CAR_Public/060418.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, April 18, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 76

                            Headlines

AMERICA FIRST: Del. Court Dismissed Suit V. America First Merger
BEMIS CO: Faces Labelstock Lawsuits in State, Federal Courts
CHUBB CORP: Faces Several Lawsuits Over Contingent Commissions
CINCINNATI BELL: Continues to Face Securities Suit in S.D. Ohio
CINCINNATI BELL: Settlement Reached in ERISA Fraud Suit in Ohio

CINCINNATI BELL: Settlement Reached in Wireless Roaming Suits
COMMERCE BANCORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of N.J. Stock Suit
FREEPORT MCMORAN: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set April 20, 2006
HOSPIRA INC: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Ill.
INTERSECTIONS INC: Faces CROA, PS CSA Violations Lawsuit in Pa.

LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Calif. Judge Dismisses Securities Litigation
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Calif. Court Sets Complaint Filing Deadline
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: N.M. HMO Unit Faces Pharmacy Fees Complaint
MORTGAGEIT INC: Amended Overtime Wage Lawsuit Pending in S.D. NY
NUVASIVE INC: Continues to Face Suit Over UCLA's Donor Program

PACIFIC CAPITAL: Calif. Court Mulls Dismissal of RAL Fraud Suit
PACIFIC CAPITAL: Discovery Continues in Refund Transfer Suit
PACIFIC CAPITAL: N.Y. Court Mulls Nixing of RAL Agreement Suit
PNC FINANCIAL: Pa. Court Mulls Approval for Stock Suit Agreement
PNC FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated ERISA Suit in Pa.

SALESFORCE.COM: Continues to Face Calif. Consolidated Stock Suit
SEARS HOLDINGS: Continues to Face Ill. Suit Over SRAC 7% Notes
SEARS HOLDINGS: Awaits Dismissal Ruling in Ill. Over `04 Merger
SEARS HOLDINGS: Court Sets October Trial for Consolidated Suit
SEARS HOLDINGS: Faces Suit in N.D. Ill. Over 2004 Kmart Merger

SEARS HOLDINGS: Discovery Commences for ERISA Fraud Suit in Ill.
STOCK EXCHANGES: Antitrust Settlement Hearing Set May 1, 2006
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Tentative Settlement Reached in "Poblocki"
XCHANGE INC: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set May 1, 2006

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN SERVICE: Firm Investigates Claims in Tenn. Stock Suit
BAUSCH & LOMB: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
GMH COMMUNITIES: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Suit in Pa.
GMH COMMUNITIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in Utah

MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Wis. Securities Suit
NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in Utah
NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Suit in Ill.
PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Sarraf Gentile Lodges Securities Suit in Fla.
TNS INC: Kahn Gauthier Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. Va.


                            *********


AMERICA FIRST: Del. Court Dismissed Suit V. America First Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed with prejudice the
class action filed against America First Apartment Investors,
Inc. in connection with the merger of America First Real Estate
Investment Partners, L.P. (AFREZ) with and into the Company on
August 18, 2005.

On December 3, 2003, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery against AFREZ, along with its
general partner and Burlington Capital Group, LLC.

The plaintiffs asked to have the lawsuit certified as a class
action on behalf of all AFREZ Unit holders.  The lawsuit
alleged, among other things, that the defendants acted in
violation of their fiduciary duties to the Unit holders in
relation to the merger.


BEMIS CO: Faces Labelstock Lawsuits in State, Federal Courts
------------------------------------------------------------
Bemis Company, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary, Morgan
Adhesives Company, were named as defendants in several purported
class actions in both state and federal courts that are alleging
a conspiracy to fix prices within the self-adhesive labelstock
industry.

Six lawsuits purporting to represent a nationwide class of
labelstock purchasers were initially filed against the Company.  
On November 5, 2003, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation issued a decision consolidating all of the federal
class actions for pretrial purposes in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, before the Honorable
Chief Judge Vanaskie.  

Judge Vanaskie entered an order, which called for discovery to
be taken on the issues relating to class certification and
briefing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification to be
completed in December 2005.  At this time, a discovery cut-off
and a trial date have not been set.  

The Company was also named in three lawsuits filed in the
California Superior Court in San Francisco.  These three
lawsuits, which were consolidated, seek to represent a class of
all California indirect purchasers of labelstock and each
alleged a conspiracy to fix prices within the self-adhesive
labelstock industry.  

Finally, the Company was also named in one lawsuit in Vermont
seeking to represent a class of all Vermont indirect purchasers
of labelstock, one lawsuit in Nebraska seeking to represent a
class of all Nebraska indirect purchasers of labelstock, one
lawsuit in Kansas seeking to represent a class of all Kansas
indirect purchasers of labelstock, and one lawsuit in Tennessee
seeking to represent a class of purchasers of labelstock in
various jurisdictions, all alleging a conspiracy to fix prices
within the self-adhesive labelstock industry.  


CHUBB CORP: Faces Several Lawsuits Over Contingent Commissions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chubb Corp. is a defendant in purported class actions arising
out of the investigations into market practices in the property
and casualty insurance industry involving the payment of
contingent commissions to brokers and agents, which were filed
in a number of state and federal courts.

On August 1, 2005, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries
were named in a putative class action entitled, "In re Insurance
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:05-cv-01168-FSH,"
which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

This action, brought against several brokers and insurers on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased insurance through the
broker defendants, asserts claims under the Sherman Act and
state law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO) arising from the unlawful use of contingent
commission agreements.  The complaint seeks treble damages,
injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees.  

The Company was also named in two purported class actions in
state court relating to allegations of unlawful use of
contingent commission arrangements.  The first was filed on
February 16, 2005 in Seminole County, Florida.  The second was
filed on May 17, 2005 in Essex County, Massachusetts.

In October 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(JPMDL) issued an order transferring the Florida case to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for
consolidation with the "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation."  

On the same month, the JPMDL issued a Conditional Transfer Order
conditionally transferring the Massachusetts case to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey for consolidation
with the "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation."

The plaintiff and one of the Company's unaffiliated co-
defendants filed motions to vacate the Conditional Transfer
Order.  Those motions have not yet been decided.

In December 2005, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries
were named in an action similar to the "In re Insurance
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation."  The action is pending in the
same court and has been assigned to the judge who is presiding
over the "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation."

The complaint has not yet been served in this matter.  In these
actions, the plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants
unlawfully used contingent commission agreements.  The actions
seek unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.


CINCINNATI BELL: Continues to Face Securities Suit in S.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati Bell, Inc. continues to face a consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, on behalf of purchasers
of the securities of the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary,
BRCOM Inc. (f/k/a Broadwing Communications Inc.) between January
17, 2001 and May 20, 2002, inclusive.

Between October and December 2002, five virtually identical
class action lawsuits were filed against Broadwing and two of
its former Chief Executive Officers, alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 by, inter alia, improperly recognizing revenue associated
with Indefeasible Right of Use (IRU) agreements; and failing to
write-down goodwill associated with the Company's 1999
acquisition of IXC Communications, Inc. The plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's fees, and expert
expenses.

On December 30, 2002, the "Local 144 Group" filed a motion
seeking consolidation of the complaints and appointment as lead
plaintiff.  By order dated October 29, 2003, Local 144 Nursing
Home Pension Fund, Paul J. Brunner and Joseph Lask were named
lead plaintiffs in a putative consolidated class action.  

On December 1, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed their amended
consolidated complaint on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities between January 17, 2001 and May 21, 2002, inclusive.
This amended complaint contained a number of new allegations.  

The Company was added as a defendant in this amended filing. The
Company's motion to dismiss was filed on February 6, 2004.
Plaintiffs filed their opposition on April 14, 2004 and the
Company filed its reply on June 1, 2004.   

On September 24, 2004, Judge Walter Rice issued an Order
granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to
dismiss.  The Order indicates that a more detailed opinion will
follow.  

The suit is styled "In re Broadwing, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:02-cv-00795-WHR," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Walter H Rice.    
Representing the plaintiffs are William Kendall Flynn and
Richard Stuart Wayne, Strauss & Troy - 1, The Federal Reserve
Building, 150 E Fourth Street, 4th Floor, Cincinnati, OH 45202-
4018, Phone: 513-621-2120, Fax: 513-621-2120, E-mail:
wkflynn@strausstroy.com or rswayne@strausstroy.com; and Paul
David Young, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212-594-
5300, Fax: 212-868-1229, E-mail: pyoung@milberg.com.

Representing the Company are Peter J Beshar of Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166, Phone: 212-
351-4084, E-mail: pbeshar@gibsondunn.com; and Grant Spencer
Cowan, Frost Brown Todd LLC - 1, 2200 PNC Center, 201 E 5th
Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202-4182, Phone: 513-651-6800, Fax:
513-651-6745, E-mail: gcowan@fbtlaw.com.


CINCINNATI BELL: Settlement Reached in ERISA Fraud Suit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati Bell, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
class action in the U.S District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio, Western Division, styled, "In re Broadwing Inc. ERISA
Class Action Lawsuits, (Kurtz v. Broadwing Inc., et al.), Case
No. C-1-02-857."

Between November 18, 2002 and March 17, 2003, five putative
class action lawsuits were filed against the Company's wholly
owned subsidiary: Broadwing Inc., and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.  Fidelity Management Investment
Trust Company was also named as a defendant in these actions.

These cases, which purport to be brought on behalf of the
Cincinnati Bell Inc. Savings and Security Plan, the Broadwing
Retirement Savings Plan, and a class of participants in the
Plans, generally allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA) by improperly encouraging the Plan
participant-plaintiffs to elect to invest in the Company stock
fund within the relevant Plan and by improperly continuing to
make employer contributions to the Company stock fund within the
relevant Plan.

On October 22, 2003, a putative consolidated class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.  The Company filed its motion to dismiss on
February 6, 2004.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition on April 2,
2004 and the Company filed its reply by May 17, 2004.

On October 6, 2004, the Judge issued a Scheduling Order in these
matters.  According to the Scheduling Order, discovery was
permitted to commence immediately and was to have been completed
by November 15, 2005.  The trial was tentatively scheduled to
take place in May 2006.

On February 22, 2006, the Company entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement of ERISA Actions (the Agreement)
providing for the settlement of the consolidated case with no
finding or admission of any wrongdoing by any of the defendants
in the lawsuit.

Under the Agreement, defendants are obligated to pay $11
million, which payment will be made on their behalf by their
insurers, to a fund to settle the claims of, and obtain a
release of all claims from, the class members.

On March 13, 2006, the Court issued an order giving preliminary
approval of the Agreement and scheduling a settlement fairness
hearing on June 22, 2006.  

The suit is styled, "In re Broadwing Inc. ERISA Class Action
Lawsuits, (Kurtz v. Broadwing Inc., et al.), Case No. C-1-02-
857," filed in U.S District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Western Division under Judge Michael H. Watson with
referral to Judge Timothy S. Hogan.  Representing the plaintiffs
are:

     (1) Willie Charles Briscoe of Provost Umphrey Law Firm,
         LLP, 3232 McKinney Avenue, Sutie 700, Dallas, TX 75204,
         Phone: 214-744-3000, Fax: 214-744-3015, E-mail:
         provost_dallas@yahoo.com;

     (2) David A. Futscher of Parry Deering Futscher & Sparks,
         PSC, 128 East Second Street, PO Box 2618, Covington, KY
         41012-2618, Phone: 859-291-9000, E-mail:
         dfutscher@pdfslaw.com; and

     (3) Ann Louise Lugbill, 2406 Auburn Avenue, Cincinnati, OH
         45219, Phone: 513-784-1280, E-mail:
         alugbill@choice.net.

Representing the defendants is Grant Spencer Cowan of Frost
Brown Todd, LLC, 2200 PNC Center, 201 E 5th Street, Cincinnati,
OH 45202-4182, Phone: 513-651-6800, Fax: 513-651-6745, E-mail:
gcowan@fbtlaw.com.


CINCINNATI BELL: Settlement Reached in Wireless Roaming Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati Bell, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries reached a
settlement for several Ohio state court suits regarding wireless
roaming.

During 2004, a class action complaint against Cincinnati Bell
Wireless Company and Cincinnati Bell Wireless, LLC was filed in
Hamilton County, Ohio.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff and similarly situated
customers were wrongfully assessed roaming charges for wireless
phone calls made or received within the Company's Home Service
Area and/or within major metropolitan areas on the AT&T Wireless
Network.

The complaint asserted several causes of action, including
negligent and/or intentional misrepresentation, breach of
contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, conversion and violation of
the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.  The plaintiff sought
economic and punitive damages on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated customers.

On January 31, 2005 and April 7, 2005, respectively,
substantially similar class action complaints were filed in
Kenton County, Kentucky and Montgomery County, Ohio.

During the second quarter of 2005, a tentative settlement
agreement was reached in the above-referenced cases.  On October
21, 2005, the court approved the settlement.

Under the settlement, the Company was to establish a fund capped
at $6 million from which customers who qualified and submitted a
claim would receive a voucher of up to $50.00 toward certain
Cincinnati Bell services.

Customers who could demonstrate that they had applicable roaming
charges in excess of $100.00 were eligible to be reimbursed for
up to half of such charges in lieu of the $50.00 voucher.  The
period for submitting proofs of claim ended on October 28, 2005.

One objector appealed the order approving the settlement, but
the appeal was subsequently settled and dismissed.  As a result,
no roaming charge litigation remains pending.

The number of claims received was substantially below the above-
referenced cap and the settlement did not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.


COMMERCE BANCORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of N.J. Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey's dismissal of the consolidated securities class action
filed against Commerce Bancorp, Inc. and certain Company (or
subsidiary) current and former officers and directors.

During July and August 2004, six class action complaints were
filed, and later consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  

All class action complaints were later consolidated in New
Jersey.  As a result of the consolidation, a single consolidated
complaint has been filed.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated federal securities
laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's securities
during various periods.

On November 7, 2005, the consolidated class action compliant
against the Company and certain Company (or subsidiary) current
and former officers and directors was dismissed.  Plaintiffs
have appealed the dismissal to the Third U.S. Court of Appeals,
and that appeal is pending.

The suit is styled "Galati v. Commerce Bancorp, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:04-cv-03252-RBK-JBR," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden Division under
Judge Robert B. Kugler.  Representing the Company is Joseph J.
DePalma, Lite, Depalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC, Two Gateway
Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-5003, Phone: (973) 623-
3000, E-mail: jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com; and Olimpio Lee Squitieri,
Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, 26 South Maple Avenue, Suite 202,
Marlton, NJ 08053, Phone: (856) 797-4611, Fax: (856) 797-4612,
E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com.  

Representing the Company is J. Llewellyn Mathews of Blank Rome
LLP, Woodland Falls Corporate Park, 210 Lake Drive East, Suite
200, Cherry Hill, NJ 08002, Phone: (856) 779-3600, E-mail:
mathews@blankrome.com.


FREEPORT MCMORAN: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set April 20, 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County will hold a settlement hearing for the proposed
$17.5 million settlement in the matter, "In Re Freeport Mcmoran
Sulphur, Inc. Shareholder Litigation (Consolidated C.A. No.
16729-NC)."

The case was brought on behalf of all record holders and
beneficial owners of common stock of Freeport Mcmoran Sulphur,
Inc. between August 3, 1998 to and November 17, 1998, inclusive.

The hearing will be on April 20, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. at the Court
at the New Castle County Courthouse, 500 King Street,
Wilmington, Delaware.  Deadline for objecting or applying to be
heard in court is April 10, 2006.

For more information, contact the Freeport McMoRan Sulphur
Settlement, c/o Complete Claim Solutions, Inc., P.O. Box 24624,
West Palm Beach, FL 33416, (877) 741-1232; Web site:
http://www.completeclaimsolutions.com;or Class Counsel: Pamela  
S. Tikellis of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, One Rodney Square, P.O.
Box 1035, Wilmington, DE 19899, Phone: (302) 656-2500.


HOSPIRA INC: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc. is named as a defendant in a purported class
action alleging generally that the spin-off of the Company from
Abbott Laboratories adversely affected employee benefits in
violation of the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974
(ERISA).

The lawsuit was filed on November 8, 2004 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and is
captioned: "Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v.
Abbott Laboratories and Hospira, Inc."

On November 18, 2005, the complaint was amended to assert an
additional claim against Abbott and the Company for breach of
fiduciary duty under ERISA.  The Company has moved to dismiss
the new claim.

By Order dated December 30, 2005, the Court granted class action
status to the lawsuit.  The new claim in the amended complaint
is not subject to the class certification ruling.

As to the sole claim against the Company in the original
complaint, the court certified a class defined as: "all
employees of Abbott who were participants in the Abbott Benefit
Plans and whose employment with Abbott was terminated between
August 22, 2003 and April 30, 2004, as a result of the spin-off
of the HPD/creation of Hospira announced by Abbott on August 22,
2003, and who were eligible for retirement under the Abbott
Benefit Plans on the date of their terminations."  

The suit is styled "Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael
Loughery v. Abbott Laboratories and Hospira, Inc., Case No.
1:04-cv-07199," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Robert W. Gettleman.    
Representing the plaintiffs is Paul William Mollica of Meites,
Mulder, Burger & Mollica, 208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1410,
Chicago, IL 60604, Phone: (312) 263-0272.

Representing the Company is James F. Hurst, Winston & Strawn
LLP, 35 West Wacker Drive, 41st Floor, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone:
(312) 558-5230 or E-mail: jhurst@winston.com.


INTERSECTIONS INC: Faces CROA, PS CSA Violations Lawsuit in Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intersections, Inc., along with Credit Inform and Capital One
Services were named as defendants in a purported class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, captioned, "Mary Gay v. Credit Inform, Capital One
Services, Inc. and Intersections, Inc."

Filed on December 23, 2005, the action alleges that the Credit
Inform credit monitoring service marketed by Capital One and
provided by the Company violates certain procedural requirements
under the federal Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA) and the
Pennsylvania Credit Services Act (PA CSA).

Plaintiff contends that the Company and Capital One are "credit
repair organizations" under the CROA and "credit services
organizations" under the PA CSA.  

The suit seeks certification of a class on behalf of all
individuals who purchased such services from defendants within
the five-year period prior to the filing of the complaint.  It
also seeks an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees and
costs.

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's action.  
The Company itself denies any liability or wrongdoing, denies
that a class action is appropriate, and will vigorously defend
against all claims.

The suit is styled, "Mary Gay v. Credit Inform, et al., Case No.
2:05-cv-06729-JG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge James T. Giles.  
Representing the plaintiffs are, James a. Francis of Francis &
Mailman, PC, Land Title Building, 19TH Floor, 100 S. Broad
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19110, Phone: 215-735-8600, Fax: 215-
940-8000, E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com; and David A.
Searles of Donovan Searles, LLC, 1845 Walnut St., STE. 1100,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-732-6067, Fax: 215-732-8060,
E-mail: dsearles@donovansearles.com.

Representing the defendants are, David R. Fine of Kirkpatrick &
Lockhart, Nicholson, Graham, LLP, 17 North Second Street, 18TH
Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507, Phone: 717-231-4500, Fax: 717-
231-4501, E-mail: dfine@klng.com; and Mark A. Aronchick of
Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin, One Logan Sq., 27TH Fl.,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-568-6200, E-mail:
maronchick@hangley.com.


LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Calif. Judge Dismisses Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
dismissed with prejudice the securities class action complaint
filed against Leadis Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq: LDIS) and certain
of its current officers and directors.  

On March 2, 2005, a securities class action suit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company and certain of its officers and its
directors.  

The complaint alleges the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 by making allegedly false and
misleading statements in the Company's registration statement
and prospectus filed on June 16, 2004 for our initial public
offering.  

A similar additional action was filed on March 11, 2005.  On
April 20, 2005, the court consolidated the two actions.

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf
of a class of purchasers that acquired shares of our common
stock pursuant to our registration statement and prospectus.

The claims appear to be based on allegations that at the time of
the IPO demand for the Company's OLED (color organic light-
emitting diodes) products was already slowing due to competition
from one of its existing customers and that the Company failed
to disclose that it was not well positioned for continued
success as a result of such competition.

On October 28, 2005, the Company and other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  By Order dated March 1, 2006,
the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and a judgment
was entered in favor of the Company and all other defendants.
The matter remains subject to the possibility of appeal by the
plaintiffs.

The suit is styled, "Safron Capital Corporation v. Leadis
Technology, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00882-CRB," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
under Judge Charles R. Breyer.  Representing the plaintiffs is
Patrick J. Coughlin, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA
94111, Phone: 415/288-4545, Fax: 415-288-4534, E-mail:
patc@mwbhl.com.

Representing the defendants are Grant P. Fondo and Laura R.
Smith of Cooley Godward LLP, Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El
Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155, Phone: 650 843-5458, Fax:
650 857-0663, E-mail: gfondo@cooley.com or smithlr@cooley.com.


MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Calif. Court Sets Complaint Filing Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
set a March 16, 2006 deadline to file an Amended and Restated
Complaint in the consolidated class action styled, "William G.
Hunt v. Molina Healthcare Inc., et al., Case No. CV 05-5460 GPS
(SHx)."

Beginning on July 27, 2005, a series of securities class action
complaints were filed on behalf of persons who acquired the
Company's common stock between November 3, 2004 and July 20,
2005.  

The class action complaints purport to allege claims against
Molina Healthcare, Inc., J. Mario Molina, John C. Molina, and
other officers, directors, and employees for alleged violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of our
issuance and subsequent revision of earnings guidance for the
2005 fiscal year.

The class action complaints were consolidated into a single
consolidated action, Case No. CV 05-5460 GPS (SHx) (the Class
Action).

A lead plaintiff has been appointed in the Class Action, and the
deadline to file an Amended and Restated Complaint is March 14,
2006.  

The suit is styled, "William G. Hunt v. Molina Healthcare Inc.,
et al., Case No. CV 05-5460 GPS (SHx)," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge S. James Otero with referral to Judge Stephen J. Hillman.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Christopher Kim and Lisa J. Yang of Lim Ruger & Kim,
         1055 W. 7th St., Ste. 2800, Los Angeles, CA 90017,
         Phone: 213-955-9500, E-mail: lisa.yang@lrklawyers.com         
         and christopher.kim@lrklawyers.com;

     (2) Richard A. Maniskas and Marc A. Topaz of Schiffrin &
         Barroway, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087,
         Phone: 610-667-7706; and

     (3) Tricia L. McCormick of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman and Robbins, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San
         Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, E-mail:
         triciam@lerachlaw.com.


MOLINA HEALTHCARE: N.M. HMO Unit Faces Pharmacy Fees Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Molina Healthcare, Inc.'s New Mexico health management
organization (HMO) faces a class action lawsuit brought by New
Mexico pharmacies and pharmacists in the Second Judicial
District Court, State of New Mexico, styled "Starko, Inc., et
al. v. NMHSD, et al., No. CV-97-06599."

The lawsuit was originally filed in August 1997 against the New
Mexico Human Services Department (NMHSD).  In February 2001, the
plaintiffs named HMOs participating in the New Mexico Medicaid
program as defendants, including the predecessor of the New
Mexico HMO.

Plaintiff asserts that NMHSD and the HMOs failed to pay
pharmacy-dispensing fees under an alleged New Mexico statutory
mandate.  Discovery was recently commenced.

Under the terms of the stock purchase agreement pursuant to
which we acquired Health Care Horizons, Inc., the parent Company
to the New Mexico HMO, an indemnification escrow account was
established and funded with $6 million in order to indemnify our
New Mexico HMO against the costs of such litigation and any
eventual liability or settlement costs.  Currently,
approximately $4.5 million remains in the indemnification escrow
fund.


MORTGAGEIT INC: Amended Overtime Wage Lawsuit Pending in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
MortgageIT, Inc. continues to face an amended class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The suit also names as defendant IPI Skyscraper
Mortgage, which was, at the time, a subsidiary of, and has now
been merged with and into the Company.

On September 29, 2004, as amended on October 12, 2004, the case
was filed by four former loan officers of a Company branch in
Newburgh, New York, and seeks to recover allegedly unpaid
minimum wage and overtime under both federal and New York labor
laws.  

The case was filed as a putative class action; a motion for
certification of a class under New York law and for collective
action under federal law was filed on March 11, 2005.

The Company opposed the motion, which remains pending, and it is
vigorously asserting its defenses in this action.

The suit is styled "Lacon v. Mortgage It, Inc. et al, case no.
1:04-cv-07847-VM-GWG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Victor Marrero.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Dan Charles Getman, Law Office of
Dan Getman, 9 Paradies Lane, New Paltz, NY 12561 Phone: 845-255-
9370 Fax: 845-255-8649 E-mail: dgetman@getmanlaw.com.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Andrew G. Celli, Kathleen Rosenfield, Emery Celli
         Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP 545 Madison Avenue New York,
         NY 10022 Phone: 212-763-5000 Fax: 212-763-5001 E-mail:
         acelli@ecbalaw.com or krosenfeld@ecbalaw.com

     (2) Sally D. Garr and Alyssa T. Senzel, Patton Boggs LLP
         (DC) 2550 M Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20037 Phone:
         202 457 6525 Fax: 202-457-6315 E-mail:
         sgarr@pattonboggs.com or asenzel@pattonboggs.com


NUVASIVE INC: Continues to Face Suit Over UCLA's Donor Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
NuVasive, Inc., is a defendant in a consolidated class action in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles that was filed on behalf of a putative class of families
of decedents who donated their bodies to the University of
California in Los Angeles' (UCLA) medical school for research
and training purposes as part of UCLA's willed body program.

On April 11, 2005, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, entitled, "Beverly Holmes, Kenneth Pesso, Joanne
Streek, and Robert A. McDonough, on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated plaintiffs v. Regents of the University
of California, The David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA,
Ernest V. Nelson, Henry G. Reid, Johnson & Johnson, NuVasive,
Inc. and does 1-1,000," (Class Action Reporter, December 28,
2005).

The complaint alleges that the head of UCLA's donor program,
Henry G. Reid, and a third party, Ernest V. Nelson, improperly
sold some of the donated cadavers to the Company and other
defendants.  Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action
against all defendants:

     (1) breach of fiduciary duty,

     (2) negligence,

     (3) fraud,

     (4) negligent misrepresentation,

     (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress,

     (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress,

     (7) intentional interference with human remains,

     (8) negligent interference with human remains,

     (9) violation of California Business and Professions Code
         Section 17200 and

    (10) injunctive and declaratory relief.

On May 5, 2005, the case was deemed complex and ordered to the
courtroom of Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl along with other actions
filed by unaffiliated families of decedents who donated their
remains to UCLA through its willed body program, (Class Action
Reporter, December 28, 2005).

In addition, on June 23, 2005, the plaintiffs in a lawsuit
titled "Margaret Brown-Hurst, Linda C. James, Eric V. James, Jan
James, Dawn M. James and Emma James v. Regents of the University
of California; Henry Reid, Ernst V. Nelson and Albennie E.
Nelson, dba Empire Anatomical Services; Johnson & Johnson, a
corporation; Dupuy Mitek, Inc., a corporation, fka Mitek, Inc.,"
filed an amendment naming the Company as a Doe defendant, (Class
Action Reporter, December 28, 2005).

The lawsuit generally involves the same kinds of factual
allegations and legal theories as the other related lawsuits,
and was consolidated in Judge Kuhl's chambers, (Class Action
Reporter, December 28, 2005).

A status conference was held on July 13, 2005, at which time an
order was issued governing preliminary discovery, the adoption
of a Master Complaint for all related class action and
specifying a briefing schedule for the parties to file motions
challenging the Master Complaint, (Class Action Reporter,
December 28, 2005).  

Plaintiffs then filed a master complaint, as ordered.  The court
heard argument on the defendants' challenges to the plaintiffs'
complaint on November 17, 2005.  The parties have continued on a
briefing schedule for the defendants to challenge the
plaintiff's Master Complaint.  The court heard argument on the
defendants' challenges to the plaintiffs' complaint on December
5, 2005, (Class Action Reporter, December 28, 2005).


PACIFIC CAPITAL: Calif. Court Mulls Dismissal of RAL Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court in Santa Barbara, California has yet to rule
on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the class action
against Pacific Capital Bancorp on behalf of persons who entered
into a refund anticipation loan application and agreement (the
RAL Agreement) with the Company from whose tax refund the
Company deducted a debt owed by the applicant to another RAL
lender.

The lawsuit was filed on March 18, 2003 in the Superior Court in
San Francisco, California as "Canieva Hood and Congress of
California Seniors v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, Pacific
Capital Bank, N.A., and Jackson-Hewitt, Inc."  

The Company is a party to a separate cross-collection agreement
with each of the other RAL lenders by which it agrees to collect
sums due to those other lenders on delinquent RALs by deducting
those sums from tax refunds due to its RAL customers and
remitting those funds to the RAL lender to whom the debt is
owed.  

This cross-collection procedure is disclosed in the RAL
Agreement with the RAL customer and is specifically authorized
and agreed to by the customer.  The suit was later moved to the
Santa Barbara Superior Court.

The plaintiff does not contest the validity of the debt, but
contends that the cross-collection is illegal and requests
damages on behalf of the class, injunctive relief against the
Company, restitution of sums collected, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees. The Company has filed an answer to the
complaint and has also filed a cross-complaint seeking indemnity
from the other RAL lenders for which the funds were cross-
collected.

The Company filed an answer to the complaint and a cross
complaint for indemnification against the other RAL lenders.  On
May 4, 2005, a superior court judge in Santa Barbara granted a
motion filed by the Company and the other RAL lenders, which
resulted in the entry of a judgment in favor of the Company
dismissing the suit.  The plaintiffs have filed an appeal.


PACIFIC CAPITAL: Discovery Continues in Refund Transfer Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Capital Bancorp continues to face a class action, on
behalf of persons who entered into a refund transfer application
and agreement (the RT Agreement) with the Company from whose tax
refund the Company deducted a debt owed by the applicant to
another refund anticipation loan (RAL) lender.

The suit was filed on May 13, 2003 in the Superior Court in San
Francisco, California as "Alana Clark, Judith Silverstine, and
David Shelton v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust."  

The cross-collection procedures mentioned in the description of
"Canieva Hood and Congress of California Seniors v. Santa
Barbara Bank & Trust, Pacific Capital Bank, N.A., and Jackson-
Hewitt, Inc.," is also disclosed in the RT Agreement with each
RT customer and is specifically authorized and agreed to by the
customers.  

The plaintiffs do not contest the validity of the debt, but
contend that the cross-collection is illegal and request damages
on behalf of the class, injunctive relief against the Company,
restitution of sums collected, punitive damages and attorneys'
fees.

The Company filed a motion for a change in venue from San
Francisco to Santa Barbara.  The plaintiffs' legal counsel
stipulated to the change in venue.

Thereafter, the plaintiffs dismissed the complaint without
prejudice.  The plaintiffs filed a new complaint in San
Francisco limited to a single cause of action alleging a
violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The Company filed an answer to the complaint and a cross
complaint for indemnification against the other RAL lenders.  
Discovery is continuing.


PACIFIC CAPITAL: N.Y. Court Mulls Nixing of RAL Agreement Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York
has yet to rule on Pacific Capital Bancorp's motion to dismiss
the amended class action filed against it on behalf of residents
of the State of New York who engaged Jackson Hewitt, Inc. (JHI)
to provide tax preparation services and who through JHI entered
into an agreement with the Company to receive a refund
anticipation loan (RAL).  JHI is also a defendant.

The lawsuit was filed on June 18, 2004, as "Myron Benton v.
Jackson Hewitt, Inc. and Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Co."   As
part of the RAL documentation, the customer receives and signs a
disclosure form which discloses that the Company may share a
portion of the federal refund processing fee and finance charge
with JHI.  

The plaintiffs allege that the failure of JHI and the Company to
disclose the specific amount of the fee, which JHI receives is
unlawful and request damages on behalf of the class, injunctive
relief, punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

Following the filing of a motion to dismiss the complaint by the
Company, the plaintiff has filed an amended complaint.  The
amended complaint has added three new causes of action:

     (1) a cause of action for an alleged violation of
         California Business and Professions Code Sections
         17200, and 17500, et seq, as a result of alleged
         deceptive business practices and false advertising;

     (2) a cause of action for an alleged violation of the
         California Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code
         Section 1750, et seq;

     (3) a cause of action for an alleged negligent
         misrepresentation.

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment.  The plaintiff
also filed a motion for partial summary judgment.

Following a court hearing on December 6, 2005, the judge took
the matter under submission.


PNC FINANCIAL: Pa. Court Mulls Approval for Stock Suit Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
held a fairness hearing on the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against PNC Financial Services
Group, Inc. on August 4,2005, but has yet to issue a ruling.

The settlement relates to certain lawsuits and other claims
related to three 2001 transactions (labeled the "PAGIC
transactions") that gave rise to a financial statement
restatement the Company announced on January 29, 2002 and that
were the subject of a July 2002 consent order between the
Company and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
and a June 2003 Deferred Prosecution Agreement between the
United States Department of Justice and PNC ICLC Corp., one of
its indirect non-bank subsidiaries.

The several putative class action complaints filed during 2002
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania arising out of the PAGIC transactions have been
consolidated in a consolidated class action complaint brought on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July
19, 2001 and July 18, 2002.  The consolidated class action
complaint names the Company, its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its Controller, and
its independent auditors for 2001 as defendants and seeks
unquantified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other
expenses.  The consolidated class action complaint alleges
violations of federal securities laws related to disclosures
regarding the PAGIC transactions and related matters.

In August 2002, the United States Department of Labor began a
formal investigation of the Administrative Committee of the
Company's Incentive Savings Plan ("Plan") in connection with the
Administrative Committee's conduct relating to the Company's
common stock held by the Plan. Both the Administrative Committee
and PNC are cooperating fully with the investigation.  

In June 2003, the Administrative Committee retained Independent
Fiduciary Services, Inc. (IFS) to serve as an independent
fiduciary charged with the exclusive authority and
responsibility to act on behalf of the Plan in connection with
the pending securities litigation referred to above and to
evaluate any legal rights the Plan might have against any
parties relating to the PAGIC transactions.  This authority
includes representing the Plan's interests in connection with
the Restitution Fund set up under the Deferred Prosecution
Agreement. The Department of Labor has communicated with IFS in
connection with the engagement.

On December 17, 2004, the Company entered into a tentative
settlement of the consolidated class action.  On March 25, 2005,
the parties filed a stipulation of settlement of this lawsuit
with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.  This settlement also covered claims by the
plaintiffs against AIG Financial Products and others related to
the PAGIC transactions.

The tentative settlement of the consolidated class action
remains subject to court approval.  The court held a hearing on
August 4, 2005 to determine whether to approve the proposed
settlement agreement of the consolidated class action.

The suit is styled "KETTERMAN v. PNC FINANCIAL, et al., case no.
2:05-cv-00629-DSC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania under Judge David S. Cercone.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Gregory G. Paul of Peirce Law
Offices, 707 Grant Street, 2500 Gulf Tower, Pittsburgh, PA
15219, Phone: (412) 281-7229, Fax: (412) 281-4229, E-mail:
gpaul@peircelaw.com.  

Representing the Company is Mark R. Hornak of Buchanan
Ingersoll, 301 Grant Street, One Oxford Centre, 20th Floor,
Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Phone: 412-562-8859, E-mail:
hornakmr@bipc.com.


PNC FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated ERISA Suit in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. asked the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to dismiss the
consolidated amended class action filed against it, which is
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA).  

On April 29, 2005, an amended complaint was filed in the
putative class action against PNC; PNC Bank, N.A.; our Pension
Plan and its Pension Committee in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (originally filed
in December 2004).  

The complaint alleges ERISA violations arising out of the
January 1, 1999 conversion of the Company's Pension Plan from a
traditional defined benefit formula into a "cash balance"
formula, the design and continued operation of the Plan, and
other related matters.

The suit seeks to represent a class of all current and former
employee-participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan as of
December 31, 1998 and thereafter.  

It also seeks to represent a subclass of all current and former
employee-participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan as of
December 31, 1998 and thereafter who were or would have become
eligible for an early retirement subsidy under the former Plan
at some time prior to the date of the amended complaint.  

Plaintiffs are seeking damages and equitable relief available
under ERISA, including interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The suit is styled "Register, et al. v. PNC Financial Services
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-06097-LDD," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
under Judge Legrome D. Davis.  Representing the plaintiffs is
Michael S. Tarringer, Miller Faucher and Caferty, LLP, One Logan
Sq., 18th and Cherry Streets, Ste 1700, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
Phone: 215-864-2800, E-mail: mtarringer@millerfaucher.com.  

Representing the Company is William A. Slaughter, Ballard Spahr
Andrews and Ingersoll, 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor,
Philadelphia PA 19103, Phone: 215-665-8500, E-mail:
slaughter@ballardspahr.com.


SALESFORCE.COM: Continues to Face Calif. Consolidated Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in the consolidated securities class action
filed against salesforce.com, inc., its chief executive officer
and its chief financial officer and styled "In re
salesforce.com, inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C-04-3009
JSW (N.D. Cal.)," filed a motion with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California seeking certification to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for limited
remand of the case.

On July 26, 2004, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, entitled, "Morrison v. salesforce.com, inc. et al.,"
against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief
Financial Officer.

The complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
1934 Act), purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased
salesforce.com common stock between June 21, 2004 and July 21,
2004, inclusive.

The claims were based upon allegations that defendants failed to
disclose an allegedly declining trend in its revenues and
earnings.  

Subsequently, four other substantially similar class action
complaints were filed in the same district based upon the same
facts and allegations, asserting claims under Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Section 11 and Section 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The actions were later consolidated under the caption, "In re
salesforce.com, inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C-04-3009
JSW (N.D. Cal.)."

On December 22, 2004, the Court appointed Chuo Zhu as lead
plaintiff.  On February 22, 2005, lead plaintiff filed a
Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint (the CAC).

The CAC alleged violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of
the 1934 Act, purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased
salesforce.com common stock between June 23, 2004 and July 21,
2004, inclusive.  

As in the original complaints, the claims in the CAC were based
upon allegations that defendants failed to disclose an allegedly
declining trend in its revenues and earnings.  On April 14,
2005, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the CAC.  On April
15, 2005, the Court granted lead plaintiff leave to file an
amended/superseding complaint.

On April 22, 2005, lead plaintiff filed a Corrected and
Superceding [sic] First Amended Class Action Complaint (FAC). As
in the CAC, the FAC alleged violations of Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act, purportedly on behalf of all
persons who purchased salesforce.com common stock between June
23, 2004 and July 21, 2004, inclusive.

The claims in the FAC were based upon allegations that
defendants failed to disclose an internal forecast that earnings
for fiscal year 2005 would decline from the prior fiscal year.

On April 29, 2005, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC.
On December 22, 2005, the court entered an order granting
defendants' motion to dismiss, with prejudice, and directing the
clerk to close the file.

On January 23, 2006, lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
file a motion for reconsideration, as well as a notice of appeal
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  

On January 26, 2006, the Ninth Circuit entered a time schedule
order for the appeal, requiring, inter alia, lead plaintiff to
file his opening brief on May 11, 2006, and defendants to file
their responsive brief on June 12, 2006.

On January 27, 2006, defendants filed a motion to strike as
untimely lead plaintiff's motion for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration.

On or about February 2, 2006, lead plaintiff filed a motion with
the Ninth Circuit requesting a stay of appellate proceedings
pending the district court's determination of lead plaintiff's
motion for leave and defendants' motion to strike.  Defendants
opposed that motion.

On February 9, 2006, the Ninth Circuit denied the lead
plaintiff's motion for a stay of appellate proceedings, without
prejudice to making a motion for limited remand.

On March 1, 2006, the district court denied the lead plaintiff's
motion for leave and defendants' motion to strike on grounds of
lack of jurisdiction.  Also on March 1, 2006, the lead plaintiff
filed a motion with the district court seeking certification to
the Ninth Circuit for limited remand.

The suit is styled, "In re salesforce.com, inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. C-04-3009 JSW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California under Judge
Jeffrey S. White.  Chuo Zho was appointed as lead plaintiff in
the suit.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Green & Jigarjian LLP (proposed liaison counsel), 235
         Pine Street, 15th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94104,
         Phone: 415.477.6700, Fax: 415.477.6710;

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

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

     (4) Glancy and Binkow, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311,
         Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, E-mail:
         info@glancylaw.com;

     (5) Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, 830 Third Ave., 10th
         Floor, New York Ave, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.317.2300;

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

     (7) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San
         Francisco), 100 Pine St., Suite 2600, San Francisco,
         CA, 94111, Phone: 415.288.4545, Fax: 415.288.4534, E-
         mail: info@lerachlaw.com;

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

     (9) Stull, Stull & Brody (Los Angeles), 10940 Wilshire
         Boulevard - Suite 2300, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, Phone:
         310.209.2468; and

    (10) Weiss & Yourman (Los Angeles, CA), 10940 Wilshire
         Blvd., 24th Floor, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, Phone:
         310.208.2800, Fax: 310.209.2348, E-mail: info@wyca.com.

Representing the Company is John P. Stigi, III of Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050,
Phone: (650) 493-9300, E-mail: jstigi@wsgr.com.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Continues to Face Ill. Suit Over SRAC 7% Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corp. and certain of its officers and directors
were named as defendants in a purported securities class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
in relation to the 7% notes that the Company's subsidiary, Sears
Roebuck Acceptance Corp. (SRAC) issued on June 21, 2002

On June 17, 2003, an action was filed in the Northern District
of Illinois against the Company and certain officers,
purportedly on behalf of a class of all persons who, between
June 21, 2002 and October 17, 2002, purchased 7% notes that SRAC
issued.

An amended complaint was filed, naming as additional defendants
certain former officers, SRAC and several investment banking
firms who acted as underwriters for SRAC's March 18, May 21 and
June 21, 2002 notes offerings.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made
misrepresentations or omissions concerning its credit business
during the class period and in the registration statements and
prospectuses relating to the offerings.  

It also alleges that these misrepresentations and omissions
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11, 12 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and purports to be brought on
behalf of a class of all persons who purchased any security of
SRAC between October 24, 2001 and October 17, 2002, inclusive.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the action.  On
September 24, 2004, the court granted these motions in part, and
denied them in part.

The court dismissed the claims related to the March 18 and May
21, 2002 note offerings because the plaintiff did not purchase
notes in those offerings.  The court dismissed the Section 10(b)
and Rule 10b-5 claims against several of the individual
defendants because the plaintiff failed to adequately plead such
claims.  The court sustained the remaining claims.

By leave of court, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint on November 15, 2004.  Defendants (other than one of
the underwriter defendants) filed motions to partially dismiss
the second amended complaint on January 10, 2005.

The defendant that did not move to partially dismiss filed an
answer to the second amended complaint on January 28, 2005,
denying all liability.  On September 14, 2005, the court granted
the pending motions to dismiss in part, and denied them in part.

The court dismissed the Section 11 claim with respect to SRAC's
May 21, 2002 notes on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked
standing, and the Section 12 claims with respect to SRAC's March
18, 2002 notes and May 21, 2002 notes on the ground that the
plaintiffs could not allege damages.  The court dismissed the
Section 15 claim on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to
allege a predicate violation of the Securities Act of 1933 on
the part of SRAC.  The court dismissed the Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 claims as to some, but not all, of the individual
defendants.  The court sustained the remaining claims.

By leave of court, the plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint on October 28, 2005.  The non-underwriter defendants
filed a motion to partially dismiss the third amended complaint
on November 15, 2005.

The suit is styled, "Ong, et al. v. Sears Roebuck & Co, et al.,
Case No. 1:03-cv-04142," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Rebecca R.
Pallmeyer.  Representing the plaintiffs is Carol V. Gilden of
Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Rubenstein, P.C., 191
North Wacker Drive, Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60605-1615, Phone:
(312) 521-2403, Fax: (312) 521-2100, E-mail:
cgilden@muchshelist.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Walter C. Carlson of Sidley Austin, LLP, One South
         Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 853-
         7000, E-mail: wcarlson@sidley.com;

     (2) Robert Y. Sperling of Winston & Strawn, 35 West Wacker
         Drive, 41st Floor, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 558-
         5600, E-mail: rsperling@winston.com; and

     (3) Mary B. Anderson of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal,
         LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive, 8000 Sears Tower, Chicago,
         IL 60606, Phone: (312) 876-8000, E-mail:
         mbanderson@sonnenschein.com.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Awaits Dismissal Ruling in Ill. Over `04 Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corp. is a defendant in purported class actions
in Illinois state court in connection with the 2004 merger of
Kmart Holding Corp. and Sears, Roebuck and Co.

Three actions were filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.  These actions assert claims on behalf of a purported
class of the Company's stockholders against Sears and certain of
its officers and directors, together with Kmart, Edward S.
Lampert, William C. Crowley, and other affiliated entities,
alleging breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the merger.

The plaintiffs allege that the merger favors interested
defendants by awarding them disproportionate benefits, and that
the defendants failed to take appropriate steps to maximize the
value of a merger transaction for the Company's stockholders.

The actions have been consolidated, and an amended complaint was
filed in early January 2005.  The amended complaint asserts
similar breach-of-fiduciary duty claims, as well as alleging
that defendants have made insufficient and misleading
disclosures in connection with the mergers, and seeks injunctive
relief.  The plaintiffs have moved for expedited discovery.

On February 1, 2005, the court granted the defendants' motion to
stay or dismiss these actions in favor of then-pending parallel
litigation in the New York Supreme Court.

Plaintiffs appealed the stay order to the Appellate Court of
Illinois-First District.  On October 28, 2005, following the
dismissal with prejudice of the New York actions and the New
York plaintiffs' failure to appeal, the Appellate Court of
Illinois dismissed the appeal as moot.

The cases are now pending in the Circuit Court, the defendants
have renewed their motion to dismiss, and briefing on the motion
was completed in late February 2006.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Court Sets October Trial for Consolidated Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
set an October 2006 trial date for the consolidated securities
class action filed against Sears Holdings Corp. and certain of
its officers and directors.

On and after October 18, 2002, several actions were filed in
Illinois against the Company and certain current and former
officers alleging that certain public announcements by the
Company concerning its credit card business violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The court has consolidated the actions and certified the
consolidated action as a class action.  Discovery is underway.
The trial is scheduled to begin in October 2006.

The suit is styled, "Craig v. Sears Roebuck & Co., et al., Case
No. 1:02-cv-07527," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Elaine E. Bucklo.  
Representing the plaintiffs are, Steven G. Schulman of Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th
Floor, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: (212) 594-5300; and Lori
Ann Fanning of Miller Faucher and Cafferty, LLP, 30 North
LaSalle Street, Suite 3200, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312) 782-
4880, E-mail: lfanning@millerfaucher.com.

Representing the defendants are, Jeffrey C. Fourmaux of
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, 51 West 52nd Street, New York,
HY 10019, Phone: (212) 403-1000; and Harold C. Hirshman of
Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive,
8000 Sears Tower, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 876-8000.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Faces Suit in N.D. Ill. Over 2004 Kmart Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corp. is a defendant in purported securities
class action in Illinois federal court in connection with the
2004 merger of Kmart Holding Corp. and Sears, Roebuck and Co.

One action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  This action asserts claims under the
federal securities laws on behalf of a purported class of the
Company's stockholders against Sears and Alan J. Lacy, for
allegedly failing to make timely disclosure of merger
discussions with Kmart during the period November 8 through 16,
2004, and seeks damages.

The court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, and an
amended complaint was filed on March 11, 2005.  The amended
complaint names Edward S. Lampert and ESL Partners, L.P. as
additional defendants, and purports to assert claims on behalf
of sellers of Sears stock during the period September 9 through
November 16, 2004.  

All defendants have moved to dismiss, and briefing on the
motions was completed in early July 2005.

The suit is styled, "Levie v. Sears Roebuck Co, et al., Case No.
1:04-cv-07643," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Robert W. Gettleman.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Mark Richard Miller and Andrae P. Reneau of The Wexler
         Firm, LLP, One North LaSalle, Suite 2000, Chicago, IL
         60602, Phone: (312) 346-2222, E-mail:
         mrmiller@wexlerfirm.com;

     (2) Charles J. Piven of Law Offices of Charles J. Piven,
         P.A., The World Trade Cener - Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
         Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: (410)
         332-0030; and

     (3) Lee Squitieri of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, 32 East 57th
         Street, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-421-
         6492.

Representing the defendants are, Mark A. Flessner of
Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive,
8000 Sears Tower, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 876-8000, E-
mail: mflessner@sonnenschein.com; and Alexander Dimitrief of
Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, (Chicago), 200 East Randolph Drive, Suite
6100, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 861-2000, E-mail:
alex.dimitrief@kirkland.com.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Discovery Commences for ERISA Fraud Suit in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is underway in a consolidated class action filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against Sears Holdings Corp. and certain of its officers and
directors that alleges violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

On and after November 15, 2002, several actions were filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois against Sears, certain officers and directors, and
alleged fiduciaries of Sears' 401(k) Savings Plan (the "Plan"),
seeking damages and equitable relief under ERISA.

The plaintiffs purport to represent participants in the Plan,
and allege breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA in
connection with the Plan's investment in Sears' common shares
and alleged communications made to Plan participants regarding
Sears' financial condition.

The Court has consolidated these actions and certified the
consolidated action as a class action.  Discovery is underway.
No trial date has been set.

The suit is styled, "Kehr v. Sears Roebuck & Co., et al., Case
No. 1:02-cv-08324," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge John W. Darrah.  
Representing the plaintiffs are, Steven E. Cauley of Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow
Road, #406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: (631) 367-7100; and
Christopher B. Sanchez of Miller Faucher and Cafferty, LLP, 30
North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200, Chicago, IL 60602, (312) 782-
4880, E-mail: csanchez@millerfaucher.com.

Representing the defendants are, Harold C. Hirshman of
Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive,
8000 Sears Tower, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 876-8000; and
Elissa Eun Choo Rhee-Lee of Sears, Roebuck & Co., Sears Law
Department, 3333 Beverly Road, Hoffman Estates, IL 60179, Phone:
(708) 286-9214.

STOCK EXCHANGES: Antitrust Settlement Hearing Set May 1, 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York will hold a fairness haring for the proposed settlement
in the matter: "In re: Stock Exchanges Options Trading Antitrust
Litigation (MDL No. 1283, Case No. 99CV0962)."  The case was
brought on behalf of all persons, firms, corporations and other
entities that during period from January 22, 1990 through April
30, 2003, purchased and/or sold one or more Class Option
Contracts and/or paid transaction costs, including without
limitation all fees and other charges, incurred in connection
with the purchase and/or sale of one or more Class Option
Contracts.

The hearing will be held on May 22, 2006 at 2:00 p.m.  Any
objections to the settlement must be filed by May 1, 2006.

For more details, contact Options Trading Antitrust Litigation
c/o Berdon Claims Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9007, Jericho,
NY 11753-8917, Phone: (866) 208-0188; Craig C. Corbitt of Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette, LLP, 44 Montgomery Street, Suite
3400, Suite 3400, San Francisco, CA 94104-2301, Phone: (415)
693-0700; Andrew David Friedman, Samuel K. Rosen and Stuart D.
Wechsler of Wechsler, Harwood, L.L.P., 488 Madison Avenue, New
York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 935-7400; Joseph C. Kohn of Kohn,
Swift & Graf, P.C., One South Broad Street, Suite 2100,
Philadelphia, PA 19107-3389, Phone: (215) 238-1700; and Thomas
James McKenna of Gainey & McKenna, 485 Fifth Avenue, 3rd Floor,
New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 983-1300.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Tentative Settlement Reached in "Poblocki"
------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the purported class action filed in Nevada State
Court and entitled, "Deborah Louise Poblocki v. Universal Health
Services, Inc., et al., No. 04-A-489927-C," reached a tentative
settlement for the case.

On August 5, 2004, the Company, together with its subsidiary,
Valley Hospital Medical Center, Inc. was named as a defendant in
a lawsuit filed in Clark County, Nevada.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company overcharged her and other
similarly situated patients who lacked health insurance.  The
complaint seeks class action treatment.

On July 22, 2005, plaintiff's counsel, with the Company's
consent, filed a first amended complaint, adding two additional
plaintiff's (husband and wife) alleging similar "facts" and
claiming similar federal and state causes of action.

The Nevada State District Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss with respect to all claims except plaintiffs' state
Unfair Trade Practices Act cause of action.

On October 19, 2005, the parties stipulated to the voluntary
dismissal of plaintiffs' sole remaining claim for relief, and a
consent Judgment of Dismissal was submitted to the district
court on November 2, 2005.  Plaintiffs have appealed the
district court's dismissal.  

While the appeal is still pending, the parties reached a
tentative settlement which if finalized, would result in a
dismissal of that appeal.

The suit is styled "Deborah Louise Poblocki v. Universal Health
Services, Inc., et al., No. 04-A-489927-C," filed in the
District Court of Clark County, Nevada under Judge Mark R.
Denton.  Gerald I. Gillock is representing plaintiff Deborah
Poblocki.

For more details, contact Gerald I. Gillock of Galatz, Gillock &
Associates, An Association of Law Firms, 428 South Fourth
Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101, (Clark Co.), Phone: 702-386-
0000, Fax: 702-384-0394, Web site: http://www.galatzgillock.com.


XCHANGE INC: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set May 1, 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement in the matter: "In re: Xchange, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:01-cv-10322-RWZ."  The case was brought
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Exchange Applications, Inc., a/k/a Xchange, Inc.
during the period December 9, 1998 to September 29, 2000.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Rya W. Zobel in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse
Way, Courtroom 12, Boston, MA 02210 at 2:00 p.m., on May 1,
2006.  

Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is on May 29, 2006.  
Any objections to the settlement must be filed by April 14,
2006.

For more details, contact In re: Xchange, Inc. Securities
Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, Claims Administrator,
P.O. Box 2463, 2710 Concord Road, Suite 5, Aston, PA 19014,
Phone: (866) 274-4004, Web site: http://www.strategicclaims.net;
and James F. Conway, III and Dennis J. Johnson of Johnson &
Perkinson, 1690 Williston Road, South Burlington, VT 05403,
Phone: 802-862-0300, Fax: 802-862-0060, E-mail:
jconway@jpclasslaw.com.



                   New Securities Fraud Cases



AMERICAN SERVICE: Firm Investigates Claims in Tenn. Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran is investigating
similar claims to those made in a recently initiated lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee that was filed on behalf of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
securities of America Service Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: ASGRE) during
the period between September 24, 2003 to March 16, 2006,
inclusive (the Class Period).

The pending lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous positive statements and filed
periodic reports with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission containing numerous material misrepresentations and
omissions concerning the Company and its financial results.
These statements were materially false and misleading because
they failed to disclose and misrepresented that ASG was not
properly charging its customers pursuant to its contracts.

It further alleges that ASG inappropriately established and used
reserves during various periods during the Class Period to more
closely match reported earnings to its budgeted results, and
that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was
therefore unable to ascertain its true financial condition.

Most importantly, the lawsuit alleges that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's net income, retained earnings and
reserves were materially overstated throughout the Class Period.

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

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

For more details, contact Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran,
Phone: (877) 337-1050, E-mail: contact@ftllaw.com.


BAUSCH & LOMB: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood, LLP, filed a class action on behalf of all
securities purchasers of Bausch & Lomb, Inc. between January 27,
2005 and December 22, 2005, both dates inclusive (the Class
Period).

The action, titled, "Badaracco v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc." Case No.
06-CV-2659, is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, and names as defendants,
Bausch & Lomb, Ronald L. Zarrella, Stephen C. McCluski, John M.
Loughlin, Dwain L. Hahs, Angela J. Panzarella, Robert B. Stiles,
Kamal Sarbadhikari, Geoffrey F. Ide and William H. Waltrip.

Bausch & Lomb engages in the development, manufacture, and
marketing of eye health products.  The Company offers its
products in five product categories: contact lens, lens care,
pharmaceuticals, cataract and vitreoretinal, and refractive.

The Complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

More specifically, the complaint alleges that, during the Class
Period, the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following material adverse facts, which were known to defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company's Brazilian subsidiary engaged in
         fraudulent management and accounting practices, which
         resulted in tax assessments against the Company by
         Brazilian authorities;

     (2) that the Company's Korean subsidiary engaged in
         improper sales practices, thereby causing Bausch & Lomb
         to improperly recognize revenue from such sales;

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls;

     (4) that the Company's financial results were materially
         inflated at all relevant times; and

     (5) that the Company's financial results were in violation
         of Generally Accepted Accounting Principals (GAAP).

On October 26, 2005, Bausch & Lomb announced that the Company's
Audit Committee of the Board of Directors (the Audit Committee)
commenced an independent investigation into allegations of
misconduct by the management of the Company's Brazilian
subsidiary, BL Industria Otica Ltda. (BLIO).

The Audit Committee determined that the general manager, the
controller and other employees of the Brazilian subsidiary
engaged in improper management and accounting practices.  On
this news, shares of Bausch & Lomb fell $2.74 per share, or 3.7
percent, to close, on October 27, 2005 at $71.36 per share.

On December 22, 2005, Bausch & Lomb provided investors with an
update of its investigation into allegations of improper conduct
by management of its Brazilian subsidiary and tax assessments
against BLIO by Brazilian taxing authorities.

The Company had concluded that certain prior-period financial
statements would be required to be restated.  In addition, the
Company had preliminarily identified a material weakness in its
controls over financial reporting.  

Bausch & Lomb also announced that the Audit Committee had
commenced an independent investigation into revenue recognition
practices in its Korean subsidiary.  On this news, shares of
Bausch & Lomb fell $7.07 per share, or 8.94 percent, on December
23, 2005, to close at $72.00 per share.

For more details, Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq. of Wechsler Harwood,
LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022,
Phone: (877) 935-7400 (ext. 286), E-mail: jmn@whesq.com and Web
site: http://www.whesq.com.


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, initiated a class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. (NYSE: CBI) and
certain of its officers and directors, on behalf of all persons
or entities who purchased the publicly traded common stock of
CB&I between March 9, 2005 and February 3, 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 CB&I's shares to trade at artificially
inflated prices.

It is also alleged that certain Company executives reaped
million in proceeds from the sale of their shares in the Company
while the stock traded at artificially inflated prices during
the Class Period.

In particular, the Complaint alleges that on February 3, 2006,
the Company stated that it expected to issue revised guidance
regarding its results of operations for the year ended December
31, 2005 and that all previous earnings guidance issued by the
Company for 2005 is no longer operative and the Company
announced the terminations of Gerald M. Glenn as Chairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer, and Robert B. Jordan as
Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer.

The Complaint further alleges that after the announcement of the
terminations, an attorney representing Defendants Glenn and
Jordan issued a press release representing that they had been
terminated in connection with the Company's internal accounting
investigation.

It is further alleged that the following trading day, February
6, 2006, the price of CB&I stock declined from $29.00 per share
to $22.33 per share on extremely heavy trading volume.

The complaint alleges that CB&I misrepresented and failed to
disclose the following material adverse facts during the Class
Period:

     (1) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles (GAAP) and the Company's own
         revenue recognition policies and therefore were
         materially false and misleading; and

     (2) that the Company had no reasonable basis for its
         financial guidance for the year ended December 31,
         2005.

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.


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

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

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

As part of the Company's closing of its books on fiscal year
2005, GMH's chief financial officer wrote to the Audit Committee
indicating that there were problems with the "tone at the top"
of the Company's management.  In response to the letter, the
Audit Committee conducted an investigation which indicated,
among other things, material weaknesses in internal controls,
pressure by key executives on the accounting function and the
need for adjustments in the financial statements in current and
prior accounting periods.  

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

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

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

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


GMH COMMUNITIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in Utah
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all securities
purchasers of GMH Communities Trust (NYSE: GCT) from October 28,
2004 through March 10, 2006 inclusive (the Class Period).

The Complaint charges GMH, Gary M. Holloway, Sr. and Bradley W.
Harris with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
GMH, a housing Company, provides housing to college and
university students residing off-campus and to members of the
U.S. military and their families.  

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the Company improperly capitalized certain student
         housing property-related expenditures;

     (2) that the Company improperly timed the recognition of
         certain revenues and expenses, which served to
         understate the Company's operating expenses;

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls;

     (4) that the Company's financial results were in violation
         of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP); and
   
     (5) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
         financial results were materially inflated at all
         relevant times.

On March 13, 2006, GMH announced that it was postponing the
release of its results for the fourth quarter and year ended
December 31, 2005.  

The delay related to events arising from an investigation
initiated by the Company's Audit Committee following its receipt
of a letter from the Company's Chief Financial Officer alleging,
among other things, a "tone at the top" problem within Company
management.

On this news, shares of GMH fell $3.93 per share, or 23 percent,
to close on March 13, 2006, at $12.90 per share.

For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esquire and Richard
A. Maniskas, Esquire Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of
Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 1-800-299-7706 or 1-610-
667-7706, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com.


MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Wis. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, filed a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Division, (Case 2:06-cv-00356-
RTR) against Merge Technologies Incorporated d/b/a Merge
Healthcare and certain of its officers.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of the Company during the period from August 2, 2005 to
March 16, 2006, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The complaint
alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of The
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.

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


NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in Utah
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Nature's
Sunshine Products, Inc. (NASDAQ: NATRE) between October 19, 2004
and March 24, 2006, inclusive (the Class Period).

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

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


NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Suit in Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, initiated a class
action in the United States District Court Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division against Northfield Laboratories Inc.
on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of the Company
during the period from February 20, 2004 to February 21, 2006,
inclusive (the Class Period).

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.  Northfield, a
Delaware Corporation with principal offices in Evanston,
Illinois, engages in the research, development, testing,
manufacturing, marketing and distribution of a hemoglobin-based
blood substitute called PolyHeme for the treatment of urgent
life threatening blood loss in trauma and resultant surgical
settings.

The complaint alleges that in press releases, SEC Filings and on
the Company's website, Defendants represented that PolyHeme is a
human hemoglobin-based temporary oxygen-carrying red blood cell
substitute, which simultaneously restores lost blood volume and
hemoglobin levels and is designed for rapid, massive infusion.
PolyHeme requires no cross-matching and is compatible with all
blood types.  

Beginning in 1998, Northfield started a Phase III elective
surgery trial with PolyHeme known as the Acute Normovolemic
Hemodilution clinical trial (the "ANH clinical trial").  The
study was designed to assess whether the use of PolyHeme would
allow an increase in the volume of autologous blood collected
during ANH and therefore avoid transfusion of donated blood.

Unbeknownst to investors, however, Defendants failed to disclose
the full study results of the ANH clinical trial, which revealed
that ten of eighty-one patients who received PolyHeme
experienced myocardial infarction, two of whom died.

On February 22, 2006, the Wall Street Journal published an
article revealing that the Company failed to publish the results
of the ANH clinical trial, which resulted in two patient deaths.
The article reported that rather than publicly disclose the
trial's results, the Company quietly closed it down, claiming in
a SEC filing that the trial was taking too long to complete.

As a result of the article, shares of Northfield's common stock
fell from $12.23 per share on February 21, 2006, to $11.64 per
share on February 22, 2006, a drop of $0.59 per share, or 4.82%.  
The stock has continued to fall, closing on March 29, 2006 at
$9.13 per share.

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


PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Sarraf Gentile Lodges Securities Suit in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Sarraf Gentile LLP has filed a securities fraud
class action on behalf of those investors who acquired the
securities of PainCare Holdings, Inc. (AMEX: PRZ), in the period
between August 27, 2002, and March 15, 2006.  The lawsuit is
pending in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida and names as defendants PainCare and certain
of its top ranking executives.

The complaint alleges that PainCare and the individual
defendants violated the federal securities laws by overstating
and exaggerating the Company's financial health.  

In particular, according to the complaint, PainCare went on a
buying spree, growing its business by corporate acquisition, but
accounting for such acquisitions in violation of Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

Accordingly, the Company overstated its earnings by failing to
comply with GAAP in recording its noncash growth.  On March 15,
2006, the last day of the class period, the Company announced
that it would have to restate its financial figures going back
to 2000 -- to its founding -- in order to adjust for the
improper accounting of its corporate acquisitions.

In the wake of the revelation of the defendants' wrongful
conduct, the Company's stock sunk to new lows, having recently
traded at under $1.75 per share -- down from its class period
high of $5.25 per share.  

In just the first day of trading following the announced
restatement, PainCare's stock dropped 12.6%, on extremely heavy
volume, down over 50% from its class period high.

For more details, contact Joseph Gentile of Sarraf Gentile, LLP,
485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1005, New York, NY 10018, Phone: 212-
868-3610, Fax: 212-918-7967, Web site:
http://www.sarrafgentile.com.


TNS INC: Kahn Gauthier Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC (KGS) initiated a securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, on behalf of shareholders who
purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of
TNS, Inc.  (NYSE: TNS) on or about September 16, 2005 pursuant
to the Company's Secondary Offering.  No class has yet been
certified in this action.

The complaint charges TNS and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.  The
complaint alleges that, in connection with a Secondary Offering,
TNS filed a Registration Statement in which defendants
negligently failed to disclose several "material changes" to
TNS' continuing operations, which were required to be disclosed.

As the result of TNS' subsequent report on October 20, 2005 that
it had missed its top-line revenue guidance, shares of TNS
common stock declined 25%.  Moreover, on February 22, 2006, TNS
reported declining financial results for the fourth quarter of
2005.  TNS common stock declined 19% in response to this
announcement.

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.  



                            *********


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  * * *