CAR_Public/060420.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, April 20, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 78

                            Headlines

BAUSCH & LOMB: Faces Federal Lawsuit Over Lens Care Solution
BOSTON BEER: Underage Drinking Lawsuits in Beginning Stages
CITIBANK: Appeals N.Y. Rulings for Currency Conversion Fee Case
CITIGROUP INC.: Still Awaits N.Y. Securities Suit Appeal Ruling
COX COMMUNICATIONS: N.Y. Court Dismisses Consolidated Stock Suit

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Claims in HP Pavilion Suit Settlement Due May 1
INTERNET CAPITAL: IPO Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set April 24
JEFFERSON-PILOT: Plaintiffs Withdraw Suit Over LNC Unit Merger
MCGLADREY & PULLEN: Sued For Securities Law Breach, Malpractice
MISSISSIPPI: Review of Child Welfare Program Identifies Problems

MOSSIMO INC: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Lawsuit in California
NAVISITE INC: IPO Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set April 24
NEWAX INC: Reaches Settlement in Suit Over 2005 Tender Offer
RADIOSHACK CORP: Continues to Face FLSA Violations Suit in Ill.
SENTOSA RECRUITMENT: Denies Reported Lawsuit by Filipino Nurses

SKILLSOFT INC: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $1.79M
SMITH BARNEY: AT&T Investors Urged to File Arbitration Claims
SMITH BARNEY: Friday Deadline Set to Opt Out of GPM Account Suit
SMITH BARNEY: ITC Investors Urged to File Arbitration Claims
SMITH BARNEY: RCN Investors Urged to File Arbitration Claims

SMITH BARNEY: Sprint Investors Urged to File Arbitration Claims
SMITH BARNEY: McLeod Investors Urged to File Arbitration Claims
THOMAS WEISEL: Calif. Court Rejects Consolidated Stock Complaint
THOMAS WEISEL: Continues to Face Tellium Securities Suit in N.J.
THOMAS WEISEL: Court Denies Dismissal Motion in Friedman's Suit

THOMAS WEISEL: Ga. Court Grants Motion to Dismiss AirGate Suit
THOMAS WEISEL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of First Horizon Case
TOWN SPORTS: Continues to Face Overtime Wage Lawsuit in N.Y.
UNITED STATES: Judge Approves 'Gold Train' Archive Proposal


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ESTEE LAUDER: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Stock Lawsuit in N.Y.
GMH COMMUNITIES: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Suit in Pa.
GRAFTECH INT'L: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Next Month
H&R BLOCK: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Miss.

MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set May 22
MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in Wis.
PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in Fla.
ST JUDE: Abbey Spanier Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Minn.
ST JUDE: Lockridge Grindal Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Minn.

TNS INC: Federman & Sherwood Securities Fraud Suit in E.D Va.


                            *********

BAUSCH & LOMB: Faces Federal Lawsuit Over Lens Care Solution
------------------------------------------------------------
Parker & Waichman, LLP filed a class action against Bausch &
Lomb, Inc. on behalf of all users of ReNu with MoistureLoc
Solution.  Earlier, the Centers for Disease Control and the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration warned that ReNu with MoistureLoc
may be linked to serious fungal infections.

The suit seeks damages against Bausch & Lomb, Inc. to cover
medical screening and medical monitoring expenses for all class
members.  The suit was filed April 17 in U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York.

On April 10, 2006 the FDA and the CDC issued public health
warnings concerning serious fungal infections associated with
contact lens use, and stated that Bausch and Lomb agreed to stop
shipping the ReNu MoistureLoc Solution.  The government warnings
came after the CDC interviewed 26 patients suspected of fusarium
keratitis infections that all used Bausch & Lomb ReNu with
MoistureLoc in the month prior to infection.  On April 13, 2006
Bausch & Lomb, Inc. recommended consumers switch to another lens
care solution and asked all retailers to remove U.S.
manufactured ReNu with MoistureLoc from shelves.

Fungal keratitis is a severe infection of the cornea.  Risk
factors for infection usually include trauma (generally with
plant material), chronic ocular surface diseases,
immunodeficiencies, and rarely, contact lens use.  An estimated
30 million persons in the U.S. wear soft contact lenses; the
annual incidence of microbial keratitis is estimated to be 4-21
per 10,000 soft contact lens users.

Fungal keratitis is a condition more prevalent in warm climate.
First-line treatment includes topical and oral antifungal
medications; patients who do not respond to medical treatment
usually require surgical intervention, including corneal
transplantation.  These infections are not transmitted from
person to person.

Separately, Parker & Waichman, LLP announced last week that it
has been retained by a 53-year-old man who was diagnosed with
fusarium keratitis after using ReNu with MoistureLoc Solution.
Due to the infection, the victim underwent numerous lengthy and
invasive surgeries including: cornea transplant, lensectomy,
capsulectomy, removal of iris, removal of vitreous fluid and the
removal of the fungal infection.  The victim is left with only
15% vision in his left eye and is currently awaiting FDA
approval for an iris transplant.  Parker & Waichman, LLP said it
intends to file suit on his behalf.

For more information, visit:
http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/renu_contact_solution
and http://www.renulawsuit.com.

The suit is styled "Beskin v. Bausch & Lomb Incorporated (1:06-
cv-01749-DLI-RER," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York under Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry,
with referral to Ramon E. Reyes, Jr.  Representing the plaintiff
is Jason Mark of Parker & Waichman, 111 Great Neck Road
Great Neck, NY 11021, U.S., Phone: 516-466-6500, E-mail:
jmark@yourlawyer.com.


BOSTON BEER: Underage Drinking Lawsuits in Beginning Stages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Boston Beer Company, Inc. and other alcoholic beverage producers
were named defendants in several class actions in various states
relating to advertising practices and under-age consumption.

Each complaint contains substantially the same allegations that
each defendant marketed its products to underage consumers and
seeks an injunction and unspecified money damages on behalf of a
class of parents and guardians.  The Company has been fighting
this litigation.

In September 2005, the plaintiffs withdrew one of the
complaints.  In February 2006, two of the complaints were
dismissed.

However, the plaintiffs are appealing one action's dismissal.
The actions are in their earliest stages.


CITIBANK: Appeals N.Y. Rulings for Currency Conversion Fee Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citibank (South Dakota), some of its affiliates as well as Visa
U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service Association, MasterCard
International Inc. and other banks, appealed certain aspects of
class action rulings in the consolidated Currency Conversion Fee
Antitrust Litigation.

The suit seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief.  The
action, brought on behalf of certain U.S. holders of VISA,
MasterCard and Diners Club branded general-purpose credit cards
who used those cards since March 1, 1997 for foreign currency
transactions, asserts, among other things, claims for alleged
violations of:

     (1) Section 1 of the Sherman Act,

     (2) the Federal Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA), and

     (3) as to Citibank (South Dakota), the South Dakota
         Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

On October 15, 2004, the District Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification of their Sherman Act and TILA
claims but denied the motion as to the South Dakota Deceptive
Trade Practices Act claim against Citibank (South Dakota).

On March 9, 2005, the District Court granted in part and denied
in part defendants' motions for reconsideration of certain
aspects of the October 15, 2004 rulings.

Among other things, the District Court narrowed the antitrust
classes to certain VISA-branded or MasterCard-branded
cardholders of Citibank (South Dakota) and J.P. Morgan Chase &
Co.

On December 7, 2005, the District Court certified a Diners Club
damages subclass, as well as Diners' antitrust and TILA
injunctive relief subclasses.  The Citigroup defendants, J.P.
Morgan Chase & Co. and the plaintiffs have appealed certain
aspects of the District Court's class action rulings.

The suit is styled, "In Re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust
Litigation, Master Docket No. 1:01-md-1409," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
William H. Pauley, III.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David J. Bershad and Michael Morris Buchman of Milberg
         Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, (NYC), One Pennsylvania
         Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: (212) 594-5300 and
         212-946-9387, Fax: 212-868-1229, E-mail:
         mbuchman@milbergweiss.com;

     (2) Christopher Burke and Amelia F. Burroughs of Lerach
         Coughlin Stoia & Robbins, LLP, Suite 1800, 600 West
         Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058,
         Fax: (619) 231-7423; and

     (3) Sheldon V. Burman of Law Offices of Sheldon V. Burman,
         PC, 110 East 59th Street, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         (212) 935-1600.

Representing the defendants are, Mark Bruce Blocker of Sidley
Austin, Brown & Wood, Bank One Plaza, 10 South Dearborn Street,
Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 853-7000; and Charles E. Buffon
of Covington and Burling, 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, P.O. Box
7566, Washington, DC 20044, Phone: (202) 662-6000.


CITIGROUP INC.: Still Awaits N.Y. Securities Suit Appeal Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup, Inc. has yet to hear whether or not a lawsuit
dismissed in August of 2004 will be revived, despite the fact
that plaintiffs filed an appeal in October of that year.

Plaintiffs filed the appeal in relation to the dismissal of a
consolidated securities class action they filed against
Citigroup, Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., and certain of
its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The suit was brought on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between July 24, 1999
and July 23, 2002.

The complaint sought unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and for common law fraud.
Fourteen virtually identical complaints were filed and
consolidated.  The complaints alleged that the Company misstated
the extent of its Enron-related exposure, and that Citigroup's
stock price fell once the true extent of Citigroup's Enron
involvement became known.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 10, 2003, which
incorporated the allegations in the 15 separate actions and
added new material as well.

The amended complaint focused on certain transactions between
Citigroup and Enron and alleged analyst conflicts of interest.
The class period for the consolidated amended complaint
encompassed July 24, 1999 to December 11, 2002.

On June 2, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs' response was filed
on July 30, and the Company's reply was filed on October 3,
2003.

On August 10, 2004, Judge Swain granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  The plaintiffs then
filed a notice of appeal in October 2004.


COX COMMUNICATIONS: N.Y. Court Dismisses Consolidated Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed a consolidated securities class action that named Cox
Communications, Inc. along with AT&T Corp. and certain former
officers and directors of Excite@Home as defendants.

On April 26, 2002, Frieda and Michael Eksler filed an amended
complaint naming the Company as defendant in the class action
was filed.  The Company was served on May 10, 2002.

This case subsequently was consolidated with a related case
captioned, "Semen Leykin v. AT&T Corp., et al.," and another
related case, and an amended complaint in the consolidated case,
naming the Company as a defendant, was filed and served on
November 7, 2002.

On March 10, 2005, the Court issued an order certifying a class
of all persons and entities who purchased the publicly traded
common stock of Excite@Home during the period March 28, 2000
through September 28, 2001, and directing that notice of the
certification be given to the class.  The class excludes the
defendants in the action and certain of their related persons.

The complaint asserts a claim against Cox as an alleged
"controlling person" of Excite@Home under Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act for violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The suit
seeks from the Company unspecified monetary damages, statutory
compensation and other relief.

In addition, a claim against the Company's former Executive Vice
President, David Woodrow, who formerly served on Excite@Home's
board of directors, is asserted for breach of purported
fiduciary duties.  The suit seeks from Mr. Woodrow unspecified
monetary and punitive damages.

On February 11, 2003, the Company and Mr. Woodrow filed a
dispositive motion to dismiss on various grounds, including
failure to state a claim.  On September 17, 2003, the District
Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part.

Specifically, the Court dismissed several purported statements
by Excite@Home as bases for potential liability because they
were merely generalized expressions of confidence and optimism
constituting "puffery," dismissed the fiduciary duty claim
against Mr. Woodrow as pre-empted by the federal securities
laws, and denied the motions as to the remaining allegations of
the complaint.

On October 7, 2003, the Company and Mr. Woodrow sought
reconsideration of a portion of the Court's order.  On February
17, 2004, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to file a motion to
amend the complaint to add an additional claim for relief
against all defendants under Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act in connection with an allegedly false or misleading
proxy statement issued by Excite@Home.

On February 24, 2004, the Court granted the Company's and Mr.
Woodrow's motion for reconsideration and dismissed plaintiffs'
allegations that the Company and Mr. Woodrow were "control
persons" with respect to primary violations of Rule 10b-5
alleged to have occurred after August 28, 2000.

On April 5, 2004, the Company and certain other defendants
jointly filed a motion to dismiss the Section 14(a) cause of
action that was added in the plaintiffs' amended complaint.  On
August 9, 2004, the District Court granted defendants' motion,
and dismissed the Section 14(a) cause of action.

On May 31, 2005, the plaintiffs requested permission from the
Court to move to amend their complaint to expand the class
period to include the period from November 9, 1999 to March 28,
2000, the beginning of the current class period.

On July 8, 2005, the court orally issued a stay of discovery and
ordered the plaintiffs to file a proposed amended complaint,
which plaintiffs submitted on August 5, 2005.  On September 2,
2005, the Company opposed the amendment and moved to dismiss the
existing complaint.

On March 23, 2006, the court signed an order granting
defendants' motions to dismiss the first amended complaint,
denying plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint and denying plaintiff's motion for leave to file a
third amended complaint.

The court further directed entry of judgment dismissing all the
complaints in this and the consolidated and related actions,
with costs and disbursements to defendants, according to law.

The suit is styled, "Leykin v. AT&T Corporation, et al., Case
No. 1:02-cv-01765-LLS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Louis L. Stanton.
Representing the plaintiffs are, Christopher Lovell of Lovell &
Stewart, L.L.P., 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10110, Phone:
(212) 608-1900; and Christopher J. Gray of Law Office of
Christopher J. Gray, P.C., 460 Park Avenue 21st Floor, New York,
NY 10022, Phone: (212) 838-3221, Fax: (212) 508-3695, E-mail:
gray@cjgraylaw.com.

Representing the Company are: John J. Lavelle of Sidley, Austin,
Brown & Wood, 787 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10019, Phone:
(212) 839-5300; and Michael D. Hays of Dow Lohnes & Albertson,
PLLC, (DC), 1200 New Hampshire Ave., N.W., Suite 800,
Washington, DC 20036, Phone: (202) 776-2711, Fax: (202) 776-
2222, E-mail: mhays@dowlohnes.com.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Claims in HP Pavilion Suit Settlement Due May 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge John Corbett O'Meara on March 16
granted final approval to a nationwide settlement reached in one
of the three cases filed against Hewlett-Packard Company on
behalf of consumers who purchased certain models of HP Pavilion
desktop computers.

The settlement provides cash payments, reimbursement of out-of-
pocket expenses and/or discount certificates to thousands of
consumers who experienced recurring "hanging, freezing or
locking" problems with their computers.

The class actions, pending in federal court in Michigan and in
state courts in California and Illinois, allege that certain
models of the HP Pavilion desktop computers contain a defective
motherboard that causes the computers to frequently stop working
or "hang, freeze, or lock" while performing basic functions.

Consumers who purchased an HP Pavilion model 8655c, 8660c,
8750c, xl756, or xl759 may be entitled to a cash payment of
$75.00 and/or a $50.00 discount certificate.  Consumers who
purchased an HP Pavilion model 8754c or 8755c may be entitled to
a cash payment of $40.00 and/or a $50.00 discount certificate.
In addition, consumers who purchased any of these models may
also be eligible for up to $750.00 in reimbursement of money
spent to repair recurring "hanging, freezing or locking"
problems with their computers.

The deadline for consumers to file claims in the settlement is
May 1, 2006.

For more information about the settlement, or to receive a claim
form, visit http://www.hppavilionsettlement.comor call 1-877-
874-7559.


INTERNET CAPITAL: IPO Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set April 24
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
set an April 24, 2006 fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement of a securities class action against Internet Capital
Group, Inc. in relation to its initial public offering.

In May and June 2001, certain of the Company's present
directors, along with the Company, certain of its former
directors, certain of its present and former officers and its
underwriters, were named as defendants in nine class action
complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The plaintiffs and the alleged classes seek to represent include
present and former stockholders of the Company.  The complaints
generally allege violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on, among other things,
the dissemination of statements allegedly containing material
misstatements and/or omissions concerning the commissions
received by the underwriters of the IPO and follow-on public
offering of the Company as well as failure to disclose the
existence of purported agreements by the underwriters with some
of the purchasers in these offerings to buy additional shares of
the Company's stock subsequently in the open market at pre-
determined prices above the initial offering prices.

The plaintiffs seek for themselves and the alleged class members
an award of damages and litigation costs and expenses.  The
claims in these cases have been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes (together with claims against other issuers and
underwriters) before one judge in the Southern District of New
York federal court.

In April 2002, a consolidated amended complaint was filed
against these defendants.  It generally alleges the same
violations and also refers to alleged misstatements or omissions
that relate to the recommendations regarding the Company's stock
by analysts employed by the underwriters.

In June and July 2002, defendants, including the Company
defendants, filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs' complaints on
numerous grounds.  The Company's motion was denied in its
entirety in an opinion dated February 19, 2003.

In July 2003, a committee of the Company's Board of Directors
approved a proposed settlement with the plaintiffs in this
matter.  The settlement would provide for, among other things, a
release of the Company and of the individual defendants (who had
been previously dismissed without prejudice) for the wrongful
conduct alleged in the amended complaint.

The Company would agree to undertake other responsibilities
under the partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away,
not assert, or release certain potential claims the Company may
have against its underwriters.

Any direct financial impact of the proposed settlement is to be
borne by the Company's insurers.  The complete terms of the
proposed settlement is on file with the Court.

The Court overseeing the litigation granted preliminary approval
of the settlement in February 2005 subject to a change in the
terms to bar cross-claims by defendant underwriters for
contribution, but not for indemnification or otherwise.

The parties to the settlement have agreed on revised language to
effectuate the changes regarding contribution/indemnification
claims requested by the Court and such language has been
accepted by the Court.  A final fairness hearing on the
settlement is set for April 24, 2006.


JEFFERSON-PILOT: Plaintiffs Withdraw Suit Over LNC Unit Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew a purported shareholder class
action which names Jefferson-Pilot Corp., most of the members of
its board of directors, and Lincoln National Corp. (LNC) as
defendants.  The suit was filed in North Carolina state court.

On October 9, 2005, LNC entered into a merger agreement with the
Company, as amended on January 26, 2006, pursuant to which the
Company will merge into one of LNC's wholly owned subsidiaries.

Filed in October 2005, the complaint alleged that certain
defendants had breached their fiduciary duties by entering into
the merger agreement.  The complaint sought, among other things,
unspecified compensatory damages.

In January 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to voluntarily
withdraw the lawsuit, which the court granted without prejudice,
subject to the restriction that the plaintiffs receive the
court's permission before filing any other actions asserting the
same claims in North Carolina or any other jurisdiction.

The voluntary dismissal of this action did not involve a
settlement or any compensation being paid or promised to
plaintiffs.


MCGLADREY & PULLEN: Sued For Securities Law Breach, Malpractice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for a federal court-appointed officer filed a four-count
lawsuit against McGladrey & Pullen, an accounting firm
affiliated with H&R Block.  The suit alleges the firm failed to
tell the truth about why it resigned as auditors of a publicly
owned firm that at one time provided security services for,
among other places, Dulles airport and the World Trade Center.

The suit, filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of Florida, seeks unspecified damages.

According to the suit, McGladrey was providing audit services
for Stratesec Inc., an AMEX listed Company that provided
security services, including provision and monitoring of access
control, intrusion detection, closed circuit television, and
fire detection systems.  The Company began operations and went
public in 1987.

The suit says that when McGladrey wanted to treat an acquisition
by Stratesec as a straight purchase, Stratesec executives
threatened to sue McGladrey if it did not agree to use an
improper "pooling of interest" accounting treatment for the
financial statement.

"A client's threat of litigation is extremely rare --
McGladrey's audit partner, Ray Green, had not been threatened by
a client in 30 years of auditing -- and typically compels the
auditor to resign," says the suit.

The suit charges that McGladrey then put more than 80 partner
hours into reviewing the matter, and concluded that treating the
acquisition as a "pooling of interest" would not be appropriate.
When the chairman of Stratesec twice threatened to sue
McGladrey, the accounting firm determined that its independence
and objectivity were impaired, and on February 14, 2001, decided
it was necessary to resign as auditors.

However, according to the suit, when McGladrey determined its
independence had been comprised, it nevertheless falsely stated
that it did not have a disagreement over accounting matters with
Stratesec.  Moreover, because McGladrey's timely completion of
its work was threatened, professional and ethical accounting
standards required it to issue a public disclaimer of opinion in
which it announced to investors that it could not reach an
opinion regarding Strasec's financial statements.

Stratesec went into bankruptcy on April 28, 2004 and is no
longer in operation.

"Why McGladrey cowed (to its client) is no mystery," says Lewis
B. Freeman, the Federal court appointed officer in his lawsuit.
"Consistent with the breezy accounting practice of the era, and
in lieu of embracing its professional responsibility to its
client and to the public shareholders to make plain the reasons
for its disagreement and resignation, McGladrey took Stratesec's
threat of litigation to heart and kept its mouth shut.  In so
doing, it turned its back on its obligations to Stratesec's
investors."

The suit, filed by Miami attorney Warren Trazenfeld on behalf of
Mr. Freeman as liquidating trustee for E.S. Bankest, which had
invested in Stratesec, charges McGladrey with two counts of
violating federal securities law, and one count each of
malpractice and fraudulent misrepresentation.

For more information, contact Warren R. Trazenfeld of Warren R.
Trazenfeld, P.A. (http://www.attorneymal.com)3225 Aviation
Avenue, Suite 600, Miami, Florida 33133 (Miami-Dade Co.), Phone:
305-860-1100, Fax: 305-858-6123.


MISSISSIPPI: Review of Child Welfare Program Identifies Problems
----------------------------------------------------------------
A review of Mississippi's child welfare program showed the
system suffers from a lack of sufficient resources to support
its family-centered approach, according to The Clarion Ledger.

The review of the Mississippi Department of Human Services,
Division of Family and Children's Services (DFCS) was conducted
by the Child Welfare League of America under contract with the
state's attorney general.  It is part of the state's response to
the Olivia Y., et al. vs. Haley Barbour class action, according
to the report.  The suit alleges that the constitutional rights
of children placed in the protective custody of DFCS were
violated by virtue of the state's failure to provide them with
basic care and protection.

According to the report, the review confirmed several of the
findings of Mississippi's federal Child and Family Services
Review conducted in 2004.  The major areas of concern that it
identified are the program's lack of sufficient staff at all
levels, limited training opportunities, and lack of resources
especially in the area of available placements for children.

Regarding the problem in manpower, the review said the
"recruitment and retention of qualified staff is adversely
impacted by heavy workload, low pay and lack of opportunity for
advancement or cost of living adjustments."

According to the report, the state has begun to address some of
these problems as outlined in its federal Program Improvement
Plan.  It has already submitted a request for a $694,085 to fund
caseworker staff's pay increases, and outlined plans to
outsource family-preservation services to the private sector,
among others.

Representing the children in Stephen H. Leech, Jr., 850 East
River Place, Suite 300, P.O. Box 3623, Jackson, Mississippi
39202 (Hinds & Madison Cos.), Phone: 601-355-4013, Fax: 601-355-
4015.  Representing the defendants is Betty Mallett of
McGlinchey Stafford PLLC, Suite 1100 City Centre South, 200
South Lamar Street, Jackson, Mississippi 39201 (Hinds & Madison
Cos.), Phone: 601-960-8400, Fax: 601-960-8406; On the Net:
http://www.mcglinchey.com.


MOSSIMO INC: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Lawsuit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Mossimo, Inc. said that on April 12, a purported shareholder
class action was filed against it in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles.

The lawsuit alleges that Mossimo and its board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the agreement with
Iconix.  A Mossimo spokesman indicated that the Company and the
directors deny all liability, believe the allegations in the
complaint are without merit and intend to defend the claims
vigorously.

Founded in 1987, Mossimo, Inc. -- http://www.mossimo-inc.com --  
is a designer, licensor and distributor of men's, women's, boys'
and girls' apparel, footwear and other fashion accessories such
as jewelry, watches, handbags, and belts.

The suit is entitled "Laborers' Local #231 Pension Fund vs.
Mossimo, Inc. et al."  For more information, contact Edwin
Lewis, President & Co-Chief Executive Officer of
Mossimo Inc., Phone: 310/460-0040.


NAVISITE INC: IPO Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set April 24
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
set an April 24, 2006 fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement of a securities class action against NaviSite, Inc.
in relation to its initial public offering in October 22, 1999.

On or about June 13, 2001, Stuart Werman and Lynn McFarlane
filed a lawsuit against the Company, BancBoston Robertson
Stephens, an underwriter of the Company's IPO, Joel B. Rosen,
the Company's then chief executive officer, and Kenneth W. Hale,
the Company's then chief financial officer.  The suit was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The suit generally alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by not disclosing certain actions allegedly
taken by Robertson Stephens in connection with the Company's
initial public offering.

Specifically, the suit alleges that Robertson Stephens, in
exchange for the allocation to its customers of shares of the
Company's common stock sold in the Company's initial public
offering, solicited and received from its customers' agreements
to purchase additional shares of the Company's common stock in
the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

The suit seeks unspecified monetary damages and certification of
a plaintiff class consisting of all persons who acquired shares
of the Company's common stock between October 22, 1999 and
December 6, 2000.

Three other substantially similar lawsuits were filed between
June 15, 2001 and July 10, 2001.  The suits were filed by Moses
Mayer (June 15, 2001); Barry Feldman (June 19, 2001); and Binh
Nguyen (July 10, 2001).  Robert E. Eisenberg, the Company's
president at the time of the initial public offering in 1999,
also was named as a defendant in the Nguyen lawsuit.

On or about June 21, 2001, David Federico filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York a lawsuit
against the Company, Mr. Rosen, Mr. Hale, Robertson Stephens and
other underwriter defendants including:

     -- J.P. Morgan Chase,
     -- First Albany Companies, Inc.,
     -- Bank of America Securities, LLC,
     -- Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.,
     -- B.T. Alex. Brown, Inc.,
     -- Chase Securities, Inc.,
     -- CIBC World Markets,
     -- Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.,
     -- Dain Rauscher, Inc.,
     -- Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.,
     -- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,
     -- J.P. Morgan & Co.,
     -- J.P. Morgan Securities,
     -- Lehman Brothers, Inc.,
     -- Merrill Lynch,
     -- Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,
     -- Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.,
     -- Robert Fleming, Inc. and
     -- Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

The suit generally alleges that the defendants violated the
anti-trust laws and the federal securities laws by conspiring
and agreeing to raise and increase the compensation received by
the underwriter defendants by requiring those who received
allocation of initial public offering stock to agree to purchase
shares of manipulated securities in the after-market of the
initial public offering at escalating price levels designed to
inflate the price of the manipulated stock, thus artificially
creating an appearance of demand and high prices for that stock,
and initial public offering stock in general, leading to further
stock offerings.

The suit also alleges that the defendants arranged for the
underwriter defendants to receive undisclosed and excessive
brokerage commissions and that, as a consequence, the
underwriter defendants successfully increased investor interest
in the manipulated initial public offering of securities and
increased the underwriter defendants' individual and collective
underwritings, compensation, and revenue.

In addition, the suit further alleges that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling
securities pursuant to the initial public offering without
disclosing to investors that the underwriter defendants in the
offering, including the lead underwriters, had solicited and
received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
investors.

The suit seeks unspecified monetary damages and certification of
a plaintiff class consisting of all persons who acquired shares
of the Company's common stock between October 22, 1999 and June
12, 2001.

Those five cases, along with lawsuits naming more than 300 other
issuers and over 50 investment banks, which have been sued in
substantially similar lawsuits, were assigned to the Honorable
Shira A. Scheindlin (the Court) for all pretrial purposes (the
IPO Securities Litigation).

On September 6, 2001, the Court entered an order consolidating
the five individual cases involving the Company and designating,
"Werman v. NaviSite, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-5374"
as the lead case.

A consolidated, amended complaint was filed thereafter on April
19, 2002 (the Class Action Litigation) on behalf of plaintiffs
Arvid Brandstrom and Tony Tse against underwriter defendants
Robertson Stephens (as successor-in-interest to BancBoston),
BancBoston, J.P. Morgan (as successor-in-interest to Hambrecht &
Quist), Hambrecht & Quist and First Albany and against the
Company  and Messrs. Rosen, Hale and Eisenberg (collectively,
the NaviSite Defendants).

Plaintiffs uniformly allege that all defendants, including the
NaviSite Defendants, violated the federal securities laws (i.e.,
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5) by issuing and selling
the Company's common stock pursuant to the October 22, 1999
initial public offering, without disclosing to investors that
some of the underwriters of the offering, including the lead
underwriters, had solicited and received extensive and
undisclosed agreements from certain investors to purchase
aftermarket shares at pre-arranged, escalating prices and also
to receive additional commissions and/or other compensation from
those investors.  At this time, plaintiffs have not specified
the amount of damages they are seeking in the Class Action
Litigation.

Between July and September 2002, the parties to the IPO
Securities Litigation briefed motions to dismiss filed by the
underwriter defendants and the issuer defendants, including the
Company.

On November 1, 2002, the Court held oral argument on the motions
to dismiss.  The plaintiffs have since agreed to dismiss the
claims against Messrs. Rosen, Hale and Eisenberg without
prejudice, in return for their agreement to toll any statute of
limitations applicable to those claims.

By stipulation entered by the Court on November 18, 2002,
Messrs. Rosen, Hale and Eisenberg were dismissed without
prejudice from the Class Action Litigation.

On February 19, 2003, an opinion and order was issued on
defendants' motion to dismiss the IPO Securities Litigation,
essentially denying the motions to dismiss of all 55-underwriter
defendants and of 185 of the 301-issuer defendants, including
the Company.

On June 30, 2003, the Company's Board of Directors considered
and authorized the Company to negotiate a settlement of the
pending Class Action Litigation substantially consistent with a
memorandum of understanding negotiated among proposed class
plaintiffs, the issuer defendants and the insurers for such
issuer defendants.

Among other contingencies, any such settlement would be subject
to approval by the Court.  Plaintiffs filed on June 14, 2004, a
motion for preliminary approval of the Stipulation And Agreement
Of Settlement With Defendant Issuers And Individuals (the
Preliminary Approval Motion).

On February 15, 2005, the Court approved the Preliminary
Approval Motion in a written opinion which detailed the terms of
the settlement stipulation, its accompanying documents and
schedules, the proposed class notice and, with a modification to
the bar order to be entered, the proposed settlement order and
judgment.

A further conference was held on April 13, 2005, at which time
the Court considered additional submissions but did not make
final determinations regarding the exact form, substance and
program for notifying the proposed settlement class.

On August 31, 2005, the Court entered a further Preliminary
Order In Connection with Settlement Proceedings (the Preliminary
Approval Order), which granted preliminary approval to the
issuer's settlement with the Plaintiffs in the IPO Securities
Litigation.

In connection with the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court
scheduled a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 fairness hearing for April 24,
2006 in order to consider whether to enter final approval of the
settlement.  Any requests for exclusion or objections to the
settlement are to be filed by March 24, 2006.


NEWAX INC: Reaches Settlement in Suit Over 2005 Tender Offer
------------------------------------------------------------
NewAX, Inc. entered into a Stipulation of Settlement to pay an
additional fifteen cents per previously tendered share to all of
its shareholders who tendered shares to the Company pursuant to
its tender offer, which closed October 21, 2005.  The settlement
is subject to approval of the Court and there can be no
assurance that such approval will be forthcoming.

The settlement is in resolution of a class action brought on
behalf of newAX shareholders, other than defendants, who
tendered shares in the Company's Tender Offer, against the
Company and four of its five directors.  The class action is
titled Berger v. Loring et. al., C.A. No. 1789-N and is filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County.

Plaintiff's Complaint in that action alleged, in summary and
among other things, that the Tender Offer was coercive, was not
accompanied by disclosure of all material facts, and did not
represent a fair price.  The defendants vigorously deny the
same, and maintain that the Tender Offer was appropriate,
voluntary, gave shareholders the opportunity to sell their
shares above the market price, and that no wrongful act or
violation of law was committed.

The Company and its co-defendants strongly believe that they
would ultimately prevail in this litigation but have also
concluded that the costs, business delays and interference with
business that such a victory would entail would themselves
seriously damage the Company's future and accordingly have
entered into the settlement to halt the substantial expense,
inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation of
plaintiff's claims.

               Plaintiff's Attorney Fees and Costs

The settlement further provides that subject to approval of the
Court the Company will pay up to $83,000 of plaintiff's attorney
fees and costs.  The Company emphasized that this settlement is
dependent upon approval of the Court and that there can be no
assurance of such approval.

It is anticipated that in the near future the Court will be
entering a "scheduling order" which among other things will
provide for a Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed
Settlement of Class Action and Settlement Hearing to be sent to
shareholders who previously tendered providing further
information concerning the foregoing.

At March 1, 2006 the Company had assets of approximately $1.6
million in cash, $1.5 million in marketable securities at the
then-market price, $1.5 million at the then-face value in notes
and accrued interest, and common stock of a private Company, RAD
Electronics, Inc. (RAD) held in a three-year escrow with an
attributed value per prior agreement with RAD of $250,000.  As
of the same date the Company had outstanding against it
approximately $0.9 million in notes due 2025 and accrued
interest, which notes were issued as part of the Tender Offer.

As of the same date approximately 3,674,575 common and preferred
shares were outstanding (the preferred being non-dividend-
bearing and in essence non-tradable but freely convertible into
common on a 'one for one' basis).  If the settlement is approved
by the Court and assuming no previously tendering shareholder
declines to participate the cost of the settlement obligations
to the Company will be approximately $0.7 million.

The Company further announces that in the event that the
settlement is approved by the Court it presently contemplates,
but cannot assure, that it will effect a reverse split of its
common and preferred stock of (for each class) one new share for
several thousand of the old shares (the exact ratio being
undetermined as of this date), with a goal of reducing the
number of its outstanding shareholders to approximately eighty
and moving its stock transfer functions "in house."

It further contemplates, but again cannot assure, that in that
eventuality the effective date of such a reverse split (the
Effective Date) will be approximately three to five weeks
following public announcement of the same and that holders of
fractional interests resulting from the reverse split will have
the option of electing to receive for each "old share" component
of that fractional interest either seventy cents cash or a book
entry uncertificated scrip.

(It is anticipated that for a year after the Effective Date
rights to uncertificated scrip may be accumulated and exchanged
with the Company based on the same ratio as the number of old
shares bears to each new share in the reverse split.  After that
year the scrip would expire and be null and void.)  Again it
should be emphasized that there can be no assurance of either a
reverse split or a reverse split as outlined above.  However, in
the event of a reverse split the Company will to the extent
reasonably possible announce the same by press release
approximately three to five weeks before the Effective Date.

Lastly, the Company has determined that following this press
release it may from time to time purchase its common stock in
the open market and/or in privately negotiated purchases,
subject to the Company's discretion, market conditions and
regulatory requirements.

NewAX (Pink Sheets: ASXI), formerly known as Astrex, Inc., sold
its operating business and substantially all of its assets for
cash and other assets to RAD Electronics, Inc., a privately held
Delaware corporation on June 30, 2005.  NewAX is presently in
the initial stages of undertaking a search to acquire or enter
into a new, as of now undetermined, operating business.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Continues to Face FLSA Violations Suit in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
RadioShack Corp. is defendant in a purported class action
alleging violations of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

On October 31, 2002, Alphonse L. Perez and Douglas G. Phillips
brought this lawsuit against the Company on behalf of themselves
and all other past and present employees of RadioShack who were
designated, paid, or employed as "Y" Store Managers in the U.S.
within the past three (3) years, and who have not already had
their claims for overtime previously adjudicated.

The suit alleges a claim under FLSA.  This lawsuit alleges that
RadioShack has and continues to have a policy of requiring their
employees in the "Y" Store Manager position to work in excess of
forty (40) hours per week without paying them overtime
compensation as required by federal wage and hour laws.

Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
including the interest thereon, statutory penalties, reasonable
attorneys' fees and litigation costs on behalf of themselves and
all similarly situated current and former "Y" Store Managers.

On September 9, 2005, the judge in the Perez case granted, in
part, the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.  This
interlocutory ruling held that any Perez class member not
supervising at least 80 hours of weekly payroll at least 80% of
the time could not be deemed exempt from overtime pay.

The Company respectfully disagrees with the ruling and will
continue to defend its position.  Although the plaintiffs'
counsel in Perez has publicly stated that they believe the
Company's alleged liability, as a result of the judge's
September 9th ruling, may be in excess of $10 to $15 million,
the Company said in a regulatory filing that it strongly
disagreed with this assessment.

In the filing, the Company said, "Based on our current analysis,
we believe that our alleged liability upon the final disposition
of this ruling will be substantially less, if any at all. We
anticipate that the trial of all remaining issues in the Perez
case will begin in June 2006, and we believe it is likely we
will prevail on all of the remaining issues at trial."

The suit is styled, "Perez, et al. v. RadioShack Corporation,
Case No. 02 C 7884," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, under Judge
Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.  Representing the plaintiffs are, Timothy
J. Touhy, Esq., Daniel K. Touhy, Esq., James B. Zouras, Esq.,
and Ryan F. Stephan, Esq., of Touhy & Touhy, LTD., 161 North
Clark Street, Suite 2210, Chicago, Illinois 60601,Phone: (877)
372-2209, Fax: (312) 456-3838, E-mail: lawyers@touhylaw.com Web
site: http://www.radioshackclassaction.com,and Peter M.
Callahan, Esq., Robert W. Thompson, Esq. and Lee A. Sherman,
Esq. of Callahan, McCune & Willis, 111 Fashion Lane, Tustin,
California, 92780, Phone: (714) 730-5700, Fax: (714) 730-1642,
E-mail: classaction@cmwlaw.net.

Defendant Radioshack is represented by: Edward W. Bergmann,
Esq., Justin M. Crawford, Esq., Brian J. Hipp, Esq. of Seyfarth
Shaw, 55 East Monroe Street, Suite 4200, Chicago, Illinois,
60603, Phone: (312) 346-8000, Fax: (312) 269-8869, and Robert S.
Brewer, Jr., Esq., Ross H. Hyslop, Esq., and Robert A. Cocchia,
Esq., of McKenna, Long & Aldridge, LLP, 750 B Street, Suite
3300, San Diego, California, 92101, Phone: (619) 595-5400, Fax:
(619) 595-5450, E-mail: rsattorneys@mckennalong.com, Web site:
http://www.radioshackovertimelawsuits.com.


SENTOSA RECRUITMENT: Denies Reported Lawsuit by Filipino Nurses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sentosa Recruitment Agency, a nursing and healthcare consultancy
group that helps qualified Filipino nurses immigrate to and
obtain employment in the U.S., denied knowledge of a reported
class action filed against it and several nursing home
employers.  The suit was purportedly filed by twenty-seven New
York-based Filipino nurses and one physical therapist.

"We are fully aware of the complaints and unrest amongst some of
our more recent employees, however, we are unaware of any class
action," said Ben Philipson, Chief Operating Officer of the
nursing homes. "Though we will not allow ourselves to get into
petty back and forth arguments, we feel the need to clarify our
position, and answer certain legitimate questions."

In an official statement on the matter, Philipson went on to
say, "We strongly deny any wrongdoing or misrepresentation as
has been described.  Rather, the nurses and physical therapist
resigned without any notice and in violation of New York State
Department of Education regulations and their written employment
agreements."

"In a relatively short period, nearly 275 trained nurses and
therapists have been successfully recruited and employed," adds
Philipson.  "It is unfortunate, but it appears that this is a
group of individuals who have been misled and ill-advised by
others who would take advantage of them."

Understanding that they were misled, some nurses have since
retracted and apologized for their action, a statement from the
Company explained.  Others, however, breached their contracts,
violated the law and put vulnerable patients at risk by abruptly
resigning.  The nursing homes plan to fulfill their statutory
reporting obligations and take all appropriate legal action to
address the nurses' unlawful conduct, according to the Company.

Sentosa was the first agency in the Philippines that acted as an
advocate for nurses, introducing the concept of not charging a
placement fee.  It assists applicants with all aspects of
gaining permanent resident status, obtaining Social Security
numbers and limited permits.  It even provides free airfare from
Manila to New York as well as temporary housing, the Company
said.  This is a vital service to healthcare providers in the
face of nursing shortages in the U.S., and Sentosa is committed
to continuously processing applications and placing qualified
personnel, according to the Company.

To address the position vacancies that were caused by this
action, Sentosa is arranging for the arrival of additional
support.  Nurses who already have visas will be scheduled to
leave the Philippines within the next few weeks.

Sentosa will also continue to arrange for two months of free
housing to its nurses.  Due to limited space, however, it is not
able to accommodate other family members.  This is something
that the agency has always made clear during orientation
sessions prior to the applicants' arrival in the U.S., according
to the Company.  While Sentosa does assist with the immigration
of family members, it also advises all of its applicants not to
bring them until after they have settled in and begun to earn a
sufficient income, the Company said.

"Sentosa is extremely proud of its ability to assist healthcare
agencies during this difficult time of shortages in the nursing
profession," said Francis Luyun, Chief Executive Officer of
Sentosa. "Countless nurses have enjoyed and benefited from their
experience, with many going on to see great advances in their
careers. "

Sentosa Recruitment Agency -- http://www.sentosarecruitment.com/
-- was formed by nurses, for nurses who seek permanent
employment in the U.S.  Its group of professional nurses,
immigration specialists and attorneys assist applicants in the
immigration and employment process.  It also has representatives
in different provinces around the Philippines to assist locally.
Sentosa's immigration lawyers perform all filing, processing,
and follow-ups with Immigration and Naturalization Service.


SKILLSOFT INC: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $1.79M
----------------------------------------------------------
SkillSoft PLC has agreed to settle a lawsuit filed against it
and certain of its former and current officers and directors in
late 2004.

This lawsuit included substantially the same claims as those set
forth in the previously settled 2002 securities class action.
Under the terms of the settlement, SkillSoft will pay a total of
$1.79 million to the plaintiffs prior to April 17, 2006.

In accordance with Financial Accounting Standard No. 5,
"Accounting for Contingencies" (FAS 5), when a contingency
exists as of the end of a fiscal year, in assessing whether a
loss is probable and measurable and therefore should be recorded
in its financial statements, the Company is required to take
into consideration all information up to and including the date
of issuance of its financial statements and, if appropriate,
accrue the loss contingency as of the date of the financial
statements.

SkillSoft's financial results for fiscal 2006 are considered to
be issued upon the filing of its Form 10-K with the Securities
Exchange Commission, which is required to be filed no later than
April 17, 2006.  Subsequent to the Company's earnings release of
March 10, 2006, the Company and the plaintiffs agreed to a
mediation, which concluded with a settlement being reached on
April 7, 2006.  As a result of that settlement, the Company will
include the $1.79 million settlement payment obligation -- which
was not reflected in the March 10, 2006 earnings release -- in
its financial statements for the fiscal year ended January 31,
2006 that are included in its Form 10-K filing.

As a result of settling the lawsuit, the Company is reporting
net income of $4.1 million, or $0.04 per basic and diluted
share, for the quarter ended January 31, 2006 as compared to its
previously reported net income of $5.9 million, or $0.06 per
basic and diluted share.  The settlement costs are included in
the Company's legal settlements expense, which increased $1.79
million due to the settlement.  For the revised condensed
consolidated statement of operations for the fiscal quarter
ended January 31, 2006, please refer to the attached schedule.

As a result of settling this lawsuit, the Company is reporting
net income of $35.2 million, or $0.34 per basic and diluted
share, for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2006 as compared to
its previously reported net income of $37.0 million, or $0.36
per basic and diluted share.  The settlement costs are included
in the Company's legal settlements/(insurance recoveries)
expense, which decreased from a $19.5 million benefit to a $17.7
million benefit due to the settlement.

As a result of the accrual related to settling the lawsuit, the
Company's accrued liabilities on its January 31, 2006 balance
sheet increased by $1.79 million to $53.8 million from $52.0
million to reflect the payment due by April 17, 2006.

SkillSoft -- http://www.skillsoft.com-- is a provider of
comprehensive e-learning content and technology products for
business and Information Technology professionals within global
enterprises.


SMITH BARNEY: AT&T Investors Urged to File Arbitration Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A. advises all Salomon Smith
Barney n/k/a Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. customers who are
eligible to participate in the settlement of the Smith Barney
Guided Portfolio Management Account Class Action:

      "W. Caffey Norman, III, et al. v. Salomon Smith Barney,
       No. 03 Civ. 4391 (GEL)"

that they have until April 21, 2006 to opt out of the class
action.

K&T strongly encourages all customers who maintained a GPM
account to consider securities arbitration as an alternative
means to recovering their financial losses.  Empirical evidence
shows that investors may achieve an overall higher rate of
recovery by filing an individual securities arbitration claim.
According to the allegations in the class action, Smith Barney's
equity ratings for several stocks were improperly influenced in
order to obtain profitable investment banking business from the
companies whose stock was being covered by Smith Barney.

Moreover, during this same time period, Smith Barney's financial
advisors could only purchase for GPM accounts those stocks that
were given favorable ratings by Smith Barney's Research
Department, which included:

     Adelphia Business Solutions        (Pink Sheets:ADELQ)
     AT&T                               (T)
     BCE, Inc.                          (BCE)
     XO Communications                  (XOHO)

As a result of Smith Barney's issuance of unsubstantiated
favorable stock ratings, the firm failed to provide account
management services based on objective research in accordance
with Smith Barney's contractual and fiduciary duties.

As such, K&T plans to assist individual investors who maintained
GPM accounts with Smith Barney to recover their financial losses
in securities arbitration claims before the National Association
of Securities Dealers and the New York Stock Exchange.  K&T
strongly encourages all class members of the Smith Barney Guided
Portfolio Management Account Class Action to contact Lawrence L.
Klayman, Esquire, at 888-997-9956 to discuss their legal options
and/or the possibility of pursuing an individual securities
arbitration claim.  On the Net: http://www.nasd-law.com.


SMITH BARNEY: Friday Deadline Set to Opt Out of GPM Account Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A. advises all Salomon Smith
Barney n/k/a Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. customers who are
eligible to participate in the settlement of the Smith Barney
Guided Portfolio Management Account Class Action:

      "W. Caffey Norman, III, et al. v. Salomon Smith Barney,
       No. 03 Civ. 4391 (GEL)"

that they have until April 21, 2006 to opt out of the class
action.

K&T strongly encourages all customers who maintained a GPM
account to consider securities arbitration as an alternative
means to recovering their financial losses.  Empirical evidence
shows that investors may achieve an overall higher rate of
recovery by filing an individual securities arbitration claim.
According to the allegations in the class action, Smith Barney's
equity ratings for several stocks were improperly influenced in
order to obtain profitable investment banking business from the
companies whose stock was being covered by Smith Barney.

Moreover, during this same time period, Smith Barney's financial
advisors could only purchase for GPM accounts those stocks that
were given favorable ratings by Smith Barney's Research
Department, which included:

     BellSouth               (BLS)
     Broadwing               (BWNG)
     Centurytel, Inc.        (CTL)
     Citizens Communications (CZN)

As a result of Smith Barney's issuance of unsubstantiated
favorable stock ratings, the firm failed to provide account
management services based on objective research in accordance
with Smith Barney's contractual and fiduciary duties.

As such, K&T plans to assist individual investors who maintained
GPM accounts with Smith Barney to recover their financial losses
in securities arbitration claims before the National Association
of Securities Dealers and the New York Stock Exchange.  K&T
strongly encourages all class members of the Smith Barney Guided
Portfolio Management Account Class Action to contact Lawrence L.
Klayman, Esquire, at 888-997-9956 to discuss their legal options
and/or the possibility of pursuing an individual securities
arbitration claim.  On the Net: http://www.nasd-law.com.


SMITH BARNEY: ITC Investors Urged to File Arbitration Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A. advises all Salomon Smith
Barney n/k/a Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. customers who are
eligible to participate in the settlement of the Smith Barney
Guided Portfolio Management Account Class Action:

      "W. Caffey Norman, III, et al. v. Salomon Smith Barney,
       No. 03 Civ. 4391 (GEL)"

that they have until April 21, 2006 to opt out of the class
action.

K&T strongly encourages all customers who maintained a GPM
account to consider securities arbitration as an alternative
means to recovering their financial losses.  Empirical evidence
shows that investors may achieve an overall higher rate of
recovery by filing an individual securities arbitration claim.
According to the allegations in the class action, Smith Barney's
equity ratings for several stocks were improperly influenced in
order to obtain profitable investment banking business from the
companies whose stock was being covered by Smith Barney.

Moreover, during this same time period, Smith Barney's financial
advisors could only purchase for GPM accounts those stocks that
were given favorable ratings by Smith Barney's Research
Department, which included:

     General Communication, Inc. (GNCMA)
     Global Crossing (GLBC)
     GT Group Telecom (Pink Sheets:GTTAF)
     ITC DeltaCom, Inc. (ITCD)

As a result of Smith Barney's issuance of unsubstantiated
favorable stock ratings, the firm failed to provide account
management services based on objective research in accordance
with Smith Barney's contractual and fiduciary duties.

As such, K&T plans to assist individual investors who maintained
GPM accounts with Smith Barney to recover their financial losses
in securities arbitration claims before the National Association
of Securities Dealers and the New York Stock Exchange.  K&T
strongly encourages all class members of the Smith Barney Guided
Portfolio Management Account Class Action to contact Lawrence L.
Klayman, Esquire, at 888-997-9956 to discuss their legal options
and/or the possibility of pursuing an individual securities
arbitration claim.  On the Net: http://www.nasd-law.com.


SMITH BARNEY: RCN Investors Urged to File Arbitration Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A. advises all Salomon Smith
Barney n/k/a Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. customers who are
eligible to participate in the settlement of the Smith Barney
Guided Portfolio Management Account Class Action:

      "W. Caffey Norman, III, et al. v. Salomon Smith Barney,
       No. 03 Civ. 4391 (GEL)"

that they have until April 21, 2006 to opt out of the class
action.

K&T strongly encourages all customers who maintained a GPM
account to consider securities arbitration as an alternative
means to recovering their financial losses.  Empirical evidence
shows that investors may achieve an overall higher rate of
recovery by filing an individual securities arbitration claim.
According to the allegations in the class action, Smith Barney's
equity ratings for several stocks were improperly influenced in
order to obtain profitable investment banking business from the
companies whose stock was being covered by Smith Barney.

Moreover, during this same time period, Smith Barney's financial
advisors could only purchase for GPM accounts those stocks that
were given favorable ratings by Smith Barney's Research
Department, which included:

     Pacific Gateway Exchange, Inc. (Pink Sheets:PGEXQ) Qwest
     Communications                 (Q)
     RCN Corp.                      (OTC:RCNCQ.PK)
     Rhythms NetCommunications      (Other OTC:RTHMQ)

As a result of Smith Barney's issuance of unsubstantiated
favorable stock ratings, the firm failed to provide account
management services based on objective research in accordance
with Smith Barney's contractual and fiduciary duties.

As such, K&T plans to assist individual investors who maintained
GPM accounts with Smith Barney to recover their financial losses
in securities arbitration claims before the National Association
of Securities Dealers and the New York Stock Exchange.  K&T
strongly encourages all class members of the Smith Barney Guided
Portfolio Management Account Class Action to contact Lawrence L.
Klayman, Esquire, at 888-997-9956 to discuss their legal options
and/or the possibility of pursuing an individual securities
arbitration claim.  On the Net: http://www.nasd-law.com.


SMITH BARNEY: Sprint Investors Urged to File Arbitration Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A. advises all Salomon Smith
Barney n/k/a Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. customers who are
eligible to participate in the settlement of the Smith Barney
Guided Portfolio Management Account Class Action:

      "W. Caffey Norman, III, et al. v. Salomon Smith Barney,
       No. 03 Civ. 4391 (GEL)"

that they have until April 21, 2006 to opt out of the class
action.

K&T strongly encourages all customers who maintained a GPM
account to consider securities arbitration as an alternative
means to recovering their financial losses.  Empirical evidence
shows that investors may achieve an overall higher rate of
recovery by filing an individual securities arbitration claim.
According to the allegations in the class action, Smith Barney's
equity ratings for several stocks were improperly influenced in
order to obtain profitable investment banking business from the
companies whose stock was being covered by Smith Barney.

Moreover, during this same time period, Smith Barney's financial
advisors could only purchase for GPM accounts those stocks that
were given favorable ratings by Smith Barney's Research
Department, which included:

Sprint n/k/a Sprint Nextel Corp.  (S)
Time Warner Telecom, Inc.         (TWTC)
US LEC Corp.                      (CLEC)
Verizon                           (VZ)

As a result of Smith Barney's issuance of unsubstantiated
favorable stock ratings, the firm failed to provide account
management services based on objective research in accordance
with Smith Barney's contractual and fiduciary duties.

As such, K&T plans to assist individual investors who maintained
GPM accounts with Smith Barney to recover their financial losses
in securities arbitration claims before the National Association
of Securities Dealers and the New York Stock Exchange.  K&T
strongly encourages all class members of the Smith Barney Guided
Portfolio Management Account Class Action to contact Lawrence L.
Klayman, Esquire, at 888-997-9956 to discuss their legal options
and/or the possibility of pursuing an individual securities
arbitration claim.  On the Net: http://www.nasd-law.com.


SMITH BARNEY: McLeod Investors Urged to File Arbitration Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A. advises all Salomon Smith
Barney n/k/a Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. customers who are
eligible to participate in the settlement of the Smith Barney
Guided Portfolio Management Account Class Action:

      "W. Caffey Norman, III, et al. v. Salomon Smith Barney,
       No. 03 Civ. 4391 (GEL)"

that they have until April 21, 2006 to opt out of the class
action.

K&T strongly encourages all customers who maintained a GPM
account to consider securities arbitration as an alternative
means to recovering their financial losses.  Empirical evidence
shows that investors may achieve an overall higher rate of
recovery by filing an individual securities arbitration claim.
According to the allegations in the class action, Smith Barney's
equity ratings for several stocks were improperly influenced in
order to obtain profitable investment banking business from the
companies whose stock was being covered by Smith Barney.

Moreover, during this same time period, Smith Barney's financial
advisors could only purchase for GPM accounts those stocks that
were given favorable ratings by Smith Barney's Research
Department, which included:

     Level 3 Communications  (LVLT)
     McLeod USA              (Pink Sheets:MCLD)
     MPower Holding Corp.    (MPE)
     Nextlink                (Pink Sheets:NXLKF)

As a result of Smith Barney's issuance of unsubstantiated
favorable stock ratings, the firm failed to provide account
management services based on objective research in accordance
with Smith Barney's contractual and fiduciary duties.

As such, K&T plans to assist individual investors who maintained
GPM accounts with Smith Barney to recover their financial losses
in securities arbitration claims before the National Association
of Securities Dealers and the New York Stock Exchange.  K&T
strongly encourages all class members of the Smith Barney Guided
Portfolio Management Account Class Action to contact Lawrence L.
Klayman, Esquire, at 888-997-9956 to discuss their legal options
and/or the possibility of pursuing an individual securities
arbitration claim.  On the Net: http://www.nasd-law.com.


THOMAS WEISEL: Calif. Court Rejects Consolidated Stock Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
dismissed with prejudice the complaint against Thomas Weisel
Partners Group, Inc. in the consolidated class action "In re
Leadis Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation."

The Company was named as a defendant in the litigation, which
was brought in connection with Leadis Technology, Inc.'s initial
public offering in June 2004.

The consolidated complaint, filed in on August 8, 2005, alleged
violations of federal securities laws against Leadis and certain
of its directors and officers as well as its underwriters,
including the Company, based on alleged misstatements and
omissions in the registration statement.

On March 1, 2006 the court dismissed with prejudice the
complaint against the Company in this matter.

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.


THOMAS WEISEL: Continues to Face Tellium Securities Suit in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc. is defendant in consolidated
class action, "In re Tellium, Inc. Securities Litigation," which
was brought in connection with Tellium, Inc.'s initial public
offering in May 2001.

The most recent amended complaint, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, alleges claims for
securities fraud against Tellium and certain of its directors
and senior officers as well as the its underwriters, including
the Company and one of the Company's former employees.

The Company has denied liability in connection with this matter.
On June 30, 2005, the court entered an order that dismissed all
of the claims against the Company and one of its former
employees, except for a claim limited to an alleged misstatement
in the registration statement relating to the relationship
between Tellium and one of its customers.

The suit is styled, "In re Tellium, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:02-cv-05878-FLW-AMD," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Freda L.
Wolfson with referral to Judge Ann Marie Donio.  Representing
the plaintiffs is Robert J. Berg of Bernstein Liebhard &
Lifshitz, LLP, 2050 Center Avenue, Suite 200, Fort Lee, NJ
07024, Phone: (201) 592-3201, E-mail: berg@bernlieb.com.

Representing the defendants is Christopher A. Barbarisi of
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham, LLP, One Newark Center,
Newark, NJ 07102, Phone: 973-848-4000, E-mail:
cbarbarisi@klng.com.


THOMAS WEISEL: Court Denies Dismissal Motion in Friedman's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
denied Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc.'s dismissal motion in
the consolidated class action "In re Friedman's Inc. Securities
Litigation."

In September 2003, the Company acted as lead manager on a
follow-on offering of common stock of Friedman's Inc.
Plaintiffs have filed a purported class action against
Friedman's and its directors, senior officers and outside
accountant as well as the its underwriters, including the
Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia.

The suit is alleging that the registration statement for the
offering and a previous registration statement dated February 2,
2002 were fraudulent and materially misleading because they
overstated revenue and inventory, understated allowances for
uncollectible accounts, and failed to properly account for
impairment of a particular investment.

Friedman's is currently operating its business in bankruptcy.
The Company denied liability in connection with this matter.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed in this matter.  On
September 7, 2005, the court denied the underwriters' motion to
dismiss.

The suit is styled, "In re Friedman's Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-03475-WSD," under Judge William S.
Duffey, Jr.  Representing the plaintiffs are, Patricia I. Avery
of Wolf Popper, 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
212-759-4600; and David Andrew Bain of Chitwood Harley Harnes,
LLP, 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II, Atlanta, GA
30309, Phone: 404-873-3900, E-mail: dab@classlaw.com.

Representing the Company are, Jason DeBretteville
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, 1870 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA
94303, Phone: 650-461-5600, E-mail: debrettevillej@sullcrom.com;
and Stephen Earl Hudson of Kilpatrick Stockton, 1100 Peachtree
Street, Suite 2800, Atlanta, GA 30309-4530, Phone: 404-815-6356,
Fax: 404-541-3248, E-mail: shudson@kilpatrickstockton.com.


THOMAS WEISEL: Ga. Court Grants Motion to Dismiss AirGate Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
granted Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc.'s dismissal motion in
the consolidated class action brought in connection with a
secondary offering of AirGate PCS, Inc. in December 2001.

The complaint, filed on May 17, 2002, alleges violations of
federal securities laws against AirGate and certain of its
directors and officers as well as the Company's underwriters,
including the Company, based on alleged misstatements and
omissions in the registration statement.

The underwriters' motion to dismiss was granted by the court in
September 2005.

The suit is styled, "In re AirGate PCS, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:02-cv-01291-JOF," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge
J. Owen Forrester.  Representing the plaintiffs are, David
Andrew Bain and Martin D. Chitwood of Chitwood Harley Harnes,
LLP, 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II, Atlanta, GA
30309, Phone: 404-873-3900, Fax: 404-876-4476, E-mail:
dab@classlaw.com and mdc@classlaw.com; and Howard K. Coates, Jr.
of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, 5355 Town Center Road,
Suite 900, Boca Raton, FL 33486, Phone: 561-361-5000.

Representing the Company are, Tracy Cobb Braintwain and B.
Warren Pope of King & Spalding, 191 Peachtree Street, N.E.,
Atlanta, GA 30303-1763, Phone: 404-572-2714 and 404-572-4600, E-
mail: tbraintwain@kslaw.com and wpope@kslaw.com.


THOMAS WEISEL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of First Horizon Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated class action styled, "In re First
Horizon Pharmaceutical Corporation Securities Litigation," are
appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit the
granting of Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss the case.

The purported class action was brought in connection with a
secondary offering of First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corporation
in April 2002.

The consolidated amended complaint, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia on September 2, 2003,
alleges violations of federal securities laws against First
Horizon and certain of its directors and officers as well as the
its underwriters, including the Company, based on alleged false
and misleading statements in the registration statement and
other documents.

The underwriters' motion to dismiss was granted by the court in
September 2004.  The plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

The suit is styled, "In re First Horizon Pharmaceutical
Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:02-cv-02332-JOF,"
on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia under Judge J. Owen Forrester.  Representing the
plaintiffs is David Andrew Bain of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP,
1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II, Atlanta, GA
30309, Phone: 404-873-3900, E-mail: dab@classlaw.com.

Representing the defendants is John Patterson Brumbaugh of King
& Spalding, 191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30303-1763,
Phone: 404-572-5100, E-mail: pbrumbaugh@kslaw.com.


TOWN SPORTS: Continues to Face Overtime Wage Lawsuit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Town Sports International, Inc., the parent of New York Sports
Club chains, is defendant in a purported class action alleging
violations of various overtime provisions of the New York State
Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to certain
trainers and assistant fitness managers.

Styled, "Sarah Cruz, et al. v. Town Sports International, Inc.,"
the suit was filed on March 1, 2005 in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, New York County.  The plaintiffs are Sarah
Cruz of Union City, N.J., and Mathew Dockswell of Forest Hills,
N.Y.

Plaintiffs contend that they and many other employees routinely
worked more than 40 hours in a week but didn't earn overtime
because the Company deliberately misclassified them as managers,
(Class Action Reporter, March 31, 2005).

According to court documents, the lawyers are seeking class
action status for the lawsuit, which they say could involve
hundreds of personal trainers and assistant fitness managers at
65 New York Sports Clubs in the state, including in New York
City and on Long Island, (Class Action Reporter, March 31,
2005).

The suit covers a period of the past six years.  It states that
Ms. Cruz, 30, who has worked for the chain since 1999, often has
worked 13-hour days, five days a week, or about 65 hours, and
Mr. Dockswell, who has worked for New York Sports Club since
2002, has regularly worked more than 40 hours a week, (Class
Action Reporter, March 31, 2005).

The Company has yet to answer, move or otherwise respond to the
complaint.


UNITED STATES: Judge Approves 'Gold Train' Archive Proposal
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Judge Patricia A. Seitz approved a plan to establish 'Gold
Train' Archive in the U.S. and Israel as part of a settlement of
a class action brought by Hungarian Holocaust survivors.

The proposal submitted by plaintiffs' counsel asks to provide
$500,000 to museums in the U.S. and Israel to establish and
compile an archive of records and artifacts documenting the Gold
Train events, as well as the fate of Hungarian Jews in the
Holocaust.

The institutions selected, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in
Washington, D.C., and Yad Vashem, Israel's Holocaust Martyrs'
and Heroes' Remembrance Authority, will each receive $250,000
for use in compiling and managing the archive, in accordance
with the settlement by the U.S. government of the "Gold Train"
class action brought by Hungarian Holocaust survivors and their
heirs.

"These two highly regarded museums are uniquely qualified to
locate and organize the documents and artifacts and memorialize
the Gold Train events, professionally within the context of the
Holocaust," explained Jonathan Cuneo of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca,
LLP, the lead counsel for the Gold Train plaintiffs.

"As the parties agreed in the settlement and Judge Seitz found,
in her final approval order, the thorough and accurate
collection of the information outlined in the report, and its
dissemination to the broadest possible audience of historians,
educators, public officials, Survivors and families of Holocaust
victims, and the general public, will serve a vital public
purpose and cement the legacy of this litigation and the
settlement.  This is very important to the Plaintiffs."

In ordering the $500,000 allocation for the museums, Judge Seitz
relied upon a plan jointly submitted by counsel for the
plaintiff and the U.S. Government based upon a proposal from a
committee of holocaust experts.  Committee members Randolph
Braham of New York, Ronald Zweig of Jerusalem, and Mark Talisman
of Washington DC, are eminent historians appointed in the
parties' settlement to select prominent institutions to compile
the archive and make it available for future generations.

The Committee's Report calls for vigorous efforts to memorialize
the history through existing archives in Hungary, Israel, and
the U.S., obtaining information and documents from repositories
for which access was previously limited, and to declassify
information as necessary.

                        Settlement Terms

The Gold Train suit, "Irving Rosner, et. al. v. U.S. of
America," was filed in May 2001 on behalf of Hungarian Holocaust
survivors and their heirs in the U.S. District Court for
Southern Florida where many of the survivors now reside.

In addition to establishing the archive, to settle this class
action, on October 11, 2005 the U.S. issued an apology and, on
December 27, paid $25.5 million as restitution for improper
conduct by American military personnel in handling personal
property of Hungarian Jewish families in the aftermath of World
War ll.

The belongings, including gold, jewelry, artwork and religious
treasures, were allegedly looted in Hungary by Nazis who shipped
the valuables on a train heading West ahead of advancing Soviet
troops.  U.S. forces in Austria later obtained the train and its
cargo.

Initial payment for needy Hungarian survivors was distributed on
Jan. 30 as part of the U.S. Government's settlement of the "Gold
Train" class action (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 1, 2006).

      Allocations from the Hungarian Gold Train Settlement

So far, $4.2 million has been distributed to these 27 social
service institutions worldwide for eligible Hungarian Holocaust
survivors in financial need (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 1,
2006):

     (1) Australia

        -- Jewish Care - New South Wales (Sydney)
        -- Jewish Care (Victoria) Inc. (Victoria)

     (2) Canada

        -- Circle of Care (Toronto)
        -- Cummings Jewish Centre for Seniors (Montreal)
        -- UIA Federations Canada (Toronto)

     (3) Hungary

        -- Hungarian Jewish Social Support Foundation (Budapest)

     (4) Israel

        -- Foundation for the Benefit of Holocaust Victims in
           Israel (Tel Aviv)

     (5) Romania

        -- Federation of Jewish Communities of Romania (FEDROM)
           (Bucharest)

     (6) Sweden
        -- Jewish Community of Stockholm (Stockholm)

     (7) United States

        -- Association of Jewish Service Agencies (Elizabeth,
           N.J.)

        -- Bikur Cholim of Rockland County (Monsey, N.Y.)

        -- Blue Card Inc. (New York, N.Y.)

        -- Ferd and Gladys Alpert Jewish Family & Children's
           Service (West Palm Beach, Fla.)

        -- Guardians of the Sick Alliance/Bikur Cholim of Boro
           Park (Brooklyn, N.Y.)

        -- Jewish Community Services of South Florida (North
           Miami, Fla.)

        -- Jewish Family & Children's Service of Greater Boston
           (Waltham, Mass.)

        -- Jewish Family & Children's Service of Greater
           Philadelphia (Philadelphia, Penn.)

        -- Jewish Family Service Association of Cleveland
           (Beachwood, OH)

        -- Jewish Family Service for Southeast Michigan (West
           Bloomfield, Mich.)

        -- Jewish Family Service of Broward County Inc.
           (Plantation, Fla.)

        -- Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles (Los Angeles,
           Calif.)

        -- Jewish Family Service of Greater Hartford (West
           Hartford, Conn.)

        -- Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago
           (Chicago, Ill.)

        -- Pesach Tikvah/ Door of Hope (Brooklyn, N.Y.)

        -- Ruth Rales Jewish Family Service of South Palm Beach
           County, Inc. (Boca Raton, Fla.)

        -- Selfhelp Community Services Inc. (New York, N.Y.)

Legal Team: Jonathan Cuneo of Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP,
Washington, DC, Phone: +1-202-789-3960, Mobile: +1-202-487-8546;
or Steve Berman of Hagens Berman LLP, Seattle, WA, Phone: +1-
206-623-7292; or Samuel J.Dubbin of Dubbin & Kravetz, LPP,
Miami, FL, Phone: +1-305-357-9004; or Jeff McCord, public
relations representative of plaintiffs counsel of McCord &
Associates, Phone: +1-540-364-4769; or Hungarian Holocaust
Survivor Contact: Messrs. Rubin, Mermelstein or Moskovic, Samuel
Dubbin, Esq., Miami, Phone: +1-305-357-9004; Web site:
http://www.hungariangoldtrain.org.

For copies of legal documents, contact Samuel Dubbin at
305-357-9004.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ESTEE LAUDER: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action in
the in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York against defendants:

      -- Estee Lauder,
      -- William P. Lauder (Chief Executive Officer and
         President),
      -- Ronald S. Lauder (Director),
      -- Leonard A. Lauder (Chair),
      -- Aerin Lauder (Senior VP and Director),
      -- Daniel J. Brestle (Chief Operations Officer),
      -- Patrick Bousquet-Chavanne (Group President), and
      -- Richard W. Kunes (Chief Financial Officer).

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
The Estee Lauder Companies Inc. (NYSE: EL), between April 28,
2005 and October 25, 2005, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that Estee Lauder is a global manufacturer
of skin care, makeup, fragrance, and hair care products.  The
complaint further alleges that, at the commencement of the Class
Period, the Company's market share was decreasing and that,
rather than reverse this negative trend, or fully disclose it,
defendants launched a largely successful campaign that employed
channel stuffing and the dissemination of materially false and
misleading statements to prop up reported revenues and earnings,
and the Company's share price, long enough for Estee Lauder
insiders to sell millions of their personally held Estee Lauder
shares to unsuspecting investors at prices that were
artificially inflated by defendants' false and misleading
statements.

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

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

These results were well below analysts' revised consensus
earnings estimate of $0.32 cents a share on revenue of $1.54
billion.

Following this disclosure of the Company's results and lowered
guidance, the Company's share price fell to $30.71.  By this
time, Estee Lauder insiders had, during the Class Period, sold
3,380,399 shares of their Estee Lauder common stock to unwitting
investors for proceeds of $88,077,150.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law
Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, Phone (888) 643-6735 or (610) 660-8000,
Fax: (610) 660-8080, E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com, Web site:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Stock Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP, filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, on
behalf of all persons who purchased the debt securities of
Fairfax Financial Holdings, Ltd. (NYSE: FFH) or (TSX: FFH.SV)
between March 24, 2004 and March 21, 2006, inclusive, against
defendants:

     -- Fairfax and V. Prem Watsa, and
     -- the Company's Chairman and CEO.

The suit alleges violations under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, 15 U.S.C. sections 78j(b) and 78t(a) and Rule 10b-5,
promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. sections 240.10b-5.

The debt securities at issue in this Complaint are:

     (1) 7.75% notes maturing 04/26/12 ("7.75% Notes");

     (2) 8.25% notes maturing 10/01/15;

     (3) 6.875% notes maturing 4/15/08;

     (4) 8.3% notes maturing 4/15/26; and

     (5) 7.375% notes maturing 4/15/18.

The Complaint also alleges claims on behalf of a sub-class of
Class members who also suffered damages upon purchasing the
7.75% Notes pursuant to or traceable to the Company's August 24,
2004 prospectus (Prospectus) filed by Fairfax with the SEC on
August 25, 2004 to effectuate a $95 million aggregate principal
amount debt flotation (the Sub-Class).

The Complaint alleges that statements in the Prospectus omitted
material information including, inter alia,

     (i) failure to detail the Company's increasing liquidity
         problems;

    (ii) failure to detail second quarter 2004 transactions
         between Odyssey and Fairfax and to explain that the
         arrangements were structured to avoid a liquidity
         squeeze at Fairfax that would have occurred during the
         quarter;

   (iii) failure to detail Fairfax's exposure stemming from the
         need to collateralize run-off business;

    (iv) failure to detail the Company's reserves and whether
         they were adequate to address the Company's growing
         run-off operations;

     (v) failure to detail the Company's growing exposure to
         finite reinsurance agreements within the overall
         organization; and

    (vi) failure to detail Fairfax's highly leveraged balance
         sheet and further omissions concerning the Company's
         equity position.

The claims brought with respect to the Prospectus seek to pursue
remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act)
15 U.S.C. sections 77k and 77l.

Defendants, with respect to the claims brought under the
Securities Act are Mr. Watsa, the Company, and Trevor Ambridge,
the Company's CFO and Vice President (Principal Financial
Officer), M. Jane Williamson, the Company's Vice President
(Principal Accounting Officer), Anthony F. Griffiths, a
Director of the Company, Robbert Hartog, a Director of the
Company, Bradley P. Martin, Vice President and Corporate
Secretary to the Company, and Banc of America Securities LLC,
the underwriter of the Company's 7.75% Notes.

The Complaint's Exchange Act averments allege that defendants
Watsa and the Company violated the federal securities laws by
issuing materially false and misleading statements throughout
the Class Period that had the effect of artificially inflating
the market price of the Company's debt securities.

During the Class Period, the Complaint alleges the Company and
Mr. Watsa engaged in conduct designed to omit material
information from the public concerning Fairfax's exposure to
nontraditional insurance and reinsurance agreements entered into
by the Company and its numerous subsidiaries and affiliates,
including, but not limited to, Odyssey Re Holdings Corp. (NYSE:
ORH).

The Company's Class Period financial statements also failed to
disclose that Fairfax's current reserve accounts and those
maintained by its subsidiaries and affiliates were similarly
understated.

Further, the Company misrepresented its exposure to the risks
associated with Odyssey's finite reinsurance contracts and that
the Company's run-off operations required material restructuring
and additions to reserves.

On March 22, 2006, Fairfax announced that U.S. securities
regulators issued subpoenas to third parties (including the
Company's independent auditor and a shareholder) in an ongoing
probe into certain financial transactions, including
nontraditional insurance or reinsurance product transactions.

While it was widely known that the SEC was investigating the
U.S. reinsurance industry, this was the first time that the
depth of the investigation was disclosed.  The Company's debt
securities declined following this disclosure.

On March 31, 2006, Fairfax filed its delayed annual report on
Form 40-F.  The annual report stated that the Company would not
have to restate prior period's earnings even though Odyssey
would restate the period ended September 30, 2005 due to an
additional contract that needed adjustment.

As a result of the dissemination of the false and misleading
statements set forth above, the market price of Fairfax
securities, including its publicly traded debt, was artificially
inflated during the Class Period.

In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the
statements described above, and the deceptive and manipulative
devices and contrivances employed by said defendants, plaintiffs
and the other members of the Class relied, to their detriment,
on the integrity of the market price of the stock in purchasing
Fairfax securities.

Had plaintiffs and the other members of the
Class known the truth, they would not have purchased said
shares, or would not have purchased them at the inflated prices
that were paid.

The case is styled, "Parks v. Fairfax Financial Holdings, Ltd.,
et al., 06 cv 2820."

For more details, contact Gregory M. Nespole, Esq., Gustavo
Bruckner, Esq., Paulette S. Fox, Esq., Rachel Poplock, Esq., and
Derek Behnke of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP, 270
Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, Phone: (800) 575-0735,
E-mail: classmember@whafh.com, Web site: http://www.whafh.com.


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

The complaint alleges that defendants disseminated false and
misleading financial statements in a scheme to inflate the
earnings of the Company and issued dividends in violation of
loan covenants in order to drive the price of its stock higher.
The higher stock price allowed the Company to sell a secondary
offering in October 2005 on more favorable terms.

Defendants portrayed the Company as a growing real estate
investment trust in a particular niche market, student and
marketing housing and military housing, paying high dividends.
Unbeknownst to the market, the Company's strong earnings were
the result of an accounting fraud.

As part of the Company's closing of its books on fiscal year
2005, the GMH's chief financial officer wrote to the Audit
Committee indicating that there were problems with the "tone at
the top" of 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 fund 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, Robin
Switzenbaum, Esquire, and Kimberly A. Walker, Investor Relations
Manager of Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 888-891-2289 and 215-875-3000,
Fax: 215-875-5715, Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com.


GRAFTECH INT'L: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Next Month
-------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties in a class action against GrafTech
International, Ltd. have 18 more days until the May 1, 2006
deadline to file for appointment as Lead Plaintiff in the case.
The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
GTI between November 3, 2005 and February 8, 2006, inclusive.

On February 28, 2006, the first complaint was filed against GTI
alleging violations of Federal securities laws.  During the
Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business prospects, which
served to artificially inflate the price of the Company's
securities.

Specifically, defendants knew and concealed that:

     (1) pricing power for the Company's graphite electrode
         products was nonexistent, particularly in the European
         markets;

     (2) announced cost-cutting measures were unable to improve
         the Company's bottom line;

     (3) contraction in the non-graphite market was affecting
         the Company's financial woes;

     (4) the Company was unable to precisely forecast growth and
         report guidance; and

     (5) the Company's inability to determine the required depth
         of its restructuring activities and the charges
         necessary to counter the costs of its staggering debt
         and loss of pricing power heavily understated the true
         costs the Company would incur in restructuring.

On February 8, 2006, GrafTech revealed the truth about its
business prospects.  Upon this news the price of GrafTech shares
sank 37.0%, on unusually high volume, dipping from $7.31 per
share on February 8, 2006 to $4.60 per share on February 9,
2006, for a one-day drop of $2.71 per share.

For more details, contact Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. and Zan Smith
of Baron & Budd, P.C., Phone: (800) 222-2766, E-mail:
info@baronbudd.com, Web site: http://www.baronandbudd.com.


H&R BLOCK: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Miss.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action in
the U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri, Western
Division, on behalf of all persons who purchased the common
stock of H&R Block, Inc. (NYSE: HRB) between January 31, 2005
through March 14, 2006, inclusive.  The defendants are HRB and
Mark A. Ernst, the Company's Chairman, President, and CEO.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

In particular, in February 2005, California Attorney General
Bill Lockyer sued the Company over its highly publicized
referral anticipation loans (RALs) seeking "hundreds of millions
of dollars" on behalf of customers and $20 million in civil
penalties. Mr. Lockyer's action joins a long list of lawsuits
that have targeted HRB's RALs -- cash advances that the Company
arranges for customers so they won't have to wait an extra one
to four weeks for a check from the federal government they are
otherwise entitled to receive. In return for the loans,
customers must agree to give a percentage of their tax refunds
to HRB and its banking partners.

Further, the Company reported inflated earnings during the Class
Period. As reported on or about February 23, 2006, the Company
must restate results for fiscal 2004 and 2005, plus previous
2006 quarters, because of errors in calculations regarding its
state effective income tax rate. Reportedly, the errors resulted
in the Company understating state income tax liabilities by at
least $32 million as of the end of April 2005. Indeed, on March
13, 2006, the Company announced it would delay filing its
quarterly report on SEC Form 10-Q until it has completely sorted
out its problems.

Finally, on March 15, 2006, New York Attorney General Elliot
Spitzer sued HRB alleging that the Company over the last four
years opened more than 500,000 "Express IRA" accounts, an
individual retirement account ("IRA") that can take the form of
either a Traditional IRA or a Roth IRA, for clients of its tax-
preparation service; but 85% of the customers who opened the
accounts paid the Company fees in excess of what they earned in
interest. According to Mr. Spitzer's complaint, the program
exploited lower income, working families who were led to believe
the plan presented an excellent opportunity to save for
retirement.

Mr. Spitzer's complaint further avers that Mr. Ernst was aware
of the improper fee practices along with other high-ranking
members of management.

Revelations concerning the Company's improper practices
concerning the Express IRA scheme hammered the Company's stock.
By late afternoon trading on March 15, 2006, the Company's price
per share was down 5.5% at $20.28; earlier, shares traded as low
as $19.80 per share, passing the previous 52-week low of $21.58
set on March 16, 2006.

HRB's use of these improper practices served to artificially
inflate the Company's reported earnings during the Class Period
because the Company's earnings were generated through an
improper and unsustainable business practice. Accordingly, the
Company's Class Period statements concerning its compliance with
applicable laws and regulations were false.

Also, the Company, having disclosed the existence of -- and
touted the success of -- the Express IRA plan and the RALs
program, was obligated to disclose the risks associated with the
business, including that members of management, e.g., Mr. Ernst,
were aware that these plans (or at least how they were
implemented) ran afoul of certain regulations. Failure to
disclose this information constituted material omissions, the
ultimate disclosure of which harmed the Company's stockholders.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law
Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, Phone (888) 643-6735 or (610) 660-8000,
Fax: (610) 660-8080, E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com, Web site:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set May 22
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of Merge Technologies, Inc. have until May 22, 2006
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in a class action alleging
violations of the federal securities laws by Merge and certain
of its officers and/or directors.  The case was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on
behalf of purchasers of securities between August 2, 2005 to
March 16, 2006.

As noted in an Associated Press article dated April 11, 2006,
several analysts recently downgraded Merge's stock citing loss
of management credibility.  Analysts also questioned sales by
Chief Executive Linden and Chief Financial Officer Scott in
November when share prices were trading at more than double
their current levels.

For more details, contact Guri Ademi of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP,
Phone: 866/264-3995, E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com, Web site:
http://www.ademilaw.com/cases/Merge.pdf.


MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in Wis.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action in
the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin,
Milwaukee Division, on behalf of all persons who purchased Merge
Technologies, Inc. securities (including purchasers of common
stock, purchasers of call options, and sellers of put options)
between August 2, 2005 through March 16, 2006, inclusive.

The suit was filed against:

     -- Merge Technologies, Inc., d/b/a Merge Healthcare,
     -- Richard A. Linden, the Company's CEO, President,
        Director and Chairman of the Executive Committee, and

     -- Scott T. Veech, the Company's CFO, Secretary and
        Treasurer.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

In particular, the complaint alleges, as it concerns the all-
stock merger between the Company and Cedara Software Corp.,
first announced in January 2005 and completed June 1, 2005, that
Merge represented to the investment community that the merger
was highly-successful and that the Company maintained a strong
financial position, while concealing:

     (1) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls;

     (2) the Company's financial statements for the second and
         third quarters of 2005 were unreliable; and

     (3) that the Company's financial projections were
         irresponsible considering the knowledge defendants
         possessed concerning the Company's actual financial
         situation.

As a result, on February 24, 2006, Merge announced that it was
delaying the issuance of its fourth quarter 2005 results in
order to allow additional time to complete an audit of the
Company's financial statements, and in particular, an
investigation into the recording of certain large sales
contracts as deferred revenue.

Then, on March 17, 2006, Merge reported, inter alia:

     (i) that the accounting improprieties in fact necessitated
         that management delay the completion of the Company's
         financial statements for the fiscal year ended December
         31, 2005;

    (ii) that its audit committee, with the assistance of
         outside counsel, was investigating anonymous
         complaints;

   (iii) that it anticipates a report of material weaknesses in
         the Company's internal control over financial
         reporting;

    (iv) the suspension of its registration statement on Form S-
         3 relating to issuance of common stock upon exchange of
         exchangeable shares of "Merge/Cedara ExchangeCo Ltd.;"
         and

     (v) that its audit committee concluded that its previously
         issued financial statements for the second and third
         quarters 2005, should no longer be relied upon.

Initial news of the Company's improper practices concerning the
Cedara merger came as a surprise to investors and caused the
stock to decline from its February 23, 2006 close of $24.50 per
share to $20.50 by the end of trading on February 24 -- a one
day decline of 16.3 percent.

The Company's March 17, 2006 announcement of, inter alia, the
delay of its fiscal year 2005 financial results and
unreliability of second and third quarter 2005 financial
results, at the close of trading on March 17, 2006, Merge stock
was $15.85, down from a previous day's closing price of $17.97,
or an additional 11 percent.

Merge's use of these improper practices served to artificially
inflate the Company's reported earnings during the Class Period.
Failure to disclose this information constituted material
omissions, the ultimate disclosure of which harmed the Company's
investors.  Accordingly, the Company's Class Period statements
concerning its compliance with applicable laws and regulations
were false.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law
Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, Phone (888) 643-6735 or (610) 660-8000,
Fax: (610) 660-8080, E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com, Web site:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, initiated a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, Orlando Division, on behalf of purchasers of
PainCare Holdings, Inc. (AMEX: PRZ) common stock between
February 3, 2003 and March 15, 2006.

The complaint charges PainCare and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. PainCare describes itself as "one of the nation's leading
providers of pain-focused medical and surgical solutions and
services."

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous positive statements and filed
quarterly reports with the SEC, which described the Company's
increasing financial performance.

These statements were materially false and misleading because
they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse
facts, among others:

     (1) that PainCare improperly accounted for convertible term
         notes and certain freestanding and embedded derivates
         related to shares of PainCare's common stock issued in
         several private placement transactions;

     (2) that PainCare failed to properly account for option
         grants issued under the Company's 2000 and 2001 stock
         option plans;

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

     (4) that as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         financial results from 2000-2005 were materially
         overstated at all relevant times.

On March 15, 2006, the Company shocked the market when it issued
a press release announcing that PainCare will restate its
historical financial statements for the years ended December 31,
2000, December 31, 2001, December 31, 2002, December 31, 2003
and December 31, 2004, and the quarters ended March 31, 2005,
June 30, 2005 and September 30, 2005.  The total restatement
will lower net income by a combined $39.6 million.

In response to this announcement, shares of the Company's stock
fell $0.36 per share, or almost 13%, to close at $2.50 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume.  During the next three
trading days, as the market digested the news, shares of the
Company's stock continued to fall, reaching as low as $1.41 per
share on March 21, 2006, a more than 50% decline.

Prior to disclosing these adverse facts to the investing public,
PainCare:

     (i) acquired at least twenty companies using its
         artificially inflated common stock and cash received
         from private placements and credit facilities as
         consideration;

    (ii) entered into private placement deals whereby the
         Company received over $33 million in gross proceeds;

   (iii) increased its credit facilities by at least $30 million
         on more favorable terms than it would have if the truth
         was known; and

    (iv) completed an offering of 8 million shares of its common
         stock whereby it reaped approximately $15.2 million in
         gross proceeds.

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


ST JUDE: Abbey Spanier Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Minn.
------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP, commenced a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or acquired
securities of St. Jude Medical, Inc. (NYSE: STJ) between January
25, 2006 and April 4, 2006 inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period thereby
artificially inflating the price of St. Jude securities.

Defendants include St. Jude and certain of its top officers and
directors. The Complaint alleges that the defendants made
misstatements and omitted information regarding the sales
success and prospects of a major St. Jude product, its
implantable cardioverter defibrillator systems ("ICD").

On January 25, 2006, St. Jude reported that Fourth quarter
implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) product sales were
$280 million, a 62% increase over the comparable quarter of 2004
and that ICD product sales for the full-year 2005 were $1.007
billion, representing a 72% increase over 2004.

The Company emphasized that these "results continued to
underscore the competitiveness of St. Jude Medical's ICD product
portfolio and program."

On April 4, 2006, St. Jude shocked the market by announcing that
its financial and operating results were well below analysts'
expectations and the declining sales of ICDs.  On this news,
shares of St. Jude fell $5.05 per share, on extremely high
volume, to close at $36.25.

The Complaint alleges that St. Jude pushed sales of ICDs into
the fourth quarter of 2005 so as to inflate the stock price and
achieve extraordinary personal benefits for top insiders, such
as CEO Daniel J. Starks, who sold an unusual number of shares in
the open market in the early months of 2006, and received a
substantial boost in his compensation for 2005's performance,
including a grant of 216,000 restricted shares worth (at the
time) approximately $10 million.

In response to the Company's April 4, 2006 announcement, Goldman
Sachs analyst Lawrence Keusch said, "in the 2006 first quarter,
there were no changes made to reimbursements, no significant
product recalls, and no rash of deaths due to defibrillators
among other issues that would prompt an industry-wide demand
decline.  It is difficult for us to support the notion that the
market took a steep reversal during the quarter."  Plaintiff
seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased or
otherwise acquired St. Jude securities during the Class Period.

For more details, Nancy Kaboolian, Phone: 1-800-889-3701, E-
mail: nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com.


ST JUDE: Lockridge Grindal Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P., filed a
lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of St. Jude Medical, Inc. between
January 25, 2006 and April 4, 2006, inclusive.

The action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota, and names as defendants the Company as well as
certain senior officers and directors.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of St. Jude securities.

Defendants include St. Jude and certain of its top officers and
directors. The Complaint alleges that the defendants made
misstatements and omitted information regarding the sales
success and prospects of a major St. Jude product, its
implantable cardioverter defibrillator systems ("ICD").

On January 25, 2006, St. Jude reported that Fourth quarter
implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) product sales were
$280 million, a 62% increase over the comparable quarter of 2004
and that ICD product sales for the full-year 2005 were $1.007
billion, representing a 72% increase over 2004.

The Company emphasized that these "results continued to
underscore the competitiveness of St. Jude Medical's ICD product
portfolio and program."  On April 4, 2006, St. Jude shocked the
market by announcing that its financial and operating results
were well below analysts' expectations and the declining sales
of ICDs.

On this news, shares of St. Jude fell $5.05 per share, on
extremely high volume, to close at $36.25.

The Complaint alleges that St. Jude pushed sales of ICDs into
the fourth quarter of 2005 so as to inflate the stock price and
achieve extraordinary personal benefits for top insiders, such
as CEO Daniel J. Starks, who sold an unusual number of shares in
the open market in the early months of 2006, and received a
substantial boost in his compensation for 2005's performance,
including a grant of 216,000 restricted shares worth (at the
time) approximately $10 million.

In response to the Company's April 4, 2006 announcement, Goldman
Sachs analyst Lawrence Keusch said "in the 2006 first quarter,
there were no changes made to reimbursements, no significant
product recalls, and no rash of deaths due to defibrillators
among other issues that would prompt an industry-wide demand
decline.  It is difficult for us to support the notion that the
market took a steep reversal during the quarter."

For more details, contact Karen H. Riebel, Esq. of Lockridge
Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P., 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite
2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401, Phone: (612) 339-6900, E-mail:
khriebel@locklaw.com.


TNS INC: Federman & Sherwood Securities Fraud Suit in E.D Va.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against TNS
Inc. (NYSE: TNS).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
stock in connection with its secondary offering of common stock
on or about September 16, 2005.

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



                            *********


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  * * *