CAR_Public/060424.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, April 24, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 80

                            Headlines

ACCELERATED NETWORKS: IPO Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 24
AXT INC: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
BAUSCH & LOMB: Faces Lawsuit Over ReNu Contact Lens Solution
CEISEL MASONRY: Faces Racial Harassment Suits in Federal Court
CFC INT'L: Pennsylvania Event Files Ill. Suit Over Quad-C Merger

CHEMINOVA INC: Reaches $12.5M Deal in N.Y. Lobster Deaths Suit
CHILDREN'S PLACE: June Trial Set for Settlement of Calif. Suit
COAST CAPITAL: Suit Over Credit Union's Overdraft Fee to Proceed
CROCUS INVESTMENT: Judge Stalls Interim Payouts for Shareholders
DAIMLECHRYSLER CORP: Appeals Court Keeps Consumer Suit in Ill.

DANIER LEATHER: Canadian Court Mulls Appeal of Suit's Dismissal
DOMINION HOMES: Condominium Homeowners File Suit in Ohio S.D.
DOMINION HOMES: Faces Lawsuit in Ohio Over Down Payment Program
DYNABAZAAR INC: IPO Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set April 24
FREDDIE MAC: Settles Securities, Derivative Lawsuits for $410M

INSWEB CORP: April 24 Hearing Set for IPO Lawsuit Settlement
LEVITT CORP: Joint Stipulation Filed for Fla. Homeowners' Suit
MICHAELS STORES: Continues to Face Overtime Lawsuit in Canada
MICHAELS STORES: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suit in Calif.
NEOPHARM INC: Discovery Proceeds in Ill. Securities Fraud Suit

NEW YORK: Hurricane Katrina Victims Extend Stay in Radisson
PFGI CAPITAL: Stock Owner Reaches Ohio Securities Suit Agreement
SELECT MEDICAL: Continues to Face Stockholders' Suit in E.D. Pa.
TAP ENTERPRISES: Recalls Air Compressors Due to Fire Hazard
TELAXIS COMMUNICATIONS: IPO Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 24

TRIPLE-S INC: Stay Expires With No Solution to Physicians' Suit
TRIPLE-S INC: Parties Ask for Extension on Stay Over Fla. Suit
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: P.R. Court Mulls Class Status for "Sanchez"
TRENDSET ORIGINALS: Recalls Girls Sweaters with Drawstrings
TROPITONE: Recalls "Impressions Side Chair" for Replacement

VERDISYS INC: Reaches Settlement for Tex. Securities Fraud Suit
YAMAHA CORP: Recalls Piano Bench to Replace Sub-Standard Bolt

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ASTEA INT'L: Shalov Stone Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Pa.
H&R BLOCK: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Suit in Wis.
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set April 25
NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in Utah

NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Spector Roseman Lodges Lawsuit in Ill.
PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Berman DeValerio Lodges Stock Lawsuit in Fla.
PIXELPLUS CO: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
SEA CONTAINERS: Smith Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
ST JUDE: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Minn.

                            *********


ACCELERATED NETWORKS: IPO Suit 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 Accelerated
Networks, Inc.

In June 2001, three putative stockholder class actions were
filed against Accelerated Networks, certain of its then officers
and directors and several investment banks that were
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering.

The cases, which have since been consolidated, were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
Court appointed a lead plaintiff on April 16, 2002, and
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
(the Complaint) on April 19, 2002.

The Complaint was filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Accelerated Networks' stock between June 22, 2000 and December
6, 2000 and alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933
Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the 1934 Act
against one or both of the Company and the individual
defendants.

The claims were based on allegations that the underwriter
defendants agreed to allocate stock in Accelerated Networks'
initial public offering to certain investors in exchange for
excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those
investors to make additional purchases in the aftermarket at
pre-determined prices.

Plaintiffs alleged that the prospectus for Company's IPO was
false and misleading in violation of the securities laws because
it did not disclose these arrangements.

These lawsuits are part of the massive "IPO allocation"
litigation involving the conduct of underwriters in allocating
shares of successful initial public offerings.

The Company believes that over three hundred other firms were
named in more than one thousand similar lawsuits that were filed
by some of the same plaintiffs' law firms.

In October 2002, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
individual defendants without prejudice.

On February 19, 2003 a motion to dismiss filed by the issuer
defendants was heard and the court dismissed the 10(b), 20(a)
and Rule 10b-5 claims against Occam Networks, Inc., the
California corporation acquired by the Company in 2002.

On July 31, 2003, the Company agreed, together with over three
hundred other companies similarly situated, to settle with the
Plaintiffs.

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), along with a separate
agreement and a performance bond of $1 billion issued by the
insurers for these companies is a guarantee, allocated pro rata
amongst all issuer companies, to the plaintiffs as part of an
overall recovery against all defendants including the
underwriter defendants who are not a signatory to the MOU.  Any
recovery by the plaintiffs against the underwriter defendants
reduces amount to be paid by the issuer companies.

There is a fairness hearing scheduled for April 24, 2006 to
obtain final approval of the settlement by the members of the
class of plaintiffs and the court.

The Company cannot predict whether such approval will be
obtained.  It has not recorded any accrual related to this
proposed settlement because it expects any settlement amounts to
be covered by its insurance policies.

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


AXT INC: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in the consolidated securities
fraud class action against AXT, Inc., which is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

On October 15, 2004, a purported securities class action was
filed in the U.S. Court for the Northern District of California,
styled, "City of Harper Woods Employees Retirement System v.
AXT, Inc., et al., No. C 04 4362 MJJ."  The court consolidated
the case with a subsequent related case and appointed a lead
plaintiff.

On April 5, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint, captioned, "Morgan v. AXT, Inc. et al., No. C 04 4362
MJJ."  The complaint names the Company and its chief technology
officer, as defendants, and is brought on behalf of a class of
all purchasers of its securities from February 6, 2001 through
April 27, 2004.

The complaint alleges that the Company announced financial
results during this period that were false and misleading.  No
specific amount of damages is claimed.

On September 23, 2005, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint, with leave to amend.  Lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint, which the Company moved to dismiss.

The suit is styled "Thomas O. Morgan, et al. v. AXT, Inc et al.,
Case No. 3:04-cv-04362-MJJ," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Martin J.
Jenkins.  Representing the plaintiffs are Peter A. Binkow and
Lionel Z. Glancy of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of
the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: (310) 201-
9150, Fax: (310) 201-9160, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com; and
Elizabeth P. Lin, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, 355
South Grand Ave., Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-
617-1200, Fax: 213-617-1975, E-mail: elin@milbergweiss.com.

Representing the Company are David Banie and David Priebe of DLA
Piper Rudnick Gray Cary U.S. LLP, 2000 University Avenue, East
Palo Alto, CA 94303, Phone: 650-833-2000, Fax: 650-833-2001, E-
mail: david.banie@dlapiper.com and david.priebe@dlapiper.com.


BAUSCH & LOMB: Faces Lawsuit Over ReNu Contact Lens Solution
------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against
Bausch & Lomb on behalf of all users of a contact solution
called ReNu with MoistureLoc.

The solution has now been linked to a serious fungal infection
by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the U.S. Foods and
Drug Administration.  Federman & Sherwood said it is ready to
assist potential clients who consistently used this product for
30 days or longer, resulting in a serious corneal infection
known as 'fusarium keratitis', an infection of the cornea.

Public health warnings have been issued because of serious
infections occurring in contact lens wearers who also used this
product.  These warnings came after the CDC interviewed 26
patients suspected of 'fusarium keratitis', all of which were
users of the ReNu with MoistureLoc Solution.

On April 13, 2006, Bausch & Lomb, Inc. recommended that
consumers switch to another contact lens solution, and asked all
retailers to remove from their shelves any ReNu with
MoistureLoc, which was manufactured in the U.S.

Plaintiffs in cases such as these typically seek to recover
damages for medical screening and monitoring, lost wages, and
pain and suffering.  The firm's attorneys will handle your
inquiry quickly and responsibly.

For more details, contact Brenda D. Radford of Federman &
Sherwood, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102,
Phone: (405) 235-1560, Ext. 306 and 1-800-237-1277, Fax: (405)
239-2112, E-mail: bdr@federmanlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.federmanlaw.com.


CEISEL MASONRY: Faces Racial Harassment Suits in Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal civil rights lawyers have filed a racial harassment
class action on behalf of Hispanic workers at Ceisel Masonry in
Northbrook, Illinois, according to The Chicago Tribune.

The non-profit Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under
Law and the Chicago office of Howrey LLP filed the suit in
federal court on April 14.  The suit alleged that managers at
the Company harassed more than 50 Hispanic workers from April
2002 to the present by calling non-white Hispanic workers with
derogatory names.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
has filed a similar suit, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

The lawsuit wants an end to the harassment and the
implementation of an effective anti-harassment policy, as well
as compensatory and punitive damages.

Contact information for Howrey LLP: 1950 University Avenue
4th Floor, East Palo Alto, California 94303 (San Mateo Co.),
Phone: 650-798-3500, 650-798-3600, on the Net:
http://www.howrey.com;Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights Under
Law: 1401 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 400, Washington, District
of Columbia 20005, Phone: 202-662-8600, Fax: 202-783-0857, on
the Net: http://www.lawyerscomm.org.


CFC INT'L: Pennsylvania Event Files Ill. Suit Over Quad-C Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
CFC International, Inc. and its directors were named as
defendants in a punitive class action over the Company's
definitive merger with an affiliate of Quad-C Management, Inc.,
a private equity firm.  The suit was filed in the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois.

On January 12, 2006, the Pennsylvania Event Driven Fund, a
holder of 500 Shares, filed the class action complaint (Case No.
06 CH 780).

The complaint disclaims any request for damages and seeks only
declaratory and injunctive relief.  Specifically, the complaint
seeks a declaration that non-solicitation, expense reimbursement
and termination fee provisions in the merger agreement
ostensibly were entered into in breach of the board's fiduciary
duty.

It also seeks a multi-faceted injunction requiring the
defendants to comply with certain conditions (including a
condition that the merger be approved by a majority of the
minority of the Company's stockholders) before the merger, or
"any acquisition," can be consummated.

The Company intends to fight against this suit.  The Company
believes that in view of the termination of the merger agreement
that the plaintiff will terminate this suit.


CHEMINOVA INC: Reaches $12.5M Deal in N.Y. Lobster Deaths Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Long Island lobstermen and chemical manufacturer Cheminova Inc.
reached agreement to settle a suit over the deaths of millions
of lobsters since 1999 for $12.5 million, reports say.  The
motion to settle was submitted on April 18 in U.S. District
Court in Central Islip, New York.

The suit was filed in 2000 accusing Cheminova, the New Jersey-
based subsidiary of a Danish chemical manufacturer, that its
insecticide, Fyfanon, whose active ingredient is malathion,
contributed to a massive lobster die-off in Long Island Sound.
The chemical was sprayed around the New York metropolitan area
in 1999 to stop the spread of mosquito-borne West Nile virus.

In 2004, two other pesticide manufacturers named in the lawsuit,
Clarke Mosquito Control Products Inc. and Agrebo Environmental
Health Inc., settled similar lawsuits for $3.75 million.  The
recent settlement would cover more than 200 lobstermen and about
1,100 licensed commercial lobstermen in New York and Connecticut
who wish to join in, according to Gladstone N. Jones III, lead
counsel for the lobstermen.  Awards would depend on the amount
of the plaintiffs' income from the business between 1996 and
1999, under the same formula used to disperse the 2004
settlement.

The settlement obviates a trial scheduled within days.  A
hearing would have dealt on the question of whether the
insecticide was a main factor in the death of the lobsters, and
whether Cheminova had properly labeled the insecticide in
accordance with Environmental Protection Agency regulations.
Cheminova is to admit no wrongdoing under the settlement.
Cheminova's lawyer if Christopher G. Kelly.

For more information, contact Mr. Jones at Jones, Verras &
Freiberg LLC, 601 Poydras Street, Suite 2655, New Orleans,
Louisiana 70130 (Orleans Parish), Phone: 504-523-2500, 1-800-
998-6942 (toll free), Fax: 504-523-2508.


CHILDREN'S PLACE: June Trial Set for Settlement of Calif. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable William A. Mayhew of the Stanislaus County
Superior Court will hold a final fairness hearing for the
proposed settlement of a class action against The Children's
Place Retail Stores, Inc. on June 6, 2006.  The case was brought
on behalf of people who purchased merchandise from The
Children's Place Stores in the State of California between
November 12, 2003 and October 21, 2005, used a credit card to
make the purchase(s) and were asked for a telephone number.

The hearing will be at Department 21 of the Stanislaus County
Superior Court, located at 2744 2nd Street, Ceres, California
95307.  Deadline to submit a claim form is Sept. 23, 2006.
Deadline to comment on, or object to the proposed settlement and
to request exclusion from the settlement class is May 16, 2006.

Six plaintiffs in three separate lawsuits filed class actions
against The Children's Place on behalf of themselves and those
persons described above.  The three lawsuits were coordinated
into one Action.  Plaintiffs' law firms, who represent
plaintiffs and the class members are:

     -- Lindsay & Stonebarger, A Professional Corporation;

     -- Fineman & Associates;

     -- Chapko & English, LLP;

     -- Westrup Klick LLP; and

     -- The Law Offices of Allan A. Sigel, P.C.

The lawsuit alleges that The Children's Place violated
California law by requesting and recording the telephone number
from customers in California who paid for purchases with a
credit card.  Plaintiffs claim that The Children's Place
subsequently performed reverse telephone number searches to find
customer addresses, and then included those addresses in its
customer database without the customer's knowledge or consent.
The Children's Place denies it has done anything wrong, and
denies that any class member has been injured or suffered
damages.

                        Settlement Terms

The Children's Place agreed to provide all class members who
have not chosen to opt out of the settlement with a 30% discount
voucher towards one transaction of any amount at any The
Children's Place Store in California.  The Children's Place
further agreed to provide all Class Members who have not chosen
to opt out of the settlement and who submit a valid, timely
Claim Form with a ($10) dollar gift certificate that can be
redeemed for a one-time transaction of any amount at any The
Children's Place store in California.

Finally, each class member shall have the option to indicate on
the claim form that the class member would like his or her
personal information to be removed from the customer database
maintained by The Children's Place.

The parties agreed that class counsel shall be entitled to an
incentive award of $5,000 to each of the six named plaintiffs in
the action in recognition of the risk to plaintiffs as the class
representatives in commencing the lawsuits in the coordinated
action, both financial and otherwise; the amount of time and
effort spent by Plaintiffs as the Class representatives; and for
serving the public interest.

The parties also agreed that class counsel shall be entitled to
an award of attorneys' fees and costs of $500,000, which the
parties agreed represents a fair and commensurate amount in view
of the nature of the actions and the results achieved for the
benefit of California consumers.  Payment of attorneys' fees
will not affect the benefits provided to the settlement class.

Class counsel's address:

     Lindsay & Stonebarger
     1107 9th Street, Suite 1020
     Sacramento, CA 95814

Defendant counsel's address:

     Michael W. Scarborough, Esq.
     Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
     4 Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94111

For more information, contact plaintiffs' class counsel Phillip
R. Poliner Esq., of Westrup Klick LLP, Phone: 1-888-268-6884; or
visit, http://www.gardencitygroup.com/childrensplacesettlement.


COAST CAPITAL: Suit Over Credit Union's Overdraft Fee to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Nancy Morrison granted
class action status to a suit filed by a Vancouver Island woman
alleging Coast Capital Savings Credit Union charged her unlawful
overdraft fees, according to Vancouver Sun.

The suit was filed by Louise Parson on April 20, 2004 on behalf
of herself and other members of Coast Capital.  She said she
paid the credit union $1,585 in overdraft fees -- at a range of
$20 to $$22.50 per overdraft -- for 70 individual overdrafts
incurred over a four-year period, from 1998 to 2002.  The
amount, reportedly, was in excess of the maximum rate of
interest permitted under the Criminal Code.  She is seeking
restitution, interest and unspecified punitive damages.

The credit union covers insufficiently funded checks issued by
individuals, like Ms. Parsons, who did not have overdraft
protection, but, on occasion, wrote such checks.  It charges an
overdraft fee for the service.  Trudi Kloepper, senior vice-
president, investment services, with Coast Capital told
Vancouver Sun that since 2002 the credit union has charged a
flat overdraft fee of $5.  He said the decision was influenced a
lot by the merger of Coast Capital Richmond Savings Credit
Union, Pacific Coast Savings Credit Union and Surrey Metro
Savings Credit Union.

Coat Capital on the Net: http://www.coastcapitalsavings.com.


CROCUS INVESTMENT: Judge Stalls Interim Payouts for Shareholders
----------------------------------------------------------------
Court of Queen's Bench Justice Deborah McCawley refused to
support a proposal to grant an interim payment for Crocus
Investment Fund shareholders as suggested by the fund's
receiver-manager Russ Holmes, according to The Winnipeg Sun.

Mr. Holmes had suggested that shareholders receive a dollar a
share as part of an interim $14.2 million payment for lost
investment.  Justice McCawley, however, maintained that
shareholders could not trump creditors when it came to earning
proceeds from the venture capital fund.  But she left open the
possibility of an interim distribution to shareholders in the
future.

Crocus Investors Association is filing a class action against
the defunct fund on behalf of 34,000 members.  The Fund stopped
trading in December 2004 amid allegations of over-inflated share
value.  The lawsuit seeks $200 million in lost share value and
damages.

Crocus Investment is also facing several other lawsuits,
including claims by three employees seeking severance and
pension benefits.  One suit, seeking $30 million, is filed in
the U.S.

The fund is also facing a potential claim by federal Western
Economic Diversification over a $2-million contribution to
Crocus between 1994 and 1996.

Representing the investors are David Klein (lead lawyer) of
David Klein, Klein Lyons, Suite 1100 - 1333 West Broadway
Vancouver, B.C. V6H 4C1, Phone: (604) 874-7171; Jay Prober; and
(3) Norman Boudreau.


DAIMLECHRYSLER CORP: Appeals Court Keeps Consumer Suit in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Illinois Appellate Court determined that a class action
against DaimlerChrysler Corp. and Enterprise Rent-a-Car will
remain in Madison County, according to The St. Clair Record.

Ralph Kern and Alan Lewis sued the automaker in February 2004,
claiming that it failed to disclose a substantial risk that an
engine defect would develop after 50,000 miles in many of its
vehicles and that the defect might not exhibit itself until
after warranties on those vehicles had expired.

Both are claiming that DaimlerChrysler's conduct constitutes
consumer fraud and common law fraud by omission and thus they
are seeking damages equal to the cost of repairs to the vehicle
plus all related costs.  In filings, both men contend that they
targeted Daimler in their suit due to the fact that only the
automaker can prevent design defects that cause engine failure.

In the complaint, Mr. Kern states that he had bought his used
1999 Dodge Intrepid with a 2.7-liter engine from Enterprise
Rent-A-Car, a co-defendant in the suit. In late 2002 and early
2003 the engine allegedly began to fail, with an odometer
reading between 50,000-80,000 miles. Kern's warranty had
expired, leaving him to pay his $5,210.06 repair bill himself.
The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages for consumer
fraud and common fraud law.

In May 2004, Mr. Kern and Lewis filed a motion seeking leave to
file a second amended complaint to add Enterprise St. Louis as
defendant in place of Enterprise Midwest, saying it
inadvertently misidentified the proper Enterprise entity.  In an
answer to the amended complaint, which former Circuit Judge
George Moran allowed in June 2004, Enterprise St. Louis admitted
that its principal place of business is in Missouri and that it
maintains branch offices in Madison County.

"[G]ranting leave to amend the complaint would cure a defect in
the pleadings," according to Appellate Court Justice James
Donovan.

Daimler had objected to the order granting the amendment saying,
among others, that it was not given adequate notice and an
opportunity to be heard on the motion.  Justice Donovan wrote in
his ruling, "There is no indication that Chrysler had attempted
to call up its motion for a change of venue at any time prior to
Judge Moran's ruling on the plaintiffs' motion to amend."

"In summary, we conclude that the trial court had the discretion
to decide whether it would hear and rule on the plaintiffs'
motion for leave to amend the complaint prior to considering
Chrysler's motion to transfer venue," the Judge wrote.

Daimler also argued that the order granting leave to file the
second amended complaint was void because a proper and timely
filed motion for a substitution of judge was pending at the time
leave to amend was granted.  The court rejected the argument.

Presiding Justice Stephen Spomer and Justice Stephen McGlynn
concurred in the case.

Daimler is represented by Alan Dixon, Ann Covington, Kathy
Wisniewski and John W. Rogers of Bryan Cave in St. Louis.  The
plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey Millar and Thomas Maag of
Wendler and Ezra, 850 Vandalia Street, Suite 310-320,
Collinsville, IL 62234.


DANIER LEATHER: Canadian Court Mulls Appeal of Suit's Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Danier Leather Inc. has filed a response to a motion by
plaintiffs seeking to appeal the dismissal of a class action
over the Company's 1998 initial public offering.

The Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously granted on December 15,
2005, Danier Leather's appeal on three separate grounds from the
May 2004 judgment of the Superior Court of Justice (Ontario) in
the matter of a class action concerning the Company's initial
public offering in 1998.

In its unanimous decision, a panel of the Court of Appeal
allowed the appeal on three separate grounds, set aside the
trial decision and dismissed the class action.  The decision
stated that the Danier Leather met its statutory disclosure
obligations during the IPO process.  It noted that the Company's
achievement of its financial forecast was a relevant
consideration.  And it stated that greater deference should have
been accorded the business judgment of the Company's senior
management, judgment that turned out to be correct (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 19, 2005).

As a result, the Company and its Senior Officers are not
required to pay any of the damages, interest or costs awarded by
the trial judge.  During the third quarter of 2006, the
plaintiff's filed an Application for Leave to Appeal to the
Supreme Court of Canada.  During March 2006, the Company filed a
response to the plaintiffs' leave application and it is expected
to take at least three to six months for the Supreme Court of
Canada to either grant or deny the plaintiffs' application.

Although the Court of Appeal set aside the trial judge's
decision, the accrued litigation provision and related expenses
of $18 million will remain until the Supreme Court of Canada has
rejected the leave application, or if leave is granted, any
appeal is disposed of by the Supreme Court of Canada.  Danier
has filed with the Court of Appeal a submission requesting that
Danier and its Senior Officers be entitled to costs for the
trial and the appeal.

Danier Leather Inc. (CA:DLSV) -- http://www.danier.com-- is an
integrated designer, manufacturer, and retailer of high-quality
leather and suede clothing and accessories.

For more details, contact Investor Relations: Danier
Leather Inc. Jeffrey Wortsman President and Chief Executive
Officer, Phone: (416) 762-8175 ext. 302, Fax: (416) 762-7408, E-
mail: leather@danier.com; and Danier Leather Inc. Bryan Tatoff
Senior Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer, Phone:
(416) 762-8175 ext. 328, Fax: (416) 762-6072, E-mail:
bryan@danier.com.


DOMINION HOMES: Condominium Homeowners File Suit in Ohio S.D.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Homes Financial Services, Ltd., and National City
Mortgage Co. were named as defendants in a purported class
action pending in filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division.

Filed on February 21, 2006, the complaint includes claims for
breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent
representations and material omissions in connection with the
financing of plaintiffs' condominium homes located in the
Village at Polaris Park (VPP), where the Company has been unable
to obtain final HUD approval for Federal Housing Administration
(FHA) insured mortgages to be sold to its customers.

The plaintiffs purport to bring the claim on behalf of
homeowners in VPP who purchased FHA mortgages through and from
the defendants.

The complaint seeks damages, including actual damages, punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, for, among other things,
the alleged loss of certain FHA-insured mortgage features,
including loan assumability, and for the defendants' failure to
notify plaintiffs of the status of their mortgages.

The suit is styled, "Stuart, et. al. v. Dominion Homes Financial
Services, Inc., et. al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00137-MHW-MRA," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
under Judge Michael H. Watson with referral to Judge Mark R.
Abel.  Representing the plaintiffs is Gary Michael Smith, Graham
& Graham Co. L.P.A., Graham Law Building, 17 N. 4th Street, P.O.
Box 340, Zanesville, OH 43702-0340, Phone: 740-454-8585, Fax:
740-454-0111, E-mail: gmsmith@grahamlpa.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) James Edward Arnold of Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott - 2,
         471 East Broad Street, Suite 1400, Columbus, OH 43215,
         Phone: 614-469-1400, E-mail: jarnold@cpaslaw.com;

     (2) James Eugene Burke of Keating Muething & Klekamp - 1,
         One E. Fourth Street, Suite 1400, Cincinnati, OH 45202,
         Phone: 513-579-6400, Fax: 513-579-6429, E-mail:
         jburke@kmklaw.com; and

     (3) Joseph William Ryan, Jr. of Porter Wright Morris &
         Arthur - 2, 41 S. High Street, Suite 2800, Columbus, OH
         43215-6194, Phone: 614-227-2000, Fax: 614-227-2244, E-
         mail: jryan@porterwright.com.


DOMINION HOMES: Faces Lawsuit in Ohio Over Down Payment Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action pending in filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division names
as defendants:

     -- Dominion Homes Financial Services, Ltd.,
     -- its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
     -- certain affiliates and current and former officers,
     -- The Nehemiah Corporation of America

The suit was filed on February 23, 2006, by plaintiff
homeowners, who purchased homes from the Company using Nehemiah
down payment assistance funds.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that plaintiffs
suffered financial injuries as a result of the defendants'
participation in fraudulent conduct by the Company related to
the Nehemiah down payment assistance program in violation of
Federal statutes and Ohio law.

The complaint further alleges that defendants fraudulently
misrepresented and concealed the cost and operation of the
Nehemiah program from plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs purport to bring the claim on behalf of customers of
the Company who purchased a home from 1999 to present using down
payment assistance from Nehemiah.  They seek monetary damages
and attorneys' fees and costs.

The suit is styled, "Rudawsky, et al. v. Borrer, et al., Case
No. 2:06-cv-00144-ALM-MRA," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Michael H. Watson with
referral to Judge Mark R. Abel.  Representing the plaintiffs
are, Amy Gullifer and Gary Michael Smith of Graham & Graham Co.,
L.P.A., 17 North Fourth Street, P.O. Box 340, Zanesville, OH
43702-0340, Phone: 740-454-8585, Fax: 740-454-0111, E-mail:
gmsmith@grahamlpa.com and aegullifer@grahamlpa.com.

Representing the defendants are, James Edward Arnold of Clark
Perdue Arnold & Scott - 2, 471 East Broad Street, Suite 1400,
Columbus, OH 43215, Phone: 614-469-1400, Fax: 614-469-0900, E-
mail: jarnold@cpaslaw.com; and Joseph William Ryan, Jr. of
Porter Wright Morris & Arthur - 2, 41 S. High Street, Suite
2800, Columbus, OH 43215-6194, Phone: 614-227-2000, Fax: 614-
227-2244, E-mail: jryan@porterwright.com.


DYNABAZAAR 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 filed against
Dynabazaar, Inc. over its initial public offering (IPO).

The Company was named as a defendant in certain purported class
actions filed by individual shareholders in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  Specifically, the
suits were filed against:

      -- the Company,
      -- Scott Randall, former President, Chief Executive
         Officer and Chairman of the Board,
      -- John Belchers, former Chief Financial Officer
      -- U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc.,
      -- DB Alex. Brown (as successor-in-interest to Deutsche
         Bank Securities, Inc.),
      -- Robertson Stephens, Inc. (formerly FleetBoston
         Robertson Stephens, Inc.),
      -- Banc of America Securities, LLC,
      -- Goldman Sachs & Co., Inc.,
      -- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated,
      -- Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (as successor-in-
         interest to Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.), and
      -- J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc. (as successor-in-interest
         to Hambrecht & Quist, LLC).

The lawsuits were filed by individual shareholders who purport
to seek class action status on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons who purchased the common stock of the Company
between March 14, 2000 and December 6, 2000.

The lawsuits allege that certain underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering solicited and received excessive and
undisclosed fees and commissions in connection with that
offering.

They further allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a registration statement and
prospectus in connection with the Company's initial public
offering, which failed to accurately disclose the amount and
nature of the commissions and fees paid to the underwriter
defendants.

On or about October 8, 2002, the Court entered an Order
dismissing the claims asserted against certain individual
defendants in the consolidated actions, including the claims
against Mr. Randall and Mr. Belchers, without any payment from
these individuals or the Company.

On or about February 19, 2003, the Court entered an Order
dismissing with prejudice the claims asserted against the
Company under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended. As a result, the only claims that remain
against the Company are those arising under Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The Company has entered into an agreement-in-principle to settle
the remaining claims in the litigation.  The proposed settlement
will result in a dismissal with prejudice of all claims and will
include a release of all claims that were brought or could have
been brought against the Company and its present and former
directors and officers.

It is anticipated that the Company's directors' and officers'
liability insurance will fund any payment to the plaintiff class
and their counsel and that the Company will make no direct
payment.  The parties have negotiated and executed a definitive
settlement agreement.

The proposed settlement provides that the class members in the
class actions brought against the participating issuer
defendants will be guaranteed a recovery of $1 billion by
insurers of the participating issuer defendants.

If recoveries totaling $1 billion or more are obtained by the
class members from the underwriter defendants, however, the
monetary obligations to the class members under the proposed
settlement will be satisfied.

In addition, the Company and any other participating issuer
defendants will be required to assign to the class members
certain claims that they may have against the underwriters of
their IPO's.

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary
to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would come
from participating issuers' directors and officers' liability
insurance policy proceeds as opposed to funds of the
participating issuer defendants themselves.

A participating issuer defendant could be required to contribute
to the costs of the settlement if that issuer's insurance
coverage were insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share
of the settlement costs.

If ultimately approved by the Court, the proposed settlement
would result in the dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in
the litigation against the Company and all of the other issuer
defendants who have elected to participate in the proposed
settlement, together with the current or former officers and
directors of participating issuers who were named as individual
defendants.

The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of
any claims against the underwriter defendants, and the
litigation as against those defendants is continuing.
Consummation of the proposed settlement remains conditioned upon
obtaining approval by the Court.

On September 1, 2005, the Court preliminarily approved the
proposed settlement, directed that notice of the terms of the
proposed settlement be provided to class members, and scheduled
a fairness hearing for April 24, 2006, at which objections to
the proposed settlement will be heard.  Thereafter, the Court
will determine whether to grant final approval to the proposed
settlement.

The suit is styled "In Re DynaBazaar, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "In Re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com;

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300;

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

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com;

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com; and

     (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com.

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


FREDDIE MAC: Settles Securities, Derivative Lawsuits for $410M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Freddie Mac reached an agreement in principle to settle the
securities class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits that
were filed following the Company's restatement of financial
results for the years 2000 through 2002.

The proposed settlement of these actions includes a cash payment
by Freddie Mac of $410 million.  The settlement is also based on
corporate governance reforms instituted by the Company under its
current management.

The settlement does not include any admission of wrongdoing by
the Company.

"[The] settlement, like the settlement announced earlier this
week with the Federal Election Commission, enables this
management team to resolve past issues so that we can focus
squarely on meeting our important housing mission, running the
business well and serving the needs of our customers," said
Richard F. Syron, Freddie Mac's chairman and chief executive
officer.  "We are pleased with the progress we are making in
moving Freddie Mac forward."

The Company estimates that this settlement will reduce first
quarter 2005 net income by approximately $220 million after tax,
including the application of expected insurance proceeds.  This
impact is in addition to other matters affecting 2005 net
income, including approximately $200 million of adjustments and
corrections that were discussed in the Company's March 31, 2006
press release.

The class action case "Ohio Public Employees Retirement System,
et al. v. Freddie Mac, et al.," against the Company and certain
former executive officers, and the shareholder derivative
lawsuits:

     (1) "Maureen Henry, et. al. v. Brendsel, et al., and

     (2) Esther Sadowsky Testamentary Trust v. Brendsel, et al.,

on behalf of the Company against certain former executive
officers and current and former members of the Company's Board
of Directors, have been consolidated and are pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The proposed settlement is subject to a number of conditions,
including approval by the Retirement Boards of Ohio Public
Employees Retirement System (which the Company are informed has
occurred) and State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio;
negotiation and execution of final documentation; and
preliminary and final court approval.  The proposed settlement
does not resolve other legal proceedings related to the
restatement.

Freddie Mac -- http://www.FreddieMac.com/investors-- is a
stockholder-owned Company established by Congress in 1970 to
support homeownership and rental housing.  Freddie Mac fulfills
its mission by purchasing residential mortgages and mortgage-
related securities, which it finances primarily by issuing
mortgage-related securities and debt instruments in the capital
markets.


INSWEB CORP: April 24 Hearing Set for IPO Lawsuit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
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 filed against InsWeb
Corp. in relation to its July 1999 initial public offering.

A securities class action was filed on December 5, 2001 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, (the
Court) purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock from July 22, 1999 through December 6,
2000.

The complaint named as defendants the Company, certain current
and former officers and directors, and three investment banking
firms that served as underwriters for the Company's IPO.

The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10
and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds
that the prospectuses incorporated in the registration
statements for the offering failed to disclose, among other
things, that:

     (1) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive
         and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in
         exchange for which the underwriters allocated to those
         investors material portions of the shares of our stock
         sold in the offerings and

     (2) the underwriters had entered into agreements with
         customers whereby the underwriters agreed to allocated
         shares of the stock sold in the offering to those
         customers in exchange for which the customers agreed to
         purchase additional shares of Company stock in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

No specific damages are claimed.  Similar allegations were made
in lawsuits relating to more than 300 other initial public
offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000, all of which have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes.

In October 2002, all claims against the individual defendants
were dismissed without prejudice.

In February 2003, the Court dismissed the claims in the action
against the Company, which is alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, but allowed the plaintiffs to
proceed with the remaining claims.

In June 2003, the plaintiffs in all of the cases presented a
settlement proposal to all of the issuer defendants.  Under the
proposed settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss and release all
claims against participating defendants in exchange for a
contingent payment guaranty by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in all the
related cases, and the assignment or surrender to the plaintiffs
of certain claims the issuer defendants may have against the
underwriters.

The Company and most of the other issuer defendants accepted the
settlement proposal.  In September 2005, the Court issued an
order providing preliminary approval of the proposed settlement
and set a hearing for April 24, 2006 to consider final approval
of the settlement.

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


LEVITT CORP: Joint Stipulation Filed for Fla. Homeowners' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a purported class action against Levitt Corp., which
is pending in the 9th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Orange
County, Florida, filed a Joint Stipulation for Abatement of
Lawsuit Pending Compliance with Chapter 558.

The suit purports to be a class action on behalf of 95 named
plaintiffs residing in approximately 65 homes located in one of
the Company's communities in Central Florida.  The complaint
alleges:

     (1) breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good
         faith and fair dealing;

     (2) failure to disclose latent defects;

     (3) breach of express warranty;

     (4) breach of implied warranty;

     (5) violation of building code;

     (6) deceptive and unfair trade practices;

     (7) negligent construction; and

     (8) negligent design.

Plaintiffs seek certification as a class, or in the alternative
to divide into sub-classes, unspecified damages alleged to range
from $50,000 to $400,000 per house, costs and attorneys' fees.
Plaintiffs seek a trial by jury.

On February 15, 2006, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation for
Abatement of Lawsuit Pending Compliance with Chapter 558,
Florida Statutes and Order Approving Same (Joint Stipulation).
Court approval of the Joint Stipulation is pending.

The suit is captioned "Frank Albert, Dorothy Albert, et al. v.
Levitt and Sons, LLC, a Florida limited liability Company,
Levitt Homes, LLC, a Florida limited liability Company, Levitt
Corporation, a Florida corporation, Levitt Construction Corp.
East, a Florida corporation and Levitt and Sons, Inc., a Florida
corporation."


MICHAELS STORES: Continues to Face Overtime Lawsuit in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has yet to schedule a
hearing on the certification of the class action filed against
Michaels of Canada and Michaels Stores, Inc.

On December 20, 2002, James Cotton, a former store manager of
Michaels of Canada, ULC, the Company's wholly owned subsidiary,
and Suzette Kennedy, a former assistant manager of Michaels of
Canada, commenced the proposed class proceeding on behalf of
themselves and current and former employees employed in Canada.

The Cotton claim was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice and alleges that the defendants violated employment
standards legislation in Ontario and other provinces and
territories of Canada by failing to pay overtime compensation as
required by that legislation.

The Cotton claim also alleges that this conduct was in breach of
the contracts of employment of those individuals. It seeks a
declaration that the defendants have acted in breach of
applicable legislation, payment to current and former employees
for overtime, damages for breach of contract, punitive,
aggravated and exemplary damages, interest, and costs.

In May 2005, the plaintiffs delivered material in support of
their request that this action be certified as a class
proceeding.

The Company filed and served its responding materials opposing
class certification on January 31, 2006.  A date has not yet
been set for the hearing with respect to certification.


MICHAELS STORES: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc. is a defendant in a purported class action
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

On December 2, 2005, Sandra Olivas and Jerry Soskins, former
Michaels store managers in Los Angeles, California, commenced a
proposed class action in the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles against Michaels Stores, Inc.  Plaintiffs
filed the suit on behalf of themselves and current and former
salaried store employees employed in California from December 1,
2001 to the present.

The Company was served with the complaint on January 31, 2006.
The Olivas suit alleges that the Company, failed to pay overtime
wages, accurately record hours worked, and provide itemized
employee wage statements.

The suit also alleges that this conduct was in breach of
California's unfair competition law.  The plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief, damages for unpaid overtime pay, penalties,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 1, 2006, the Company removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

The suit is styled, "Sandra Olivas, et al. v. Michaels Stores
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-01281-RSWL-JWJ," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge Ronald S.W. Lew with referral to Judge Jeffrey W. Johnson.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Scott Ashford Brooks, Paul R. Fine and Craig S. Momita
         of Daniels Fine Israel Schonbuch and Lebovits, 1801
         Century Park E, Ste. 900, Los Angeles, CA 90067-2332,
         Phone: 310-556-7900;

     (2) Stephen Glick of Stephen Glick Law Offices, 3580
         Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1260, Los Angeles, CA 90010,
         Phone: 213-387-8888, Fax: 213-387-7872; and

     (3) Ian Herzog of Ian Herzog Law Offices, 233 Wilshire
         Blvd., Ste. 550, Santa Monica, CA 90401-1210, Phone:
         310-458-6660.

Representing the defendants are, Catherine A. Conway, Gregory W.
Knopp and S. Adam Spiewak of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld,
Phone: 310-229-1000, 310-522-6436, Fax: 310-229-1001, E-mail:
gknopp@akingump.com and aspiewak@akingump.com.


NEOPHARM INC: Discovery Proceeds in Ill. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated securities class action
against Neopharm, Inc., which was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The suit alleges various violations of the federal securities
laws in connection with the Company's public statements during
the period from October 31,2001 through April 19, 2002 as they
relate to the Company's LEP drug.  The original lawsuits also
named as individual defendants:

     (1) John N. Kapoor, Chairman of the Company,

     (2) James M. Hussey, President and CEO, and

     (3) Dr.Imran Ahmad, current Chief Scientific Officer and
         Senior Vice President of Research and Development

On November 4, 2002, the Company moved to have the complaint
dismissed.  The Company's motion to dismiss was granted in part
and denied in part in February 2003.  Dr. Kapoor was dismissed
from the lawsuit at that time.

In November 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend and a
motion for summary adjudication.  The motion to amend seeks to
again make Dr. Kapoor a defendant, and realleges that certain
pre-class period statements are actionable. The Company opposed
both motions.  No trial date has been set and discovery is
ongoing.

The suit is styled "Carson et al.  v. Neopharm Inc., et al, case
no. 1:02-cv-02976," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow.
Representing the Company is Leann Pedersen Pope, Burke, Warren,
MacKay & Serritella, P.C., 330 North Wabash Avenue, 22nd Floor
Chicago, IL 60611-3607, Phone: (312) 840-7000
Email: lpope@burkelaw.com.

Representing the Company are Eric Belfi of Murray, Frank &
Sailer LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, #801 New York, NY 10016, Phone:
(212) 682-1818; and Joel P Laitman, Schoengold and Sporn, P.C.,
19 Fulton Street, Suite 406, New York, NY 10038, Phone: (212)
964-0046.


NEW YORK: Hurricane Katrina Victims Extend Stay in Radisson
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for nine Hurricane Katrina evacuees trying to avoid
eviction from the Radisson Hotel in Jamaica, Queens, New York
reached agreement with the hotel's management before a judge in
Queens housing court, according to The Columbia Journalist.

"We had motion to dismiss [], we negotiated settlement," said
Ashwani Prabhakar, legal-aid attorney for the evacuees.  The
negotiations arose out of a class action filed on behalf of the
evacuees by the NY Solidarity Coalition with Katrina/Rita
Survivors.

The lawyer did not discuss the details of the negotiations, but
said the evacuees will be allowed to stay at the hotel while
looking for more permanent housing.  In addition, the Radisson
will encourage prompt departure by giving evacuees who check out
an undisclosed sum of money.  The original amount will be
reduced according to the length of time an evacuee extends stay
at the hotel.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency used to pay the housing
evacuees' hotel bills, including that due to Radisson.  But it
stopped doing so on March 1.  Radisson Hotels and owner French
Quarter Holdings Inc. provided the evacuees free rooms for more
than a month.  However, it is now trying to recoup losses by
evicting and suing each evacuee for $5,000, according to Legal
Aid Society.


PFGI CAPITAL: Stock Owner Reaches Ohio Securities Suit Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
National City Bank, owner of 100% of PFGI Capital Corp.'s common
stock, reached a settlement with plaintiffs in the class action
filed against PFGI Capital Corporation, Provident Financial
Group, Inc., Provident's President, Robert L. Hoverson and
Provident's Chief Financial Officer, Christopher J. Carey.

PFGI Capital shareholder Silverback Master Ltd. filed the suit
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, on
behalf of all purchasers of PRIDES in or traceable to a June 6,
2002 offering of those securities registered with the Securities
and Exchange Commission and extending to March 5, 2003.

This action is based upon circumstances involved in a
restatement of earnings announced by Provident Financial Group,
Inc. on March 5, 2003.

The suit alleges violations of securities laws by the defendants
in Provident's financial disclosures during the period from
March 30, 1998 through March 5, 2003 and in the June 2002
offering.  It seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages.

This action and other class actions have been consolidated
before Judge S. Arthur Spiegel of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio under the caption, "Merzin, et al.
v. Provident Financial Group, Inc., et al., Consolidated Civil
Action Master File No. C-1-03-165."

PFGI Capital and other Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint on November 5, 2003.  The motion was granted on March
9, 2004 and the Court dismissed all claims except those relating
to the June 6, 2002 offering of 6,600,000 PRIDE securities.
However, the Court's order confined any later finding of damages
to $0.70 per PRIDE security.

National City has reached a tentative agreement with the
plaintiffs to settle this matter.  The negotiated settlement is
pending court approval.  PFGI Capital will not have any
obligation to the plaintiffs under the tentative settlement.

The suit is styled "Merzin, et al. v. Provident Financial Group,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:03-cv-00165-MHW-TSB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge
Michael H. Watson.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) William Kendall Flynn and Richard Stuart Wayne of
         Strauss & Troy - 1, Mail: The Federal Reserve Building
         150 E Fourth Street 4th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
         Phone: 513-621-2120 Fax: 513-621-2120 E-mail:
         wkflynn@strausstroy.com or rswayne@strausstroy.com;

     (2) David Paul Kamp, White Getgey & Meyer CO LPA Mail: 1700
         Central Trust Tower 1 West Fourth Street Cincinnati, OH
         45202 Phone: 513-241-3685 E-mail: dkamp@wgmlpa.com;

     (3) Ira M. Press, Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP Mail: 830
         Third Avenue 10th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone:
         212-751-2540

     (4) Steven F Stuhlbarg, 7809 Shadowhill Way, 150 E Fourth
         Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: 513-807-7510 Fax:
         513-891-0929 E-mail: stuhlbarg@yahoo.com

Representing the Company are James Eugene Burke and Jason M.
Cohen, Keating Muething & Klekamp - 1, One E Fourth Street Suite
1400 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: 513-579-6400 Fax: 513-579-6429
E-mail: jburke@kmklaw.com or jcohen@kmklaw.com.


SELECT MEDICAL: Continues to Face Stockholders' Suit in E.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Select Medical Corp. was named defendant in a purported
stockholder class action pending in filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The suit, styled "Marsden, et al. v. Select Medical Corp., et
al.", was filed on August 24, 2004, on behalf of the public
stockholders of the Company against Martin F. Jackson, Robert A.
Ortenzio, Rocco A. Ortenzio, Patricia A. Rice and the Company.

In February 2005, the Court appointed James Shaver, Frank C.
Bagatta and Capital Invest, die Kapitalanlagegesellschaft der
Bank Austria Creditanstalt Gruppe GmbH as lead plaintiffs (Lead
Plaintiffs).

On April 19, 2005, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
purportedly on behalf of a class of shareholders of Select,
against Martin F. Jackson, Robert A. Ortenzio, Rocco A.
Ortenzio, Patricia A. Rice, and the Company as defendants.

The amended complaint continues to allege, among other things,
failure to disclose adverse information regarding a potential
regulatory change affecting reimbursement for the Company's
services applicable to long-term acute care hospitals operated
as hospitals within hospitals, and the issuance of false and
misleading statements about the financial outlook of the
Company.

The amended complaint seeks, among other things, damages in an
unspecified amount, interest and attorneys' fees.

The Company believes that the allegations in the amended
complaint are without merit and intends to defend against this
action.  This litigation is in its pre-answer motion phase.

The suit is styled, "Marsden, et al. v. Select Medical Corp., et
al., Case No. 2:04-cv-04020-JCJ," filed in the U.S. District for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge J. Curtis
Joyner.  Representing the plaintiffs are, Sanford P. Dumain,
Lori G. Feldman, Shannon L. Hopkins and Peter E. Seidman of
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza,
New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-594-5300, E-mail:
sdumain@milbergweiss.com, lfeldman@milbergweiss.com and
shopkins@milbergweiss.com; and Eric L. Young of Kenney Lennon &
Egan, 3031 Walton Road, Building C, Suite 202, Plymouth, PA
19462, Phone: 215-260-5493, E-mail: eyoung@kle-law.com.

Representing the defendants are, David M. Howard, Michael L.
Kichline and Stuart T. Steinberg of Dechert, LLP, Phone: 215-
994-4000, 215-994-2749 and 215-994-2521, E-mail:
david.howard@dechert.com, michael.kichline@dechert.com and
stuart.steinberg@dechert.com.


TAP ENTERPRISES: Recalls Air Compressors Due to Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Tap Enterprises, Inc., dba Cummins Industrial Tools, of Spring
Hill, Kansas, is recalling about 11,300 mini 2-galloon pancake
air compressors.

The Company said an undersized power cord can overheat and pose
a fire hazard.  In addition, improper assembly of the power cord
strain relief component and improper routing of internal
conductors can cause a shock hazard to consumers.

The firm has received 40 reports of compressors failing to work,
including two incidents of smoke and fire.  One incident
resulted in $30,000 worth of property damage to a stand-alone
garage.  No injuries have been reported.

The mini-pancake air compressors were sold with yellow, blue,
gray or silver-painted tanks.  Item #2112 and "CUMMINS
INDUSTRIAL TOOLS, AIR COMPRESSOR (OILESS), 110V.60Hz, 2 Gallon,
Made in China" can be found on the motor housing.

The air compressors were made in China and sold at mobile
merchant sales, Web sites, and newspaper advertisements
nationwide from June 2004 through March 2006 for about $50.

Consumers are advised to stop using the 2-gallon mini
compressors immediately and contact Cummins for a refund of the
purchase price including shipping.

Picture of recalled air compressor:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06136.jpg

Cummins on the Net: http://www.cumminstools.com.


TELAXIS COMMUNICATIONS: IPO Suit 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 filed against Telaxis
Communications Corporation, a predecessor Company to Terabeam,
Inc., in relation to its initial public offering.

During the period from June 12 to September 13, 2001, four
purported securities class actions were filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York under the captions:

     (1) "Katz v. Telaxis Communications Corporation, et al.;"

     (2) "Kucera v. Telaxis Communications Corporation, et al.;"

     (3) "Paquette v. Telaxis Communications Corporation, et
         al.;" and

     (4) "Inglis v. Telaxis Communications Corporation, et al."

The lawsuits also named one or more of the underwriters in the
Telaxis initial public offering and certain of its officers and
directors.

On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a single consolidated
amended complaint, which supersedes the individual complaints
originally filed.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, violations of
the registration and antifraud provisions of the federal
securities laws due to alleged statements in and omissions from
the Company's initial public offering registration statement
concerning the underwriters' alleged activities in connection
with the underwriting of the Company's shares to the public.

The amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified
damages and costs associated with the litigation.  These
lawsuits have been assigned along with, the Company understands,
approximately 1,000 other lawsuits making substantially similar
allegations against approximately 300 other publicly traded
companies and their public offering underwriters to a single
federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York for consolidated pre-trial purposes.

The Company believes the claims against it are without merit and
have defended the litigation vigorously.  The litigation process
is inherently uncertain, however, and there can be no assurance
that the outcome of these claims will be favorable for the
Company.

On July 15, 2002, together with the other issuer defendants, the
Company filed a collective motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint against the issuers on various legal grounds
common to all or most of the issuer defendants.  The
underwriters also filed separate motions to dismiss the claims
against them.

In October 2002, the court approved a stipulation dismissing
without prejudice all claims against the Company directors and
officers who had been defendants in the litigation.

On February 19, 2003, the court issued its ruling on the
separate motions to dismiss filed by the issuer defendants and
the underwriter defendants.  The court granted in part and
denied in part the issuer defendants' motions.

The court dismissed, with prejudice, all claims brought against
the Company under the anti-fraud provisions of the securities
laws.  The court denied the motion to dismiss the claims brought
under the registration provisions of the securities laws (which
do not require that intent to defraud be pleaded) as to the
Company and as to substantially all of the other issuer
defendants.  The court denied the underwriter defendants' motion
to dismiss in all respects.

In June 2003, the Company elected to participate in a proposed
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation.
The Company understands that virtually all of the other non-
bankrupt issuer defendants have also elected to participate in
this proposed settlement.

If ultimately approved by the court, this proposed settlement
would result in the dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in
the litigation against the Company and against the other issuer
defendants who have elected to participate in the proposed
settlement, together with the current or former officers and
directors of participating issuers who were named as individual
defendants.

The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of
any claims against the underwriter defendants.  The proposed
settlement provides that the insurers of the participating
issuer defendants will guarantee that the plaintiffs in the
cases brought against the participating issuer defendants will
recover at least $1 billion.

If recoveries totaling $1 billion or more are obtained by the
plaintiffs from the underwriter defendants, however, the
monetary obligations to the plaintiffs under the proposed
settlement will be satisfied.  In addition, the Company and the
other participating issuer defendants will be required to assign
to the plaintiffs certain claims that the participating issuer
defendants may have against the underwriters of their IPOs.

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary
to fund the guarantee contained in the settlement or settlement-
related expenses would come from participating issuers'
directors and officers liability insurance policy proceeds as
opposed to funds of the participating issuer defendants
themselves.

A participating issuer defendant could be required to contribute
to the costs of the settlement if that issuer's insurance
coverage were insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share
of the settlement costs.  The Company currently expects that its
insurance proceeds will be sufficient for these purposes and
that the Company will not otherwise be required to contribute to
the proposed settlement.

Consummation of the proposed settlement is conditioned upon
obtaining approval by the court.  On September 1, 2005, the
court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement, directed
that notice of the terms of the proposed settlement be provided
to class members, and scheduled a fairness hearing for April 24,
2006, at which objections to the proposed settlement will be
heard.  The court will determine whether to grant final approval
to the proposed settlement.

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


TRIPLE-S INC: Stay Expires With No Solution to Physicians' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties did not move to extend the stay in a purported class
action against Triple-S, Inc. (TSI) and other defendants, which
is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida.

The putative class action was filed by Jeffrey Solomon, MD, and
Orlando Armstrong, MD, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated persons and the American Podiatric Medical
Association, Florida Chiropractic Association, California
Podiatric Medical Association, Florida Podiatric Medical
Association, Texas Podiatric Medical Association, and
Independent Chiropractic Physicians, against the Blue Cross Blue
Shield Association (BCBSA) and multiple other insurance
companies, including the Company and all members of the BCBSA.

The individual plaintiffs brought this on December 8, 2003, on
behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
physicians seeking redress for alleged illegal acts of the
defendants, which are alleged to have resulted in a loss of
plaintiff's property and a detriment to their business, and for
declaratory and injunctive relief to end those practices and
prevent further losses, (Class Action Reporter, January 2,
2006).

Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, on their own and as part
of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish the
payment due to the doctors so that they are not paid in a timely
manner for the covered, medically necessary services they
render, (Class Action Reporter, January 2, 2006).

The class action complaint alleges that the Company's health
care plans are the agents of BCBSA licensed entities, and as
such have committed the acts alleged above and acted within the
scope of their agency, with the consent, permission,
authorization and knowledge of the others, and in furtherance of
both their interest and the interests of other defendants,
(Class Action Reporter, January 2, 2006).

The Company believes that it was made a party to this litigation
for the sole reason that TSI is associated with the BCBSA.

On June 25, 2004, plaintiffs amended the complaint but the
allegations against the Company did not vary.  The Company along
with the other defendants, moved to dismiss the complaint on
multiple grounds, including but not limited to arbitration and
applicability of the McCarran Ferguson Act.

The Court issued a 90-day stay to allow the parties to discuss
their differences and come to an amicable agreement.  The stay
expired on March 7, 2006.

Although the parties are still in the process of discussing
their differences, they have not moved the Court to extend the
stay.

The defendants suggested that plaintiffs join in a request to
extend the stay, but the plaintiffs have not reacted to the
defendants' invitation.

The suit is styled "Jeffrey Solomon, MD, et al. v. the Blue
Cross Blue Shield Association, et al."


TRIPLE-S INC: Parties Ask for Extension on Stay Over Fla. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
received a request to extend the stay of all proceedings in the
purported class action filed against Triple-S, Inc. (TSI) and
several other defendants.

On May 22, 2003, the class action was filed by Kenneth A.
Thomas, M.D. and Michael Kutell, M.D., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated and the Connecticut State
Medical Society against the Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Association (BCBSA) and multiple other insurance companies
including TSI.

The individual plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated physicians seeking
redress for alleged illegal acts of the defendants, which they
allege have resulted in a loss of their property and a detriment
to their business, and for declaratory and injunctive relief to
end those practices and prevent further losses.

Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, on their own and as part
of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish the
payments due to doctors so that they are not paid in a timely
manner for the covered, medically necessary services they
render.

The class action complaint alleges that the health care plans
are the agents of BCBSA licensed entities, and as such have
committed the acts alleged above and acted within the scope of
their agency, with the consent, permission, authorization and
knowledge of the others, and in furtherance of both their
interest and the interests of other defendants.

The Company believes that the Company was brought to this
litigation for the sole reason of being associated with the
BCBSA.

However, on June 18, 2004 the plaintiffs moved to amend the
complaint to include the Colegio de Medicos y Cirujanos de
Puerto Rico (a compulsory association grouping all physicians in
Puerto Rico), Marissel Velazquez, MD, President of the Colegio
de Medicos y Cirujanos de Puerto Rico, and Andres Melendez, MD,
as plaintiffs against the Company.  Later Marissel Velazquez, MD
voluntarily dismissed her complaint against the Company.

The Company along with the other defendants, moved to dismiss
the complaint on multiple grounds, including but not limited to
arbitration and applicability of the McCarran Ferguson Act.

The Court issued a 90-day stay to allow the parties to discuss
their differences and come to amicable agreement.  The stay
expired on March 7, 2006.  Upon the expiration of the stay, both
plaintiffs and defendants agreed to request the Court to extend
the stay until April 21, 2006.

The suit is entitled, "Kenneth A. Thomas, M.D., et al. v. Blue
Cross and Blue Shield Association, Case No. 03-21296-CIV-
MORENO."

For more details, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?824.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: P.R. Court Mulls Class Status for "Sanchez"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico has yet
to rule on the class certification of a lawsuit alleging
violations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act against:

      -- Triple-S Management Corporation (TSM),
      -- certain of its present and former directors,
      -- certain of Triple-S, Inc.'s (TSI) present and former
         directors and others

Filed on September 4, 2003 by Jose Sanchez and others, the suit
alleges a scheme to defraud the plaintiffs by acquiring control
of TSI through illegally capitalizing TSI and later converting
it to a for-profit corporation and depriving the stockholders of
their ownership rights.

The plaintiffs base their later allegations on the supposed
decisions of TSI's board of directors and stockholders,
allegedly made in 1979, to operate with certain restrictions in
order to turn TSI into a charitable corporation, basically
forever.

On March 4, 2005 the Court issued an Opinion and Order.  In this
Opinion and Order, of the twelve counts included in the
complaint, eight counts were dismissed for failing to assert an
actionable injury six of them for lack of standing and two for
failing to plead with sufficient particularity in compliance
with the Rules.

All shareholder allegations, including those described above,
were dismissed in the Opinion and Order.  The remaining four
counts were found standing, in a limited way, in the Opinion and
Order.

Finally, the Court ordered that by March 24, 2005 one of the
counts left standing be replead to conform to the Rules and that
by March 28, 2005 a proposed schedule for discovery and other
submissions be filed.

The count was amended and accepted by the Court and the
discovery schedule was submitted. The parties have finished
class certification discovery.

The parties fully briefed the issue of class certification and
are awaiting the Court's decision.  In addition, the defendants
are evaluating the dismissal of the surviving claims.  This case
is still pending before the U.S. District Court for the District
of Puerto Rico.

The suit is styled "Sanchez, et al.  v. Triple-S Management, et
al., Case No. 3:03-cv-01967-JAF," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico under Judge Jose A. Fuste.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert G. Blakey, 1341 East Wayne Street North, South
         Bend, IN 46615, Phone: 219-239-5717;

     (2) Paul H. Hulsey, Marco Tulio Torres-Moncada of
         Hulsey Litigation Group, L.L.C., Charleston Harbor, 2
         Wharfside 3, Charleston, SC 29401, Phone: 843-723-5303,
         Fax: 843-723-5307, E-mail:
         phulsey@hulseylitigationgroup.com; and

     (3) Eric M. Quetglas-Jordan, Quetglas Law Office, PO Box
         16606, San Juan, PR 00908-6606, Phone: 787-722-7745,
         Fax: 787-725-3970, E-mail: quetglaslaw@hotmail.com.

Representing the Company are Seth B. Kosto and Gael Mahony, 10
St. James Avenue, Boston, MA 02114, Phone: 617-523-2700, Fax:
617-523-6850.


TRENDSET ORIGINALS: Recalls Girls Sweaters with Drawstrings
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
and Trendset Originals, of New York, New York, is recalling
about 1,700 "Who's That Girl!" sweaters.

The Company said a drawstring is threaded through the hood of
the garment, posing a strangulation hazard to children.  In
February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent children
from strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist by
drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts.
No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled girls' hooded sweaters are pink, blue and white and
have a label that reads "Who's That Girl!" The R/N number is
48829 printed on the inside neck tag of the garment.

The sweaters were made in China and sold exclusively at
Gordman's Department stores nationwide from September 2005
through November 2005 for about $10.

Consumers can remove the drawstrings to eliminate the hazard or
return the hooded drawstring sweater to the store where
purchased for a full refund.

Picture of the recalled sweaters:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06138.jpg

Consumer Contact: Trendset, Phone: (800) 908-8308 between 9 a.m.
and 5:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, On the Net:
http://www.trendsetny.com,E-mail: customer-
service@trendsetny.com.


TROPITONE: Recalls "Impressions Side Chair" for Replacement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tropitone of Irvine, California in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission is recalling about 950
Tropitone Impressions side chair, including replacement units
recently issued to customers.

The Company said the weld that holds the rear chair leg to the
seat can separate from the seat, causing the chair to become
unstable and possibly collapse.

Tropitone has received three reports of the chair seat and rear
leg separating.  No injuries have been reported.

The Tropitone Impressions Side Chair is an armless chair that
can be used indoors or outdoors and comes in any one of three
seat types (strap, patterned aluminum and a tight seat) and
three back styles (boulevard, prism and vision).  The chairs are
available in multiple finishes.  Replacement versions of these
chairs are also included in this recall.

The chairs were made in China with some assembled in the U.S.
Tropitone Furniture distributes this side chair primarily to
commercial establishments such as hotels, and also some
retailers and distributors from October 2004 through March 17,
2006.

Individuals and commercial establishments that have the recalled
chairs are advised to stop using the chairs immediately and
contact Tropitone for a free replacement chair or a credit.

Picture of the recalled chair:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06543.jpg

Consumer Contact: Tropitone, Phone: (800) 654-7000 x 2003
between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. PT Monday through Friday.


VERDISYS INC: Reaches Settlement for Tex. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Verdisys, Inc., now known as Blast Energy Services, Inc.,
reached a settlement for the consolidated securities class
action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.

The lawsuit alleged that the Company and its former CEO, Dan
Williams, and its former CFO, Andrew Wilson, violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The lawsuits alleged that the defendants had made material
misstatements about the Company's financial results.  More
specifically, the Complaints alleged that the defendants had
failed to disclose and indicate:

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated our net
         income and earnings per share;

     (2) that the Company prematurely recognized revenue from
         contracts between it, Edge and Energy 2000 NGC, Inc. in
         violation of GAAP and its own revenue recognition
         policy;

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

     (4) that as a result of recognizing revenue prematurely,
         its financial results were inflated at all relevant
         times.

Under terms of the agreement, the Company will issue to the
class 1,150,000 shares of common stock and pay up to $55,000 in
legal and administrative fees for the plaintiffs.

The suit is styled, "Harper v. Verdisys Inc, et al, case no.
4:04-cv-01297," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas under Judge Sim Lake.  Representing
the plaintiffs are:

     (i) Thomas E. Bilek, 1000 Louisiana, Ste. 1302, Houston, TX
         77002, Phone: 713-227-7720, Fax: 713-227-9404, E-mail:
         tbilek@hb-legal.com;

    (ii) Samuel H. Rudman, Cauley Geller et al, 200 Broadhollow
         Rd., Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-267-7100;

   (iii) Jules Brody, Stull Stull & Brody, Six East 45th Street
         New York, NY 10017, Phone: 21/687-7230; and

    (iv) Joseph H. Weiss, Weiss and Yourman 551 Fifth Ave., Ste.
         1600, New York, NY 10176, Phone: 212-682-3025, Fax:
         212-682-3010.

Representing the Company is Michael T. Larkin of Adams and Reese
1221 McKinney Ste 4400 Houston, TX 77010, Phone: 713-308-0166,
Fax: 713-652-5152, E-mail: michael.larkin@arlaw.com.


YAMAHA CORP: Recalls Piano Bench to Replace Sub-Standard Bolt
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yamaha Corp. of America, of Buena Park, California, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 176 benches that come with its digital piano.

The Company said that on some benches, one or more bench bolts
do not meet tensile strength specifications, which can result in
collapse of the bench while in use, posing a risk of injury.
The recall does not involve the pianos with which the benches
were sold.

Yamaha Corp. has received one report of a bench collapsing in
Taiwan.  No injuries were reported.

The YDP213 Digital Piano is black with a black and white
keyboard and brown trim.  The bench is black with a cushioned
seat.  White stick-on labels on the underside of the bench give
the assembly instructions and references several requirements.
All labels have Yamaha written on them.  The serial number and
"Made in China" is stamped on the underside of the seat.  The
YDP213 Digital Piano and BC-104DR(U) Keyboard Bench are sold
together with the bench boxed within the piano box.  The model
number of the bench appears only on the box within the piano box
and not on the bench itself.

The benches were made in China and sold in musical instrument
retailers and dealers from January 2006 through February 2006
for about $1,000.

Yamaha will contact each customer and provide free replacement
bolts for each bench.

Picture of the recalled bench:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06544.jpg

Consumer Contact: Yamaha, Phone: (800) 510-6933 (toll-free)
between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, On the
Net: http://www.yamaha.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Thomas G. Ciarlone, Jr., of Shalov
Stone & Bonner, LLP, 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000, New York,
New York 10018, Phone: (212) 239-4340, E-mail:
tciarlone@lawssb.com, Web site: http://www.asteaclassaction.com
and http://www.lawssb.com.


H&R BLOCK: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood, LLP, filed a class action on behalf of all
securities purchasers of H&R Block, Inc. between February 24,
2004 through March 14, 2006, inclusives.

The action, entitled, Kadagian v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., Case
No. 06-CV-2306, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, and names as defendants, H&R
Block, Inc., Mark A. Ernst, James W. Yabuki, and William
Trubeck.

The Complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the complaint
alleges that, during the Class Period, the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that H&R Block engaged in deceptive consumer practices
         by offering plans such as the Express IRA plan and the
         RALs program;

     (2) that H&R Block derived substantial revenue from these
         practices, thereby artificially inflating the Company's
         reported earnings;

     (3) that the Company improperly accounted for the effective
         income tax rate; and

     (4) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
         financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

In addition to concealing the false and misleading nature of the
Company's financial statements, defendants also concealed the
Company's potential exposure to lawsuits stemming from the
fraudulent nature and operation of H&R Block's investment
products.  Unbeknownst to investors, defendants induced their
customers to open investment accounts, using a marketing
strategy that consistently misrepresented the benefits and
concealed the deficiencies of those accounts.

On February 23, 2006, after the close of the markets, defendants
shocked investors with the news that the Company's management
and its Audit Committee, in consultation with the Company's
independent auditors, KPMG LLP, would undertake a restatement of
the Company's previously issued consolidated financial
statements, including fiscal year 2006 quarterly financial
statements and financial statements for the fiscal years ended
April 30, 2005 and 2004.

Finally, on March 15, 2006, investors learned of a $250 million
lawsuit by the New York Attorney General, addressing fraudulent
marketing practices involving the Company's IRA products.

The suit deflated the expectations of the investment community,
in reliance on promised results from the Company's Financial
Advisory segment.  On this news, the price of H&R Block shares
tumbled, from the previous close of $22.00 on March 14, 2006, to
close $20.63 on March 15, 2006, for a loss of $1.37 or another
6.2% percent, on volume of over 14 million shares, nearly seven
times normal daily volume.

For more details, contact Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq. of Wechsler
Harwood, LLP, Phone: (877) 935-7400 (ext. 286), E-mail:
jmn@whesq.com, Web site: http://www.whesq.com.


MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Suit in Wis.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.,
filed a lawsuit on behalf of its client and on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Merge Technologies, Inc., d/b/a
Merge Healthcare (Nasdaq:MRGE), between August 2, 2005 and March
16, 2006, inclusive, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin.

The Complaint charges Merge and certain executive officers of
Merge with violations of federal securities laws. Among other
things, the Complaint alleges that as a result of improper
accounting practices, the defendants issued materially false or
misleading statements concerning Merge's current and future
financial and operational performance, which caused Merge's
stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages
on investors.

Merge, which does business as Merge Healthcare, engages in the
development and delivery of medical imaging and information
management software and services, for both original equipment
manufacturers and for the end-user health care market.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that on February 24, 2006,
Merge issued a press release that announced the Company was
delaying the release of its fourth-quarter 2005 financial
results, that the Company expected a substantial loss for the
quarter and that it was reducing its revenue guidance for the
year.

Shares of Merge fell $4.00 per share, or 16.33%, and closed that
day at $20.50 per share.  Over the next three trading days,
Merge shares continued falling an additional 12%, to close at
$18.12 by the end of trading on March 1, 2006.

On March 17, 2006, defendants made further disclosures regarding
the Company's true financial position, and revealed that
accounting improprieties required Merge to delay the completion
and filing of its financial statements for the year ended
December 31, 2005.

Specifically, the Company revealed that the "reason for the
delay relates to revenue recognition and tax accounting matters
relating to the merger of the Company and Cedara Software
Corporation in June 2005."

In addition, the Company announced that its management and Audit
Committee had determined that Merge's previously issued
financial statements for the quarters ended June 30, 2005, and
September 30, 2005, should no longer be relied upon, and that
the Company was in the process of investigating certain
anonymous complaints related to the accounting issues just
revealed.  As a result of these revelations, the Company's
common stock declined further, to close at $15.85.

The complaint also alleges that during the Class Period, with
the Company's stock trading at artificially inflated prices, the
Company's insiders sold 680,395 shares for gross proceeds of
over $29 million dollars.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. of Robert Smits,
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York
Avenue, N.W., West Tower - Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20005,
Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600, E-mail: stoll@cmht.com and
rsmits@cmht.com.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set April 25
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP announces the April 25, 2006,
deadline to move to be lead plaintiff in the securities class
action filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
securities of Micron Technology, Inc. on February 24, 2001
through February 13, 2003.

The Complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Idaho, charges Micron and certain of the Company's executive
officers with violations of federal securities laws.  Among
other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning Micron's business and operations caused
the Company's stock price to become artificially inflated,
inflicting damages on investors.

Micron manufactures and markets semiconductor devices worldwide,
including a series of Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM)
products, which provide data storage and retrieval.  The
Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants knew
or recklessly disregarded, but failed to disclose to the
investing public that:

      (a) Micron engaged in illegal anti-competitive behavior to
          suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the
          prices of DRAM sold to original equipment
          manufacturers in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
          Antitrust Act;

      (b) Micron's financial results throughout the Class Period
          were materially inflated as a direct result of the
          Company's illegal price fixing; and

      (c) the Company's financial projections during the Class
          Period lacked a reasonable basis because they were
          issued while the Company involved itself in illegal
          price fixing activities.

The Complaint further alleges that, as a result of defendants'
false and misleading statements during the Class Period, Micron
shares traded at inflated prices, enabling the Company to issue
more than $632 million worth of debt during 2003, sell over $480
million worth of warrants, and complete numerous stock for stock
acquisitions.  Additionally during the Class Period, Company
insiders sold approximately $4.5 million worth of their
personally held Micron shares at artificially inflated prices.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members
and is represented by Glancy & Binkow LLP, a law firm with
significant experience in prosecuting shareholder lawsuits, and
substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.

Any person or institution who purchased securities of Micron
during the Class Period may move the Court not later than April
25, 2006, to serve as lead plaintiff; however, you must meet
certain legal requirements.
For more information, contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of
Glancy & Binkow LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los
Angeles, California 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9161, (888) 773-9224
(toll-free), E-mail; info@glancylaw.com, On the Net:
http://www.glancylaw.com.


NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in Utah
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah,
Central Division on behalf of all securities purchasers of
Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc. from October 19, 2004 through
March 24, 2006, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Nature's Sunshine and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

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

     (1) that the Company incorrectly recorded foreign
         transactions in its financial statements;

     (2) that as a result of this, Nature's Sunshine materially
         overstated the Company's revenue and net income
         throughout the Class Period;

     (3) that the Company's financial statements were in
         violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
         (GAAP);

     (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

     (5) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
         financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

On February 17, 2006, while the market was open, Nature's
Sunshine revealed that the Company would not meet its guidance
for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2005.  The Company
also reported that the scope of review of its financial
statements, which stemmed from "concerns regarding certain
transactions of the Company's foreign subsidiaries," had been
expanded.

Following this disclosure, shares of Nature's Sunshine dropped
$1.00 per share, or 5.6 percent, to close, on February 17, 2006,
at $17.00 per share.

The stock continued to trade at artificially inflated levels
until March 20, 2006, when the Company announced in a current
report on Form 8-K, that its previous financial statements for
each of the first three fiscal quarters of 2005, 2004, 2003 and
2002, as well as for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004
(which includes financial statements as of December 31, 2004 and
2003 and for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and
2002) could no longer be relied upon.

On this news, shares of Nature's Sunshine plummeted $2.16 per
share, or 13.1 percent, to close, on March 20, 2006, at $14.33
per share.

Finally, on March 24, 2006, after the market closed, Nature's
Sunshine announced that, on March 21, 2006, it received notice
from NASDAQ that, because the Company's Form 10-K was not filed
with the SEC on time, the Company was in danger of being
delisted from NASDAQ.

On this news, shares of Nature's Sunshine dropped 72 cents, or
6.16 percent, to close, on March 27, 2006, at $10.96 per share.

For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. and Richard A.
Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia
Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706,
E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com.


NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Spector Roseman Lodges Lawsuit in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., initiated a
securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Northfield Laboratories, Inc. (NASDAQ:NFLD)
between February 20, 2004 through February 21, 2006, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that Northfield and its chairman and chief
executive officer, Steven A. Gould, violated the federal
securities laws when the Company issued a series of materially
false and misleading statements concerning the safety and
history of the Company's sole product, a blood substitute called
PolyHeme.

Specifically, the complaint against Northfield alleges that the
Company failed to disclose that a significant portion of
patients taking PolyHeme in a clinical study suffered heart
attacks within seven days of taking PolyHeme - as compared to
zero heart attacks from patients receiving real blood in the
same study.  As a result of these statement, the stock price of
Northfield was artificially inflated causing investors to suffer
damages.

On February 22, 2006, The Wall Street Journal reported that
Northfield had "quietly shut down" and "didn't publicly disclose
the results" of a study of PolyHeme in which 10 of 81 patients
who received the blood substitute suffered heart attacks within
7 days, two of whom later died.

According to The Wall Street Journal, none of the 71 patients
who received real blood in the trial were found to have had a
heart attack.  Citing internal Company documents, The Wall
Street Journal reported that Northfield had begun the trial,
known as Acute Normovolemic Hemodilution (ANH or aneurysm study)
in the late 1990s.

That same day, the Company issued a press release responding to
The Wall Street Journal article admitting that it had not
published the full data upon closing the study.  Shares of
Northfield fell from $12.23 to close at $11.30 the following
day. The shares declined even further in the ensuing weeks,
closing on March 14, 2006 at $9.57.


contact at classaction@srk-law.com for a more thorough
explanation of the Lead Plaintiff selection process. If you have
relatively small losses, your ability to participate in any
recovery will be protected by the Lead Plaintiff(s), and you
need take no affirmative steps at this time.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman of Spector, Roseman
& Kodroff, P.C., Phone: 888-844-5862 or E-mail: classaction@srk-
law.com, Web site: http://www.srk-law.com.


PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Berman DeValerio Lodges Stock Lawsuit in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Orlando Division against PainCare Holdings, Inc. (Amex:
PRZ) in federal court.

The complaint, filed as 06-cv-512, seeks damages for violations
of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who
acquired PainCare common stock from August 27, 2002 through and
including March 15, 2006 (the Class Period).

The lawsuit claims that the Company and two individual
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b)
and 78t, and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5,
promulgated thereunder.

Based in Orlando, PainCare delivers pain management solutions
including: interventional pain management, minimally invasive
spine surgery, orthopedic rehabilitation, ambulatory surgery
centers, and diagnostics.

According the plaintiff's complaint, beginning on August 27,
2002 and continuing throughout the Class Period, PainCare issued
numerous press releases and filed various filings with the SEC
that were materially false and misleading.

In particular, the Complaint alleges that the defendants
overstated and exaggerated the Company's financial health and
earnings.

These statements enabled PainCare to acquire $103 million worth
of related companies to fuel its continued growth. But
unbeknownst to investors, PainCare accounted for its
acquisitions in violation of the Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles (GAAP).

On March 15, 2006, the Company announced that it would have to
restate all of its financial results -- from its inception in
2000 through the present -- in order to adjust for the improper
accounting of its corporate acquisitions.

The market reacted strongly.  The first day of trading following
the announcement, PainCare's common stock fell 12.6% on
extremely heavy volume and was down over 50% from its class
period high of $5.25 per share.

Since then, PainCare's share price has continued a steady
decline, closing at $1.69 per share on March 27, 2006.

For more details, contact C. Oliver Burt III, Esq. and Jay W.
Eng, Esq. of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo,
Esperante Building, Suite 900, 222 Lakeview Avenue, West Palm
Beach, FL 33401, Phone: (800) 349-4612, E-mail:
lawfla@bermanesq.com, Web site:
http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/Paincare-Cplt.pdf.


PIXELPLUS CO: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the American Depositary Shares of Pixelplus
Co., Ltd. between December 21, 2005, and April 11, 2006,
inclusive.  Also included are all those who purchased shares in
the Company's Initial Public Offering.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements. Specifically, during the Class Period, the Company
reported materially false and misleading revenues for each
reporting period in 2005.

The Complaint alleges that the Company violated Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles, by failing to recognize sales to
one of its affiliates, PTI, on a consolidated basis and
recognizing sales that were uncollectible, which resulted in the
Company overstating its revenues for 2005.

On April 11, 2006, the Company announced, among other things,
that its financial statements for 2005 should no longer be
relied upon because the Company improperly recognized sales to
PTI because the Company failed to consolidate PTI's results and
accounted for sales that had uncertain collectibility.

Pixelplus admitted that it controls PTI as it has the ability to
elect two-thirds of PTI's Board.  As a result, the Company
announced that revenues would be reduced by approximately $3.6
million and $2.5 million, for the fourth quarter of 2005 and
fiscal year 2005, respectively.

Following these adverse disclosures, the Company's stock price
dropped nearly 37.2%.

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


SEA CONTAINERS: Smith Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Smith & Smith LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf
of shareholders who purchased securities of Sea Containers Ltd.
(NYSE:SCR.A) between March 15, 2004 and March 23, 2006
inclusive.  The shareholder lawsuit is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period
concerning the Company's operations and financial performance,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Sea Containers
securities.  No class has yet been certified in the above
action.

For more details, contact Howard Smith, Esq. of Smith & Smith,
LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020,
Phone: (866) 759-2275, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com.


ST JUDE: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a class action on
behalf of shareholders who acquired St. Jude Medical, Inc.
(NYSE: STJ) securities between January 25, 2005 and April 4,
2006, inclusive.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota, against the Company and certain key officers and
directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.  No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esquire, 261 Old
York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046, Phone:
(215) 886-1900, E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net.


                            *********


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  * * *