CAR_Public/060405.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, April 5, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 68

                            Headlines

ADVANTAGE SAFERENT: Trial Set for Tenant-Screening Reports Suit
APPLE COMPUTER: Introduces Software to Control iPod Volume
BOSTON COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Amended Securities Suit in Mass.
ELECTRO SOURCE: Recalls Battery Charger Due to Fire, Burn Risks
EPCOR UTILITIES: Named in $1.25 Lawsuit Over Pension Benefits

GEICO: Insurance Policies Bias Against Blacks, Lawsuit Claims
HAVENS STEEL: Parties Reach Settlement in Mo. ERISA Fraud Suit
ILLINOIS POWER: Sued Over Alleged Breach of Service Contract
MACATAWA BANK: Suits V. Trade Partners Viaticals Still Pending
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Ariz. Court Dismisses Consolidated Lawsuit

MICHIGAN: Court Allows Suit Over Privatization of Local Projects
MICHIGAN: Federal Judge Finds Video Game Law Unconstitutional
MICHIGAN: Inmates File Suit Over Water Contamination Incident
NEW JERSEY: Day Laborers' Access to Muster Zone Still a Question
NEW YORK: Settlement Reached Limiting Use of Force in Prisons

NEW YORK: Police Department's Photo, Videotape Policy Attacked
ONEOK INC: Faces Suit in Del. Over Northern Border Transactions
ONEOK INC: Kans. Court Mulls Class Certification of Price I, II
ONEOK INC: Court Grants Initial Approval of Cornerstone Deal
ONEOK INC: Parties Appeal Rulings in 2001 Gas Explosion Lawsuits

ONEOK INC: Parties File Remand, Dismissal Motions for "Legget"
ONEOK INC: Plaintiffs Oppose Transfer of "Learjet" Suit to Nev.
PMA CAPITAL: Pa. Court Partially Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
PPL CORP: Additional Lawsuit Filed Over Coal Ash Sludge Spill
QVC INC: Recalls Radio Control Toy Trucks Due to Fire Hazard

RADIOSHACK CORP: Choking Hazard Prompts Recall of Toy Pliers
RENT-A-CENTER INC: Settles Employee Wage, Hour Suits in Wash.
SIGNALS CATALOGUE: Recalls Underground Neon Signs on Burn Hazard
SOUTHERN COPPER: Faces Consolidated Suit V. Minera Mexico Merger
TECO ENERGY: Fla. Judge Partially Dismisses Consolidated Suit

TRIPOS INC: Reaches Initial Settlement in Securities Fraud Suit
UNITED PARCEL: Storeowners Complain Against Shipping Rates
VERISIGN INC: Consumers Seek to Coordinate "Ringtone" Lawsuits
VERISIGN INC: Continues to Face Calif. Consolidated Stock Suit
VERISIGN INC: Continues to Face Consumer Fraud Suit in Calif.

WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: 9th Circuit Mulls Appeal of Stock Suit
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Ciprofloxacin Suit Appealed
WISCONSIN: Transfer of Inmates to High-Security Prison Halted


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ESTEE LAUDER: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
H&R BLOCK: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. Mo.
NATURES SUNSHINE: Rosen Law Firm Commences Securities Inquiry
NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Zwerling Schachter Files Suit in Ill.
SEA CONTAINERS: Paskowitz & Associates Lodges Stock Suit in N.Y.

SEA CONTAINERS: Stull & Stull Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.

                          *********


ADVANTAGE SAFERENT: Trial Set for Tenant-Screening Reports Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs and First Advantage SafeRent, Inc. (FAS) received a
court order provisionally certifying a class for purposes of:

     -- sending out notice,
     -- setting a Fairness Hearing date, and
     -- considering the settlement

of a class action concerning tenant-screening reports about
landlord-tenant cases filed in the New York City Housing Court.

Plaintiffs alleged that the tenant-screening reports were
inaccurate and violated federal and state laws.  The company
contested the claims, and the Court initially denied class
certification, but FAS agreed to settle to eliminate the expense
and distraction of further litigation and to devote more
attention to its expanding risk mitigation and business
solutions business.

The settlement agreement, if finally approved, will result in a
final judgment and the dismissal of a case pending in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  There
will be a hearing on June 16, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom
12D at Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl
Street, New York, NY 10007-1312 to determine whether the
settlement should be finally approved.

The proposed settlement includes:

      (1) programmatic enhancements and changes to FAS's systems
          and processes;

      (2) direct monetary payments up to $100 to certain class
          members who were the subject of a tenant screening
          report; and

     (3) general class relief to further increase consumer and
         landlord awareness of the tenant screening process and
         their respective rights and obligations.

A copy of the settlement agreement and related documents are
found at http://www.tenantreportsettlement.comand the Office of
the Clerk, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street,
New York, NY 10007-1312.

For more information, contact plaintiffs' lawyer: James B.
Fishman, Esq. of Fishman & Neil, LLP, Phone: +1-212-897-5840; or
For First Advantage SafeRent: Renee Svec, Director -
Corporate Marketing and Communications of First Advantage
SafeRent, Inc., Phone: +1-727-214-3440, E-mail: rsvec@FADV.com.


APPLE COMPUTER: Introduces Software to Control iPod Volume
----------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer Inc. is providing a way to limit the volume of
the popular iPod devices.  A statement issued by Apple said the
company is providing some iPod owners the ability to limit
volume, a feature available to some European consumers for
years.  According to the Apple statement, the software only
works with the iPod nano and the fifth-generation iPod.

In 2002, Apple was forced to pull devices from stores in France
after the country imposed a limit of 100 decibels (DB) for
personal listening devices.  Shortly thereafter, the company
introduced updated software that limited the volume output, but
did not offer similar safeguards in the U.S.

According to the complaint filed in January, Apple devices can
reach 130 DB -- comparable to an air raid siren -- well beyond
safe listening levels.  Studies indicate that hearing loss may
occur after 28 seconds of sound at 115 DB, the complaint claims.

John K. Patterson of Louisiana filed the suit in the U.S.
District Court in San Jose, California, complaining that Ipod
players are "inherently defective," and they did not carry
adequate warning regarding the health risk (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 3, 2006).

The suit was styled "Patterson v. Apple Computer (5:06-cv-00699-
PVT)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.
Representing the plaintiff(s) are: Steve W. Berman of Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900,
Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-7292; Fax: 206-623-0594; E-
mail: steve@hbsslaw.com; and Lee M. Gordon of Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro, LLP, 700 South Flower Street, Suite 2940, Los
Angeles, CA 90017-4101, Phone: 213/330-7150; Fax: 213/330-7152;
E-mail: lee@hbsslaw.com.


BOSTON COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Amended Securities Suit in Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Communications Group, Inc. (BCGI) faces an amended
securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts styled, "Rosenbaum Capital LLC, et al.
v. Boston Communications Group, Inc."

In June 2005, a putative class action complaint was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, against
the company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial
Officer on behalf of persons who purchased the company's common
stock between November 15, 2000 and May 20, 2005.  The complaint
was amended on October 12, 2005 to modify the commencement date
to June 6, 2002.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act as well as Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by allegedly failing to disclose adverse
facts regarding the Freedom Wireless, Inc. lawsuit, including
that the company had willfully infringed the Freedom Wireless
patents.

The company has responded to the amended complaint and filed for
a motion to dismiss the suit.  It intends to contest the lawsuit
vigorously and believes that the company and the two executive
officers named as defendants have meritorious defenses to the
allegations set forth in the lawsuit.

The suit is styled, "Rosenbaum Capital LLC, et al. v. Boston
Communications Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-11165," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
under Judge William G. Young.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

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

     (2) Gilman & Pastor, Stonehill Corporate Center 999
         Broadway Suite 500, Saugus, MA, 01906, Phone:
         781.231.7850, Fax: 781.231.7840;

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

     (4) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com.


ELECTRO SOURCE: Recalls Battery Charger Due to Fire, Burn Risks
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Electro Source LLC, of Vernon, California is recalling 231,000
Pelican Power Brick Battery Charger.

The company said the battery charger's circuit board can
overheat and cause its plastic cover to melt which poses a fire
and burn hazard to consumers.  Electro Source LLC has received
143 reports of the recalled battery charger overheating
including one report of fire damage.  No injuries have been
reported.

The recalled Pelican Power Brick is an external recharging
battery pack that sells as a separate accessory to be used with
the Sony PSP (PlayStation Portable).  The Pelican Power Brick
consists of two lithium-ion battery cells connected via a
circuit board and mounted in a small plastic housing.  The
battery cells are charged when plugged into an electrical outlet
using the PSP AC adaptor.  Once charged, it is used to recharge
the PSP.  The model number for the battery charger, PL-6018, can
be found on the back of the unit.  The battery charger was sold
alone and also as part of several kits containing other
accessories by Electro Source LLC.  Sony neither manufactured
nor distributed the Pelican Power Brick.  Only the Pelican Power
Brick is included in this recall.

The battery charger were made in China and sold at electronics
and discount department stores nationwide, catalogs, and various
Web sites from April 2005 through March 2006 for about $20 when
sold alone, and for between $40 and $50 when sold as part of
certain kits packaged by Electro Source LLC.

Consumers are advised to stop using the battery charger
immediately and contact Electro Source LLC to receive a choice
of several replacement products.

Consumer Contact: Electro Source, Phone: (800) 263-1156; Web
site: http://www.powerbrickrecall.net.


EPCOR UTILITIES: Named in $1.25 Lawsuit Over Pension Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------
EPCOR Utilities Inc. said at its 2005 financial results that it
and approximately 450 other employers, participating in certain
Alberta public pension plans including the Local Authorities
Pension Plan, have been named in a $1.25 billion class action
regarding pension benefits.

Headquartered in Edmonton, Alberta -- http://www.epcor.ca--
EPCOR Utilities Inc. is one of Canada's top providers of energy
and energy-related services and products, providing power and
water solutions to customers in Alberta, Ontario, British
Columbia and the U.S. Pacific Northwest.   EPCOR builds, owns
and operates power plants, electrical transmission and
distribution networks, water and wastewater treatment
facilities, and infrastructure.


GEICO: Insurance Policies Bias Against Blacks, Lawsuit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC (Washington, DC) and
Nichols Kaster & Anderson (Minneapolis) filed a nationwide class
action against GEICO alleging that the company discriminates
against African Americans/Blacks by regularly charging them
higher insurance premiums than it charges Caucasians with the
same driving records.

The suit is filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota in Minneapolis.  It is alleging that GEICO, the fourth
largest private-passenger auto insurer in the U.S., with over
seven million policyholders, uses occupation and level of
education of its policyholders to determine the premiums it
charges them.  As a result, customers with less education and/or
hold occupations that require no more than a high school diploma
are considered a greater risk -- and thus charged higher
premiums -- than customers with more education and/or hold
occupations that require advanced degrees.

GEICO uses these factors in 43 states and the District of
Columbia.  Instead of correlating with risk, these factors
correlate with race.  According to a March 25, 2005, U.S. Census
report, 30.6% of Caucasians possess a bachelor's degree or
higher, while only 17.6% of Africans Americans/Blacks have such
education.  Well aware of these differences in average education
levels for Caucasians and African American/Blacks, GEICO's use
of education and occupation reflects the knowing and purposeful
use of race to set its auto insurance rates, a statement from
Cohen, Milstein said.

Nor did GEICO disclose its use of education level and occupation
to the public or to the state insurance commissioners.  Instead,
they are hidden among the company's underwriting criteria,
rather than disclosed among its rate information.

The plaintiffs are asking the Court to declare GEICO's policy
and practice discriminatory, and issue an injunction prohibiting
the use of occupation and level of education as factors in
GEICO's underwriting policies.  The plaintiffs are also seeking
monetary relief to redress the alleged discrimination.

"GEICO exploits the racial divide in America by linking its auto
insurance rates to the levels of education and occupations of
its policy holders," said Joseph M.Sellers, a partner with
Cohen, Milstein in Washington who represents the plaintiffs.
"Exploiting widely recognized and longstanding differences in
education attained by African Americans and Caucasians in
America, GEICO has linked its auto insurance rates to the levels
of education and occupations of its policy holders.  GEICO
divides this nation by presuming that people with limited
education pose greater insurance risks than do well-educated
people, a stereotype that is belied by driver behavior on every
road in this country."

A copy of the complaint is available at http://www.cmht.com.

The suit is filed by Patricia Amos, Venetta Khan, and Jeri
Prince on behalf of themselves and all others similarly against
GEICO Corporation, Government Employees Insurance Company, GEICO
General Company, GEICO Casualty Company, and GEICO Indemnity
Company.  Representing the plaintiffs are: James H. Kaster (MN
Bar No. 53946), Sofia B. Andersson (MN Bar No. 350709), Matt C.
Helland (MN Bar No. 346124) of Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP
4600 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-
2242, Phone: (612) 256-3202; Fax: (612) 338-4878.


HAVENS STEEL: Parties Reach Settlement in Mo. ERISA Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a suit filed by former employees of
Havens Steel Co. against certain of the company's officers
accused of failing to comply with the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) in the administration of an employee stock-
ownership plan, The Kansas City Business Journal reports.

Attorneys for both sides told The Kansas City Business Journal
that they wouldn't discuss details of the proposed settlement
until U.S. District Judge Scott Wright has ruled on it.

Back in December 5, 2005, Judge Wright certified a class of
former employees in the suit, which was filed in November 2004
by eight former Havens employees.  The suit sought class action
status on behalf of some 500 current and former Havens employees
who participated in the employee stock-ownership plan, which two
years ago was worth nearly $40 million as well as unspecified
damages, (Class Action Reporter, January 6, 2006).

An amended complaint filed in November 2005 alleged that the
officers allegedly paid themselves "huge bonuses" and invested
the plan's money solely in company stock, which was contrary to
interests of the employee stock-ownership plan's participants,
the amended complaint said.

In March 2004, the company filed for bankruptcy, allegedly
rendering the employees' stock "valueless," according to the
suit.  The complaint alleges that the officers breached their
fiduciary duties to the plan from Dec. 21, 2001, through July
22, 2004.

Plaintiffs in the case are Jack and Janet Kirse of Lee's Summit;
Betty Jean Pitchford of Kansas City, Kan.; Lori Michaels, James
Hall and Glenna Grafton of Kansas City; Ronald Berr of Quenemo,
Kan.; and Keith Feuerborn of Ottawa, Kan.  Neil Sader of Kansas
City-based Sader & Garvin, LLC, represented all of them.

The former officers who were named as defendants in the case
are: CEO Kenneth McCullough and former officers Donald Price,
Jesse Bechtold, Tom Collins and Steven Cowan.  Bob Tomaso of
Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin, LLP's St. Louis office
represents Messrs. Price, Bechtold, Collins and Cowan, while Mr.
McCullough was represented by Tim O'Brien of Shook Hardy &
Bacon's Overland Park office.

The suit was styled, "Kirse, et al. v. McCullough et al., Case
No. 4:04-cv-01067-SOW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri, under Judge Scott O. Wright.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Neil S. Sader of Sader & Garvin, LLC, 4739 Belleview
         Ave., Suite 300, Kansas City, MO 64112-1364, Phone:
         (816) 561-1818, Fax: (816) 561-0818, E-mail:
         nsader@sadergarvin.com;

     (2) Andrew Rainer of McRoberts, Roberts & Rainer, LLP, 53
         State Ave., Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-722-8222; and

     (3) Gregory M. Garvin of Sader & Garvin, LLC, 4739
         Belleview Ave., Ste. 300, Kansas City, MO 64112-1364,
         Phone: 816-561-1818, Fax: 816-561-0818, E-mail:
         ggarvin@sadergarvin.com.

Representing the defendants are, Timothy M O'Brien and J. Eugene
Balloun of Shook, Hardy & Bacon, Phone: (913) 451-6060, Fax:
913-451-8879, E-mail: tobrien@shb.com and eballoun@shb.com; and
Shelley A. Runion and Robert J. Tomaso of Blackwell, Sanders,
Peper, Martin, LLP, Phone: (816) 983-8221 and (314) 345-6433,
Fax: (816) 983-8080 and (314) 345-6543, E-mail:
srunion@blackwellsanders.com and rtomaso@blackwellsanders.com.


ILLINOIS POWER: Sued Over Alleged Breach of Service Contract
------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois Power Company is facing a suit filed by three St. Clair
County residents over alleged violations of contractual
obligations, Belleville Bureau reports.

The proposed class action was filed in St. Clair Circuit Court
by Robert Boze, Charles Jinkerson and Marsha Holland.  It
alleged that the company failed to inspect and maintain the
connections between its wires and its customers' homes at the
point of delivery.  The proposed class includes "all residential
electric customers of IP during the period from ten years before
the date this complaint was filed through the date of class
certification who reside in Illinois."

Excluded from the case are "any IP customers who suffered fires
which originated in the meter boxes, all IP officers, directors,
and attorneys', all hearing and trial judges in this case and
all judges sitting on the Illinois Court of Appeals and the
Illinois Supreme Court are excluded."  Plaintiffs estimate the
potential class at more than 600,000.  They are seeking, among
others:

     -- compensatory damages as a result of the firm's breach of
        contract, including pre- and post-judgment interest;

     -- cost and expenses, including counsel fees and expert
        fees for bringing the class action; and

     -- specific performance award, or permanent injunction
        against IP requiring them to inspect and maintain the
        points of delivery.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

     (1) Robert Sprague and Donald Urban of Belleville;

     (2) Marc Stanley, Roger Mandell, and Martin Woodward
         Stanley, Mandel & Iola
         On the Net: http://www.smi-law.com;and

     (3) Andrew Waters, Charles Siegel and Jay Stuemke
         Waters & Kraus LLP
         On the Net: http://www.autismlawyer.net/


MACATAWA BANK: Suits V. Trade Partners Viaticals Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Macatawa Bank Corporation is a defendant in a purported class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Michigan, styled, "Jenkins, et al. v. Macatawa Bank Corporation,
et al., Case No. 1:03-cv-00321-RHB."

Forrest W. Jenkins and Russell S. Vail filed the suit on May
2003, against the company.  The purported class included
investors who invested in limited liability companies formed by
Trade Partners, Inc. of the former Grand Bank.

On November 6, 2003, the court permitted the plaintiffs to amend
their complaint to expand the purported class to include all
individuals who invested in Trade Partners viatical investments.
The class has not been certified.  The court had stayed this
action to avoid interference with the process of the
receivership proceedings, but the stay was lifted in July 2005.

The plaintiffs allege that Grand Bank breached certain escrow
agreements, breached its fiduciary duties, acted negligently or
grossly negligently with respect to the plaintiff's investments
and violated the Michigan Uniform Securities Act.

The amended complaint seeks certification of the action as a
class action, unspecified damages and other relief.  The company
has answered this complaint denying the material allegations and
raising certain affirmative defenses.

The suit is styled, "Jenkins, et al. v. Macatawa Bank
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:03-cv-00321-RHB," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan under
Judge Robert Holmes Bell.  Representing the plaintiffs are,
Henry L. Guikema of Henry L. Guikema, P.C., 125 Ottawa NW, Ste.
333, Grand Rapids, MI 49503, Phone: (616) 235-2601, E-mail:
h.guik@worldnet.att.net; and Jeffrey Donald Meyer and Cynthia
Reba Levin Moulton of Moulton & Meyer, L.L.P., 600 Travis, Ste.
6700, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: (713) 353-6699, E-mail:
jmeyer@moultonmeyer.com and cmoulton@moultonmeyer.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Harold M. Hermanson of Harold M. Hermanson, PC, 201
         AmeriBank Bldg., 896 Jefferson St., Muskegon, MI 49440,
         Phone: (231) 727-8058;

     (2) Thomas F. Koernke of Koernke & Crampton, P.C., 940
         Monroe Ave., NW, Ste. 250, Grand Rapids, MI 49503,
         Phone: (616) 458-7900, Fax: (616) 458-7997, E-mail:
         tkoernke@grandlaw.com;

     (3) John A. Smietanka, O-155 44th St., SW, Ste. 1,
         Grandville, MI 49418, Phone: (616) 667-2217, E-mail:
         jas@smietankalaw.com; and

     (4) Larry C. Willey of Willey Chamberlain & Yates, LLP, 940
         Trust Bldg., 40 Pearl St., NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49503,
         Phone: (616) 458-2212, Fax: (616) 458-1158, E-mail:
         tracy@wcylaw.com.


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Ariz. Court Dismisses Consolidated Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against the company without
prejudice.

In April and May 2004, two class actions were filed against the
company, its President and Chief Executive Officer, Carl J.
Johnson, and its Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer, William J. Hemelt, alleging violations of federal
securities laws.

On January 18, 2005, the cases were consolidated and the court
appointed James V. Sircusano as lead plaintiff.  The amended
complaint also includes the company's Vice President of Research
and Development, Timothy L. Clarot, as a defendant and was filed
March 4, 2005.

The consolidated case is styled, "Sircusano, et al. vs. Matrixx
Initiatives, Inc., et al., Case No. CV04-0886 PHX DKD," and was
filed in the U.S. District Court for District of Arizona.

The lawsuit alleges that between October 2003 and February 2004
(the Class Period), the company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding its Zicam Cold Remedy product,
including failing to adequately disclose to the public the
details of allegations that the company's products caused damage
to the sense of smell and of certain of the product liability
lawsuits in faces.

The company filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit and, on March
8, 2006, the company received an Order dated December 15, 2005
granting the motion to dismiss the case without prejudice.

The suit is styled, "Siracusano, et al.v. Matrixx Initiatives,
et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00886-MHM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Mary H. Murguia.
Representing the plaintiffs are Ramzi Abadou, Lukas F. Ohltz and
Scott M. Saham of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP, 401 B St, Ste 1600, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619) 231-
1058, E-mail: LukeO@Lerachlaw.com and ScottS@Lerachlaw.com; and
Francis Joseph Balint, Jr. and Andrew S. Friedman of Bonnett
Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, 2901 N Central Ave, Ste 1000,
Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311, Phone: 602-274-1100, Fax: 602-274-1199,
E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com and afriedman@bffb.com.

Representing the company are Maureen Beyers and David Rosenbaum
of Osborn Maledon, P.A., 2929 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ
85012-2794, Phone: 602-640-9305, Fax: 602-664-2053, E-mail:
mbeyers@omlaw.com and drosenbaum@omlaw.com; and Amy J. Longo,
Molly J. Magnuson, David B. Rosenbaum and Michael Yoder of
O'Melveny & Myers, 610 Newport Center Dr, 17th Floor, Newport
Beach, CA 92660, Phone: 949-823-7175, Fax: 949-823-6994, E-mail:
alongo@omm.com, mmagnuson@omm.com and myoder@omm.com.


MICHIGAN: Court Allows Suit Over Privatization of Local Projects
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John Murphy heard on March 31 argument in a class action
brought on behalf of all City of Detroit employees and
Taxpayers, claiming violation of the Privatization Ordinance.
The judge denied the city's motion to dismiss the lawsuit and
enjoined the city, and its Detroit Building Authority, from any
privatization that violates the Privatization Ordinance.

The Privatization Ordinance requires that, before the city
privatizes any work done by city employees, it must first meet a
number of requirements.  These requirements include:

      -- a declaration that the work will be done cheaper by the
         private contractors as opposed to the city employees,
         and

      -- an analysis of the impact of the privatization on city
         employees and the citizenry.

The city employees then have the right to bid for the work, to
see if they can beat the price of the private contractors.  The
end result is that the city gets the work done for the cheapest
price, a result sorely needed in this depressed economic
environment.

The lawsuit, "Albert Garrett et al. vs. City of Detroit,"
alleges that many City of Detroit employees had been laid off as
a result of privatization.  It also alleged that the costs of
the privatization, which violated the Ordinance, were far in
excess of the labor costs paid by the city to its employees for
the same work.  For instance, employees for the Department of
Transportation are paid between $19 and $21 dollars per hour.
One subcontractor located in Chicago, Illinois does the same
work at an hourly rate between $45 and $53 per hour.

Albert Garrett, lead plaintiff in the class action, lauded this
ruling as a great victory: "The city employees have been arguing
for years that it costs more to privatize than to have the city
employees do the same work.  We have contracts reflecting that
the city is paying private contractors about two times the
amount, in labor costs, than the city employees receive (even
including fringe benefits such as pension and health care).
That is the point of the Privatization Ordinance: the city
employees have a chance to bid against the private contractors,
to beat their price.  That is fair and just, and we applaud the
court for upholding the validity of the Ordinance."

Interestingly, the City of Detroit's lawyers, Corporation
Counsel, argued that the Privatization Ordinance was not valid.
This position pitted the city lawyers against their own client,
the City of Detroit, claiming that the action taken by the city
in enacting the Ordinance was improper.  The judge found this
argument disingenuous.

Ultimately, the judge ruled that he "enjoin(s) any further
attempts by the city to privatize that do not comply with the
ordinance."  The court placed a stay on its own ruling, in
anticipation of the city's appeal to a higher court.  Plaintiff
Garrett stated that this ruling was significant: "There have
been hundreds of city employees laid off due to the
privatization of the their work.  This ruling gives them the
right to seek damages with the court, and stops this illegal
activity from happening in the future.  Now the city employees
have a fair chance to compete for their jobs."


MICHIGAN: Federal Judge Finds Video Game Law Unconstitutional
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. George Caram Steeh, U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of Michigan, issued a permanent injunction against a
Michigan bill that sought to ban video game sales to minors,
ruling that the bill is unconstitutional and cannot be
implemented.

The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) hailed the
decision.  "Judge Steeh's ruling represents a sweeping rejection
of the state's claims regarding the harmful effects of violent
video games and we will move immediately for reimbursement of
the substantial legal fees incurred in this court fight which
the state could have, and should have, never triggered," said
Douglas Lowenstein, President of the ESA, the trade group
representing U.S. computer and video game publishers.

"It is noteworthy that Judge Steeh specifically chastised the
state for not doing what we urged them to do from the start,
which is to find less restrictive ways to help ensure that
parents make sound choices about the games their kids play.
With this wasteful litigation behind us, we hope the state will
now do just that and we remain ready to work cooperatively with
them."

In his decision, the judge firmly dismissed the state's claim
that the interactive nature of video games makes them less
entitled to First Amendment protection.  "The interactive, or
functional aspect, in video games can be said to enhance the
expressive elements even more than other media by drawing the
player closer to the characters and becoming more involved in
the plot of the game than by simply watching a movie or
television show," Judge Steeh wrote.  "It would be impossible to
separate the functional aspects of a video game from the
expressive, inasmuch as they are so closely intertwined and
dependent on each other in creating the virtual experience."

Regarding the "science" presented by the state purporting to
show a link between violent games and violent behavior and
thoughts, the court said, "Dr. (Craig) Anderson's studies have
not provided any evidence that the relationship between violent
video games and aggressive behavior exists."  It added that the
evidence introduced alleging that new brain mapping studies show
a link between violent games and aggressive thought is equally
unpersuasive.  "The research not only fails to provide concrete
evidence that there is a connection between violent media and
aggressive behavior, it also fails to distinguish between video
games and other forms of media," the Judge wrote.

Addressing the state's claims that video games are more harmful
than TV because the player controls the action, the court said
there is no evidence to support such a claim, adding that "it
could just as easily be said that the interactive element in
video games acts as an outlet for minors to vent their violent
or aggressive behavior, thereby diminishing the chance they
would actually perform such acts in reality....Not only does the
Act not materially advance the state's stated interest, but it
appears to discriminate against a disfavored 'newcomer' in the
world of entertainment media.  Thus, 'singling out' the video
game industry does not advance the state's alleged goal," the
Judge concluded.

The ESA -- http://www.theESA.com-- is the U.S. association
dedicated to serving the business and public affairs needs of
the companies publishing interactive games for video game
consoles, handheld devices, personal computers, and the
Internet.  ESA members collectively account for more than 90
percent of the $7 billion in entertainment software sales in the
U.S. in 2005, and billions more in export sales of entertainment
software.


MICHIGAN: Inmates File Suit Over Water Contamination Incident
-------------------------------------------------------------
Inmates at three correctional facilities in two states are suing
the management of the centers for allegedly forcing them to
drink contaminated water last fall, according to The Morning
Sun.

The class action was filed in the Bay City court by 18 inmates
at St. Louis and Mid Michigan Correction Facilities along with
one Carson City inmate and seven John Does.  The defendants were
the warden, the Michigan Department of Corrections, its
director, and staff.

The suit said management did not do anything after St. Louis
drinking water, which supplies the facilities, tested positive
for p-CBSA, a byproduct of dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane, a
potent insecticide.  Meanwhile, St. Louis schools provided water
for students and faculty during the incident.  The Environmental
Protection Agency has declared the water safe to drink since,
but the plaintiffs want they be supplied with bottled water too.


NEW JERSEY: Day Laborers' Access to Muster Zone Still a Question
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action over the 2004 closure of the Throckmorton
Street muster zone near Rhea Street is still in mediation after
two years.

Mediator Daniel J. O'Hern, a retired State Supreme Court
Justice, however, said access to the muster zone might not be
solved through current litigation, according to Asbury Park
Press.

The zone, where day laborers, primarily Hispanic immigrants,
many of them illegal, bid for work on a daily basis as employers
stop for help, was closed on December 31, 2003 after several
years in operation.  The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and
Education Fund, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education
Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union filed the suit
against the borough of Freehold, New Jersey on behalf of three
advocacy groups -- the Monmouth County Residents For Immigrants
Rights, the Committee for Workers Progress and Social Welfare
and the National Day Laborers Organizing Network.

The suit charged the borough with embarking on "a deliberate and
coordinated campaign to harass Latino day laborers and deprive
them of their constitutional and civic rights as provided under
U.S. and New Jersey law."  The borough allegedly "intends to
prohibit these laborers from expressing their availability for
employment at a location (where) these laborers gather to find
work," the suit states. The suit also alleges the closure as a
free speech violation.  It asked the Trenton federal court to
order the reopening of a hiring area for day laborers.  The
muster zone on a publicly owned portion of the site was reopened
in March 2004.

Recently, the mediator in the case said the question of how much
of the property is owned by the Consolidated Rail Corporation of
Philadelphia, and what portion is public, could remain
unresolved because Conrail is not a party in the case.  Conrail
would have to prove its title through a different venue, he
said.

According to a Feb. 5, 2004 issue of Class Action Reporter, the
borough is represented by lawyer Robert Podvey of Podvey,
Meanor, Catenacci, Hildner, Cocoziello & Chattman P.C.
The Legal Center, One Riverfront Plaza, Eighth Floor
Newark, New Jersey 07102-5497 (Essex Co.), Phone: 973-623-1000,
Fax: 973-623-9131.

Representing the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund
is Evette Soto-Maldonado.


NEW YORK: Settlement Reached Limiting Use of Force in Prisons
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Denny Chin approved a settlement requiring
the installation of hundreds of video cameras in jails and
better training of guards, reports say.

The deal was agreed by lawyers for 22 present and former jail
inmates and New York City.  The settlement, which could
potentially cost the city millions of dollars in video
monitoring system upgrades, addresses the issue of brutality in
prisons.

The settlement requires the City to pay $2.2 million to
plaintiffs for violent encounters.  Awards are estimated to
range between $15,000 and $575,000.  Guards will also be
encouraged to try to videotape potentially violent encounters.
As part of their training, they will be required to demonstrate
defense techniques to deal with unruly inmates.

The suit was filed in 2002 by Legal Aid Society on behalf of
inmates claiming jail guards routinely use excessive force
towards inmates.  It involves 11 jails that were not already
subject to orders or decrees obtained in four prior federal
lawsuits.


NEW YORK: Police Department's Photo, Videotape Policy Attacked
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles S. Haight recently heard arguments on a class
action questioning legality of police taking and keeping
videotape and photographs of people engaging in lawful political
demonstrations, The North County Gazette reports.

The class action, known as Handschu for one of the plaintiffs,
was brought on behalf of political activists who claimed that
surveillance and infiltration of political organizations in the
1960's subverted their right to free speech.  They charged that
police spies instigated trouble or polluted their messages.

In recent developments, the New York Civil Liberties Union's
attorneys and other counsel for the class is asking Judge Haight
to enjoin the police from implementing a regulation, Interim
Order 47, that it adopted in late 2004 regarding surveillance of
political activity.  The New York City Police Department claims
that under the regulation, it may photograph and videotape all
political activity in New York City without restriction, and
that it may retain those photographs and videotapes for
unlimited periods of time.

According to the report, a consent decree in the Handschu case,
however, provides that police may engage in the surveillance of
political activity only when there is reason to believe that
criminal activity is taking place or will take place.

The New York Police have been photographing and videotaping
demonstrators during the months leading up to the Republican
National Convention in August 2004.

The suit is styled, "Handschu, et al. v. Special Serv. Div., et
al., Case No. 1:71-cv-02203-CSH-SCS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Charles S. Haight with referral to Judge Sol Schreiber.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Jethro M. Eisenstein of Profeta & Eisenstein, 14 Wall
         St., 22nd Flr., New York, NY 10005-2101, Phone: 212-
         577-6500, Fax: 212-577-6702, E-mail: pe1616@aol.com;

     (2) Franklin Siegel of Siegel, Deale, Stavis, Cole, and
         Ratner of Center for Constitutional Rights, 666
         Broadway, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10012-9985, Phone:
         212-614-6464; and

     (3) Martin R. Stolar of Martin Stolar, 351 Broadway (4th.
         FL.), New York, NY 10013, Phone: (212) 219-1919.

Representing the defendants is Gail Donoghue of Corporation
Counsel of the City of New York, 100 Church St., Room 6-110, New
York, NY 10007, Phone: (212) 788-0500.


ONEOK INC: Faces Suit in Del. Over Northern Border Transactions
---------------------------------------------------------------
ONEOK, Inc. and some of its affiliates were named as defendants
in a purported class action and derivative complaint filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County and styled, " Richard Manson v. Northern Plains
Natural Gas Company, LLC, et. al., Civil Action No. 1973-N."

On March 2, 2006, a holder of limited partnership units of
Northern Border Partners, L.P. (Northern Border) filed the
complaint on behalf of a putative class of all holders of
Northern Border limited partnership units against Northern
Border, TransCanada Corporation, the Company and some of its
affiliates, and the individual members of the Policy Committee
of Northern Border.

The plaintiff claims that the transactions the Company announced
on February 15, 2006, including the sale of some of its assets
to Northern Border, an increase of the Company's general partner
interest in Northern Border to 100 percent and the sale by
Northern Border of 20 percent of its interest in Northern Border
Pipeline Company to TC PipeLines, LP, will constitute a breach
of Northern Border's partnership agreement and a breach of
defendants' fiduciary duties.

The plaintiff seeks to enjoin the transactions or to rescind
them if the transactions are completed prior to entry of a final
judgment in the case.  The plaintiff also seeks to recover
damages on behalf of the class for the profits and any special
benefits obtained by the defendants, as well as interest, costs,
attorneys' fees and expert fees.


ONEOK INC: Kans. Court Mulls Class Certification of Price I, II
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 26th Judicial District, District Court of Stevens County,
Kansas, Civil Department, is yet to rule on plaintiffs' motion
for class certification of two lawsuits filed against ONEOK,
Inc.  The suits involved are styled:

     (1) "Will Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et al." (f/k/a
         Quinque Operating Company, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et
         al.), 26th Judicial District, District Court of Stevens
         County, Kansas, Civil Department, Case No. 99C30
         ("Price I"); and

     (2) "Will Price and Stixon Petroleum, et al. v. Gas
         Pipelines, et al.," 26th Judicial District, District
         Court of Stevens County, Kansas, Civil Department, Case
         No. 03C232 ("Price II").

In Price I, plaintiffs brought the suit on May 28, 1999, against
ONEOK, Inc., five of its subsidiaries and one of its divisions,
as well as approximately 225 other defendants.  Additionally, in
connection with the completion of the company's acquisition of
the natural gas liquids (NGL) businesses owned by several Koch
companies, on July 1, 2005, the company acquired Koch
Hydrocarbon, LP (renamed ONEOK Hydrocarbon, L.P.), which is also
one of the defendants in this case.

Plaintiffs sought class certification for its claims that the
defendants had underpaid gas producers and royalty owners
throughout the U.S. by intentionally understating both the
volume and the heating content of purchased gas.  After
extensive briefing and a hearing, the Court refused to certify
the class sought by plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs then filed an amended petition limiting the purported
class to gas producers and royalty owners in Kansas, Colorado
and Wyoming and limiting the claim to undermeasurement of
volumes.

In Price II, the plaintiffs filed this action on May 12, 2003,
after the Court had denied class status in Price I.  Plaintiffs
claim that 21 groups of defendants, including ONEOK, Inc. and
four of its subsidiaries, intentionally underpaid gas producers
and royalty owners by understating the heating content of
purchased gas in Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming.

Additionally, in connection with the completion of the company's
acquisition of the natural gas liquids (NGL) businesses owned by
several Koch companies, on July 1, 2005, the company acquired
Koch Hydrocarbon, LP (renamed ONEOK Hydrocarbon, L.P.), which is
also one of the defendants in this case.

Price II has been consolidated with Price I for the
determination of whether either or both cases may properly be
certified as class actions.  On April 1, 2005, oral arguments on
the plaintiffs' motion to certify the cases as a class action
were conducted.  The Court has not yet ruled on the class
certification issue.


ONEOK INC: Court Grants Initial Approval of Cornerstone Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement with certain defendants, including ONEOK,
Inc. in the class action styled, "Cornerstone Propane Partners,
L.P., et al. v. E Prime, Inc., ONEOK Energy Marketing and
Trading Company, L.P., ONEOK, Inc., and Calpine Energy services,
L.P., Case No. 04-CV-00758."

The company and its wholly owned subsidiary, ONEOK Energy
Services, L.P. (formerly ONEOK Energy Marketing and Trading
Company, L.P.) were named as two of the defendants in the
lawsuit, which was filed on February 2, 2004, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  It was
brought on behalf of persons who bought and sold natural gas
futures and options contracts on the New York Mercantile
Exchange during the years 2000 through 2002.

The Complaint seeks class certification, actual damages in
unspecified amounts for alleged violations of the Commodities
Exchange Act, recovery of costs of the suit, including
attorney's fees, and other appropriate relief.

On August 17, 2004, this case was consolidated for all purposes
with a related lawsuit, which names a number of other defendants
in the energy industry.  Plaintiffs in the related case assert
allegations similar to those alleged against the company in this
case.  On October 3, 2005, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification without a hearing.

On February 3, 2006, plaintiffs' filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement with certain defendants,
including the ONEOK entities.  The Court approved plaintiffs'
motion on February 8, 2006.

The consolidated suit is styled, "Cornerstone Propane v. Reliant
Energy, et al, Case No. 1:03-cv-06186-VM-AJP," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Victor Marrero and Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

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

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

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

Representing the company is Karen Michele Crupi-Fitzgerald of
Heller Ehrman, White & McAuliffe, LLP (NYC), Times Square Tower
7 Times Square, New York, NY 10036-6524, Phone: (212) 832-8300,
E-mail: kfitzgerald@hewm.com.


ONEOK INC: Parties Appeal Rulings in 2001 Gas Explosion Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties involved in two separate class actions filed against
ONEOK, Inc. and several of its subsidiaries in early 2001
relating to certain gas explosions in Hutchinson, Kansas are
appealing certain rulings in the cases to the Kansas Supreme
Court.  The suits are styled:

     (1) "Loyd Smith, et al.v. Kansas Gas Service Company, Inc.,
         ONEOK, Inc., Western Resources, Inc., Mid Continent
         Market Center, Inc., ONEOK Gas Storage, L.L.C., ONEOK
         Gas Storage Holdings, Inc., and ONEOK Gas
         Transportation, L.L.C., Case No. 01-C-0029, in the
         District Court of Reno County, Kansas, and

     (2) "Gilley, et al. v. Kansas Gas Service Company, Western
         Resources, Inc., ONEOK, Inc., ONEOK Gas Storage,
         L.L.C., ONEOK Gas Storage Holdings, Inc., ONEOK Gas
         Transportation L.L.C. and Mid Continent Market Center,
         Inc., Case No. 01-C-0057, in the District Court of Reno
         County, Kansas.

The court certified two separate classes of claimants, which
included all owners of residential real estate in Reno County,
Kansas whose property had allegedly declined in value, and
owners of businesses in Reno County whose income, had allegedly
suffered.

Both cases were adjudicated in September 2004 and resulted in
jury verdicts.  In the class action relating to the residential
claimants, the jury awarded $5 million in actual damages, which
is covered by insurance.  In the business owners' class action,
the jury rendered a defense verdict awarding no actual damages.

The jury rejected claims for punitive damages in both cases.  In
a separate hearing on Plaintiffs' attorney fees, the Judge
awarded $2,047,406 in fees and $646,090.78 in expenses, which is
also covered by insurance.

The company is reviewing its options for appeal of the
residential claimants' class action verdict and subsequent award
of attorney fees.  With the exception of a related lawsuit that
was filed in Sedgwick County, Kansas, which is now on appeal,
all other litigation regarding the gas explosions has been
resolved.

On April 11, 2005, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for a new
trial and denied a post trial motion filed by defendants.  The
business class plaintiffs and residential class plaintiffs have
filed notices of appeal.

The company filed a notice of appeal of the residential class
verdict and the attorney fee award.  The cases were transferred
to the Kansas Supreme Court for appeal.


ONEOK INC: Parties File Remand, Dismissal Motions for "Legget"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to either remand back to state court or to dismiss the
class action styled, "Samuel P. Leggett, et al. v. Duke Energy
Corporation, et al., Case No. 13847," are currently pending
before the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation.  The
suit was filed in the Chancery Court of Tennessee for the
Twenty-Fifth Judicial District at Somerville.

The suit was filed against ONEOK, Inc. and its wholly owned
subsidiary, ONEOK Energy Services Company (formerly ONEOK Energy
Marketing and Trading Company, L.P.) and several other energy
trading companies on January 28, 2005.   It seeks a class
certification of residential and business classes in Tennessee
for recovery of damages and injunctive relief based upon
allegations of a purported conspiracy to manipulate the price of
gas in Tennessee through the reporting of false prices to the
publishers of natural gas price indexes and other misconduct.

On March 7, 2005, the defendants removed this matter to federal
court.  On August 11, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred the case to the District of Nevada for
inclusion in the multidistrict litigation styled, "In Re Western
States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation (MDL-1566)."

The plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand the case to state
court, and defendants have moved to dismiss the case.  Both
motions are currently pending in the MDL proceeding.


ONEOK INC: Plaintiffs Oppose Transfer of "Learjet" Suit to Nev.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Vacate the Conditional Transfer
Order with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in
relation to the class action styled, "Learjet, Inc., et al. v.
ONEOK, Inc., et al.,"

The suit was originally filed in the District Court of Wyandotte
County, Kansas (Case No. 05-CV-1500).  It was then later removed
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Case No.
05-CV-2513-CM-JPO).

The case was then conditionally transferred to the multidistrict
litigation styled, "In Re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas
Antitrust Litigation (MDL-1566)," which is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada.

This class action was brought on November 4, 2005 on behalf of
Kansas direct purchasers of natural gas against ONEOK, Inc.,
ONEOK Energy Services Company, L.P., Kansas Gas Marketing
Company, and 20 other defendants.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things that during the period
from January 1, 2000 through October 31, 2002, the defendants
violated the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act by reporting false
prices to publishers of natural gas price indexes that increased
the price paid for natural gas purchased by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs seek damages based upon the full consideration
damage remedy of the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act, together
with court costs and attorney fees.  The case was removed from
state district court to federal district court on December 7,
2005.

The Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation issued a
conditional transfer order on January 23, 2006, conditionally
transferring this case to MDL Docket No. 1566 pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.  The plaintiffs
filed a Motion to Vacate the Conditional Transfer Order with the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on February 7, 2006.


PMA CAPITAL: Pa. Court Partially Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
reduced the alleged class period of a consolidated securities
class action against it to November 6, 2003.  The court issued
the decision when it partially granted PMA Capital Corporation's
motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed
against it and certain of its directors and key executive
officers.

Several suits were initially filed on behalf of alleged
purchasers of the Company's Class A Common Stock, 4.25% Senior
Convertible Debt due 2022 (4.25% Convertible Debt) and 8.50%
Monthly Income Senior Notes.

On June 28, 2004, the court issued an order consolidating the
cases under the caption "In Re PMA Capital Corporation
Securities Litigation (Civil Action No. 03-6121)" and appointing
Sheet Metal Workers Local 9 Pension Trust, Alaska Laborers
Employers Retirement Fund and Communications Workers of America
for Employees' Pension and Death Benefits as lead plaintiff.

On September 20, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an amended and
consolidated complaint on behalf of an alleged class of
purchasers of the company's securities between May 5, 1999 and
February 11, 2004.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder by making materially false and misleading public
statements and material omissions during the class period
regarding the company's underwriting performance, loss reserves
and related internal controls.

It also alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act by
making materially false and misleading statements in
registration statements and prospectuses about the company's
financial results, underwriting performance, loss reserves and
related internal controls.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, the right
to rescind the purchases of securities in the public offerings,
interest, and plaintiffs' reasonable costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees and expert fees.

By Order dated July 27, 2005, the District Court partially
granted the company's previously filed Motion to Dismiss the
Amended Complaint, dismissing all allegations with respect to
The PMA Insurance Group, and otherwise denied the Motion to
Dismiss.  By virtue of the Order, the alleged class period was
reduced to November 6, 2003.

The suit is styled "Augenbaum v. PMA Capital Corporation, et
al., Case No. 2:03-cv-06121-PBT," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge
Petrese B. Tucker.  Representing the plaintiffs are Robert A.
Kauffman, Arthur Stock and Sherri Savett of Berger and Montague,
1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-875-3000,
Fax: 215-875-4636, E-mail: astock@bm.net; and Salvatore J.
Graziano of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, New York NY 10119, Phone: 212-594-5300.

Representing the company are David M. Howard, Michael L.
Kichline and Joseph A. Tate of Dechert, LLP, 4000 Bell Atlantic
Tower, 1717 Arch Street, Philadelphia PA 19103-2973, Phone: 215-
994-2218, E-mail: michael.kichline@dechert.com,
david.howard@dechert.com and joseph.tate@dechert.com.


PPL CORP: Additional Lawsuit Filed Over Coal Ash Sludge Spill
-------------------------------------------------------------
Energy company PPL Corp. is facing a new suit over last summer's
coal ash sludge spill into the Delaware River, The Express-Times
reports.

Property owners along the Delaware River have filed a suit
against the company in Warren County Superior Court.  Residents
in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, including Milford property
owners, claimed the spill decreased property values, and exposed
residents to health risks.  They said in the suit PPL was
intentionally reckless, negligent and disregarded the health,
safety and property interests.  They are seeking compensatory
and punitive damages.

The proposed class could include residents as far south as 40
miles below the spill point on both sides of the river, the suit
claims, according to the report.  The suit is led by lawyer
Jeffrey Russo, his father Art Russo, and the Washington-based
law firm of Broscious and Fischer.

The lawyers filed a similar class action in the Pennsylvania
Commonwealth Court on behalf of homeowners along the river and
the non-profit group Delaware Riverside Conservancy.  The
Commonwealth Court did not hear the case, but allowed the
Delaware Riverside Conservancy and three homeowners near the
plant the right to join the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection's lawsuit against PPL.

Broscious and Fischer on the Net:
http://www.lawyers.com/brosciousfischer-law/index.jsp.

PPL Corporation -- http://www.pplweb.com/-- headquartered in
Allentown, Pa., controls nearly 11,500 megawatts of generating
capacity in the U.S., sells energy in key U.S. markets and
delivers electricity to customers in Pennsylvania, the United
Kingdom and Latin America.


QVC INC: Recalls Radio Control Toy Trucks Due to Fire Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
QVC Inc. of West Chester, Pennsylvania, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling 8,000
Thunder Spin R.C. road rage stunt machine toy trucks.  The toy
trucks are imported by Creative Innovations & Sourcing LLC, of
Pittsfield, Massachusetts.

The company said electrical circuits within the truck can
overheat causing the toy to overheat, posing a risk of fire.
There have been 14 reports of overheating, smoking, melting and
fire, including two reports of minor property damage to a
countertop and electrical receptacle.  No reports of injuries
have been received.

The Thunder Spin R.C. Road Rage Stunt Machine is 10 inches by 11
inches and was sold in blue or green.  The radio-controlled
Stunt Machine comes with one charger, one 9.6 V rechargeable
battery pack, and one 9 volt battery.  The model number, T23624,
is written only on the product's packaging, located above the
Universal Product Code.  The Stunt Machine comes with two orange
flame decals on each side of the vehicle, one of which includes
"Stunt Machine" in orange block lettering.  A "Thunder Spin"
logo can be found on the bottom of the vehicle.

The toy trucks were made in Hong Kong and sold at QVC Inc.
nationwide from November 2005 through December 2005 for between
$40 and $44.

Consumers are advised to stop using the product immediately.
QVC will send a letter to all purchasers of the product
notifying them of the product's recall and instructing them to
return the battery pack and battery charger to obtain a full
refund.

Picture of the recalled toy truck:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06539.jpg

Consumer Contact: QVC Inc., Phone: (800) 367-9444; Web site:
http://www.qvc.com.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Choking Hazard Prompts Recall of Toy Pliers
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
RadioShack Corp., of Fort Worth, Texas, is recalling about
25,000 child guidance toy pliers.

The company said the toy's sliding yellow knob can detach,
posing a choking hazard to young children.  RadioShack has
received three reports of the sliding yellow knob on these toys
detaching.  In two of these reports, children were found to be
mouthing these knobs.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves the Child Guidance "Busy Baby Activity Tool
Pliers," which are about 6-inches long.  The plastic toy has an
orange handle, a red center knob and a yellow sliding knob on
the side.  The red center knob has "child GUIDANCE" written on
it.  The battery-operated toy makes various electronic sounds,
plays music and has flashing lights.  The pliers also contain
multicolored beads.  A label on the back reads, "RadioShack."

The toy pliers were made in China and sold at RadioShack stores
nationwide and the RadioShack Web site from August 2004 through
February 2006 for about $6.

Consumers are advised to take these toy pliers away from
children and return them to any RadioShack store for a refund.

Picture of the recalled toy pliers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06121.jpg

Consumer Contact: RadioShack, Phone: (800) 843-7422; Web site:
http://www.radioshack.com.


RENT-A-CENTER INC: Settles Employee Wage, Hour Suits in Wash.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, Inc. settled several lawsuits, including class
actions in Washington state courts, alleging violations of the
state's wage and hour laws.

Initially a suit was filed in Clark County, Washington on June
26, 2001, styled, "Kevin Rose, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et
al."  The suit alleges similar violations of the wage and hour
laws of Washington as those in the action styled, "Rob Pucci, et
al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc."  The same law firm who represented
the class in Pucci sought to represent the purported class in
this matter.

On May 14, 2003, the Rose court denied the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in that case.  On June 3, 2003, the
plaintiffs in Rose filed a notice of appeal, which was
subsequently denied.  Following the denial by the Court of
Appeals, the plaintiffs' counsel filed 14 countywide putative
class actions in Washington with substantially the same claims
as in Rose.

In April 2005, the plaintiffs' counsel filed another putative
countywide lawsuit.  Subsequently the plaintiffs' counsel filed
another putative statewide lawsuit in federal court in
Washington, bringing the total to 16.  The purported classes in
the countywide class actions ranged from approximately 20
individuals to approximately 100 individuals.

In November 2005, the company reached an agreement in principle
to settle for $1.25 million all of the pending lawsuits and
related matters bought by the plaintiffs' counsel in Washington
on an agreed statewide class basis.

In connection therewith, the parties agreed to seek class
settlement in the Superior Court of Yakima County, Washington,
where one of the putative county-wide class actions, styled,
"Madrigal et al. v. Rent-A-Center," is pending.

On January 13, 2006, the court in Madrigal preliminarily
approved the class settlement.  The class consists of
approximately 1,300 class members, and notice of settlement has
now been sent.

Objections to the settlement are due March 15, 2006, and a final
approval hearing before the court is scheduled for April 21,
2006.

Accordingly, on December 31, 2005, approximately $1.3 million
was reserved to fund the prospective settlement as well as the
company's attorneys' fees.


SIGNALS CATALOGUE: Recalls Underground Neon Signs on Burn Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Signals Catalogue Corp., of Hudson, Ohio, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling 1,200
underground neon signs.

The Company said the AC adaptor used with these signs can
overheat, posing a burn hazard to consumers.  Signals Catalogue
Corp. has received four reports of the adaptors overheating.  No
injuries have been reported.

The London Underground Neon Wall Sign is made of metal with
glass tubing, containing neon gas and includes an AC adaptor.
It was sold under item #HB3163, but this is not written on the
sign.  It is 14.5 inches by 12 inches, and is a licensed product
from the London Transport Museum.  There is a label attached to
back of sign, which reads: "UNDERGROUND(R); (R)Transport for
London; Exclusively designed Underground product, (R) TfL
registered user no. 04/4088."

The signs were made in China and sold at Signals Catalogue and
online store (http://www.signals.com)exclusively from June 2005
through February 2006 for about $60.

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled signs
immediately.  Consumers will receive a prepaid postage mailing
box to return the sign for a full refund.

Picture of the recalled neon sign:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06540.jpg

Consumer Contact: Signals Customer Service, Phone: (800) 669-
5225 between 8:30 a.m. and 10 p.m. ET Monday through Friday; or
c/o Customer Service HB3163 Product Recall, 5581 Hudson
Industrial Parkway, Hudson, Ohio 44236.


SOUTHERN COPPER: Faces Consolidated Suit V. Minera Mexico Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Copper Corporation and Minera Mexico S.A. de C.V. face
a consolidated class action derivative lawsuit filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery (New Castle County) late in December
2004 and early January 2005 relating to the merger transaction
between the two parties.

On January 31, 2005, three actions, styled "Lemon Bay, LLP v.
Americas Mining Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 961-N,"
"Therault Trust v. Luis Palomino Bonilla, et al., and Southern
Copper Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 969-N," and "James
Sousa v. Southern Copper Corporation, et al., Civil Action No.
978-N" were consolidated into one action titled, "In re Southern
Copper Corporation Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Consol.
C.A. No. 961-N" and the complaint filed in Lemon Bay was
designated as the operative complaint in the consolidated
lawsuit.  The consolidated action purports to be brought on
behalf of the company's common stockholders.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
transaction is the result of breaches of fiduciary duties by the
company's directors and is not entirely fair to the company and
its minority stockholders.

It seeks, among other things, a preliminarily and permanent
injunction to enjoin the transaction, the award of damages to
the class, the award of damages to the company and such other
relief that the court deems equitable, including interest,
attorneys' and experts' fees and costs.


TECO ENERGY: Fla. Judge Partially Dismisses Consolidated Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
granted a motion by Teco Energy Inc. to dismiss a consolidated
securities class action alleging that it engaged in a fraudulent
scheme to misrepresent its financial condition and artificially
inflate its stock price, The Tampa Bay Business Journal reports.

The Company revealed the March 30, 2006 ruling in a recent
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  In
addition, the company also said in the filing that SEC staff
ended an informal probe of the Company without taking any
action.

Initially, purchasers of Company's securities filed a number of
securities class actions in August, September and October 2004
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
alleging disclosure violations under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.  These actions were later consolidated, (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 20, 2005).

On February 1, 2005, the Court entered its order appointing the
"TECO Lead Plaintiff Group," comprised of NECA-IBEW Pension Fund
(The Decatur Plan), Monroe County Employees Retirement System,
John Marder and Charles Korpak, as the Lead Plaintiff for the
Class and the law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP as Lead Counsel, (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 20,
2005).

On May 3, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class
Action Complaint for Securities Fraud.  The consolidated
complaint maintains the same class period, October 30, 2001 to
February 4, 2003, and the same parties as those contained in the
original complaint.  The nature of the claims, which relate to
the adequacy of the Company's disclosures and financial
reporting, also remains the same, (Class Action Reporter, Dec.
20, 2005).

The defendants filed their motion to dismiss on July 25, 2005,
and the plaintiffs have 60 days to file a response.  The
plaintiffs were granted an extension to file their response
through December 31, 2005, since the parties have agreed to
mediate the claims in mid-December 2005, in order to eliminate
uncertainty and ongoing expense associated with the litigation,
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 20, 2005).

The plaintiffs relied on analysts' reports that they alleged
revealed the Company's fraud, according to U.S. District Judge
James Whittemore's ruling.  But those reports, while pessimistic
about the company's future, did not identify any improprieties,
the judge wrote.

In addition, the judge also wrote that the plaintiffs did not
sufficiently establish a connection between the specific
fraudulent activity alleged and a drop in stock prices.  Thus in
dismissing part of the plaintiff's complaint and the request for
class action suit, Judge Whittemore wrote, "In sum, Plaintiffs
have not sufficiently alleged that defendant's fraud, as opposed
to poor market conditions, was the proximate cause of Teco's
stock price decline."

The judge however did not grant the Company's motion to dismiss
the entire case.  His reason for not granting that motion was
because he found that the plaintiffs did set forth allegations
of deception and manipulation that were sufficient to support a
fraud claim.

The suit is styled, "In Re: TECO Energy, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 8:04-cv-01948-JDW-EAJ," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge
James D. Whittemore.  Representing the plaintiffs are David A.
Rosenfeld, Samuel H. Rudman, William S. Lerach, Darren J.
Robbins, Stephen Richard Astley, David D. George and Jack Reise
of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, Phone:
561/750-3077, 619/231-1058 and 631/367-7100, Fax: 561/750-3364
and 631/367-1173, E-mail: sastley@lerachlaw.com,
dgeorge@lerachlaw.com, jreise@lerachlaw.com, and
drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com

Representing the company are:

     (1) Diane Knox, Richard A. Rosen of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
         Wharton & Garrison LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas,
         New York, NY 10019-6064, Phone: 212/373-3000;

     (2) Tracy A. Nichols, Holland & Knight LLP, 701 Brickell
         Ave., Suite 3000, P.O. Box 015441, Miami, FL 33131-
         5441, Phone: 305/374-8500, Fax: 305/789-7799, E-mail:
         tracy.nichols@hklaw.com; and

     (3) Steven B. Rosenfeld, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New
         York, NY 10019-6064, Phone: 212/373-3000, Fax: 212-757-
         3990.


TRIPOS INC: Reaches Initial Settlement in Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tripos Inc. disclosed in a regulatory filing it reached
preliminary agreement to settle securities fraud class actions
filed against it and two executives, St. Louis Post-Dispatch
reports.

The suit was filed in 2003 by holders of Tripos shares between
February 2000 and July 2002, who alleged the Company and its
executives inflated financial results and made false or
misleading statements about its prospects.  Officers named in
the suit were Chief Financial Officer Jim Rubin, and Chief
Executive John McAlister.  It was brought Ernst & Young LLP was
previously named co-defendant in the suit, but was dismissed.

The suit was styled "Montalvo v. Tripos, Inc., et al., case no.
4:03-cv-00995-SNL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, under Judge Stephen N.
Limbaugh.  Representing the plaintiffs is Don R. Lolli of Dysart
and Taylor, 4420 Madison Avenue, Suite 200, Kansas City, MO
64111, Phone: 816-931-2700, Fax: 816-931-7377, E-mail:
dlolli@dysarttaylor.com.

Representing the company is Cheryl W. Foung, Steven M. Schatz,
Diane M. Walters and Lloyd Winawer, Wilson and Sonsini, 650 Page
Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050, Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax:
650-565-5100, E-mail: cfoung@wsgr.com, sschatz@wsgr.com,
dwalters@wsgr.com, lwinawer@wsgr.com.


UNITED PARCEL: Storeowners Complain Against Shipping Rates
----------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service Inc. is facing a suit filed by The UPS
Store owners over allegedly burdensome shipping charges,
Business First of Louisville reports.

The suit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court against the
Company, its subsidiary Mail Boxes Etc. Inc., and other related
defendants.  The storeowners accuse UPS of intentional
misrepresentation, concealment and breach of contract.  They
said the Company offers cheaper rates to its direct-pickup
customers and imposes requirements burdensome to store owners.
They are seeking compensatory and punitive damages as well as
attorney's fees and costs of the lawsuit.

The Atlanta-based shipper sets the rates that more than 4,100
UPS Stores in the U.S. can charge customers for shipping under a
2003 contract with store owners to re-brand stores from Mail
Boxes Etc. to the UPS Store.

The Brown Shield Association, a group of about 300 UPS Store
franchisees, has retained as lawyer Robert Shapiro of
Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil and Shapiro, LLP
10250 Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor, Los Angeles,
California 90067, (Los Angeles Co.), Phone: 310-553-3000, Fax:
310-556-2920, E-mail: First Initial Surname@chrismill.com.

United Parcel -- http://www.ups.com-- transports more than 13
million packages and documents per business day throughout the
US and to more than 200 countries and territories.  It uses a
fleet of more than 88,000 motor vehicles and nearly 600 jet
aircraft to serve about 1.8 million shipping customers per
business day.


VERISIGN INC: Consumers Seek to Coordinate "Ringtone" Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the several consumer fraud class actions pending
in California courts over mobile phone "ringtones" and other
content by VeriSign, Inc.'s subsidiaries, Jamster International
Sarl and Jamba! GmbH, filed motions with the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation seeking to coordinate their cases into
a single proceeding for pre-trial purposes.

On March 8, 2005, plaintiff Charles Ford filed a putative class
action in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego,
alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, false advertising,
and violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act
and unfair competition laws relating to marketing and
advertising of mobile phone "ringtones" and other content by the
company's subsidiaries.

The complaint is brought on behalf of classes of persons who
responded to advertising by sending a text message on their
mobile phones or registered over the Internet to purchase
ringtone or other content.

On April 18, 2005, VeriSign removed the action to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.  The
Company disputes the claims in this action.

In August 2005 and October 2005, respectively, the company
received two additional similar putative class actions, one in
state court in Arkansas (Page v. VeriSign), alleging claims for
fraud, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Arkansas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

The other suit was filed in Federal District Court for the
Southern District of California (Herrington v. VeriSign),
alleging claims for fraud, negligence and negligent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, breach of
contract, breach of warranty, false advertising, and unfair
competition.

These lawsuits relate to the marketing and advertising of mobile
phone "ringtones" and other mobile phone content by the Company
and its subsidiary Jamster International Sarl.  The Company
disputes the claims in these actions.

In December 2005, plaintiffs in the Ford and Herrington cases
filed motions with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation seeking to coordinate the Ford, Page, and Herrington
actions into a single proceeding for pre-trial purposes.

The first identified suit is styled, "Ford v. Verisign, Inc.,
Case No. 05-CV-819," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California under Judge Jeffrey T Miller.
Representing the plaintiffs is Robert Walter Thompson of
Callahan McCune and Willis, 111 Fashion Lane, Tustin, CA 92780-
3397, Phone: (714) 730-5700.  Representing the company is Sean
O'Leary Morris, Arnold and Porter, 777 South Figueroa Street,
Suite 4400, Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844, Phone: (213) 243-4238.


VERISIGN INC: Continues to Face Calif. Consolidated Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Verisign, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers
and directors are defendants in a consolidated securities class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, styled, "In re VeriSign, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. C-02-2270 JW (HRL)."

Beginning in May of 2002, several class action complaints were
filed against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  These actions were
consolidated on July 26, 2002.

The consolidated action seeks unspecified damages for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company's stock
from January 25, 2001 through April 25, 2002.

An amended consolidated complaint was filed on November 8, 2002.
On April 14, 2003, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended and consolidated
complaint.

On May 5, 2004, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that
was substantially identical to the amended consolidated
complaint except that it purported to add a claim under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a subclass
of persons who acquired shares of the Company pursuant to the
registration statement and prospectus filed October 10, 2001 and
amended October 26, 2001 for the acquisition of Illuminet
Holdings, Inc. by the company.

Plaintiffs' second amended class action complaint was dismissed
by the court on November 2, 2005 for failure to adequately plead
loss causation.  Plaintiffs were given leave to file an amended
complaint.  Plaintiffs filed a third amended class action
Complaint on December 22, 2005.  Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint, which is currently pending.

The suit is styled "In re: Verisign Corp Securities Litigation,
Case No. 5:02-cv-02270-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, under Judge James Ware.
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernard M. Gross, 1500 Walnut Street, Suite 600,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215.561.3600, Fax:
         215.561.3000, E-mail: bmgross@BernardMGross.com;

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

     (3) Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP (S.F.,
         CA), 100 Pine Street - Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA,
         94111, Phone: 415.288.4545, Fax: 415.288.4534;

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

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

Representing the defendants is O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 2600 San
Francisco, CA 94111-3344, Phone: 415-984-8900, Fax: 415-984-
8701.


VERISIGN INC: Continues to Face Consumer Fraud Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
VeriSign, Inc. is a defendant in a consumer class action filed
in the Superior Court of California, alleging violations of the
unfair competition laws, breach of express warranty and unjust
enrichment relating to the company's Secure Site Pro SSL
certificates.

Southeast Texas Medical Associates, LLP filed the suit on
February 14, 2005, on behalf of a class of persons who purchased
the Secure Site Pro certificate from February 2001 to present.
The Company disputes these claims.

The Company believes that the allegations are without merit, it
stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: 9th Circuit Mulls Appeal of Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to rule
on non-lead plaintiffs' appeal of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California's dismissal of the
consolidated securities class action, styled, "In re: Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CV-03-8236
AHM," which was filed against Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Beginning in November 2003, several securities class actions
were commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against the Company and certain of its
present and former officers and directors.  On February 9, 2004,
the Federal Court issued an order consolidating all of the
federal actions under the caption, "In re: Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation."

In addition to the federal consolidated actions, two shareholder
derivative actions were filed in California Superior Court for
the County of Riverside.  These suits are styled, "Philip
Orlando v. Allen Chao, et al., Case No. 403717" and "Charles
Zimmerman v. Allen Chao, et al, Case No. 403715)."

These federal and state cases all relate to the drop in the
price of the Company's common stock in November 2001.
Generally, they allege that the company failed to timely advise
investors about matters such as falling inventory valuations,
increased competition and manufacturing difficulties, and
therefore, the Company's published financial statements and
public announcements during 2000 and 2001 were false and
misleading.

On November 16, 2004, the shareholder derivative actions were
dismissed without prejudice.  On August 2, 2004, the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California granted
the defendants' motion to dismiss the federal consolidated
action, and allowed plaintiffs until August 30, 2004 to file an
amended complaint.

On August 30, 2004, the lead plaintiff in the federal
consolidated action notified the court that it did not intend to
file an amended complaint in response to the court's order
granting the defendants' motion to dismiss.  On September 2,
2004, the District Court entered a judgment of dismissal in
favor of the defendants.

On October 1, 2004, one of the non-lead plaintiffs in the
consolidated action filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal of
the action with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
styled, "Pension Fund v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., USCA
Docket No. 04-56791."  The appeal remains pending.

The consolidated suit is styled, "In Re: Watson Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. Securities Litigation, 03-CV-08236," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge A. Howard Matz.  Representing the plaintiffs are, Lim,
Ruger & Kim, LLP, 1055 West Seventh Street, Suite 2800, Los
Angeles, CA, 90017, Phone: 213-955-9500, Fax: 213-955-9511, E-
mail: info@lrklawyers.com; and Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala
Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-
667-7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Ciprofloxacin Suit Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York's ruling granting summary judgment in favor of
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and other pharmaceutical firms in
the consolidated class action, styled, "In re: Ciprofloxacin
Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. 001383."

Beginning in July 2000, a number of suits were filed against the
company, Rugby Group and other Company affiliates in various
state and federal courts alleging claims under various federal
and state competition and consumer protection laws in relation
to the drug substance Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride.  Several
plaintiffs even filed amended complaints and motions seeking
class certification.

As of March 8, 2006, approximately 42 cases had been filed
against the company, Rugby and other Company entities.  Twenty-
two of these actions were consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York under the caption,
"In re: Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, MDL
Docket No. 001383."

On May 20, 2003, the court hearing the consolidated action
granted the company's motion to dismiss.  It also made rulings
limiting the theories under which plaintiffs can seek recovery
against Rugby and the other defendants.

On March 31, 2005, the court hearing the consolidated action
granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all of
plaintiffs' claims, denied the plaintiffs' motions for class
certification, and directed the clerk of the court to close the
case.

On May 7, 2005, three groups of plaintiffs from the consolidated
action (the direct purchaser plaintiffs, the indirect purchaser
plaintiff purchasers and plaintiffs Rite Aid and CVS) filed
notices of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, appealing, among other things, the May 20, 2003 order
dismissing the Company and the March 31, 2005 order granting
summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

The defendants moved to transfer the appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the ground that patent issues
are involved in the appeal.  The plaintiffs though opposed the
motion to transfer.  As of March 8, 2006, the appellate court
has yet to rule on the motion or the pending appeal.

Other actions are pending in various state courts, including New
York, California, Kansas, Tennessee, Florida and Wisconsin.  The
actions generally allege that the defendants engaged in
unlawful, anticompetitive conduct in connection with alleged
agreements, entered into prior to the Company's acquisition of
Rugby from Aventis Pharmaceuticals (Aventis, formerly known as
Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., and now known as Sanofi Aventis),
related to the development, manufacture and sale of the drug
substance ciprofloxacin hydrochloride, the generic version of
Bayer's brand drug, Cipror.

The actions generally seek declaratory judgment, damages,
injunctive relief, restitution and other relief on behalf of
certain purported classes of individuals and other entities.

The courts hearing the cases in Wisconsin and New York dismissed
the actions. Plaintiffs subsequently appealed the dismissals.
In the action pending in Kansas, the court has stayed the matter
pending the outcome of the appeal in the consolidated case.

In the action pending in the California Superior Court for the
County of San Diego (In re: Cipro Cases I & II, JCCP Proceeding
Nos. 4154 & 4220), on July 21, 2004, the California Court of
Appeal granted in part and denied in part the defendants'
petition for a writ of mandate seeking to reverse the trial
court's order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  Pursuant to the appellate court's ruling, the
majority of the plaintiffs will be permitted to pursue their
claims as a class.

On April 13, 2005, the Superior Court granted the parties' joint
application to stay the California case pending the outcome of
the appeal of the consolidated case.  In addition to the pending
actions, the Company understands that various state and federal
agencies are investigating the allegations made in these
actions.

Aventis has agreed to defend and indemnify the Company and its
affiliates in connection with the claims and investigations
arising from the conduct and agreements allegedly undertaken by
Rugby and its affiliates prior to the Company 's acquisition of
Rugby, and is currently controlling the defense of these
actions.  Discovery is ongoing.

The suit is styled, "In Re: Ciprofloxin Hydrochloride Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 1:00-md-01383-DGT-SMG," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge
David G. Trager.  Representing the plaintiffs are Robert S.
Schachter and Joseph S. Tusa of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling,
LLP, 41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor, New York, NY 10010, Phone:
212-223-3900, Fax: 212-371-5969, E-mail: rschachter@zsz.com.

Representing the company is David E. Everson of Stinson, Mag &
Fizzell, P.C., 1201 Walnut, Suite 2900, Kansas City, MO 64106,
Phone: 816-842-8600, Fax: 816-691-3495, E-mail:
deverson@stinsonmoheck.com.


WISCONSIN: Transfer of Inmates to High-Security Prison Halted
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Barbara Crabb temporarily suspended plans to move up to
110 general population inmates into the former Supermax prison
in Boscobel, Wisconsin, The Capital Times reports.

After inmates launched a federal class action in 2001, the state
agreed to remove seriously mentally ill inmates from the prison
and to reform some prison policies.  One of the suits
allegations then was that the prison's use of extreme isolation
and deprivation violated constitutional protections against
cruel and unusual punishment.  The ultra-high security prison
has been operating at about 80 percent of its 500-bed capacity
since it opened in 1999.

The state had planned to begin transferring the first dozen or
so inmates this month.  However, because the judge and attorneys
for inmates in a class action have not yet reviewed the case,
the plan is suspended for 45 days, according to Ed Garvey, the
inmates' attorney.  According to him, prison officials had
worked with a court-appointed monitor on the transfer, but had
not cleared it with either the inmates' attorneys or with Judge
Crabb.  Department of Corrections spokesman John Dipko told The
Capital Times that officials were still reviewing Judge Crabb's
decision.

For more details, contact Edward R. Garvey of Garvey McNeil &
McGillivray, S.C., 634 West Main Street, Suite 101, Madison,
Wisconsin 53703, Phone: 608-256-1003, Fax: 608-256-0933, Web
site: http://www.gmmattorneys.com.


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

________________________________________________________________
Sources:

http://www.mealeys.com/conferences_schedule.html
http://www.cleonline.com/
https://www.ali-aba.org/aliaba/CRSLST.asp
http://www.americanconference.com/Conferences.htm
http://www.ceb.com
http://www.pli.edu
http://www.worldjustice.com/class_action_seminars/
http://www.aei.org/events/filter./events.asp
http://www.tobacco.neu.edu/conference/index.html
http://masstortsmadeperfect.com


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ESTEE LAUDER: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all securities purchasers of The Estee Lauder Companies, Inc.
between April 28, 2005 and October 25, 2005, inclusive.

Estee Lauder is a global manufacturer of skin care, makeup,
fragrance, and hair care products.  The complaint alleges that,
at the commencement of the Class Period, the company's market
share was decreasing and that, rather than reverse this negative
trend, or fully disclose it, defendants launched a largely
successful campaign that employed channel stuffing and the
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements to
prop up reported revenues and earnings, and the company's share
price, long enough for Estee Lauder insiders to sell millions of
their personally held Estee Lauder shares to unsuspecting
investors at prices that were artificially inflated by
defendants' false and misleading statements.

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 disclosure, 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 26, 2005 when defendants were forced to
disclose 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 of the company's results and
lowered guidance, the company's share price fell to $30.71.  By
this time, Estee Lauder insiders had, during the Class Period,
sold 3,380,399 shares of their Estee Lauder common stock to
unwitting investors for proceeds of $88,077,150.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi and Bradley P. Dyer of
Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, Phone: (800) 497-8076 and (212)
682-1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-mail: info@murrayfrank.com, Web
site: http://www.murrayfrank.com/CM/NewCases/NewCases.asp.


H&R BLOCK: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. Mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, on behalf
of H&R Block customers who purchased "Express" IRAs. No class
has yet been certified in this action.

The suit alleges that H&R Block (NYSE: HRB), the nation's
largest tax preparation company, steered hundreds of thousands
of its clients into IRAs that were virtually guaranteed to lose
money because of a combination of hidden fees and low interest
rates.

Over the past four years, H&R Block opened more than half a
million "Express IRA" accounts for its tax preparation clients.
Customers were told that the IRA paid "great rates" and was "a
better way to save," but 85 percent of the customers who opened
the accounts paid the company more in fees than they earned in
interest.  More than 150,000 H&R Block customers closed their
accounts, incurring additional undisclosed fees, as well as
nearly $6 million in tax penalties.

The lawsuit cites internal documents showing that H&R Block's
senior management knew that many of its customers were losing
money on their Express IRAs.  For example, in a 2002 email to
Mark Ernst, the company CEO, a district manager complained about
the impact of these accounts on customers:

"I really don't think maintenance fees should exceed the amount
of interest that we are paying on these accounts. Clients won't
be happy seeing [their] investments decreasing ..."

Mr. Ernst forwarded this email to the Express IRA product
manager and added his own comments: "The attached note . . .
reflects the general sense that I think exists -- that Express
IRA is the right thing for our clients, but the product is
designed to nickel and dime clients to the point where our field
people [don't] feel as good about the product as they
should...."

H&R Block Express IRA customers can learn more about their legal
rights by visiting KGS' Web site and submitting their claims at
the following web link:

For more details, contact Lewis Kahn of Kahn Gauthier Swick,
LLC, Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100 and 504-648-1850, E-mail:
lewis.kahn@kglg.com, Web site:
http://lawcash.com/attorney/4703/hr-block-bad-investment-
lawsuit.asp.


NATURES SUNSHINE: Rosen Law Firm Commences Securities Inquiry
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm commenced an investigation into allegations
that Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc. violated the federal
securities laws by issuing false and misleading financial
statements during the period from first quarter 2002 through
third quarter 2005.

On March 20, 2006, the company shocked the market when it
announced that it was withdrawing its financial statements and
warned that it could be delisted from the Nasdaq.  The company
disclosed that an internal investigation revealed "certain
internal control weaknesses and outline potential violation of
law."

The company also revealed that the internal investigation
recommended "the termination of certain employees and senior
officers."  Following these adverse disclosures, the company'
stock price dropped over 35%.

As a result of these allegations, the Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action on behalf of investors who purchased
Nature's stock during the period from May 13, 2002 to March 20,
2006 against the company and its current and former management.

For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim,
Esq., Phone: 866-767-3653, (212) 686-1060, (917) 797-4425 and 1-
866-767-3653, Fax: (212) 202-3827, E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
or pkim@rosenlegal.com, Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com.


NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Zwerling Schachter Files Suit in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, initiated a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Northfield Laboratories, Inc.
during the period from February 20, 2004 through February 21,
2006 (the Class Period).

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by issuing materially false and
misleading statements during the Class Period which caused
Northfield common stock to trade at artificially inflated
prices.

These statements were allegedly materially false and misleading
when made because defendants failed to disclose or indicate
that:

     (1) the company's clinical trial was abruptly ended due to
         serious adverse advents involving heart attacks and
         deaths of patients receiving PolyHeme in the study;

     (2) the company's potential earnings from PolyHeme had been
         overstated because of the lack of full disclosure as to
         the company's clinical trial's adverse results;

     (3) defendants had issued false and misleading statements
         to investors as to the progress of, marketability and
         ultimate success of PolyHeme;

     (4) the adverse results of the company's clinical trial for
         PolyHeme would subject Northfield to increased
         regulatory scrutiny and greater risk that the FDA
         might not approve PolyHeme for marketing;

     (5) the structure of the company's PolyHeme drug trials
         whereby PolyHeme may be tested on certain trauma
         patients without consent would expose Northfield to
         ethical concerns by medical-ethicists and regulators,
         and

     (6) that as a result, Northfield's future guidance was
         materially misstated during the Class Period.

On February 22, 2006, a story in The Wall Street Journal
reported that the data available to defendants from the clinical
trial but not to the public revealed that ten patients who
received PolyHeme suffered a heart attack within seven days, and
two of those died.

The data further showed defendants that none of the patients in
the clinical trial who received real blood were found to have
suffered a heart attack. In the aftermath of receiving this
data, defendants shut down the clinical study and kept this
adverse data hidden from investors.

On February 22, 2006, Northfield's common stock fell to
$11.64 a share on over 4.1 million shares traded.

For more details, contact Shaye J. Fuchs, Esq. of Zwerling
Schachter, Phone: 1-800-721-3900 E-mail: sfuchs@zsz.com, Web
site: http://www.zsz.com.


SEA CONTAINERS: Paskowitz & Associates Lodges Stock Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paskowitz & Associates has filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons who purchased the stock of Sea Containers, Ltd.
(NYSE: SCR-A) in the two-year period from March 15, 2004 through
March 24, 2006 (the Class).  The case has been assigned to the
Hon. Richard C. Casey.

The Complaint alleges that Sea Containers stock dropped
significantly after the company 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.  It
also 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 Laurence Paskowitz, Esq. of Paskowitz
& Associates, Phone: 800-705-9529, E-mail:
classattorney@aol.com.


SEA CONTAINERS: Stull & Stull Lodges Securities 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 stock of
Sea Containers Ltd. (NYSE: SCRA) (NYSE: SCR.A) (NYSE: SCR-A)
(NYSE: SCRB) (NYSE: SCR.B) (NYSE: SCR-B) between March 15, 2004
and March 24, 2006, inclusive (the Class Period).

The Complaint alleges that defendant violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false statements.  Sea
Containers' stock dropped substantially after it was 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 Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 1-800-337-
4983, Fax: 212-490-2022, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com, Web site:
http://www.ssbny.com.



                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *