CAR_Public/060404.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, April 4, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 67

                            Headlines

ADMINISTAFF INC: Tex. Court Junks Consolidated Securities Suit
ANTENNA STAR: Faces Suit for Alleged Violation of Labor Laws
AVON PRODUCTS: Court Denies Motion to Strike "Blakemore" Class
AVON PRODUCTS: Continues to Face Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in Fla.
AVON PRODUCTS: Files Dismissal Motion V. N.Y. Consolidated Suit

BREWIN DOLPHIN: British High Court Dismisses Mis-Selling Claims
CANADA: Initial Settlement Reached in $30M Suit V. Acupuncturist
CAREER EDUCATION: Ill. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
CATERPILLAR INC: Faces Suit in Tenn. Over Healthcare Benefits
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Settles Dispute Over Winter Heat Cutoffs

DENVER MINT: Settles Sexual Discrimination, Harassment Complaint
DOLLAR TREE: Recalls Toy Jewelry Posing Lead Poisoning Hazard
GARDENS MANUFACTURED: Judge Hears Arguments in Homeowners' Suit
ILLINOIS: Lakin's Lawsuits to Remain in Judge Weber's Court
JAKKS PACIFIC: N.Y. Court Dismisses Certain Claims in WWE Suit

KANSAS: Former Sheriff's Deputy Found Guilty of Sexual Offense
KATZMAN & KORR: Reaches 250T Settlement in Debt-Collection Case
MCKESSON CORP: Deposits $960.5M Into Securities Suit Escrow
MERCK & CO: N.J. Appellate Court Upholds Nationwide Vioxx Suit
MISSISSIPPI: August Trial Set for Suit Over Foster Care System

NEW MEXICO: Former Inmates Attack "Routine" Strip-Searching
NOKIA CORP: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Securities Suit With Prejudice
NORTH COUNTRY: Recalls Bottled Water on Potential Health Risks
NORTHERN TRUST: Reaches $37.5M Settlement for Enron Litigation
ORIENTAL TRADING: Metal Charm Bracelets Pose Lead Poisoning Risk

PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Web Site for Securities Fraud Suit Launched
REEBOK INTERNATIONAL: Bracelet Linked to Child's Lead Poisoning
REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: Transplant Patients File Lawsuits
RENT-A-CENTER INC: Court Denies Plaintiffs' Request for Review
RENT-A-CENTER INC: "Colon" Suit Case Conference Results Pending

RENT-A-CENTER INC: Settles Calif., Wash., Ore. Wage & Hour Suits
RENT-A-CENTER INC: Tex. Court Mulls Stock Suit Certification
SCOTTCO HOSPITALITY: Faces Workers' Labor Law Violations Lawsuit
TRAVEL COMPANIES: Georgia Firms Accused of Cutting Tax Remits
UBISOFT INC: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Copy Protection Software

VALSI CORP: Generators' Plastic Fuel Tanks Pose Risk of Fire
WASHINGTON: Misses Deadline to Improve Foster Care, Report Says


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ESTEE LAUDER: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
H&R BLOCK: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in Wis.
NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Berman DeValerio Lodges Ill. Stock Suit
NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Rosen Law Lodges Ill. Securities Suit

PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in Fla.
SEA CONTAINERS: Roy & Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
SEA CONTAINERS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


ADMINISTAFF INC: Tex. Court Junks Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
granted Administaff Inc.'s motion to dismiss each of the
securities fraud claims previously filed against Administaff and
certain officers and directors.  The Court's ruling, issued
March 30, 2006, validated the company's previously disclosed
position that the claims were without merit.

On June 13, 2003, a class action was filed against Administaff
on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.  After that date, six
similar class actions were filed against Administaff.  Those
lawsuits also named as defendants certain of the company's
officers and directors.  In May 2004, the lead plaintiff filed
its consolidated complaint, which amended and consolidated the
seven previously filed cases and asserted, among other things,
that the company and certain of its officers and directors
fraudulently made false and misleading statements regarding the
cost of its health plan during 2001 and 2002.

In June 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, which was granted by the Court on March
30, 2006.  The dismissal is with prejudice, however, is subject
to appeal.

Administaff -- http://www.administaff.com/-- is a Professional
Employer Organization.


ANTENNA STAR: Faces Suit for Alleged Violation of Labor Laws
------------------------------------------------------------
A former employee of Antenna Star Satellites Inc. is filing a
federal class action against the firm for allegedly improperly
classifying him as contractor and denying him overtime pay,
Times Leader reports.

Martin Miller of Scranton, who used to install satellite
equipment for Antenna Star, alleges the company violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act by classifying him and at least 50
other installers as independent contracts instead of employees.
As such, the company allegedly excused itself from paying
overtime work.

Mr. Miller worked for Antenna Star's Wilkes-Barre office from
April until October.  He claims he was routinely required to
work more than 40 hours per week without overtime pay because he
was classified as independent contractor.  He is disputing the
classification because, according to him, he and his fellow
workers were not free to install equipment for other satellite
providers, and their work was closely monitored by the company.

Mr. Miller had also filed a complaint against Antenna Star with
the U.S. Department of Labor.  His suit says the department
investigated and in February advised Mr. Miller he "might not
have been paid as required by the law."  Mr. Miller is demanding
back pay and compensatory damages for himself and the other
employees.

Mr. Miller is represented by lawyer Peter Winebrake, member of
Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLC, The Penthouse, 226 West,
Rittenhouse Square, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103,
(Philadelphia Co.), Phone: 215-731-9004; Fax: 215-731-9044.


AVON PRODUCTS: Court Denies Motion to Strike "Blakemore" Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles
County denied Avon Products, Inc.'s motion to strike the
plaintiffs' asserted nationwide class, in the suit "Blakemore,
et al. v. Avon Products, Inc., et al."

Commenced in March 2003, the purported class action was filed on
behalf of Avon Sales Representatives who, "since March 24, 1999,
received products from Avon they did not order, thereafter
returned the unordered products to Avon, and did not receive
credit for those returned products."  The complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, restitution and
injunctive relief for alleged unjust enrichment and violation of
the California Business and Professions Code.

The company filed demurrers to the original complaint and three
subsequent amended complaints, asserting that they failed to
state a cause of action.  The Superior Court sustained the
company demurrers and dismissed plaintiffs' causes of action
except for the unjust enrichment claim of one plaintiff.

The court also struck plaintiffs' class allegations.  Plaintiffs
sought review of these decisions by the Court of Appeal of the
State of California and, in May 2005, the Court of Appeal
reinstated the dismissed causes of action and the class
allegations.

In January 2006, the company filed a motion to strike the
plaintiffs' asserted nationwide class.  In February 2006, the
trial court declined to grant the motion but instead certified
the issue to the Court of Appeal on an interlocutory basis.

The suit is styled "Blakemore et al v. Avon Products, Inc.,
B174825, B175973" filed in the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County under Judge Wendell Mortimer.  Lawyer for the
plaintiffs is Jeffrey Huron of the Huron Law Group, 1875 Century
Park East, Suite 1000, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-284-
3400, Fax: 310-772-0037, Website: http://www.huronlaw.com.


AVON PRODUCTS: Continues to Face Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. is a defendant in a purported class action,
styled, "Roqueta v. Avon Products, Inc., et al.," in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging
deceptive trade practices.

The suit was originally commenced in April 2005 in the Circuit
Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade
County, Florida.  It seeks general damages, special damages and
punitive damages for alleged violations of the Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act and Florida statutes regarding
misleading advertisements, and for negligent and fraudulent
misrepresentation.

The purported class includes "all persons who have purchased
skin care products from the Defendant that have been falsely
advertised to have an 'anti-cellulite' or cellulite reducing
effect."

The company removed the action to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida and moved to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.

In August 2005 the court dismissed plaintiff's claims for
negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, with prejudice.  The
court also dismissed plaintiff's remaining claims but granted
plaintiff leave to amend her complaint, which she has done.


AVON PRODUCTS: Files Dismissal Motion V. N.Y. Consolidated Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. is asking the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York to dismiss a consolidated class
securities action field against the company, a company officer
and two officer/directors.

In August 2005, the company reported the filing of class action
complaints for alleged violations of the federal securities laws
in actions entitled, "Nilesh Patel v. Avon Products, Inc. et
al." and "Michael Cascio v. Avon Products, Inc. et al.,"
respectively, which subsequently have been consolidated.

A consolidated amended class action complaint for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the
consolidated action in December 2005 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (Master File Number 05-CV-
06803) under the caption, "In re Avon Products, Inc. Securities
Litigation."

The consolidated action, brought on behalf of purchasers of our
common stock between February 3, 2004 and September 20, 2005,
seeks damages for alleged false and misleading statements
"concerning Avon's operations and performance in China, the
United States . . . and Mexico."  It also asserts that during
the class period certain officers and directors sold shares of
our common stock.

In February 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended class action complaint, asserting, among
other things, that it failed to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.

The suit is styled, "In re Avon Products, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:05-cv-06803-LAK," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Lewis A. Kaplan.  Representing the plaintiffs are, Brian Philip
Murray of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, Ste.
801, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682-1892,
E-mail: bmurray@murrayfrank.com; and Joel P. Laitman of
Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C., 19 Fulton Street, New
York, NY 10038, Phone: (212) 964-0046.

Representing the defendants is Peter C. Hein of Wachtell,
Lipton, Rosen & Katz, 51 West 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019,
Phone: 212-403-1237, Fax: (212) 403-2000, E-mail:
PCHein@wlrk.com.


BREWIN DOLPHIN: British High Court Dismisses Mis-Selling Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
A complaint against Brewin Dolphin is among the suits barred
when a high court rejected Class Law's bid to pursue claims
against 11 firms that erroneously sold split capital investment
trusts, The Independent Reports.

Previously, a master at the High Court in London refused an
application for a "group litigation order" to pursue claims on
behalf of 75 investors who lost money by investing in split
capital investment trusts (Class Action Reporter, March 23,
2006).

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

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

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

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


CANADA: Initial Settlement Reached in $30M Suit V. Acupuncturist
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to approve a proposed settlement of a $30 million suit
charging a Toronto acupuncturist with causing the spread of a
rare disease amongst patients, will be held on April 20, 2006,
10:00 a.m.  The trial will be at the Court House, 361 University
Ave., according to a court notice in the Toronto Star.

The suit was filed against acupuncturists Sandra Testaguzza and
Dr. Alvin Pettle by more than 300 patients, the report said.
Plaintiffs alleged the acupuncturists' unsterilized needles
promoted the spread of a bacterial disease.

The settlement will allow patients' access to a general
compensation fund of $555,000.  Infected patients will be able
to claim at least $7,500, and Ms. Testaguzza's uninfected
patients can claim at least $560.  A compensation fund of
$250,000 would be created to handle claims by infected patients
"who incurred significant loss of income and/or uninsured
medical expenses," the report said.

Questions on the acupuncturists' practice arose late last year
after Toronto public officials became aware of about 20 cases of
mycobacterium abscessus, which causes red, lumpy lesions on the
skin.


CAREER EDUCATION: Ill. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
granted for the second time, the company's motion to dismiss a
securities class action against the company and certain of its
current officers.

The court previously granted Career Education's motion to
dismiss the original amended complaint (Taubenfeld I) on
February 11, 2005.  In its dismissal of the second amended
complaint, filed on behalf of a purported class of shareholders
who purchased Career Education securities between January 28,
2003, and February 15, 2005, the Court held that plaintiffs had
again failed to state a claim against Career Education.  The
Court granted the plaintiffs one last opportunity to file a
third amended complaint no later than April 17, 2006.  Officials
named in the suit are executive officers John M. Larson and
Patrick K. Pesch.

"We are gratified that the Court has dismissed the lawsuit,
which we have always believed to be without merit, and we will
continue to vigorously defend our position," said Janice Block,
Senior Vice President and General Counsel for Career Education
Corporation.

John M. Larson, President and Chief Executive Officer of Career
Education Corporation, said: "We continue to focus on creating
value for shareholders by delivering high-quality education to
our students while adhering to the highest standards of
integrity and business practices."

Between December 9, 2003, and February 5, 2004, six purported
class actions were filed on behalf of certain purchasers of the
company's common stock.  The complaints alleged that in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, the defendants made
certain material misrepresentations and failed to disclose
certain material facts about the condition of the company's
business and prospects during the putative class periods,
causing the respective plaintiffs to purchase shares of the
Company's common stock at artificially inflated prices.

The plaintiffs further claimed that Mr. Larson and Mr. Pesch are
liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Act.  The
plaintiffs asked for unspecified amounts in damages, interest,
and costs, as well as ancillary relief.  Five of these lawsuits
were found related to the first filed lawsuit, captioned,
"Taubenfeld v. Career Education Corporation, et al. (No. 03 CV
8884)," and were reassigned to the same judge.

On March 19, 2004, the court ordered these six cases
consolidated and appointed Thomas Schroeder as lead plaintiff.
On April 6, 2004, the court appointed the firm of Goodkind
Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, which represents Mr. Schroeder,
as lead counsel.  On June 17, 2004, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint, which the Company moved to
dismiss on July 30, 2004.

On February 11, 2005, the Company`s motion to dismiss was
granted, without prejudice.  On April 1, 2005, plaintiffs filed
a second amended complaint, which the Company moved to dismiss
on May 20, 2005.  Plaintiffs filed their response brief on July
8, 2005, and the Company's reply brief is due August 8, 2005.
In addition, the court has issued an order changing the caption
of this matter to "In re Career Education Corporation Securities
Litigation."

The suit is styled "In re Career Education Corporation
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-08884," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under
Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Anthony F. Fata and Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Faucher
         and Cafferty, LLP 30 North LaSalle Street Suite 3200
         Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 782-4880;

     (2) Joshua Lifshitz, Bull & Lifshitz, LLP 18 East 41st
         Street New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 213-6222

     (3) Andrei V. Rado, Steven G. Schulman, Peter Seidman,
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP One Pennsylvania
         Plaza 49th Floor New York, NY 10119-0165 Phone:
         (212) 594-5300

Representing the Company are Karl Richard Barnickol, Mary Ellen
Hennessy, Joni S. Jacobsen, David H. Kistenbroker, Katten Muchin
Zavis Rosenman, 525 West Monroe Street Suite 1600 Chicago, Il
60661-3693 Phone: (312) 902-5200.


CATERPILLAR INC: Faces Suit in Tenn. Over Healthcare Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Retirees of Caterpillar, Inc., initiated a class action against
the company to preserve the healthcare benefits promised them
under collective bargaining agreements.

The complaint, entitled, "Winnett, et al. v. Caterpillar, Inc.,"
was filed in U.S. District Court in Nashville, Tennessee.  Two
Caterpillar retirees and a surviving wife of a deceased retiree
brought the suit.

"Workers at Caterpillar made the company into the world's
leading manufacturer of construction and mining equipment and
were assured free lifetime healthcare coverage," commented
plaintiffs' counsel Elizabeth Alexander at Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.  "Caterpillar should not charge them
for any portion of their health care coverage through deductions
from their pension benefits."

The complaint charges that the company's labor contracts and
benefit plans provided retiree's health care coverage "continued
for his or her lifetime at no cost."  The plaintiffs request the
court certify a class of former company retirees and surviving
spouses who retired before the adoption of a March 1998
contract.

In October 2004, the company began charging retirees monthly
premium costs ranging from $134 to $280 per month for health
care benefits.  The suit seeks to end these charges and restore
the plaintiffs and similarly situated retirees to the position
they would have been but for Caterpillar's contractual
violations.

Kathryn Barnett, Elizabeth Alexander, and Mark Chalos of Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, of Nashville, Tennessee, and
Michael Mulder, Shona Glink and Jamie Franklin of Meties,
Mulder, Mollica and Glink of Chicago, Illinois, represent the
plaintiffs.

The suit is styled, "Winnett, et al. v. Caterpillar, Inc., Case
No. 3:06-cv-00235," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee under Judge Aleta A. Trauger.
Representing the plaintiffs are, Elizabeth Alexander and Kathryn
E. Barnett of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Phone:
615-313-9000, E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com and kbarnett@lchb.com,
Web site: http://www.lieffcabraser.com/caterpillar-retirees-
lawsuit.htm; and Michael Mulder of Meties, Mulder, Mollica &
Glink, Phone: 312-263-0272, E-mail: mmmulder@mmbmlaw.com.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Settles Dispute Over Winter Heat Cutoffs
------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch and CenterPoint Energy
reached a $13.5 million class action settlement in a dispute
over low-income customers who lost heat during the winter of
2004-05, Associated Press reports.

In a prepared statement, the attorney general said the
agreement, which relates to the Minnesota Cold Weather Rule,
potentially covers as many as 2,500 customers.  The rule
prevents utilities from cutting off heat during the coldest
months of the year.

Essentially the agreement settles a lawsuit and a complaint
before the Public Utilities Commission (PUC).  The still needs
to be approved by the U.S. District Court judge and the PUC.

In its own prepared statement, the Houston, Texas-based company
said that it made some mistakes related to the rule and the
errors have been fixed.  Though the company didn't acknowledge
rule violations, it did say that settling was "prudent" given
the dispute and potential cost of litigation.

The attorney general said that the company's actions led some
customers to develop pneumonia and other illnesses.


DENVER MINT: Settles Sexual Discrimination, Harassment Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several women who claim to have suffered sexual harassment,
gender discrimination and retaliation at the Denver Mint will
share a $9 million settlement of a three-year class action, The
Rocky Mountain News reports.

Under the deal, officials acknowledged no wrongdoing, but agreed
to settle to avoid a long, expensive legal battle, according to
U.S. Mint spokeswoman Becky Bailey in Washington, D.C.

The women complained that some male co-workers and supervisors
subjected them to unwelcome sexual advances and touching and to
smutty remarks, pictures and e-mails.  They said they were
treated less well than men in the same jobs and were denied
training and promotions.  The women alleged that when they
objected, they suffered retaliation.

The women's complaint had been pending before the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission in Denver, Colorado.  An
administrative law judge still must approve the settlement.

Lynn Feiger, the lead attorney for the women, told The Rocky
Mountain News that the plaintiffs couldn't discuss their
specific complaints until that time.  No date has been set for a
hearing, she added.

Officially, about 132 former, permanent and part-time "on call"
female workers at the mint are included in the suit.  Only those
who have good evidence that they suffered sexual harassment,
gender discrimination or retaliation actually will receive any
of the $9 million settlement, according to Ms. Feiger.  She
added that it will apply to about half of those women.

In addition, five tiers of payment were established, meaning
women with the strongest cases would receive the most money, Ms.
Feiger said.  She added that the settlement amount includes
attorneys' fees and costs.  However, she declined to disclose
those amounts until after the settlement is approved.

The agreement also includes provisions for "injunctive relief,"
according to Ms. Bailey.  She also declined to provide details
until the settlement is approved.

For more details, contact Lynn D. Feiger of Lohf Shaiman Jacobs
Hyman & Feiger, PC, 950 South Cherry Street, Suite 900, Denver,
Colorado 80246-2666, Phone: 303-753-9000, Telecopier: 303-753-
9997, Web site: http://www.lohfshaiman.com.


DOLLAR TREE: Recalls Toy Jewelry Posing Lead Poisoning Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Dollar Tree Distribution Inc. of Chesapeake, Virginia, is
recalling 580,000 mood necklace and ring sets, glow-in-the dark
necklace and ring sets, and UV necklace and ring sets.

The company said the recalled jewelry contains high levels of
lead, posing a serious risk of lead poisoning and adverse health
effects to young children.  No incidents or injuries have been
reported.

The rings are silver, adjustable, and have one of a variety of
designs with a toy "gem" in the center.  The necklaces have a
black string with silver colored clasps and a silver charm with
a "gem" in the center.  Printed on the charms' packaging are:
"Mood Necklace," Mood Ring," "Glow in the Dark Necklace," "Glow
in the Dark Ring," "UV Necklace" or "UV Ring."  The "UV" jewelry
packaging reads, "The Sun's Energy Will Change The Color."  On
the reverse of the packaging are "SKU#815485" and the name
"Mannix."

The products were made in China and sold at Dollar Tree, Dollar
Bill$, Dollar Express, Greenbacks, Only $1 and Super Dollar Tree
stores nationwide from September 2003 through February 2006 for
$1.

Consumers are advised to immediately take this jewelry away from
children.  Consumers should return the recalled jewelry to the
store where purchased for a refund.

Picture of the recalled product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06118.jpg

Consumer Contact: Dollar Tree Stores Inc. Phone: (800) 876-8077
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday; Web site:
http://www.dollartree.com.


GARDENS MANUFACTURED: Judge Hears Arguments in Homeowners' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A suit between owners of The Gardens Manufactured Home Community
in Rochester, Minnesota and community residents, continued on
March 28 in Olmsted District Court with lawyers from both
parties arguing whether the case should be certified as class
action, The Post-Bulletin reports.

Despite hearing arguments from both sides, Judge Joseph Wieners
did not issue a ruling or say when he might rule.  The lawsuit
was filed more than 18 months ago by 21 residents of the
manufactured home community.  It alleged consumer fraud, breach
of contract, and violations of state and local laws against The
Gardens, which leases out the land and Windmill Homes LLC, which
markets and sells manufactured homes.

The businesses, not the owners, who include local businessmen
Dick Hexum Sr., Tom L. Hexum, Lloyd Johnson and former state
Rep. Dave Bishop., are named as defendants in the lawsuit.
Windmill Homes and The Gardens are separate corporate entities,
but they have common ownership and have worked together in
connection with the development.

In papers filed with the court, the residents' attorney argue
the case should be certified as a class action due to the common
issues that bind the plaintiffs together.  In addition, Wood
Foster, a Minneapolis attorney representing the plaintiffs, also
argued that if each case were argued individually, each case
would be nearly identical.

However, Todd Wind, The Gardens attorney, took the position that
class-action status was unnecessary and might make resolving the
dispute more arduous.  He believes a class action is only
necessary if the proposed class is large, and they live far away
from each other.  But this is not the case, according to him.

Mr. Foster is member of Siegel, Brill, Greupner, Duffy & Foster,
P.A. 1300 Washington Square, 100 Washington Avenue South,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401, (Hennepin Co.), Phone: 612-337-
6100, Telecopier: 612-339-6591; Mr. Wind is member of Fredrikson
& Byron, P.A., 200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000, Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55402-1425, (Hennepin Co.), Phone: 612-492-7000,
Telecopier: 612-492-7077.


ILLINOIS: Lakin's Lawsuits to Remain in Judge Weber's Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Edward Ferguson refused a motion to recuse Madison
County Circuit Judge Don Weber from 14 Lakin Law Firm class
actions, according to Belleville News-Democrat.

The personal injury and class action law firm wants Judge Weber
recused on allegations that he was biased against the firm
because it sued the judge 13 years ago.  Judge Weber was accused
of unauthorized use of pictures taken by Lakin's client.  The
case resulted to Weber's publishing company paying a settlement.

Also, Lakin attorneys claim Judge Weber was biased in an order
he made on the Cassens Corp. case that the firm is handling.
Judge Weber on March 8 granted a Lakin motion to have one of its
lawsuits assigned to a different judge, but wrote that defense
attorneys may ask an appeals court to determine whether a change
of judge can be denied if a party is "judge shopping."

In a ruling, Judge Ferguson said Judge Weber holds no bias
against the Lakin Law Firm as alleged.  According to him, the
order contained "a little venting of his frustrations," but it
does not hold significant evidence of actual prejudice arising
from the lawsuit originally brought against Judge Weber.

Judge Weber has been recused from at least 78 cases on
plaintiffs' motions.

Lakin Law Firm on the Net: http://www.lakinlaw.com.


JAKKS PACIFIC: N.Y. Court Dismisses Certain Claims in WWE Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed two of the three substantive federal claims brought
against JAKKS Pacific, Inc. (Nasdaq: JAKK) by World Wrestling
Entertainment, Inc.

Essentially, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
World Wrestling's Robinson-Patman and Sherman Act claims, but
denied the Company's motion to dismiss directed to the
sufficiency of World Wrestling's allegation of a Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) enterprise.

In so doing, the Court specifically noted that it was not ruling
on several additional grounds advanced by the Company to dismiss
World Wrestling's RICO claim.  Under the bifurcated briefing
schedule ordered by the Court, the Company will be moving to
dismiss the World Wrestling's RICO claim, which is now World
Wrestling's sole basis for its assertion that the U.S. District
Court has jurisdiction over the World Wrestling Action on a
variety of additional legal grounds.

The suit was styled, "World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v.
Jakks Pacific, Inc., et al, Case No. 1:04-cv-08223-KMK," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Kenneth M. Karas.  Representing the plaintiffs are,
Amy Lyn Barrette, Curtis Bruce Krasik, Jerry Scott McDevitt, and
William O. Purcell of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson, Graham,
LLP, Phone: (412) 355-6500, (412) 355-8696, (412) 355-8608 and
(212) 536-3922, Fax: (412) 355-6501, (412) 355-6501, (412) 355-
6501 and (212) 536-3901, E-mail: abarrette@klng.com,
ckrasik@klng.com, jmcdevitt@klng.com and wpurcell@klng.com.

Representing the defendants are, Michael H. Gruenglas of
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, (4 Times Sq., Rm.
44), Four Times Square, 40th Floor, New York, NY 10036, Phone:
(212) 735-3567, Fax: (917)-777-3567, E-mail:
mgruengl@skadden.com; and Jonathan Honig of Feder, Kaszovitz,
Isaacson, Weber, Skala, Bass & Rhine, LLP, 750 Lexington Avenue,
New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 986-1116, Fax: 212-888-5968, E-
mail: jhonig@fkiwsb.com.


KANSAS: Former Sheriff's Deputy Found Guilty of Sexual Offense
--------------------------------------------------------------
Atchison County District Court Judge Martin Asher sentenced a
former sheriff's deputy to serve 30 days in a county jail for
having unlawful sexual relations with an inmate, Achison Daily
Globe reports.

Travis McBride was arrested Feb. 2 on accusations of the offense
against a female inmate, whose class action also named Atchison
County Sheriff Calhoon and the Atchison County Law Enforcement
Center as defendants.  A letter was sent to county officials on
Feb. 16 on behalf of the defendant, who is asking $2 million in
damages.

Mr. McBride will serve his sentence in a county other than
Atchison.  He will also serve one year of supervised probation.
He cannot work in law enforcement again.  He resigned from his
position as deputy at the Atchison County Sheriff's Office on
Feb. 6. Bill McQuillan represented Mr. McBride.


KATZMAN & KORR: Reaches 250T Settlement in Debt-Collection Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thousands of South Florida residents are set to get a $50 check
from a local law firm accused of illegally threatening to
collect debts they allegedly owed their condominium and
homeowner associations, The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports.

The windfall comes from recently approved $250,000 settlement of
a class action brought by four owners in a Fort Lauderdale
oceanfront condo against Katzman & Korr of Lauderhill.  U.S.
District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas gave final approval to
the deal just recently.

Although they originally filed the lawsuit for themselves three
years ago, the owners in the Plaza East condo at 4300 N. Ocean
Blvd. found so many others had faced the same type of threats,
including foreclosure, that they asked the judge to make it a
class-action case.

In seeking approval for the settlement, Fort Lauderdale attorney
Blane Carneal told the judge, "We are convinced at this point
that the settlement is in the best interest of not only our
clients but the class as well."  He represents the original four
named plaintiffs of the suit: Ramsey Agan, Grace Agan, Sherry
Ann Spies and Nancy J. Bochicchio.

The suit accused the law firm of violating the federal Fair Debt
Collection Act and Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act in
the way it collected money allegedly owed for late fees,
maintenance fees and special assessments between December 2001
and December 2003.

Under the settlement each member of the class is to get $50,
with all leftover money going to Broward County Legal Aid.  The
settlement is based on 1,500 unit owners splitting the $75,000.
However, only 1,300 submitted their names by the deadline, so
the leftover $10,000 of the law firm's money will be donated to
Legal Aid.

Of the remaining $175,000 of the $250,000 settlement, the four
owners in Plaza East get $5,000 each, the attorneys get $135,000
and $20,000 goes for expenses.

Neither Thomas Dykstra of Miami, who represented Katzman & Korr,
nor Mr. Carneal would discuss the settlement.  The parties
entered into a confidentiality agreement.

According to the agreement, Katzman & Korr and its member
attorneys, by settling the lawsuit, "do not admit or concede
[but, to the contrary expressly deny] any wrongdoing, liability
or improper conduct of any nature."  The agreement further
states that the firm opted to settle to avoid the cost of
continued litigation and the uncertainties of going to trial.

It was the third time the case went to Judge Dimitrouleas for
settlement approval.  Back in November 2005, the two sides
reached an agreement that included a request for the judge to
approve a letter that the law firm could legally use in the
future to dun condo and homeowner association owners.  Judge
Dimitrouleas refused and the law firm refused to settle.

Later that month, Judge Dimitrouleas refused to approve a
settlement, because the two sides couldn't agree about what to
do with excess money.  The law firm had agreed to pay $30 to
each condo and homeowner unit owner out of the $75,000 set aside
for them.  That assumed 2,500 owners would join the class.

Mr. Carneal said the excess money should be used to increase the
amount to the 1,300 owners.  Or, according to him, the excess
should be donated to a local consumer protection program or
Broward County Legal Aid.  Katzman & Korr wanted leftover money
returned.

Mr. Dykstra is an associate at Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman &
Dicker LLP, International Place, 100 Southeast Second Street,
Miami, Florida 33131-2126, (Miami-Dade Co.), Phone: 305-374-
4400, Fax: 305-579-0261.


MCKESSON CORP: Deposits $960.5M Into Securities Suit Escrow
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wholesale drug distributor McKesson Corp. placed about $960.5
million into an escrow account for a securities class action
settlement approved in February, Reuters reports.

According to its recent filing with securities regulators, the
company said Bear Stearns appealed the final judgment in the
suit, which was entered last month.  It is challenging portions
of the settlement that restrict its ability to assert some
claims against the company in the future.

The suit arises out of a merger between McKesson Corp.
(McKesson) and HBO & Company (HBOC) in Atlanta resulting in an
entity called McKesson HBOC, Inc. (McKesson HBOC).  Beginning on
June 29, 1999, 53 purported class actions were commenced in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 13, 2006).

These actions were subsequently consolidated, and the plaintiffs
proceeded to file a series of amended complaints. On February
15, 2002, plaintiffs filed their third amended consolidated
complaint, which alleges that Bear Stearns violated Sections
10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with allegedly
false and misleading disclosures contained in a joint proxy
statement/prospectus that was issued with respect to the
McKesson/HBOC merger, (Class Action Reporter, March 3, 2006).

Plaintiffs purport to represent a class consisting of all
persons who either acquired publicly traded securities of HBOC
between January 20, 1997 and January 12, 1999, or acquired
publicly traded securities of McKesson or McKesson HBOC between
October 18, 1998 and April 27, 1999, and who held McKesson
securities on November 27, 1998 and January 22, 1999.  Named
defendants include McKesson HBOC, certain present and former
directors and/or officers of McKesson HBOC, McKesson and/or
HBOC, Bear Stearns and Arthur Andersen LLP.  Compensatory
damages in an unspecified amount were sought, (Class Action
Reporter, March 3, 2006).

In January 2005, the company agreed to settle the class action
that arose from an alleged accounting fraud at HBO & Co., which
was acquired in 1999.  A federal judge in California approved
the settlement last month.

The suit is styled, "In Re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 99-CV-20743," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge
Ronald M. Whyte.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (New York), 170 E. 61st Street,
         Second Floor, New York, NY, 10021, Phone: 212.688.0782,
         Fax: 212.688.0783, E-mail: info@barrack.com;

     (2) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (San Diego), 402 West Broadway,
         San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 619.230.0800, Fax:
         619.230.1874, E-mail: info@barrack.com;

     (3) Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New York,
         NY), 1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor, New York,
         NY, 10019, Phone: 212.554.1400, Fax: 212.554.1444, E-
         mail: blbg@blbglaw.com; and

     (4) Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (San Diego,
         CA), 12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150, San Diego, CA,
         92130, Phone: 858.793.0070, Fax: 858.793.0323, E-mail:
         blbg@blbglaw.com.

Representing the Company are James E. Lyons, Jonathan J. Lerner
of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, Four Embarcadero Ctr.,
Ste. 3800, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 984-6400.


MERCK & CO: N.J. Appellate Court Upholds Nationwide Vioxx Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Appellate Division unanimously upheld a trial
court's decision certifying a Vioxx-related nationwide class
action against Merck & Co., Inc. on behalf of third-party payors
by Seeger Weiss LLP.

The March 31, 2006 decision is the second and more significant
decision to be brought down against Merck and Co., Inc., in this
consumer protection-related litigation, which has now twice
attempted to prevent the class action from proceeding forward.

The Appellate Division concluded that New Jersey Superior Court
Judge Carol E. Higbee properly exercised her discretion in
certifying a nationwide class, which consists of all non-
governmental health plans that paid for members' Vioxx
prescriptions, and which asserts claims against Merck under the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act to recover losses incurred in
purchasing the now-withdrawn painkiller for their health plans.

On July 29, 2005, Judge Higbee granted a motion by the class
representative, a labor union health plan, to allow the lawsuit
to proceed as a nationwide class-action, based on allegations
that Merck engaged in widespread and systematic concealment of
information concerning the safety and serious health risks of
Vioxx.  The company, based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., had
opposed the motion, which was filed by Seeger Weiss on behalf of
the International Union of Operating Engineers Local no. 68
Welfare Fund and all other similarly situated third-party
payors.  The company appealed Judge Higbee's ruling against it
to the New Jersey Appellate Division.

Chris Seeger, the lead attorney for the union health plan,
states that "the decision applies to all non-governmental third-
party payors in the country, including health insurers, unions,
and large employers, who paid for Vioxx prescriptions for their
plan members.  The decision also allows for all such third-party
payors in the country to prosecute their allegations of being
misled by Merck's misrepresentations and concealments concerning
Vioxx in one class action, rather than in a multitude of
individual actions."

Vioxx, which had peak sales of $2.5 billion annually, was on the
market from May 1999 through September 2004, when Merck
voluntarily withdrew it in the wake of a clinical study showing
increased risk of heart attack and stroke after 18 months' use.
This revelation followed other evidence that had undermined
Merck's justification for charging premium prices for Vioxx,
compared to similar prescription painkiller drugs.

Besides seeking reimbursement for their expenditures to make the
arthritis and painkiller drug available to their health plan
members, the third-party payors would be entitled to triple
damages if ultimately successful on their claims, under the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

Seeger Weiss has served as Lead Counsel in the action since
2003.  In addition to the third-party payor litigation, the firm
was appointed to serve as Co-Chair of the coordinated federal
multidistrict litigation proceedings pending before the
Honorable Eldon Fallon in New Orleans, and performs a similar
role in the state coordinated proceedings in New Jersey before
Judge Higbee.

For more details, contact Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. and David
R. Buchanan, Esq. of Seeger Weiss, LLP, Phone: (212) 584-0700 or
(877) 539-4125, E-mail: dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com, Web site:
http://www.cseeger@seegerweiss.com.


MISSISSIPPI: August Trial Set for Suit Over Foster Care System
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed by New York-based Children's Rights against
Mississippi Department of Human Services is set for trial Aug.
7, 2006, according to Associated Press.

The department is facing complaints over its foster care system.
Also, a recent report on conditions at Oakley and Columbia
juvenile training schools showed the department failed to meet
required improvements agreed with the Department of Justice,
which previously filed the suit against the state.  Complaints
include the staff's cursing and using inconsistent disciplinary
practices and continued fights between students, according to
the report.  The schools serve 550 youths.

The report, filed in U.S. District Court in Jackson, covered
assessments between Aug. 1 and Dec. 15, 2005.  State officials
entered a four-year consent decree with the Justice Department
in May 2005.


NEW MEXICO: Former Inmates Attack "Routine" Strip-Searching
-----------------------------------------------------------
Seven former inmates filed a federal lawsuit against Dona Ana
County Detention Center for alleged illegal strip-searching in
jail, according to Associated Press.

The suit was filed on behalf of five men and two women wanting
that the center stop strip-searching almost everyone booked into
jail.  Court rulings prohibit such searches unless there's
reasonable suspicion an individual might be trying to smuggle in
weapons or contraband.  It is only allowed after inmates visit
with members of the public and after court-ordered detention.

The suit alleged the searches violate constitutional rights to
due process and to be free from unreasonable searches and
seizures and from cruel and unusual punishment, according to the
report.  It is asking unspecified damages, and is seeking class
action status.  The proposed class includes anyone arrested
since March 3, 2003.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court by Las Cruces attorney
Michael Lilley and Santa Fe attorney Mark Donatelli, member of
Rothstein, Donatelli, Hughes, Dahlstrom, Schoenburg & Bienvenu,
LLP, 1215 Paseo de Peralta, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504, (Santa
Fe Co.), Phone: 505-988-8004; Fax: 505-982-0307.


NOKIA CORP: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Securities Suit With Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kenneth M. Karas of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted Nokia Corporation's motion
to dismiss all claims made in the consolidated class action
securities litigation filed against it and several of its
executives in April 2004.

In a 77-page opinion, Judge Karas dismissed with prejudice each
and every claim against and the individual defendants.
According to the opinion, the judge carefully reviewed each of
the plaintiffs' allegations and found none of them to be
substantiated by fact.

By dismissing the claims with prejudice, Judge Karas denied the
plaintiffs the opportunity to raise them again.  In addition, he
also denied the plaintiffs the right to file an amended
complaint, finding that continued pursuit of the case would be
futile.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Nokia between January 8, 2004 and April 6, 2004.  It charged the
company, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Jorma Ollila,
its President, Pekka Ala-Pietila, its Chief Financial Officer
and Vice President, Richard Simonson, and its Executive Vice
President and Chief Strategy Officer, Matti Alahuhta with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (April 13, 2004) reports.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, defendants issued numerous statements to the
market concerning the Company's financial results, which failed
to disclose and/or misrepresented these adverse facts, among
others:


     -- that the Company's market share for its handsets was
        eroding;

     -- that this was due to its failure to introduce
        attractive handsets (a GSM clamshell model) in key
        middle-markets such as the U.S., Asia, and
        Europe;

     -- that sales of networking equipment were worse than
        expected due to market erosion of Nokia's products;

     -- that the Company's new reorganization to four operating
        divisions did not energize the Company but rather
        reduced responsiveness to its business problems and
        caused the Company to experience operational
        effectiveness; and

     -- that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
        reasonable basis for their positive statements about
        the Company and their earnings projections.

On April 6, 2004, Nokia announced that its first quarter 2004
net sales would be below guidance. Nokia's net sales for the
first quarter 2004 were estimated to be EUR 6.6 billion,
representing a decline of 2% compared to the first quarter 2003
(vs. guidance of up 3-7%). News of this shocked the market.
Shares of Nokia on the NYSE fell 18.6%, or $3.94 per share, to
close at $17.21 per share, down nearly 27% from their 52-week
high of $23.52 per share in early March 2004.  Additionally,
shares of Nokia on the Helsinki exchange dropped 17.1% to 14.38
euros ($17.39), an earlier Class Action Reporter story (April
13, 2004) reports.

The suit was styled, "In Re: Nokia OYJ (Nokia Corporation)
Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-2646," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Kenneth M. Karas.  Plaintiff firms named in the complaint:

     (1) Entwistle & Cappucci, LLP, 299 Park Avenue, 14th Floor,
         New York, NY 10171, Phone: 212.894.7200, Fax:
         212.894.7272, E-mail: info@entwistle-law.com;

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP (New York), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY 10119,
         Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com;

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

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


NORTH COUNTRY: Recalls Bottled Water on Potential Health Risks
--------------------------------------------------------------
North Country Spring Water, Ltd. of Port Kent (Essex County) New
York is voluntarily recalling all of its bottled water products
on fears the bottled water may be contaminated with total
coliform bacteria and diatoms (algae).

The New York State Department of Health has confirmed coliform
bacteria and diatoms in some samples of bottled water produced
by North Country Spring Water, Ltd.  Coliform bacteria are
naturally present in the environment and are used as an
indicator that other, potentially-harmful, bacteria may be
present.  The presence of coliform bacteria in bottled water is
a violation of the New York State Sanitary Code.

Coliform bacteria may indicate the presence of other potential
contamination. The presence of diatoms can be an indication that
untreated or partially treated surface water is contaminating
the source water used in the bottling process.  North Country
Spring Water, Ltd. bottled water products were distributed
wholesale in New York, Vermont and New Jersey where the bottled
water was sold to consumers through retail stores and direct
delivery.

Because production date codes were omitted from the bottled
water containers, all bottled water products with the New York
State Health Department certification number 078(NYSHD Cert. no.
078) are being recalled.  Bottled water products with these
labels and container sizes are associated with NYSHD Cert. no.
078 (Note: This recall is only associated with those labels that
bear the NYSHD Cert. no. 078):

     -- North Country 100% Natural Spring Water
        8 Fl. oz. 237 ml., 128 FL. oz. (1 gal.) 3.78 L,

     -- Hidden Spring Natural Spring Water
        1 gal.,

     -- Price Chopper Desert Spring Water
        1 gal (3.78 L), 2.5 gal (9.46 L),

     -- Loyola Springs 100% Natural Spring Water
        128 FL oz. (1 gal.) 3.78 L,

     -- Hannaford Natural Spring Water
        1 gal (3.78 L),

     -- Famous Famiglia " New York Water ... The Best Pizza." -
        1 gal.

     -- Western Beef Natural Mountain Spring Water
        2.5 gal (9.47 L)

No illnesses have been confirmed.  Individuals who have consumed
this water and have health concerns, or gastrointestinal
symptoms, or who are immuno-compromised are advised to consult
their health care provider.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that products
were contaminated with total coliform bacteria and diatoms.
Subsequent investigation indicates the problem may have been
caused by a potential surface water contamination event at the
water source and/or a temporary breakdown in the company's
filtration system.

Consumers who have purchased bottled water products with the
NYSHD Cert. no. 078 are advised to return the bottled water to
the place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with
questions may contact the company at (518) 834-9400.


NORTHERN TRUST: Reaches $37.5M Settlement for Enron Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Trust Corporation's principal subsidiary, The Northern
Trust Company, reached an agreement with counsel for the
plaintiffs in the case "Tittle v. Enron Corp." to seek approval
for a $37.5 million settlement, all of which will be paid by the
company's insurance carriers.

The Tittle case was filed in 2001 on behalf of participants in
the Enron employment benefit plans that held Enron stock as an
asset.  The company served in administrative capacities for
Enron's 401(k) and employee stock ownership plans.

"Northern Trust performed its duties prudently and carefully,"
said Kelly R. Welsh, Northern Trust Executive Vice President and
General Counsel.  "But given the unpredictable nature of
litigation in general and the risks associated with Enron-
related litigation in particular, we have chosen to put this
issue behind us for less than our insurance policy limits."

Before the settlement can be finalized, it will have to be
approved by U.S. District Court Judge Melinda Harmon.  As part
of the proposed settlement, the company agreed to give up any
claim it might have against Enron arising out of or relating to
the Enron employee benefit plans.  Because the proposed
settlement is being funded entirely by insurance proceeds, it
will have no impact on the company's earnings.

A Nov. 4, 2004 issue of Class Action Reporter stated that one of
Northern Trust Corporation's subsidiaries has been named as a
defendant in several Enron-related class action suits that have
been consolidated under a single complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston).

Individual participants in the employee pension benefit plans
sponsored by Enron Corporation sued various corporate entities
and individuals, including The Northern Trust Company (Bank) in
its capacity as the former directed trustee of the Enron
Corporation Savings Plan and former service-provider for the
Enron Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan.

The lawsuit claimed, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty to the
plan participants, and seeks equitable relief and monetary
damages in an unspecified amount against the defendants.  On
September 30, 2003, the Court denied the Bank's motion to
dismiss the complaint as a matter of law.

In an Amended Consolidated Complaint filed on January 2, 2004,
plaintiffs continue to assert claims against the Bank and other
defendants under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA), seeking a finding that defendants are liable to
restore to the benefit plans and the plaintiffs hundreds of
millions of dollars of losses allegedly caused by defendants'
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

Northern Trust (Nasdaq: NTRS) --  http://www.northerntrust.com-
- is a leading provider of investment management, asset and fund
administration, fiduciary and banking solutions for
corporations, institutions and affluent individuals worldwide.


ORIENTAL TRADING: Metal Charm Bracelets Pose Lead Poisoning Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oriental Trading Company Inc. of Omaha, Nebraska in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
25,000 beaded photo charm bracelet.

The company said the recalled metal charm bracelets contain high
levels of accessible lead, posing a serious risk of lead
poisoning to young children.  Lead poisoning in children is
associated with behavioral problems, learning disabilities,
hearing problems and growth retardation.  No incidents or
injuries have been reported.

The recalled charm bracelets consist of silver-colored metal
beads.  A silver-colored metal heart frame is attached to the
bracelet.  The bracelets were made in China and sold on Oriental
Trading Company's Web site from July 2004 through September 2005
for about $0.50 each.

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled charm
bracelets away from children and contact Oriental Trading
Company to receive a refund or credit for the product.  Oriental
Trading Company is contacting consumers who purchased the
bracelets.

Picture of the recalled bracelet:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06538.jpg

Consumer Contact: Oriental Trading Company Phone: (800) 723-
6155; Web site: http://www.orientaltrading.com.


PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Web Site for Securities Fraud Suit Launched
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP created the Web site
http://www.przclassaction.comto address investor interest and
to facilitate joining the class action against Paincare
Holdings, Inc.

Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP and Sarraf Gentile LLP filed a class
action on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of
PainCare Holdings, Ltd. (AMEX: PRZ) from August 27, 2002 to
March 15, 2006.  The Web site includes information about the
class action, a copy of the complaint, and instructions on how
to join the class action.  Paincare is facing at least 12 class
actions over alleged violation of federal securities laws.

The complaints allege that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements.  Specifically, 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 complaints further allege that throughout the Class
Period defendants directly participated in an accounting fraud
which materially overstated the company's financial results by
improperly accounting for its numerous acquisitions and certain
other non-cash expenses.

On March 15, 2006, defendants revealed that PainCare's financial
results would be restated for fiscal years 2000-2005, its entire
corporate existence.

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


REEBOK INTERNATIONAL: Bracelet Linked to Child's Lead Poisoning
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Reebok International Ltd., of Canton, Massachusetts, is
recalling 300,000: Reebok heart-shaped charm bracelets.

The company said the recalled jewelry contains high levels of
lead, posing a risk of lead poisoning and adverse health effects
to young children.  Reebok has received a report of a death
caused by lead poisoning of a 4-year-old child from Minneapolis,
Minnesota.  The child reportedly swallowed a piece from one of
these bracelets.

The recall involves an 8-inch long metal bracelet with a heart-
shaped charm.  The name "Reebok" is engraved on the one side of
the charm.  The charm bracelet was provided as a free gift with
the purchase of various styles of children's footwear.

The bracelets were made in China and sold in major shoe stores
nationwide from May 2004 through March 2006.  The manufacturer's
retail price of the shoes ranged between $33 and $50.

Consumers are advised to immediately take the charm bracelets
away from children and dispose of the entire bracelet.

Picture of the recalled bracelet:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06119c.jpg

Consumer Contact: Reebok Phone: (800) 994-6260 between 8 a.m.
and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday; Web site:
http://www.reebok.com.


REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: Transplant Patients File Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Two West Virginia residents are suing companies involved in an
alleged illegal distribution of body parts by a New Jersey-based
company, The West Virginia Record reports.

David Ramella and Jami Frazier filed the lawsuits in U.S
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,
against:

      -- Regeneration Technologies, Inc.,
      -- Spinalgraft Technologies, LLC,
      -- Medtronic, Inc.,
      -- Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
      -- Medtronic Sofamor Danek, U.S.A., Inc.,
      -- Tutogen Medical, Inc.,
      -- Lifecell Corporation,
      -- Lost Mountain Tissue bank, and
      -- the Blood and Tissue Center of Central Texas

The plaintiffs, who are transplant patients, said in the suit
the body parts harvested by Biomedical Tissue Services were
untested for diseases.  They claim the defendants facilitated
the distribution of human tissue harvested between early 2003
and September 2005.  The case may eventually turn into a class
action, the report said.

The suit filed by Jami Frazer is styled, "Frazier v. Biomedical
Tissue Services Ltd et al. (6:06-cv-00198)," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, unde
Judge Joseph R. Goodwin.  Representing the plaintiffs are:
Barry M. Hill of Hill Toriseva & Williams, 89 12th Street,
Wheeling, WV 26003, Phone: 304/233-4966, Fax: 233-4969; Anthony
J. Majestro of Powell & Majestro, P. O. Box 3081, Charleston, WV
25331, Phone: 304/346-2889; Fax: 346-2895; and James C. Peterson
of Hill Peterson Carper Bee & Deitzler, North Gate Business
Park, 500 Tracy Way, Charleston, WV 25311-1555, Phone: 304/345-
5667; Fax: 345-1519, E-mail: jcpeterson@hpcbd.com.

Representing the defendants are: John C. Hansberry of Pepper
Hamilton, 50th Floor, 500 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219-
2502, Phone: 412/454-5000, Fax: 281-0717, E-mail:
hansberj@pepperlaw.com; and Jeffrey G. Wilhelm of Pepper
Hamilton, 50th Floor, 500 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219-
2502, Phone: 412/454-5000, Fax: 281-0717, E-mail:
wilhelmj@pepperlaw.com.

The suit filed by Mr. Ramella is styled "Ramella v. Biomedical
Tissue Services Ltd et al. (2:06-cv-00197)," filed under Judge
Joseph R. Goodwin.  Representing the plaintiffs are: Barry M.
Hill of Hill Toriseva & Williams, 89 12th Street, Wheeling, WV
26003, Phone: 304/233-4966, Fax: 233-4969; Anthony J. Majestro
of Powell & Majestro, P. O. Box 3081, Charleston, WV 25331,
Phone: 304/346-2889, Fax: 346-2895; and James C. Peterson of
Hill Peterson Carper Bee & Deitzler, North Gate Business Park,
500 Tracy Way, Charleston, WV 25311-1555, Phone: 304/345-5667,
Fax: 345-1519, E-mail: jcpeterson@hpcbd.com.

Representing the defendants are: John C. Hansberry of Pepper
Hamilton, 50th Floor, 500 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219-
2502, Phone: 412/454-5000, Fax: 281-0717, E-mail:
hansberj@pepperlaw.com; and Jeffrey G. Wilhelm of Pepper
Hamilton, 50th Floor, 500 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219-
2502, Phone: 412/454-5000, Fax: 281-0717; E-mail:
wilhelmj@pepperlaw.com.


RENT-A-CENTER INC: Court Denies Plaintiffs' Request for Review
--------------------------------------------------------------
California Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs' appeal of the
California Superior Court for Los Angeles' ruling refusing to
remove the trial judge handling the purported class action filed
against Rent-A-Center, Inc., which is alleging wage and hour law
violations.

Two suits were initially filed in October 2001, styled "Jeremy
Burdusis, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et al." and "Israel
French, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc."  The suits allege that
the Company violated various provisions of state law regarding
overtime, lunch and work breaks, that the Company failed to pay
all wages due to its California employees, and various contract
claims that the Company promised but failed to pay overtime

The same law firm seeking to represent the purported class in
"Pucci" is seeking to represent the purported class in
"Burdusis."  The "Burdusis" and "French" proceedings are pending
before the same judge in California.

On March 24, 2003, the "Burdusis" court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in that case, which the Company
views as a favorable development in that proceeding.  On April
25, 2003, the plaintiffs in "Burdusis" filed a notice of appeal
of that ruling, and on May 8, 2003, the "Burdusis" court, at its
request, stayed further proceedings in "Burdusis" and "French"
pending the resolution on appeal of the court's denial of class
certification in "Burdusis."

In June 2004, the "Burdusis" plaintiffs filed their appellate
brief.  The company's response brief was filed in September
2004, and the "Burdusis" plaintiffs filed their reply in October
2004.

On February 9, 2005, the California Court of Appeals reversed
and remanded the trial court's denial of class certification in
"Burdusis" and directed the trial court to reconsider its ruling
in light of two other recent appellate court decisions,
including the opinions of the California Supreme Court in "Sav-
On Drugs Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court," and of the California
appeals court in "Bell v. Farmers Insurance Exchange."

After remand, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the trial court
seeking to remove from the case the trial court judge who
previously denied their motion for class certification.  The
trial court denied the motion.

In response, plaintiffs' filed a petition for writ of mandate
with the California Court of Appeals requesting review of the
trial court's decision.  The California Court of Appeals heard
oral arguments in this matter on August 29, 2005, and ruled
against the plaintiffs, denying the requested relief.  The case
is now being returned to the trial court as previously ordered.


RENT-A-CENTER INC: "Colon" Suit Case Conference Results Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A March 14, 2006 case conference with the court was scheduled
for the purported class action pending in New York against Rent-
A-Center, Inc. and styled, "Colon v. Thorn Americas, Inc."

The plaintiff filed this class action in November 1997 in New
York state court.  The company in connection with the Thorn
Americas acquisition assumed this matter.

The plaintiff acknowledges that rent-to-own transactions in New
York are subject to the provisions of New York's Rental Purchase
Statute but contends the Rental Purchase Statute does not
provide the Company immunity from suits for other statutory
violations.  The plaintiff alleges the Company has a duty to
disclose effective interest under New York consumer protection
laws, and seeks damages and injunctive relief for failure to do
so.

This suit also alleges violations relating to excessive and
unconscionable pricing, late fees, harassment, undisclosed
charges, and the ease of use and accuracy of payment records.

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff requests class
certification, injunctive relief requiring the Company to cease
certain marketing practices and price rental purchase contracts
in certain ways, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages,
rescission of the class members contracts, an order placing in
trust all moneys received by the Company in connection with the
rental of merchandise during the class period, treble damages,
attorney's fees, filing fees and costs of suit, pre- and post-
judgment interest, and any further relief granted by the court.

The plaintiff has not alleged a specific monetary amount with
respect to the request for damages.  The proposed class includes
all New York residents who were party to the Company's rent-to-
own contracts from November 26, 1994.

In November 2000, following interlocutory appeal by both parties
from the denial of cross-motions for summary judgment, the
Company obtained a favorable ruling from the Appellate Division
of the State of New York, dismissing the plaintiff's claims
based on the alleged failure to disclose an effective interest
rate.  The plaintiff's other claims were not dismissed.

The plaintiff moved to certify a statewide class in December
2000.  The Court heard the plaintiff's class certification
motion on November 7, 2001 and, on September 12, 2002, the court
issued an opinion denying in part and granting in part the
plaintiff's requested certification.

The opinion grants certification as to all of the plaintiff's
claims except the plaintiff's pricing claims pursuant to the
Rental Purchase Statute, as to which certification was denied.
The parties have differing views as to the effect of the court's
opinion, and accordingly, the court granted the parties
permission to submit competing orders as to the effect of the
opinion on the plaintiff's specific claims.

Both proposed orders were submitted to the court on March 27,
2003, and on May 30, 2003, the court held a hearing regarding
such orders.  No clarifying order has yet been entered by the
court.

From June 2003 until May 2005, there was no activity in this
case.  On May 18, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss
the plaintiff's claim and to decertify the class, based upon the
plaintiff's failure to schedule her claim in this matter in her
earlier voluntary bankruptcy proceeding.  The plaintiff opposed
the motion and asked the court to grant it an opportunity to
find a substitute class representative in the event the court
determined Ms. Colon was no longer adequate.

On January 17, 2006, the court issued an order denying that
motion, but noted that no motion to intervene to add additional
class representatives had been filed.


RENT-A-CENTER INC: Settles Calif., Wash., Ore. Wage & Hour Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, Inc. recently settled several wage and hour class
actions that were pending in several different courts in
California, Oregon and Washington.  The suits are styled,

      (1) "Rob Pucci, et al v. Rent-A-Center, Inc;"

      (2) "Jeremy Chess, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et al.;"
          and

      (3) "Clemmons, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et al."

On August 20, 2001, the putative class action entitled, "Rob
Pucci, et. al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.," was filed in state court
in Multnomah County, Oregon alleging that the company violated
various provisions of Oregon state law regarding overtime, lunch
and work breaks, that the Company failed to pay all wages due to
Oregon employees, and various contract claims that the Company
promised, but failed to pay, overtime.

Pucci sought to represent a class of all present and former
executive assistants, inside/outside managers and account
managers employed by the Company within the six year period
prior to the filing of the complaint as to the contract claims,
and three years as to the statutory claims, and sought class
certification, payments for all unpaid wages under Oregon law,
statutory and civil penalties, costs and disbursements, pre-and
post-judgment interest in the amount of 9% per annum and
attorneys fees.

On July 25, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification and on July 31, 2002, the company filed its motion
for summary judgment.  On January 15, 2003, the court orally
granted that motion for summary judgment in part, ruling that
the plaintiffs were prevented from recovering overtime payments
at the rate of "time and a half," but stated that the plaintiffs
may recover "straight-time" to the extent plaintiffs could prove
purported class members worked in excess of forty hours in a
work week but were not paid for such time worked.  The court
denied the company's motion for summary judgment on the
remaining claims.

On October 10, 2003, the courts issued an opinion letter stating
that it would certify a class and not permit an interlocutory
appeal, and issued its written order to that effect on December
9, 2003.

On March 17, 2005, Pucci class members Jeremy Chess and Chad
Clemmons filed an amended class action complaint entitled,
"Jeremy Chess, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc. et al.," alleging
similar claims as the plaintiffs in Pucci and seeking
unspecified statutory and contractual damages and penalties, as
well as injunctive relief.  The Chess plaintiffs sought to
represent a class of all present and former executive
assistants, inside/outside managers and account managers
employed by us within the six year period prior to the filing of
the complaint as to the contract claims, and three years as to
the statutory claims.

On April 15, 2005, the Company filed pleadings removing the case
to the Federal Court for the District of Oregon under the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005. The same attorneys as the Pucci
plaintiffs represented the Chess plaintiffs.

On June 23, 2005, the Company reached an agreement in principle
to settle the claims in Pucci and Chess.  Under the settlement,
the Company agreed to pay $1.75 million to settle all class
claims, including payments to the class and its representatives,
the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and administrative costs,
subject to adjustment based upon the size of the class.  The
final class included approximately 777 current and former
account managers, inside/outside managers, and executive
assistant managers that were employed by us in Oregon.

In connection therewith, the plaintiffs' counsel in the Pucci
and Chess matters filed a new class action complaint in Federal
court entitled, "Clemmons, et al v. Rent-A-Center Inc., et al.,"
alleging substantially similar claims and seeking similar
damages as in Pucci and Chess through the date of filing.

The parties used the Clemmons case to consolidate the Pucci and
Chess claims, and facilitate final approval, administration and
distribution of the settlement.  Notice of the settlement was
mailed to class members on or about November 15, 2005 and no
class member objected to the settlement or sought exclusion from
the class.

Accordingly, at December 31, 2005, $1.9 million was reserved
with respect to this matter covering the anticipated settlement
and our attorneys' fees.

On January 20, 2006, the Pucci and Clemmons courts approved the
final settlement, entered a final judgment and dismissed the
respective cases.  The Company funded the settlement in February
2006.


RENT-A-CENTER INC: Tex. Court Mulls Stock Suit Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas set a
June 22, 2006 hearing for class certification of the securities
lawsuit filed against Rent-A-Center, Inc. and certain of its
current and former officers and directors, styled "Terry Walker,
et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et al."

Filed on January 4, 2002, the putative class action alleged that
the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or Section 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by issuing false and misleading statements and
omitting material facts regarding our financial performance and
prospects for the third and fourth quarters of 2001.  The
complaint purported to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of
our common stock from April 25, 2001 through October 8, 2001 and
sought damages in unspecified amounts.  The court later
consolidated similar complaints with the Walker matter in
October 2002.

On November 25, 2002, the lead plaintiffs in the Walker matter
filed an amended consolidated complaint, which added certain of
the Company's outside directors as defendants to the Exchange
Act claims. The amended complaint also added additional claims
that the Company, and certain of its current and former officers
and directors, violated various provisions of the Securities Act
as a result of alleged misrepresentations and omissions in
connection with an offering in May 2001 and also added the
managing underwriters in that offering as defendants.

On February 7, 2003, the Company, along with certain officer and
director defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the matter as
well as a motion to transfer venue.  In addition, the Company's
outside directors named in the matter separately filed a motion
to dismiss the Securities Act claims on statute of limitations
grounds.

On February 19, 2003, the underwriter defendants also filed a
motion to dismiss the matter.  The plaintiffs filed response
briefs to these motions, to which the Company replied on May 21,
2003.  A hearing was held by the court on June 26, 2003 to hear
each of these motions.

On September 30, 2003, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss without prejudice, dismissed without prejudice the
outside directors' and underwriters' separate motions to dismiss
and denied the Company's motion to transfer venue.  In its order
on the motions to dismiss, the Court granted the lead plaintiffs
leave to replead the case within certain parameters.

On July 7, 2004, the plaintiffs again repled their claims by
filing a third amended consolidated complaint, raising
allegations of similar violations against the same parties
generally based upon alleged facts not previously asserted.

The Company, along with certain officer and director defendants
and the underwriter defendants, filed motions to dismiss the
third amended consolidated complaint on August 23, 2004.  A
hearing on the motions was held on April 14, 2005.

On July 25, 2005, the Court ruled on these motions, dismissing
with prejudice the claims against the outside directors as well
as the underwriter defendants, but denying the Company's motion
to dismiss.

In evaluating this motion to dismiss, the court was required to
view the pleadings in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs
and to take the plaintiffs' allegations as true.  On August 18,
2005, the company filed a motion to certify the dismissal order
for an interlocutory appeal, which was denied on November 14,
2005.

Discovery in this matter has now commenced.  A hearing on class
certification is scheduled for June 22, 2006.

The suit is styled, "Walker, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, et al.,
Case No. 5:02-cv-00003-DF," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas under Judge David Folsom.
Representing the plaintiffs are, Bradley Earl Beckworth of Nix
Patterson & Roach - Daingerfield, 205 Linda Drive, Daingerfield,
TX 75638, Phone: 903-645-7333, Fax: 19036454415, E-mail:
bbeckworth@nixlawfirm.com; and Thomas Emerson Bilek of Hoeffner
& Bilek, LLP, 1000 Louisiana, Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002,
Phone: 713-227-7720, Fax: 17132279404, E-mail: tbilek@hb-
legal.com.

Representing the defendants are, Anne Marie Rodgers and Darryl
Wade Anderson of Fulbright & Jaworski, 1301 McKinney, Suite
5100, Houston, TX 77010-3095, Phone: 713/651-5473, Fax: 713-651-
6652 and 17136515246, E-mail: arodgers@fulbright.com and
danderson@fulbright.com.


SCOTTCO HOSPITALITY: Faces Workers' Labor Law Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Employees are filing a suit alleging underpayment of wages,
unlawful wage deductions and other employment-related violations
against several Santa Barbara restaurants.

The businesses named in a recent Superior Court filing include:

     (1) Harry's Plaza Cafe,

     (2) El Paseo Mexican Restaurant,

     (3) the Harbor Restaurant,

     (4) Longboards Grill, and

     (5) the Tee-Off Restaurant.

They are under the umbrella of California firm ScottCo
Hospitality Inc.  The suit alleges six separate complaints:

     (i) unpaid overtime wages,

    (ii) unpaid meal and rest breaks,

   (iii) unpaid work off the clock,

    (iv) unlawful wage deductions,

     (v) violations of Labor Code Section 203, and

    (vi) unfair competition/unfair business practices.

The potential class action was filed by Vickie Armstrong and
Sarah Benwitt.  It could possibly include staff employed by the
restaurants between about March 2002 and January of this year,
the report said.  Attorney Bruce Anticouni plans to contact
employees who worked in the restaurants between the relevant
dates.  He expects the possible class to include 500 and 1,000
people.  A total claim may range between $2 million and $4
million, he said.

ScottCo Hospitality is represented by Alan Blakeboro of the
Santa Barbara law firm Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy, 1421 State
Street, Suite B, P.O. Box 1470, Santa Barbara, California 93102-
1470 (Santa Barbara Co.), Phone: 805-966-2440; Fax: 805-966-
3320.

Bruce Anticouni is associated with Anticouni & Associates, 23
East de la Guerra Street, Santa Barbara, California 93101,
Phone: 805-962-0467, Fax: 805-962-7501, Web Site:
http://www.anticouni.com.


TRAVEL COMPANIES: Georgia Firms Accused of Cutting Tax Remits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Atlanta in Georgia is filing a case against a dozen
online travel Web sites alleging the firms are not forwarding
some taxes to the city, Associated Press reports.

The suit was filed in Fulton County Superior Court against
Expedia.com, Hotwire.com, Orbitz.com and Travelocity.com.  The
suit's claims are similar to that of a federal class action
filed in November by Rome, Cartersville, and Hart County in
Georgia.  The suit alleged potentially more than 100 cities and
counties in Georgia lost millions of dollars in taxes that could
have been used to support tourist attractions.  Other states,
including California, North Carolina and Ohio face similar
lawsuits, according to the report.

The Georgia cases claim the travel sites buy room rentals from
hotels at a discounted rate, mark them up for resale to
customers, who pays the tax for the full rental price.  They,
however, remit taxes bases only on the discount rate paid to the
local hotel.


UBISOFT INC: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Copy Protection Software
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ubisoft, Inc. faces a class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California over its use of digital
rights management software (DRM) in their games, reports say.
The DRM software is from StarForce.

Filed by Christopher Spence, the suit claims that Starforce DRM
can compromise Windows operating systems' security.  It goes on
to claim that any virus or trojan can control a computer by and
through the Stareforce DRM installed on the computer, despite
the security measures taken in newer versions of Windows.

The suit also claims that users receive no notice that removing
Starforce DRM is necessary to prevent possible security
compromises on their computer systems.  Worse, removal of a
Starforce title does not always remove Starforce DRM software.

According to Wikipedia, DRM is the umbrella term referring to
any of several technologies used to enforce pre-defined policies
controlling access to software, music, movies, or other digital
data and hardware.  In more technical terms, DRM handles the
description, layering, analysis, valuation, trading and
monitoring of the rights held over a digital work.  In the
widest possible sense, the term refers to any such management.

The term is often confused with copy protection and technical
protection measures (TPM).  These two terms refer to
technologies that control and/or restrict the use and access of
digital media content on electronic devices with such
technologies installed.

The suit is styled, "Spence v. Ubisoft, Inc., Case No. 3:06-cv-
02169-MHP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Marilyn H. Patel.  Representing
the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Oren Giskan of Giskan & Solotaroff, 207 West 25th, 4th
         Floor, New York, NY 10001, US, Phone: (212) 847-8315;

     (2) Law Offices of Alan Himmelfarb, 2757 Leonis Boulevard,
         Los Angeles, CA 90058, Phone: (323) 585-8696;

     (3) Scott A. Kamber of Kamber & Associates, LLC, 19 Fulton
         Street, Suite 400, New York, NY 10038, US, Phone: 877-
         773-5469; and

     (4) Daniel Lynch of Law Offices of Daniel Lynch, 150 South
         Wacker Drive, Suite 2600, Chicago, IL 60606, US, Phone:
         (312) 346-8700.

To see the complaint, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?75d


VALSI CORP: Generators' Plastic Fuel Tanks Pose Risk of Fire
------------------------------------------------------------
Corporativo Valsi S.A de C.V of Guadalajara, Mexico, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 900 Valsi Single Phase Portable Generators.  The
product is imported by Valsi Power Equipment Inc., of San Diego,
California.

The Company said the fuel tanks can crack and leak fuel, posing
a risk of fires and burn injuries.  There have been 67 reports
of fuel tank leaks, but no reports of injuries.

The Valsi "G" model G38MG0750RV, G42MG0750RV, G55MG0900RV, and
G65MG1100RV are portable generators with black plastic fuel
tank, full lifting frame, and side control panel.  The recalled
generators are black with blue label and have "Valsi Generator"
printed on the label.

The generators were made in Mexico and sold in Wal-Mart stores
in Florida Gulf coast region; Highway Equipment and Supply,
Orlando, FL; and Florida Department of Transportation, Orlando,
FL from September 2004 through August 2005 for between $400 and
$900.

Valsi is directly notifying those consumers who purchased
affected generators.  Consumers are advised to stop using their
generators immediately and contact a Valsi dealer or Valsi
customer service to make arrangement to have a replacement gas
tank installed at no cost to the consumer.

Pictures of the recalled products:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06537a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06537b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06537c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06537d.jpg

Consumer contact: Phone: (866) 260-4842 between 7:30 a.m. and 5
p.m. PT Monday through Friday; E-mail: export@valsi.com.mx.


WASHINGTON: Misses Deadline to Improve Foster Care, Report Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
The state Department of Social and Health Services failed to
meet with foster care improvements agreed into under an August
2004 settlement of a class action, a panel of experts said,
according to Associated Press.

Jessica Braam and 12 other foster children filed the suit in
1998, alleging the state transferred them through foster homes
without adequate services.  When it settled the case more than a
year ago, the state was given about seven years to improve its
foster care system.  It faced a deadline to meet 45 early action
steps last year.  It has not completed 32 of them, according to
a progress report prepared by the Braam Oversight Panel.  The
state reportedly failed to complete plans to reduce caseloads
for caseworkers, monitor foster children's mental health and
increase foster kids' visits with their brothers and sisters.

The progress report gives the state six months to meet missed
deadlines.  Should the department fail in the next assessment,
plaintiffs in the original suit can take the case back to court,
the report said.  If the state totally fails to implement
improvements, a judge may force it to pay for reforms that could
cost about $50 million.

The Social and Health Services Department said many of the
allegedly missed obligations were nearly completed.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ESTEE LAUDER: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly
traded securities of The Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. (NYSE: EL)
between April 28, 2005 and October 25, 2005, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendant violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false statements.
Specifically, while the Company's market share was decreasing,
defendants launched a largely successful campaign that employed
channel stuffing and the dissemination of materially false
statements to prop up reported revenues and earnings and the
Company's share price.

The truth began to emerge on September 19, 2005 when defendants
disclosed that the Company would not meet its guidance for the
first half of fiscal 2006.  On this news, the Company's stock
fell 9%, from $40.51 to $36.05 per share.

The stock, however, continued to trade at artificially inflated
levels until October 26m 2995 when defendants disclosed that,
for the first quarter of fiscal 2006, the Company would earn
only $61.8 million, or $0.28 per share, down 38% from the
previous year's earnings of $95.7 million, or $0.41 per share,
on essentially flat sales.  These results were well below
analysts' revised consensus earnings estimate of $0.32 cents a
share on revenue of $1.54 billion. Following this disclosure,
the stock fell to $30.71.  While the Company's shares were
artificially inflated, insiders sold 3,380,399 shares of their
Estee Lauder common stock for proceeds of $88,077,150.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212-490-2022, E-mail:
SSBNY@aol.com, Web site: http://www.ssbny.com.


H&R BLOCK: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC, filed a securities class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all securities purchasers of H&R Block, Inc. (NYSE:HRB)
during the period February 24, 2004 through March 14, 2006,
inclusive, seeking remedies for federal securities law
violations.

During the Class Period, according to the complaint, defendants
caused H&R Block's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels by issuing false and misleading financial statements.  As
a result of this inflation, H&R Block was able to:

     (1) offer for sale and sell $400 million 10-year senior
         unsecured notes in reliance on defendants' false and
         misleading financial reports;

     (2) declare higher quarterly stock dividends than might
         otherwise be possible absent the sale of its debt
         securities; and

     (3) award defendants cash and stock-based compensation
         based in part on the inflated value of the Company's
         stock.

In addition to concealing the false and misleading nature of the
Company's financial statements, defendants also concealed the
Company's potential exposure to lawsuits stemming from the
fraudulent nature and operation of H&R Block's investment
products.  Unbeknownst to investors, defendants induced their
customers to open investment accounts, using a marketing
strategy that consistently misrepresented the benefits and
concealed the deficiencies of those accounts.  On the basis of
confidential communications dating from prior to the beginning
of the Class Period, there can be no doubt that defendants were
well aware of the deceitful nature of this marketing strategy
and scheme.

On February 23, 2006, after the close of the markets, defendants
shocked investors with the news that the Company's management
and its Audit Committee, in consultation with the Company's
independent auditors, KPMG LLP, would undertake a restatement of
the Company's previously issued consolidated financial
statements, including fiscal year 2006 quarterly financial
statements and financial statements for the fiscal years ended
April 30, 2005 and 2004.

Finally, on March 15, 2006, investors learned of a $250 million
lawsuit by the New York Attorney General, addressing fraudulent
marketing practices involving the Company's IRA products.  The
suit deflated the expectations of the investment community, in
reliance on promised results from the Company's Financial
Advisory segment.

On this news, the price of H&R Block shares tumbled, from the
previous close of $22.00 on March 14, 2006, to close $20.63 on
March 15, 2006, for a loss of $1.37 or another 6.2% percent, on
volume of over 14 million shares, nearly seven times normal
daily volume.

For more details, David R. Scott of Scott + Scott, LLC, Phone:
(800) 404-7770, E-mail: drscott@scott-scott.com, Web site:
http://www.scott-scott.com.


MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in Wis.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, Milwaukee Division, on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Merge Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: MRGE) from
August 2, 2005 through March 16, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint charges Merge and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Merge, doing business as Merge Healthcare, engages in the
development and delivery of medical imaging and information
management software and services.  It provides solutions for
both original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and the end-user
healthcare markets.

The complaint alleges that defendants' Class Period
representations regarding Merge were materially false and
misleading when made because defendants failed to disclose:

     (1) that the Company improperly accounted for revenue and
         taxes relating to the Cedara merger;

     (2) as such, the Company's financial results were in
         violation of GAAP;

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

     (4) that as a result of the foregoing, defendants' Class
         Period statements concerning its financial performance
         and prospects were materially false and misleading.

On February 24, 2006, Merge disclosed that it would delay the
issuance of its fourth quarter results in order to allow
additional time to complete the audit of the Company's financial
statements.  The Company also stated that it needed to defer
some revenue: "certain large sales contracts entered into during
the fourth quarter will be recorded as deferred revenue."  On
news of this, shares of Merge fell $4.00 per share, or 16.33
percent, to close at $20.50 per share on February 24, 2006.

Then, on March 17, 2006, before the market opened, Merge
announced that it would delay the filing of its 2005 Form
10-K.  On news of this, shares of Merge fell $2.12 per share, or
11.80 percent, to close at $15.85 per share on March 17, 2006.

For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. and Richard A.
Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia
Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706,
E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com.


NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Berman DeValerio Lodges Ill. Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois against Northfield Laboratories, Inc., (Nasdaq: NFLD)
accusing the Company of securities law violations.

The complaint seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who purchased Northfield
Securities from February 20, 2004 through and including February
21, 2006 (the Class Period).

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

Founded in 1985, Evanston, Illinois based Northfield
Laboratories is a development state Biotechnology Company.  It
primarily develops PolyHeme, an oxygen-carrying blood substitute
for the treatment of urgent life-threatening blood loss in
trauma and resultant surgical settings.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements
regarding the safety profile and history of PolyHeme.  On
February 22, 2006, The Wall Street Journal reported in a story
that the data available to defendants from an ANH clinical trial
using PolyHeme, but not to the public, revealed the following:

     (1) Ten of 81 patients who received PolyHeme suffered a
         heart attack within seven days, and two of those died.

     (2) None of the 71 patients in the ANH clinical trial who
         received real blood were found to have suffered a heart
         attack.

Defendants in a press release on February 22, 2006, responding
to The Wall Street Journal article, did not dispute the data
concerning the patient heart attacks and deaths from the ANH
clinical trial.  Rather, defendants admit that they did not
publish the data concerning patient heart attacks and deaths.

The market was stunned by the disclosure of the secret, adverse
data from the long-closed ANH clinical trial and the market
price of Northfield's common stock fell with the belated
disclosures.

On February 21, 2006, the day before the disclosure by The Wall
Street Journal, Northfield's common stock closed at a price of
$12.23 per share.  On February 22, 2006, on extraordinary volume
of more than 4.1 million shares, Northfield's common stock
closed at a price of $11.64 per share.

The price continued to drop as the market absorbed all of the
news, including the announcement on February 24, 2006, by U.S.
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Finance
Committee, that he has begun an inquiry into the matter.

For more details, contact Leslie R. Stern, Esq. and Joseph C.
Merschman, Esq. of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt &
Pucillo, 1 Liberty Square, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02109, Phone:
(800) 516-9926 and (800) 349-4612, E-mail: law@bermanesq.com, E-
mail: http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/Northfield-Cplt.pdf.


NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Rosen Law Lodges Ill. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm initiated a class action on behalf of all
investors who purchased common stock of Northfield Laboratories,
Inc. during the period between February 20, 2004 and February
21, 2006.  The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois and is pending before the
Honorable Mark Filip under case number 06-C-1762.

The complaint charges Northfield and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's
issuance of a series of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the safety and history of the Company's
blood substitute PolyHeme.  In particular, the complaint alleges
that the Company failed to disclose that a significant portion
of patients taking PolyHeme in a clinical study suffered heart
attacks within seven days of taking PolyHeme -- as compared to
zero heart attacks from patients receiving real blood in the
same study.

On February 22, 2006 the investing public, for the first time,
learned of the heart attacks through a Wall Street Journal
article.  That same day, the Company responded to the Wall
Street Journal article by issuing a press release admitting that
the data concerning the heart attacks was not disclosed because
"publishing the full data upon closing the study, would have
shown that PolyHeme could not be isolated as the cause of the
observed serious adverse events."  As a result of the Company's
actions, Northfield stock fell and damaged investors.

For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. and Phillip Kim,
Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Phone: (212) 686-1060 and
(866) 767-3653, Fax: (212) 202-3827, E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
and lrosen@rosenlegal.com, Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.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. 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 contact Howard Smith, Esq. of Smith & Smith, LLP, 3070
Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, Phone:
(866) 759-2275, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com.


SEA CONTAINERS: Roy & Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates initiated a lawsuit on behalf of all
purchasers of the stock of Sea Containers, Ltd. (NYSE:SCR-A)
from March 15, 2004 through March 24, 2006.  The action was
filed in the Southern District of New York.

The Complaint alleges that Sea Containers stock dropped
substantially after it revealed on March 24, 2006 that it was
restating its financial statements to reflect a massive, $500
million write-down of the value of its ferry and container
assets, and that it was in default of its loan covenants.  The
Complaint further alleges that Sea Containers and its top
executives knew during the Class Period that, among other
things, these assets were materially impaired, but failed to
make the necessary adjustments, thus keeping the Company in
compliance with its loan covenants, but artificially inflating
the stock.

For more details, contact Roy Jacobs & Associates, Phone: 1-888-
884-4490, E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com.


SEA CONTAINERS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. filed a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Sea Containers, Ltd.
between March 15, 2004 and March 24, 2006, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements.  Sea Containers stock dropped substantially after it
revealed on March 24, 2006 that it was restating its financial
statements to reflect a massive, $500 million write-down of the
value of its ferry and container assets, and that it was in
default of its loan covenants.

The Complaint further alleges that Sea Containers and its top
executives knew during the Class Period that, among other
things, these assets were materially impaired, but failed to
make the necessary adjustments, thus keeping the Company in
compliance with its loan covenants, but artificially inflating
the stock.

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



                            *********


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  * * *