CAR_Public/060406.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, April 6, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 69

                            Headlines

ADECCO SA: California Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
AGILE SOFTWARE: IPO Settlement Hearing Slated for April 24, 2006
ARTESYN TECHNOLOGIES: Investor Files Lawsuit Over Emerson Merger
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Brokerage Antitrust Suit Stuck in Neutral
CALIFORNIA: Sacramento County Jail Sued for Alleged Use of Force

DIGIMARC CORP: Ore. Court Mulls Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
FIRST COMMUNITY: Settles Gilbert, Progressive Lawsuits in Calif.
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit in Mo. Over Faulty Vehicle Wipers
GENERAL REINSURANCE: Continues to Face Consolidated Suit in N.Y.
GOLDEN STAR: Recalls Cigarette Lighters Due to Fire, Burn Risks

HANOVER DIRECT: Faces Several Complaints Over Privatization Plan
HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Mich., N.Mex Named Stock Suit Lead Plaintiffs
HUB INT'L: Faces Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Lawsuit in N.J.
HUB INT'L: Continues to Face Lawsuit Over Contingent Commissions
ILLINOIS: Refunds Infrastructure Improvement Fees to Phone Users

INTEL CORP: Anti-trust Case Management Conference Set April
INTERMUNE INC: Calif. Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
KENTUCKY: Inmates Complain of Overcrowding in Kenton County Jail
KIDS PREFERRED: Choking Hazard Prompts Recall of Toy Vehicles
LONE STAR: Del. Court Gives Final Okay to Stock, Derivative Pact

MGM MIRAGE: Settles Boardwalk Shareholder Litigation in Nev.
MICROSOFT CORP: Neb. Schools to Get Share in $174M Settlement
OMEGA FLEX: Faces Suit Over Damage Risk of Gas-Carrying Tubing
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Proceeds in Calif. Stock Suit
POSSIS MEDICAL: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in MN

QUESTAR EXPLORATION: Indemnification Claim Dismissal Appealed
ROSE ART: Death Report Prompts Magnetic Building Sets Recall
ROSENBERG RICH: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set May 18, 2006
SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: Pa. Suit Summary Judgment Appeal Pending
SAN DIEGO: Calif. Baseball Club Settles Overtime Litigation

SIMON PROPERTY: Plaintiffs in Gift Card Suit Going to High Court
SOUTH CAROLINA: Settlement Reached in High School Drug Raid Suit
SPARK NETWORKS: Ill. Fertelmeyster Suit Appeal Deadline Expires
SPARK NETWORKS: Mediation in Calif. Dating Services Suit Fails
STAKTEK HOLDINGS: Shareholders Allowed to Pursue DRAM Claims

STONEPATH GROUP: Penn. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Faces Ill. Suit Over Changes to Oil Specs
UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs in Abu Ghraib Suit Build Evidences
WESTAR ENERGY: Settlement Achieved for ERISA Fraud Suit in Kans.
WESTAR ENERGY: Settlement Attained in Kans. Securities Lawsuit

WISCONSIN: Tenant Launches Suit Over Building Code Violations

   
                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CHICAGO BRIDGE: Pomerantz Haudek Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit
ESTEE LAUDER: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Stull Stull Lodges Stock Suit in Ill.
PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit

                            *********


ADECCO SA: California Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The amended class action complaint filed against Adecco S.A. and
certain of its current and former directors and officers has
been dismissed.  The U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California dismissed the complaint with prejudice
and without further leave to amend, and directed that judgment
be entered in favor of the defendant.  Unless the plaintiffs
file an appeal within 30 days the judgment will become final.

Several lawsuits were filed against Adecco early in 2004 after
the Company revealed it would delay the announcement of its
audited results for 2003.  In a statement, the Company said the
reasons for the delay in completion of the audit are:

      (1) the identification of material weaknesses in internal
          controls in the Company's North American operations of
          Adecco Staffing;

      (2) the resolution of possible accounting, control and
          compliance issues in the Company's operations in  
          certain countries; and

     (3) the completion of the Company's efforts to address
         these matters and determine their effect on the
         Company's consolidated financial statements.

On this news, Adecco's stock price dropped from a close of
$16.93 on January 9, 2004 to below $10 per share.

Adecco S.A. -- http://www.adecco.com-- is registered in  
Switzerland.  It offers Human Resource services worldwide.


AGILE SOFTWARE: IPO Settlement Hearing Slated for April 24, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
set an April 24, 2006 fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement of a purported class action against Agile Software
Corporation, now captioned, "In re Agile Software, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 01 CIV 9413 (SAS),"
related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
21 MC 92 (SAS)."

On or around October 25, 2001, a class action was filed on
behalf of holders of Agile securities in the Southern District
of New York against the Company, Bryan D. Stolle and Thomas P.
Shanahan (collectively the Agile Defendants) and others,
including underwriters Morgan Stanley and Deutsche Bank
Securities.  

On or about April 19, 2002, plaintiffs electronically served an
amended complaint.  The amended complaint was brought
purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
common stock from August 19, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  It
named as defendants the Agile Defendants and several investment
banking firms that served as underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering and secondary offering.  

The complaint alleged liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the
registration statement for the offerings did not disclose that
the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers to
purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for excess
commissions paid to the underwriters; and that the underwriters
had arranged for certain customers to purchase additional shares
in the aftermarket at predetermined prices.  

The amended complaint also alleged that false analyst reports
were issued.  No specific damages were claimed.

The Company is aware that similar allegations have been made in
other lawsuits filed in the Southern District of New York
challenging over 300 other initial public offerings and
secondary offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000.  Those cases
have been consolidated for pretrial purposes before the
Honorable Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  On July 15, 2002, the
Agile Defendants (as well as all other issuer defendants) filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint.

On February 19, 2003, the court ruled on the motions to dismiss.
The court denied the motions to dismiss claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 in all but 10 of the cases.

In the case involving the Company, these claims were dismissed
as to the initial public offering, but not the secondary
offering.  The court denied the motion to dismiss the claim
under Section 10(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against the Company and 184 other issuer defendants, on the
basis that the amended complaints in these cases alleged that
the respective issuers had acquired companies or conducted
follow-on offerings after the initial public offerings.

As a consequence, the court denied the motion to dismiss the
Section 20(a) claims against the individual defendants.  The
motion to dismiss the Section 10(a) claims was granted with
prejudice as to the individual defendants.

The Company has decided to accept a settlement proposal
presented to all issuer defendants.  In this settlement,
plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims against the Agile
Defendants, in exchange for a contingent payment by the
insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring the
issuers in all of the IPO cases, and for the assignment or
surrender of control of certain claims the Company may have
against the underwriters.

The Agile Defendants will not be required to make any cash
payments in the settlement, unless the pro rata amount paid by
the insurers in the settlement exceeds the limits of the
insurance coverage, a circumstance which the Company does not
believe will occur.  The settlement will require approval of the
Court, which cannot be assured, after class members are given
the opportunity to object to the settlement.

The Court has granted preliminary approval of the settlement and
set a final approval hearing date of April 24, 2006.

The case is styled, "In re Agile Software, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 01 CIV 9413 (SAS)," related to
"In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92
(SAS)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Shira Scheindlin.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com;

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

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

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

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

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


ARTESYN TECHNOLOGIES: Investor Files Lawsuit Over Emerson Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Samco Partners, an entity alleging to be a Company shareholder,
initiated a purported class action complaint in the Circuit
Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County,
Florida challenging a proposed merger.  Defendants in the case
were Artesyn Technologies, Inc., most of its directors, and
Emerson Electric Co.

On February 1, 2006, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Emerson pursuant to which Emerson will
acquire the Company for approximately $580 million in cash.  
Under the terms of the agreement, each outstanding share of the
Company's common stock will be converted into the right to
receive $11.00 in cash, without interest, and the Company will
become a wholly owned subsidiary of Emerson.

Filed on March 2, 2006, the complaint alleges:

     (1) that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary
         duties in connection with the approval of the merger,
  
     (2) that the defendants did not fully and fairly disclose
         certain material information with respect to the
         approval of the merger in the Company's preliminary
         proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
         Commission on February 23, 2006, and

     (3) that Emerson aided and abetted Company directors in
         their alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief against the consummation
of the merger or, alternatively, to rescind it.  It also seeks
an award of damages for the alleged wrongs asserted in the
complaint.  The lawsuit is in its preliminary stages.


BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Brokerage Antitrust Suit Stuck in Neutral
-------------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., General Re Corp. and General
Reinsurance Corp., are defendants in a multidistrict litigation
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey styled, "In Re: Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation,
MDL No. 1663 (D.N.J.)."

In February 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred several different cases to the District of New
Jersey for coordination and consolidation.  Each consolidated
case concerned allegations of an industry-wide scheme on the
part of commercial insurance brokers and insurance companies to
defraud a purported class of insurance purchasers through bid-
rigging and contingent commission arrangements.

The Company, General Re and General Reinsurance were not parties
to the original, transferred cases.  On August 1, 2005, the
named plaintiffs (fourteen businesses, two municipalities, and
three individuals) filed their First Consolidated Amended
Commercial Class Action Complaint, and the Company, General Re
and General Reinsurance (along with a large number of insurance
companies and insurance brokers) were named as defendants in the
Amended Complaint.

The plaintiffs claim that all defendants engaged in a pattern of
racketeering activity, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and that they conspired to
restrain trade.  They also allege that the broker defendants
breached fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs, that the insurer
defendants aided and abetted that breach, and that all
defendants were unjustly enriched in the process.

Plaintiffs are seeking treble damages in an unspecified amount,
together with interest and attorneys fees and expenses.  In
addition, they also seek a declaratory judgment of wrongdoing as
well as an injunction against future anticompetitive practices.

On November 29, 2005, General Re, General Reinsurance and the
Company, together with the other defendants, filed motions to
dismiss the complaint.  

On February 1, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint.  Among other things,
plaintiffs seek leave to add numerous new defendants, including
several additional subsidiaries of the Company including, among
others, National Indemnity Company (NICO).  

The Company opposed the motion for leave to amend, and the court
denied that motion without prejudice to plaintiffs' renewing it
following a ruling on defendants' motion to dismiss the First
Consolidated Amended Complaint.

The suit is styled, "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1663," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey under Judge Faith S. Hochberg with
referral to Judge Patty Shwartz.  Representing the plaintiffs
are:

     (1) Thomas M. Louis of Wells Marble & Hurst, PLLC, P.O. BOX
         131, JACKSON, MS 39205-0131, Phone: (601) 355-8321, E-
         mail: tlouis@wellsmar.com;

     (2) H. Alan Mccall of Stockwell Sievert, P.O. Box 2900,
         Lake Charles, LA 70601, U.S., Phone: 337-436-9491;

     (3) Ellen Meriwether of Miller Faucher & Cafferty, LLP, One
         Logan Square, Suite 1700, 18TH & Cherry Streets,
         Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-864-2800, E-mail:
         emeriwether@millerfaucher.com; and

     (4) Douglas A. Millen, Counsel Not Admitted to USDC-NJ Bar
         Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Rubenstein,
         PC, 191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60605-
         1615, Phone: (312) 521-2100.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Joseph J. Schiavone and Christopher p. Anton of Budd
         Larner, PC, 150 John F. Kennedy Parkway, CN 1000 Short
         Hills, NJ 07078-0999, Phone: (973) 379-4800, E-mail:
         jschiavone@budd-larner.com and canton@budd-larner.com;

    (ii) Catherine Florence August Johnson, Counsel Not Admitted
         to USDC-NJ Bar, of Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP, 355
         South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071-
         1560, U.S., Phone: (213) 683-9100, E-mail:    
         kit.johnson@mto.com; and

   (iii) Daniel P. Jordan of Butler, Snow, O'mara, Stevens &
         Cannada, P.O. Box 22567, Jackson, MS 39225-2567, US,
         Phone: 601-948-5711.


CALIFORNIA: Sacramento County Jail Sued for Alleged Use of Force
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Sacramento lawyer is trying to build a class action on
allegations the county's downtown jail use excessive force in
dealing with inmates.

Gary Gorski has requested jailhouse videos to prove deputies
routinely use pain as punishment at the Main Jail.  He is
representing Jafar Afshar, a native of Iran and a naturalized
U.S. citizen, who filed a suit two years ago.  

Mr. Afshar suffered a massive cut on his head and a concussion
while on book at the jail on suspicions of being under the
influence of alcohol and marijuana.  Retired Sheriff's
Lieutenant Timothy Twomey reviewed video of his booking and
depositions of offices for Mr. Gorski.  Mr. Twomey also reviewed
reports and records from other alleged incidents of excessive
force, the report said.

Mr. Gorski is handling another suit on behalf of a veterinarian,
who claimed he was assaulted by deputies at the Sacramento
County Jail.  Robert Hunter, who was taken to the jail in
September last year on suspicion of drunken driving, is seeking
class action status for his case.  The suit said Mr. Hunter
requested and was denied medical treatment.  Mr. Gorski plans to
consolidate the lawsuit with other cases.

To contact Mr. Gorski: 8549 Nephi Way, Fair Oaks, California
(Sacramento Co.).


DIGIMARC CORP: Ore. Court Mulls Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon has yet to
rule on Digimarc Corp.'s motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint in the consolidated securities class action filed
against it and certain of its current and former directors.

Beginning in September 2004, three purported class actions were
commenced against the Company and certain of its current and
former directors and officers by or on behalf of persons
claiming to have purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities during the period from April 17, 2002 to July 28,
2004.

These lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon and were consolidated into one action for all
purposes on December 16, 2004.  On May 16, 2005, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint.

The complaint asserted claims under the federal securities laws,
specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, relating to the Company's announcement that it had
discovered errors in its accounting for software development
costs and project capitalization and other project cost
capitalization accounting practices, and that the Company likely
would be required to restate its previously reported financial
statements for full fiscal year 2003 and the first two quarters
of 2004.

Specifically, the complaint alleged that the Company issued
false and misleading financial statements and created a
misperception regarding the profitability of the Company in
order to inflate the value of Digimarc stock, which permitted
insider sales of personal holdings at inflated values, and that
the Company maintained insufficient accounting controls, which
created an environment where improper accounting could be used
to manipulate financial results.  The complaint sought
unspecified damages.  

On November 30, 2005, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds that plaintiffs
failed to allege facts sufficient to support their allegation
that the defendants knowingly or recklessly acted in violation
of the securities laws.  

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on January 17, 2006.
On February 14, 2006, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint on the grounds that plaintiffs still
fail to allege facts sufficient to support their allegation that
the defendants knowingly or recklessly acted in violation of the
securities laws.  This motion is pending.

The suit is styled "Garcia et al. v. Digimarc Corporation et
al., Case No. 3:04-cv-01455-BR," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oregon under Judge Anna J. Brown.  
Representing the plaintiffs are Gary M. Berne, Stoll Stoll Berne
Lokting & Shlachter, PC, 209 S.W. Oak Street, Fifth Floor,
Portland, OR 97204, Phone: (503) 227-1600, Fax: (503) 227-6840,
E-mail: gberne@ssbls.com; and Gary I. Grenley, Paul H.
Trinchero, Grenley Rotenberg Evans Bragg & Bodie PC, 1211 SW
Fifth Avenue, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97204, Phone: (503) 241-
0570, Fax: (503) 241-0914, E-mail: ggrenley@grebb.com and
ptrinchero@grebb.com.  

Representing the Company is Barnes H. Ellis, Stoel Rives, LLP,
900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2600, Portland, OR 97204, Phone:
(503) 294-9243, Fax: (503) 220-2480, E-mail: bhellis@stoel.com.


FIRST COMMUNITY: Settles Gilbert, Progressive Lawsuits in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
First Community Bancorp settled these litigations in California:

     -- "Gilbert, et al. v. Cohn, et al., Case No. BC310846,
        (the Gilbert Litigation);" and

     -- "Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, etc., v. First
        Community Bancorp, etc., et al., Case No. 05-5900 SVW
        (MAWx), (the Progressive Litigation)."

On June 8, 2004, the Company was served with an amended
complaint naming First Community and Pacific Western as
defendants in a class action filed in Los Angeles Superior Court
known as the Gilbert Litigation.  

A former officer of First Charter Bank, N.A. (First Charter),
which the Company acquired in October 2001, was also named as a
defendant.  That former officer left First Charter in May of
1997 and later became a principal of Four Star Financial
Services, LLC (Four Star), an affiliate of 900 Capital Services,
Inc. (900 Capital).

On April 18, 2005, the plaintiffs filed the second amended class
action complaint.  The second amended complaint alleged that the
former officer of First Charter improperly induced several First
Charter customers to invest in 900 Capital or affiliates of 900
Capital and further alleges that Four Star, 900 Capital and some
of their affiliated entities perpetuated their fraud upon
investors through various accounts at First Charter, First
Community and Pacific Western with those banks' purported
knowing participation in and/or willful ignorance of the scheme.

The key allegations in the second amended complaint dated back
to the mid-1990s and the second amended complaint alleged
several counts for relief including aiding and abetting,
conspiracy, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, relief pursuant to
the California Business and Professions Code, negligence and
relief under the California Securities Act stemming from an
alleged fraudulent scheme and sale of securities issued by 900
Capital and Four Star.

In disclosures provided to the parties, plaintiffs have asserted
that the named plaintiffs have suffered losses well in excess of
$3.85 million, and plaintiffs have asserted that "losses to the
class total many tens of millions of dollars."  While the
Company understands that the plaintiffs intend to seek to
certify a class for purposes of pursuing a class action, a class
has not yet been certified and no motion for class certification
has been filed.

On June 15, 2005, the Company filed a demurrer to the second
amended complaint, and on August 22, 2005, the Court sustained
the Company's demurrer as to each of the counts therein,
granting plaintiffs leave to amend on four of the six counts,
and dismissing the other counts outright.

On August 12, 2005, the Company was notified by Progressive
Casualty Insurance Company (Progressive), its primary insurance
carrier with respect to the Gilbert Litigation that Progressive
had determined that, based upon the allegations in the second
amended complaint filed in the Gilbert Litigation, there is no
coverage with respect to the Gilbert Litigation under the
Company's insurance policy with Progressive.

Progressive also notified the Company that it was withdrawing
its agreement to fund defense costs for the Gilbert Litigation
and reserving its right to seek reimbursement from the Company
for any defense costs advanced pursuant to the insurance policy.
Through December 31, 2005, Progressive had advanced to the
Company approximately $690,000 of defense costs with respect to
the Gilbert Litigation.

On August 12, 2005, Progressive filed an action in federal
district court for declaratory relief, which is known as the
Progressive Litigation, seeking a declaratory judgment with
respect to the parties' rights and obligations under
Progressive's policy with the Company.  On October 11, 2005, the
Company filed in federal court a motion to dismiss or stay the
Progressive Litigation.

In November 2005, along with certain other defendants, the
Company reached an agreement in principle with respect to the
Gilbert Litigation.  The proposed settlement, toward which the
Company would contribute $775,000, is subject to the final
settlement terms and documentation being agreed upon by First
Community, the plaintiffs and other parties who are also
contributing to this settlement.  Additionally, the settlement
is subject to approval by the Los Angeles Superior Court.  

In connection with the Gilbert Litigation settlement, the
Company also reached a settlement in principle with Progressive
Casualty Insurance Co. in the Progressive Litigation.  The
settlement with Progressive, which includes an additional
contribution by Progressive under the Company's policy toward
the settlement of the Gilbert Litigation and a dismissal by
Progressive of any claims against the Company for reimbursement,
is contingent upon the consummation of the Gilbert Litigation
settlement.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit in Mo. Over Faulty Vehicle Wipers
------------------------------------------------------------
A Jefferson City, Missouri couple initiated a federal lawsuit
seeking class action status against General Motors Corp. over
claims that the windshield wipers on millions of the Company's
older vehicles are defective, The Associated Press reports.

Filed by Timothy and Gloria Owen in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Missouri, the suit also claims that the
automaker should have recalled 7.5 million trucks, vans and
sport-utility vehicles instead of 1.7 million vehicles.  The
named lead plaintiffs alleged that they repaired their 1999
Chevrolet Tahoe in October 2004 for about $92, after the wipers
failed during a storm, and the Company refused to reimburse
their cost.

Essentially, the suit claims that the Company "demonstrated a
conscious disregard for the safety and well-being" of people
still using those vehicles.  It is asking the court to require
the Company to recall vehicles that still need repairs and to
reimburse repair costs.  It claims that a federal investigation
found that wiper problems have caused at least 11 crashes and
225,000 warranty claims.  

In 2003, the Company recalled 1.7 million vehicles to replace
windshield wiper circuit boards and motor covers as part of a
windshield wiper replacement program that the Company conducted
in 1998.  The Company said at the time that the faulty wipers
had not resulted in any fatalities.  

The suit is styled, "Owen, et al. v. General Motors Corporation,
Case No. 2:06-cv-04067-NKL," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania under Judge Nanette K.
Laughrey.  Representing the plaintiffs are, Daniel W. Anderson
and A. Anderson B. Dogali of Forizs & Dogali, P.L., 4301 Anchor
Plaza Pkwy, Ste. 300, Tampa, FL 33634, U.S., Phone: (813) 289-
0700; and Thomas H. Rost of Rost & Hellmann, LLC, 100 Jackson
Street, Jefferson City, MO 65101, Phone: 573-634-2563, Fax:
(573) 636-9311, E-mail: rost@mchsi.com.


GENERAL REINSURANCE: Continues to Face Consolidated Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Reinsurance Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of General
Re Corp. (General Re) and an indirectly wholly owned subsidiary
of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., is a defendant in a consolidated
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York styled.

On April 29, 2005, the Company received a Summons and a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint in the matter.  This
is a putative class action asserted on behalf of investors who
purchased publicly traded securities of the American
International Group (AIG) between October 1999 and March 2005.

On June 7, 2005, the Company received a second Summons and Class
Action Complaint in a putative class action asserted on behalf
of investors who purchased AIG securities between October 1999
and March 2005, captioned, "San Francisco Employees' Retirement
System, et al. vs. American International Group, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 05-CV-4270," which is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  

At a July 2005 conference, the court ruled that the plaintiffs
in Case No. 04-CV-8141 would be lead plaintiffs.  On September
27, 2005, the plaintiffs in Case no. 04-CV-8141 filed a
Consolidated Second Amended Complaint (the "Complaint").

The complaint asserts various claims against AIG, and several of
its officers, directors, investment banks and other parties.
Included among the defendants are the Company and Messrs.
Ferguson, Napier and Houldsworth (whom the Complaint defines as
the General Re Defendants).  

The complaint alleges that the General Re Defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated under that Act through their activities in
connection with the AIG transaction.  It seeks damages and other
relief in unspecified amounts.  

The General Re Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint on
the grounds that it fails to state a claim on which relief can
be granted against these defendants.  The motion is to be heard
on April 17, 2006.  No discovery has taken place.

The suit is styled, "In Re American International Group, Inc.,
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-08141-JES," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under
Judge John E. Sprizzo.  Representing the plaintiffs are, Thomas
A. Dubbs and Louis Gottlieb of Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP,
100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-907-
0700 and 212-907-0872, Fax: 212-818-0477 and 212-883-7072, E-
mail: tdubbs@labaton.com and lgottlieb@labaton.com; and Samuel
Howard Rudman of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman &
Robbins, LLP, 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY
11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail:
srudman@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, Kerry Ann Dziubek of Arnold &
Porter, LLP, 399 Park Ave., New York, NY 10022-4690, Phone: 212-
715-1022, Fax: 212-715-1399, E-mail: kerry_dziubek@aporter.com;
and Lewis E. Farberman of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison, LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019,
Phone: (212)-373-3577, Fax: (212)-492-0577, E-mail:
lfarberman@paulweiss.com.


GOLDEN STAR: Recalls Cigarette Lighters Due to Fire, Burn Risks
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Golden Star Group, of Walnut, California, is recalling 500,000
"Speedway" cigarette lighters.  The lighters are retailed by
Speedway SuperAmerica LLC, of Enon, Ohio.

The Company said the flame from the lighter can flare up or the
lighter can catch fire when ignited, posing risks of unexpected
fires and burn injuries.  Speedway SuperAmerica LLC has received
six reports of incidents involving flare-ups on these lighters.
Burn injuries to the head, hair, face and hand have been
reported.

The recalled lighters have the "Speedway" logo on the front,
"Acculite" embossed on only one side of the silver metal
windscreen, and the warning information on the back in black
type only (no red type).  The lighters were made in China and
sold at Speedway SuperAmerica and Rich convenience stores from
July 2005 through October 5, 2005 for about $1 each.

Consumers are advised to stop using these lighters immediately
and return them to the store where purchased for a refund.  

Picture of the recalled lighter:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06125.jpg

Consumer Contact: Speedway, Phone: (800) 643-1948 between 7:30
a.m. and 6 p.m. EST Monday through Friday; Web site:
http://www.speedway.com.


HANOVER DIRECT: Faces Several Complaints Over Privatization Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hanover Direct, Inc. was served with a suit arising from a
proposal by its majority shareholder, Chelsey Direct, LLC, to
take the Company private.

The complaint, filed on March 1, 2006 in Delaware Chancery
Court, named the Company, Chelsey and the Company's directors as
defendants.  The Company has also been served with a second
complaint in Delaware Chancery Court, filed on March 7, 2006,
and a third complaint in Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery
Division, filed on March 3, 2006, that were substantially
similar to the first complaint.

In each complaint, the plaintiffs challenge Chelsey's going
private proposal and alleged, among other things, that:

     -- the consideration to be paid is unfair and grossly
        inadequate;

     -- the Special Committee cannot be expected to act
        independently;

     -- Chelsey has manipulated the financial statements of the
        Company and its public statements in order to depress
        the stock price of the Company; and

     -- the proposal would freeze out the purported class
        members and capture the true value of the Company for
        Chelsey.  

Each of the plaintiffs seek class action certification,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, rescission of the
transaction if the offer is consummated and unspecified damages.  
The cases are in the initial pleadings phase.  Based on a
preliminary analysis, the Company believes that it has no
liability.

On March 28, 2006 the Special Committee of the Board of
Directors, which had been appointed to review and evaluate the
proposal from Chelsey Direct to take the Company private,
retained the investment banking firm of Houlihan Lokey Howard
and Zukin as its independent financial advisor to advise the
Special Committee with respect to the fairness of the Chelsey
proposal.  The Special Committee directed Company management to
provide Houlihan Lokey with full cooperation in all aspects of
its due diligence, a process, which commenced promptly after
Houlihan Lokey was retained.

The Company also announced that the Special Committee had
appointed Robert H. Masson as its Chairman; the other committee
members are A. David Brown and Donald Hecht.  In addition, in
accordance with the compensation determined by the Special
Committee, the Company has paid each of the committee members
for services to be rendered during the two-month period ending
April 30, 2006.

Hanover Direct, Inc. -- http://www.hanoverdirect.com-- offers a  
portfolio of home fashion and apparel catalogs and Internet Web
sites, including Domestications, The Company Store, Company
Kids, Silhouettes, International Male and Undergear.  The
Company also manufactures Scandia Down branded comforters.


HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Mich., N.Mex Named Stock Suit Lead Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Michigan has been appointed co-lead plaintiff along
with Central States and New Mexico in the securities class
action against HealthSouth Corp., its former directors and
executives, as well as HealthSouth's investment bankers and
former outside auditors.

"Safeguarding pensions is a high priority for my office," said
Attorney General Mike Cox.  "We will continue to do everything
the Company can to ensure that employees are not cheated out of
the pensions that are rightfully theirs.  I'm proud that
Michigan will have a leadership role in redressing one of the
most flagrant securities frauds perpetrated in U.S. history."

As co-lead plaintiff, Michigan will co-manage the litigation on
behalf of stockholders, negotiate potential settlement terms,
and seek to maximize the recovery for the class.  If the case
goes to trial, the lead plaintiffs would make all strategy
decisions.

Of the 38 individual defendants in the lawsuit, 15, including
all of HealthSouth's former chief financial officers, have pled
guilty to criminal violations of the federal securities laws --
the largest number of corporate officers from a single Company
to admit criminal wrongdoing.

After disclosure of the wrongdoing, HealthSouth dismissed its
outside auditor, Ernst & Young (E&Y), and advised investors not
to rely on any of the E&Y-audited financial statements
HealthSouth issued as a public Company.

"HealthSouth has admitted it overstated income by more than $2.8
billion and wiped out every dollar of profit it ever reported as
a public Company," said Chief Deputy Treasurer Croll.  "As a
result, Michigan's Retirement Systems suffered losses of
approximately $33 million.  With [Tues]day's action, we are
taking the appropriate steps to recoup what is rightly due to
our employees and retirees, and to protect state pension funds."

In addition to overstating its income, certain individual
defendants sold more than 16.7 million shares of their personal
holdings of HealthSouth stock, which resulted in insider trading
proceeds of more than $300 million.  These individual defendants
also kept millions of dollars in cash bonuses awarded as a
result of the false profits the Company reported from 1997
through 2002.

"A fraud of this magnitude, especially in the critical area of
healthcare, is inexcusable," said Attorney Cox.  "Chief Deputy
Treasurer Croll and I are committed to protecting Michigan's
citizens against fraud and financial abuse."  Attorney Croll
added, "We intend to do everything in our power to recover
assets lost as a result of the defendants' wrongdoing."  

HealthSouth is a provider of outpatient surgery and
rehabilitative services.  During the class period, between April
24, 1997 and March 18, 2003, defendants implemented a scheme to
falsify HealthSouth's financial statements to meet or exceed
Wall Street's expectations.  The lawsuit alleged that E&Y became
aware of HealthSouth's improper practices no later than 1994 but
ignored them to earn huge fees.  It also alleged that
HealthSouth's investment banking underwriters are liable for
making materially false and misleading statements in
Registration Statements and Prospectuses used by HealthSouth to
raise billions of dollars of new capital for the Company.

Together, the State of Michigan Retirement Systems (SMRS) hold
more than $53 billion in assets, making the combined fund the
13th largest public pension fund in the U.S.  The SMRS invest on
behalf of Michigan public school employees, state employees,
state police, and Michigan judges.

HealthSouth Corp. -- http://www.healthsouth.com-- provides  
diagnostic imaging, rehabilitative health care, and outpatient
surgery services.  The Company has nearly 1,300 facilities in
the U.S., Australia, and Puerto Rico.


HUB INT'L: Faces Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Lawsuit in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hub International, Inc. along with 29 other insurance brokers
and insurance companies were named as defendants in an October
2004 federal class action in New Jersey.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants used the contingent
commission structure to deprive policyholders of "independent
and unbiased brokerage services, as well as free and open
competition in the market for insurance."

A number of substantially similar federal class actions were
filed against the Company and many other defendants.  On
February 17, 2005, the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred these and other class actions in which
the Company were not named to the District of New Jersey.

In August 2005 and February 2006, amended complaints were filed
in the consolidated federal court proceedings pending in New
Jersey and styled, "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation."  

The case has now been divided into two cases, one for employee
benefits and the other for commercial insurance.  Certain of the
Company's subsidiaries were named as additional defendants.  A
handful of allegations specifically pertaining to the Company
were added, but remain vague.  

The judge in these actions permitted limited discovery to take
place, which is continuing.  The Company disputes the
allegations made in these lawsuits and intend to vigorously
defend these cases.

The suit is styled, "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1663," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey under Judge Faith S. Hochberg with
referral to Judge Patty Shwartz.  


HUB INT'L: Continues to Face Lawsuit Over Contingent Commissions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hub International, Inc. and its affiliates were named as
defendants in a class action filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois.  

The named plaintiff is a Chicago law firm that obtained its
professional liability insurance through the Company's Chicago
hub and claims that an undisclosed contingent commission was
received with respect to its policy.

The named plaintiff is a Chicago law firm that obtained its
professional liability insurance through the Company's Chicago
office of what is now HUB Midwest.  The suit claims that the
Company received an undisclosed contingent commission with
respect to its policy.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Company denied this and the other allegations of the complaint
and said it intended to vigorously defend this case.

The suit is styled, "Marren Hogan v. Hub International, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2005-CH-01355," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois under Judge Philip L. Bronstein.  Representing
the plaintiff is Nisen & Elliott, 200 W. Adams #2500, Chicago IL
60606, Phone: (312) 346-7800.  

Representing the Company is Lowis & Gellen, 200 W. Adams St.,
#1900 Chicago IL, 60606 Phone: (312) 364-2500.


ILLINOIS: Refunds Infrastructure Improvement Fees to Phone Users
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thousands of Illinois residents who owned phones between 1998
and 2002 are urged to file claims for a refund of infrastructure
improvement fees that a judge has ruled unconstitutional.

The Beacon News Online reports that mails have been sent to cell
phone and landline users who had service between Jan. 1, 1998,
and Feb. 7, 2002 so that they may avail of the money set for
distribution by local municipalities.  

The Supreme Court recently declared the Infrastructure
Maintenance fee, established in 1008, vague and unconstitutional
since cellular companies do not use the same poles nor ground
cables, the report said.  This was after two suits were filed
against the improvement fee.  One suit was filed in Cook County
against the cities of Skokie and Chicago.  A similar suit,
"Spratt v. Wheaton," followed.  An earlier agreement settled 25
claims.

Recently, white postcards were mailed to 300,000 residences in
24 cities, including Aurora, Downers Grove, Lisle, West Chicago,
Warrenville, Winfield and Naperville, according to the report.  
The settlement covers everyone who had phone service, but the
awards vary, said Ian Johnston, an attorney representing the
DuPage Mayors and Managers Conference.

Up to 65% of the Infrastructure Maintenance fee payment made by
cell phone owners stands to be refunded, and 5% for landline
owners.  The original Infrastructure Maintenance fee was based
on use.  Claimants are required to present proof of billing, but
those who do not have their bills, may still file presumptive"
of up to $14, Mr. Johnston said.

Applications and copies of bills can be mailed to Municipal IMF
Claims Center, c/o DuPage Mayors and Managers Conference, 1220
Oak Brook Road, Oak Brook, IL 60523.  More information is also
available by calling (630) 571-0480, Ext. 30.  On the Net:
http://www.dmmc-cog.org/IMF/IMFwebsitelink.cfm.


INTEL CORP: Anti-trust Case Management Conference Set April
-----------------------------------------------------------
A case management conference on Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.'s
anti-trust suit against Intel Corp. is set April 20, 2006,
according to CNET News.com.  The conference will be at the U.S.
District Court for the State of Delaware.  Judge Joseph Farnan,
who is overseeing the trial and most of the class action suits
that arose from it, will preside.  Deadline for submission by
parties of agenda for the conference is April 7, 2006.

Intel Corporation faces several class actions filed in various
federal and state courts, related to a lawsuit filed by rival
computer chip-maker Advanced Micro, which alleged it violated
federal antitrust laws (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 04, 2005).

In June 2005, Advanced Micro filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the
Company and its Japanese subsidiary engaged in various actions
in violation of the Sherman Act and the California Business and
Professions Code, including providing secret and discriminatory
discounts and rebates and intentionally interfering with
prospective business advantages of Advanced Micro.  

Advanced Micro's complaint sought unspecified treble damages,
punitive damages, an injunction and attorney's fees and costs.  
Subsequently, Advanced Micro's Japanese subsidiary also filed
suits in the Tokyo High Court and the Tokyo District Court
against the Company's Japanese subsidiary, asserting violations
of Japan's Antimonopoly Law and alleging damages of
approximately $55 million, plus various other costs and fees.  

At least 77 separate class actions, generally repeating Advanced
Micro's allegations and asserting various consumer injuries,
including that consumers in various states have been injured by
paying higher prices for Intel microprocessors, have been filed
in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of
California, Southern District of California and the District of
Delaware as well as in various California, Kansas and Tennessee
state courts.  A motion has been filed requesting that all cases
that were filed in or removed to federal court be consolidated
for pretrial purposes in a single federal district court.

Semiconductor Company Intel Corp. -- http://www.intel.com-- is  
headquartered in Santa Clara, California.  It is famous for its
Pentium and Celeron microprocessors.


INTERMUNE INC: Calif. Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted final approval to the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against InterMune, Inc., and
certain of its former officers.

On June 25, 2003, a purported securities class action entitled,
"Johnson v. Harkonen and InterMune, Inc., No. C 03-2954-MEJ,"
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.  That suit was later followed by three additional
class action complaints, entitled:

     (1) "Lombardi v. InterMune, Inc., Harkonen and Surrey-
         Barbari, No. C 03 3068 MJJ" (filed on July 1, 2003);

     (2) "Mahoney Jr. v. InterMune Inc., Harkonen and Surrey-
         Barbari, No. C 03-3273 SI" (filed on July 14, 2003);
         and

     (3) "Adler v. Harkonen and InterMune Inc., No. C 03-3710
         MJJ" (filed on August 3, 2003);

Each of the suits made identical or similar allegations against
the Company, its former chief executive officer and its former
chief financial officer.  

On November 6, 2003, the various complaints were consolidated
into one case by order of the court, and on November 26, 2003, a
lead plaintiff, Lance A. Johnson, was appointed.  A consolidated
complaint entitled, "In re InterMune Securities Litigation, No.
C 03-2954 SI," was filed on January 30, 2004.

The consolidated amended complaint named the Company, and its
former chief executive officer and its former chief financial
officer, as defendants and alleges that the defendants made
certain false and misleading statements in violation of the
federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5.

The lead plaintiff sought unspecified damages on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period from January 7, 2003 through June 11, 2003.

The Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint on April 2, 2004, which was granted in part and
denied in part.  Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on
August 23, 2004, and the defendant filed in a motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint on October 7, 2004.  

On May 6, 2005 the parties entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement of the litigation pursuant to which the plaintiff
class would receive $10.4 million in exchange for a complete
release of claims set forth in the complaint that arose during
the period August 8, 2002 to June 11, 2003.

On June 27, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the
Stipulation of Settlement, ordered that notice be given to the
affected shareholders, and set a date of August 26, 2005 for a
hearing on final approval.  The court gave final approval to the
settlement in August 2005.

The suit is styled, "Johnson et al. v. Harkonen, et al., Case
No. 3:03-cv-02954," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Susan Illston.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Lynda J. Grant of Labaton
Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP, 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017,
Phone: 212-907-0700.  

Representing the Company are William S. Freeman and Mary Beth
O'Connor of Cooley Godward, LLP, Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El
Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 9406-2155, Phone: 650 843-5000, Fax:
650 857-0663, E-mail: freemanws@cooley.com and
mboconnor@cooley.com; and Emilia J. Mayorga of Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, 100 Spear Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA 94105,
Phone: 415/371-8500, Fax: 415/371-0500, E-mail:
mayorga@kerrwagstaffe.com.  


KENTUCKY: Inmates Complain of Overcrowding in Kenton County Jail
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati lawyer Robert Newman filed a suit over alleged
overcrowding at the Kenton County jail, according to The
Enquirer.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Covington on behalf
of three current and former inmates.  The suit claims the jail
is exceeding its capacity of 330 inmates to house more than 400
prisoners in 2005.  It said the jail averaged 465 inmates in
2004 and hit as high as 530.  

Mr. Newman is challenging county leaders to build a bigger jail,
proposing that they enter an agreement in 30 days to build a new
jail and address overcrowding.  In exchange, the lawyer will
waive his attorney fees and ask his clients not to seek monetary
damages.

Kenton County Attorney Garry Edmondson told The Enquirer county
officials will build a new jail but will not agree to the steps
Mr. Newman wants them to take in the interim.  He said the jail
capacity is 386, and it only hit 530 on rare cases during
holidays.

Mr. Newman is asking the federal court to grant class action
status to the case to include additional current and former
inmates.

The suit is styled, "Wilson, et al. v. Kenton County, KY, et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00060-WOB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky under Judge William
O. Bertelsman.  Representing the plaintiffs are, Robert B.
Newman of Newman & Meeks Co., 617 Vine Street, Suite 1401,
Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-639-7000, Fax: 513-639-7011, E-
mail: robertnewman@newman-meeks.com; and Suzanne Cassidy and
Michael J. O'Hara of O'Hara, Ruberg, Taylor, Sloan & Sergent, 25
Crestview Hills Mall Road, Suite 201, P.O. Box 17411, Covington,
KY 41017-0411, Phone: 859-331-2000, Fax: 859-578-3365, E-mail:
scassidy@ortlaw.com and mohara@ortlaw.com.


KIDS PREFERRED: Choking Hazard Prompts Recall of Toy Vehicles
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Kids Preferred LLC, of Dayton, New Jersey, is recalling 3,500
Primary Sounds toy vehicles.  

The Company said the hubcaps on the toy's plastic wheels can
detach posing a choking hazard to young children.  It has
received one report of an incident in which the wheel and hubcap
detached from the toy while a child was playing with it.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recalled toys are soft, stuffed yellow taxis, black and
white police cars and red fire engines, each with four plastic
wheels.  They measure about 6 inches in length and 5 inches in
width.  The toys have a silver-colored button on top that makes
sounds when pushed.  The police car and the fire engine make a
siren sound.  The taxi makes engine and horn sounds.  "Kids
Preferred" is printed on an attached fabric tag.

The toys were made in China and sold at Kohl's Department Stores
and specialty retailers nationwide from September 2005 through
January 2006 for about $12.  Consumers are advised to stop using
the recalled toy immediately and contact Kids Preferred LLC for
a full refund.

Picture of the recalled toy:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06126.jpg

Consumer Contact: Kids Preferred LLC, Phone: (866) 763-8869
(toll-free), E-mail: Nicole@kidspreferred.com.


LONE STAR: Del. Court Gives Final Okay to Stock, Derivative Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware gave final
approval to Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc.'s settlement of
the shareholder derivative and class action filed against
certain of its present and former directors.

The California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS)
filed the shareholders derivative action on October 16, 2001,
alleging breach of fiduciary duties by certain present and
former Directors and that certain of such defendants were
unjustly enriched through related party transactions and by the
re-pricing of stock options previously issued.  

The lawsuit also seeks to prevent enforcement of certain change
of control agreements granted to executive officers of the
Company, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and seeks
damages to be paid to the Company.  The Company is a nominal
defendant.  

The Company has indemnified present and former Directors with
respect to the shareholders derivative action filed by CalPERS
by contractual agreement, as well as by the Articles of
Incorporation of the Company as provided in accordance with the
Delaware General Corporation Law.

On January 9, 2002, CalPERS filed an amended complaint and added
a class action claim to attempt to certify a class action based
on their allegation that a provision in the change of control
agreements violates Delaware law.  A motion to dismiss was filed
by all defendants on February 8, 2002, seeking to dismiss all
claims of CalPERS.  Discovery was stayed pending a court
decision on the motion to dismiss.

The Vice Chancellor issued his decision on December 18, 2002
dismissing numerous counts and also substantially reducing the
scope of two other claims, both involving the repricing of stock
options.  Two of the counts sustained by the court involve
challenges to change of control agreements, which have now
expired.  

On January 17, 2003, the Vice Chancellor agreed to permit the
plaintiff to proceed with its discovery to obtain certain
documents from certain third parties and the named defendants,
and ordered the plaintiff to timely file its motion to amend its
complaint.

On April 16, 2003, CalPERS filed a Motion for Leave to Amend
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, which complaint added no
additional causes but added allegations which are subsequent to
the date of the first complaint and allegations which also
address counts which were dismissed by the Vice Chancellor on
December 18, 2002.   All defendants filed objections to CalPERS
attempt to amend and oral argument was heard by the Vice
Chancellor on August 21, 2003.  On May 26, 2004, the Court
rendered its decision and allowed CalPERS to amend their
complaint.

On June 1, 2005, the Company announced that it had entered into
a Stipulation of Settlement agreement with CalPERS.  The
settlement, which is subject to court approval, resolves all
claims raised by the parties in litigation.  As part of the
Stipulation of Settlement, the parties agreed to release each
other from any and all current and future claims related to the
litigation.

On August 15, 2005, the Company received an Order and Final
Judgment from the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
relating to the Stipulation of Settlement of the class action
and derivative lawsuit. As part of the settlement, certain of
the Company's current and former Directors agreed to an upward
repricing of certain stock options or personally make payments
to the Company as additional proceeds in connection with certain
options previously exercised.  

In addition, the Company's insurance provider made a payment in
the amount of $3,000 under the Company's Directors, Officers,
and Corporate insurance policy, of which $2,500 was an award for
attorneys' fees and expenses on behalf of CalPERS.  The
remaining $500 was paid to the Company for reimbursement of
legal costs and expenses and is included in general and
administrative expenses in the accompanying consolidated
financial statements.


MGM MIRAGE: Settles Boardwalk Shareholder Litigation in Nev.
------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement agreement was reached in a purported stockholder
class action against a subsidiary of MGM Mirage, which owns and,
until January 2006 operated, the Boardwalk Hotel and Casino.

On September 28, 1999, a former stockholder of the Company's
subsidiary filed a first amended complaint in a putative class
action in District Court for Clark County, Nevada against Mirage
Resorts and certain former directors and principal stockholders
of the Boardwalk subsidiary.

The complaint alleged that Mirage Resorts induced the other
defendants to breach their fiduciary duties to Boardwalk's
minority stockholders by devising and implementing a scheme by
which Mirage Resorts acquired Boardwalk at significantly less
than the true value of its shares.  The complaint sought an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages from Mirage Resorts
and punitive damages from the other defendants, whom the Company  
are required to defend and indemnify.

In June 2000, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted.  The plaintiff appealed the ruling to the Nevada
Supreme Court.

The parties filed briefs with the Nevada Supreme Court, and oral
arguments were conducted in October 2001.  In February 2003, the
Nevada Supreme Court overturned the District Court's order
granting the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint and
remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings
on the elements of the lawsuit involving wrongful conduct in
approving the merger and/or in the valuation of the merged
corporation's shares.

The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's dismissal
of the plaintiff's claims for lost profits and mismanagement.
The Nevada Supreme Court's ruling relates only to the District
Court's ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss and is not a
determination of the merits of the plaintiff's case.  

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and in November 2003,
the District Court certified the action as a class action.

In March 2005, the District Court for Clark County, Nevada
granted summary judgment in the Company's favor.  In May 2005
plaintiffs filed an appeal of the dismissal to the Nevada
Supreme Court.

At a mediation conference mandated by court rule, the parties
reached a settlement agreement on terms favorable to the
Company, which is in the process of documentation and is subject
to final approval by the Nevada Supreme Court.


MICROSOFT CORP: Neb. Schools to Get Share in $174M Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hyannis East and West elementary schools in Nebraska will get
$39,000 in hardware and software vouchers from Microsoft Corp.
as part of a $174 million settlement of a class action against
the Company, Barnstablepatriot.com reports.

Under the settlement, schools with greater than 50 percent of
their students on free and reduced lunch are eligible for such
vouchers.  The vouchers are intended to supplement current
technology budgets, updating computer software and hardware and
enhancing professional development for teachers and staff.  It
must be redeemed by February 2009.

                         Case Background  

In 2000, the Company faced a flurry of lawsuits for using its
market power to force customers to pay higher prices for its
Windows operating system.  The federal cases were later
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for Maryland.  These
cases allege that the Company competed unfairly and unlawfully
monopolized alleged markets for operating systems and certain
software applications.  They sought to recover alleged
overcharges for these products.

The courts dismissed all claims for damages in cases brought
against the Company by indirect purchasers under federal law and
in 17 states.  Nine of those state court decisions were affirmed
on appeal.  An appeal of one of those state rulings is pending.  
There was no appeal in four states.  Claims under federal law
brought on behalf of foreign purchasers have been dismissed by
the U.S. District Court in Maryland as have all claims brought
on behalf of consumers seeking injunctive relief under federal
law, (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2005).

The ruling on injunctive relief and the ruling dismissing the
federal claims of indirect purchasers are currently on appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, as is a ruling
denying certification of certain proposed classes of U.S. direct
purchasers.  Courts in eleven states have ruled that indirect
purchaser cases may proceed as class actions, while courts in
two states have denied class certification, (Class Action  
Reporter, Nov. 2, 2005).

Based in Washington, Microsoft Corp. -- http://www.microsoft.com  
-- provides a variety of products and services, including its
Windows operating systems and Office software suite.  The
Company has expanded into markets such as video game consoles,
interactive television, and Internet access.


OMEGA FLEX: Faces Suit Over Damage Risk of Gas-Carrying Tubing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Omega Flex Inc. said at its annual financial filing it was a
party to a lawsuit in Colorado charging that it and other
manufacturers of flexible gas-carrying tubing used in
construction had failed to disclose the risks of lightning-
related damage, according to the Republican.  The suit seeks
class-action status, the report said.

The Company is also facing a class action "Berry, et al. v.
Titeflex Corp., et al." before Clark County Circuit Court in
Arkansas.  The court has yet to rule on its motion to dismiss
the class action alleging that the Company's corrugated
stainless steel tubing product TracPipe and similar products
manufactured by several other manufacturers (also named as
defendants in the case) is defective.

Omega Flex -- http://www.omegaflex.com-- is based in Exton,  
Pennsylvania.  It makes flexible tubular and braided metal
(stainless steel, bronze) hoses for liquid and gas
transportation.  Products include hoses specially designed to
deal with high pressure, motion, extreme temperatures, harsh
liquids or gases, and abrasion.  Typical customers include
chemical and petrochemical plants, steel mills, pulp and paper
mills, water and wastewater facilities, and power plants. Other
applications include cryogenics, cargo transfer, and propane and
gas installations.  Omega Flex's brand names include OmegaFlex
and TracPipe.


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Proceeds in Calif. Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated securities class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against OmniVision Technologies, Inc.

On June 10, 2004, the first of several putative class actions
were filed against the Company and certain of its present and
former directors and officers on behalf of investors who
purchased the Company's common stock at various times from
February 2003 through June 9, 2004.

Those actions were consolidated under the caption, "In re
OmniVision Technologies, Inc., No. C-04-2297-SC," thus a
consolidated complaint was filed.  

The consolidated complaint asserts claims on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between June 11, 2003
and June 9, 2004, and seeks unspecified damages.  It generally
alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly engaging in
improper accounting practices that purportedly led to the
Company's financial restatement.

On July 29, 2005, the court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint.  The Company believes that the complaint
is without merit.  The case is currently in discovery.

The suit is styled, "In re OmniVision Technologies, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-2297," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Samuel L. Conti.  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) Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo, LLP, 601 California
         Street, Suite 1400, San Francisco, CA 94108, Phone:
         415.981.4800, Fax: 415.981.4846, E-mail:
         girardgibbs@girardgibbs.com;

     (3) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, 355 South Grand
         Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone:
         213.617.9007, Fax: 213.617.9185, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com; and

     (4) Seeger Weiss, LLP, (New York), One William Street, New
         York, NY 10004, Phone: 212.584.0700, E-mail:
         info@seegerweiss.com.


POSSIS MEDICAL: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
Possis Medical, Inc. is facing a shareholder lawsuit filed with
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on June 3,
2005, alleging that the Company and named individual officers
violated federal securities laws during a period beginning 2002.

The Complaint seeks class action status and unspecified damages.  
The Company believes that the allegations of the lawsuit are
without merit and are contesting the lawsuit vigorously.  

The suit is styled, "Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust, The v.
Possis Medical, Inc., et al., Case No. 0:05-cv-01084-JMR-FLN,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
under Judge James M. Rosenbaum with referral to Judge Franklin
L. Noel.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. of Reinhardt Wendorf &
         Blanchfield, 332 Minnesota St., Ste. E-1250, St Paul,
         MN 55101, Phone: 651-287-2100, E-mail:
         g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com;

     (2) Nancy A. Kulesa of Schatz & Nobel, PC, 20 Church St.,
         Ste. 1700, Hartford, CT 06103, Phone: 860-241-6116, E-
         mail: nkulesa@snlaw.net; and

     (3) Andrei V. Rado of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,
         LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY
         10119-0165, Phone: 212-946-4474, E-mail:
         arado@milbergweiss.com.

Representing the defendants are, Michelle S. Grant, Bryan C.
Keane, James K. Langdon and Roger J. Magnuson of Dorsey &
Whitney, LLP, 50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402-
1498, Phone: 612-340-5671 and 612-340-2600, Fax: 612-340-2807
and 612-340-8800, E-mail: grant.michelle@dorsey.com,
keane.bryan@dorsey.com, langdon.jim@dorsey.com and
magnuson.roger@dorsey.com.


QUESTAR EXPLORATION: Indemnification Claim Dismissal Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of a suit against Questar Exploration and
Production is under appeal at the Oklahoma District Court.  
Kaiser-Francis Oil Co. appealed on April 8, 2005, the trial
judge's order dismissing the suit styled, "Kaiser-Francis Oil v.
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Case No. CJ-2003-66518."

Kaiser-Francis was a co-defendant of the Company in a prior
Oklahoma case, styled, "Bridenstine v. Kaiser-Francis Oil Co."
The original lawsuit was a class action alleging improper
royalty payments for wells connected to the Beaver Gas Pipeline
System in western Oklahoma, which is no longer owned by Market
Resources.  

The Company and Anadarko (as the successor to another Company)
settled the lawsuit in December 2000 by agreeing to pay a total
sum of $22.5 million, of which $16.5 million was allocated to
Questar.  Kaiser-Francis chose not to settle and was assessed
damages, including punitive damages, by a jury.

Kaiser-Francis ultimately settled for $82.5 million, plus
interest.  As part of the settlement, Kaiser-Francis and the
plaintiff class agreed to entry of a "superseding judgment"
purporting to vacate the punitive damages award against Kaiser-
Francis after the Oklahoma Supreme Court had affirmed that award
and issued its mandate. The Company and Anadarko have appealed
the entry of the superseding judgment to the Oklahoma Supreme
Court.

Kaiser-Francis' current lawsuit claims that the Company and
Anadarko were obligated by express and implied indemnities to
pay for a portion of the damages assessed in the jury trial and
for its legal-defense costs.

In dismissing the lawsuit for failure to state a claim, the
district judge noted that the jury determined that Kaiser-
Francis was involved in a conspiracy to commit fraud and was
therefore barred by a doctrine similar to "unclean hands" from
seeking indemnity for the judgment.

On appeal, Kaiser-Francis contends that it should be allowed to
amend its petition to argue that the superseding judgment
shields it from the jury's findings of wrongdoing.  In
dismissing the case, the trial judge found that the superseding
judgment made no difference.


ROSE ART: Death Report Prompts Magnetic Building Sets Recall
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Rose Art Industries Inc., of Livingston, New Jersey, is
recalling 3.8 million all Magnetix magnetic building sets.

The Company said tiny magnets inside the plastic building pieces
and rods can fall out.  Magnets found by young children can be
swallowed or aspirated.  If more than one magnet is swallowed,
the magnets can attract to each other and cause intestinal
perforation or blockage, which can be fatal.  This product is
unsuitable for young children.

CPSC is aware of 34 incidents involving small magnets, including
one death and four serious injuries.  A 20-month-old boy died
after he swallowed magnets that twisted his small intestine and
created a blockage.  Three children ages ranging from 3 to 8 had
intestinal perforations that required surgery and
hospitalization in intensive care.  A 5-year-old child aspirated
two magnets that were surgically removed from his lung.

All Magnetix magnetic building sets including the X-treme Combo,
Micro, and Extreme sets.  The sets contain 20 to 200 plastic
building pieces and 20 to 100 1/2-inch diameter steel balls.  
The building pieces are red, yellow, blue and green, and are
shaped in 1 1/2-inch squares, 1-inch triangles and cylinder
rods.  Some plastic building pieces have "Magnetix" imprinted on
them.

The building sets were made in China and sold at Wal-Mart,
Target, Toys R Us, Fred Meyer, Design Science Toys Ltd., A.C.
Moore, and other toy and arts and crafts stores nationwide.  The
Magnetix magnetic building sets were sold from September 2003
through March 2006 for between $20 and $60, depending on the
size of the set.  The replacement program does not include sets
at retail.

Consumers are advised to stop using the magnetic sets and return
the sets to Rose Art for a free replacement product suitable for
young children under the age of 6.  Consumers should be sure to
keep all small magnet parts out of the hands of children who
mouth objects, especially children under the age of three.

Picture of the building sets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06127a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06127b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06127c.jpg

Consumer Contact: Rose Art, Phone: (800) 779-7122 between 8 a.m.
and 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday; Web site:
http://www.roseart.com.


ROSENBERG RICH: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set May 18, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey will hold
a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the matter:
"Smith, et al. v. Rosenberg, Rich, Baker, Berman and Company,
Case No. 3:03-cv-04425-SRC-TJB."  The case was brought on behalf
of all persons and entities who purchased or acquired shares of
common stock or warrants of Medi-Hut Company, Inc. during the
time period from January 18, 2001 through April 4, 2003 and who
were damaged thereby.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Stanley R. Chesler
in the U.S. Courthouse, 402 East State St., Trenton, NJ 08608 at
10:00 a.m. on May 18, 2006 in Courtroom 5050.

Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is on June 30, 2006.  
Any objections or exclusions to the settlement must be filed by
April 25, 2006.  

For more details, contact Lisa J. Rodriguez of Trujillo
Rodriguez & Richards, LLP, 8 Kings Highway West, Haddonfield, NJ
08033, Phone: (856) 795-9002, E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com; and
Claims Administrator, Smith V. Rosenberg, Heffler Radetich &
Saitta, LLP, P.O. Box 58776, Philadelphia, PA 19102-8776, Phone:
(800) 528-7199, E-mail: claimsadministrator@heffler.com, Web
site: http://www.hrsclaimsadministrator.com.


SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: Pa. Suit Summary Judgment Appeal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has yet to rule on plaintiffs' appeal of an earlier ruling
granting summary judgment in favor of Safeguard Scientifics,
Inc. in the consolidated securities class action filed against
the Company and its former chairman.

On June 26, 2001, the Company and Mr. Musser were named as
defendants in a putative class action filed in U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  Plaintiffs
allege that defendants failed to disclose that Mr. Musser had
pledged some or all of his Company stock as collateral to secure
margin trading in his personal brokerage accounts.  

Plaintiffs allege that defendants' failure to disclose the
pledge, along with their failure to disclose several margin
calls, a loan to Mr. Musser, the guarantee of certain margin
debt and the consequences thereof on the Company's stock price,
violated the federal securities laws.  They also allege claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

On August 17, 2001, a second putative class action was filed
against the Company and Mr. Musser asserting claims similar to
those brought in the first proceeding.  In addition, plaintiffs
in the second case allege that the defendants failed to disclose
possible or actual manipulative aftermarket trading in the
securities of the Company's companies, the impact of competition
on prospects for one or more of the Company's companies and the
Company's lack of a superior business plan.

These two cases were consolidated for further proceedings under
the caption, "In Re: Safeguard Scientifics Securities
Litigation," and the Court approved the designation of a lead
plaintiff and the retention of lead plaintiffs' counsel.  The
plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended complaint.  

On May 23, 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated and amended complaint for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.  On October 24, 2002, the
Court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, holding that,
based on the allegations of plaintiffs' consolidated and amended
complaint dismissal would be inappropriate at that juncture.

On December 20, 2002, plaintiffs filed with the Court a motion
for class certification.  On August 27, 2003, the Court denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

On September 12, 2003, plaintiffs filed with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit a petition for permission to
appeal the order denying class certification.  On November 5,
2003, the Third Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition and declined
to hear the appeal.  On November 18, 2003, plaintiffs' counsel
moved to intervene new plaintiffs and proposed class
representatives, which motion was denied by the Court on
February 18, 2004.  

On July 12, 2004, a third putative class action complaint
captioned "Mandell v. Safeguard Scientifics, Inc., et al." was
filed against the Company and Mr. Musser in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  

The new complaint asserts similar claims to those asserted in
the consolidated and amended class action complaint.  The
complaint also asserts individual claims on behalf of two
individual plaintiffs who had attempted unsuccessfully to
intervene in the consolidated action.

On August 10, 2004, the court entered an order staying all
proceedings in the Mandell action pending the court's ruling on
defendants' summary judgment motion in the consolidated action,
or until such later time as the court may order.  On November
23, 2004, the court entered an order granting defendants' motion
for summary judgment.  

On December 17, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
with the court, seeking to appeal the court's orders granting
summary judgment to defendants, denying class certification and
denying the motion to intervene new plaintiffs, among other
matters.  The court has not taken any further action with
respect to the Mandell action.

The suit is styled, "In Re: Safeguard Scientifics Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:01-cv-03208-JCJ," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under
Judge J. Curtis Joyner.  Representing the plaintiffs are, Todd
S. Collins of Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust St.,
Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365, Phone: 215-875-3000, Fax: 215-875-
5715, E-mail: tcollins@bm.net; and Allan H. Gordon of Kolsby
Gordon Robin Shore & Bezar, One Liberty Place, 22nd Floor, 1650
Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-851-9700, Fax:
215-851-9701, E-mail: ahg@kgrs.com.

Representing the defendants are, Michael S. Doluisio of Dechert,
Price & Rhoads, 1717 Arch Street, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower,
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793, Phone: 215-994-2749, Fax: 215-994-
2222, E-mail: michael.doluisio@dechert.com; and H. Robert
Fiebach of Cozen O'Connor, 1900 Market St., Philadelphia, PA
19103, Phone: 215-665-4166, Fax: 215-665-2013.


SAN DIEGO: Calif. Baseball Club Settles Overtime Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Southern California class action attorneys David A. Huch and
Derek J. Emge settled overtime claims against the San Diego
Padres Baseball Club on behalf of several sales employees.

In their class action complaint, the Padres' sales employees
claimed that they were misclassified as exempt from California's
overtime and meal break/rest period requirements, as well as
other wage requirements under the California Labor Code.  These
sales employees, who worked significant overtime hours during
the baseball season, were responsible for selling various ticket
and entertainment packages, including group sales, season ticket
sales, premium seating sales and luxury skybox sales.

Before the matter went to trial, the Padres re-classified these
employment positions as non-exempt and settled all claims with
current and former sales employees who worked during the
applicable four-year statutory period under California law.  The
specific terms of the settlement are to remain confidential.

Under California law, all employees are presumed to be entitled
to overtime pay unless the employee in question falls "plainly
and unmistakably" within narrowly defined exemption categories.  
Sales employees in California are often misclassified by
employers as exempt from overtime pay due to the employers'
failure to comply with the exemption categories' strict
requirements.  Under California law, misclassified employees are
entitled to four years of overtime compensation (at "time and a
half" and "double time" rates) plus various other remedies,
including attorneys' fees, litigation costs and interest at the
rate of 10 percent per annum.

For more information contact the Law Offices of David A. Huch
David A. Huch, Phone: 760-402-9528; E-mail: dhuch@onebox.com; or
Derek J. Emge of Emge & Associates, Phone: 619-595-1400; E-mail:
derek@inthelaw.com.


SIMON PROPERTY: Plaintiffs in Gift Card Suit Going to High Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a suit accusing Simon Property Group Inc. of
wrongly reducing the value of gift cards that were unused by
customers are filing an appeal with Georgia Supreme Court,
lawyer Roy Barnes told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

In March, Georgia's Court of Appeals rejected the lawsuit,
reversing a decision by a trial court to let the case proceed as
class action in Cobb County.  The suit cited state law
concerning the disposition of unclaimed property.  The Appeals
Court refuted the application of the law saying the gift cards
are not abandoned property.

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

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

Simon's lawyer is John L. Coalson, Jr. of Alston & Bird LLP, One
Atlantic Center, 1201 West Peachtree Street, Atlanta, Georgia
30309-3424, (DeKalb & Fulton Cos.), Phone: 404-881-7000,
Telecopier: 404-881-7777, Cable Address: AMGRAM GA Telex: 54-
2996, Easylink: 62985848.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Settlement Reached in High School Drug Raid Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A preliminary settlement amounting to $1.6 million has been
reached in a class action arising from the 2003 drug raid at
Stratford High School, The Post and Courier reports.

In 2004, The Goose Creek Police Department faced a federal
lawsuit filed by parents of students at Stratford High School,
alleging that their children were terrorized by armed police and
drug-sniffing dogs during a search at the school.  The suit also
named as defendant the Berkeley County School system.

On November 5, 2003, a surprise commando-style drug raid was
conducted on 107 Stratford High students.  A widely televised
surveillance tape of the raid showed police with guns drawn,
handcuffing students with plastic cuffs and ordering them not to
move while officers and dogs searched them.  No drugs or weapons
were found and no arrests were made.

The suit is pending in the U.S. District Court in Charleston,
South Carolina, on behalf of 20 Stratford High students aged 14
to 18, charging police and school officials with:

     (1) violating the students' constitutional rights by
         conducting an illegal search and seizure,

     (2) using excessive force,

     (3) committing assault and battery, and

     (4) subjecting students to false imprisonment.

Under the settlement, students who were in the hallway during
the incident, and students who were brought into the hall and
searched, would be eligible for compensation.  They would share
$1,175,000, with an additional $25,000 put into a medical
compensation fund for students who sought medical or
psychological treatment.  Eleven attorneys would split $400,000.

The defendants will not admit wrongdoing but will agree to
change policies and undergo training in appropriate search
procedures.

The settlement will be funded by:
                                                  Contribution
     Berkeley County School District                 $50,000
     Zurich North America Insurance Co.             $500,000
     The City of Goose Creek                         $60,000
     S.C. Municipal Insurance Risk Financing Fund   $990,000

The American Civil Liberties Union represents the plaintiffs.  
Lead lawyers were Fritz Jekel and Marlon Kimpson, both of Motley
Rice LLC -- http://www.motleyrice.com/-- and Gregg Meyers, 39  
Broad Street, Suite 300, Charleston, South Carolina 29401,
(Berkeley & Charleston Cos.), Phone: 843-720-8714; Fax: 843-720-
8704.


SPARK NETWORKS: Ill. Fertelmeyster Suit Appeal Deadline Expires
---------------------------------------------------------------  
Spark Networks, PLC, formerly MatchNet, PLC, said that a class
action brought against it by Tatyana Fertelmeyster has now been
closed following the expiration of the deadline for appealing
the Circuit Court of Cook County's decision in the case.

On June 21, 2002, Tatyana Fertelmeyster filed an Illinois class
action complaint against the Company in the Circuit Court of
Cook County in Illinois, based on an alleged violation of the
Illinois Dating Referral Services Act.

On March 25, 2005, the court in Fertelmeyster entered its
Memorandum Opinion and Order (Memorandum Opinion) granting
summary judgment in favor of the Company on the grounds that:
  
     (1) Ms. Fertelmeyster lacks standing to seek injunctive
         relief or restitutionary relief under the Illinois
         Dating Services Act,

     (2) Ms. Fertelmeyster did not suffer any actual damages,
         and

     (3) the Company was not unjustly enriched as a result of
         its contract with Ms. Fertelmeyster.

The Memorandum Opinion "disposes of all matters in controversy"
in the litigation and also provides that the Company is subject
to the Illinois Dating Services Act and, as such, its
subscription agreements violate the act and are void and
unenforceable.

This ruling may subject the Company to potential liability for
claims brought by the Illinois Attorney General or customers
that have been injured by the Company's violation of the
statute.  Ms. Fertelmeyster filed a Motion for Reconsideration
of the Memorandum Opinion and, on August 26, 2005, the court
issued its opinion denying Fertelmeyster's Motion for
Reconsideration.

In the opinion, the court, among other things:

     (i) decertified the class, eliminating the last remnant of
         the litigation;

    (ii) rejected each of the plaintiff's arguments based on the
         arguments and law that the Company provided in its
         opposition;

   (iii) stated that the court would not judicially amend the
         Illinois statute to provide for restitution when the
         legislature selected damages as the sole remedy;

    (iv) noted that the cases cited by plaintiff in connection
         with plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration actually
         support the court's prior order granting summary
         judgment in favor of the Company; and

     (v) denied plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration in its
         entirety.

The time period for filing an appeal from the Memorandum Opinion
in the Fertelmeyster Action has now expired, and as a result,
the litigation is now concluded.


SPARK NETWORKS: Mediation in Calif. Dating Services Suit Fails
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Networks, PLC, said that the February 2006 mediation with
plaintiffs on a class action pending in Los Angeles Superior
Court in California did not result in any settlement.

On November 14, 2003, Jason Adelman filed a nationwide class
action complaint against the Company in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court based on an alleged violation of California Civil
Code section 1694 et seq., which regulates businesses that
provide dating services.  

The complaint included allegations that the Company is a dating
service as defined by the applicable statutes and, as an alleged
dating service, the Company is required to provide language in
their contracts that allows:

     (1) members to rescind their contracts within three days,

     (2) reimbursement of a portion of the contract price if
         the member dies during the term of the contract and/or

     (3) members to cancel their contracts in the event of
         disability or relocation.

Causes of action include breach of applicable state and/or
federal laws, fraudulent and deceptive business practices,
breach of contract and unjust enrichment.  The plaintiffs are
seeking remedies including declaratory relief, restitution,
actual damages although not quantified, treble damages and/or
punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs.

The suit seeks to be certified as a nationwide class action.  
Since the case is a class action, it was assigned to the Los
Angeles Superior Court Complex Litigation Program.

Mediation occurred in Adelman in 2004 that did not result in a
settlement.  A post-mediation status conference was held on July
16, 2004.

At that Status Conference, the court suggested that the parties
agree to a bifurcation of the liability issue.  The purpose of
the bifurcation is to allow the Court to determine whether as a
matter of law the California Dating Services Act (CDS Act)
applies to the Company's business.

In this way, if the Court determines that the CDS Act is
inapplicable, all further expenses associated with discovery and
class certification can be avoided.  The court has permitted
limited discovery including document requests and
interrogatories, the parties will each be permitted to take one
deposition without further leave of the court, the parties will
be allowed to designate expert witnesses, and the court will
conduct a trial on the issue of the applicability of the CDS Act
to the Company's business in the spring of 2006.

Although some written discovery relating to the bifurcated trial
was completed, depositions have not yet been taken.  A second
mediation occurred in Adelman on February 10, 2006, but the
mediation has not yet been completed.  

The mediation resumed on February 23, 2006, but did not result
in a settlement.  The bifurcated trial in Adelman is now set for
May 15, 2006, the deposition cut-off date is March 24, 2006, and
the final briefing deadline is April 17, 2006.


STAKTEK HOLDINGS: Shareholders Allowed to Pursue DRAM Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has defeated defendants' motions to
dismiss plaintiffs' amended securities fraud claims against
Staktek Holdings, Inc. and Staktek officers and directors Joseph
C. Aragona, James W. Cady and William Kirk Patterson.

Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP was previously appointed Lead
Counsel in the class action filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas on behalf of shareholders.  The
action focuses on the defendants' failure to disclose an ongoing
DRAM shortage and a production shift in the semiconductor
industry to planar technologies.  

On October 22, 2004, a class action complaint was filed in the
U.S. District Court in New Mexico, alleging that the defendants
failed to disclose to the public an anticipated shortage of
computer memory chips and that they knew or recklessly
disregarded that the anticipated shortage would have a
materially adverse impact on the Company's revenue and earnings
(Class action Reporter, Sept. 23, 2005).

In addition, the plaintiff claimed that the defendants failed to
disclose to investors that the industry's transition to a new
generation of higher-capacity memory chips was causing computer
makers to stockpile supplies of older memory chips, increasing
the shortage.  The suit covers individuals who purchased Company
stock between November 26, 2003 and May 19, 2004.

In April 2005, the case was transferred to federal district
court in Austin, Texas, and in June the plaintiff amended her
complaint, adding the Company's chairman of the board as a
defendant.  In July 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint.

Based in Austin, Texas, Staktek Holdings (Nasdaq:STAK) --
http://www.staktek.com-- makes high-density memory modules that  
use its proprietary 3-D stacking technology, which it touts as
allowing more memory to fit in less board space.


STONEPATH GROUP: Penn. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
granted Stonepath Group's motion to dismiss the second
consolidated amended class action complaint relating to "In re
Stonepath Group, Inc. Securities Litigation."  The order
granting the motion to dismiss does not provide the plaintiff
with the opportunity to file an amended complaint, and enters
judgment in favor of the defendants.

Should the plaintiffs choose to proceed, they could appeal the
district court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the
Third Circuit.

"We have believed from the beginning that this case had no
foundation and we are extremely pleased with the court's
ruling," said Dennis L. Pelino, Chairman of Stonepath.

Eight purported class action complaints were initially filed
against the Company between September 24, 2004 and November 19,
2004, and later consolidated.  The plaintiffs initially sought
to represent a class of purchasers of the Company's shares
between May 7, 2003 and September 20, 2004, and alleged claims
for securities fraud under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

These claims were based upon the allegation that certain public
statements made during the period from May 7, 2003 through
August 9, 2004 were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose that the Company's Domestic Services
operations had improperly accounted for accrued purchased
transportation costs.  The plaintiffs sought compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and further relief as may be
determined by the Court.

The Court consolidated the eight lawsuits into a single action
and the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  The amended
complaint sought to represent a class of purchasers of the
Company's shares between March 29, 2002 and September 20, 2004
based upon public statements made during that period.  The
Company and the individual defendants believed that the action
was without merit, and filed a motion to dismiss this action.  
On October 27, 2005, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's complaint with leave to file an amended
complaint.

The suit was styled, "In re Stonepath Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 2:04-cv-04515-SD," filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
under Judge Stewart Dalzell.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stephanie M. Beige, U. Seth Ottensoser, Bernstein
         Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP 10 East 40th Street New York,
         NY 10016 Phone: 212-779-1414

     (2) Deborah R. Gross, Susan R. Gross, Law Offices Bernard
         M. Gross, PC 100 Penn Square West, Juniper & Market St.
         John Wanamaker Bldg Suite 450, Philadelphia PA 19107
         Phone: 215-561-3600 Fax: 215-561-3000 E-mail:
         debbie@bernardmgross.com or susang@bernardmgross.com;  

     (3) Timothy J. Macfall, Law Offices of Curtis v. Trinko 310
         Madison Avenue, 14th Floor, New York NY 10017;

Representing the Company are Kendra Lee Baisinger, Steven E.
Bizar, Thomas P. Manning, Howard D. Scher, Buchanan Ingersoll PC
1835 Market St., 14th Floor, Philadelphia PA 19103 Phone:
215-665-3878 E-mail: baisingerkl@bipc.com, bizarse@bipc.com,
manningtp@bipc.com, scherhd@bipc.com.

Stonepath Group (STG) -- http://www.stonepath.com-- is a  
global, third-party logistics organization providing a full
range of transportation and distribution solutions to
multinational and local businesses including a diverse client
mix of retail leaders, automotive and technology concerns,
government agencies, and defense contractors.


VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Faces Ill. Suit Over Changes to Oil Specs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Volkswagen of America faces a purported class action in
Illinois' St. Clair County Circuit Court alleging that the
automaker unfairly changed the oil maintenance specifications of
certain vehicles, which more than doubled owner's oil change
costs, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Mildred Kasten of Belleville filed the suit.  John Papa of
Granite City, John K. Weston of Sacks & Weston in Jenkintown,
Pa. and Joseph L. Tucker of the J. Stephen Jackson firm in
Birmingham, Ala., represents her in the case.

The lawsuit, which was filed in on March 22, involves 1997-2004
Audi A4s and 1998-2004 Volkswagen Passats.  Ms. Kasten herself
owns a 1998 Passat.

The suit acknowledged that on Aug. 2, 2004, vehicle owners were
informed through a letter that they would need to use more
expensive synthetic oil, over less expensive petroleum-based
oil.  But they were not instructed to use larger oil filters as
advised to technicians, and more oil when changing the engine.
Vehicle warranties are honored only for owners who can prove
they've maintained their vehicles on schedule.  

According to them, even if they complied with the new
requirements specified in the August 2004 letter, they could
experience engine failure due to the use of the previously
required oil filter.  And because they used the 'wrong oil
filter' they were denied warranty coverage.  The suit, thus,
alleged breached of contract, and violation of Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act.

Vehicle owners are insisting the claims venue should be in St.
Clair County because the plaintiff resides in Illinois and
Michigan-based Volkswagen of America regularly does business in
the state.

For more details, contact John T. Papa of Callis, Papa, Hale,
Szewczyk, Rongey & Danzinger, P.C., 1326 Niedringhaus Avenue,
P.O. Box 1326, Granite City, Illinois 62040, (Madison Co.),
Phone: 618-452-1323 and 1-800-851-3105, Fax: 618-452-8024; and
John K. Weston of Sacks & Weston, 114 Old York Road, Jenkintown,
Pennsylvania 19046, (Montgomery Co.), Phone: 215-925-8200, Fax:
215-925-0508, Web site: http://www.sackslaw.com.


UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs in Abu Ghraib Suit Build Evidences
------------------------------------------------------------
More than 300 former Abu Ghraib inmates in Iraq have filed a
class action in a District of Columbia court, according to
Spiegel Online.  New materials, including a raft of photos, have
been emerging almost daily to support the case, the report said.

Companies providing interrogation and other related intelligence
services have been sued over alleged abuse of prisoners.  They
were accused of providing intelligence of any quality to the
military in order to meet quotas and win new assignments in the
lucrative private interrogation business (Class Action Reporter,
June 16, 2004).  

Abu Ghraib is Iraqi city 32 km. west of Baghdad.  It became
internationally known as a place where Saddam Hussein tortured
and executed dissidents, and later as the site of torture-
interrogation of Iraqi suspects by the U.S. military
(Wikipedia).


WESTAR ENERGY: Settlement Achieved for ERISA Fraud Suit in Kans.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a class action against Westar
Energy, Inc., its present and former officers and employees that
was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

The suit was filed on behalf of participants in, and
beneficiaries of, the Company's Employees' 401(k) Savings Plan
between July 1, 1998 and January 1, 2003.  The lawsuit alleges
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) arising from the conduct of certain present and former
officers and employees, who served or are serving as fiduciaries
for the plan, (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 14, 2005).

On January 31, 2006, the Company reached an agreement in
principle with the plaintiffs to settle this lawsuit for $9.25
million, which will be paid by the Company's insurance carrier.  
The full terms of the proposed settlement will be set forth in a
Class Action Settlement Agreement expected to be filed with the
court by March 17, 2006.  

The settlement is subject to approval by the court.  The court
will conduct a hearing, which has not yet been scheduled, to
consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and
adequate.

The suit is styled, "In Re: Westar Energy ERISA Litigation, Case
No. 5:03-cv-04032-JAR-JPO," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas under Judge Julie A. Robinson with
referral to Judge James P. O'Hara.  Representing the plaintiffs
are, Joseph H. Meltzer and Gerald David Wells, III of Schiffrin
& Barroway, LLC, 280 King of Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA, Phone:
620-676-7706, Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail: gwells@sbclasslaw.com
and jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com; and Ronald P. Pope of Ralston, Pope
& Diehl, LLC, 2913 S.W. Maupin Lane, Topeka, KS 66614, Phone:
785-273-8002, Fax: 785-273-0744, E-mail: ron@ralstonpope.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Charles W. German and Kirk T. May of Rouse Hendricks
         German May, PC, One Petticoat Lane Bldg., 1010 Walnut
         St., Ste. 400, Kansas City, MO 64106, Phone: 816-471-
         7700, Fax: 816-471-2221, E-mail: charleyg@rhgm.com and
         kirkm@rhgm.com;  

     (2) Sharon Katz of Davis Polk & Wardwell, 450 Lexington
         Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-450-4508, Fax:
         212-450-3508, E-mail: skatz@dpw.com;

     (3) Paul G. Schepers of Seigfreid, Bingham, Levy, Selzer &
         Gee, 2800 Commerce Tower, 911 Main Street, Kansas City,
         MO 64105, Phone: 816-421-4460 x1, Fax: 816-474-3447, E-         
         mail: pschepers@sblsg.com;


     (4) Thomas M. Bradshaw and Stanley M. Burgess of Armstrong
         Teasdale LLP - Kansas City, 2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite
         2000, Kansas City, MO 64108-2617, Phone: 816-221-3420,
         Fax: 816-221-0786, E-mail:  
         tbradshaw@armstrongteasdale.com and
         mburgess@armstrongteasdale.com;

     (5) Julia D. Kitsmiller of Berkowitz Oliver Williams Shaw &
         Eisenbrandt, LLP - KC, Two Emanuel Cleaver II Blvd.,
         Suite 500, Kansas City, MO 64112, Phone: 816-561-7007,
         Fax: 816-561-1888, E-mail: jkitsmiller@bowse-law.com;
         and

     (6) Kathryn A. Lewis of Warden Triplett Grier, LLP, 9401
         Indian Creek Parkway, Suite 1100, Overland Park, KS
         66210, Phone: 913-345-5181, Fax: 913-491-2979, E-mail:
         klewis@wtglaw.com.


WESTAR ENERGY: Settlement Attained in Kans. Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a consolidated securities class
action against Westar Energy, Inc. and certain of its present
and former officers and directors, which was filed in U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas.

Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on July 15,
2003.  The lawsuit is brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between March 29, 2000 the date the
Company announced its intention to separate its electric utility
operations from its unregulated businesses, and November 8,
2002, the date the KCC issued an order prohibiting the
separation, (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 14, 2005).  

The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated federal securities
laws by making material misrepresentations or omitting material
facts concerning the purpose and benefits of the previously
proposed separation of the Company's electric utility operations
from its unregulated businesses, the compensation of its senior
management and the independence and functioning of its board of
directors and that as a result the Company artificially inflated
the price of the Company's common stock, (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 14, 2005).

On August 26, 2004, the court issued an order granting a joint
motion of all parties, which stayed the lawsuit until December
7, 2004, pending efforts to settle the lawsuit through
mediation.  The court also denied without prejudice motions to
dismiss the lawsuit filed by the Company and other defendants,
(Class Action Reporter, Nov. 14, 2005).  

The court stated its intention to set aside the order upon
notice by any party that mediation efforts were unsuccessful, in
which case the court would address the motions to dismiss the
lawsuit, (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 14, 2005).

In early April 2005, the Company reached an agreement in
principle with the plaintiffs to settle this lawsuit for $30
million.  The full terms of the proposed settlement are set
forth in a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement
and Release dated as of May 31, 2005 filed with the court.

On September 1, 2005, the court approved the proposed settlement
and directed the parties to consummate the settlement in
accordance with the stipulation.  Pursuant to the stipulation,
the Company paid $1.25 million and its insurance carriers paid
$28.75 million into a settlement fund that upon effectiveness of
the settlement will be disbursed, after payment of $9.0 million
of legal fees for plaintiffs' counsel plus expenses, to
shareholders as provided in the stipulation.

The suit is styled, "In Re: Westar Energy, Inc. Securities
Litigation, 03-CV-4003," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas under Judge Julie A. Robinson.  
Representing the plaintiffs are: Schoengold & Sporn, PC, 233
Broadway 39th Floor, New York, NY 10279, Phone: 212.964.0046;
and the law firm of Swanson Midgley, LLC, 2420 Pershing Road.
Suite 400, Kansas City, MO 64108-2505, Phone: 816.842.6100, Fax:
816.842.6100, E-mail: mail@swansonmidgley.com.


WISCONSIN: Tenant Launches Suit Over Building Code Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Milwaukee, Wisconsin landlord Timothy J. Brophy Jr., is facing a
purported class action in Milwaukee County Circuit Court over
the condition of his many rental properties, The Journal
Sentinel reports.

The suit was filed by Jessica K. Wineberg, who rented an
apartment from Mr. Brophy in November 2004 at 2563 N. Bremen St.  
She moved out after the city designated the property as
uninhabitable because it is unsafe.  She claims Mr. Brophy
neither told her about the apartment's uncorrected code
violations before she moved in, nor refunded her security
deposit.

The suit estimates Mr. Brophy's tenants at between 60 and 100.  
It also said that tenants on the east side and in Riverwest plan
to collect twice the amount of any security deposits they made.

In recent months, Mr. Brophy has been arrested over building
code violations, hit with a $1.69 million court judgment and
charged with three misdemeanors.

   
                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Pomerantz Haudek Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, reminds investors
that the deadline to ask the court for appointment as lead
plaintiff in the class action against Chicago Bridge & Iron
Company N.V. is April 16, 2006.

On March 8, 2006, the firm filed the class action against the
Company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers
of the common stock of the Company during the period from March
9, 2005 to February 15, 2006, inclusive (the Class Period).

The complaint alleges violations of Section 20(a) and Section
10(b) of The Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.  It also alleges that
beginning in March 2005 through August 2005, CB&I consistently
issued favorable press releases lauding the Company's financial
strength, consistently reporting an increase in net income and
share value for the 2004 fiscal year and the first two quarters
of 2005.

On May 10, 2005 the Company filed its first quarter report with
the SEC on a Form 10-Q.  Pursuant to section 302 of Sarbanes
Oxley, the Form 10-Q contained signed certifications by the
Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officers.

On August 8, 2005, the Company filed with the SEC its Form 10-Q
for the second quarter ended June 30, 2005.  In the Form 10-Q,
the Company reiterated previously announced financial results
and was signed by the chief financial officer.

In truth, statements issued by the defendants during the Class
Period were materially false and misleading when made because
defendants failed to disclose that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Teresa L. Webb and Carolyn S.
Moskowitz of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP,
Phone: (888) 476-6529, E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com and
csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com, Web site: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com.


COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC, filed a securities class action on behalf of
securities purchasers of Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. during the
period October 15, 2003 through July 28, 2004, inclusive (the
Class Period), seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

CC Enterprises engages in the manufacture, distribution, sale
and marketing of nonalcoholic beverages primarily under
agreements with The Coca-Cola Company.  

During the Class Period, the complaint alleges, defendants
issued numerous false and misleading public statements regarding
the basis for the Company's historic financial progress,
enabling Company insiders to dump their Company securities at
artificially inflated prices.  Moreover, as alleged, CCE
shareholders were duped into purchasing CCE shares at these
artificially inflated prices.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants
failed to disclose that they were "channel stuffing" their
inventory to conceal that soft drink sales were no longer as
robust as earlier announced.  

Defendants' false and misleading statements concealed that the
Company's 2004 financial forecasts remained unachievable and
that it would be difficult for analysts and investors to
accurately determine the Company's potential for revenues and
growth for present and future quarters, as a result of the
Company's channel-stuffing practices.

Consequently, as alleged, investors purchased their CCE shares
at artificially inflated prices, while Company insiders were
able to sell over $96.7 million of Company securities.  

Finally, on July 29, 2004, the Company warned investors that
significant shortfalls against its North American and European
sales targets would adversely impact results, when measured
against its previous 2004 sales and revenues guidance and
forecasts.

On the news, the price of CC Enterprises stock plunged nearly
17.5%, closing on July 29, 2004 at $20.63, on record volume of
more than 18.5 million shares.

For more details, contact David R. Scott of Scott + Scott, LLC,
Phone: (800) 404-7770 and (860) 537-5537, E-mail: drscott@scott-
scott.com, Web site: http://www.scott-scott.com.


ESTEE LAUDER: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities
of The Estee Lauder Companies Inc. between April 28, 2005 and
October 25, 2005, inclusive.

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

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

The stock, however, continued to trade at artificially inflated
levels until October 26, 2005 when defendants disclosed that,
for the first quarter of fiscal 2006, the Company would earn
only $61.8 million, or $0.28 per share, down 38% from the
previous year's earnings of $95.7 million, or $0.41 per share,
on essentially flat sales.

These results were well below analysts' revised consensus
earnings estimate of $0.32 cents a share on revenue of $1.54
billion.  Following this disclosure, the stock fell to $30.71.
While the Company's shares were artificially inflated, insiders
sold 3,380,399 shares of their Estee Lauder common stock for
proceeds of $88,077,150.

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


NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Stull Stull Lodges Stock Suit in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly
traded securities of Northfield Laboratories, Inc. (NASDAQ:
NFLD) between February 20, 2004 and February 21, 2006,
inclusive.  Also included are all those who purchased shares in
the secondary offering in February 2005.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements regarding the safety of PolyHeme, a blood substitute.

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

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

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


PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC, filed a securities class action on behalf of
securities purchasers of PainCare Holdings, Inc. during the
period August 27, 2002 through March 15, 2006, inclusive,
pursuing remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

PainCare operates as a professional health services organization
specializing in pain management medical and surgical solutions.

According to the complaint, prior to and during the Class
Period, defendants engaged in an aggressive growth strategy
through rapid acquisition of medical facilities and providers.
Unbeknownst to investors, however, defendants were accounting
improperly for certain expenses associated with these
acquisitions in order to bolster the Company's stock price to
facilitate these Class Period acquisitions.

As a result of this improper accounting, PainCare announced it
has lowered its previously announced 2006 earnings forecasts,
must delay its 2005 earnings release and will restate its
financial results for fiscal 2000 through 2004, and the first
three quarters of 2005.

The complaint also alleges that Defendants' false and misleading
financial guidance artificially inflated PainCare's share
prices, thereby harming investors who purchased their PainCare
shares during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) through
improper accounting involving convertible term notes,
derivatives and other non-cash expenses.  As alleged,
defendants' understatement of these expenses served to validate
the Company's growth-oriented business model, which relied in
significant part on the acquisition of medical practices and
service providers.  Yet, these wayward accounting practices
served to conceal the Company's net-negative earnings during the
Class Period.

As a result of these violations, the Company announced on March
15, 2006, that it is now forced to restate its financial results
for fiscal years 2000 - 2005, its entire corporate existence.
The Company intends to incur $17.5 million in non-cash expenses
as a result of restatement of its term note, derivative and
warrant-related expenses, from previously reported financial
statements for 2003 through 2005.

In addition, the Company also will restate compensation expense
over the preceding five years, totaling another $20 million.  On
this shocking news, the price of PainCare stock plummeted from
its closing price of $2.50 on March 15, 2006, to close on March
16, 2006, at $2.01, for a loss of $0.49 or 19.6%, on volume of
2.3 million shares or nine times average daily volume.

On March 30, 2006, the Company further announced it will delay
its 2005 results due to complexities in reviewing its new or
revised accounting methods and also has lowered its 2006
earnings outlook.  PainCare had earlier forecast earnings of
$0.30 to $0.31 per share on revenue of $100 million to $103
million.

The Company now expects 2006 earnings of $0.20 to $0.22 per
share, on revenue of $85 million to $88 million.  PainCare said
the new 2006 outlook excluded any additional acquisitions in
2006, any non-cash charges that it may incur in 2006 due to the
impact of derivative securities accounting and any costs arising
from the defense of pending legal actions.

For more details, contact David R. Scott of Scott + Scott, LLC,
Phone: (800) 404-7770 and (860) 537-5537, E-mail: drscott@scott-
scott.com, Web site: http://www.scott-scott.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  * * *