CAR_Public/060417.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, April 17, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 75

                            Headlines

ABGENIX INC: Calif. Court Mulls Dismissal Motion for "Carter"
AETHER HOLDINGS: IPO Settlement Hearing Set for April 24, 2006
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Calif. Court Dismisses Overtime Wage Lawsuit
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Continues to Face Securities Suits in Tex.
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Late Fees Program

BLOCKBUSTER INC: Plaintiffs Nix Individual Claims in FLSA Suits
BROBECK PHLEGER: Former Workers Lose Bid to Sue Bankrupt Firm
CLEARONE COMMUNICATIONS: Rechargeable Battery Poses Burn Hazard
DIOCESE OF JOLIET: Names Priests Facing Sexual Abuse Allegations
DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Medical Privacy Violation Suit

DISETRONIC MEDICAL: Recalls Infusion Set on Insulin Leak Risk
EDWARDS JONES: Continues to Face Mo. Suits Over Revenue-Sharing
ESPEED INC.: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
FLEXSYS GROUP: Faces Rubber Chemical Antitrust Suits in Canada
FOUNDRY NETWORKS: IPO Settlement Hearing Set for April 24, 2006

GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Settlement Hearing Set April 26, 2006
ILLINOIS: Lakin Wins Substitution Motions from Circuit Judge
INTEL CORP: Agenda Set for April 20 Case Management Conference
IPO SECURITIES LITIGATION: Settlement Hearing Set April 24, 2006
LANDROLLER INC: Recalls Roller Skates to Repair Wheel Attachment

LOOKSMART LTD: Ark. Court Extends Stay on Click Fraud Lawsuit
LOUDEYE CORP: IPO Suit Settlement Hearing Set for April 24, 2006
MERCK & CO: Faces Fraud Lawsuit Over Bone-Strengthening Drug
NEXTEL PARTNERS: High Court Denies Writ of Certiorari Petition
NEXTEL PARTNERS: IPO Settlement Hearing Set for April 24, 2006

NEXTEL PARTNERS: Shareholders File Suits V. Sprint Corp. Merger
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Arbitration Opposed in Leeds, Morelli Suit
RADIO ONE: IPO Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set for April 24, 2006
SINA CORP: N.Y. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
SOLUTIA INC: Calif. Court OKs Rubber Antitrust Suit Settlement

SOLUTIA INC: Calif. Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal Deemed Final
SOLUTIA INC: N.Y. Mulls Dismissal Motion V. ERISA Fraud Lawsuit
SOLUTIA INC: Pension Plan Moves to Stay ERISA Fraud Suit in Ill.
SOLUTIA INC: Pension Plan Participants File ERISA Suits in Ill.
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Appeals Certification of Fla. Consumer Lawsuit

SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Reaches Settlement for Tex. Inventory Tax Suit
SONICWALL INC: IPO Settlement Hearing Set for April 24, 2006
STAMINA PRODUCTS: Serious Injuries Prompt Recall of Trampolines
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Cracks Found in Gel Delivery Systems
VIACOM INC: Continues to Face ERISA Fraud Complaint in S.D. N.Y.

WARBURG PINCUS: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set April 24, 2006
WILLIAM LYON: Settles Del. Lawsuit, Another Pending in Calif.

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICA SERVICE: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Lawsuit in Tenn.
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Pomerantz Haudek Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
NATURES SUNSHINE: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in Utah
GMH COMMUNITIES: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Suit in E.D. Pa.
NATURES SUNSHINE: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in Utah

PHH CORP: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.J.
PROQUEST CO: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Mich.
SAC CAPITAL: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in N.J.
SEA CONTAINERS: Federman Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
TNS INC: Roy Jacobs Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. Va.


                            *********


ABGENIX INC: Calif. Court Mulls Dismissal Motion for "Carter"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County
has yet to rule on Abgenix, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
putative class action entitled, "Carter v. Abgenix, Inc., et
al., Case No. RG05246834," which was filed against the Company,
its directors and Amgen Inc.

Filed on December 15, 2005, the complaint purported to be
brought on behalf of all Company stockholders (excluding the
defendants and their affiliates).  

The suit alleges that the $22.50 per share in cash to be paid to
stockholders in connection with the proposed merger with Amgen
is inadequate and that the Company's directors violated their
fiduciary obligations to stockholders in negotiating and
approving the merger agreement.  

The complaint also purports to assert claims against the Company
and Amgen in connection with these matters.

On January 17, 2006 the Company and its directors filed a
demurrer to the complaint seeking to dismiss all claims asserted
against them.  On January 18, 2006, Amgen filed a demurrer to
the complaint seeking to dismiss all claims asserted against it.

On February 13, 2006, plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which, in addition to the allegations set forth above, alleges
that the Company's proxy statement, filed on February 9, 2006,
failed to disclose certain purportedly material information
relating to the process leading to the approval of the proposed
merger with Amgen.

The amended complaint seeks various forms of relief, including
injunctive relief that would, if granted, prevent the completion
of the merger.

On March 6, 2006, the defendants filed demurrers to the amended
complaint seeking to dismiss all claims asserted therein.  Those
motions are currently pending.


AETHER HOLDINGS: IPO Settlement Hearing Set for April 24, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
set an April 24, 2006 fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement of a securities class action against Aether Holdings,
Inc. in relation to its initial public offering (IPO) in October
20, 1999.

The Company is among the hundreds of defendants named in nine
class action lawsuits seeking damages on account of alleged
violations of securities law.  The case is being heard in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  

The court consolidated the actions by all of the named
defendants that actually issued the securities in question and
there are now approximately 310 consolidated cases before Judge
Scheindlin, including the Aether action, under the caption, "In
Re Initial Public Offerings Litigation, Master File 21 MC 92
(SAS)."

These actions were filed on behalf of persons and entities that
acquired the Company's stock after its initial public offering
in October 20, 1999.  Among other things, the complaints claim
that prospectuses, dated October 20, 1999 and September 27, 2000
and issued by the Company in connection with the public
offerings of common stock, allegedly contained untrue statements
of material fact or omissions of material fact in violation of
securities laws because the prospectuses allegedly failed to
disclose that the offerings' underwriters had solicited and
received additional and excessive fees, commissions and benefits
beyond those listed in the arrangements with certain of their
customers which were designed to maintain, distort and/or
inflate the market price of the Company's common stock in the
aftermarket.  The actions seek unspecified monetary damages and
rescission.  

Initial motions to dismiss the case were filed and the court
held oral argument on the motions to dismiss on November 1,
2002.  On February 19, 2003, the court issued an Opinion and
Order on defendants' motions to dismiss, which granted the
motions in part and denied the motions in part.  

As to the Company, the motion to dismiss the claims against it
was denied in its entirety, thus discovery was commenced.  The
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the officer
and director defendants of the Company.  

On June 26, 2003, the Plaintiff's Executive Committee in this
case announced a proposed settlement with the issuers.  The
proposed settlement is a settlement among the plaintiffs, the
issuer-defendants, including the Company, and the officer and
director defendants of the issuers.  

The plaintiffs will continue litigating their claims against the
underwriter-defendants.  Under terms of the proposed settlement,
the Company would not incur any material financial or other
liability.  

On June 14, 2004, the plaintiffs and issuer defendants presented
the executed settlement agreement to Judge Scheindlin during a
court conference.  Subsequently, plaintiffs and issuers made a
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement.  

On July 14, 2004, the underwriter defendants filed a memorandum
of law in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement agreement.  Reply briefs in support
of the settlement were submitted to the court.  

In December 2004, the court ordered additional briefing on the
motion.  All of the additional briefs were submitted to the
court.

On February 15, 2005, Judge Scheindlin issued an Opinion and
Order granting preliminary approval to the settlement agreement.
The process of communicating formal notice of the proposed
settlement to the plaintiff classes has been initiated.

The court has scheduled a fairness hearing on the proposed
settlement for April 24, 2006, and subsequently will decide
whether to grant final approval to the settlement agreement.   

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Calif. Court Dismisses Overtime Wage Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County
dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' claims in the overtime
wage suit filed against Blockbuster, Inc.

On July 9, 2004, Sheela Salazar and Alberto Vasquez filed a
putative class action complaint against the Company in Superior
Court of California, Los Angeles County, on behalf of all
hourly-paid California employees for a period starting July 9,
2000.

The plaintiffs claim the Company fails to pay overtime to its
California hourly-paid employees in violation of California law,
asserting fraud and violations of the California Labor Code,
Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code,
and certain California Industrial Welfare Commission wage
orders.

The suit sought recovery of alleged unpaid money, wages,
penalties, costs and attorney fees in an unstated dollar amount.  
On July 28, 2005, plaintiffs' claims were dismissed without
prejudice.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Continues to Face Securities Suits in Tex.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc. is a defendant in two putative collective
class actions under the Securities Act and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), which are pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The suits were filed by:

     (1) Congregation Ezra Sholom on November 10, 2005, and

     (2) Victor Allgeier on January 4, 2006.

These two suits purport to be filed on behalf of those persons
who purchased Blockbuster stock between September 8, 2004 and
August 9, 2005.  

In these two suits, plaintiffs filed their complaints against
the Company, National Amusements Inc., Viacom, John F. Antioco,
Richard J. Bressler, Jackie M. Clegg, Phillip P. Dauman, Michael
D. Fricklas, Linda Griego, Mel Karmazin, John L. Muething,
Sumner M. Redstone and Larry J. Zine.

Plaintiffs claim the above-referenced defendants committed
securities fraud in violation of the Exchange Act by failing to
disclose at the time of the Company's split-off from Viacom and
that the Company lacked the financial and other resources
required to implement initiatives announced at that time.

They also claim violations of the Exchange Act for allegedly
false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact
by the defendants regarding the Company's financial results.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, court costs, attorney's
fees and expert witness fees.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Late Fees Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc. continues to face several putative class
actions arising out of its "end of late fees" program.  The
suits were filed in various state courts by:

     (1) Anna Kane;

     (2) Thomas Tallarino;

     (3) Gary Lustberg;

     (4) Michael L. Galeno;

     (5) Ronit Yeroushalmi;

     (6) Beth Creighton;

     (7) Gustavo Sanchez;

     (8) Caleb Lucas-Hansen Marker; and

     (9) Kenneth W. Edwards.

Filed on February 15, 2005, "Kane" is a putative class action
against the Company that was brought in the Superior Court of
New Jersey, Ocean County.  It is alleging fraud, breach of
contract, negligent misrepresentation, an unfair trade practice
and a violation of the New Jersey consumer fraud laws regarding
deceptive advertising.  

The suit sought compensatory and injunctive relief.  On October
27, 2005, the New Jersey Superior Court stayed the trial court
action and ordered plaintiff's individual claim to arbitration.
Rather than proceed to arbitration, in January 2006, plaintiff
dismissed her individual claim without prejudice.

Filed on February 22, 2005, "Tallarino" was brought as putative
class action in Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
County.  It is alleging that the Company's "no late fees"
program constitutes conversion and violates California consumer
protection statutes prohibiting untrue and misleading
advertising.  

The suit seeks equitable and injunctive relief.  The Company
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.

Filed on February 22, 2005, "Lustberg" was brought as a putative
class action against the Company in the Supreme Court of Nassau
County, New York.  The Company removed the case to the United
States District Court for Eastern District of New York.

Filed on February 25, 2005, "Galeno" was brought as a putative
class action in the Supreme Court of New York County, New York.
The Company removed the case to the United States District Court
for Southern District of New York.

Both suits allege breach of contract, unjust enrichment and that
Blockbuster's "no late fees" program violates New York's
consumer protection statutes prohibiting deceptive and
misleading business practices.  The suits seek compensatory and
punitive damages and injunctive relief.

Filed on March 4, 2005, "Yeroushalmi" was brought as a putative
class action in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
County.  It is alleging that the Company's "no late fees"
program constitutes fraud and violates California consumer
protection statutes prohibiting untrue and misleading
advertising.

The suit also alleged unjust enrichment and sought compensatory
and punitive damages, injunctive relief and other equitable
remedies.  The Company removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

In November 2005, Mr. Yeroushalmi dismissed his individual claim
with prejudice in exchange for a nominal monetary amount with no
admission of liability by the Company.

Filed on March 4, 2005, "Creighton" was brought as a putative
class action in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon
alleging that the Company's "no late fees" program violates
Oregon's consumer protection statutes prohibiting deceptive and
misleading business practices.  The suit alleges fraud and
unjust enrichment and seeks equitable and injunctive relief. The
Company removed the case to the United States District Court for
the District of Oregon.

Filed on March 22, 2005, "Sanchez" was brought as a putative
class action in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
County, alleging a violation of California's business and
professions code as an unfair business practice and misleading
advertising claim, and a violation of the California rental-
purchase act. The suit seeks compensatory, statutory and
injunctive relief. Blockbuster removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.

Filed on April 11, 2005, "Marker" was brought as an action in
the District Court of Ingham County, Michigan asserting a
violation of Michigan consumer protection act and the
advertising and pricing act.  The suit sought actual or,
alternatively, statutory damages.  Blockbuster moved to compel
arbitration, the court compelled arbitration, and on July 25,
2005 the case was dismissed with prejudice.

Filed on April 13, 2005, "Edwards" was brought as a putative
class action in the District Court of Pittsburg County,
Oklahoma, alleging fraud and a violation of Oklahoma's consumer
protection statute.  The suit sought actual damages and civil
penalties.  

The Company removed the case to the United States District
Court, Eastern District of Oklahoma.  On November 17, 2005, the
court ordered plaintiff's individual claim to arbitration.  

The Company believes each of the claims still pending is without
merit and will fight all pending claims.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Plaintiffs Nix Individual Claims in FLSA Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in several purported class actions against
Blockbuster, Inc. alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) dismissed their individual claims for a
nominal monetary amount.

The suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida by:

     (1) Joanne Miranda;

     (2) Yajeshwarie Ramlakhan; and

     (3) Belinda Rodriguez.

Filed on July 20, 2004, "Miranda" is a putative collective class
action complaint filed under FLSA.  It is purporting to act on
behalf of all Blockbuster store managers who have worked for the
Company since July 2001.

The plaintiff claimed that she, and other store managers, were
improperly classified as exempt employees and thus were owed
overtime payments under the FLSA.  Two additional named
plaintiffs were added.  

The suit sought recovery of alleged unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, wages, penalties, costs and
attorneys fees.

On March 14, 2005, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for
conditional class certification without prejudice. In December
2005, plaintiffs dismissed their individual claims for a nominal
monetary amount with no admission of liability by Blockbuster.

Filed on April 11, 2005, "Ramlakhan" is a putative collective
class action complaint also filed under the FLSA.  It is
purporting to act on behalf of all Blockbuster cashiers and
clerks.  

The plaintiff claimed that she, and other similarly situated
employees were not paid overtime compensation.  The suit sought
recovery of alleged unpaid overtime compensation with interest,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs of suit.

On July 7, 2005, the court denied plaintiff's motion for
conditional class certification without prejudice. On December
21, 2005, plaintiff dismissed her individual claims for a
nominal monetary amount with no admission of liability by
Blockbuster.

Filed on August 9, 2005, "Rodriguez" is a putative collective
class action complaint that was also under the FLSA.  It is also
purporting to act on behalf of all Blockbuster cashiers and
clerks.  

The plaintiff claimed that she and other similarly situated
employees were not paid overtime compensation.  Plaintiff sought
recovery of alleged unpaid overtime compensation with interest,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs of suit.

On March 9, 2006, plaintiff dismissed her individual claims for
a nominal monetary amount with no admission of liability by
Blockbuster.

The first suit is styled "Miranda, et al. v. Blockbuster, Inc.,
Case No. 1:04cv21810," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (Miami) under Judge Adalberto
Jordan.  Representing the plaintiff is Jeffrey Marc Herman and
Stuart S. Mermelstein of Herman & Mermelstein, 18205 Biscayne
Boulevard, Suite 2218, Miami, FL 33160, Phone: 305-931-2200.  

Representing the Company are Anne Marie Estevez and Kathy B.
Houlihan of Morgan Lewis & Bockius, 200 S Biscayne Boulevard,
Suite 5300 Wachovia Financial Center, Miami, FL 33131-2339,
Phone: 305-415-3400; and Kara S. Nickel of Stearns Weaver Miller
Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, Museum Tower, 150 W Flagler
Street, Suite 2200, Miami, FL 33130, Phone: 305-789-3200.


BROBECK PHLEGER: Former Workers Lose Bid to Sue Bankrupt Firm
-------------------------------------------------------------
A bankruptcy judge denied a bid by Brobeck Phleger & Harrison
LLP employees to pursue a class action to collect what they were
due from the defunct Company, according to the San Francisco
Business Times.  The refusal makes it more difficult for former
employees to sue individually, leaving them with the more
convenient option of accepting the settlement offered by a
Company trustee.

About 300 former Brobeck employees previously rejected a
settlement proposed by trustee Ronald Greenspan to employees
left out of work after the firm was dissolved in.  Those who
accepted the settlement, about half of the 1,000 staffers laid
out, were reimbursed for pension contributions and medical
payments that they were owed.  The settlement compensated the
workers for Brobeck's violation of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act, a federal law that requires advance
warning preceding mass layoffs.  Brobeck Phleger was forced into
Chapter 7 proceedings in September 2003.

Scott McNutt, a San Francisco lawyer representing those 300
former Brobeck employees who opted out, said he will recommend
to some clients that they take the trustee's offer, according to
the report.  He expects to pursue claims against Brobeck's
estate on behalf of several former employees.


CLEARONE COMMUNICATIONS: Rechargeable Battery Poses Burn Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
ClearOne Communications, of Salt Lake City, Utah, is recalling
4,200 rechargeable battery packs.

The Company said these battery packs can short circuit, causing
them to overheat and melt the protective plastic covering,
posing a burn hazard to consumers.

ClearOne Communications has received nine reports of incidents
with the recalled battery packs.  No injuries, fire or property
damage have been reported.

The battery is included as a power source for the MAX Wireless
Conference Phone Models 910-158-001 and 910-158-070.  The model
number is located on the product ID label on the underside of
the MAX Wireless Conference Phone Pod.  The phone is black, six-
sided and has a domed speaker in the center.  "Clear One Max" is
written on the top of the phone.  The recalled battery pack is
green and is located in the battery compartment on the underside
of the Max phone pod.  The recall involves the TWD rechargeable
nickel metal hydride battery pack with model number TH-AA2200.  
The battery pack's model number "TH-AA2200," "TWD NI-MH
Battery," and "7.2v AA2200mAH" are printed on the side of the
battery. The battery pack is also sold separately.

The battery packs were made in China and sold at ClearOne
Communications direct order desk, distributors, and dealers
nationwide from April 2005 through December 2005 for between
$600 and $1,000 (for the battery and phone) or about $40 (for
just the battery when sold separately).

Consumers are advised to stop using these phones with recalled
battery packs immediately and contact ClearOne Communications
for a free replacement battery pack.

Picture of the recalled battery pack:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06134a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06134b.jpg

Consumer Contact: ClearOne Communications Phone: (800) 283-5936,
select Option #5 (between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. MST); On the Net:
http://www.clearone.com/support.


DIOCESE OF JOLIET: Names Priests Facing Sexual Abuse Allegations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Diocese of Joliet in Illinois has posted on its Web site the
names of diocesan priests with substantiated allegations of
sexual abuse of minors made against them while serving in the
diocese, according to CBS2chicago.com.

A Minnesota man claiming to be a victim of sexual harassment by
a priest from the Diocese of Joliet filed a class action against
the parish on Feb. 28 (Class Action Reporter, March 2, 2006).

George Knotek, who filed the suit in Dupage County Circuit
Court, claimed he was abused by his family's priest at Divine
Savior Church in Downer's Grove in 1970.  The priest had died in
2004.

Mr. Knotek was not seeking monetary compensation.  Instead, he
asked for:

      (1) the release the names of all priests and other
          employees accused of sexually abusing children since
          1950;

     (2) an order against the destruction of any documents
         regarding suspected sexual abuse; and

     (3) the turning over of the documents to the court for
         safekeeping.

His lawsuit listed the names of 28 priests accused of sexual
misconduct in the Joliet Diocese based on media reports and
previous litigations.

The Diocese of Joliet said in a statement that in 2002 it gave
to the state's attorneys of Will and DuPage counties the files
of priests accused of sexual abuse of a minor.

Mr. Knotek's attorney is Marc Pearlman of Kerns, Pitrof, Frost &
Pearlman, L.L.C., Three First National Plaza, Suite 5350, 70
West Madison, Chicago, Illinois 60602 (Cook Co.), Phone: 312-
261-4550, Fax: 312-261-4565.

Diocese of Joliet on the Net: http://www.dioceseofjoliet.org.


DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Medical Privacy Violation Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A judge refused to uphold a national class action over medical
privacy laws violation filed against the producers of TV show
ER, according to The New York Observer.

Business partners The New York Times and Discovery
Communications are facing a suit filed by 5,000 medical patients
in New Jersey who alleged they were filmed without consent in
"Trauma: Life in the E.R."  

The Times has settled with two individual plaintiffs, said
Gerald Clark, an attorney with the New Jersey firm Lynch Keefe
Bartels, who represents the plaintiffs.  The suit now awaits an
appeal with the New Jersey Appellate Court in Trenton.

Lynch Keefe Bartels on the Net: http://www.lkblaw.com/.


DISETRONIC MEDICAL: Recalls Infusion Set on Insulin Leak Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Disetronic Medical Systems, Inc. of Fishers, Indiana, is
initiating a voluntary nationwide recall of all ACCU-CHEK(TM)
Ultraflex Infusion Sets, because of risks that tubing could
fully or partially separate at the luer lock-tubing connection.  
In the event that a full or partial separation occurs, it is
possible that insulin could leak from the infusion set tubing
causing an interruption of insulin delivery, which can cause
hyperglycemia.

The symptoms of hyperglycemia include nausea/vomiting, blurred
vision, excessive thirst or hunger, frequent urination,
fatigue/tiredness/sleepiness, headache, fruity acetone breath
and abdominal pain.  Patients experiencing these symptoms are
advised to check their blood glucose to ensure that the blood
glucose level is within an acceptable range as defined by the
patient's healthcare team and follow the medical advice given by
the healthcare professional or contact their physician.

This recall applies to all ACCU-CHEK(TM) Ultraflex infusion
sets.  Patients using any standard luer-lock insulin pump may
also be using these ACCU-CHEK(TM) Ultraflex infusion sets.  
Disetronic is advising customers to check their infusion sets at
the luer lock-tubing connection at least every 3 hours and
before bedtime.

Under this recall, customers have the option of continuing to
use their ACCU-CHEK(TM) Ultraflex infusion set, and receiving
replacement ACCU-CHEK(TM) Ultraflex infusion sets for any
products exhibiting full or partial separation of the luer lock-
tubing connection.  Customers deciding to continue using the
ACCU-CHEK(TM) Ultraflex or a replacement ACCU-CHEK(TM) Ultraflex
infusion set, must check their infusion set at the luer lock-
tubing connection during use at least every 3 hours and before
bedtime.   The replacement ACCU-CHEK Ultraflex infusion sets may
still experience this full or partial separation of the luer
lock-tubing connection.

Customers also have the option of replacing their ACCU-CHEK(TM)
Ultraflex infusion sets with ACCU-CHEK(TM) Tender, or ACCU-
CHEK(TM) Rapid-D infusion sets.

Customers that have fully or partially separated tubing sets, or
wish to discontinue use of their ACCU-CHEK Ultraflex Infusion
Set may call Disetronic Medical Systems Pump Support at 1-800-
688-4578 for replacement.  If you do experience product
problems, you should contact Disetronic, for a pre-paid mailer
in order to send the affected infusion set back to Disetronic
for analysis.

Disetronic is conducting this recall of ACCU-CHEK Ultraflex
infusion sets now, because of a recent increase in complaints
regarding fully or partially separated luer lock-tubing
connections.  Disetronic has an ongoing investigation into these
issues and will update our customers, their healthcare providers
and our distributors as new information becomes available.  If
you are a physician or a patient who has experienced a problem
with any ACCU-CHEK(TM) Infusion Sets, please notify Disetronic
at 1-800-688-4578.

Infusion set customers who purchased the ACCU-CHEK Ultraflex
Infusion sets should always follow labeling instructions for
proper use.  In addition, healthcare officials suggest that
diabetes patients who are on insulin pump therapy should check
their blood glucose levels 1-3 hours after changing the infusion
set systems, and continue to check throughout the day as
instructed by their healthcare provider.

In the course of normal daily use, infusion sets can be
subjected to a variety of stresses, including bending at the
luer lock-tubing connection, which can lead to full or partial
separation at the luer lock-tubing connection.  Therefore, the
potential for separation of the luer lock-tubing connection
still exists with the replacement ACCU-CHEK(TM) Ultraflex
infusion set.  Information and illustrations that depict the
luer lock-tubing connection can be found at
http://www.disetronic-usa.com.

ACCU-CHEK(TM) Ultraflex Infusion Sets are available by
prescription only for diabetes patients who use insulin pump
therapy.  The firm is notifying by direct mail affected
customers, healthcare providers and its distributors of this
action.

Any adverse reactions experienced with the use of this product,
and/or quality problems should also be reported to the FDA's
MedWatch Program by phone at 1-800-FDA-1088, by Fax at 1-800-
FDA-0178, by mail at MedWatch, HF-2, FDA, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20852-9787, or at http://www.fda.gov/medwatch.

"After learning about this problem and our records of
complaints, we decided to voluntarily notify patients,
healthcare providers and distributors regarding this product.  
We care about patient safety, their well being and peace of mind
and will be pleased to work with anyone who desires a
replacement of their ACCU-CHEK(TM) Ultraflex infusion set," said
Sarah Hanssen, Vice President of Disetronic Medical Systems.  
"We are working with the FDA to ensure the proper notification
of patients and healthcare providers."


EDWARDS JONES: Continues to Face Mo. Suits Over Revenue-Sharing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Des Peres, Missouri brokerage Company Edward D. Jones & Co.,
L.P., remains a defendant in nine civil class actions over its
revenue-sharing activities, according to St. Louis Post-
Dispatch.

Revenue sharing involves payments made by mutual funds to Edward
Jones, which are separate from normal sales commission.  The
practice is legal, but in 2004 authorities punished some
companies for failing to adequately disclose arrangement to
customers, including Edward Jones.  It was fined $75 million by
the Securities and Exchange Commission for not fully disclosing
payments from seven mutual fund families.

In the class action, plaintiffs want Edward Jones to give up
$375 million in revenue-sharing payments collected from 1999
through 2004.  Documents filed in U.S. District Court in St.
Louis indicate the parties are close to reaching a settlement in
all nine cases, according to the report.  The parties met late
last year before St. Louis mediator Michael Geigerman, court
papers show.

Edward Jones -- http://www.edwardjones.com-- is the principal  
broker/dealer subsidiary of The Jones Financial Companies,
Edward D. Jones & Co.  It operates more than 9,000 branch
offices located throughout the U.S., Canada, and the U.K.  The
brokerage sells securities and insurance products and
distributes mutual funds primarily to retail customers.


ESPEED INC.: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
eSpeed, Inc. is a defendant in a consolidated securities class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York styled, "In Re Espeed, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:05-cv-02091-SAS."

In the first quarter of 2005, the Company was named as a
defendant in a number of purported class action complaints on
behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of eSpeed
from August 12, 2003, to July 1, 2004, alleging that we made
"material false positive statements during the class period" and
violated certain provisions of the Exchange Act, and certain
rules and regulations thereunder.

On April 8, 2005, the district court consolidated the purported
class action complaints.  The Company received the consolidated
and amended complaint (Amended Complaint) on September 27, 2005,
which names as defendants: eSpeed, three officers, Howard
Lutnick, Lee Amaitis, and Joseph Noviello; and one former
officer, Jeffrey Chertoff.

In the Amended Complaint, plaintiffs allege violations of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all
defendants, and allege violations of Section 20(a) against the
individual defendants.  The suit alleges that defendants made
material misstatements regarding the success of the Company's
Price Improvement product.

The Company filed and served a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on November 16,
2005.  Plaintiffs' papers in opposition to the Motion were
served on January 6, 2006, and the Company's reply brief in
further support of the Motion was filed on February 10, 2006.

The suit is styled, "In Re Espeed, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:05-cv-02091-SAS," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Roy Laurence Jacobs of Roy Jacobs & Associates, 60 East
         42nd Street, 46th Floor, New York, NY 10165, Phone:
         212-867-1156, Fax: 212-504-8343, E-mail:
         rljacobs@pipeline.com;

     (2) Laurence Paskowitz of Paskowitz & Associates, 60 East
         42nd Street, 46th Floor, New York, NY 10165, Phone:
         (212)-685-0969, Fax: (212)-685-2306, E-mail:
         classattorney@aol.com; and

     (3) Mario Alba, Jr. of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller,
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-
         1173, E-mail: malba@lerachlaw.com.

Representing the defendants is Joseph De Simone of Mayer, Brown,
Rowe & Maw, LLP, (NYC), 1675 Broadway, New York, NY 10019,
Phone: (212) 506-2500, Fax: (212) 262-1910, E-mail:
jdesimone@mayerbrownrowe.com.


FLEXSYS GROUP: Faces Rubber Chemical Antitrust Suits in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Flexsys Group, Solutia Inc.'s 50/50 venture with and Akzo Nobel
N.V., is a defendant several class actions in Canadian courts
alleging violations of antitrust laws.

In May 2004, two class actions were filed in the Province of
Quebec, Canada, against Flexsys and other rubber chemical
producers alleging that collusive sales and marketing activities
of the defendants damaged all persons in Quebec during the
period July 1995 through September 2001.

Plaintiffs seek statutory damages of (CAD) $14.6 million along
with exemplary damages of (CAD) $25 per person.  A hearing will
be scheduled to determine which case will be allowed to go
forward.  Solutia is not a defendant in either of these class
actions.

In May 2005, Solutia became aware of a case filed in Ontario,
Canada against Flexsys and other rubber chemical producers
alleging the same claims as the Quebec cases and seeking on
behalf of the citizens of Ontario (CAD) $95 in damages. No
response is yet due nor have defendants in the Ontario case
filed any.  Solutia is not a defendant in that case.

In August 2005, a similar case was filed in British Columbia
seeking unspecified damages under a variety of theories on
behalf of all purchasers of rubber chemicals and products
containing rubber chemicals in British Columbia.  

No responses are yet due nor have defendants in any of these
cases filed any.  Solutia is not a named defendant in any of
these cases.


FOUNDRY NETWORKS: IPO Settlement Hearing Set for April 24, 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
set an April 24, 2006 fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement of a securities class action against Foundry
Networks, Inc. in relation to its initial public offering (IPO).

The Company is a defendant in a class action filed on November
27, 2001 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
alleging violations of federal securities laws.

The case was designated as "In re Foundry Networks, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 01-CV-10640 (SAS)
(S.D.N.Y.)," related to "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)."  The case
is brought purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased
the Company's common stock from September 27, 1999 through
December 6, 2000.

The operative amended complaint names as defendants, the Company
and three of its officers (Foundry Defendants), including its
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, and
investment banking firms that served as underwriters for our
initial public offering in September 1999.

The amended complaint alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the
registration statement for the IPO failed to disclose that:

     (1) the underwriters agreed to allow certain customers to
         purchase shares in the IPO in exchange for excess
         commissions to be paid to the underwriters, and

     (2) the underwriters arranged for certain customers to
         purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
         predetermined prices.

The amended complaint also alleges that false or misleading
analyst reports were issued.  Similar allegations were made in
lawsuits challenging over 300 other initial public offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000.  The cases were consolidated for
pretrial purposes.

On February 19, 2003, the court ruled on all defendants' motions
to dismiss.  In ruling on motions to dismiss, the court must
treat the allegations in the complaint as if they were true
solely for purposes of deciding the motions.

The motion was denied as to claims under the Securities Act of
1933 in the case involving the Company.  The same ruling was
made in all but ten of the other cases.

The court dismissed the claims under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and one of
the individual defendants and dismissed all of the Section 20(a)
"control person" claims.  The court denied the motion to dismiss
the Section 10(b) claims against the remaining individual
defendants on the basis that those defendants allegedly sold the
stock following the IPO.

The stock sale allegations were found sufficient purely for
pleading purposes.  A similar ruling was made with respect to 62
individual defendants in the other cases.

In 2004, we accepted a settlement proposal presented to all
issuer defendants.  Under the terms of this settlement, the
plaintiffs are to dismiss and release all claims against the
Foundry Defendants in exchange for a contingent payment by the
insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring the
issuers in all of the IPO cases and for the assignment or
surrender of control of certain claims we may have against the
underwriters.

The settlement requires approval by the court.  In September
2005, the court granted preliminary approval to the terms of the
settlement.

The settlement must receive final approval from the court
following notice to class members and an opportunity for them
and others affected by the settlement to object.  The court
scheduled a final approval hearing for April 24, 2006.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Settlement Hearing Set April 26, 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
San Francisco will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement in the matter: "Intervention, Inc., et al., v.
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare, L.P., et al., (Case No.
CGC-02-406294)."  The suit was brought on behalf of all persons
or entities in the United States who purchased Abreva from July
2001 through February 3, 2006, who resided in the U.S. at the
time of purchase. Purchased Abreva from an authorized retailer
at a location within the U.S., and did not purchase Abreva for
resale to others.

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Richard A. Kramer,
Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco,
located at Civic Center Courthouse, Department 304, 400
McAllister St., San Francisco, CA, on April 26, 2006 at 1:30
p.m.

Any objections to the settlement must be filed by April 10,
2006.  

For more details, contact Law Offices of Donald P. Driscoll,
1231 Solano Avenue, Suite C, Albany, CA 94706, Phone: (510) 527-
4500 or (800) 350-8564, Fax: (510) 527-9883; and Lori A.
Schechter of Morrison & Foerster, Phone: (415) 268-6355, Fax:
(415) 268-7522, E-mail: lschechter@mofo.com.


ILLINOIS: Lakin Wins Substitution Motions from Circuit Judge
------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Don Weber has granted 22
substitution motions for the Lakin Law Firm, according to The
Madison St. Clair Record.  He only kept four class actions,
ruling that the class representatives are only allowed one
change together, not one per each named plaintiff.

Previously, Chief Judge Edward Ferguson refused a motion to
recuse Judge Weber from 14 Lakin Law Firm class actions (Class
Action Reporter, April 4, 2006).  The personal injury and class
action law firm wants Judge Weber recused on allegations that he
was biased against the firm because it sued the judge 13 years
ago.  

Also, Lakin attorneys claim Judge Weber was biased in an order
he made on the Cassens Corp. case that the firm is handling.   
Judge Weber on March 8 granted a Lakin motion to have one of its
lawsuits assigned to a different judge, but wrote that defense
attorneys may ask an appeals court to determine whether a change
of judge can be denied if a party is "judge shopping."  In a
ruling, Judge Ferguson said Judge Weber holds no bias against
the Lakin Law Firm as alleged.

Judge Weber has been substituted by plaintiff's attorneys 114
times since taking over for retired Judge Phillip Kardis in
November.  

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


INTEL CORP: Agenda Set for April 20 Case Management Conference
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware federal court published the proposed agenda of the
April 20, 2006 case management conference on Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc.'s anti-trust suit against Intel Corp., according
to The Inquirer.

There are proposed stipulations that suggest some documents are
likely to be sealed, the report said.  The Inquirer added that
AMD is proposing a stipulation about pre-deposition interviews
of former employees in whose favor non-disclosure agreements
run.

According to the report, the parties will establish dates for
service by Intel and class action plaintiffs of third party
document subpoenas, and appoint a "Discovery Master" to resolve
any disputes.  Also under consideration is a joint proposal for
coordinated discovery in conjunction with the Santa Clara
superior court, where the Californian class acts have been
consolidated.

The conference will be at the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware.  Judge Joseph Farnan, who is overseeing
the trial and most of the class action suits that arose from it,
will preside.  Deadline for submission by parties of agenda for
the conference is April 7, 2006.

Intel Corporation faces several class actions filed in various
federal and state courts, related to a lawsuit filed by rival
computer chip-maker Advanced Micro, which alleged it violated
federal antitrust laws (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 04, 2005).  
                    
In June 2005, Advanced Micro filed a complaint in the U.S.  
District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the  
Company and its Japanese subsidiary engaged in various actions
in violation of the Sherman Act and the California Business and
Professions Code, including providing secret and discriminatory
discounts and rebates and intentionally interfering with
prospective business advantages of Advanced Micro.   

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

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

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

The suit is styled, "Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.
Intel Corporation et al. (1:05-cv-00441-JJF) filed in the U.S.
District Court of Delaware under Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.  
Representing the plaintiffs are: Adam L. Balick of Bifferato
Gentilotti Biden & Balick, 711 North King Street, Wilmington, DE
19801-3503, Phone: (302) 658-4265, E-mail: abalick@bgbblaw.com;
and Frederick L. Cottrell, III of Richards, Layton & Finger, One
Rodney Square, P.O. Box 551, Wilmington, DE 19899, Phone: (302)
658-6541, E-mail: cottrell@rlf.com

Representing the defendant is Richard L. Horwitz of Potter
Anderson & Corroon, LLP, 1313 N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, 6th
Flr., P.O. Box 951, Wilmington, DE 19899-0951, Phone: (302) 984-
6000, E-mail: rhorwitz@potteranderson.com


IPO SECURITIES LITIGATION: Settlement Hearing Set April 24, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement in the matter, "In re Initial Public Offering
Litigation, Case No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Shira Scheindlin
in the United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, 500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007 at 10:00 a.m., on April
24, 2006 to determine whether the proposed settlement should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate.

For more details, visit: http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/
OR contact In re IPO Litigation c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.,
Notice Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6239, Merrick, NY 11566-
9000, Phone: (800) 916-6946; Melvyn I. Weiss, Esq. of Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, Phone: (212) 594-5300; Stanley D.
Bernstein, Esq. of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, Phone:
(212) 779-1414; Richard S. Schiffrin, Esq. of Schiffrin &
Barroway, LLP, Phone: (610) 667-7706; Howard Sirota, Esq.
Sirota & Sirota, LLP, Phone: (212) 425-9055; Jules Brody, Esq    
Stull, Stull & Brody, Phone: (212) 687-7230; and Fred Taylor
Isquith, Esq. of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP,
Phone: (212) 545-4600.


LANDROLLER INC: Recalls Roller Skates to Repair Wheel Attachment
----------------------------------------------------------------
LandRoller Inc., of Hermosa Beach, California, is recalling
about 1,400 pairs of its LandRoller "Terra 9" Roller Skates.

The Company said the wheels on these roller skates can detach
and the brakes can fail.  Either one of these hazards can cause
the skater to fall and suffer serious injury.  LandRoller Inc.
has received nine reports of wheel separation.  No injuries have
been reported.

LandRoller skates have two oversized wheels on each skate that
are angled inward, which is designed to help the user keep
balanced on cracked pavement and uneven surfaces.  The recalled
LandRoller brand skates are the "Terra 9" model manufactured
between July 2005 and December 2005.  

The date of manufacture can be determined from the serial
number, which is written on a white sticker attached to the
upper inside of the right boot's plastic ankle cuff.  Serial
numbers beginning with "L050" are included in the recall.  The
brand name is on the skate's tongue and model is on the skate's
rear heel area.  Women's skates are purple and gray and sold in
sizes 6 through 11.  Men's skates are blue and black and sold in
sizes 5 through 12.

The roller skates were made in Thailand and sold at sporting
goods stores nationwide and by Web retailers from July 2005
through February 2006 for about $250.

Consumers are advised to stop using these skates immediately and
contact LandRoller to receive a free repair kit.

Picture of the recalled roller skates:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06132.jpg

Consumer Contact: LandRoller Inc. Phone: (877) 923-5500 (toll-
free) between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday; E-
mail: recall@landroller.com; Web site:
http://www.landroller.com/terra9_recall.


LOOKSMART LTD: Ark. Court Extends Stay on Click Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas issued an order
extending the stay until March 31, 2006 on all proceedings in a
class action, styled, "Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, L.L.C., v.
Yahoo! Inc.," which was filed against LookSmart, Ltd. and
several other search engines and Web publishers.

On March 14, 2005, the Company was served with the Second
Amended Complaint in a class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court
of Miller County, Arkansas.

The complaint names eleven search engines and Web publishers as
defendants, including the Company, and alleges breach of
contract, restitution/unjust enrichment/money had and received,
and civil conspiracy claims in connection with contracts
allegedly entered into with plaintiffs for Internet pay-per-
click advertising (Click Fraud).

The named plaintiffs on the Second Amended Complaint are Lane's
Gifts and Collectibles, L.L.C., U.S. Citizens for Fair Credit
Card Terms, Inc., Savings 4 Merchants, Inc., and Max Caulfield
d/b/a Caulfield Investigations.

On March 30, 2005 the case was removed to United States District
Court for the Western District of Arkansas.  

On April 4, 2005 plaintiffs U.S. Citizens for Fair Credit Card
Terms, Inc. and Savings 4 Merchants, Inc. filed a motion of
voluntary dismissal without prejudice.  The motion was granted
on April 7, 2005.

Plaintiffs Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, L.L.C. and Max
Caulfield d/b/a Caulfield Investigations filed a motion to
remand the case to state court on April 13, 2005, which was
granted in June 2005.

In July 2005, defendants, including the Company, petitioned the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for an appeal of the remand
order, and moved to stay the proceedings while the appeal is
pending.  

The petition was denied on September 8, 2005 and the case was
remanded to the Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas.  The
Company was served with discovery requests on October 7, 2005.  

The Company filed and/or joined motions to dismiss on the basis
of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
lack of personal jurisdiction, and improper venue.  

Pursuant to the court's initial scheduling order, plaintiffs had
until January 27, 2006 to respond to the motions to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue and until June
9, 2006 to respond to the motion to dismiss on the basis of
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

However, the court entered an order staying all proceedings for
a period of 60 days on January 9, 2006.  On March 8, 2006, the
court entered an order extending the stay until March 31, 2006.


LOUDEYE CORP: IPO Suit Settlement Hearing Set for April 24, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
set an April 24, 2006 fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement of a securities class action against Loudeye Corp. in
relation to its initial public offering (IPO).

Between January 11 and December 6, 2001, class action complaints
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.  These actions were filed against 310 issuers
(including the Company), 55 underwriters and numerous
individuals including certain of the Company's former officers
and directors.

The various complaints were filed purportedly on behalf of a
class of persons who purchased Company's common stock during the
time period between March 15 and December 6, 2000.  

The complaints allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, primarily based on
allegations that the Company's underwriters received undisclosed
compensation in connection with our initial public offering and
that the underwriters entered into undisclosed arrangements with
some investors that were designed to distort and/or inflate the
market price for Loudeye's common stock in the aftermarket.

These actions were consolidated for pre-trial purposes.  No
specific amount of damages has been claimed.

The Company and the individual defendants demanded to be
indemnified by underwriter defendants pursuant to the
underwriting agreement entered into at the time of the initial
public offering.  Presently all claims against the former
officers have been withdrawn without prejudice.

The Court suggested that the parties select six test cases to
determine class action eligibility.  The Company is not a party
to any of the test cases.

In March 2005, the Court approved a proposed settlement among
plaintiffs, issuer defendants, issuer officers and directors
named as defendants, and issuers' insurance companies.  This
proposed settlement provides, among other matters, that:

     (1) issuer defendants and related individual defendants
         will be released from the litigation without any
         liability other than certain expenses incurred to date
         in connection with the litigation;
  
     (2) issuer defendants' insurers will guarantee $1.0 billion
         in recoveries by plaintiff class members;
  
     (3) issuer defendants will assign certain claims against
         underwriter defendants to the plaintiff class members;
         and
  
     (4) issuer defendants will have the opportunity to recover
         certain litigation-related expenses if plaintiffs
         recover more than $5.0 billion from underwriter
         defendants.

A fairness hearing on the proposed settlement is scheduled for
April 2006.  The Company's board of directors approved the
proposed settlement in August 2003 and approved the final
settlement terms in March 2005.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


MERCK & CO: Faces Fraud Lawsuit Over Bone-Strengthening Drug
------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co. Inc. is facing another suit claiming its drug that
increases bone density, Fosamax, causes bone death in the jaw,
according to reports.  The case is Carr vs. Merck, according to
The Star-Ledger.

The suit alleges that one of the less-common side effects of
Fosamax is osteonecrosis.  It also accuses the Company of
knowingly hiding the risk from the public.  Fosamax, which has
been on the market since 1995, is taken by nearly 10 million men
and women.  Annual sales reportedly top $3 billion.

In January, a group of plaintiffs claimed to have suffered "dead
jaw," a condition when jaw tissues dies, after taking the drug,
according to NewsOK.com (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 24, 2006).

New Jersey-based Merck & Co. -- http://www.merck.com-- is the  
maker of hypertension drug Cozaar and Hyzaar, cholesterol
combatant Vytorin, and Zetia and Zocor.  Merck also makes
painkillers such as Arcoxia, male pattern baldness treatment
Propecia, and asthma drug Singulair.


NEXTEL PARTNERS: High Court Denies Writ of Certiorari Petition
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of
certiorari filed by an objector to the settlement of the amended
class action filed against Nextel Partners, Inc., Nextel
Communications, Inc. and Nextel West Corporation, and other
Nextel companies over the misrepresentation of certain cost-
recovery line-item fees as government taxes.

Initially, several suits were filed, namely:

     (1) "Rolando Prado v. Nextel Communications, et al., Civil
         Action No. C-695-03-B," filed on April 1, 2003, in the
         93rd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas;

     (2) "Steve Strange v. Nextel Communications, et al., Civil
         Action No. 01-002520-03," filed May 2, 2003, in the
         Circuit Court of Shelby County for the Thirtieth
         Judicial District at Memphis, Tennessee;

     (3) "Christopher Freeman and Susan and Joseph Martelli v.
         Nextel South Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 03-
         CA1065," filed on May 3, 2003, in the Circuit Court of
         the Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County,
         Florida against Nextel Partners Operating Corporation
         d/b/a Nextel Partners and Nextel South Corporation
         d/b/a Nextel Communications;

     (4) "Nick's Auto Sales, Inc. v. Nextel West, Inc., et al,
         Civil Action No. BC298695," filed on July 9, 2003 in
         Los Angeles Superior Court, California against the
         Company, Nextel Communications, Nextel West, Inc.,
         Nextel of California, Inc. and Nextel Operations, Inc;

     (5) "Andrea Lewis and Trish Zruna v. Nextel Communications,
         Inc., et al., Civil Action No. CV-03-907," filed on
         August 7, 2003, in the Circuit Court of Jefferson
         County, Alabama against the Company and Nextel
         Communications, Inc.; and

     (6) "Joseph Blando v. Nextel West Corp., et al., Civil
         Action No. 02-0921," (the "Blando Case") filed in the
         United States District Court for the Western District
         of Missouri.  The amended complaint filed on October 3,
         2003, named the Company and Nextel Communications, Inc.
         as defendants; Nextel Partners was substituted for the
         previous defendant, Nextel West Corp.

All of these complaints alleged that the Company, in conjunction
with the other defendants, misrepresented certain cost-recovery
line-item fees as government taxes.

Plaintiffs sought to enjoin such practices and sought a refund
of monies paid by the class based on the alleged
misrepresentations. They also sought attorneys' fees, costs and,
in some cases, punitive damages.

The Company believes the allegations are groundless.  In October
2003, the court in the Blando Case entered an order granting
preliminary approval of a nationwide class action settlement
that encompasses most of the claims involved in these cases.

In April 2004, the court approved the settlement.  Various
objectors and class members appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and in February 2005 the
appellate court affirmed the settlement.

One of the objectors petitioned for a rehearing and in March
2005, the Eighth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing and
rehearing en banc.  

Thereafter, one of the objectors filed a motion to stay the
mandate for 90 days.  The Eighth Circuit denied that motion in
April and in June 2005 that objector filed with the United
States Supreme Court a petition for writ of certiorari.

On October 3, 2005, the Supreme Court denied the objector's writ
of certiorari, which constitutes a "final order" resolving all
appeals in these cost recovery fee cases.

In accordance with the terms of the settlement, the Company
began distributing settlement benefits within 90 days from the
final order.  

The suit, entitled, "Rolando Prado v. Nextel Communications, et
al., Civil Action No. C-695-03-B," was dismissed with prejudice
in November 2005.  The remaining cases are subject to immediate
dismissal according to the terms of the final order, which
directs the plaintiffs to dismiss their actions.  

In conjunction with the settlement, the Company recorded an
estimated liability during the third quarter of 2003, which did
not materially impact our financial results.


NEXTEL PARTNERS: IPO Settlement Hearing Set for April 24, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
set an April 24, 2006 fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement of a securities class action against Nextel Partners,
Inc. in relation to its initial public offering (IPO).

On December 5, 2001, a purported class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, two of its executive officers and four of
the underwriters involved in its IPO.

The lawsuit is captioned, "Keifer v. Nextel Partners, Inc., et
al, No. 01 CV 10945."  It was filed on behalf of all persons who
acquired our common stock between February 22, 2000 and December
6, 2000 and initially named as defendants the Company, John
Chapple, its president, chief executive officer and chairman of
the board, John D. Thompson, its chief financial officer and
treasurer until August 2003, and the following underwriters of
its IPO:

     (1) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (2) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation (predecessor of
         Credit Suisse First Boston LLC),

     (3) Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, and

     (4) Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Incorporated.

Mr. Chapple and Mr. Thompson were dismissed from the lawsuit
without prejudice.  The complaint alleges that the defendants
violated the Securities Act and the Exchange Act by issuing a
registration statement and offering circular that were false and
misleading in that they failed to disclose that:

     (i) the defendant underwriters allegedly had solicited and
         received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
         certain investors who purchased the Company's common
         stock issued in connection with our initial public
         offering; and

     (2) the defendant underwriters allegedly allocated shares
         of the Company's common stock issued in connection with
         its initial public offering to investors who allegedly
         agreed to purchase additional shares of the Company's
         common stock at pre-arranged prices.

The complaint seeks rescissionary and/or compensatory damages.  
The Company disputes the allegations of the complaint that
suggest any wrongdoing on our part or by our officers.

However, the plaintiffs and the issuing Company defendants,
including the Company reached a settlement of the issues in the
lawsuit.  

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
February 15, 2005, subject to certain modifications.  On August
31, 2005, the court issued a preliminary order further approving
the modifications to the settlement and certifying the
settlement classes.

The court also appointed the Notice Administrator for the
settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement be
distributed to all settlement class members beginning on
November 15, 2005.  The settlement fairness hearing has been set
for April 24, 2006.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


NEXTEL PARTNERS: Shareholders File Suits V. Sprint Corp. Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nextel Partners, Inc., Nextel WIP Corp., Nextel Communications,
Inc., Sprint Corp., and several of the members of the Company's
board of directors are defendants in three class actions filed
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, relating to
the Company's proposed merger with Sprint Corp.  

The suits are styled:

     (1) "Dolores Carter v. Nextel WIP Corp., et al.," filed on
         December 27, 2004;

     (2) "Donald Fragnoli v. Nextel WIP Corp., et al, Civil
         Action No. 955-N," filed on December 27, 2004;

     (3) "Selena Mintz v. John Chapple, et al., Civil Action No.
         1065-N," filed on February 1, 2005.

In all three lawsuits, the plaintiffs seek declaratory and
injunctive relief declaring that the announced merger
transaction between Sprint Corp. and Nextel is an event that
triggers the put right set forth in the Company's restated
certificate of incorporation and directing the defendants to
take all necessary measures to give effect to the rights of the
Company's Class A common stockholders arising therefrom.  

The Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission that the allegations in the lawsuits to the effect
that the Nextel Partners defendants may take action, or fail to
take action, that harms the interests of its public stockholders
are without merit.  

The Company believes that the Sprint-Nextel merger transaction,
if successfully closed, will trigger the put rights set forth in
its restated certificate of incorporation.


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Arbitration Opposed in Leeds, Morelli Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for plaintiffs in a class action filed against
Prudential Insurance Co. in New Jersey have asked an appellate
court to overturn an order subjecting the suit to arbitration,
the NorthJersey.com reports.

The suit was filed by former Prudential manager Lawrence
Lederman in November 2002.  In the suit, Mr. Lederman contends
that he was repeatedly told by superiors to stop his agents from
selling auto insurance.  He worked for the Company from 1992
until 1997.  

Prudential and Mr. Lederman with 358 other employees later
entered into arbitration.  The employees were represented by
Leeds, Morelli.  The confidential negotiations awarded Mr.
Lederamn with $500,000.  But Mr. Lederman argued the agreement
should be voided because of fraud.  His suit accused Prudential
of paying Leeds, Morelli $5 million to cap the settlement at $10
million.  Prudential denied the accusations.

Superior Court Judge Theodore Winard of Essex County ordered the
case referred to arbitration.  But plaintiffs' lawyer argued to
overturn the ruling on April 4.  On that day, in an interesting
twist, the appellate court in Morris County allowed an open
courtroom hearing.  This was despite objections from lawyers of
Prudential and Leeds, Morelli.

According to the report, the appellate court expected to rule in
the next two months on the appeal of the arbitration order and
on whether to unseal the record.  Leeds, Morelli is facing other
similar lawsuits across the country, according to the report.

Represented Prudential is George Reilly.  Representing Leeds,
Morelli is Evan H. Krinick of Rivkin Radler LLP, 926 Reckson
Plaza (Long Island), Uniondale, New York 11556-0111 (Nassau
Co.), Phone: 516-357-3000, Cable Address: "Atlaw" Telex: 645-074
Telecopier: 516-357-3333.  Representing Mr. Lederman and other
plaintiffs in the case is Angela M. Roper, 77 Jefferson Place,
Totowa, New Jersey, (Passaic Co.).


RADIO ONE: IPO Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set for April 24, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
set an April 24, 2006 fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement of a securities class action against Radio One, Inc.
in relation to its initial public offering (IPO).

In November 2001, the Company and certain of its officers and
directors were named as defendants in a class action shareholder
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, now captioned, "In re Radio One,
Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-
CV-10160."

Similar complaints were filed in the same court against hundreds
of other public companies (Issuers) that conducted initial
public offerings of their common stock in the late 1990s (the
IPO Lawsuits).

In the complaint filed against the Company (as amended), the
plaintiffs claimed that it, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters of certain of its public
offerings violated Section 11 of the Securities Act.  

The plaintiffs' claim was based on allegations that the
Company's registration statement and prospectus failed to
disclose material facts regarding the compensation to be
received by the underwriters, and the stock allocation practices
of the underwriters.

The complaint also contains a claim for violation of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on
allegations that this omission constituted a deceit on
investors.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.

In July 2002, the Company joined in a global motion, filed by
the Issuers, to dismiss the IPO Lawsuits.  In October 2002, the
court entered an order dismissing the Company's named officers
and directors from the IPO Lawsuits without prejudice, pursuant
to an agreement tolling the statute of limitations with respect
to Radio One's officers and directors until September 30, 2003.

In February 2003, the court issued a decision denying the motion
to dismiss the Section 11 and Section 10(b) claims against the
Company and most of the Issuers.  

In July 2003, a Special Litigation Committee of the Company's
board of directors approved in principle a settlement proposal
with the plaintiffs that is anticipated to include most of the
Issuers.

The proposed settlement would provide for the dismissal with
prejudice of all claims against the participating Issuers and
their officers and the assignment to plaintiffs of certain
potential claims that the Issuers may have against their
underwriters.  

The tentative settlement also provides that, in the event that
plaintiffs ultimately recover less than a guaranteed sum from
the underwriters, plaintiffs would be entitled to payment by
each participating Issuer's insurer of a pro rata share of any
shortfall in the plaintiffs guaranteed recovery.

In September 2003, in connection with the proposed settlement,
the Company's named officers and directors extended the tolling
agreement so that it would not expire prior to any settlement
being finalized.

In June 2004, the Company executed a final settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs.  

In February 2005, the court issued a decision certifying a class
action for settlement purposes and granting preliminary approval
of the settlement subject to modification of certain bar orders
contemplated by the settlement.

In August 2005, the court reaffirmed class certification and
preliminary approval of the modified settlement in a
comprehensive order.

A form of Notice was sent to members of the settlement classes
beginning in November 2005.  The court has set a Final
Settlement Fairness Hearing on the settlement in April 2006.  
The settlement is still subject to statutory notice requirements
and final judicial approval.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


SINA CORP: N.Y. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
ordered consolidation of multiple purported securities class
actions filed against Sina Corp. and certain of its officers and
directors, following the Company's announcement of anticipated
financial results for the first quarter of 2005 ending on March
31, 2005.

The suit, some filed starting February 2005, seeks unspecified
damages on alleged violations of federal securities laws during
the period from October 26, 2004 to February 7, 2005.  It
alleges violations of the federal securities laws through the
issuance of false or misleading statements during the class
period covered.

On July 1, 2005, Judge Naomi Buchwald consolidated the cases
under the caption, "In re SINA Corporation Securities
Litigation," and appointed City of Sterling Heights General
Employee's Retirement System, City of St. Clair Shores Police
and Fire Retirement System, and Charter Township of Clinton
Police and Fire Retirement System (collectively the MAPERS Funds
Group) as lead plaintiff.

The MAPERS Funds Group filed an amended consolidated complaint
on September 9, 2005.  The Company intends to take all
appropriate action in response to these lawsuits.

The suit is styled, "In re SINA Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:05-cv-02154-NRB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Naomi Reice Buchwald.  Representing the plaintiffs are, Samuel
Howard Rudman and Mario Alba, Jr. of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia,
Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-
mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com and malba@lerachlaw.com; and Robert
I. Harwood and Samuel Kenneth Rosen of Wechsler Harwood, LLP,
488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-
935-7400, Fax: 212 753-3630, E-mail: rharwood@whesq.com and
srosen@whesq.com.

Representing the defendants are, John T.A. Rosenthal and Joshua
M. Cutler of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, 666 Fifth
Avenue, New York, NY 10103, Phone: (212) 506-5000, Fax: (212)
506-5151, E-mail: jrosenthal@orrick.com and jcutler@orrick.com.


SOLUTIA INC: Calif. Court OKs Rubber Antitrust Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
approved the settlement for the consolidated class action filed
against Solutia, Inc., Flexsys and several other companies, on
behalf of all individuals and entities that had purchased rubber
chemicals in the United States during the period January 1, 1995
until October 10, 2002.

Eight purported class actions were initially filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California that were
later consolidated into a single action called, "In Re Rubber
Chemicals Antitrust Litigation" (the Class Action).

The Class Action alleged price-fixing and sought treble damages
and injunctive relief under U.S. antitrust laws on behalf of all
the plaintiffs.  The Company filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy in
the Class Action staying the litigation against it.  

The Court approved a settlement agreement on June 21, 2005,
which released Flexsys and its predecessors in interest from any
further liability to the members of the class with respect to
the allegations made in the Class Action complaint.  In
connection with this settlement, the Company was voluntarily
dismissed.

In July 2004 a case, captioned "RBX Industries, Inc. v. Bayer
Corp., Flexsys, et al.," which was originally filed in federal
court in Pennsylvania was removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.  

This case alleges that during the period 1995 through 2001 the
defendants, which do not include the Company, conspired through
common marketing and sales practices to cause plaintiffs to pay
supra-competitive prices for rubber chemicals and seeks treble
damages.

RBX Industries joined the plaintiff class in the Class Action
solely for the purpose of participating in the above-described
settlement with Flexsys, the Company and Akzo Nobel N.V.  

In March 2005, Parker Hannifin filed an action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio making the same
allegations as were made in the Class Action and the RBX
Industries case.  

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  Parker Hannifin joined the plaintiff
class in the Class Action solely for the purpose of
participating in the above-described settlement with Flexsys,
Solutia and Akzo.  

The Company was not named in either the RBX Industries or the
Parker Hannifin cases.  

Other than potential claims by two direct purchasers of small
amounts of rubber chemicals from Flexsys, the settlement by
Flexsys of the Class Action (approximately $19 million) along
with several private settlements with large customers
(approximately $60 million) for all intents and purposes
resolves all claims made in these cases by direct United States
purchasers of rubber chemicals against the Company and Flexsys
under United States antitrust laws for activities of Flexsys
prior to the dates of the settlements.  Flexsys paid all
settlement monies without participation by the Company.

The suit is styled, "In Re: Rubber Chemicals Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 3:03-cv-1496," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge
Martin Jenkins.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

    (1) W. Joseph Bruckner and Yvonne M. Flaherty of Lockridge
        Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P, 100 Washington Avenue S Suite
        2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401, Phone: 612-339-6900, Fax:
        612-339-0981, E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com and
        ymflaherty@locklaw.com;

     (2) Michael P. Lehmann, The Furth Firm LLP, 225 Bush
         Street, 15th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone:
         415-433-2070, Fax: 415-982-2076, E-mail:
         mplehmann@furth.com; and

     (3) Richard Alexander Saveri of Saveri & Saveri Inc., One
         Embarcadero Center, Suite 1020, San Francisco, CA
         94111, Phone: 415-217-6810, E-mail: rick@saveri.com.

Representing the Company are Richard Allen Jones and John Guyler
White of Covington & Burling, One Front Street, 35th Floor, San
Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-591-7065, Fax: 415-955-6565, E-
mail: rjones@cov.com and JGWhite@cov.com.


SOLUTIA INC: Calif. Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal Deemed Final
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California's dismissal of the consolidated securities class
action filed against Solutia, Inc., its former chief executive
officers and its then chief financial officer is deemed final,
after plaintiffs failed to file an appeal.

Six shareholder class actions were initially filed between July
2003 and September 2003 and later consolidated into a single
action called, "In Re Solutia Inc. Securities Litigation."  A
consolidated complaint, which named two additional defendants,
the Company's then current and past controllers, was filed.  

The consolidated complaint alleges that, from December 16, 1998
to October 10, 2002, the Company's accounting practices
regarding incorporation of Flexsys Group's results into its
financial reports violated federal securities laws by misleading
investors as to the Company's actual results and causing
inflated prices to be paid by purchasers of the Company's
publicly traded securities during the period.  

The plaintiffs seek damages and any equitable relief that the
court deems proper.  The consolidated action was automatically
stayed with respect to the Company by virtue of Section 362(a)
of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

In March 2005 the court issued a final order dismissing with
prejudice the complaint against the individual defendants, which
became final when the plaintiffs did not file an appeal of the
dismissal within the applicable appeals period, and the case was
dismissed without prejudice as against the Company pending
resolution of the bankruptcy case.

The suit is styled "In re Solutia Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 4:03-cv-03554-SBA," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Saundra
Brown Armstrong.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Darren J. Robbins, William S. Lerach, Kimberly C.
         Epstein, Lesley Weaver, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins LLP, 401 B Street Suite 1700, San
         Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-
         7423, Email: e_file_sd@lerachlaw.com,  
         Billl@lerachlaw.com, kimcor@lerachlaw.com and
         lesleyw@lerachlaw.com;  

     (2) Nadeem Faruqi, Faruqi & Faruqi, 320 East 39th Street
         New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-983-9330, Fax: 212-983-
         9331;

     (3) Patrick J. Coughlin, Maria V. Morris, Milberg Weiss
         Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite
         2600, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415/288-4545,
         Fax: 415-288-4534, Email: patc@mwbhl.com and
         mariam@mwbhl.com; and

     (4) Lionel Z. Glancy of Glancy & Binkow, LLP, 1801 Avenue
         of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone:
         310/201-9150, Fax: (310) 201-9160, Email:
         info@glancylaw.com.

Representing the Company are Richard Allen Jones and John Guyler
White of Covington & Burling, One Front Street, 35th Floor, San
Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-591-7065, Fax: 415-955-6565, E-
mail: rjones@cov.com and JGWhite@cov.com.


SOLUTIA INC: N.Y. Mulls Dismissal Motion V. ERISA Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on motion a to dismiss a purported class action,
styled, "Dickerson v. Feldman, et al.," which was filed agsinst
Solutia, Inc.'s former officers and employees as well as its
Employee Benefits Plans Committee and Pension and Savings Funds
Committee.

The Company was not named as a defendant in the suit, which was
filed on October 7, 2004.  The action alleges breach of
fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (ERISA) and seeks to recover alleged losses to the
Solutia Inc. Savings and Investment Plan (SIP Plan) arising from
the alleged imprudent investment of SIP Plan assets in Solutia's
common stock during the period December 16, 1998 to the date the
action was filed.

The investment is alleged to have been imprudent because of the
Company's legacy environmental and litigation liabilities and
because of Flexsys Group's alleged involvement in certain
litigation.  

The action seeks monetary payment to the SIP Plan to make good
the losses resulting from the alleged breach of fiduciary
duties, as well as injunctive and other appropriate equitable
relief, reasonable attorney's fees and expenses, costs and
interest.

In addition, the plaintiff in this action filed a proof of claim
for $269 million against the Company in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York.  

The plaintiff now seeks to withdraw the reference of their ERISA
claim from the bankruptcy court to the district court so that
the proof of claim and the class action can be considered
together by the
District Court.

On February 11, 2005, the Company filed an objection to the
motion to withdraw the reference. On March 11, 2005, the
District Court denied without prejudice Dickerson's motion to
withdraw the reference.  

The Dickerson plaintiffs subsequently amended their initial
complaint to add several current officers and directors of
Solutia as defendants.

On July 5, 2005, the defendants filed motions to dismiss
Dickerson's amended complaint.  The motions to dismiss are fully
briefed and are pending before the New York District Court.

Dickerson also filed an amended proof of claim in the amount of
$290 million against the Company on September 1, 2005, based on
his amended complaint.  

On September 7, 2005, Dickerson filed a motion for class
certification of his proof of claim.  The Company opposed that
motion which remains pending before the Bankruptcy Court.

The suit is styled, "Dickerson v. Feldman, et al., Case No.
1:04-cv-07935-LAP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Loretta A. Preska.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Ronen Sarraf of Sarraf Gentile,
LLP, 485 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10018, Phone: (212) 868-
3610, Fax: (212) 918-7967, E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com.

Representing the defendants are, Karen Mary Wahle and Robert M.
Stern of O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, 1625 Eye Street, NW Washington,
DC 20006, Phone: 202-383-5366 and 202-383-5328, Fax: 202-383-
5313 and 202-383-5396, E-mail: kwahle@omm.com and
rstern@omm.com.


SOLUTIA INC: Pension Plan Moves to Stay ERISA Fraud Suit in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Solutia, Inc. Employees' Pension Plan (the Pension Plan) moved
to stay all proceedings in a purported class action in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, styled,
"Davis, et al. v. Solutia, Inc. Employees' Pension Plan, Case
No. 3:05-CV-736-MJR," which is alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The Company and its 14 U.S. subsidiaries along with any other
individual or entity were not named as defendants in the
litigation.  Filed on October 12, 2005 by three participants in
the Pension Plan, the suit alleges that the Pension Plan:

     (1) violates ERISA's prohibitions on reducing rates of
         benefit accrual because of the attainment of any age;
       
     (2) results in the impermissible forfeiture of accrued
         benefits under ERISA;

     (3) violates ERISA's present value calculation rules for
         determining lump sum distributions; and

     (4) violates the minimum accrual requirements of ERISA.

The Davis plaintiffs seek to obtain injunctive and other
equitable relief (including money damages awarded by the
creation of a common fund) on behalf of themselves and the
nationwide putative class consisting of "all individuals who
currently participate or who formerly participated in the
Pension Plan or its predecessor plans at any time after December
31, 1996, and their beneficiaries."

The Pension Plan has moved to dismiss the Davis action for
plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies and
failure to join necessary and indispensable parties.  

The Pension Plan also has moved to stay all proceedings in the
Davis action pending a determination by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation whether the Davis action will be
transferred to another court for consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

The suit is styled, "Davis, et al. v. Solutia, Inc. Employees'
Pension Plan, Case No. 3:05-cv-00736-DRH-PMF," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois under Judge
David R. Herndon with referral to Judge Philip M. Frazier.  
Representing the plaintiffs are, Matthew H. Armstrong and Jerome
J. Schlichter of Schlichter, Bogard, et al., Generally Admitted,
Phone: 314-621-6115 and 618-632-3329, Fax: 314-621-7151, E-mail:
marmstrong@uselaws.com and jschlichter@uselaws.com; and
Christopher F. Cueto of Law Office of Christopher Cueto, Ltd.,
Generally Admitted, 7110 West Main Street, Belleville, IL 62223,
Phone: 618-277-1554, E-mail: ccueto@cuetolaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, Thomas P. Berra, Jr., Robert J.
Golterman, Neal F. Perryman and Theresa A. Phelps of Lewis,
Rice, et al., 500 North Broadway, Suite 2000, St. Louis, MO
63102-2147, Phone: 314-444-7600, E-mail: tberra@lewisrice.com,
rgolterman@lewisrice.com, Nperryman@lewisrice.com and
tphelps@lewisrice.com.


SOLUTIA INC: Pension Plan Participants File ERISA Suits in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Solutia, Inc. Employees' Pension Plan (the Pension Plan) is a
defendant in two other purported class actions in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois all alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA).

On November 22, 2005, two participants in the Solutia, Inc.
Employees' Pension Plan (Pension Plan) commenced an action
captioned, "Scharringhausen, et al. v. Solutia, Inc. Employees'
Pension Plan, et al., Case No. 4:05-CV-02210-HEA," in U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

None of the Company and its 14 subsidiaries, and except for the
Solutia Inc. Employee Benefits Plan Committee, no individual or
entity other than the Pension Plan, was named as a defendant in
the litigation.

The Scharringhausen plaintiffs allege that the Pension Plan
violates the same statutory provisions in the same manner as
alleged by plaintiffs in the action, "Davis, et al. v. Solutia,
Inc. Employees' Pension Plan, Case No. 3:05-CV-736-MJR," (Davis
Action).  

It seeks the same monetary, injunctive and equitable relief as
is sought in the Davis Action on behalf of themselves and a
nationwide putative class consisting of "all individuals,
excluding defendants, that have participated in the Solutia
Employees' Pension Plan or its predecessor plan at any time on
or after January 1, 1997 . . ., whose accrued or pension
benefits are based, in whole or in part, on the Pension Plan's
cash balance formula, and their beneficiaries."

The Pension Plan has moved to dismiss the Scharringhausen action
for plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies and
failure to join necessary and indispensable parties.

On December 27, 2005, the Scharringhausen plaintiffs filed a
motion captioned, "In re Solutia Inc. Retiree Benefits `ERISA'
Litigation, Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation," with
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation asking the Panel
to transfer the Davis action from the Southern District of
Illinois to the Eastern District of Missouri and to consolidate
the Davis Action with the Scharringhausen action for all
pretrial purposes.

The Pension Plan believes that the Davis and Scharringhausen
actions can be more efficiently handled if they are consolidated
in the Eastern District of Missouri.

Accordingly, it filed a joinder in the transfer motion.  But, on
January 24, 2006, the plaintiffs in Scharringhausen filed the
"Plaintiffs' Notice of the Voluntary Dismissal of the
Scharringhausen Case Pending in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri Which Moots Defendants
Motion to Stay All Proceedings [Doc. 38]".

On February 2, 2006, the Scharringhausen plaintiffs,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, re-
filed their complaint in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois, the same court in which the
Davis case is pending.

On February 15, 2006, one additional participant in the Pension
Plan commenced an action captioned, "Juanita Hammond, et al. v.
Solutia, Inc. Employees' Pension Plan, Case No. 06-139-DEH," in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
None of the Company and its 14 subsidiaries was named as a
defendant in the litigation.

The Hammond plaintiff alleges that the Pension Plan violates the
same statutory provisions in the same manner as alleged by
plaintiffs in the Davis action and seeks the same monetary,
injunctive and equitable relief as is sought in the Davis action
on behalf of herself and a nationwide putative class consisting
of all similarly situated current and former participants in the
Pension Plan for whose pension benefits the Pension Plan is
responsible.


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Appeals Certification of Fla. Consumer Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Automotive, Inc. appealed the Circuit Court of
Hillsborough County, Florida's ruling granting class
certification to the consumer fraud suit filed against it,
styled, "Galura, et al. v. Sonic Automotive, Inc."

In this action, originally filed on December 30, 2002, the
plaintiffs allege that the Company and its Florida dealerships
sold an antitheft protection product in a deceptive or otherwise
illegal manner, and further sought representation on behalf of
any customer of any of the Company's Florida dealerships who
purchased the antitheft protection product since December 30,
1998.  The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and
injunctive relief on behalf of this class of customers.

In June 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
certification of the requested class of customers, but the court
has made no finding to date regarding actual liability in this
lawsuit.  On July 1, 2005, the Company filed a notice of appeal
of the court's class certification ruling with the Florida Court
of Appeals.


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Reaches Settlement for Tex. Inventory Tax Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several of Sonic Automotive, Inc.'s Texas subsidiaries reached a
settlement for the three class actions filed against the Texas
Automobile Dealers Association (TADA) and new vehicle
dealerships in Texas that are members of the TADA, including the
Company's subsidiaries.

Approximately 630 Texas dealerships are named as defendants in
two of the actions, and approximately 700 dealerships are named
as defendants in the other action.  The three actions allege
that since 1994, Texas automobile dealerships have deceived
customers with respect to a vehicle inventory tax and violated
federal antitrust and other laws.  

In April 2002, in two actions, the Texas state court certified
two classes of consumers on whose behalf the actions would
proceed.  

The Texas Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the trial
court's order of class certification in the state actions, and
the Texas Supreme Court issued an order for the second time in
September 2004 stating that it would not hear the merits of the
defendants' appeal on class certification.  

The federal trial court conditionally certified a class of
consumers in the federal antitrust case, but on appeal by the
defendant dealerships, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit reversed the certification of the plaintiff class in
October 2004 and remanded the case back to the federal trial
court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the Fifth
Circuit's ruling.  The plaintiffs appealed this ruling by the
Fifth Circuit.

In June 2005, the Company's Texas dealerships and several other
dealership defendants entered into a settlement agreement with
the plaintiffs in both the state and the federal cases that
would settle each of the cases on behalf of the Texas
dealerships.  

The settlements are contingent upon court approval, and the
court has not yet scheduled a date for a hearing on that
approval.  Under the terms of the settlements, the Company's
Texas dealerships would continue to itemize and pass through to
the customer the cost of the inventory tax.


SONICWALL INC: IPO Settlement Hearing Set for April 24, 2006
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
set an April 24, 2006 fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement of a securities class action against SonicWALL, Inc.
in relation to its initial public offering (IPO) in November
1999 and its follow-on offering in March 2000.

On December 5, 2001, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company, three of its officers and
directors, and certain of the underwriters in the Company's
initial public offering in November 1999 and its follow-on
offering in March 2000.

Similar complaints were filed in the same court against numerous
public companies that conducted IPOs of their common stock since
the mid-1990s.  All of these lawsuits were consolidated for
pretrial purposes before Judge Shira Scheindlin.

On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  The
amended complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks damages
or rescission for misrepresentations or omissions in the
prospectuses relating to, among other things, the alleged
receipt of excessive and undisclosed commissions by the
underwriters in connection with the allocation of shares of
common stock in the Company's public offerings.

On July 15, 2002, the issuers filed an omnibus motion to dismiss
for failure to comply with applicable pleading standards.  On
October 8, 2002, the Court entered an Order of Dismissal as to
all of the individual defendants in the SonicWALL IPO
litigation, without prejudice.

On February 19, 2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the
Company's claims.  A tentative agreement has been reached with
plaintiff's counsel and the insurers for the settlement and
release of claims against the issuer defendants, including the
Company, in exchange for a guaranteed recovery to be paid by the
issuer defendants' insurance carriers and an assignment of
certain claims.

Papers formalizing the settlement among the plaintiffs, issuer
defendants, including the Company, and insurers were presented
to the Court on September 14, 2004.  The settlement is subject
to a number of conditions, including approval of the proposed
settling parties and the Court.

On July 14, 2004, underwriter defendants filed with the Court a
memorandum in opposition to plaintiff's motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement with defendant issuers and
individuals.  Plaintiffs and issuers subsequently filed papers
with the Court in further support of the settlement and
addressing issues raised in the underwriter's opposition.

On February 15, 2005 the Court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement, subject to the parties fulfilling certain
conditions.  To address the concerns raised by the Court, the
parties submitted revised settlement documents that contained a
more limited "bar order" that would not preclude claims by the
underwriters for indemnification for an issuer pursuant to the
IPO underwriting agreement.

On August 31, 2005, the Court entered an order confirming its
preliminary approval of the settlement.  The Court has scheduled
a hearing on the fairness of the settlement to the shareholder
class for April 24, 2006.


STAMINA PRODUCTS: Serious Injuries Prompt Recall of Trampolines
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Stamina Products Inc., of Springfield, Missouri, is recalling
668,000 InMotion trampolines.

The Company said that if a person assembles the trampoline alone
and the outside rail is released momentarily, the trampoline can
snap back into the folded position and strike the consumer,
posing a risk of serious injury.

Stamina has received 13 reports of injuries including two
concussions; a rotated disc; two reports of facial bone
fractures; six injuries requiring stitches to the forehead,
eyebrow, lip and/or chin; a corneal abrasion; and two reports of
chipped teeth.

The round, black mini-trampoline measures 36 inches across and
has six 7 1/2-inch long metal legs.  The mini-trampoline is used
for in-place jogging and other cardiovascular exercises.  Most
mini-trampolines that have model numbers containing 35-1625 are
included in the recall.  Model 35-1625C and 35-1625CW units are
not included in the recall.  The model number along with the
customer service and serial numbers are stamped on a black and
white label on one of the legs containing the name "Stamina."

The trampolines were made in China and sold at: Wal-Mart, Play
It Again Sports, and various other retail outlets nationwide and
online sellers, including Wal-Mart.com, from August 2000 through
March 2006 for about $20.

Consumers are advised not to assemble or disassemble these mini-
trampolines until they have the revised assembly instructions.  
Consumers should contact Stamina immediately for new assembly
instructions.

Picture of the recalled trampolines:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06133.jpg

Consumer Contact: Stamina Phone: (800) 375-7520 between 7:30
a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Thursday, between 8:00 a.m.
and 3 p.m. CT on Fridays; On the Net:
http://www.staminaproducts.com.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Cracks Found in Gel Delivery Systems
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Food and Drug Administration is advising patients with
epilepsy and their care givers of a potential hazard caused by
cracks in the applicator tips of Diastat AcuDial (diazepam
rectal gel) delivery systems.  

These cracks can result in the leakage of gel during its
application, which could result in the patient not getting
enough of the medicine to control seizures.  Caregivers for
these patients are advised to call their local emergency
response center or 911 for help in any seizure emergency.

Diastat AcuDial pre-filled syringes are designed to deliver
diazepam gel rectally in patients with acute repetitive
seizures, a condition that, if inadequately treated, can
progress to a life-threatening condition in which seizures are
continuous.  The drug is typically administered by family
members or caregivers at home.

"FDA is working with the manufacturer to resolve this issue as
quickly as possible, as this is the only product approved to
treat patients with this condition at home," said Dr. Steven K.
Galson, Director of FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research (CDER).  "However, with routine inspection of the
product, patients will be able to get the correct dosage
administered for treatment."

The Company said patients and their caregivers should
immediately and carefully examine their Diastat AcuDial pre-
filled syringes for cracks in the applicator tip, which can be
easily seen.  These inspections should be performed at least
once a month.  It is very important that the cap not be removed
during inspection.  

For detailed directions on how to look for cracks on the
applicator tip without removing the cap: http://www.diastat.com.  
If you do not have Internet access, or if you would like more
advice regarding the inspection, call Valeant Pharmaceuticals at
1-877-361-2719.

Syringes with cracks should be returned to the pharmacist and
exchanged for new ones at no cost.  There have been more than
100 reports of cracked applicator tips in the 10mg and 20mg
syringes.  The frequency of cracks has varied, but as many as
six percent of syringes in some lots have shown cracks.

The manufacturer, Valeant Pharmaceuticals of Costa Mesa,
California, has sent letters to pharmacists asking them to
inspect the product prior to dispensing, and inform patients
about the need to routinely inspect the syringes.  The
manufacturer has sent similar letters to physicians who treat
patients with epilepsy.

The manufacturer believes that it has identified the source of
the defects, but its new version of this product will not reach
the market until June or July.  Until then, current syringes
will continue to be sold because there are no other available
treatments for this condition that can be administered at home.


VIACOM INC: Continues to Face ERISA Fraud Complaint in S.D. N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Viacom, Inc. is a defendant a putative collective class action
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which
is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

On November 16, 2005, Katherine Corthon filed a complaint on
behalf of all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries
of the Blockbuster Investment Plan whose accounts included
investments in Blockbuster, Inc. stock, at any time, since
November 15, 2003.

Plaintiff has filed her claim against the Company, the Viacom
Retirement Committee, Keith M. Holtz, Barbara Mickowski, Dan
Satterthwaite, Phillip P. Dauman, Sumner M. Redstone, Richard
Bressler, Michael D. Fricklas, John L. Muething, Linda Griego,
Jackie M. Clegg, John F. Antioco, Peter A. Bassi, Robert A.
Bowman, Gary J. Fernandes, Mel Karmazin and unnamed "John Doe"
members of the Viacom and Blockbuster Retirement Committees.

The suit claims that the above-named defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA.  Plaintiff seeks
declaratory relief, recovery of actual damages, court costs,
attorney's fees, a constructive trust, restoration of lost
profits to the Blockbuster Investment Plan and an injunction.

The suit is styled, "Corthon v. Viacom, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-09685-DLC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Denise L. Cote.  
Representing the plaintiffs are, Olimpio Lee Squitieri of
Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, 32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor, New
York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 421-6492, Fax: (212)-421-6553, E-
mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, Michael Allen Birrer, David
Steven Coale and Peggy Glenn-Summitt of Carrington, Coleman,
Sloman & Blumenthal, L.L.P., 200 Crescent Court, Suite 1500,
Dallas, TX 75201, Phone: (214) 855-3113, (214) 855-3000 and
(214) 855-3072, Fax: (214) 855-1333, E-mail: mbirrer@ccsb.com
and psummitt@ccsb.com; and Brian Howard Polovoy of Shearman &
Sterling, LLP, (New York), 599 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY
10022, Phone: (212) 848-4000, Fax: (212) 848-7179, E-mail:
bpolovoy@shearman.com.


WARBURG PINCUS: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set April 24, 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona will hold a
fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the matter:
"Hanley v. Warburg Pincus Cap, et al., Case No. 4:96-cv-00390-
FRZ."  The case was brought on behalf of all persons who
tendered their warrants to acquire Magma Cooper Company common
stock at an exercise price of $8.50, expiration November 30,
1995 self-tender at $8.25 per warrant.

The hearing will be held on April 24, 2006, at 10:00 a.m.,
before the Honorable Frank R. Zapata, at the U.S. Courthouse,
405 West Congress St., Courtroom 5A, Tucson, Arizona 85701.

Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is on December 31,
2006.  

For more details, contact Magma Cooper Warrants Securities
Litigation, c/o RSM McGladrey, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O.
Box 1387, Blue Bell, PA 19422, Phone: (800) 222-2760; and Jay W.
Eng and Wendy H. Zoberman of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt
& Pucillo, Esperante Bldg., 222 Lakeview Ave., Ste. 900, West
Palm Beach, FL 33401, Phone: 561-835-9400, Fax: 561-835-0322, E-
mail: jeng@bermanesq.com and wzoberman@bermanesq.com.


WILLIAM LYON: Settles Del. Lawsuit, Another Pending in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
General William Lyon, owner of William Lyon Homes, has a pending
class action filed in California.  The information emerged as
the Company said that:

     -- it reached an agreement in principle, subject to court
        approval, to settle certain class actions that have been
        filed in Delaware on behalf of William Lyon Homes'   
        stockholders; and

     -- Mr. Lyon will amend his tender offer for all the
        outstanding shares of William Lyon Homes common stock
        not already owned by him by increasing the offer price
        to $100.00 per share.

Five purported class actions were filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County,
purportedly on behalf of the public stockholders of the Company,
challenging a proposal by Mr. Lyon to acquire the outstanding
publicly held minority interest in William Lyon Homes' common
stock for $82 per share in cash as well as related actions of
the Company and its directors (Class Action Reporter, .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On May 26, 2005, the California Complaints were consolidated
into a single case entitled, "In re: William Lyon Homes, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 05-CC-00092."  On July 8, 2005,
plaintiffs in the Consolidated California Action dismissed that
lawsuit without prejudice.




                   New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICA SERVICE: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Lawsuit in Tenn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC (KGS) initiated a securities class
action in thein the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of America
Service Group, Inc. between September 24, 2003 and March 16,
2006.  No class has yet been certified in this action.

The complaint alleges that ASGRE and certain of its officers and
directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements.

In particular, ASGRE failed to disclose that the values of its
net income, retained earnings and reserves were materially
overstated.  After the market closed on March 15, 2006, ASGRE
announced it would restate earnings for 2001 through 2004 and
for the first six months of 2005.

In response to this news, the price of ASGRE shares fell almost
29% to close at $13.95 per share.

For more details, contact Lewis Kahn of KGS, Phone: 1-866-467-
1400, ext. 100 and 504-301-7900, E-mail: lewis.kahn@kglg.com.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Pomerantz Haudek Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, would like to
remind investors who purchased the common stock of Micron
Technology Inc. during the period February 24, 2001 to February
13, 2003, inclusive (the Class Period), that the deadline to ask
the court for appointment as lead plaintiff is April 26, 2006.

Pomerantz filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Idaho (1:06-cv-00105-EJL),
against the Company and certain of its officers on March 10,
2006.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of The Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.  The complaint alleges
that during the class period, Micron, along with others in the
industry, engaged in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate
competition by fixing the prices of Dynamic Random Access Memory
(DRAM).

DRAM is the most commonly used semiconductor memory product used
in personal computers.  Micron and other manufacturers conspired
to raise the price of DRAM sold to certain original equipment
manufacturers of personal computers and servers.

In June of 2002, Micron received a subpoena from the Antitrust
Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) related to an
industry-wide investigation into alleged anti-competitive
practices among DRAM manufacturers.  At the time, Micron's
management refuted any wrongdoing.

In September 2004, Infineon, Micron's competitor, pled guilty to
participating in a criminal conspiracy from July 1, 1999 to June
15, 2002. In November 2004, Micron finally admitted that the
DOJ's investigation revealed evidence of price fixing by Micron
employees.

The complaint further alleges that defendants' issued a series
of false and misleading statements to the market, artificially
inflating the Company's stock. More specifically, the Defendants
failed to disclose the following materially adverse facts to the
market:

     (1) that Micron engaged in illegal anti-competitive
         behavior to suppress and eliminate competition by
         fixing the prices of DRAM;

     (2) that Micron's financial results throughout the Class
         Period were materially inflated as a direct result of
         the price-fixing conspiracy due to the Company's
         illegal behavior of price-fixing; and

     (3) that the Company's financial projections during the
         class period lacked a reasonable basis because they
         were issued while the Company involved itself in an
         illegal price-fixing scheme.

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


NATURES SUNSHINE: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in Utah
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of GMH Communities Trust (NYSE:GCT)
between October 28, 2004 and March 10, 2006, inclusive, (the
Class Period).  The lawsuit was filed against GMH and certain
officers and directors (Defendants).

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The complaint alleges that Defendants
disseminated false and misleading statements in order to inflate
earnings, issue dividends, and complete a secondary offering in
October 2005.

The complaint also alleges that in particular, unknown to
investors, the Company's good financial results were the result
of accounting fraud.

In completing its year-end closing of its 2005 financial
statements, GMH's Chief Financial Officer wrote to the Audit
Committee of the board indicating certain problems including the
"tone at the top" from the Company's executive management.

The Audit Committee launched an investigation and found, among
other things, that the Company had material weaknesses in
internal controls, and that pressure was exerted by key
executives on the accounting function and the need for
adjustments in the Company's financial statements for current
and prior periods.

Shares of GMH reacted negatively to the news. The shares traded
23% lower from the close of $16.83 on March 10, 2006 to reach
$12.90 by the close on March 13.

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.  


GMH COMMUNITIES: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Suit in E.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC (KGS) initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of shareholders who
purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of
GMH Communities Trust between October 28, 2004 and March 10,
2006.  No class has yet been certified in this action.

The complaint alleges that GCT and certain of its officers and
directors issued a series of materially false and misleading
statements in order to inflate earnings, issue dividends, and
complete a secondary offering.

Specifically, in completing its year-end closing of its 2005
financial statements, GCT's Chief Financial Officer wrote to the
Audit Committee of the board indicating certain problems
including the "tone at the top" from the Company's executive
management.

The Audit Committee launched an investigation and found, among
other things, that the Company had material weaknesses in
internal controls, that pressure was exerted by key executives
on the accounting function and that there was a need for
adjustments in the Company's financial statements for current
and prior periods.

On this news, shares fell 23% from the close of $16.83 on March
10, 2006 to reach $12.90 by the close on March 13.

For more details, contact Lewis Kahn of KGS, Phone: 1-866-467-
1400, ext. 100 and 504-301-7900, E-mail: lewis.kahn@kglg.com.


NATURES SUNSHINE: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in Utah
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Utah, on behalf
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
securities of Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc. (NASDAQ:NATRE)
between October 19, 2004 and March 24, 2006, inclusive, (the
Class Period).  The lawsuit was filed against Nature's Sunshine
and certain officers and directors (Defendants).

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's results.

On February 17, 2006, The Company issued a press release in
which it had expanded its previously announced review of
selected financial information concerning certain foreign
operations and that it had received a notice from NASDAQ
indicating that it could be delisted.

On March 20, 2006, the Company indicated in a SEC Form 8-K that
its previous financial statements should not be relied upon and
that it had expanded the scope of its investigation to include
other matters predating 2005.

On March 24, 2006, the Company announced it received a non-
compliance notice from NASDAQ due to its failure to file an SEC
Form 10-K in a timely manner. In reaction to this news, shares
of Nature's Sunshine fell to $11.68 per share.

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


PHH CORP: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly
traded securities of PHH Corporation (NYSE: PHH) between May 12,
2005 to March 1, 2006, inclusive (the Class Period).

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

     (1) that PHH materially overstated its deferred tax assets,
         by tens of millions of dollars;

     (2) that the Company's reported net income was materially
         overstated;

     (3) that the Company's internal controls over financial
         reporting had material weaknesses, were not effective
         and adversely affected the Company's ability to record,
         process, summarize and report financial data: and

     (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's reported
         results were materially inflated.

On March 1, 2006, PHH issued a press release revealing that the
Company's reported results were materially overstated, for the
reasons discussed above, and that an ongoing accounting review
would prevent it from timely filing with the SEC its annual
report on Form 10-K. The Company also announced that it had
replaced its Chief Financial Officer. On this news, the price of
PHH common stock dropped from $28.73 per share on March 1, 2006
to $26 per share on March 2, 2006.

For more details, contact of Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull
& Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 1-800-
337-4983, Fax: 212-490-2022, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com, Web site:
http://www.ssbny.com.  


PROQUEST CO: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Mich.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, initiated a class action suit in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan against ProQuest Company (NYSE: PQE) and certain of its
officers and directors, on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased the publicly traded common stock of ProQuest between
February 13, 2003 and February 8, 2006 (the Class Period).

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by publicly issuing a series of false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and financial
prospects, thus causing ProQuest's shares to trade at
artificially inflated prices.

In particular, the complaint alleges that on February 9, 2006,
prior to the market opening, the Company issued a press release
titled "ProQuest Company to Restate Historical Financial
Statements."  The press release stated in part that "during a
review related to its internal controls assessment required by
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Company discovered material
irregularities in its accounting.

As a result, the Company intends to restate certain of its
previously issued financial statements . . . Based upon its
initial findings, the Company believes that its deferred income
and accrued royalty accounts are materially understated in
previously issued financial statements.  

The Company also believes that its prepaid royalty account is
materially overstated.  It anticipates that as a result it will
be required to recognize amounts of royalty and other expenses
as well as reduce a portion of revenues previously reported for
its Information and Learning business, the effect of which will
materially reduce earnings from continuing operations for many
of the affected periods."

The complaint alleges that the facts, known by the defendants
but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period,
were that the Company's financial statements:

     (1) were materially misstated due to its failure to
         properly defer income and royalty payments and its
         improper capitalization of royalty expenses; and

     (2) were not prepared in accordance with generally accepted
         accounting principles (GAAP).

Following the Company's disclosures on February 9, 2006,
ProQuest's stock declined from $29.41 per share to close at
$24.19 per share, a decline of $5.22 per share or approximately
18%, on heavier than usual volume.

For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox, Joel B. Strauss,
Donald R. Hall, Jeffrey P. Campisi and Laurence D. King of
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, Phone: (800) 290-1952, (212) 687-
1980 and (415) 772-4700, Fax: (212) 687-7714 and 415-772-4707,
E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com, Web site: http://www.kaplanfox.com.


SAC CAPITAL: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey against SAC
Capital Management L.L.C.: Biovail Corporation (NYSE: BVF)
Common Stock.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.  The class period is
from June 5, 2003.

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


SEA CONTAINERS: Federman Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Sea Containers, Ltd. (NYSE: SCR.A).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.  The class period is
from March 15, 2004 through March 24, 2006.

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


TNS INC: Roy Jacobs Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. Va.
------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of TNS during the
period September 16, 2005 through October 20, 2005.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing false and incomplete financial
information.

For more details, contact Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. of Roy Jacobs &
Associates, Phone: (888) 884-4490, E-mail:
classattorney@pipeline.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  * * *