01413-HAA-MF)," filed with Judge Harold A.
Ackerman with referral to Mark Falk.

For more information, contact Thomas A. Gentile, Esq. of Lampf,
Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow, West Orange, N.J., Phone: 973-325-
2100; or Bernie Roswig, BJR Public Relations, Phone: 310-836-
4381.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Continues to Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corporation is a defendant in a consolidated
class action seeking damages and equitable relief under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

On and after November 15, 2002, several actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against the Company, certain officers and directors, and alleged
fiduciaries of Sears' 401(k) Savings Plan.  The plaintiffs
purport to represent participants in the Plan, and allege
breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA in connection with the
Plan's investment in Sears' common shares and alleged
communications made to Plan participants regarding Sears'
financial condition.

The Court consolidated these actions and certified the
consolidated action as a class action.  Discovery is underway.  
No trial date has been set.

The suit is styled, "Kehr v. Sears Roebuck & Co, et al., Case
No. 1:02-cv-08324," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge John W. Darrah.  
Representing the plaintiffs are, Steven E Cauley of Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow
Road #406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: (631) 367-7100; and
Jennifer Winter Sprengel of Miller Faucher and Cafferty, LLP, 30
North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone:
(312) 782-4880, E-mail: jsprengel@millerfaucher.com.

Representing the defendant are, Harold C. Hirshman of
Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive,
8000 Sears Tower, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 876-8000; and
Samuel M. Bayard of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, 51 West 52nd
Street, New York, HY 10019, Phone: (212) 403-1000.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Suit in Ill. Over Kmart Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corporation is a defendant in a purported
securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois over the Kmart merger talks.

This action asserts claims under the federal securities laws on
behalf of a purported class of Sears' stockholders against Sears
and Alan J. Lacy, for allegedly failing to make timely
disclosure of merger discussions with Kmart during the period
November 8 through 16, 2004, and seeks damages.  The court
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, and an amended
complaint was filed on March 11, 2005.

The amended complaint names Edward S. Lampert and ESL Partners,
L.P. as additional defendants, and purports to assert claims on
behalf of sellers of Sears stock during the period September 9
through November 16, 2004.  All defendants have moved to
dismiss, and briefing on the motions was completed in early July
2005.

The suit is styled, "Levie v. Sears Roebuck Co, et al., Case No.
1:04-cv-07643," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Robert W. Gettleman.  
Representing the plaintiffs are,

     (1) Charles J. Piven of Law Offices of Charles J. Piven,
         P.A., The World Trade Cener - Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
         Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: (410)
         332-0030;  

     (2) Andrae P. Reneau of The Wexler Firm, LLP, 1 North
         LaSalle Street, Suite 2000, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone:
         (312) 346-2222;

     (3) Lee Squitieri of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, 32e East 57th
         Street, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-421-
         6492.

Representing the defendants is Mark A. Flessner of Sonnenschein,
Nath & Rosenthal, LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive, 8000 Sears Tower,
Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 876-8000, E-mail:
mflessner@sonnenschein.com.


SEARS HOLDINGS: October 2006 Trial Date Set for Ill. Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
set an October 2006 trial for the consolidated securities class
action against Sears Holdings Corporation.

On and after October 18, 2002, several actions were filed in
Illinois federal court against the Company and certain current
and former officers alleging that certain public announcements
by the Company concerning its credit card business violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Court consolidated the actions and certified the
consolidated action as a class action.  Discovery is underway.
The trial is scheduled to begin in October 2006.

The suit is styled, "Craig v. Sears Roebuck & Co, et al., Case
No. 1:02-cv-07527," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Elaine E. Bucklo.  
Representing the plaintiffs are, Steven G Schulman of Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th
Floor, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: (212) 594-5300; and
Jennifer Winter Sprengel of Miller Faucher and Cafferty, LLP, 30
North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone:
(312) 782-4880, E-mail: jsprengel@millerfaucher.com.

Representing the defendants Jeffrey C. Fourmaux of Wachtell,
Lipton, Rosen & Katz, 51 West 52nd Street, New York, HY 10019,
Phone: (212) 403-1000; and Harold C. Hirshman of Sonnenschein,
Nath & Rosenthal, LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive, 8000 Sears Tower
Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 876-8000.


SERONO SA: Faces Lawsuit Over AIDS Drug in Massachusetts Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Switzerland's biotech firm Serono S.A. is facing a class action
over alleged illegal marketing of its AIDS drug Serostim, NZZ
Online reports.

The suit was filed by U.S. law firm Hagens Berman Sobol and
Shaprio with a Massachusetts court on behalf of health insurer
Government Employees Hospital Association.  According to the
report, the lawsuit alleged that Serono illegally inflated the
published average wholesale price of their drugs in order to
gain market share and increase profits as far back as 1999.  It
allegedly provided free samples and instructions to bill for
them, giving financial assistance to doctors as well as
providing other financial inducements and hidden discounts.

Serono -- http://www.serono.com-- focuses on recombinant  
genetic engineering to develop drugs.  Hagens Berman Sobol and
Shaprio on the Net: http://www.hagens-berman.com.


TYSON FOODS: High Court Blocks Grand Lake Property Owners' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision that
owners of Grand Lake O' the Cherokee's littoral (lakefront)
Property can't pursue a lawsuit against three poultry companies
as a class action, according to Tulsa World.

R. Lynn Thompson and Deborah S. Thompson filed the suit on
October 23, 2001 in the District Court for Mayes County,
Oklahoma, against Tyson Foods, Inc., alleging that it "or
entities over which it has operational control" conduct
operations in such a way as to interfere with the putative class
action plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their property,
allegedly caused by diminished water quality in the lake.  
Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and an unspecified
amount of compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees
and costs.  Simmons Foods, Inc. and Peterson Farms, Inc. have
been joined as defendants.

The Company and Simmons are seeking leave to file a third party
complaint against entities that contribute wastes and wastewater
into Grand Lake.  The class certification hearing was held in
October 2003. On December 11, 2003, the trial court entered an
order, which granted class certification.  On January 12, 2004,
the Company, Simmons and Peterson filed a Petition in Error in
the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which challenges and seeks appellate
level review of the District Court's certification order.

On October 4, 2005, the Court of Civil Appeals of the State of
Oklahoma reversed and remanded the decision of the District
Court, holding that the claims of plaintiffs were not suitable
for disposition as a class action.   On October 24, 2005,
plaintiffs filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari seeking
review by the Oklahoma Supreme Court of the Court of Civil
Appeals decision.   On November 7, 2005, the defendants filed an
answer to the Petition and on November 18, 2005 the plaintiffs
filed their reply to the answer.   

The suit is styled, "R. Lynn Thompson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Case
No. CJ-01-00452," filed in the District Court for Mayes County,
Oklahoma under Judge James D. Goodpaster.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, initiated a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Chicago Bridge &
Iron Company N.V. between March 9, 2005 and February 15, 2006,
inclusive.

The Complaint charges CBI and certain of the Company's executive
officers with violations of federal securities laws.  Among
other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning CBI's financial performance caused the
Company's stock price to become artificially inflated,
inflicting damages on investors.

CBI operates as an engineering, procurement and construction
company offering, among other things, design, procurement,
fabrication, mechanical installation and commissioning services.  
The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose that:

     (1) the Company was materially overstating its financial
         results by failing to properly utilize percentage-of-
         completion accounting;

     (2) the Company failed to properly recognize revenue on two
         projects;

     (3) the Company was not following its publicly stated
         revenue recognition policies;

     (4) the Company lacked adequate internal controls to ensure
         the accuracy of its reported financial results and
         guidance;

     (5) the Company's financial statements were not prepared in
         accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles (GAAP); and

     (6) as a result, the Company's guidance lacked any
         reasonable basis in fact.

When CBI's weak internal controls, improper revenue recognition
practices and the Company's actual financial performance during
the Class Period were disclosed, the price of CBI stock
plummeted, closing at $22.18 per share on February 15, 2006,
which was $10.32 below its Class Period high of $32.50.

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq. and Michael
Goldberg of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the
Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, Phone: (310)
201-9150 or (888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web
site: http://www.glancylaw.com.


COCA-COLA: Motley Rice Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Motley Rice LLC said that a securities class action has been
commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. (NYSE:
CCE) between October 15, 2003 and July 28, 2004, inclusive.  The
civil action number is 1:06-CV-0275.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
failing to disclose that CCE had a long-standing and systemic
practice of channel-stuffing, i.e., forcing extra product onto
its customers to boost revenue.  Thus, according to the
complaint, CCE improperly recognized revenue and violated
Generally Accepted Accounting Principals (GAAP).  The complaint
also alleges that CCE's reported financial results and future
earnings prospects were therefore materially misleading because
these channel-stuffing practices materially affected CCE's
financial condition.

On July 29, 2004, CCE made a partial corrective disclosure
regarding its true financial condition and diminished future
earnings prospects. On this news, CCE's stock price fell by
approximately 25% or $5 per share.

The action seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired CCE securities during the Class
Period and suffered a loss as a result. Motley Rice LLC
represents the plaintiff in this action.

For more details, contact Leslie G. Toran, Esq. of Motley Rice,
LLC, Phone: 404-201-6910, E-mail: ltoran@motleyrice.com; Web
site: http://www.motleyrice.com.


H&R BLOCK: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Miss.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. filed a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired H&R Block, Inc.
(NYSE: HRB) securities between January 31, 2005 and March 14,
2006, inclusive.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, against the company and certain key
officers and directors.  The action charges that defendants
violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.  No class has yet been certified in the above
action.

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


H&R BLOCK: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in Miss.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri on behalf of all securities purchasers of H&R Block
between February 24, 2004 and March 14, 2006 inclusive.

The Complaint charges H&R Block, Mark A. Ernst, William L.
Trubeck, and Jeffrey W. Yabuki with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The Complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges:

     (1) that H&R Block engaged in deceptive consumer practices
         by offering plans such as the Express IRA plan and the
         RALs program;

     (2) that H&R Block derived substantial revenue from these
         practices, thereby artificially inflating the Company's
         reported earnings;

     (3) that the Company improperly accounted for the effective
         income tax rate; and

     (4) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
         financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

On February 23, 2006, H&R Block revealed that it must restate
its financial results for fiscal 2004 and 2005, plus previous
2006 quarters.  Following this disclosure, shares of H&R Block
fell $2.18 per share, or 8.65 percent, to close, on February 24,
2006, at $23.01 per share.

On March 15, 2006, Attorney General of New York, Eliot Spitzer,
filed a lawsuit seeking $250 million in damages.  Filed in New
York State Supreme Court, the suit specifically alleged that H&R
Block failed to adequately disclose fees related to its Express
IRA product to its customers, failed to warn that the interest
paid would not cover the fees in certain instances, and
misleadingly described the interest rates as "great," when they
were at times less than one percent annually.  On this news,
shares of H&R Block fell $1.37 per share, or 6.23 percent, to
close on, March 15, 2006, at $20.63 per share.

For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esquire and Richard
A. Maniskas, Esquire of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of
Prussia Road, Radnor, PA  19087, Phone: 1-800-299-7706 or 1-610-
667-7706, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com.  


MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in Wis.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired securities of Merge Technologies, Inc.
between August 2, 2005 and March 16, 2006, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Merge and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning Merge's financial performance and
prospects caused the Company's stock price to become
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

Merge (d.b.a. Merge Healthcare) is engaged in the development
and delivery of medical imaging and information management
software and services for the original equipment manufacturer
and the end user healthcare markets.  The Complaint alleges that
defendants' Class Period representations regarding Merge were
materially false and misleading when made because the Company
lacked effective internal controls in its financial reporting
such that it was unable to properly analyze and/or estimate
Merge Healthcare's future financial and operational performance.

As a result of the Company's improper accounting practices,
defendants' Class Period statements concerning Merge
Healthcare's financial performance and prospects were materially
false and misleading.

On February 24, 2006, Merge issued a press release announcing
that the Company was delaying the release of its fourth-quarter
2005 financial results, that the Company expected a substantial
loss for the quarter and was reducing its revenue guidance for
the year.  This news shocked the market.  Shares of Merge fell
$4.00 per share, or 16.33%, to close at $20.50 per share on
February 24, 2006.

Over the next three trading days, Merge shares continued falling
an additional 12%, to close at $18.12 by the end of trading on
March 1, 2006, as a result of this news.  On March 17, 2006, the
Company's stock plummeted an additional $2.12, or 11.8%, and
closed at $15.85 as a result of additional negative revelations
concerning the Company's operations and performance.

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq. and Michael
Goldberg of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the
Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, Phone: (310)
201-9150 or (888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web
site: http://www.glancylaw.com.


MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Stock Suit in Wis.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, on
behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of Merge Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:MRGE)
between August 2, 2005 and March 16, 2006, inclusive.  The
lawsuit was filed against Merge and Richard A. Linden and Scott
T. Veech.

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 false and misleading
statements with respect to the Company's financial statements
and forecasts.  In particular, these statements were false and
misleading because Defendants misrepresented or failed to
disclose that:

     (1) The acquisition of Cedera presented financial reporting
         issues the Company was not prepared to handle;

     (2) Merge's internal controls and procedures were not
         adequate to handle the increased stress created by the
         assumption of Cedera's business and accounting
         responsibilities;

     (3) As a result of these internal control shortcomings, the
         merger of Cedera's business would not be seemless and
         would not generate synergistic efficiencies as rapidly
         as Defendants led the market to believe; and,

     (4) Due to the increased short-term costs associated with
         the acquisition of Cedera and because of accounting
         rules and regulations governing revenue recognition for
         software sales and manufacturing and service contracts,

Defendants would not be able to meet their earnings guidance for
the fourth quarter and full year 2005.  On February 26, 2006,
the Company announced that it was delaying the issuance of its
financial results for the fourth quarter and fiscal year 2005
due to "revenue recognition" issues purportedly relating to the
Cedera acquisition and certain large contracts entered into in
the fourth quarter.  The Company also forecasted that its fourth
quarter revenues would be below its prior guidance by more than
$10 million, or 30%, and its earnings per share would be
substantially below forecasted by the Defendants on October 26,
2005.  In reaction to this news, Merge shares fell by
approximately 20% on very heavy volume.

Then on March 17, 2006, Merge reported that:

     (i) its accounting issues necessitated the delay in filing
         of its financial statements for the fiscal year ended
         December 31, 2005;

    (ii) that the audit committee of the Company was
         investigating anonymous complaints; as well as,

   (iii) suspending its Registration statement, Form S-3 related
         to the Merge/Cedera merger.

For more details, contact Mark S. Goldman, Esq. of The Law Firm
of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-753-2796.


NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Schatz & Nobel Files Stock Suit in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. filed a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Northfield
Laboratories between February 20, 2004 and February 21, 2006,
inclusive.  Also included are all those who purchased shares in
the secondary offering in February 2005.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements regarding the safety of PolyHeme, a blood substitute.
On February 22, 2006, The Wall Street Journal reported that data
from defendants' ANH clinical trial revealed that ten of 81
patients who received PolyHeme suffered a heart attack within
seven days, and two of those died.  The data further showed
defendants that none of the 71 patients in the ANH clinical
trial who received real blood were found to have suffered a
heart attack.  After receiving this data, defendants shut down
the ANH clinical study in 2000 and kept the highly adverse trial
results secret.

In a February 22, 2006 press release responding to The Wall
Street Journal article, defendants did not dispute the data
concerning the patient heart attacks and deaths from the ANH
clinical trial and admitted that they did not publish the full
data upon the closing of the ANH trial.  On this news,
Northfield's stock fell to a close of $11.64 per share. On
February 24, 2006, U.S. Senator Charles E. Grassley, Chairman of
the U.S. Senate Finance Committee announced that he had launched
an inquiry into the matter.

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


NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Suit in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf
of all securities purchasers of Northfield Laboratories Inc.
between February 20, 2004 and February 21, 2006 inclusive.

The Complaint charges Northfield, and Steven A. Gould with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint
alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented
the following material adverse facts, which were known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. More specifically,
the Complaint alleges:

     (1) that PolyHeme, the Company's sole product, posed
         serious risks to users of the product;

     (2) specifically, the Company failed to disclose that at
         trial PolyHeme was linked to heart attacks, heart
         rhythm aberrations, pneumonia and death;

     (3) that these problems were statistically significant,
         meaning that there was minimal likelihood that they
         occurred by chance; and

     (4) that defendants concealed these facts in order to
         preserve PolyHeme's ability to continue testing so that
         the product could be approved by the FDA enabling
         Northfield to capture and control the lucrative blood
         substitute market.

On February 22, 2006, a story in The Wall Street Journal
revealed that ten of 81 patients who received the fake blood
suffered a heart attack within seven days, and two of those
died.  None of the 71 patients in the trial who received real
blood were found to have had a heart attack.  The markets
reaction to the disclosure was swift.

On February 22, 2006, shares of Northfield fell to $11.64 per
share, down from $12.23 per share. By February 24, 2006, shares
of Northfield declined to $10.54 per share.

On March 10, 2006, The Wall Street Journal revealed that the
federal Office for Human Research Protections has expressed
"urgent ethical concerns" to the Food and Drug Administration
about the conduct of Northfield's study.  In reaction to this
development, shares of Northfield fell $1.15 per share, or 10.31
percent, to close, on March 10, 2006, at $10.00 per share.

Then, on March 16, 2006, Northfield announced that it had
received an informal request to voluntarily provide certain
information to the staff of the SEC's Midwest Regional Office
relating to the clinical development of its PolyHeme product for
elective surgery. On this news, Northfield's stock declined
another $0.33 per share to close at $9.65 per share.

Finally, on March 20, 2006, The Wall Street Journal revealed
that three medical ethics professors, in an open letter to
research boards at hospitals where a blood substitute is being
studied without patients' consent, said the research "fails to
meet ethical and regulatory standards."  In reaction to this
latest development, Northfield's stock shed another $0.37 per
share, to close, on March 20, 2006, at $9.57 per share.

For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esquire and Richard
A. Maniskas, Esquire of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of
Prussia Road, Radnor, PA  19087, Phone: 1-800-299-7706 or 1-610-
667-7706, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.


PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Stock Suit in M.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP filed a
class action on behalf of all persons who purchased, converted,
exchanged, or otherwise acquired the securities of PainCare
Holdings, Inc. (AMEX: PRZ) between August 27, 2002 and March 15,
2006.

The action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Orlando Division, against the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer, Randy Lubinsky and its Chief Financial
Officer Mark Szporka.  According to the complaint, defendants
violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule
10b-5, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that Defendants engaged in improper
accounting practices in order to bolster the Company's stock
price, thereby enabling the Company to complete numerous
acquisitions of related pain care companies during the Class
Period.  The Complaint further alleges that throughout the Class
Period defendants directly participated in an accounting fraud,
which materially overstated the Company's financial results in
violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP").

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants materially
overstated PainCare's financial results by improperly accounting
for its numerous acquisitions and certain other non-cash
expenses.  As a result of these violations, the Company is now
forced to restate its financial results for fiscal years 2000 -
2005, its entire corporate existence.

On March 15, 2006, defendants shocked the market by revealing
the restatement.  In response to the news, PainCare's stock
price dropped by nearly 13% on unusually large trading volumes,
and has lost more than 50% of its value from the stock's Class
Period high.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman of Milberg Weiss
Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New
York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: (800) 320-5081, E-mail:
sfeerick@milbergweiss.com, Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com;or Maya Saxena and Joseph White of  
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, 5200 Town Center Circle,
Suite 600, Boca Raton, Florida 33486, Phone number: (561) 361-
5000, E-mail: msaxena@milbergweiss.com and
jwhite@milbergweiss.com.


PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Smith & Smith, LLP, initiated a securities class action on
behalf of shareholders who purchased 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
concerning the Company's financial performance, thereby
artificially inflating the price of PainCare Holdings
securities.  No class has yet been certified in the above
action.  

For more details, contact Howard Smith, Esquire of Smith & Smith
LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020,
Phone: (866) 759-2275, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com.  


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Maria Cristina Canson and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2006.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *