CAR_Public/060411.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, April 11, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 72

                            Headlines

AOL TIME: N.Y. Court Approves $2.65B Settlement of Stock Lawsuit
ARIZONA: New Court Order Stays Students' AIMS Test Exemption
AT&T INC: Former Technician Backs EFF's Wiretapping Allegations
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: November Trial Date Set for AWP Lawsuit
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Continues to Face Securities Suit in N.Y.

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Faces "Channel-Stuffing" Suit in E.D. Mo.
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Plaintiffs File Amended PHSA Complaints
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: W.Va. Court Okays SERZONE Suit Settlement
BROOKSTONE COMPANY: Recalls Massaging Bed Rest Due to Fire Risk
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Faces Four Suits Over Early Termination Fees

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Approval of Campbell Settlement Under Appeal
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Ill. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss 911 Suit
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Settles Suits Over V710 Models in Two States
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Lawsuits Over Wireless Phone Use Continue
CREDIT SUISSE: CNET Networks Shareholders Urged to File Claims

CREDIT SUISSE: Network Engines Investors Urged to File Claims
CREDIT SUISSE: 724 Solutions Shareholders Urged to File Claims
DYNAMICS RESEARCH: Employees File FLSA Violations Suit in Mass.
E.I. DUPONT: Lawsuits Over Teflon Sent to Iowa Federal Court
EMERY WORLDWIDE: Ex-Workers File WARN Violations Suit in Ohio

FLORIDA: Labor Groups Amend Suit Over Voter Registration Forms
HARMONIC INC: Circuit Court Refuses Parties' Rehearing Petition
HCA INC: Co-Lead Plaintiffs Appointed in Consolidated Stock Suit
HCA INC: Tenn. Court Reassigns New Judge in ERISA Fraud Lawsuit
INFOCUS CORP: Recalls Portable Projectors Due to Fire Hazard

ISOLAGEN INC: JPMDL Transfers Securities Fraud Suits to E.D. Pa.
KENNETH COLE: Faces Worker Wage Suit, Settles Another in Calif.
MEAT PACKERS: S.D. Cattle Producers' Fraud Lawsuit Proceeds
MERCK FROSST: Sutts Strossberg Gets Carriage in Vioxx Lawsuit
MASSACHUSETTS: Boston Fire Dept. Workers Allege Discrimination

MICHIGAN: Metro Detroit American Indians Sue Over Health Care
MINNESOTA: Suit Filed Over Errors in High School Aptitude Test
NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Gets Windfall From Corn Syrup Antitrust Pact
SEMCO ENERGY: W.Va. Court Denies Motion to Amend Dismissal Order
STRATOS INT'L: Suit Settlement Hearing Slated for April 24, 2006

TECUMSEH POWER: Recalls Power Equipment Engines Due to Fire Risk
TELLABS INC: Appeals Court Considers Rehearing En Banc Motion
TRIAD GUARANTY: Discovery Proceeds in Mortgage Borrowers' Suit
TRUMP ENTERTAINMENT: Discovery Proceeds in N.J. ERISA Lawsuit
UICI: Tex. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Fraud Litigation

WESTERN GAS: Faces Direct Purchasers' Natural Gas Suit in Kans.
ZIEMAN MANUFACTURING: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Toy Trailers
ZIX CORP: Tex. Court Mulls Dismissal of Consolidated Stock Suit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICA SERVICE: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in Tenn.
AMERICA SERVICE: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in Tenn.
ASTEA INT'L: Shalov Stone Commences Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
GMH COMMUNITIES: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Suit in Pa.
GMH COMMUNITIES: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in Pa.
MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Berman DeValerio Lodges Stock Suit in Wis.
NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Rosen Law Firm Lodges Securities Suit in Utah
SEA CONTAINERS: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
TNS INC: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Va.

                            *********


AOL TIME: N.Y. Court Approves $2.65B Settlement of Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Shirley Wohl Kram granted final approval to
a $2.65 billion settlement of a securities class action alleging
that America Online Inc. improperly accounted for advertising
revenue prior to its merger with Time Warner Inc.  The judge
granted initial approval to the settlement in September 2005.

Under the deal, Time Warner will pay most of the settlement,
while its auditor, Ernst & Young LLP, will pay $100 million.
Claimants are estimated at 600,000.

The case was brought on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired publicly traded
common stock of AOL Time Warner, Inc., and/or bought or sold
options on AOL common stock during the period January 27, 1999
through January 11, 2001, and/or purchased, exchanged or
otherwise acquired publicly traded common stock and bonds of
Time Warner and/or bought or sold options on Time Warner common
stock during the period January 11, 2001 through and including
August 27, 2002, and were damaged thereby.

The suit was styled "AOL Time Warner, Inc. Securities & 'ERISA'
Litigation, Case No. 02 Civ. 5575 (SWK)," filed in the U.S.
District Court for Southern District of New York.  The lead
plaintiff was the Minnesota State Board of Investment, which
manages the investment of retirement fund assets of the
Minnesota State Retirement System, Teachers Retirement
Association and the Public Employees Retirement Association.

For more details, contact AOL Time Warner, Inc. Securities
Litigation, c/o Gilardi & Co., Settlement Administrator, P.O.
Box 808061, Petaluma, CA 949475-8061, Phone: (877) 800-7852, E-
mail: aoltimewarnersettlement@gilardi.com, Web site:
http://www.aoltimewarnersettlement.com/.


ARIZONA: New Court Order Stays Students' AIMS Test Exemption
------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for plaintiffs in the class action over Arizona's AIMS
test asked the appeals court to reconsider its order that
effectively requires English-learning students to pass the test
to get a high school diploma.

The motion was filed on April 7 after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals issued a stay on a federal judge's order exempting
English-learning students from having to pass the test.  A
three-judge panel will consider the case in late July.

The stay blocks a Dec. 16 federal judge order exempting English-
learning students from having to pass the test, keeping 2,000 to
3,000 students who meet other requirements for diplomas from
graduating.  It also blocks U.S. District Judge Raner C.
Collins' March 17 order requiring distribution of the $21
million in fines that the state accrued for missing a January
deadline to improve English-learning program.  Arguments on
whether a law passed in March to address deficiencies in the
program are still before Judge Collins.

AIMS is short for Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards.

The suit was styled, "Flores, et al. v. Arizona, State of, et
al., Case No. 4:92-cv-00596-RCC," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Raner C. Collins.
Representing the plaintiffs is Timothy Michael Hogan of Arizona
Center for Law in the Public Interest, 202 E. McDowell Rd., Ste.
153, Phoenix, AZ 85004, Phone: 602-258-8850, Fax: 602-258-8757,
E-mail: thogan@aclpi.org.

Representing the defendants are Lynne Christensen Adams and
Jose A. Cardenas of Lewis & Roca, LLP, 40 N. Central Ave.,
Phoenix, AZ 85004-4429, Phone: 602-262-5372 and 602-262-5790,
Fax: 602-734-4015 and 602-734-3852, E-mail: ladams@lrlaw.com and
jcardenas@lrlaw.com.


AT&T INC: Former Technician Backs EFF's Wiretapping Allegations
---------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T, Inc. provided the U.S. National Security Agency with
facilities to monitor telephone and Internet traffic, an
affidavit filed by a retired company technician states,
according to United Press International.

Mark Klein's affidavit, lodged in federal court in San
Francisco, supports a lawsuit filed by Electronic Frontier
Foundation against the company months ago.  Mr. Klein said he
does not believe the U.S. government is being honest about its
surveillance, the report said.

The EFF filed a class action against AT&T in January accusing
the telecom giant of violating the law and privacy of its
customers by collaborating with the NSA in an alleged massive
and illegal program to wiretap and data-mine Americans'
communications (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 2, 2006).  Mr. Klein
said he helped set up equipment for the NSA.

In the lawsuit, EFF alleged that AT&T, in addition to allowing
the NSA direct access to the phone and Internet communications
passing over its network, has given the government unfettered
access to its over 300 terabyte "Daytona" database of caller
information-one of the largest databases in the world.

By opening its network and databases to unrestricted spying by
the government, EFF alleged that AT&T has violated the privacy
of AT&T customers and the people they call and e-mail, as well
as broken longstanding communications privacy laws.

While other organizations are suing the government directly, EFF
said it is seeking to protect Americans' privacy by stopping the
collaboration of AT&T with the NSA spying program and making it
economically impossible for AT&T to continue to give its
customers' information to the government.

In the suit filed Jan. 31, EFF was representing the class of all
AT&T customers nationwide.  EFF was seeking an injunction to
stop AT&T's participation in the allegedly illegal NSA program,
as well as billions of dollars in damages for violation of
federal privacy laws.  Working with EFF in the lawsuit are the
law firms Traber & Voorhees (128 N. Fair Oaks, Ave., 204
Pasadena, CA 91103, Phone: (626) 585-9611, Fax: (626) 577-7079),
and Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (On the
Net: http://www.lerachlaw.com/).

The case was styled "Hepting et al. v. AT&T Corp. et al. (3:06-
cv-00672-VRW)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, under Judge Vaughn R. Walker.
Representing the plaintiff is Cindy Ann Cohn of Electronic
Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org),454 Shotwell Street,
San Francisco, CA 94110, Phone: 415-436-9333 x 108; Fax: (415)
436-9993; E-mail: cindy@eff.org.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: November Trial Date Set for AWP Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., together with a number of other
pharmaceutical manufacturers, is defendant in private class
actions, as well as suits brought by the Attorneys General of
several states and by numerous New York Counties and the City of
New York relating to the pricing of company's products.  The
suits are pending in federal and state courts.

The federal cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes under
the caption, "In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale
Price Litigation, MDL No. 1456," in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts (the AWP MDL).

The pleadings in the private class action have been amended over
the course of the AWP MDL in response to the court's rulings on
both class certification and merits issues.

On October 16, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their Third Amended
Master Consolidated Class Action Complaint (TAMCC) alleging that
the company's and many other pharmaceutical manufacturers'
reporting of prices for certain prescription drug products (20
listed drugs in the company's case) had the effect of falsely
overstating the Average Wholesale Price (AWP) published in
industry compendia, which in turn improperly inflated the
reimbursement paid to medical providers and others who
prescribed and administered those products.

The TAMCC asserted claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute, state consumer
protection and fair trade statutes; however, because of the
court's prior rulings, the RICO claims have been dismissed and
they continue to be included in the TAMCC primarily for appeal
purposes.

In addition, in an opinion dated August 16, 2005, the court
declined to certify any proposed class as to those of the
company's drugs that are self-administered by the patient --
such as pills, liquids that can be purchased in a pharmacy --
and expressed a willingness to certify only classes involving
those drugs that are administered by a physician, for example,
injectables such as oncology drugs.

On January 19, 2006, the court heard argument on the
certification of three classes of persons and entities who paid
for or reimbursed for seven of the company's physician-
administered drugs and certified these classes:

     (1) a nationwide class of individual Medicare Part B
         beneficiaries;

     (2) a Massachusetts class of "Medigap" insurers; and

     (3) a Massachusetts class of entities and persons in
         private commerce who paid or were reimbursed for the
         drugs based on AWP.

Fact discovery by the plaintiffs of the company is closed in the
private AWP MDL proceedings and the case is progressing on
issues of expert discovery.

On January 31, 2006, the court issued a case management order
scheduling summary judgment motions to be filed on March 15,
2006 and setting a trial date for the company of November 6,
2006.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Continues to Face Securities Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. is defendant in a purported securities
class action in the U.S. District court for the Southern
District of New York.

On September 21, 2005, certain of the company's current and
former officers were named in the purported class action, which
was originally filed in New York State Supreme Court.  The suit
asserted common law fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims on
behalf of stockholders who purchased the company's stock before
October 19, 1999 and held their stock through March 10, 2003.

On October 7, 2005, the Company removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The case
is currently stayed.

The suit is styled, "Starkman v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company,
et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-08604-LAP," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Loretta
A. Preska.  Representing the plaintiffs are Lawrence Walner of
Lawrence Walner & Associates, Ltd., 150 North Wacker Dr.,
Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 201-1616.

Representing the defendants are Evan R. Chesler and Elizabeth L.
Grayer of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, 825 Eighth Avenue, New
York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 474-1000, Fax: (212) 474-3700, E-
mail: echesler@cravath.com and egrayer@cravath.com.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Faces "Channel-Stuffing" Suit in E.D. Mo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. is defendant in a purported class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri over improper "channel-stuffing" agreements with D&K
Health Care Resources, Inc.

On November 18, 2004, the class action complaint was filed
against the company, D&K and several current and former D&K
directors and officers on behalf of purchasers of D&K stock
between August 10, 2000 and September 16, 2002.

The complaint alleged the company participated in fraudulently
inflating the value of D&K stock by engaging in improper
"channel-stuffing" agreements with D&K.

The company filed a motion to dismiss this case on January 28,
2005.  That motion is under consideration by the court.

Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, discovery is
automatically stayed pending the outcome of the motion to
dismiss.  The plaintiff moved to partially lift the automatic
stay.  The court is considering that motion.

The suit is styled, "Dutton v. D&K Healthcare Resources, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 4:04-cv-00147-SNL," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of the Eastern District of
Missouri under Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh.  Representing the
plaintiffs are, William S. Lerach of Lerach & Coughlin, LLP, 655
West Broadway, Phone: Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423, E-mail: billl@lcsr.com; and
Guri Ademi of Ademi and O'reilly, LLP, 3620 E. Layton Avenue,
Cudahy, WI 53110, Phone: 414-482-8000, Fax: 414-482-8001.

Representing the defendants are Jessica R. Buturla and Evan R.
Chesler of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, 825 Eighth Avenue,
Worldwide Plaza, New York, NY 10019, Phone: 212-474-1000, Fax:
212-474-3700, E-mail: jbuturla@cravath.com and
echesler@cravath.com; and Glenn E. Davis Armstrong Teasdale,
LLP, One Metropolitan Square, Suite 2600, St. Louis, MO 63102-
2740, Phone: 314-621-5070, Fax: 314-612-2241, E-mail:
gdavis@armstrongteasdale.com.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Plaintiffs File Amended PHSA Complaints
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., is defendant in two putative class
actions involving drug prices under Section 340B of the Public
Health Services Act (PHSA), which requires prescription drug
manufacturers to offer discounts to qualified medical providers
generally those who disproportionately service poor people.

In one case, pending in Alabama federal court, the plaintiffs
are two medical providers who claimed they and all other
providers across the country did not receive the discounted
prices to which they were entitled.

In another case, pending in California federal court, the County
of Santa Clara, California, the suit alleged that the company
and other counties and cities in California have had to provide
more financing to local hospitals than otherwise would have been
necessary had the company and the other defendants provided the
appropriate discounts.

The Alabama court denied defendants' motion to dismiss.  On
February 14, 2006, the motion to dismiss in the California
action was granted.  The court also granted plaintiff leave to
amend, and the plaintiff has filed an amended complaint.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: W.Va. Court Okays SERZONE Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia granted final approval to the settlement of a
consolidated class action filed against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
over its antidepressant drug SERZONE (nefazodone hydrochloride).

The company launched SERZONE in May 1994 in Canada and in March
1995 in the U.S.  In December 2001, the company added a black
box warning to its SERZONE label regarding the potential risk of
severe hepatic events including possible liver failure and the
need for transplantation and risk of death.

Within several months of the black box warning being added to
the package insert for SERZONE, a number of lawsuits, including
several class actions, were filed against the company.

Plaintiffs alleged that the company knew or should have known
about the hepatic risks posed by SERZONE and failed to
adequately warn physicians and users of the risks.  They sought
compensatory and punitive damages, medical monitoring, and
refunds for the costs of purchasing SERZONE.

In August 2002, the federal cases were transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,
styled, "In re Serzone Products Liability Litigation, MDL 1477."

In addition to the cases filed in the U.S., there are four
national class actions filed in Canada.  In May 2004, the
company announced that, following an evaluation of the
commercial potential of the product after generic entry into the
marketplace and rapidly declining brand sales, it had decided to
discontinue the manufacture and sale of the product effective
June 14, 2004.

Without admitting any wrongdoing or liability, on or around
October 15, 2004, the company entered into a settlement
agreement with respect to all claims in the U.S. and its
territories regarding SERZONE.

Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, all claims
will be dismissed, the litigation will be terminated, the
defendants will receive releases, and the Company commits to
paying at least $70 million to funds for class members.

The class counsel has petitioned the court for an award of
reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses; the fees will be paid
by the company and will not reduce the amount of money paid to
class members as part of the settlement.  The company may
terminate the settlement based upon the number of claims
submitted or the number of purported class members who opt not
to participate in the settlement and instead pursue individual
claims.

On November 18, 2004, the district court conditionally certified
the temporary settlement class and preliminarily approved the
settlement.  The opt-out period ended on April 8, 2005.

The fairness hearing occurred on June 29, 2005.  On September 2,
2005, the court issued an opinion granting final approval of the
settlement; the order approving the settlement was entered on
September 9, 2005.

The suit is styled, "In re Serzone Products Liability
Litigation, MDL 1477," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia under Judge Joseph R. Goodwin
with referral to Judge Mary E. Stanley.


BROOKSTONE COMPANY: Recalls Massaging Bed Rest Due to Fire Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Brookstone Company Inc., of Merrimack, New Hampshire, is
recalling 35,500 foldable massaging bed rests with heat.

The company said electrical circuits within the bed rest can
overheat causing the back side of the product to overheat,
posing a fire and burn hazard.  Brookstone has received two
reports of overheating, melting and charring, resulting in minor
property damage.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled bed rest is designed to support a person sitting in
bed.  It is beige and consists of a back, two foldable armrests
with a cup holder and massage controls, and a headrest with a
reading light attached.  "Imported by Brookstone Company" is
printed on a tag attached to the bed rest.  The massaging bed
rest also provides heat at a single setting.  A curly beige cord
is attached to the back lower left corner of the bed rest.  On
some of the bed rests, "SKU NO: 431254" is printed on a round
metal plate where the curly beige cord plugs into the bed rest.
"Brookstone" is printed on the beige plug-in transformer that
attaches to the beige cord.

The massaging bed rests were made in China and sold at
Brookstone retail and outlet stores nationwide, Brookstone Web
site, Brookstone catalogs, Amazon.com, and borderfree.com from
April 2004 through January 2006 for about $125.

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled bed rest
immediately and contact Brookstone for a free replacement bed
rest.  The firm is contacting customers directly when possible.

Picture of the massaging bed rest:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06131.jpg

Consumer Contact: Brookstone Phone: (888) 318-7455 (toll-free)
between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. CT, seven days a week; E-mail:
bedrest-recall@brookstone.com; Web site:
http://www.brookstone.com.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Faces Four Suits Over Early Termination Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cellco Partnership is defendant in four putative class actions
that challenges the imposition of early termination fees.

One of these actions is styled, "Marlowe, J., et al. v. AT&T
Corp., et al.," which was filed on July 23, 2003 in the Superior
Court of California, Alameda County.  Along with other similar
cases filed against Verizon Wireless in the same court, it was
coordinated by the Judicial Council and are thus proceeding in
that court under the caption, "In re Cellphone Termination Fee
Cases, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4332."

In these coordinated proceedings, plaintiffs challenged the
business practices of all major wireless service providers
relating to the imposition of early termination fees and the use
of software (referred to in the lawsuits as a lock) that
allegedly prevents handsets sold by a wireless carrier from
being used with the service of competing carriers.

With respect to the company, plaintiffs asserted on behalf of a
putative California class of the company's subscribers from 1999
to the present that early termination fees charged by the
company  in California are unenforceable, unlawful, unfair, in
violation of California Civil Code S.1671 and S.1750, and
violate California's Unfair Competition Law and California
Business and Professions Code S17200.

Plaintiffs further alleged that the use of software "locks" on
wireless handsets sold by the company violates California's
Unfair Competition Law.  They thus sought preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief against the imposition of early
termination fees, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief
against the use of handset "locks", restitution and
disgorgement.

The court has scheduled a hearing on class certification for
April 28, 2006.

In "Brown, et al. v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC," which was
filed on June 3, 2005 before the American Arbitration
Association, plaintiffs asked to represent a nationwide class of
Verizon Wireless subscribers (except California subscribers).

The plaintiff in Brown alleged violations of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and section 210(b) of
the Communications Act.  The demand seeks unspecified money
damages and equitable relief.

In "Zobrist v. Verizon Wireless" which was commenced on February
7, 2005, before the American Arbitration Association, the
plaintiff alleged breach of contract and violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

Plaintiff intended to sue on behalf of all Verizon Wireless
customers nationwide (except California) who paid or were billed
an early termination fee.  The demand sought unspecified money
damages and equitable relief.

In "Gentry v. Cellco Partnership," which was filed on November
4, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, plaintiff purported to seek relief on behalf of a
nationwide class of Verizon Wireless subscribers who were
allegedly charged an early termination fee despite service
problems.

The complaint alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and
violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act section 1750.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Approval of Campbell Settlement Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval of the settlement for the class action
against Cellco Partnership, styled, "Campbell, et al. v. Verizon
Wireless, et al.," is under appeal at a California court.

The purported consumer class action was in relation to the
company's advertising, sales, billing and collection practices.
The suit was filed in August 2000 in the Superior Court of
California, San Diego County.

The trial court granted final approval of a nationwide class
action settlement in May 2004.  The final approval of that
settlement has been appealed to the California Court of Appeal.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Ill. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss 911 Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
denied Cellco Partnership's motion to dismiss the purported
class action, styled, "In Re Wireless Telephone 911 Calls
Litigation."

On October 5, 2004, plaintiffs in the litigation were granted
leave to amend their complaint to, among other things, add the
company as a defendant.

The amended complaint purported to be brought on behalf of a
nationwide class of persons who purchased handsets from the
company and other defendants that allegedly did not comply with
the Federal Communications Commission's emergency 911 call
processing rules, which became effective in February 2000.

The suit alleged violations of the Communications Act,
California unfair competition statute, and applicable state
consumer fraud laws, as well as breach of warranty, breach of
contract and implied covenant of fair dealing, and unjust
enrichment.  It thus sought injunctive and declaratory relief,
compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

On June 3, 2005, the court denied company's motion to dismiss in
substantial part.

The suit was styled, "In Re Wireless Telephone 911 Calls
Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-02597," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge John F.
Grady.  Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Mark V. Chester of Johnson & Colmar, 300 South Wacker
         Drive, Suite 1000, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 922-
         1980, E-mail: mvchester@jocolaw.com;

     (2) Terrence J. Dee and Matthew Thomas Stamps of Kirkland &
         Ellis, LLP, 200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 5800,
         Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 861-2000 and (312) 861-
         3268, E-mail: tdee@kirkland.com; and

     (3) Ashley L Rodgers of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld,
         LLP, 300 West 6th Street, Suite 2100, Austin, TX 78701,
         Phone: (512) 499-6200, E-mail: arodgers@akingump.com.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Settles Suits Over V710 Models in Two States
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cellco Partnership reached a settlement for three purported
class actions alleging that Verizon Wireless did not adequately
disclose certain limitations on the Bluetooth technology that
was included in the Motorola V710 handset.  The handset has been
available for use on the Verizon Wireless network since August
2004.

The suits are styled:

     (1) Opperman, et al. v. Cellco Partnership, et al., filed
         on December 30, 2004 in the Superior Court of
         California, Los Angeles County;

     (2) Zhao v. Verizon Wireless, Inc., filed on January 7,
         2005 in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga
         County; and

     (3) Kaner, et al. v. Cellco Partnership, filed on January
         20, 2005 as a purported class action arbitration with
         the American Arbitration Association in New York.

The Opperman action was brought on behalf of a purported class
of California residents who purchased the V710 handset; the Zhao
actions are brought on behalf of a purported nationwide class.
These actions asserted claims for violation of state consumer
fraud statutes and claims of common law fraud and unjust
enrichment; they sought compensatory, consequential and
exemplary damages, recovery of attorney's fees, and injunctive
relief.

On September 2, 2005, the Los Angeles Superior Court entered an
order on a preliminary nationwide settlement, which will provide
claimants who submit a claim form under penalty of perjury with
the options of:

     (i) retaining their V710 handset and receiving a $25 bill
         credit;

    (ii) returning their phone and accessories, receiving the
         actual purchase price or $200 if they do not have a
         receipt, and canceling service; or

   (iii) returning their phone and receiving a credit (for $200
         or the actual purchase price) toward a new phone.

The settlement agreement does not address attorneys' fees, which
will be determined by the court.  Plaintiffs' counsel filed a
motion seeking $6.3 million in fees.

On January 17, 2006, the court granted final approval of the
settlement for those class members who had received notice of
the settlement prior to that date.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Lawsuits Over Wireless Phone Use Continue
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cellco Partnership said that plaintiffs in four similar
statewide class actions relating to wireless phone use
stipulated to the dismissal of two the actions without
prejudice.  The remaining actions were removed to federal court.

Between April and June 2001, the company and various other
wireless carriers and phone manufacturers became defendants in
statewide class actions relating to wireless phone use,
including:

     (1) "Farina, et al. v. Nokia Inc., et al.," Pennsylvania
         Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, filed April
         19, 2001;

     (2) "Gilliam, et al. v. Nokia Inc., et al.," New York
         Supreme Court, Bronx County, filed April 23, 2001;

     (3) "Pinney, et al. v. Nokia Inc., et al.," Maryland
         Circuit Court, Baltimore County, filed April 19, 2001;
         and

     (4) "Gimpelson et al. v. Nokia Inc., et al.," Georgia
         Superior Court, Fulton County, filed June 8, 2001.

Plaintiffs in these suits alleged that the wireless phones were
defective, since the defendants failed to include a proper
warning about alleged adverse health effects, failed to
encourage the use of a headset, and failed to include a headset
with the phone.

Plaintiffs in the Farina and Pinney actions also alleged that
the sale of wireless phones without a hands-free device
facilitated the violation of certain state laws restricting the
use of wireless phones without a hands-free device while
operating a motor vehicle.

The four suits sought damages and injunctive relief requiring
defendants to provide headsets to all class members.  All of
these class actions were removed to federal court and
subsequently coordinated by the Judicial Panel for Multi-
District Litigation and transferred to the U.S. District Court
in Maryland.

On March 5, 2003, the district court denied plaintiffs' motion
to remand to state court and dismissed plaintiffs' claims in all
four cases.

On March 16, 2005, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
the district court's finding of federal jurisdiction and ordered
the actions remanded to the state courts in which they were
originally filed.

On October 28, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court denied defendants'
petition for certiorari seeking to vacate the Fourth Circuit
judgment in light of intervening precedent.

Plaintiffs have stipulated to the dismissal of the Gimpelson and
Gilliam actions without prejudice.  On February 17, 2006, the
Farina and Pinney actions were removed to federal court.


CREDIT SUISSE: CNET Networks Shareholders Urged to File Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Klayman & Toskes, P.A. (K&T) advises all Credit Suisse First
Boston customers, who are eligible to participate in the
Settlement of the Initial Public Offerings Securities Litigation
No. 21 MC 92 (SAS), to explore all legal options against Credit
Suisse First Boston, one of the non-settling defendant
underwriters.

According to K&T, investors should strongly consider pursuing an
individual securities arbitration claim as a means to recovering
their financial losses.

According to the IPO Securities Litigation, various issuers and
underwriters caused securities to trade at artificially inflated
prices, in connection with the initial public offering of the
securities, causing customers to lose billions of dollars.
Investors who may have a claim against Credit Suisse First
Boston, a non-settling defendant underwriter, include those who
suffered net losses as a result of their purchase and/or receipt
of the following stocks through Credit Suisse First Boston,
during the relevant time periods:

CNET Networks      (CNET)        Mar. 30, 99 - Dec. 6, 00
Commerce One, Inc. (CMRCQ)       Jul.  1, 99 - Dec. 6, 00
Interwoven, Inc.   (IWOV)        Oct.  7, 99 - Dec. 6, 00
McData Corp.       (MCDTA)       Aug.  8, 00 - Dec. 6, 00

Several defendant underwriters, including Credit Suisse First
Boston, have not settled with the Class Members of the Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation.  Therefore, K&T urges
investors who suffered substantial losses to proceed with a
securities arbitration claim against Credit Suisse First Boston,
rather than waiting for a potential class action settlement.
Empirical evidence shows that investors may achieve an overall
higher rate of recovery by filing an individual securities
arbitration claim.

Accordingly, K&T plans to assist high net-worth investors who
purchased and/or received an allocation of shares through an IPO
to recover their financial losses from Credit Suisse First
Boston, in securities arbitration claims before the National
Association of Securities Dealers and the New York Stock
Exchange.  Additionally, because the IPO Litigation is not the
exclusive remedy for injured investors, K&T strongly encourages
all eligible IPO Settlement recipients to contact Lawrence L.
Klayman, Esquire, at 888-997-9956 to discuss their legal options
and/or the possibility of pursuing an individual securities
arbitration claim.

Klayman & Toskes, P.A. on the Net: http://www.nasd-law.com.


CREDIT SUISSE: Network Engines Investors Urged to File Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Klayman & Toskes, P.A. (K&T) advises all Credit Suisse First
Boston customers, who are eligible to participate in the
Settlement of the Initial Public Offerings Securities Litigation
No. 21 MC 92 (SAS), to explore all legal options against Credit
Suisse First Boston, one of the non-settling defendant
underwriters.

According to K&T, investors should strongly consider pursuing an
individual securities arbitration claim as a means to recovering
their financial losses.

According to the IPO Securities Litigation, various issuers and
underwriters caused securities to trade at artificially inflated
prices, in connection with the initial public offering of the
securities, causing customers to lose billions of dollars.
Investors who may have a claim against Credit Suisse First
Boston, a non-settling defendant underwriter, include those who
suffered net losses as a result of their purchase and/or receipt
of the following stocks through Credit Suisse First Boston,
during the relevant time periods:

Network Engines, Inc.  (NENG)   Jul. 13, 00-Dec. 6, 00
Onvia, Inc.            (ONVI)   Feb. 29, 00-Dec. 6, 00
Onyx Software          (ONXS)   Feb. 11, 99-Dec. 6, 00
Openwave               (OPWV)   Jun. 11, 99-Dec. 6, 00

Several defendant underwriters, including Credit Suisse First
Boston, have not settled with the Class Members of the Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation.  Therefore, K&T urges
investors who suffered substantial losses to proceed with a
securities arbitration claim against Credit Suisse First Boston,
rather than waiting for a potential class action settlement.
Empirical evidence shows that investors may achieve an overall
higher rate of recovery by filing an individual securities
arbitration claim.

Accordingly, K&T plans to assist high net-worth investors who
purchased and/or received an allocation of shares through an IPO
to recover their financial losses from Credit Suisse First
Boston, in securities arbitration claims before the National
Association of Securities Dealers and the New York Stock
Exchange.  Additionally, because the IPO Litigation is not the
exclusive remedy for injured investors, K&T strongly encourages
all eligible IPO Settlement recipients to contact Lawrence L.
Klayman, Esquire, at 888-997-9956 to discuss their legal options
and/or the possibility of pursuing an individual securities
arbitration claim.

Klayman & Toskes, P.A. on the Net: http://www.nasd-law.com.


CREDIT SUISSE: 724 Solutions Shareholders Urged to File Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Klayman & Toskes, P.A. (K&T) advises all Credit Suisse First
Boston customers, who are eligible to participate in the
Settlement of the Initial Public Offerings Securities Litigation
No. 21 MC 92 (SAS), to explore all legal options against Credit
Suisse First Boston, one of the non-settling defendant
underwriters.

According to K&T, investors should strongly consider pursuing an
individual securities arbitration claim as a means to recovering
their financial losses.

According to the IPO Securities Litigation, various issuers and
underwriters caused securities to trade at artificially inflated
prices, in connection with the initial public offering of the
securities, causing customers to lose billions of dollars.
Investors who may have a claim against Credit Suisse First
Boston, a non-settling defendant underwriter, include those who
suffered net losses as a result of their purchase and/or receipt
of the following stocks through Credit Suisse First Boston,
during the relevant time periods:

724 Solutions, Inc.     (SVNX)      Jan. 27, 00 - Dec. 6, 00
Airspan Networks, Inc.  (AIRN)      Jul. 19, 00 - Dec. 6, 00
Audible, Inc.           (ADBL)      Jul. 15, 99 - Dec. 6, 00
BSQUARE Corp.           (BSQR)      Oct. 19, 99 - Dec. 6, 00

Several defendant underwriters, including Credit Suisse First
Boston, have not settled with the Class Members of the Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation.  Therefore, K&T urges
investors who suffered substantial losses to proceed with a
securities arbitration claim against Credit Suisse First Boston,
rather than waiting for a potential class action settlement.
Empirical evidence shows that investors may achieve an overall
higher rate of recovery by filing an individual securities
arbitration claim.

Accordingly, K&T plans to assist high net-worth investors who
purchased and/or received an allocation of shares through an IPO
to recover their financial losses from Credit Suisse First
Boston, in securities arbitration claims before the National
Association of Securities Dealers and the New York Stock
Exchange.  Additionally, because the IPO Litigation is not the
exclusive remedy for injured investors, K&T strongly encourages
all eligible IPO Settlement recipients to contact Lawrence L.
Klayman, Esquire, at 888-997-9956 to discuss their legal options
and/or the possibility of pursuing an individual securities
arbitration claim.

Klayman & Toskes, P.A. on the Net: http://www.nasd-law.com.


DYNAMICS RESEARCH: Employees File FLSA Violations Suit in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dynamics Research Corporation faces a class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and certain
provisions of Massachusetts General Laws.

Filed on June 28, 2005, the suit is characterized as a class
action employee suit and styled, "Skirchak et al.v. Dynamics
Research Corporation."

The company believes that its practices comply with the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Massachusetts General Laws.  The company
intends to vigorously defend itself and has moved to have the
complaint dismissed from the district court and addressed in
accordance with the company's mandatory Dispute Resolution
Program for the arbitration of workplace complaints.

The suit was styled, "Skirchak et al. v. Dynamics Research
Corporation, Case No.  1:05-cv-11362-MEL," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge
Morris E. Lasker.  Representing the plaintiffs is Elayne N.
Alanis, 3rd Floor, 10 Tremont St., Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-
263-1203, Fax: 617-723-4729, E-mail: ealanislaw@verizon.net.

Representing the defendants are: Carrie J. Campion, Jeffrey B.
Gilbreth and David S. Rosenthal of Nixon Peabody, LLP, 100
Summer Street, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-345-1045, 617-345-
1000 and 617-345-6183, Fax: 866-812-2847, E-mail:
ccampion@nixonpeabody.com, jgilbreth@nixonpeabody.com and
drosenthal@nixonpeabody.com.


E.I. DUPONT: Lawsuits Over Teflon Sent to Iowa Federal Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
transferred to federal court in Des Moines, Iowa a $5 billion
suit questioning the safety of Teflon cookware, the Des Moines
Register reports.

A special panel of judges voted to consolidate several lawsuits
over the non-stick material for pretrial proceedings.  Later
this month, 16 lawyers who represent more than 72 clients will
meet in a federal courtroom before two judges to argue on the
suit.  Lawyers are asking reimbursement on behalf of customers
who bought Teflon-coated products, and money for periodic
testing for possible health problems.

The suit includes people from Florida, Massachusetts, California
and 10 other states, including Iowa.

E.I. Dupont Nemours and Co., which makes Teflon, is accused of
misleading customers and withholding information about a
chemical used to make Teflon.  It is insisting the material is
safe.

Based in Wilmington, Delaware, Dupont -- http://www.dupont.com/
-- manufactures resins and additives used in the trenchless pipe
rehabilitation industry.


EMERY WORLDWIDE: Ex-Workers File WARN Violations Suit in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emery Worldwide Airlines, a subsidiary of CNF, Inc. and the U.S.
Postal Service, continues to face a class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

The suit alleges violations of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act (the WARN Act) in connection with
employee layoffs and ultimate terminations due to the August
2001 grounding of EWA's airline operations and the shutdown of
the airline operations in December 2001.

The court subsequently certified the lawsuit as a class action
on behalf of affected employees laid off between August 11 and
August 15, 2001.  The WARN Act generally requires employers to
give 60-days notice, or 60-days pay and benefits in lieu of
notice, of any shutdown of operations or mass layoff at a site
of employment.

The estimated range for potential loss on this matter is zero to
approximately $8 million.

The suit is styled, "Bledsoe, et al. v. Emery Worldwide Airl, et
al., Case No. 3:02-cv-00069-WHR-SLO," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Walter H.
Rice.  Representing the plaintiffs is David Gerard Torchia,
Tobias & Kraus - 1 414 Walnut Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone:
513-241-8137 Fax: 513-241-8137 E-mail: davet@tktlaw.com.

Representing the company are Michelle R. Arendt and Thomas H.
Barnard, Jr. Ulmer and Berne Penton Media Building 1300 E. Ninth
Street Suite 900 Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: 216-931-6056 Fax:
216-931-6057 E-mail: marendt@ulmer.com; and Jacqueline Schuster
Hobbs, Cinergy Services, Inc. 139 East Fourth Street 25ATII
Cincinnati, OH 45201-0960 Phone: 513-287-1238 Fax: 513-287-2996
E-mail: Jacqueline.Hobbs@Cinergy.com.


FLORIDA: Labor Groups Amend Suit Over Voter Registration Forms
--------------------------------------------------------------
Labor unions are seeking class action for their amended suit
accusing the state of violating the Federal Voting Rights,
Associated Press reports.

Originally, three voters and unions affiliated with The American
Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations filed a
suit challenging registration forms after the 2004 election.  A
federal trial judge in Miami rejected the suit, but the U.S.
District Court of Appeals in Atlanta reinstated it last year.
In the amended suit, they are alleging that the state violated
another section of the Voting Rights Act by using confusing
voter registration forms.

Specifically, the suit complains that applicants in Duval,
Orange, Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties were
illegally rejected because they failed to check off boxes
affirming they meet qualifications based on citizenship, mental
capacity and criminal status.  According to the suit, there is
no need for the check-offs because the applicants also had
signed an oath confirming they met the qualifications.  It said
the check-offs also violate the U.S. Constitution.  The labor
unions are now seeking class action status for their complaint.

Meanwhile, civil rights activists are calling for changes to the
Voting Rights Act.  Requirements for federal clearance of
certain election changes as they affect minority voting rights
and protections for non-English speaking voters will expire next
year unless renewed by Congress, the report said.


HARMONIC INC: Circuit Court Refuses Parties' Rehearing Petition
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied both
plaintiffs' and defendants' petition for a rehearing of the
appeal in a consolidated securities class action against
Harmonic, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers
and directors.

Between June 28 and August 25, 2000, several actions alleging
violations of the federal securities were filed in or removed to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The actions subsequently were consolidated.

A consolidated complaint, filed on December 7, 2000, was brought
on behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased
Harmonic's publicly traded securities between January 19 and
June 26, 2000.  It alleged claims on behalf of a purported
subclass of persons who purchased C-Cube securities between
January 19 and May 3, 2000.

In addition to the company and certain of its officers and
directors, the complaint also named C-Cube Microsystems Inc. and
several of its officers and directors as defendants.  The
complaint alleged that, by making false or misleading statements
regarding Harmonic's prospects and customers and its acquisition
of C-Cube, certain defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act).

The complaint also alleged that certain defendants violated
section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and sections 11, 12(a)(2), and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by filing a false or misleading
registration statement, prospectus, and joint proxy in
connection with the C-Cube acquisition.

On July 3, 2001, the District Court dismissed the consolidated
complaint with leave to amend.  An amended complaint alleging
the same claims against the same defendants was filed on August
13, 2001.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on September
24, 2001.  On November 13, 2002, the District Court issued an
opinion granting the motions to dismiss the amended complaint
without leave to amend.  Judgment for defendants was entered on
December 2, 2002.

On December 12, 2002, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the
judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint pursuant to
Rules 59(e) and 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On June 6, 2003, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion to
amend the judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on July 1, 2003.  A panel of
three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit heard the appeal on February 17, 2005.  On November 8,
2005, the Ninth Circuit panel affirmed in part, reversed in
part, and remanded for further proceedings the decision of the
District Court.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the
plaintiffs' fraud claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act with prejudice, finding that the plaintiffs
failed to adequately plead their allegations of fraud.  The
Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act, however, finding that those claims did not
allege fraud and therefore were subject to only minimal pleading
standards.

Regarding the secondary liability claim under Section 15 of the
Securities Act, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of that
claim against Anthony J. Ley, the company's Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, and affirmed the dismissal of that claim
against Harmonic, while granting leave to amend.  The Ninth
Circuit remanded the surviving claims to the District Court for
further proceedings.

On November 22, 2005, both the Harmonic defendants and the
plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a rehearing of the
appeal.  On February 16, 2006 the Ninth Circuit denied both
petitions.


HCA INC: Co-Lead Plaintiffs Appointed in Consolidated Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
appointed co-lead plaintiffs in the consolidated securities
class action against HCA, Inc.

In November 2005, two putative federal securities law class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee on behalf of persons who purchased the
company's stock between January 12, 2005 and July 13, 2005.

These substantially similar lawsuits asserted claims pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the company and
its chairman and chief executive officer, president and chief
operating officer, and executive vice president and chief
financial officer, related to the company's July 13, 2005
announcement of preliminary results of operations for the second
quarter ended June 30, 2005.

On January 4, 2006, the court consolidated these actions under
the caption, "In re HCA Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:05-CV-00981."

Pursuant to federal statute, on January 25, 2006, the court
appointed co-lead plaintiffs to represent the interests of the
putative class members in this litigation.  Co-lead plaintiffs
must file a consolidated amended complaint no later than March
27, 2006.

The suit was styled, "In re HCA Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 3:05-CV-00981," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee under Judge William J. Haynes.
Representing the plaintiffs are Paul Kent Bramlett
Bramlett Law Offices, P.O. Box 150734, Nashville, TN 37215-0734,
Phone: (615) 248-2828, E-mail: pknashlaw@aol.com; and Richard A.
Maniskas, Tamara Skvirsky and Marc A. Topaz of Schiffrin &
Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087,
Phone: (610) 667-7706, Fax: (610) 667-7056, E-mail:
ecf_filings@sbclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are James N. Bowen, Amy E. Neff and
Steven Allen Riley of Bowen, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson, PLC,
1906 West End Avenue, Nashville, TN 37203, Phone: (615) 320-
3700, E-mail: jimbowen@bowenriley.com, aneff@bowenriley.com and
sriley@bowenriley.com.


HCA INC: Tenn. Court Reassigns New Judge in ERISA Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
reassigned the purported class action over alleged violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by HCA, Inc.
to Judge William J. Haynes, Jr.

On November 22, 2005, Brenda Thurman, a former employee of an
HCA, Inc. affiliate, filed the complaint in Tennessee federal
court on behalf of herself, the HCA Savings and Retirement
Program, and a class of participants in the Plan who held an
interest in the company's common stock, against the company's
chairman and chief executive officer, president and chief
operating officer, executive vice president and chief financial
officer, and other unnamed individuals.

The lawsuit, filed under sections 502(a)(2) and 502(a)(3) of
ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(2) and (3), alleged that defendants
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Plan and to plan
participants.

On January 13, 2006, the court signed an order staying all
proceedings and discovery in this matter, pending resolution of
a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in the
related federal securities class action against the company.

On January 18, 2006, the magistrate judge signed an order:

     (1) consolidating Ms. Thurman's cause of action with all
         other future actions making the same claims and arising
         out of the same operative facts;

     (2) appointing Thurman as lead plaintiff; and

     (3) appointing Thurman's attorneys as lead counsel and
         liaison counsel in the case.

On January 26, 2006, the court issued an order reassigning the
case to U.S. District Court Judge William J. Haynes, Jr., who
has been presiding over the federal securities class action and
federal derivative lawsuits against the company.

The suit was styled, "Thurman v. HCA, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:05-cv-01001," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee under Judge William J. Haynes.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Paul Kent Bramlett of Bramlett Law Offices, P.O. Box
         150734, Nashville, TN 37215-0734, Phone: (615) 248-
         2828, E-mail: pknashlaw@aol.com;

     (2) Thomas J. McKenna of Gainey & McKenna, 485 Fifth Ave.,
         3rd Floor, New York, NY 10017, US, Phone: (212) 983-
         1300, Fax: (212) 983-0383, E-mail:
         tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com;

     (3) Samuel K. Rosen of Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison
         Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 935-7400, Fax:
         (212) 753-3630, E-mail: srosen@whesq.com; and

     (4) Kenneth J. Vianale of Vianale & Vianale, LLP, 2499
         Glades Road, Suite 112, Boca Raton, FL 33431, US,
         Phone: (561) 392-4750, Fax: (561) 392-4774, E-mail:
         kvianale@vianalelaw.com.

Representing the defendants are James N. Bowen, Amy E. Neff and
Steven Allen Riley of Bowen, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson, PLC,
1906 West End Avenue, Nashville, TN 37203, Phone: (615) 320-
3700, E-mail: jimbowen@bowenriley.com, aneff@bowenriley.com and
sriley@bowenriley.com.


INFOCUS CORP: Recalls Portable Projectors Due to Fire Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
InFocus Corp., of Wilsonville, Oregon, is recalling 1,800
projectors and about 700 replacement lamp modules.  The
projectors and lamp modules are InFocus LP120 Projector, ASK
Proxima M1 Projector, and SP-LAMP-013 Replacement Lamp Module.

The company said the units have improper wiring with inadequate
insulation, which could degrade over time, posing a shock and
fire hazard.  No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves portable projectors designed for use with
laptop computers, and a replacement lamp module sold for use
with these projectors.  The recalled projector models are
InFocus LP120 and ASK Proxima M1 built between October 2005 and
January 2006.  The model number and serial numbers are written
on the bottom of the projectors.  They have these serial
numbers:

Model LP120 - AJNV541A0001 through AJNV551A0301
Model M1 - AKUV546A0001 through AKUV547A0268

The recalled replacement lamp module is SP-LAMP-013 built
between November 2005 and January 2006.  There is no writing on
the lamps, but "SP-LAMP-013" is on the label on the box.

The projectors and replacement lamp modules were made in China
and sold at direct phone and Web sales and by office and
business equipment stores nationwide from October 2005 through
February 2006 for about $1500 for the projectors and $420 for
the replacement lamps.

Projector and replacement lamp owners are advised to visit the
InFocus Web site for instructions on returning the projector and
lamp for a free repair.

Picture of ASK Proxima M1 Projector:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06129a.jpg

Picture of InFocus LP120 projector:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06129b.jpg

Picture of SP-LAMP-013 replacement lamp module:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06129c.jpg

Consumer Contact: InFocus Corp. Phone: (877) 398-6086 between 8
a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday; Web site:
http://www.infocus.com/service.


ISOLAGEN INC: JPMDL Transfers Securities Fraud Suits to E.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred
several purported securities class actions filed against
Isolagen, Inc. in various federal courts to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors are defendants in class action cases pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

On August 18, 2005, Elliot Liff brought an action styled,
"Elliot Liff v. Isolagen, Inc. et al., C.A. No. H-05-2887," in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.  In
this action, the plaintiff purported to bring a federal
securities fraud class action on behalf of purchasers of the
publicly traded securities of Isolagen between March 3, 2004 and
August 1, 2005, including purchasers of Isolagen stock issued in
connection with and traceable to Isolagen's June 2004 common
stock offering.

The action asserted that the defendants violated Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by making certain false
statements and omissions to the investing public regarding the
Company's business operations, management, and intrinsic value
of Isolagen's publicly traded securities.  The complaint also
alleged liability against the individual defendants under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On September 6, 2005, Michael Cummiskey brought an action
styled, "Michael Cummisky v. Isolagen, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 05-
cv-03105," in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas.

On September 16, 2005, Ronald Gargiulo brought an action styled,
"Ronald A. Gargiulo v. Isolagen, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 05-cv-
4983," in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

On September 23, 2005, Gregory J. Newman brought an action
styled, "Gregory J. Newman v. Frank M. DeLape, et al., C.A. No.
05-cv-5090," in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.  These actions made allegations against the
defendants substantially similar to those made in the Liff
action.  Together, the Liff, Cummiskey, Gargiulo and Newman
actions comprise the "Federal Securities Actions."

The Liff and Cummiskey actions were consolidated on October 7,
2005.  The Gargiolo and Newman actions were consolidated on
November 29, 2005.

On November 18, 2005, the company filed a motion with the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the MDL Motion) to
transfer the Federal Securities Actions to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The Liff and
Cummiskey actions were stayed on November 23, 2005, pending
resolution of the MDL Motion.  The Gargiulo and Newman actions
were stayed on December 7, 2005, pending resolution of the MDL
Motion.

The MDL Motion was heard on January 7, 2006 and a ruling was
issued on February 23, 2006.  The ruling transferred the actions
pending in the Southern District of Texas to the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  The Company anticipates that a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel will be selected and an amended
complaint will be filed in the near future.


KENNETH COLE: Faces Worker Wage Suit, Settles Another in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. continues to face an employee
wage suit in the Superior Court of California for the County of
San Diego.  It is at the same time settling another suit in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles.

In April 2005, a purported class action was filed against the
company in the Superior Court of California for the County of
San Diego.  The individual plaintiff is a floor supervisor in
one of the company's retail stores who purported to bring suit
on behalf of him and other similarly situated current and former
floor supervisors.

Among other claims, the plaintiff alleged that he and other
floor supervisors worked hours for which they were entitled to
receive, but did not receive, overtime compensation under
California law.  The lawsuit sought damages, penalties,
restitution, equitable relief, interest and attorneys' fees and
costs.

In September 2004, a purported class action was filed against
the company in the Superior Court of California for the County
of Los Angeles.  The individual plaintiffs were current or
former store managers or assistant managers who purported to
bring suit on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
store managers and assistant managers.

Among other claims, the plaintiffs alleged that they worked
hours for which they were entitled to receive, but did not
receive, overtime compensation under California law.  The
lawsuit sought damages, penalties, restitution, reclassification
and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company reached an agreement in principle to settle the
matter, and in January 2006, the parties filed a fully executed
Stipulation of Class Settlement and Release.  In addition, the
court signed and entered an order granting preliminary approval
to the settlement.

The settlement provides for a maximum settlement of $900,000,
including all payments to class members, incentive awards,
attorney's fees and administration costs.  While there is still
uncertainty relating to the ultimate settlement amount, the
company believes that its reserves as of December 31, 2005 are
adequate.


MEAT PACKERS: S.D. Cattle Producers' Fraud Lawsuit Proceeds
-----------------------------------------------------------
Proceedings to consider fraud claims filed against four large
U.S. beef packers in South Dakota federal court are ongoing.
Jury selection was done earlier in the month, according to The
Morning News.

The plaintiffs are three cattle producer Herman Schumacher,
Michael Callicrate and Roger Koch.  The lawsuit, filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota in 2002,
claimed that "packers unlawfully underpaid the class members for
cattle sold to them [between April 2 and May 11, 2001].  It
sought to require the defendants to pay these sums to the class
members."

The plaintiffs claimed that during the first six weeks of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's new boxed beef price reporting
method around April to May 2001, some of USDA's figures were
inaccurate due to computer glitches. They contended that the
defendants knowingly used this flawed data to get better prices
on fed cattle from processors and violated the Packers and
Stockyards Act (Class Action Reporter, April 26, 2005).

The U.S. Government Accountability Office report released in
December showed more than half of the government's meatpacker
audits revealed inaccuracies, omissions or undocumented
transactions.

The defendants are:

     (1) Tyson Fresh Meats Inc., formerly IBP Inc.;

     (2) Cargill Meat Solutions, d/b/a Excel Corporation;

     (3) Swift & Co., formerly known as ConAgra Beef Co.; and

     (4) National Beef Packing Co., formerly known as Farmland
         National Beef Packing Co.

U.S. District Court Judge Charles Kornmann certified the case
(No. 02-1027) as a class action on behalf of all cattle
producers who sold fed cattle on the cash market in June 2004.
The defendants moved to have the case dismissed, but Judge
Kornmann denied the motion in January.

In an information campaign aimed at identifying potential
members in a class action against Tyson Foods Inc. and other
beef processors the Beef Packer Class Action group launched
http://www.packerclassaction.comin 2005.

The suit was styled, "Schumacher, et al. v. IBP, Inc., et al.
(1:02-cv-01027-CBK)," filed in the U.S. District Court of South
Dakota under Judge Charles B. Kornmann.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Elizabeth J. Anderson and David F. Herr of
Maslon, Edelman, Borman & Brand, 3300 Wells Fargo Center, 90 S.
7th St., Minneapolis, MN 55402-4140, Phone: (612)672-8200, Fax:
672-8397.

Representing the defendants are: William H. Baumgartner, Jr. of
Sidley Austin LLP, One South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60603,
Phone: (312)853-7000, Fax: (312)853-7036, E-mail:
wbaumgartner@sidley.com; and Patrick E. Brookhouser, Jr. of
McGrath North Mullin & Kratz, PC LLO, 1601 Dodge St., Suite 3700
First Natl. Tower, Omaha, NE 68102-1627, Phone: (402)341-3070,
Fax: 341-0216, E-mail: pbrookhouser@mnmk.com.


MERCK FROSST: Sutts Strossberg Gets Carriage in Vioxx Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Canada Superior Court Justice Warren Winkler decided that an
Ontario group of lawyers will have the carriage of a suit
Setterington v. Merck Frosst Canada Ltd., according to Law
Times.

A group led by Harvey Strosberg of Sutts Strossberg LLP in
Windsor won against Saskatchewan-based Tony Merchant of Merchant
Law Group in the carriage case.  It will pursue eight class
actions filed in Ontario against the drug maker and companies
related to its painkiller Vioxx.

Merck pulled back Vioxx from the market in September 2004, after
being informed by an independent safety monitoring committee
that another clinical trial, known as APPROVE, detected a higher
cardiovascular risk among patients taking Vioxx vs. those taking
a placebo after 18 months.  It is facing other lawsuits in
relation to it.

Harvey Strosberg's co-counsel will be Strosberg, Bonnie Tough of
Tough & Podrebarac LLP in Toronto, Michael Peerless of Siskind
Cromarty Ivey & Dowler LLP in London, and Joel Rochon of
Toronto's Rochon Genova LLP.  The firms have an alliance with
San Francisco-based Lieff Cabraser Heinmann & Bernstein, which
is involved in the U.S. Vioxx litigation.

Merchant's lawsuit differs from that of Strossberg's in that it
named the federal government as defendant.

Contact information for Sutts Strossberg LLP: Phone: (519) 561-
6228; Address: 600-251 Goyeau Street, Windsor, Ontario N9A 6V4.


MASSACHUSETTS: Boston Fire Dept. Workers Allege Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Boston Fire Department is facing a suit filed by several
employees claiming to be victims of pay raises and promotion
discrimination, The Boston Globe reports.

Lead plaintiff Denise M. Barry, a secretary in the deputy
chief's office, originally filed the suit in Suffolk Suuperior
Court.  Last year, the case was transferred to federal court.
She is joined by seven other employees: Jane B. Green, Elizabeth
Golden, Patricia McDonough, Elaine Mesiti, Lila Brown, Mary M.
Kane, and Joanne Callahan.

The plaintiffs alleges they were passed over for promotions and
pay raises in favor of allegedly less qualified but "politically
connected" candidates.  They claims violation of constitutional
rights, and are asking approximately $5 million in damages from
the department and several top administrators.

Their court papers state damage claims could increase by $2
million should 30 other workers, who allegedly have similar
claims, are included in the suit.  The suit also names the
department's personnel chief, Robert Moran, as defendant.


MICHIGAN: Metro Detroit American Indians Sue Over Health Care
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Indian
Health Service are facing a class action filed by three American
Indians demanding proper medical care, Detroit Free Press
reports.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court by attorneys with the
University of Michigan Clinical Law Program on behalf of metro
Detroit residents Tonya Hammitte, David Stone and Joseph
Stewart.  The plaintiffs say they suffer from serious illness
but are unable to get proper care.  Their suit says the Detroit-
based American Indian Health and Family Services is poorly
funded and under staffed.

Under federal law and numerous treaties, the U.S. government is
supposed to provide health care for Indians who live in urban
areas.


MINNESOTA: Suit Filed Over Errors in High School Aptitude Test
--------------------------------------------------------------
Three Minnesota law firms are filing a suit over incorrect
results of the SAT -- formerly called the Scholastic Aptitude
Tests and Scholastic Assessment Tests -- administered to high
school students in October.

The suit was filed in Minnesota on behalf of a high school
senior whose SAT was incorrectly scored low, according to
reports.  The student is a senior student in Dix Hill, N.Y.  The
suit names as defendant the non-profit College Board and the
for-profit Pearson Educational Measurement.  It is seeking
class-action status.  The proposed class includes anyone who
took the test in October except those who got a marked-up score.

In March, it emerged hat 4,411 students got incorrectly low
scores, while more than 600 got better results than they
deserved on the test.  The scores that were made too low were
corrected, but those that were inflated were not.  The lawsuit
is asking unspecified damages, an order requiring adjustment of
the inflated scores and a refund of the test fee.

Preliminary papers in the suit were lodged on April 7 in a state
court in Hennepin County, according to New York Times.  The law
firm of Larson King in St. Paul is one of the three firms that
are bringing the suit, the report said.

For more information, contact T. Joe Snodgrass, partner at
Larson King, LLP, 2800 Wells Fargo Place, 30 East Seventh
Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, (Ramsey Co.), Phone: 651-312-
6500; Toll Free: 877-373-5501; Telecopier: 651-312-6618.


NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Gets Windfall From Corn Syrup Antitrust Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
National Beverage Corp. received a partial payment of $7.7
million in June 2005 from the settlement of its claim in a class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of Illinois.

The lawsuit relates to purchases of high fructose corn syrup
made by the company and others.  The settlement amount was
allocated to each class action recipient based on the proportion
of its purchases to total purchases by all class action
recipients.  The amount received, less offsets and expenses of
$.5 million, was recorded as a reduction in cost of sales in the
first quarter of fiscal 2006.

In November 2005, the company received $1.2 million,
representing the final payment due under the settlement.  Such
amount was recorded in the third quarter ended January 28, 2006
as a reduction in cost of sales.

The suit is styled, "In Re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust
Litigation, Master File No. 95-1477," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division.


SEMCO ENERGY: W.Va. Court Denies Motion to Amend Dismissal Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of West Virginia denied
defendants' motion to amend its dismissal of the class action,
styled, "Stand Energy Corporation v. Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00867," which is alleging
violations of the federal antitrust law.

In October 2004, SEMCO Energy Services, Inc. and SEMCO Pipeline
Company, both subsidiaries of SEMCO Energy, Inc. were added as
defendants in the putative class action brought in West Virginia
federal court.

The suit alleged that the approximately 30 named defendants
engaged in gas marketing activities that violated state and
federal anti-trust laws and otherwise tortiously interfered with
the business opportunities of the plaintiffs from 1996 to
present.

On October 4, 2005, the court granted a motion to dismiss by
certain defendants, including the company's subsidiaries, as to
federal anti-trust claims arising prior to October 25, 2000.

On January 30, 2006, the court declined a request that it amend
its dismissal order to include any state anti-trust claims
arising during the same period.

The company plans to file additional motions raising defenses
with respect to all remaining claims.  The company sold its gas
marketing business in 1999.

The suit was styled, "Stand Energy Corporation v. Columbia Gas
Transmission Corporation et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00867," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia under Judge Robert C. Chambers.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Joshua I. Barrett, Rudolph L. DiTrapano, Molly
McGinley Han and Lonnie C. Simmons, Ditrapano Barrett & Dipiero,
604 Virginia Street, E Charleston, WV 25301, Phone: 304/342-
0133, Fax: 304 342-4605; and Robert C. Sanders, Law Office of
Robert C. Sanders, 12051 Upper Marlboro Pike, Upper Marlboro, MD
20772-2922, Phone: 301/574-3400, Fax: 301 574-2153.

Representing the company are Michael S. Becker, James W.
Draughn, Jr., Avery Gardiner, Thomas M. McDermott of Kirkland &
Ellis, Suite 1200, 655 Fifteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC
20005, Phone: 202/879-5000, Fax: 202 879-5200; and John H.
Tinney of The Tinney Law Firm, P.O. Box 3752, Charleston, WV
25337-3752, phone: 304/720-3310, Fax: 304 720-3315.


STRATOS INT'L: Suit 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 class actions against Stratos International, Inc.

The company and certain of its former directors and executive
officers have been named defendants in purported class actions
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The first of these lawsuits, filed on July 25, 2001,
is captioned, "Kucera v. Stratos Lightwave, Inc. et al. No. 01
CV 6821."  Three other similar lawsuits were also filed.

The complaints also named as defendants the underwriters for the
company's initial public offering.  The complaints were
substantially identical to numerous other complaints filed
against other companies that went public during the time of
Stratos' IPO.

It generally alleged, among other things, that the registration
statement and prospectus from the company's June 26, 2000
initial public offering failed to disclose certain alleged
actions by the underwriters for the offering.

The suit charged the company and several of its former directors
and executive officers with violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and/or Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) to the Security Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

In addition, the suit also alleged claims solely against the
underwriting defendants under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended.

In 2003, the company agreed to a Memorandum and Understanding,
which reflected a settlement of these class actions as between
the purported class action plaintiffs, the company and the
former officers and directors, and its liability insurers.

Under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, the
company's liability insurers will pay certain sums to the
plaintiffs, with the amount dependent upon the plaintiffs'
recovery from the underwriters in the IPO class actions as a
whole.  The plaintiffs will dismiss with prejudice their claims
against the company and its former officers and directors, and
the company will assign to the plaintiffs certain claims that it
may have against the underwriters.

The plaintiffs filed with the court a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement, which, when granted, would lead to
the mailing of class-wide notices of the settlement and a
hearing date for approval of the settlement.  The issuers,
including the company, filed a statement joining in the
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.
The underwriter defendants opposed the motion.

On February 15, 2005, the Court issued its ruling granting the
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
with the issuers, subject to certain changes to the bar order to
be included as part of the settlement and to the notice to the
class, and the Court recently approved the revisions made to the
settlement and the notice pursuant to its prior order.

The settlement still remains subject to final approval by the
Court after notice of the settlement is sent to the class and
the class members and other parties have an opportunity to have
their objections, if any, to the settlement heard at the final
fairness hearing, which the court has scheduled for April 24,
2006.


TECUMSEH POWER: Recalls Power Equipment Engines Due to Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Tecumseh Power Co., Grafton, Wisconsin, is recalling 170,000
engines used in various two-stage snow throwers, ice augers,
generators, lawn mowers, weed trimmers, log splitters and fun-
karts.

The company said the fuel line on these engines can become loose
or disconnected, resulting in a fuel leak.  This can pose a fire
hazard to consumers.  Tecumseh has received 235 reports of
disconnected fuel lines, including two reports of a fire.  There
have been no reports of injury.  The firm has received 39
reports of minor damage, totaling about $44,000.

The recall includes power equipment with Tecumseh engines listed
below.  The engine model number and date of manufacture (DOM)
information is located on a label on the side of the housing.
The recalled engines have a DOM that starts with 05241 to 05286.
The label on the engine reads, "Tecumseh Power Company," and in
addition to the Model and DOM information, lists the Spec number
needed for identification.

Power Equipment                  Brand Names

Two-Stage Snow Throwers  Ariens, Craftsman, Cub Cadet,
                              Huskee, Husqvarna, MTD Gold
                              Series, Murray, Toro, Poulan
                              Pro, Troy-Bilt, White Outdoor,
                              Yard Machines, Yard Man

Log Splitters              Yard Machines

Ice Augers                    Jiffy, Eskimo, Earthquake,
and Post Hole Diggers        Hoffco, MEPCO

Fun-Karts                    Carter Brothers, Ken Bar

Generators                    Coleman Powermate, NorthStar

Lawn Vac/Chipper              Agri-Fab, Craftsman

Lawn Mower                    Toro

String Trimmers              Ariens

The engines were sold at home and hardware stores and equipment
dealers nationwide from September 2005 through January 2006 for
between $200 and $2000.  Consumers are advised to stop using
their equipment until they receive a free inspection and
possible repair if necessary.

It is important that owners of these engines do not store engine
with fuel in tank in a building with potential sources of
ignition such as hot water or space heaters, clothes dryer,
electric motors, etc.

Picture of the recalled engine:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06130a.jpg

Consumer Contact: Tecumseh Phone: (888) 271-4048 (toll-free)
between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. CT Monday through Friday; Web site:
http://www.tecumsehpower.com.


TELLABS INC: Appeals Court Considers Rehearing En Banc Motion
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has yet to
rule on Tellabs Inc.'s motion for a rehearing en banc on a
reinstated federal securities class action.

On June 18, 2002, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois against the
company, Michael Birck, and Richard Notebaert, former chief
executive officer, president and director of Tellabs.

Thereafter, eight similar complaints were also filed in the U.S.
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois.  All nine
of these actions were subsequently consolidated, and on December
3, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed
against the company, Mr. Birck, Mr. Notebaert, and certain other
of the company's current or former officers and/or directors.

The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during the class
period, which is December 11, 2000-June 19, 2001, the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by making materially false
and misleading statements, including, among other things,
allegedly providing revenue forecasts that were false and
misleading, misrepresenting demand for the company's products,
and reporting overstated revenues for the fourth quarter 2000 in
the company's financial statements.

It further alleged that certain of the individual defendants
violated the federal securities laws by trading the company's
securities while allegedly in possession of material, non-public
information about the company pertaining to these matters.

On January 17, 2003, the company and the other named defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint in its entirety.  On May 19, 2003, the court granted
the company's motion and dismissed all counts of the
consolidated amended complaint, while affording plaintiffs an
opportunity to re-plead.

On July 11, 2003, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
class action complaint against the company, Messrs. Birck and
Notebaert, and many (although not all) of the other previously
named individual defendants, re-alleging claims similar to those
contained in the previously dismissed consolidated amended class
action complaint.

The company filed a second motion to dismiss on August 22, 2003,
seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all claims alleged in
the second consolidated amended class action complaint.  On
February 19, 2004, the Court issued an order granting that
motion and dismissed the action with prejudice.

On March 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit appealing the
dismissal.  The appeal was fully briefed and oral argument was
heard on January 21, 2005.

On January 25, 2006, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion
affirming in part and reversing in part the judgment of the
district court, and remanding for further proceedings.  On
February 8, 2006, defendants filed with the Seventh Circuit a
petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc and
the parties are awaiting a decision.


TRIAD GUARANTY: Discovery Proceeds in Mortgage Borrowers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is underway on in the purported class action filed
against Triad Guaranty Insurance Corporation in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

The action was commenced on January 15, 2004 with a filing of a
complaint in Kentucky federal court seeking class action status
on behalf of a nationwide class of home mortgage borrowers.

The complaint alleged that Triad violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act by failing to provide notices to certain borrowers
when mortgage insurance was offered to lenders with respect to
those borrowers' mortgage loans at a rate in excess of Triad's
lowest available rate.

Discovery is currently underway with respect to class
certification.

The suit was styled "Broessel v. Triad Guaranty Insurance Corp.,
C.A. 1:04-cv-00004-JHM," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky, under Judge Joseph H. McKinley
Jr. with referral to Judge E. Robert Goebel.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Douglas Bowdoin of Douglas Bowdoin, PA, P.O. Box 2254,
         255 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 800, Orlando, FL 32802-
         2254, Phone: 407-422-0025, Fax: 407-843-2448, E-mail:
         dbowdoin@bowdoinlaw.com;

     (2) Dana E. Deering of Parry, Deering, Futscher & Sparks,
         PSC, 411 Garrad Street, P.O. Box 2618, Covington, KY
         41012-2618, Phone: 859-291-9000, Fax: 859-291-9300, E-
         mail: ddeering@pdfslaw.com; and

     (3) W. Christian Hoyer, Kathleen Clark Knight and Kathleen
         Clark Knight of James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich,
         PA, 4830 W. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 550, Tampa, FL 33609,
         Phone: 813-286-4100, Fax: 813-286-4174, E-mail:
         kknight@jameshoyer.com and kknight@jameshoyer.com.

Representing the defendants are Nolan C. Leake, Jennifer R. Vala
and Lisa Wolgast of King & Spalding, LLP, 1180 Peachtree Street,
NE Atlanta, GA 30309-3521, Phone: 404-572-4600, Fax: 404-572-
5140; and Ronald G. Sheffer of Sheffer & Sheffer, 101 S. 5TH
St., Ste. 1600, Louisville, KY 40202, Phone: 502-582-1600, Fax:
582-1193.


TRUMP ENTERTAINMENT: Discovery Proceeds in N.J. ERISA Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has started in a purported class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden
Division against Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc., and certain
persons and organizations, including members of the Trump
Capital Accumulation Plan Administrative Committee.

The suit styled, "Noa, et al. v. Keyser et al., Case No. 1:05-
cv-00776-FLW-AMD," was filed on February 8, 2005.  In their
complaint, the plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that such
persons and organizations, who were responsible for managing the
Trump Capital Accumulation Plan, breached their fiduciary duties
owed to the plan participants when THCR Common Stock held in
employee accounts was allegedly sold without participant
authorization if the participant did not willingly sell such
shares by a specified date in accordance with the Plan.

The plaintiffs brought this suit under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 on behalf of themselves and certain
other plan participants and beneficiaries and sought to have the
court certify their claims as a class action.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs also sought, among other
things, damages for losses suffered by certain accounts of
affected plan participants as a result of such allegedly
improper sale of THCR Common Stock and reasonable costs and
attorneys' fees.  The parties have commenced discovery on this
matter.

The suit was styled, "Noa, et al. v. Keyser et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-00776-FLW-AMD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Freda L. Wolfson with
referral to Judge Ann Marie Donio.  Representing the plaintiffs
is Eric M. Wood of Fox Rothschild, LLP, Midtown Building, 1301
Atlantic Avenue, Suite 400, Atlantic City, NJ 08401-7278, Phone:
(609) 348-4515, E-mail: ewood@foxrothschild.com.

Representing the defendants is Florina A. Moldovan of Mcelroy,
Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP, 1300 Mount Kemble Ave.,
Morristown, NJ 07962-2075, Phone: (973) 993-8100, E-mail:
fmoldovan@mdmc-law.com.


UICI: Tex. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Fraud Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division has yet to rule on the motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against UICI and
certain of its current and former officers and directors.

Four suits were initially filed in May and June 2004, and on
October 18, 2004.  These were consolidated as a single action,
styled "In re UICI Securities Litigation, Case No. 3-04-CV-1149-
P."

On May 27, 2005, plaintiffs on behalf of the purported class of
similarly situated individuals who purchased UICI common stock
during the period commencing February 7, 2002 and ending on July
21, 2003, filed a First Amended Consolidated Complaint alleging
among other things that the company, Academic Management
Services, Inc. (AMS) and the company's current chief financial
officer, the company's former chief executive officer and AMS'
former president failed to disclose all material facts relating
to the condition of AMS, in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

On July 11, 2005, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  That motion was fully briefed by the
parties and the court is yet to rule thereon.

The suit was styled "In re UICI Securities Litigation, Case No.
3-04-CV-1149-P," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division under Judge Jorge A.
Solis.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Thomas E. Bilek of Hoeffner & Bilek, 1000 Louisiana
         St., Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-227-
         7720, Fax: 713-227-9404, E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com;

     (2) Douglas R. Britton of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins, 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San
         Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, E-mail:
         DougB@Lerachlaw.com; and

     (3) Eric G. Calhoun of Travis & Calhoun, 1000 Providence
         Towers East, 5001 Spring Valley Rd., Dallas, TX 75244,
         Phone: 972/934-4100, Fax: 972/934-4101, E-mail:
         eric@travislaw.com.

Representing the defendants are Ralph I. Miller and Robert R.
Summerhays of Weil Gotshal & Manges, 200 Crescent Court, Suite
300, Dallas, TX 75201, Phone: 214/746-7756 and 214/746-7727,
Fax: 214/746-7700 and 214/746-7777, E-mail:
ralph.miller@weil.com and bob.summerhays@weil.com.


WESTERN GAS: Faces Direct Purchasers' Natural Gas Suit in Kans.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Western Gas Resources, Inc. is defendant in a purported class
action in the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas.  The
suit is styled "Learjet, Inc., Cross Oil Refining & Marketing,
Inc. Topeka Unified School District 501, on Behalf of Themselves
and All Other Similarly Situated Direct Purchasers of Natural
Gas in the State of Kansas v. Oneok, Inc., et al., Civil Action
No. 05-CV-1500."

On November 4, 2005, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, filed an amended petition for
damages, joining the company and other defendants to this
action.

The petition claims that the defendants violated the Kansas
Restraint of Trade Act by reporting allegedly "misleading or
knowingly inaccurate reports concerning trade information" to
trade publications that compile and publish indices of natural
gas prices for natural gas trading hubs throughout the U.S.

The complaint asserted that the allegedly anticompetitive effect
of the defendant's actions was to artificially inflate the
prices paid by the plaintiffs for natural gas.

The plaintiffs are bringing the action as a class action on
behalf of all persons and entities in Kansas who made direct
purchases of natural gas, for their own use and or consumption,
during the time period from January 1, 2000 through October 31,
2002.  They are seeking judgment for the full consideration of
their purchases of natural gas purchased during such time
period, together with costs of litigation including attorney's
fees.


ZIEMAN MANUFACTURING: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Toy Trailers
------------------------------------------------------------
Zieman Manufacturing Company, a subsidiary of Lippert
Components, Inc. is defendant in two purported class actions in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Sacramento over the alleged faulty design and manufacture of toy
hauler trailers.

On or about October 11, 2005 and October 12, 2005, these actions
were commenced in California court:

     (1) "Arlen Williams, Jr. vs. Weekend Warrior Trailers,
         Inc., Zieman Manufacturing Company, et al. (Case No.
         CV027691);" and

     (2) "Joseph Giordano and Dennis Gish, vs. Weekend Warrior
         Trailers, Inc, and Zieman Manufacturing Company, et al.
         (Case No. 05AS04523)."

Each case purported to be a class action on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and all others similarly situated.  The complaints in
both cases were substantially identical and the cases were
consolidated.

Plaintiffs alleged that defendant Weekend Warrior sold certain
toy hauler trailers during the model years 1999 to 2005,
equipped with frames manufactured by Zieman, that are defective
in design and manufacture.  Plaintiffs alleged that the defects
cause the trailer to place excessive weight on the trailer coach
tongue and the towing vehicle's trailer hitch, causing damage to
the trailers and the towing vehicles, and that the tires on the
trailers do not support the advertised maximum towing capacity
of the trailers.

They sought to certify a class of residents of California who
purchased such new or used models.  In addition, plaintiffs
sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount (including
compensatory, incidental and consequential damages), punitive
damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief,
attorney's fees and costs.

The company is vigorously defending against the allegations made
by plaintiffs, as well as plaintiffs' standing as a class.  The
company and Lippert's liability insurers have agreed to defend
Zieman, subject to reservation of the insurers' rights.


ZIX CORP: Tex. Court Mulls Dismissal of Consolidated Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has
yet to rule on Zix Corporation's motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against the company
and certain of its current and former officers and directors

Beginning in early September 2004, several purported shareholder
class actions were filed against the company in Texas federal
court.  The purported class actions seek unspecified monetary
damages on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between October 30, 2003 and May 4, 2004.

The suits alleged that defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and/or omissions in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act during this time period.
These class actions were later consolidated into one case.

The defendants are Zix Corporation, Dennis F. Heathcote, Daniel
S. Nutkis, John A. Ryan, Ronald A. Woessner, and Steve M. York.

The company has filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
lawsuits pursuant to Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and also pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.  The company expects that it
will be some months before the U.S. District Court rules on the
its motion.

The consolidated suit is styled, "Brody, et al. v. Zix
Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-01931," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Brian Felgoise, 230 South Broad Street, Suite 404,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19102 Phone: 215.735.6810, Fax:
         215/735.5185;

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

     (3) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102 Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com;

     (4) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (San
         Diego) 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101
         Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com;

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

     (6) Provost & Umphrey Law Firm, LLP, 3232 McKinney Avenue,
         Suite 700, Dallas, TX, 75204 Phone: 214.744.3000, Fax:
         214.744.3015, E-mail: info@provostumphrey.com;

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

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

     (9) Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC Phone:
         877.891.9880, E-mail: jshah@classactioncounsel.com; and

    (10) Wolf Popper, LLP 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 10022-
         6689, Phone: 877.370.7703, Fax: 212.486.2093, E-mail:
         IRRep@wolfpopper.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICA SERVICE: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in Tenn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, initiated a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee on behalf of purchasers of America Service Group,
Inc. (NASDAQ:ASGRE) common stock during the period between
September 24, 2003 to March 16, 2006.

The complaint charges ASG and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The Company and its subsidiaries, provide managed
healthcare services to correctional facilities in the U.S.

ASG contracts with state, county, and local governmental
agencies to provide healthcare services to inmates of prisons
and jails.  The Company operates its Correctional Healthcare
Services segment through its subsidiary Prison Health Services
("PHS") and its Pharmaceutical Distribution Services segment
through its subsidiary Secured Pharmacy Plus ("SPP").

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous positive statements and filed
quarterly reports with the SEC, which described the Company's
increasing financial performance.  These statements were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose
and misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that ASG was not charging its customers in accordance
         with applicable contracts;

     (2) that ASG failed to properly credit customers with
         discounts, rebates or price savings resulting from
         purchases from alternative sources;

     (3) that ASG failed to provide customers with proper credit
         for the return of pharmaceutical products;

     (4) that defendants inappropriately established and used
         reserves during various periods over the last five
         years to more closely match SPP reported earnings to
         its budgeted results, among other things;

     (5) that the company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition; and

     (6) that as a result of the foregoing, the values of the
         company's net income, retained earnings and reserves
         were materially overstated at all relevant times.

According the complaint, on March 15, 2006, after the markets
closed, ASG shocked the market when it issued a press release
announcing the findings of its internal investigation into SPP.
As a result of the findings of the investigation, the Company
has announced that it will restate earnings for the years ended
December 31, 2001 through December 31, 2004 and for the first
six months of 2005 and issue refunds of $3.6 million, plus
interest, to customers for instances in which it failed to
credit them with discounts, rebates or price savings to which
they were entitled, among other things.

In response to this announcement, the price of ASG common stock
fell $5.65 per share, or almost 29%, to close at $13.95 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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/asg/.


AMERICA SERVICE: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., filed a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee on behalf of all persons who purchased the
common stock of America Service Group, Inc. between September
24, 2003 and March 16, 2006, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements.  Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the
following:

     (1) that ASG was not charging its customers in accordance
         with applicable contracts;

     (2) that ASG failed to properly credit customers with
         discounts, rebates or price savings resulting from
         purchases from alternative sources;

     (3) that ASG failed to provide customers with proper credit
         for the return of pharmaceutical products;

     (4) that defendants inappropriately established and used
         reserves during various periods over the last five
         years to more closely match SPP reported earnings to
         its budgeted results; and

     (5) that as a result of the foregoing, the values of ASG's
         net income, retained earnings and reserves were
         materially overstated at all relevant times.

After the markets closed, on March 15, 2006, ASG announced that
as a result of the findings of an internal investigation, it
would restate earnings for the years ended December 31, 2001
through December 31, 2004 and for the first six months of 2005
and issue refunds of $3.6 million, plus interest, to customers
for instances in which it failed to credit them with discounts,
rebates or price savings to which they were entitled. On this
news, the price of ASG fell $5.65, or almost 29%, to close at
$13.95 per share.

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


ASTEA INT'L: Shalov Stone Commences Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP, commenced
a class action on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
Astea International Inc. in the period between May 11, 2005, and
March 31, 2006, inclusive.

The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and names as defendants Astea
and certain of its ranking executives.

According to the complaint, the defendants materially overstated
and exaggerated Astea's financial health throughout the relevant
period.  In particular, it is alleged that the defendants failed
to accurately account for the company's software development
costs under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP").

As a result, the complaint alleges, Astea overstated its
earnings by failing to comply with GAAP when recording its
expenses.

On March 31, 2006, the company announced that it would have to
restate its financial results for the three quarters ended
September 30, 2005, in order to adjust for the improper
accounting.

On news of the restatement, the price of the company's stock
plummeted from $16.50 to $11.73 per share, a loss of nearly 30%
in a single day, on exceptionally high volume.  During the
relevant period, Astea stock traded as high as $25.71 per share.

For more details, contact Thomas G. Ciarlone, Jr. of Shalov
Stone & Bonner, LLP, Phone: 212-239-4340, Fax: 212-239-4310, E-
mail: tciarlone@lawssb.com, Web site: http://www.lawssb.com.


GMH COMMUNITIES: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Suit in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. filed a securities fraud
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania against GMH Communities Trust
and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of
purchasers of GMH's securities during the period between October
28, 2004 and March 10, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants disseminated false and
misleading financial statements in a scheme to inflate the
earnings of the Company and issued dividends in violation of
loan covenants in order to drive the price of its stock higher.

The higher stock price allowed the Company to sell a secondary
offering in October 2005 on more favorable terms.  Defendants
portrayed the Company as a growing real estate investment trust
in a particular niche market, student and marketing housing and
military housing, paying high dividends.

Unbeknownst to the market, the company's strong earnings were
the result of accounting fraud.  As part of the company's
closing of its books on fiscal year 2005, GMH's chief financial
officer wrote to the Audit Committee indicating that there were
problems with the "tone at the top" of the Company's management.

In response to the letter, the Audit Committee conducted an
investigation which indicated, among other things, material
weaknesses in internal controls, pressure by key executives on
the accounting function and the need for adjustments in the
financial statements in current and prior accounting periods.

In addition, the company's issuance of $0.91 in 2005 dividends
exceeded the 110% of funds from operations per share limitation
under the loan covenants of its credit facility.  The stock
dropped 23% on the news from a close of $16.83 on March 10 to
close at $12.90 on March 13.

On March 31, 2006, the company announced the continued delay in
filing its 2005 annual report and that it expected to restate
its prior previously reported financial results due to improper
capitalization of expenses and the improper timing of
recognition of revenue and expenses.

Since the initial disclosure of the audit committee
investigation, the company has lost almost $224 million in
market capitalization, closing at $11.21 on April 3, 2006
following the March 31, 2006 disclosure.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Esq. and Robin
Switzenbaum, Esq. and Kimberly A. Walker, Investor Relations
Manager of Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000,
Fax: 215-875-5715, E-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net.


GMH COMMUNITIES: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. filed a class action
on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of GMH Communities Trust
(NYSE: GCT) between October 28, 2004 and March 10, 2006,
inclusive.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against defendant GMH Communities Trust
and one or more of its officers and/or directors.  The action
charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
to the market throughout the Class Period, which statements had
the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities.  No class has yet been certified in the
above action.

For more details, contact The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-
mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Berman DeValerio Lodges Stock Suit in Wis.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo filed a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, Milwaukee Division against Merge Technologies, Inc.
d/b/a Merge Healthcare (Nasdaq: MRGE).

The complaint seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who acquired Merge securities
from August 2, 2005 through and including March 16, 2006 (the
Class Period).

The lawsuit claims that Merge and a number of individual
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b)
and 78t, and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5,
promulgated thereunder.  Based in Milwaukee, Merge develops and
delivers medical imaging and information management software and
services for both original equipment manufacturers and the end-
user health markets.

According the plaintiff's complaint, Merge and two individual
defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing
materially false and misleading statements during the Class
Period that artificially inflated the Company's stock price.
Specifically, in January 2005, Merge announced an all-stock
merger between Merge and Cedara Software Corp., completed by
June 1, 2005, which Merge represented to the market as highly
successful.

The complaint, however, says the defendants schemed to deceive
the market during that time by:

     (1) reporting materially overstated revenues;

     (2) prematurely recognizing revenues; and

     (3) failing to disclose that the Company lacked adequate
         internal controls.

When the defendants' misrepresentations and omissions were
gradually disclosed to the investing public, the Company's stock
fell, from $24.50 per share at the close of markets February 23,
2006, to $15.85 per share on March 17, 2006.

For more details, Leslie R. Stern, Esq. and Audley H. Fuller,
Esq. of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, One
Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: (800) 516-9926, E-mail:
law@bermanesq.com, Web site: http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/Merge-
Cplt.pdf.


NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Rosen Law Firm Lodges Securities Suit in Utah
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Utah on behalf of purchasers of
Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc. formerly (NASDAQ: NATRE) stock
during the period between May 13, 2002 to March 20, 2006.

The Rosen Law Firm's complaint is the first complaint that has
been filed to expand the Class Period to include all purchasers
of Nature stock from May 13, 2002 to March 20, 2006.  Although
several other law firms have since announced class actions
against Nature, the Rosen Law firm was the first law firm to
announce an investigation concerning the Company.

The Complaint charges that on March 20, 2006 the Company shocked
the market when it announced that it was withdrawing its
financial statements and warned that it could be delisted from
the NASDAQ.

The company disclosed that an internal investigation revealed
"certain internal control weaknesses and outline potential
violations of law."  The company also revealed that the internal
investigation recommended "the termination of certain employees
and senior officers."

Following these adverse disclosures, the Company' stock price
dropped over 35%.  No class has yet been certified in the above
action.

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


SEA CONTAINERS: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all securities purchasers of Sea Containers Ltd. between
March 15, 2004 and March 23, 2006, inclusive.

The defendants in the case are 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 throughout the Class Period SCL
disseminated press releases and SEC filings that 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, when SCL disclosed that it
was completely quitting the ferry business, taking a $500
million charge, and 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 SEC 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 Eric J. Belfi and Bradley P. Dyer of
Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, Phone: (800) 497-8076, (212) 682-
1818 and (212) 682-1892, E-mail: info@murrayfrank.com, Web site:
http://www.murrayfrank.com/CM/NewCases/NewCases.asp.


TNS INC: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Va.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, on
behalf of persons who purchased securities of TNS Inc. (NYSE:
TNS) pursuant to the company's secondary offering of common
stock on or about September 16, 2005, inclusive.  The lawsuit
was filed against TNS and certain officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  In particular, the complaint
alleges that in connection with the company's Secondary
Offering, TNS filed a Registration Statement in which they
failed to disclose that:

     (1) An agreement the Company entered with the Pepsi
         Bottling Group had been delayed well beyond August 7,
         2005;

     (2) At the time of the Secondary Offering, TNS's contract
         with the Royal Bank of Scotland was generating less
         revenue than expected; and

     (3) At the time of the Secondary Offering, the Company's
         International Services Division was experiencing poor
         financial results due to unfavorable exchange rates.

On October 20, 2005, TNS indicated in a press release that its
financial results for the third quarter of 2005 had missed its
revenue guidance due to delays in the Pepsi Bottling contract,
the impact of unfavorable exchange rates, and from a marked
reduction in transaction volume from its dealings with the Royal
Bank of Scotland.  In reaction to the news, shares of TNS fell
19%.

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.



                            *********


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  * * *