CAR_Public/060410.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, April 10, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 71

                            Headlines

AMERICAN INT'L: Dismissal of Class in "Partington" Suit Upheld
AMERICAN INVESTORS: Court Approves Annuity Holders' Settlement
AMERUS GROUP: Consumer Fraud Lawsuits Consolidated in E.D. Pa.
ARBINET-THEXCHANGE INC: Faces Consolidated Stock Suit in N.J.
BIOMEDICAL TISSUE: Faces New Suit Over Body Parts Harvesting

CHARLES SCHWAB: Settles Calif. Lawsuit Over Termination Fee
CHOICEPOINT INC: Continues to Face Calif. FCRA Violations Suits
CHOICEPOINT INC: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Suit in Ga.
CHOICEPOINT INC: Continues to Face Ga. Consolidated Stock Suit
CHOICEPOINT INC: Fla. Court Mulls Motion to Re-Open Privacy Suit

CHOICEPOINT INC: Reaches Settlement in Ill. Consumer Fraud Suit
C&S WHOLESALE: Workers Launch $750M N.Y. Suit Over Unpaid Wages
DIGITAS INC: IPO Settlement Hearing Slated for April 24, 2006
FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATIONS: N.C. Court Mulls Motions in "Lowinger"
GENERAL MOTORS: Settles N.J. Minority Dealers' Racial Bias Suit

GETTY REALTY: Continues to Face MTBE Contamination Suit in N.Y.
KNIGHT CAPITAL: N.Y. Court Dismisses "Gurfien" Securities Suit
LAKESIDE HEIGHTS: Patient Launches Negligence Lawsuit in Ky.
LIBERTY GLOBAL: Faces Consolidated Suit in Del. Over UGC Merger
LIBERTY NATIONAL: Ala. Judge Approves Policyholders' Settlement

MAINE: Plaintiffs Want County Jail Strip-Search Suit Broadened
MERCK & CO: Jury Issues Split Ruling in Vioxx Liability Suit
MIDWAY GAMES: Stockholder Lawsuits in Ill., Del. Dismissed
MODEM MEDIA: IPO Settlement Hearing Slated for April 24, 2006
MURPHY OIL: Launches Own Program to Pay La. Oil Spill Victims

NAUTILUS INC: Recalls Exercise Machine to Repair Extension Cable
ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Tex. Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit
OFFICEMAX INC: Ill. Court Mulls Dismissal Motion for Stock Suit
OSSUR HF: Recalls Certain Models of Total Knee Prosthetic Device
QC HOLDINGS: N.C. Court Stays Ruling on Arbitration Motion

QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Retirement Fund Opts Out of Settlement
SIPEX CORP: Calif. Court Approves $6M Settlement of Stock Suit
SONUS NETWORKS: Faces New Securities Fraud Complaint in Mass.
SONUS NETWORKS: IPO Settlement Hearing Slated for April 24, 2006
SONUS NETWORKS: Mass. Court Mulls Motion for Attorneys' Fees

SONUS NETWORKS: Mass. Court Mulls Nixing of Amended Stock Suit
TELSTRA GROUP: $300M Stock Fraud Suit Continues in Australia
TRUST BANK: Appeals Court Allows Suit V. Kenyan Bank to Proceed
USI HOLDINGS: Faces Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Suit in N.J.
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Raises Alert on Diastat AcuDial Defects

VIRGINIA: Suit Over DNA Testing by Police Awaits Possible Trial
WILLIAM LYON: Stockholder Lawsuits in Calif., Del. Dismissed

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CHICAGO BRIDGE: Pomerantz Haudek Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Stock Suit in Utah
SEA CONTAINERS: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
SEA CONTAINERS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.
TNS INC: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. Va.

TNS INC: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. Va.

                            *********


AMERICAN INT'L: Dismissal of Class in "Partington" Suit Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Appeals Court for the Fourth Circuit tackled the issue
of default judgments in class actions in its opinion on Reverend
David Partington's appeal of a case against certain insurers,
Robert Loblaw of http://appellatedecisions.blogspot.com/
reports.

The appeal addresses an interesting civil procedure question.
When a defendant fails to file an answer to a complaint, the
plaintiff may move for a default judgment.  If the Court grants
a default judgment, this means that all of the allegations of
the complaint are accepted as true.  The appeal though questions
whether this applies to complaints that are filed as class
actions.

According to the court opinion, the Reverend David Partington
and fourteen others (Appellants) appealed the decision of the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina to
dismiss their case against American International Specialty and
others under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  In prior
litigation, Rev. Partington obtained a default judgment against
Charterhouse Group, Ltd. in favor of himself and a class of
similarly situated persons.

Appellants seek to use the default judgment to stand in the
place of Charterhouse to seek damages from Charterhouse's
insurers, American International Specialty Lines Insurance
Company and AIG Technical Services, Inc. (Insurers).  The North
Carolina district court reasoned that the Appellants had failed
to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because the
proffered default judgment was:

     (1) void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and

     (2) unenforceable in that it awarded damages to an
         uncertified putative class.

The Fourth circuit though concluded that the district court
erred in holding the default judgment void.  In addition, it
held that although the judgment is unenforceable with respect to
the putative class members, Rev. Partington himself has a valid
judgment in his favor.

Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal with respect to
the plaintiffs other than Rev. Partington, but vacate the
dismissal and remand with respect to Rev. Partington's
individual claim.

Basically, the Fourth Circuit holds that notwithstanding a
default judgment, the district court must make an independent
determination about whether the case should be certified as a
class action.  In so holding, the Fourth Circuit joins the
Seventh Circuit, which is the only other court of appeal that
has addressed this issue directly.

The suit is styled, "Partington, et al. v. American
International Specialty, et al., Case No. 1:03-cv-01084-FWB," on
appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina under Judge Frank W. Bullock, Jr.  Representing
the plaintiffs are, John F. Bloss, Sr. and David M. Clark of
Clark Bloss & Wall, PLLC, P.O. Box 1349, Greensboro, NC 27402,
Phone: 336-275-7275, Fax: 336-275-7276, E-mail: jbloss@cbw-
law.com.

Representing the defendants are, Ronald R. Davis and Allan R.
Gitter of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, POD 84, Winston-
Salem, NC 27102, Phone: 336-721-3771 and 336-721-3615, Fax: 336-
726-6006 and 336-733-8329, E-mail: rdavis@wcsr.com and
agitter@wcsr.com.

For more details, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?787
(Partington Opinion).


AMERICAN INVESTORS: Court Approves Annuity Holders' Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
San Luis Obispo has approved the settlement of a purported class
action styled, "Cheves v. American Investors Life Insurance
Company, Family First Estate Planning and Family First Insurance
Services, et al."  The settlement involves a statewide class of
annuity holders and purchasers of estate planning services.

The allegations in this case involved claims of breach of
contract, misrepresentation, unfair competition and deceptive
trade practices.  Given the charges previously taken regarding
this matter, the company does not anticipate that any additional
charges will be required as a result of this settlement.

On September 23, 2005, the trial court preliminarily approved
the general terms of a settlement of a statewide class action.
A hearing on the final approval was held in November 2005,
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 1, 2005).


AMERUS GROUP: Consumer Fraud Lawsuits Consolidated in E.D. Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several consumer fraud class actions against AmerUs Group Co.
and certain of its subsidiaries were transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

These nationwide federal class actions were filed on behalf of
certain purchasers of the company's products:

        Court                                   Date of Filing

Central District of California                   April 7, 2005
District of Kansas                              April 25, 2005
Eastern District of Pennsylvania                  May 19, 2005
Middle District of Florida                     August 29, 2005
Eastern District of Pennsylvania              November 8, 2005
Eastern District of Pennsylvania              December 8, 2005


On July 7, 2005 a statewide class action was also filed on
behalf of certain purchasers of the company's products in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against
many of these same AmerUs entities.

The lawsuits relate to the use of purportedly inappropriate
sales practices and products in the senior citizen market.  They
allege, among other things, the unauthorized practice of law
involving the marketing of estate or financial planning
services, the lack of suitability of the products, the improper
manner in which they were sold, including pretext sales and non-
disclosure of surrender charges, as well as other violations of
the state consumer and insurance laws.

Plaintiffs in the suits seek compensatory damages, rescission,
injunctive relief, treble and/or punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and other relief and damages.

In November 2005, each of the aforementioned lawsuits as well as
certain other statewide class actions and individual lawsuits
were assigned to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and consolidated
pretrial proceedings.


ARBINET-THEXCHANGE INC: Faces Consolidated Stock Suit in N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey in the consolidated securities class
action against Arbinet-thexchange, Inc.

Between August 11, 2005 and September 26, 2005, the company was
named defendant in four purported securities class actions that
were filed in state and federal courts in New Jersey against the
company and certain of its officers, current and former
directors and the underwriters for its initial public offering.
The suits were styled:

     (1) "Jonathan Crowell v. Arbinet-thexchange, Inc., et al.,
         MID-L-5874-05 (N.J. Sup. Ct.);

     (2) "Harish Grover v. Arbinet-thexchange, Inc., et al.,
         C.A. No. 05-CV-04404 (D. N.J.);

     (3) "Sandra Schwartz v. Arbinet-thexchange, Inc., et al.,
         C.A. No. 05-CV-04444 (D. N.J.);" and

     (4) "James Bendrick v. Arbinet-thexchange, Inc., et al.,
         C.A. No. 05-CV-04664 (D. N.J.)."

On September 27, 2005 defendants removed the Crowell action to
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, where it has
been docketed as "Jonathan Crowell v. Arbinet-thexchange, Inc.,
et al., C.A. No. 05-CV-4697."

These lawsuits alleged violations of the registration and anti-
fraud provisions of the federal securities laws due to alleged
statements in and omissions from the company 's initial public
offering registration statement, as well as statements made by
the company following the IPO.  The complaints sought, among
other things, unspecified damages and costs associated with the
litigation.

On December 6, 2005, Sandra Schwartz was appointed lead
plaintiff in the class action securities litigation.  The
separate securities class actions that were filed in the federal
courts in New Jersey were consolidated into the action entitled,
"In re Arbinet-thexchange, Inc. Securities Litigation, C.A. No.
05-CV-04444-JLL_RJH (D. N.J.)"

On February 17, 2006, the consolidated and amended complaint was
filed with the court.  The amended complaint continued to allege
violations of the registration and anti-fraud provisions of the
federal securities laws due to alleged statements in and
omissions from the company's initial public offering
registration statement.  The amended complaint sought, among
other things, unspecified damages and costs associated with the
litigation.

The suit is styled, "In re Arbinet-thexchange, Inc. Securities
Litigation, C.A. No. 05-CV-04444-JLL_RJH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Jose
L. Linares with referral to Judge Ronald Hedges.  Representing
the plaintiffs are: Patrick Louis Rocco of Shalov Stone &
Bonner, LLP, 163 Madison Avenue, P.O. BOX 1277, Morristown, NJ
07962-1277, Phone: (973) 775-8997, E-mail: procco@lawssb.com;
and J. Erik Sandstedt of Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger &
Grossmann, LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019,
Phone: (212) 554-1495, E-mail: erik@blbglaw.com.


BIOMEDICAL TISSUE: Faces New Suit Over Body Parts Harvesting
------------------------------------------------------------
Nine families in Rochester, New York are filing a class action
against Biomedical Tissue Services Ltd., and three funeral homes
over allegations the firms may have illegally harvested body
parts from dead relatives.

One of the plaintiffs is Jill Wirth, whose mother was cremated
at the Thomas E. Burger Funeral Home in Hilton.  She is
represented by Van Henri White.  The suit also names Profetta
Funeral Chapel, and Serenity Hills Funeral Home as defendants.

Biomedical Tissue is facing several lawsuits claiming it
conspired with funeral homes to illegally harvest body parts
from dead people without proper testing for possible diseases.

Two of the defendants, Michael Mastromarino and Joseph Nicelli
of Biomedical Tissue, were recently charged in State Supreme
Court in Brooklyn, New York, for operating a corrupt $4.6
million enterprise to harvest human tissue from funeral homes
and sell it for use in transplants and research.  Hospitals
across North America have reported receipt of the illegally
harvested and potentially dangerous tissue.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Settles Calif. Lawsuit Over Termination Fee
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Schwab Corp. recently agreed to pay as much as $2.5
million to settle a class action pending in California's Los
Angeles Superior Court over the company's $60 termination fee,
The Mercury News reports.

Customers who paid the fee between June 1, 2002, and May 31,
2003 will be entitled to receive a $30 refund, according to the
proposed settlement filed by the San Francisco-based discount
brokerage with the court.

Charles Schwab -- http://www.schwab.com-- serves more than 7
million individual and institutional clients from approximately
270 offices in the U.S.  Traders can access its services via
telephone, wireless device, and the Internet.  Besides discount
brokerage, the firm offers mutual funds, annuities, private
banking, and bond trading, as well as mortgages through its
Charles Schwab Bank.


CHOICEPOINT INC: Continues to Face Calif. FCRA Violations Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
ChoicePoint, Inc. is a defendant in two purported class actions,
which allege violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
and certain state statutes.  One suit was filed in California
federal court; another in Georgia, but was later transferred to
California.

The first suit, styled the "Harrington, et al. v. ChoicePoint,
CV05-1294," resulted from the consolidation of four previously
filed class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

On June 30, 2005, plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated
class action complaint against the company and three
subsidiaries.  The amended complaint alleged violations of the
FCRA and certain California statutes.

The plaintiffs purported to bring the lawsuit on behalf of a
national class of persons about whom the company provided a
consumer report as defined in the FCRA to rogue customers, as
well as five California classes of affected persons.  Plaintiffs
sought actual, statutory and exemplary damages and injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees and costs.

On September 15, 2005, the Court dismissed with prejudice two
counts related to certain California statutes and let survive
the other claims.  The company filed a motion for summary
judgment, which was denied without prejudice on March 1, 2006.
At the conclusion of four months of discovery, the court stated
the company could renew its motion.

On June 15, 2005, a similar purported class action was filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court, Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, styled, "Wilson v.
ChoicePoint Inc., 1-05-CV-1604."

The plaintiffs alleged violations of the FCRA, the Driver's
Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), and Georgia's Uniform Deceptive
Trade Practices Act and purport to represent a national class of
persons whose consumer credit reports as defined in the FCRA or
personal or highly restricted personal information as defined in
the DPPA was disclosed to third parties as a result of acts or
omissions by the company.  Plaintiffs sought actual, statutory,
and punitive damages, injunctive relief and fees and costs.

On February 28, 2006, the Court granted the company's motion to
transfer the Wilson case to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.


CHOICEPOINT INC: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Suit in Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------------
ChoicePoint, Inc. is a defendant in a purported class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA).

On May 20, 2005, the class action was filed against the company
and certain individuals who are alleged to be fiduciaries under
the ChoicePoint Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (Plan).

The suit alleged violations of ERISA fiduciary rules through the
acquisition and retention of ChoicePoint stock by the Plan on
and after November 24, 2004.  Plaintiffs sought compensatory
damages, injunctive and equitable relief, attorneys' fees and
costs.

The suit was styled, "Mellot v. ChoicePoint Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:05-cv-01340-JTC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia under Judge Jack T. Camp.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Thomas J. McKenna of Gainey & McKenna, 4th Floor, 295
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017, US, Phone: 212-983-
         1300, Fax: 212-983-0383, E-mail:
         tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com;

     (2) Lisa T. Millican of Greenfield Millican, P.C., 800 The
         Grant Building, 44 Broad Street, NW Atlanta, GA 30303,
         Phone: 404-522-1122, E-mail:
         lisa.millican@lawofficepc.com;

     (3) Ronen Sarraf of Sarraf Gentile, LLP, 485 Seventh
         Avenue, Suite 1005, Suite 1005, New York, NY 10018,
         Phone: 212-868-3610, E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com;
         and

     (4) Kenneth J. Vianale of Vianale & Vianale, 2499 Glades
         Road, Suite 112, Boca Raton, FL 33431, Phone: 561-392-
         4750, Fax: 561-392-4775, E-mail:
         kvianale@vianalelaw.com;

For more details, contact Gregory C. Braden, Sean Kenneth
McMahan and Peter Marshall Varney of Alston & Bird, 1201 West
Peachtree Street, One Atlantic Center, Atlanta, GA 30309-3424,
Phone: 404-881-7000, 404-881-4250 and 404-881-7856, Fax: 404-
881-7777, E-mail: gbraden@alston.com, smcmahan@alston.com and
peter.varney@alston.com.


CHOICEPOINT INC: Continues to Face Ga. Consolidated Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
ChoicePoint, Inc. is a defendant in a consolidated securities
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

On March 4, 2005, a purchaser of the company's securities filed
a lawsuit against the company and certain of its officers in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  The
complaint alleged that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading information in
connection with the fraudulent data access.

Additional similar complaints were filed by other purchasers of
the company's securities in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on March 10, 2005 and in the
Northern District of Georgia on March 11, 2005, March 22, 2005
and March 24, 2005.

By court order, the cases pending in the California were
transferred to the Northern District of Georgia.  By order dated
August 5, 2005, the court consolidated each of the pending cases
into a single consolidated action, captioned, "In re ChoicePoint
Inc. Securities Litigation, 1:05-CV-00686."

On November 14, 2005, the court entered an order appointing the
Alaska Laborers Employers Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff for
the proposed plaintiff class.

A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on January 13, 2006,
seeking certification as a class action and unspecified
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and other relief.

The suit was styled, "In re ChoicePoint Inc. Securities
Litigation, 1:05-CV-00686," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia under Judge Jack T. Camp.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Martin D. Chitwood of Chitwood & Harley, 1230 Peachtree
         Street, N.E. 2300 Promenade II, Atlanta, GA 30309,
         Phone: 404-873-3900, E-mail: mdc@classlaw.com;

     (2) Edward P. Dietrich of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller,
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP, Suite 1900, 655 West Broadway,
         San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-
         7423, E-mail: edd@lerachlaw.com; and

     (3) Christopher Kim of Lim Ruger & Kim, Suite 2800, 1055
         West 7th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone: 213-955-
         9500.

Representing the defendants is Tracy Cobb Braintwain of King &
Spalding, LLP, 1180 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309-3521,
Phone: 404-572-2714, Fax: 404-572-5139, E-mail:
tbraintwain@kslaw.com.


CHOICEPOINT INC: Fla. Court Mulls Motion to Re-Open Privacy Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has
yet to rule on plaintiffs' motion to re-open a class action
filed against ChoicePoint, Inc.

The suit alleged that the company obtained, disclosed and used
information acquired from the Florida Department of Highway
Safety and Motor Vehicles (Florida DHSMV) in violation of the
federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA).  The plaintiffs
sought to represent classes of individuals whose personal
information from Florida DHSMV records has been obtained,
disclosed and used for marketing purposes or other allegedly
impermissible uses by the company without the express written
consent of the individual.

A number of the company's competitors were also sued in the same
or similar litigation in Florida.  This complaint sought
certification as a class action, compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive and other relief.

The company has filed a motion for summary judgment and has
joined in a motion for judgment on the pleadings.  On March 8,
2005, the court administratively closed the Fresco action until
the 11th Circuit rules on a dispositive DPPA issue in another
case.

On March 16, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion to re-open the
case, which the company and the other defendants opposed.  The
motion was heard on July 21, 2005 and has been taken under
advisement by the court.

The suit is styled, "Richard Fresco, et al. v. Automotive
Directions, Inc., et al., Case No. CIV-03-61063-Martinez/Klein,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.


CHOICEPOINT INC: Reaches Settlement in Ill. Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Williamson
County, Illinois approved the settlement for the class action
filed against ChoicePoint, Inc., styled, "CF&H Insurance, et al.
v. ChoicePoint Inc., et al."

Filed on June 13, 2002, the suit alleged the company violated
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act by selling
information that it received from insurance agent customers
through underwriting inquiries as leads (names of individuals
seeking insurance) for automobile and homeowner's insurance to
those same insurance agent customers as well as their
competitors.

The complaint sought certification as a class action,
compensatory damages, attorney's fees and costs and injunctive
and other relief.

Though the company denies any and all charges of wrongdoing or
liability alleged by the plaintiffs, it believes that it is in
the best interest of the company, the shareholders, and the
company's customers to settle this matter.  Therefore, the
company entered a settlement agreement in this action, which
will be filed with and is subject to court approval after a
fairness hearing.

The court approved the settlement after a fairness hearing held
on October 17, 2005.  Upon expiration of the period for appeal,
and pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, on
November 23, 2005, the company established a cash fund for the
benefit of qualifying class members, the payouts from which
could total up to $7,000,000.

The company is also funding redeemable certificates of value to
qualifying class members that may be used to obtain certain
direct marketing services.  The aggregate value of the
redeemable certificates available to qualifying class members
could total as much as $7,000,000.

In addition, the company also paid $500,000 in cy pres funds,
$2,950,000 toward plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses, settlement administration costs, and an aggregate sum
of $10,000 to the named plaintiffs.  Its December 31, 2005
balance sheet included a liability for the currently estimated
fees and expenses in connection with the resolution of this
matter.


C&S WHOLESALE: Workers Launch $750M N.Y. Suit Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Four C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. employees filed a nationwide
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging that their employer is routinely
cheating thousands of its piece-rate warehouse workers out of
millions of dollars a week in wages.

The workers seek $750 million from C&S in unpaid wages and
overtime under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state
labor laws in each of the 14 states where the company operates
warehouses, including a 500,000 square-foot facility in
Newburgh, New York, where the plaintiffs worked.

The case applies to workers who have been employed by C&S since
2000.  The suit details how the second largest wholesale grocery
store supplier in the U.S., violates federal and state laws by:

     (1) illegally chopping workers' wages as punishment for
         mistakes on the job;

     (2) failing to pay overtime;

     (3) failing to pay for time worked in excess of 10 hours;

     (4) failing to pay employees their agreed hourly rates; and

     (5) encouraging employees to work off-the-clock and through
         lunch without pay.

"To make matters worse," explains Steven Wittels of Sanford
Wittels & Heisler, lead counsel for the workers, "C&S punishes
an entire team of workers for one person's mistake.  C&S
employees work in 4-8 member 'selection' teams.  If one team
member makes an error, for example selecting a case of apple
juice instead of grape juice, C&S collectively punishes everyone
on that team and cuts their pay."

"Collective punishment echoes the employment practices of the
Gulag labor camps," adds Mr. Wittels.  "There's no place for
these kinds of tactics in 21st Century America."

According to the company's website, C&S has more than 20,000
employees and operates over 50 warehouses in New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Vermont, Ohio, Maryland, South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama,
California and Hawaii.  The warehouses have a storage capacity
in excess of 15 million square feet.

"C&S is punishing its low-income workers at the same time the
company is projecting record revenues of $18 billion this year,"
said Jeremy Heisler, co-lead counsel in the case.  "Meanwhile,
the hard-working employee making those profits possible has
little choice but to keep quiet about the company's sweatshop
practices or lose his job."

The plaintiffs' legal team notes that although C&S makes its
employees carry ID cards announcing that its warehouses are
staffed by "Braggingly Happy Team Members," quite the opposite
is true.  "C&S warehouse team members go to work not knowing how
much they will earn because of hourly wage deductions that occur
at the whim of supervisors," said Mr. Heisler.

"Such underhanded labor tactics are not exactly a recipe for
worker satisfaction," adds Mr. Wittels.  "The only team bragging
about 'happiness' is management, which is boosting profits on
the backs of its illegally-underpaid workforce."

Community advocate Javier Andrade, who has been active in Orange
County, New York where these four plaintiffs work, observes that
minority employees, who comprise the bulk of the company's
workforce, bear the brunt of C&S' unfair and rampant labor
practices.

"C&S and other big companies like it need a loud wake-up call,"
suggests Mr. Andrade.  "C&S makes large profits exploiting its
warehouse workers, most of whom are Latino and African American.
This lawsuit sends a message that C&S can't get away with
business as usual, and can't trample on the rights of its
employees."

The four New York plaintiffs, Armando Hernandez, Michael Wands,
Michael Rodrigues and Joseph Alvarez, seek class certification
for all C&S "piece-rate incentive warehouse employees" under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and similar laws
in each of the 14 states where C&S warehouses are located.

The grocery supplier boasts on its Web site that the "quality
bonus" it pays workers instills high morale on the warehouse
floor.   According to plaintiff Michael Wands, however, the only
"bonuses" the company hands out are on the order of a company
mug or key chain.

"A $3 carnival trinket is not exactly your typical morale
booster," remarks class counsel Mr. Wittels.  "Unless this case
is certified as a class action," he adds, "this grocery behemoth
will continue its unlawful labor practices with impunity.
Unfortunately, that would help C&S fill its coffers even more at
the expense of workers."

On the current company website, C&S touts its piece-rate
incentive program as a "huge success," crowing that within six
months of the program's implementation the company increased
total volume shipped by 35%, while decreasing labor costs by
more than 20%.  But it is precisely the company's illegal wage-
cutting, explains Mr. Andrade, that led to the lower labor
costs.

The suit maintains that C&S owes thousands of dollars to each
plaintiff and the other class members -- which include the
company's warehouse selectors, lift operators, backhaulers and
slot cleaners.  In addition to back pay and overtime
compensation, the class action asks for punitive damages,
prejudgment interest, attorney's fees, costs and other
restitution.

The plaintiffs' legal team, comprised of Steven Wittels, Jeremy
Heisler, David Sanford and Janette Wipper, has requested a jury
trial.

The suit is styled, "Hernandez, et al. v. C & S Wholesale
Grocers, Inc., Case No. 7:06-cv-02675-CLB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Charles L. Brieant.  Representing the plaintiffs are Jeremy
Heisler and Steven Lance Wittels of Sanford Wittels & Heisler,
LLP, Phone: (212) 779-3935 and (646) 723-2947, Fax: (212) 779-
3956 and (646) 723-2948, E-mail: jeremy.heisler@verizon.net and
swittels@nydclaw.com.


DIGITAS INC: 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 stockholder class actions against Digitas, Inc.

Between June 26, 2001 and August 16, 2001, several stockholder
class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the company,
several of its officers and directors, and five underwriters of
its initial public offering (the Offering/IPO).  The purported
class actions were all brought on behalf of purchasers of
Digitas Inc.'s common stock between March 13, 2000, the date of
the Offering, and December 6, 2000.

The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the company's
prospectus, incorporated in the Registration Statement on Form
S-1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, was
materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose
that the underwriters had engaged in conduct designed to result
in undisclosed and excessive underwriters' compensation in the
form of increased brokerage commissions and also that this
alleged conduct of the underwriters artificially inflated the
company's stock price in the period after the Offering.

The plaintiffs claimed violations of Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
the Securities and Exchange Commission and seek, among other
things, damages, statutory compensation and costs of litigation.
Effective October 9, 2002, the claims against the company's
officers and directors were dismissed without prejudice.

Effective February 19, 2003, the Section 10(b) claims against
the company were dismissed.  The terms of a settlement have been
tentatively reached between the plaintiffs in the suits and most
of the defendants, including the company, with respect to the
remaining claims.

A court hearing on the fairness of the proposed settlement to
the plaintiff class is scheduled for April 24, 2006.  If the
court approves the settlement, the settlement would resolve
those claims against the company and is expected to result in no
material liability to it.


FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATIONS: N.C. Court Mulls Motions in "Lowinger"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina has yet to rule on either motion to remand or to
dismiss the class action against Fairpoint Communications, Inc.,
styled, "Lowinger v. Johnson, et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00316."

On June 6, 2005, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, of the
State of North Carolina by Robert Lowinger on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated persons against the company,
the company's chairman and chief executive officer, certain of
the company's current and former directors and certain of the
company's stockholders.

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) and
liability under Section 15 of the Securities Act.  It also
alleged that the company's registration statement on Form S-1
(which was declared effective by the SEC on February 3, 2005)
and the related prospectus dated February 3, 2005, each relating
to the company 's initial public offering of common stock,
contained certain material misstatements and omitted certain
material information necessary to be included relating to the
company 's broadband products and access line trends.

The plaintiff, who has been a plaintiff in several other
securities cases, sought rescission rights and unspecified
damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
common stock "issued pursuant and/or traceable to the company's
IPO during the period from February 3, 2005 through March 21,
2005."

The company removed the action to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina.  The plaintiff filed a
motion to remand the action to the North Carolina State Court,
which was denied by the Federal Magistrate.  The plaintiff
objected to and appealed the Magistrate's decision to the
District Court Judge.

The company contested the appeal and filed a motion to dismiss
the action.  The Magistrate, on February 9, 2006, issued a
Memorandum and Recommendation to the District Court Judge that
the motion to dismiss be granted and that the complaint be
dismissed with prejudice.

The plaintiff has filed a Notice of Objection to the
Magistrate's Recommendation.  Both the appeal of denial of the
motion to remand and the motion to dismiss are pending before
the District Court Judge.

The suit was styled, "Lowinger v. Johnson, et al., Case No.
3:05-cv-00316," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina under Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
with referral to Judge Carl Horn, III.  Representing the
plaintiffs are: Jeffrey S. Abraham and Lawrence D. Levit of
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805,
New York, NY 10119, US, Phone: 212-279-5050, Fax: 212-279-3655;
and John Thurston O'Neal of O'Neal Law Office, 7 Battleground
Court, Suite 212, Greensboro, NC 27408, US, Phone: 336-510-7904,
Fax: 336-510-7965, E-mail: oneallaw@triadbiz.rr.com.

Representing the defendants are: Brian S. Appel and Charles E.
Davidow of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, 2445 M.
St., NW Washington, DC 20037, US, Phone: 202-663-6000; and James
Patrick McLoughlin, Jr. of Moore & Van Allen, Suite 4700, 100
North Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC 28202, Phone: 704-331-1054,
Fax: 704-378-2054, E-mail: jimmcloughlin@mvalaw.com.


GENERAL MOTORS: Settles N.J. Minority Dealers' Racial Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp. reached settlements with two former dealers
who sued the company over allegations its dealer program is
deceptive and discriminatory, according to Automotive News.

The suit was filed in a New Jersey federal court in February
2005 by Ricardo Sanchez, a Mexican-American and Chandler Lee,
who is black.  Originally, the case also included plaintiffs
James Dalton and Theldon Branch, both black.

They accused General Motors of withholding information about the
company's financial troubles, and of terminating more than 100
minority dealers in previous years.  The case failed to get
class status.

General Motors spokeswoman Deborah Silverman told Automotive
News in an e-mail message one plaintiff dropped the suit after
his claims were dismissed by the court, the other withdrew after
receiving counterclaims.

The suit is styled, "Dalton, et al. v. General Motors Corp., et
al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00727-SRC-TJB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R.
Chesler with referral to Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.
Representing the plaintiffs are, Paul Andrew Marber of The
Cochran Firm, 233 Broadway, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10279,
Phone: (212) 553-9000, E-mail: pmarber@cochranfirm.com.

Representing the defendants is Lois H. Goodman of Mcelroy,
Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP, 3 Gateway Center, 100
Mulberry Street, Newark, NJ 07102-4079, Phone: (973) 622-7711,
E-mail: lgoodman@mdmc-law.com.


GETTY REALTY: Continues to Face MTBE Contamination Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Getty Realty Corp. is defendant in a purported class action
filed in New York Supreme Court in Dutchess County, New York,
arising out of alleged contamination of ground water with methyl
tertiary butyl ether, a fuel derived from methanol, which the
company refers to as MTBE.

The company served an answer that denied liability and asserted
numerous affirmative defenses.  The plaintiffs have not
responded to the company's demands and there has not been any
activity in the case for a considerable period.


KNIGHT CAPITAL: N.Y. Court Dismisses "Gurfien" Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed the putative class action filed against Knight Capital
Group, Inc., styled, "Gurfein v. Ameritrade, Inc., et al."

Filed in December 2004, the suit alleged that the company,
various specialist firms, broker-dealers and the American Stock
Exchange violated common law and the securities laws by, among
other things, failing to execute limit orders for options at
quoted prices and by executing market orders for options at
prices less favorable than the actual market price.  The
plaintiff sought unspecified monetary damages and injunctive
relief.

The company is seeking indemnification for this matter under
contractual arrangements with a third party, although there is
no guarantee that it will be successful in obtaining such
indemnification.

On January 26, 2006, the court dismissed the case with prejudice
against the American Stock Exchange and without prejudice
against the remaining defendants.

The suit was styled, "Gurfein v. Ameritrade, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:04-cv-09526-LLS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Louis L. Stanton.
Representing the plaintiffs are, Frederick W. Gerkens, III and
John Halebian of Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP, 500 Fifth Avenue,
58th Flr., New York, NY 10110, Phone: (212) 608-1900, Fax: (212)
719-4677, E-mail: fgerkens@lshllp.com and jhalebian@lshllp.com;
and Daniel Robert Lapinski of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, 32 East
57th Street, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 421-
6492, Fax: (212) 421-6553, E-mail: dan@sfclasslaw.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are: Richard John Morvillo of Mayer
Brown Rowe & Maw, LLP (DC), 1909 "K" Street, N.W., Washington,
DC 20006-1101, Phone: (202) 263-3000 x3290, Fax: (202) 263-3300,
E-mail: rmorvillo@mayerbrownrowe.com; and John J. Calandra of
McDermott, Will & Emery, LLP (NY), 340 Madison Avenue, New York,
NY 10017, Phone: (212) 547-5489, Fax: (212) 547-5444, E-mail:
jcalandra@mwe.com.


LAKESIDE HEIGHTS: Patient Launches Negligence Lawsuit in Ky.
------------------------------------------------------------
A former patient at the Lakeside Heights Nursing Center
initiated a purported class action against the nursing home in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky,
9News reports.

Filed on April 4, 2006, the suit alleges that former patient
Melissa Atkins suffered from neglect and a lack of proper food
and medical care.  Ms. Atkins' attorney, Paul Dickman wants the
suit declared a class action for all patients who were residents
of the Highland Heights, Kentucky since 2000.

State officials ordered the home's closure last month after
citing numerous deficiencies.  Nursing home administrators are
refusing to comment on the suit.

The suit is styled, "Atkins v. Lakeside Heights Nursing Center,
LLC, Case No. 2:06-cv-00076-WOB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky under Judge William
O. Bertelsman.  Representing the plaintiff is Paul J. Dickman of
Dickman Law Offices, P.S.C., 19 W. Eleventh Street, Covington,
KY 41011, US, Phone: 859-491-7999, Fax: 859-491-7998.


LIBERTY GLOBAL: Faces Consolidated Suit in Del. Over UGC Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Global, Inc. was named defendant in a consolidated class
action in the Delaware Court of Chancery regarding the
announcement on January 18, 2005 of the execution by
UnitedGlobalCom, Inc. and the company of the agreement and plan
of merger for the combination of the two companies under Liberty
Global.

Since January 18, 2005, 21 lawsuits were filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery, and one lawsuit was filed in the Denver
District Court, State of Colorado, all purportedly on behalf of
public stockholders.  The defendants named in these actions
include UnitedGlobalCom and former directors of UnitedGlobalCom
and Liberty Global.

The allegations in each of the complaints, which were
substantially similar, assert that the defendants have breached
their fiduciary duties of loyalty, care, good faith and candor
and that various defendants have engaged in self-dealing and
unjust enrichment, approved an unfair price, and impeded or
discouraged other offers for UnitedGlobalCom or its assets in
bad faith and for improper motives.

The complaints sought various remedies, including damages for
the public holders of UnitedGlobalCom's stock and an award of
attorney's fees to plaintiffs' counsel.

On February 11, 2005, the Delaware Court of Chancery
consolidated all 21 Delaware lawsuits into a single action.
Also, on April 20, 2005, the Denver District Court, State of
Colorado, issued an order granting a joint stipulation for stay
of the action filed in this court, pending the final resolution
of the consolidated action in Delaware.

On May 5, 2005, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action filed a
consolidated amended complaint containing allegations
substantially similar to those found in, and naming the same
defendants named in, the original complaints.

The defendants filed their answers to the consolidated amended
complaint on September 30, 2005.  The parties are proceeding
with pre-trial discovery activity.


LIBERTY NATIONAL: Ala. Judge Approves Policyholders' Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge U.W. Clemon of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama approved a $6 million settlement of the
class action that accuses Liberty National Life Insurance of
charging black policyholders higher premiums for burial
insurance, The Birmingham News reports.

Filed on December 8, 1999 by some DeKalb County residents, the
suit alleged that agents would market small value policies with
premium payments of less than $1, collected on a weekly or
monthly basis.  Black policyholders paid 36 percent more in
premiums than a white person in similar circumstances, a
plaintiffs' attorney pointed out.

In a Securities and Exchange Commission filing by Torchmark
Corp., the company's parent, the class consisted of about 2,000
people who claim that their family members paid more for
industrial life insurance, or burial policies, than white
customers in similar circumstances.

The settlement resolves nearly "all class action issues in race-
distinct pricing litigation at Liberty National," the company
said in the filing.  Torchmark spokeswoman Joyce Lane told The
Birmingham News that the company is "very pleased" that the
issues are settled.

Additionally, the judge also ordered the company to pay $3.35
million in attorney fees.  Birmingham law firm Whatley Drake
represented the class along with Huntsville law firm Watson
Jimmerman Givham Martin & MicKinney.

The suit is styled, "Moore, et al. v. Liberty Natl. Ins. Co.,
Case No. 2:99-cv-03262-UWC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama under Judge U.W. Clemon.
Representing the plaintiffs are, Eric J. Artrip of Watson
Jimmerson Givham Martin & Mckinney, PC, 203 Greene Street, P.O.
Box 18368, Huntsville, AL 35804, Phone: 1-256-536-7423, E-mail:
artrip@watsonjimmerson.com; and Joe R. Whatley, Jr. of Whatley
Drake, LLC, 2323 2nd Avenue, North, P. O. Box 10647, Birmingham,
AL 35202-0647, Phone: 205-328-9576, Fax: 205-328-9669, E-mail:
jwhatley@whatleydrake.com.

Representing the defendants are, Andrew P. Walsh of Gaines, LLC,
PO Box 395, Birmingham, AL 35201-0395, Phone: 320-2800, Fax:
320-2811, E-mail: awalsh@gainesllc.com; and William C. Barclift
of Baxley Dillard Dauphin & Mcknight, 2008 Third Avenue, South,
Birmingham, AL 35205, Phone: 271-1100, Fax: 271-1108, E-mail:
wbarclift@bddmc.com.


MAINE: Plaintiffs Want County Jail Strip-Search Suit Broadened
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for a Thomaston woman who is the lead plaintiff in a
suit over alleged illegal strip-searching at Knoxx County Jail
are asking the court to expand the case after a new complaint
over the practice emerged.

The lawyers filed a motion late in March to have the proposed
class in the suit expanded to those booked through May 1, Knox
County's Village Soup reports.  Originally, the class comprised
of inmates detained Nov. 19, 1996 to Dec. 21, 2004.  The
plaintiff's motion stated that in the three years that the case
was litigated, defendants have denied any strip-searching of the
defendants, but insisted that the practice had stopped.
However, it said, "regrettably," strip-searching continues.

Jennifer Collins of Rockland said in an affidavit she was
subjected to "degrading" strip searches at the jail on Jan. 16
when she was detained on a warrant for felony theft by deception
and misdemeanor misuse of identification.  She claimed to have
been strip-searched during initial booking, and after she
appeared in court for arraignment but prior to making bail.

The proposed class action was filed by Laurie Tardiff in
December 2002 against the jail, jail personnel and Sheriff Dan
Davey.  In November, Senior U.S. Justice Gene Carter cleared the
way for a major class action against the county to continue in
response to a motion for summary judgment brought by Ms.
Tardiff.  Trial in the case is set to start May pending Justice
Carter's decision on a key motion for reconsideration by
attorneys for the county.

The suit is styled, "Tardiff v. Knox County, et al., Case No.
2:02-cv-00251-GC," filed in the U.S. District for the District
of Maine under Judge Gene Carter.  Representing the plaintiffs
are: Sumner H. Lipman of Lipman, Katz & Mckee, P.O. BOX 1051,
Augusta, ME 04332-1051, Phone: 207-622-3711, E-mail:
slipman@lipmankatzmckee.com; and Dale F. Thistle of Law Office
of Dale F. Thistle, 103 Main Street, P.O. BOX 160, Newport, ME
04953, Phone: (207) 368-7755, E-mail: dthistle@verizon.net.

Representing the defendants are: Peter t. Marchesi of Wheeler &
Arey, P.A., 27 Temple Street, P.O. BOX 376, Waterville, ME
04901, Phone: 873-7771, E-mail: pbear@wheelerlegal.com; and John
J. Wall, III of Monaghan Leahy, LLP, P.O. BOX 7046 DTS,
Portland, ME 04112-7046, Phone: 774-3906, E-mail:
jwall@monaghanleahy.com.


MERCK & CO: Jury Issues Split Ruling in Vioxx Liability Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A New Jersey jury came up with a split decision in a product-
liability case of two former users of Merck & Co.'s painkiller
drug Vioxx, MarketWatch reports.

The state jury in Atlantic City on April 5 held Merck liable in
causing the heart attack of plaintiffs John McDarby, but
absolved it in the case of Thomas Cona.  It awarded Mr. McDarby
and his wife $4.5 million in combined compensatory damages.
According to the report, local news said Mr. Cona was unable to
produce prescription records showing he took the drug for more
than seven months.

It also said Merck committed consumer fraud, awarding $3,969 on
that claim to Mr. McDarby and $45 to Mr. Cona, Bloomberg News
reports.  It will be tripled under state consumer law, the
report said.  The jury found Merck violated consumer fraud law
by misleading physicians about the cardiovascular risks of Vioxx
and concealing information from doctors about those risks.  It
will now be decided whether Merck should pay punitive damages,
the report said.

The consolidated case was the first to go to trial involving
long-term use of the drug.  Merck claimed the drug is safe when
used for less than 18 months.

The cases are Cona v. Merck & Co., L-3553-05 and McDarby v.
Merck & Co., L-1296-05, filed in Superior Court, New Jersey
(Atlantic City).  Representing Merck is lawyer Christy Jones.
Representing the plaintiffs are Robert Gordon, and W. Mark
Lanier of The Lanier Law Firm, P.C., 6810 FM 1960 West, Houston,
Texas 77069, (Ft. Bend, Harris & Montgomery Cos.), Phone: 713-
659-5200, Fax: 713-659-2204.


MIDWAY GAMES: Stockholder Lawsuits in Ill., Del. Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Several putative class actions filed against Midway Games Inc.,
Sumner M. Redstone and several of its directors in state courts
in Illinois and Delaware were recently dismissed.

In June 2004, four lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois.  Two other lawsuits were filed in the
Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County.

These six putative class actions were brought on behalf of all
persons, other than defendants, who own the company's securities
and alleged, among other things, that the company and its
directors breached the company's and their fiduciary duties to
its other stockholders by allowing Sumner M. Redstone to
purchase a substantial amount of the company's common stock from
other stockholders.

The lawsuits sought injunctive relief to prevent Mr. Redstone
from acquiring the company's remaining outstanding shares in
order to take the company private, imposition of a constructive
trust and other relief for the alleged breach of fiduciary duty.

A motion to consolidate the four putative class actions pending
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois was granted, and
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint under the
caption, "David Shaev Profit Sharing Account F/ B/ O David
Shaev, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v.
Sumner M. Redstone, Harold H. Bach, Jr., William C. Bartholomay,
Neil D. Nicastro, Louis J. Nicastro, Ira S. Sheinfeld, Robert N.
Waxman and Midway Games, Inc."

On October 6, 2004, defendants filed motions to dismiss these
consolidated actions, asserting that none of plaintiffs'
allegations state a legally viable claim against any of the
defendants.  On January 26, 2005, the motion was granted with
prejudice with respect to the company and without prejudice with
respect to the individual defendants, and the plaintiffs were
granted leave to file an amended complaint by February 22, 2005.

The plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint by that date.
On March 15, 2005, the consolidated actions were dismissed with
prejudice as to all defendants.

Plaintiffs in the two Delaware class action complaints filed for
and were granted dismissal on March 18, 2005 and May 5, 2005.


MODEM MEDIA: 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 stockholder class actions against Modem Media,
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Digitas Inc.

Beginning in August 2001, several stockholder class action
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the company, several of
its officers and directors, and five underwriters of its initial
public offering.  The purported class actions were all brought
on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock between
February 5, 1999, the date of the Modem Media Offering, and
December 6, 2000.

The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the company's
prospectus, incorporated in the Registration Statement on Form
S-1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, was
materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose
that the underwriters had engaged in conduct designed to result
in undisclosed and excessive underwriters' compensation in the
form of increased brokerage commissions and also that this
alleged conduct of the underwriters artificially inflated the
company's stock price in the period after the Modem Media
Offering.

The plaintiffs claimed violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission and sought,
among other things, damages, statutory compensation and costs of
litigation.

The terms of a settlement have been tentatively reached between
the plaintiffs in the suits and most of the defendants,
including the company.  A court hearing on the fairness of the
proposed settlement to the plaintiff class is scheduled for
April 24, 2006.

If the court approves the settlement, the settlement would
resolve the claims against the company and the individual
defendants and is expected to result in no material liability to
Digitas Inc.


MURPHY OIL: Launches Own Program to Pay La. Oil Spill Victims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Murphy Oil Corp. plans to continue settling claims of people who
opted out of a class action over an oil spill in Meraux,
Louisiana, a company spokesman told the NWANews.

Their program continues despite a judge's order setting aside
settlement money for legal fees and costs.  According to
NWANews, U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon ordered that 12% of
the gross of any settlements be set aside to cover such
expenses.  Of the amount, 10% would be for fees, and the
remaining would be for costs.  The order involves pending or
future cases, and includes only people who have counsel.

Previously, Judge Fallon ruled that the terms of a class action
against Murphy Oil USA does not prevent homeowners from leaving
the suit and settling their own claims stemming from the
refinery's oil spill after Hurricane Katrina, according to The
Associated Press (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 15, 2006).

                       Case Consolidation

In January, Judge Fallon ordered the consolidation of at least
27 lawsuits against Murphy Oil Co. in relation to the September
2005 oil spill that originated from the company 's refinery in
Meraux, Louisiana.  In his order, the judge required that
parties to the consolidated cases prepare a "Master
Administrative Complaint" (MAC) for convenience.  The MAC
included all of the causes of action asserted in the
consolidated complaints, (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 25, 2006).

According to court documents, "the class will consist of all
persons and/or entities in the Parish of St. Bernard, State of
Louisiana, who/which have sustained injuries, loss, and/or
damages as a result of the September 2005 spill of what is
estimated to be over 125,000 barrels or over 1 million gallons
of crude oil and other petroleum hydrocarbons, together with
unknown components of those substances, from a storage tank
located on the premises of the refinery owned and/or operated by
Defendant, Murphy Oil, U.S.A., Inc. and or Murphy Oil Corp. in
Meraux, Louisiana," (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 25, 2006).

However, in a ruling issued recently, the judge established a
procedure for homeowners who want to settle individually.  The
judge said that homeowners who do leave the suit would not
receive any benefits if the company loses.

                         Case Background

The lawsuits stemmed from a leak at the company 's site in
Meraux that dumped more than 25,000 barrels of crude oil into
nearby areas, including an estimated 18,000 homes, mostly in
Chalmette.   Under the class action, other people who sustained
damage caused by the oil spill may benefit from any settlement
or judgment against company, even if they are not listed as
parties in the 27 suits that were consolidated.

                          Hearing Date

Murphy appealed the certification of the suit as class action,
but failed.  Trial on the case is set to begin in New Orleans on
Aug. 14.

The suit is styled, "Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Case No.
2:05-cv-04206-EEF-JCW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Eldon E. Fallon with
referral to Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mickey P. Landry of Landry & Swarr, LLC, 1010 Common
         St., Suite 2050, New Orleans, LA 70112, Phone: 504-299-
         1214, E-mail: mlandry@landryswarr.com;

     (2) N. Madro Bandaries of Amato & Creely, 901 Derbigny St.,
         P.O. Box 441, Gretna, LA 70054, Phone: (504) 367-8181,
         E-mail: madro@att.net; and

     (3) Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. of Law Offices of Daniel E.
         Becnel, Jr., 106 W. Seventh St., P.O. Drawer H.
         Reserve, LA 70084, Phone: 985-536-1186, E-mail:
         dbecnel@becnellaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, George A. Frilot, III and
Patrick J. McShane of Frilot Partridge Kohnke & Clements, Phone:
337-988-5422 and (504) 599-8000, E-mail: gfrilot@fpkc.com and
pmcshane@fpkc.com.


NAUTILUS INC: Recalls Exercise Machine to Repair Extension Cable
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nautilus Inc., of Vancouver, Washington, in cooperation with The
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling 17,000
Bowflex Ultimate 2 Home Gym.

The company said one end of the leg extension cable can release
from the guide pulley and swing around, potentially striking the
user or bystander.  Nautilus is aware of one incident in which
the leg extension cable released, and one incident in which the
squat attachment cable became disengaged.  No injuries have been
reported.

This recall involves the Bowflex Ultimate 2 home gym, which is
an exercise machine equipped with pulleys, tension rods and
other equipment to permit the user to select from among a
variety of exercise routines.  The name "Bowflex" and the model
name "Bowflex Ultimate 2" are on the front of the lat tower and
the sides of the main upright frame structure.

The exercise machines were made in China and sold at Nautilus
Inc. through direct sales to consumers and through specialty
fitness retailers nationwide from June through December 2005 for
about $2,300.

Owners are being sent a free kit, including a pulley bracket and
a cable retainer assembly.  Each of these items can be easily
installed with a small tool that is included in the kit.
Consumers are advised to stop using the leg extension, squat
attachment or abdominal attachment until the kit is installed.

Picture of the home gym:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06541.jpg

Consumer Contact: Nautilus, Phone: (800) 413-3121 between 8 a.m.
and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday; Web site:
http://www.bowflex.com.


ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Tex. Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has
entered an order dismissing with prejudice all of the claims
against Odyssey Healthcare, Inc. and certain current and former
executive officers in the shareholder class action complaint
filed in April 2004 and later consolidated with other similar
federal lawsuits.

The court's opinion carefully examined each of the allegations
in the amended and consolidated complaint and determined that
they stated no viable claim against any defendant.  The court
also denied plaintiffs' request to further amend their
complaint.

"We are extremely pleased with the decision of the Court," said
Robert A. Lefton, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Odyssey.  "We have always believed that plaintiffs' case lacked
merit, and we look forward to putting this issue behind us and
moving forward with our business initiatives."

In 2005, Odyssey Healthcare asked the court to dismiss the
amended consolidated securities class action filed against it,
certain of its current and former chief executive officers and
its current chief financial officer.

Plaintiff Francis Layher filed the first suit, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, purportedly on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company 's publicly traded securities between May 5, 2003 and
February 23, 2004.  The complaint alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The plaintiff sought an order
determining that the action may proceed as a class action,
awarding compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiff and the
other class members in an unspecified amount, and reasonable
costs and expenses incurred in the action, including counsel
fees and expert fees.

Six similar lawsuits were also filed in May and June of 2004 in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division, by plaintiffs Kenneth L. Friedman, Trudy J.
Nomm, Eva S. Caldarola, Michael Schaufuss, Duane Liffrig and
G.A. Allsmiller on behalf of the same plaintiff class, making
substantially similar allegations and seeking substantially
similar damages.  The lawsuits have been transferred to a single
judge and consolidated into a single action.  Lead plaintiffs
and lead counsel have been appointed.  The consolidated
complaint was filed on December 20, 2004, which, among other
things, extended the putative class period to October 18, 2005.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  The district
court granted the company 's motion to dismiss on September 30,
2005.  The district court also granted lead plaintiffs the right
to amend their complaint.  Lead plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint on October 31, 2005.

The suit was styled "Hanson v. Odyssey Healthcare Inc et al.,
case no. 3:04-cv-02751," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, under Judge David C.
Godbey.  Representing the plaintiffs is Andrew W. Yung of Scott
Yung, 208 N Market St, Suite 200, Dallas, TX 75202, Phone:
214/220-0422, Fax: 214/220-9932, E-mail: ayung@scottyung.com.
Representing the company is Karen L. Hirschman of Vinson &
Elkins - Dallas, 3700 Trammell Crow Center, 2001 Ross Ave,
Dallas, TX 75201-2975, Phone: 214/220-7795, Fax: 214/220-7716,
E-mail: khirschman@velaw.com.


OFFICEMAX INC: Ill. Court Mulls Dismissal Motion for Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois has
yet to rule on OfficeMax Inc.'s motion to dismiss consolidated
securities class action styled, "Roth v. OfficeMax Inc., et al."

The company and several former officers and/or directors of the
company or its predecessor are defendants in a consolidated
class action proceeding, alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges, in summary, that the company failed to
disclose:

     (1) that vendor income had been improperly recorded,

     (2) that the company lacked internal controls necessary to
         ensure the proper reporting of revenue and compliance
         with generally accepted accounting principles, and

     (3) that the company 's 2004 and later results would be
         adversely affected by the company's allegedly improper
         practices.

The relief sought includes unspecified compensatory damages,
interest and costs, including attorneys' fees.  On September 21,
2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint, which is pending.

The suit is styled, "Roth v. Officemax Inc, et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-00236," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Joan B. Gottschall.
Representing the plaintiffs are William J. Doyle and William S.
Lerach of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, 655
West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619)
231-1058.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Phillip M. Goldberg of Foley & Lardner, 321 North Clark
         Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone: 312-832-
         4500;

     (2) John William Rotunno of Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, LLC, 70
         West Madison Street, Suite 3300, Chicago, IL 60602-
         4207, Phone: (312) 372-1121, E-mail:
         jrotunno@bellboyd.com; and

     (3) Patrick Thomas Stanton of Schwartz, Cooper, Greenberg &
         Krauss, 180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2700, Chicago,
         IL 60601, Phone: (312) 516-4489, E-mail:
         pstanton@scgk.com.


OSSUR HF: Recalls Certain Models of Total Knee Prosthetic Device
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ossur hf. is recalling 1100, 1900, 2000 and 2100 models of its
Total Knee prosthetic device worldwide.  The company's
initiation of the recall was based on a finding that some units
of the Total Knee device may contain faulty pins based in the
axis of the knee.

There have been no incidents or injuries resulting from this
situation that have been reported to the company.  The incidence
of actual product failures within the recalled knees is less
than one percent (1%).

The serial numbers of the affected knees, which were ordered
from June 7, 2005 to present, have been identified.  The O&P
facilities, which provided a Total Knee that contains the
affected serial number, will receive a letter and a phone call
with the proper replacement procedure in the next few days.

In addition, Ossur has temporarily suspended sales and shipments
of Total Knees until further notice.  To expedite this process
in the consideration of both its customers and patients, the
implementation of a replacement program will be effective
immediately.

"We take the issue of patient safety very seriously," said Jon
Sigurdsson, president and chief executive officer of Ossur.  "We
instituted this recall immediately, upon learning of the faulty
pins, because we believe that the patient's well-being is our
first priority.  In addition, we are taking measures to
guarantee the quality and safety of the replacement knees."

Ossur has informed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and
regulatory authorities in other countries of its decision to
implement this recall.

For more information, contact Ossur (http://www.ossur.com):
Phone: 800 233 6263 (U.S. & Canada), Phone: +31 499 462 840
(Europe), Phone: +46 1818 2200 (Scandinavia), Phone: +61 2 9630
9206 (Asia-Pacific), Phone: +354 515 1342 (Other countries).


QC HOLDINGS: N.C. Court Stays Ruling on Arbitration Motion
----------------------------------------------------------
A ruling on QC Holdings, Inc.'s motion to enforce arbitration in
a putative consumer fraud class action concerning the
enforceability of the arbitration provision in the consumer
contracts, which was filed in Superior Court of New Hanover
County, will be put on hold pending the outcome of the appeal in
the three other similar North Carolina cases.

On February 8, 2005, the company, two of its subsidiaries,
including its subsidiary doing business in North Carolina, and
Mr. Don Early, its chairman of the board and chief executive
officer, were sued in Superior Court of New Hanover County,
North Carolina in a putative class action filed by James B.
Torrence, Sr. and Ben Hubert Cline, who were customers of a
Delaware state-chartered bank for whom the company provided
certain services in connection with the bank's origination of
payday loans in North Carolina, prior to the closing of the
company's North Carolina branches in fourth quarter 2005.

The lawsuit alleged that the company violated various North
Carolina laws, including the North Carolina Consumer Finance
Act, the North Carolina Check Cashers Act, the North Carolina
Loan Brokers Act, the state unfair trade practices statute and
the state usury statute, in connection with payday loans made by
the bank to the two plaintiffs through the company's retail
locations in North Carolina.

It also alleged that the company made the payday loans to the
plaintiffs in violation of various state statutes, and that if
the company is not viewed as the "actual lenders or makers" of
the payday loans, the company's services to the bank that made
the loans violated various North Carolina statutes.

Plaintiffs are seeking certification as a class, unspecified
monetary damages, and treble damages and attorneys fees under
specified North Carolina statutes.  They have not sued the bank
in this matter and have specifically stated in the complaint
that plaintiffs do not challenge the right of out-of-state banks
to enter into loans with North Carolina residents at such rates
as the bank's home state may permit, all as authorized by North
Carolina and federal law.  This case is in the preliminary
stages.

There are three similar purported class actions filed in North
Carolina against Advance America and two other companies
unrelated to the company.  In December 2005, the judge in those
cases:

     (1) granted the defendants' motions to stay the purported
         class actions and to compel arbitration in
         accordance with the terms of the arbitration provisions
         contained in the consumer loan contracts;

     (2) ruled that the class action waivers in those consumer
         loan contracts are valid; and

     (3) denied plaintiffs' motions for class certifications.

The plaintiffs in those three cases, who are represented by the
same law firms as the plaintiffs in the case filed against the
company' have appealed that ruling.  The judge handling the
lawsuit against the company in North Carolina is the same judge
who issued these three orders in December.

The company has not had a ruling on the similar pending motions
by the plaintiffs and the company in its North Carolina case.
There is a stay in the North Carolina lawsuit, pending the
outcome of the appeal in the other three North Carolina cases
concerning the enforceability of the arbitration provision in
the consumer contracts.

Accordingly, there will be no ruling on the company's motion to
enforce arbitration in North Carolina during the pendency of
that appeal.  There can be no assurance that the company will
receive a similar ruling in its case.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Retirement Fund Opts Out of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
A pension fund representing New York schoolteachers is opting
out of a proposed $400 million settlement of a securities suit
against Qwest Communications International, Inc., reports say.
The New York State Teachers' Retirement System has informed a
district court of its intention to do so, according to Reuters.

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

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

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

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

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

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


SIPEX CORP: Calif. Court Approves $6M Settlement of Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Francisco, approved the settlement of a shareholder class
action pending against Sipex Corp. and a former officer.  The $6
million settlement will be entirely funded by directors' and
officers' insurance policy proceeds.

"We are very pleased to put this matter behind the company with
minimal financial impact," said Sipex CEO Ralph Schmitt.  "We
continue to improve our governance and financial systems and
controls, and look forward to now focusing on executing our
strategic plans and building value for our shareholders,
customers, and employees."

Mel Lifshitz of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, lead counsel
for the plaintiffs in a securities fraud suit against Sipex
Corp. reached a $6 million class-action settlement with Sipex,
former Sipex Chief Executive Officer Walid Maghribi, and former
Sipex Chief Financial Officer Philip Kagel (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 6, 2006).

The action was entitled "In re Sipex Corp. Sec. Litig., 05-
CV-00392-WHA."  It was brought on behalf of Sipex investors who
suffered losses in connection with their purchase of Sipex
shares between April 10, 2003 and Jan. 20, 2005.

Representing the defendants are: Dale Richard Bish of Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, CA
94304, Phone: 650-804-4018; E-mail: dbish@wsgr.com; and Boris
Feldman of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road,
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050, Phone: 650-493-9300; Fax: 650-565-
5100; E-mail: boris.feldman@wsgr.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are: David A. Priebe of DLA Piper
Rudnick Gray Cary U.S., LLP, 2000 University Avenue, East Palo
Alto, CA 94303-2248, Phone: 650-833-2000; Fax: 650-833-2001; E-
mail: david.priebe@dlapiper.com; and Uri Seth Ottensoser of
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (http://www.bernlieb.com)10
East 40th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-779-1414; Fax:
212-779-3218.


SONUS NETWORKS: Faces New Securities Fraud Complaint in Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sonus Networks, Inc., is a defendant in a purported securities
suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

On January 6, 2006, a purchaser of the company's common stock
filed the complaint, which is essentially identical to the
previously filed securities class actions against the company.
At least one other purchaser filed an identical complaint.  The
company has not yet responded to the complaint.

The suit is styled, "State Universities Retirement System of
Illinois v. Sonus Networks, Inc., et al., Case NO. 1:06-cv-
10040-MLW."  Representing the plaintiffs are, Theodore M. Hess-
Mahan and Thomas G. Shapiro of Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP, 53
State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-439-3939, Fax: 617-
439-0134, E-mail: ted@shulaw.com and tshapiro@shulaw.com.


SONUS NETWORKS: 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 securities class actions against Sonus Networks,
Inc.

In November 2001, a purchaser of the company's common stock
filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the company, two of its officers
and the lead underwriters alleging violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the company's initial public
offering (IPO) and seeking unspecified monetary damages.

The purchaser sought to represent a class of persons who
purchased the company's common stock between the IPO on May 24,
2000 and December 6, 2000.  An amended complaint was filed in
April 2002.

The amended complaint alleged that the company's registration
statement contained false or misleading information or omitted
to state material facts concerning the alleged receipt of
undisclosed compensation by the underwriters and the existence
of undisclosed arrangements between underwriters and certain
purchasers to make additional purchases in the after market.

The claims against the company were asserted under Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and against the individual defendants
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Other plaintiffs have filed substantially similar class action
cases against approximately 300 other publicly traded companies
and their IPO underwriters which, along with the actions against
the company, have been transferred to a single federal judge for
purposes of coordinated case management.

On July 15, 2002, the company, together with the other issuers
named as defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a
collective motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints
on various legal grounds common to all or most of the issuer
defendants.  The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the claims
against many of the individual defendants, including the
company's officers named in the complaint.

On February 19, 2003, the court granted a portion of the motion
to dismiss the Section 10(b) claims against certain defendants
including the company, but denied the remainder of the motion as
to the defendants.  In June 2003, a special committee of the
company's board of directors authorized the company to enter
into a proposed settlement with the plaintiffs on terms
substantially consistent with the terms of a memorandum of
understanding negotiated among representatives of the
plaintiffs, the issuer defendants and the insurers for the
issuer defendants.

On February 15, 2005, the court preliminarily approved the terms
of the proposed settlement contingent on modifications to the
proposed settlement.  On August 31, 2005, the court approved the
terms of the proposed settlement, as modified.

The settlement is subject to class certification and final
approval by the court.  A hearing has been scheduled on April
24, 2006 for final approval.

The proposed settlement would not require any settlement payment
by the company, therefore it does not expect that the settlement
would have a material impact on its business or financial
results.


SONUS NETWORKS: Mass. Court Mulls Motion for Attorneys' Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
yet to rule on Sonus Networks, Inc.'s motion seeking the
recovery of attorneys' fees from plaintiffs in the consolidated
securities class action filed against it.

Beginning in July 2002, several purchasers of the company's
common stock filed complaints in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against the company, certain officers
and directors and a former officer under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Class Action Complaints).

The purchasers sought to represent a class of persons who
purchased the company's common stock between December 11, 2000
and January 16, 2002, and seek unspecified monetary damages.
The class action complaints were essentially identical and
alleged that the company made false and misleading statements
about its products and business.

On March 3, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  On April 22, 2003, the company filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on various grounds.

On May 11, 2004, the court held oral argument on the motion, at
the conclusion of which the court denied the company's motion to
dismiss.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification
on July 30, 2004.

On February 16, 2005, the court certified the class and
appointed a class representative.  On March 9, 2005, the court
appointed lead counsel.

After the court requested additional briefing on the adequacy of
the class representative, the class representative withdrew.
Lead counsel then filed a motion to substitute a new plaintiff
as the class representative.

On May 19, 2005, the court held a hearing on the motion and took
the matter under advisement.  On August 15, 2005, the court
issued an order decertifying the class and requiring the parties
to submit a joint report informing the court whether the cases
have been settled and whether defendants would be seeking to
recover attorney's fees from the plaintiffs.

On September 30, 2005, the plaintiffs filed motions to
voluntarily dismiss their complaints with prejudice.  On October
5, 2005, the court entered an order dismissing the cases.

On October 21, 2005, the defendants filed a motion seeking the
recovery of attorneys' fees from plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs
have opposed the motion.  No hearing date has been scheduled.

The suit is styled "In Re Sonus Networks Securities Litigation,
case no. 1:02-cv-11315-MLW," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Mark L. Wolf.
Representing the plaintiffs are Robert J. Berg and Michael S.
Bigin, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th Street,
22nd Floor, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-779-1414; and Richard
H. Weiss, Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, One Penn
Plaza, New York City, NY 10002, Phone: 212-594-5300, Fax: 212-
868-1229.

Representing the company are Daniel W. Halston, J. Andrew Kent,
Michelle D. Miller, James W. Prendegrast, Jeffrey B. Rudman,
Peter A. Spaeth, Wilmer Hale, 60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109,
Phone: 617-526-6654, Fax: 617-526-5000, E-mail:
daniel.halston@wilmerhale.com, michelle.miller@wilmerhale.com,
jeffrey.rudman@wilmerhale.com,
peter.spaeth@wilmerhale.com


SONUS NETWORKS: Mass. Court Mulls Nixing of Amended Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
yet to rule on Sonus Networks, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
amended securities class action filed against it and certain of
its current officers and directors.

Beginning in February 2004, a number of purported shareholder
class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts against the company and
certain of its current officers and directors.  On June 28,
2004, the court consolidated the claims.  On December 1, 2004,
the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated 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 and Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933, relating to the company's restatement of its financial
results for 2001, 2002, and the first three quarters of 2003.
Specifically, the complaint alleged that the company issued a
series of false or misleading statements to the market
concerning the company's revenues, earnings and financial
condition.  Plaintiffs contended that such statements caused the
company's stock price to be artificially inflated.  The
complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the company's common stock during the
period from March 28, 2002, through March 26, 2004.

On January 28, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Section 10(b) and 12(a) claims and joined the motion to dismiss
the Section 11 claim filed by the individual defendants.  On
June 1, 2005, the court held a hearing on the motion and allowed
the plaintiff to file an amended complaint.

In August 2005, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  On
September 12, 2005, the defendants filed motions to dismiss this
amended complaint.  On December 10, 2005, the court held a
hearing on the motions and took the matter under advisement.

The suit is styled, "In Re: Sonus Networks, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-10294," filed in the U.S. District of
Massachusetts under Judge Douglas P. Woodlock. Plaintiff Firm
Named In Complaint: Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP, 595 Market
Street, Suite 2300, San Francisco, CA 94105-2835, Phone: 800-
778-1822, Fax: 415-777-5189, E-mail: info@gbcsf.com.


TELSTRA GROUP: $300M Stock Fraud Suit Continues in Australia
------------------------------------------------------------
Sydney Federal Court Justice Murray Wilcox ordered Telstra Group
to hand over documents to lawyers representing shareholders of
the company in a $300 million securities class action filed
against it.

The documents referred to are messages and directives sent by
Chief Executive Sol Trujillo from July 1, 2005, the day he
assumed the post at Telstra.

About 100 Telstra shareholders are suing the company alleging
breach of stock exchange disclosure rules.  They are represented
by law firm Slater & Gordon.  The suit claimed the company made
selective disclosures by first briefing the journalists and the
government, about its financial woes last year before informing
the Australian stock exchange.  Telstra is 51.8% owned by the
government.

Judge Wilcox said any communications touching on the secret
briefing to the government should be given to the shareholders'
lawyers.  He also ordered that lawyers be given any
communications between members of the company's transition team,
which was deployed to help Mr. Trujillo in his new role.  The
matter resumes May 12.

Telstra's stock closed at $5 on August 10, the day before
results were issued.  It fell $0.18 on August 11, the day the
results were released to market.  Weeks later, Telstra warned
profits could fall by up to 10% in the year to June 2006 and
that it had underinvested in capital expenditures during the
previous three to five years.

Shareholders who bought Telstra shares between the release of
its annual results on Aug. 11 and the profit warning in the week
of Sept. 5 claimed they were overcharged for being kept in the
dark about the firm's finances.

Slater and Gordon Spokesman Michael Salmon said early estimates
indicate shareholders were overcharged some AU$300 in the four-
week period alone.  The law firm said anyone who bought Telstra
shares between Aug. 11 and Sept. 7 is eligible to join the suit.

Headquartered at Melbourne, in Victoria, Australia, Telstra
Corporation -- http://www.telstra.com.au/-- is an Australian
telecommunications and information services company.  Telstra
offers a full range of services and compete in all
telecommunications markets throughout Australia, providing more
than 10.3 million Australian fixed line and more than 6.5
million mobile services.

Slater & Gordon on the Net: http://www.slatergordon.com.au/


TRUST BANK: Appeals Court Allows Suit V. Kenyan Bank to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal has allowed depositors of Kenya's Trust Bank
to sue its accountants for gross negligence that allegedly led
to the company's collapse in 1998, The Standard reports.

The depositors who lost as much as KES8.1 billion ($113.9
million) from the bank's failure are suing 10 auditors of KPMG
Peat Marwick for supposedly failing to disclose to the
depositors the true and correct financial position of the bank
shortly before it went under.

The depositors are Tarlock Nandra, Mahendra Patel, Dinesh Shah
and Tajdin Jiwa.  They filed the suit in 2001 on behalf of
themselves and 30,780 other depositors.  Justice Aaron Ringera,
then a High Court judge, had allowed the depositors to pursue
the case, but the auditors appealed in 2002.  The auditors said
the plaintiffs do not have the same interest in the suit, and
denied breaching statutory duties or committing fraud.  The
auditors are:

     -- Robin Cahil,
     -- Andrew Gregory,
     -- Wilfred Muriithi,
     -- Anis Pringle,
     -- Charlie Appleton
     -- David Powell,
     -- Brian de Souza,
     -- Richard Ndungu,
     -- Zahir Sheikh, and
     -- Josphat Mwaura

The depositors are also accusing them of fraudulently altering
the agreed terms of a scheme to revive the bank, and of
effectively discharging shareholders of the collapsed from
repaying KES2.6 billion ($36.576 million) that had been
embezzled from the bank.

The auditors drafted the company's 1999 scheme of arrangement
when it was placed under statutory management that ultimately
led to its liquidation.

The appellate judges who entered the decision were Philip Tunoi,
Erastus Githinji and Philip Waki.  Lawyer Desterio Oyatsi
represented the depositors while Lawyer Fraser represented the
auditors.  KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP has an office in Minnesota
(4200 Norwest Center, 90 South Seventh St., Minneapolis, MN,
55402, Phone: (612) 305-5000, Fax: (612) 305-5040).


USI HOLDINGS: Faces Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Suit in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
USI Holdings Corporation is a defendant in multidistrict
litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.

The company was named as one of more than 30 insurance firms and
insurance brokerage defendants in an amended complaint filed in
the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York in a
putative class action captioned, "Opticare Health Systems, Inc.
v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. CV
06954 (DC)."

The amended complaint focused on the payment of contingent
commissions by insurers to insurance brokers who sell their
insurance and alleged bid rigging in the setting of insurance
premium levels.  It purported to allege violations of numerous
laws including the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) and federal restraint of trade statutes,
state restraint of trade, unfair and deceptive practices
statutes and state breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment laws.

The amended complaint sought class certification, treble damages
for the alleged injury suffered by the putative plaintiff class
and other damages.

The company was also named as a defendant in "copycat" or tag-
along lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, styled, "Lewis v. Marsh & McLennan
Companies, Inc., et al., 04 C 7847," and "Preuss v. Marsh &
McLennan Companies, Inc., et al., 04 C 7853."

In April 2005, the company was served in another copycat class
action, captioned, "Palm Tree Computers Systems, Inc. et al. v.
Ace, USA, et al.," and filed in the Circuit Court for the
Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County, Florida,
Civil Division, Class Representation, No. 05-CA-373-16-W, with
the result that this action being removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, Case
No. 6:05-CV-422-2ZKRS.

A similar copycat class action complaint captioned, "Bensley
Construction, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. et al.,
No. ESCV2005-0277 (Essex Superior Court, Massachusetts)" was
served upon the company in May 2005.  This action was removed to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Like the Opticare complaint, these complaints contained no
particular allegations of wrongdoing on the company's part.  In
February 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(MDL) transferred the actions then pending to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.  The Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred the Palm Tree and Bensley
lawsuits to the same court for the same purposes.

On August 1, 2005, in the multidistrict litigation pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the
plaintiffs filed a first consolidated amended commercial class
action complaint and a first consolidated employee benefits
class action complaint (the consolidated MDL complaints) that
alleged claims against the company based upon RICO, federal and
state antitrust laws, breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and
abetting breaches of fiduciary and unjust enrichment.

The Consolidated MDL Complaints, like the predecessor
complaints, focus the allegations of fact upon defendants other
than the company.  The company moved to dismiss the Consolidated
MDL Complaints.  None of the plaintiffs in any of the actions
has set forth the amounts being sought in the particular
actions.

The suit is styled "In Re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 2:05-cv-01168-FSH," filed in the U.S.
District Court in New Jersey, under Judge Faith S. Hochberg.
Representing the plaintiffs are Joseph P. Guglielmo and Edith M.
Kallas of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, (NYC) One
Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-594-5300; and
Mark C. Rifkin of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP,
270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212 545-4600 E-
mail: rifkin@whafh.com.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Raises Alert on Diastat AcuDial Defects
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International and the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration notified healthcare professionals of complaints
the company received concerning small cracks at the base of the
plastic tip of its Diastat AcuDial Applicators.  The company
said the cracks result to leakage of the medication when the
plunger is depressed, preventing full dosing and potentially
resulting in a sub-optimal therapeutic response.

Diastat is indicated for rectal administration in the management
of selected refractory patients with epilepsy on stable regimens
of anti-epileptic drugs, who require intermittent use of
diazepam to control bouts of increased seizure activity.
Complaints were received for the Diastat AcuDial Applicators 10
mg. and 20 mg. product twin packs.

It is recommended that healthcare professionals advise patients
using the product of this issue and to return any product with a
cracked tip to their pharmacy for immediate replacement.
Pharmacists are advised to inspect all products on their shelves
and contact Rx Hope at 1-800-511-2120 or http://www.Rxhope.com
for replacement.  Emergency support must be always be available
in case seizures are not controllable with Diastat AcuDial.


VIRGINIA: Suit Over DNA Testing by Police Awaits Possible Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge is considering whether to hear a lawsuit filed
by a Charlottesville man who was subjected to DNA testing in the
city's hunt for a serial rapist.

Lawyers for Larry Monroe are planning to ask the judge for class
status should the judge rules in favor of their client,
according to Charlottesville NewsPLFX.

Late in March, attorneys for both the City of Charlottesville
and Mr. Monroe delivered at a hearing statements on the question
of whether Charlottesville's General District Court ruling
against Mr. Monroe should affect the federal complaint he filed.
Mr. Monroe is bringing claims against Detective James Mooney,
Chief Longo and the city of Charlottesville on behalf of himself
and other black men asked by police to submit to DNA testing in
the hunt (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 27, 2005).

The suit is the second filed by Mr. Monroe, who unsuccessfully
sued Charlottesville police Detective James Mooney for $15,000
last year, alleging that the detective harassed him into giving
a sample because he is black, not because he fit the description
of the rapist, who has been forensically linked to at least
seven attacks between 1997 and 2004, The Daily Progress reports
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 27, 2005).

The first lawsuit, filed in July 2004, was dismissed in February
after General District Judge Robert H. Downer Jr. ruled that Mr.
Monroe consented to the search and Detective Mooney did not
search him out of racial animosity.  However, Mr. Monroe's
lawyer, Deborah C. Wyatt, noted during the first case that the
rapist was described as a black man who is roughly 6 feet tall
with an athletic build, while Mr. Monroe is 5-foot-8 and weighs
about 300 pounds (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 27, 2005).

The practice of asking scores of black men for DNA samples was
curtailed in April 2004 after public outcry.  The new suit
alleges two violations of constitutional rights:

     (1) the policy of asking Monroe and other black men to
         provide their DNA for tests violates their
         constitutional right to equal protection because the
         same policy wasn't applied to all white men after
         unsolved sexual assaults made by white assailants; and

     (2) the policy constituted unreasonable seizures.

Filed last December 16, 2006 in U.S. District Court in
Charlottesville, the suit contends, "All government
classifications based on race are subject to strict judicial
scrutiny, including decisions regarding whom to speak with when
police are investigating a crime."  It noted, "While race may be
a factor in such decisions, it may not be the only factor."

Under class action rules, Mr. Monroe must get permission from a
judge to sue on behalf of others who have the same complaint.
The current suit also seeks $15,000 in damages.  If class action
status is approved, and if others join the suit, the same amount
of compensation would be sought for each of the plaintiffs.

The suit is styled, "Monroe v. City of Charlottesville, Virginia
et al., Case no. 3:05-cv-00074-nkm," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Virginia, under Judge
Norman K. Moon. Representing the plaintiff is Neal L. Walters of
Scott & Kroner, PC, P.O. BOX 2737, Charlottesville, VA 22902-
2737, Phone: 434-296-2161, Fax: 434-293-2073, E-mail:
nwalters@scottkroner.com.


WILLIAM LYON: Stockholder Lawsuits in Calif., Del. Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Two consolidated stockholder class actions challenging the
proposal made by General William Lyon to acquire the outstanding
publicly held minority interest in William Lyon Homes' common
stock for $82 per share in cash were recently dismissed.  The
suits were filed in Delaware and California courts.

Five purported class actions were filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County,
purportedly on behalf of the public stockholders of the company,
challenging the Proposed Transaction as well as related actions
of the company and its directors.

The suits (collectively, the Delaware complaints) involved are
styled:

     (1) "Eastside Investors, LLP v. William Lyon Homes, et al.,
         Civil Action No. 1301-N," which was filed on April 27,
         2005;

     (2) "Donald Lamuth v. William Lyon et al., Civil Action No.
          1304-N," which was filed on April 28, 2005;

     (3) "Stephen L. Brown v. William Lyon Homes, et al., Civil
         Action No. 1307-N," which was filed on April 28, 2005;

     (4) "Michael Crady v. William Lyon Homes, et al., Civil
         Action No. 1311-N," which was filed on May 2, 2005; and

     (5) "Anthony A. D'Amato v. William Lyon, et al., Civil
         Action No. 1323-N," which was filed on May 6, 2005.

The Delaware complaints named the company and the directors of
the company as defendants.  These complaints alleged, among
other things, that the defendants had breached their fiduciary
duties owed to the plaintiffs in connection with the proposed
transaction and other related corporate activities.

The plaintiffs were seeking to enjoin the proposed transaction
and, among other things, to obtain damages, attorneys' fees and
expenses related to the litigation.

On May 9, 2005, the Delaware Complaints were consolidated into a
single case entitled, "In re: William Lyon Homes Shareholder
Litigation, Civil Action No. 1311-N" (the consolidated Delaware
action).  On May 20, 2005, a class was certified in the
Consolidated Delaware Action.

On November 9, 2005, the Consolidated Delaware action was
dismissed without prejudice.

In addition, two purported class actions challenging the
Proposed Transaction were also filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Orange.

On April 28, 2005, the complaints captioned, "Lewis Lester v.
William Lyon Homes, et al., Case No. 05-CC-00092" (the Lewis
Complaint), and "Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. William Lyons
Homes, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CC-00093" (the Alaska
Electrical Complaint and, together with the Lewis Complaint, the
California Complaints) were filed.

The California Complaints named the company and the directors of
the company as defendants and alleged, among other things, that
the defendants had breached their fiduciary duties to the public
stockholders.

The California Complaints sought to enjoin the Proposed
Transaction and also sought damages and attorneys' fees and
expenses related to the litigation.

On May 26, 2005, the California Complaints were consolidated
into a single case entitled, "In re: William Lyon Homes, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 05-CC-00092" (the Consolidated
California Action).

On July 8, 2005, plaintiffs in the Consolidated California
Action dismissed that lawsuit without prejudice.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


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

On March 8, 2006, Pomerantz filed a 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 complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) 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.


NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Stock Suit in Utah
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Utah against Nature's
Sunshine Products, Inc. (OTC Pink Sheets: NATR).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price.  The class
period is from October 19, 2004 through March 24, 2006.

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


SEA CONTAINERS: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
securities of Sea Containers, Ltd. (NYSE:SCR-A) between March
15, 2004 and March 24, 2006, inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed
against Sea Containers and certain officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that Sea Containers' stock price dropped
significantly on March 24, 2006, after it disclosed that it was
restating its financial statements to reflect a $500 million
write-down of the value of its ferry and container businesses.
The complaint also alleges that, during the Class Period,
insiders were well aware that these assets were materially
impaired, but failed to make the necessary timely financial
adjustments, in order to satisfy its loan covenants as well as
keep its share price artificially inflated.

For more details, contact Mark S. Goldman, Esq. of The Law Firm
of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-753-2796, E-mail:
info@gsk-law.com.


SEA CONTAINERS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP filed a
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Sea
Containers Ltd. (SCL) or the (NYSE: SCR-A), between March 15,
2004 and March 24, 2006, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against defendants SCL, James
Sherwood (former CEO, President and Chair); Robert Mackenzie
(CEO), Daniel J. O'Sullivan (former CFO) and Ian C. Durant
(CFO).

The complaint alleges that SCL's Class Period financial
statements, disseminated in press releases and SEC filings, were
materially false and misleading because, among other things:

     (1) the company had overvalued long-lived assets related to
         its ferry and container businesses by hundreds of
         millions of dollars;

     (2) the company's reported earnings were materially
         overstated;

     (3) the company's internal controls and procedures were
         deficient and its financial reports inherently
         unreliable;

     (4) the company's reported financial results deceived
         investors regarding the company's true historical
         results and prospects; and

     (5) the company had overstated its gain on the sale of its
         interest in Orient-Express Hotels Ltd.

The truth emerged on March 24, 2006.  On that date SCL disclosed
that it was completely quitting the ferry business, taking a
$500 million charge, and that it was in talks to amend some of
its loan agreements.

The company further disclosed that it would restate its earnings
for 2005 and delay filing its annual reports with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission until April to allow time to
finalize bank negotiations and outstanding accounting issues.

On this news the company's share price dropped by 37.9 %, from
the March 24, 2006 per share opening price of $12 to a closing
price of $7.45.  During the Class Period, the company issued and
sold, at artificially inflated prices, $103,000,000 aggregate
principal amount of unsecured 101/2% senior notes due 2012 in an
underwritten public offering.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman
and Andrei V. Rado of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone:
(800) 320-5081, E-mail: sfeerick@milbergweiss.com, Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com.


TNS INC: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of TNS Inc. (NYSE: TNS) pursuant to
the company's secondary offering of common stock on or about
September 16, 2005.  The class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of TNS securities.  No
class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


TNS INC: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, initiated a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia on behalf of those who purchased the common stock of
TNS, Inc. (NYSE:TNS), pursuant to the company's secondary
offering of common stock on or about September 16, 2005.

The complaint charges TNS and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. TNS
describes itself as "one of the leading providers of business-
critical, cost-effective data communications services for
transaction-oriented applications and operates through its
wholly owned subsidiary Transaction Network Services, Inc.

TNS provides rapid, reliable and secure transaction delivery
platforms to enable transaction authorization and processing
across several vertical markets and trading communities."

The complaint alleges that, in connection with the Secondary
Offering, TNS filed a Registration Statement in which defendants
negligently failed to disclose several "material changes" to
TNS's continuing operations, which were required to be
disclosed. Specifically, the Registration Statement failed to
disclose that:

     (1) contrary to earlier statements, an agreement that the
         company had with the Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. (the
         Pepsi Contract) had been delayed beyond August 7, 2005;

     (2) at the time of the Secondary Offering, TNS was
         generating less revenues and earnings than it had
         anticipated from its contract with the Royal Bank of
         Scotland (RBS); and

     (3) at the time of the Secondary Offering, the company's
         International Services Division was experiencing
         declining revenues because of unfavorable exchange
         rates.

On October 20, 2005, the company, in a press release and
conference call, announced its financial results for the third
quarter of 2005 and noted that it had missed its top-line
revenue guidance because of delays in the company's Pepsi
Contract, the impact of unfavorable exchange rates and a
reduction in transaction volume from RBS.

Following this announcement, shares of TNS common stock fell
25%.  Then, on February 22, 2006, the company reported declining
financial results for the fourth quarter of 2005 and attributed
the decline to a further delay associated with the Pepsi
Contract and the continued impact of unfavorable exchange rates.
Shares of TNS common stock declined an additional 19% in
response to this announcement.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of those who
purchased the common stock of TNS, pursuant to the Secondary
Offering on or about September 16, 2005 (the Class).  The
plaintiff is represented by Lerach Coughlin, which has expertise
in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience
in actions involving financial improprieties.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, Phone:
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web
site: http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/tns/.



                            *********


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  * * *