CAR_Public/060425.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, April 25, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 81

                            Headlines

AAMES INVESTMENT: Faces FCRA Violations Lawsuits in Calif., Wis.
BUCA INC: Minn. Court Mulls Dismissal Motion for Securities Suit
BUCA INC: Settles Hourly Employees' Overtime Lawsuit in Calif.
CATERPILLAR INC: Retirees' Spouses Launch Lawsuit in W.D. Tenn.
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Reaches $5.8M Settlement in Calif. Labor Suit

DUPONT CO: Teflon Cookware Owners Seek Class for Iowa Litigation
ELI LILLY: Faces Several Zyprexa Marketing Lawsuits in E.D. N.Y.
FARMERS INSURANCE: Court Certifies Suit Over Use of Client Data
GEORGIA: Suit Claims Voter ID Requirement Violates Constitution
GOOGLE INC: Ark. Judge Okays $90M Settlement in Click Fraud Suit

HAWAII: Paying $2.3M for Error in Billing Public Housing Tenants
HEARTLAND ADVISORS: Shareholders Get Windfall From Settlement
HENNESSEE GROUP: Faces New Lawsuit Over Bayou Hedge Fund Advice
INTEL CORP: Del. Judge Appoints Lead Counsel in Antitrust Case
J2 GLOBAL: Still Faces Calif. Consumer Lawsuit Over eFax Service

JPMORGAN CHASE: Agrees on $425M Settlement of IPO Fraud Lawsuit
KANSAS: Federal Court Rules Against Teenage Sex Reporting Suit
KOOKMIN BANK: Faces Suit in Korea Over Customer Data Disclosure
LOBLAW CO: Settles Shoppers' Suit Over 2002 "Hepatitis A" Scare
LOWE'S HOME: Suit Over Window Blind Cords Goes to Federal Court

MERCK & CO.: Ordered to Pay $32M Damages in Vioxx-Linked Death
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: High Court Hears Immigrant Workers' Lawsuit
NORDSTROM INC: Fire Hazard Prompts Recall of Candle Holders
POLAR BEVERAGES: Soft Drink Makers Face Lawsuit Over Benzene
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls Snowmobiles After Injury Reports

REDBACK NETWORKS: Calif. Court Partially Dismisses Stock Lawsuit
RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Settles Calif. Suit Over Lobster Products
RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Still Faces Calif. Consolidated Labor Suit
SAROJ INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Hair Dryers Due to Shock Hazard
UNITED STATES: Unclaimed Settlements to Fund Free Legal Services

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN INT'L: Stull Stull Sues Over AllianceBernstein Funds
AMERICAN INT'L: Stull Stull Files N.Y. Lawsuit Over Putnam Funds
AMERICAN INT'L: Stull Stull Files N.Y. Suit Over Scudder Funds
ESTEE LAUDER: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Suit
GMH COMMUNITIES: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Suit

H&R BLOCK: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Mo.
MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Marc Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit
NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Scott + Scott Files Securities Lawsuit
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in Minn.
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: City of Flint Files Suit Over Video Games


                            *********


AAMES INVESTMENT: Faces FCRA Violations Lawsuits in Calif., Wis.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aames Investment Corp. is defendant in two purported class
actions in California and Wisconsin alleging violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

In July 2005, the Company was served with a putative class
action entitled, "Webb v. Aames Investment Corporation, et al.,"
which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

In December 2005, the Company was served with a putative class
action entitled, "Cooper v. Aames Investment Corporation, et
al.," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin.

These complaints allege violations of (FCRA) in connection with
prescreened offers of credit, which the Company made to
plaintiffs.  

"Webb" also alleges that the Company's direct mail pieces failed
to comply with the requirements of FCRA that the required notice
be clear and conspicuous.  

The plaintiffs seek to recover on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated compensatory and punitive damages and
attorneys' fees.  

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the clear and conspicuous
claims in connection with "Webb" and while the Company believes
that a motion with leave to amend will be granted, an order has
not yet been entered.

In addition, the Company also filed a motion to transfer
"Cooper" to the Central District of California where "Webb" is
pending.

There have been no rulings on the merits of the plaintiffs'
claims or the claims of the putative class in either matter, and
no class has been certified.  

The California class action is styled, "Paul Webb v. Aames
Investment Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-05140-GPS-SS,"
under Judge George P. Schiavelli with referral under Judge
Suzanne H. Segal.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Douglas Bowdoin of Douglas Bowdoin, 255 South Orange
         Avenue, Suite 800, Orlando, FL 32801, Phone: 407-422-
         0025, E-mail: ctassi@bowdoinlaw.com;

     (2) Jonathan Andrews Boynton of Kirby Noonan Lance and
         Hoge, One America Plaza, 600 West Broadway, Suite 1100,
         San Diego, CA 92101-3387, Phone: 619-231-8666, Fax:
         619-231-9593; and

     (3) Kathleen Clark Knight of James Hoyer Newcomer &
         Smiljanich, 1 Urban Center, 4830 W Kennedy Blvd., Ste.
         550, Tampa, FL 33609, Phone: 813-286-4100, E-mail:
         kknight@jameshoyer.com.

Representing the defendant is Pauline A. Massih of Alschuler
Grossman Stein & Kahan, Water Garden - North Tower, 1620 26th
St., 4th Fl., Santa Monica, CA 90404-4060, Phone: 310-907-1000,
Fax: 310-552-6077.

The Wisconsin class action is styled, "Cooper v. Aames Funding
Corporation, Case No. 2:05-cv-01318-JPS," under Judge J.P.
Stadtmueller.  Representing the plaintiffs are, John D. Blythin,
Robert K O'Reilly and J. Scott Schnurer of Ademi & O'Reilly,
LLP, 3620 E. Layton Ave., Cudahy, WI 53110, Phone: 414-482-8000,
Fax: 414-482-8001, E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com,
roreilly@ademilaw.com and jschnurer1974@yahoo.com.

Representing the defendants are, Bruce A. Friedman and Pauline
Massih of Alschuler Grossman Stein & Kahan, LLP, 9th Tower, 1620
26th St., 4th Fl., Santa Monica, CA 90404-4060, Phone: 310-907-
1000, Fax: 310-907-2000.


BUCA INC: Minn. Court Mulls Dismissal Motion for Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota will hear
on May 26, 2006, BUCA, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated
securities class action filed against it and three of its former
officers.

Between August 7, 2005 and September 7, 2005, three virtually
identical civil actions were commenced against the Company.  The
three actions were later consolidated.  

On January 11, 2006, the four lead plaintiffs filed and served a
Consolidated Amended Complaint (the Complaint).  The Complaint
is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who
purchased the Company's common stock in the market during the
time period from February 6, 2001 through March 11, 2005.  

The lead plaintiffs allege that in press releases and SEC
filings issued during the class period, defendants made
materially false and misleading statements about the Company's
income, revenues, and internal controls, which allegedly had the
result of artificially inflating the market price for the
Company's stock.

They assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seek compensatory damages
in an unspecified amount, plus an award of attorneys' fees and
costs of litigation.

On March 13, 2006, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint on the grounds that it fails to state a claim and that
it fails to plead fraud with the particularity required under
the law.  The motion is scheduled for hearing on May 26, 2006.

The suit is styled, "West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund, et al.
v. Buca, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-1762," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge Donovan
W. Frank with referral under Judge Arthur Boylan.  Representing
the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) Bryan L. Crawford, Muria J. Kruger and Stacey L. Mills
         of Heins Mills & Olson, PLC, 80 S. 8th St., Ste. 3550,
         Mpls., MN 55402, Phone: 612-338-4605, Fax: 612-338-
         4692, E-mail: bcrawford@heinsmills.com,
         mkruger@heinsmills.com and smills@heinsmills.com;

     (2) Jay W. Eng and Michael J. Pucillo of Berman DeValerio
         Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, 222 Lakeview Ave., Ste.
         900, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Phone: 561-835-9400,
         Fax: 561-835-0322, E-mail: jeng@bermanesq.com and
         mpucillo@bermanesq.com; and

     (3) Daniel S. Sommers and Steven J. Toll of Cohen Milstein
         Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC - DC, 1100 New York Ave., NW Ste.
         500, Washington, DC 20005-3934, Phone: 202-408-4609 and
         202-408-4646, E-mail: dsommers@cmht.com and
         stoll@cmht.com.

Representing the defendants are, Michael M. Krauss and Wendy J.
Wildung of Faegre & Benson, LLP, 90 S. 7th St., Ste. 2200,
Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901, Phone: 612-766-8514, Fax: 612-766-
1600, E-mail: mkrauss@faegre.com; and wwildung@faegre.com.


BUCA INC: Settles Hourly Employees' Overtime Lawsuit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court, State of California, approved a
settlement for the purported class action against BUCA, Inc.,
which was filed by two of the Company's former hourly employees.

In March 2004, the former employees initially filed the suit in
the Orange County Superior Court, State of California.  The
action was later transferred to the Los Angeles Superior Court,
State of California, where it is currently pending.

The complaint alleges causes of action for failure to pay
wages/overtime, meal breaks, rest breaks, or pay reporting time
pay, violation of California Business & Professions Code Section
17200, and certain statutory damages and penalties.

Mediation occurred in February 2005, at which time the parties
reached a tentative settlement.  The court preliminarily
approved the settlement on September 21, 2005 and the court
entered its order approving the settlement on January 25, 2006.

The Company expects that the total payments under the approved
settlement will be between $1.5 and $2.0 million.  The actual
amount will be dependent on how many members of the putative
class file timely claims.

During the fourth quarter of 2004, based on estimates received
from external legal counsel, the Company recorded an estimated
settlement expense of $1.8 million associated with this legal
action.  This expense amount is included in general and
administrative expense in the accompanying financial statements.


CATERPILLAR INC: Retirees' Spouses Launch Lawsuit in W.D. Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Caterpillar Inc. faces a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee for
allegedly violating a contract that provides spouses of three
retirees with free health coverage for life, The Associated
Press reports.

The suit, the second of its kind to seek free health care for
former workers or their families, was filed by Judith Kerns,
Marcia Nalley and Sandra Stewart on behalf of survivors whose
spouses retired from the heavy equipment maker between March 16,
1998, and Jan. 10, 2005.

The time frame covers the previous contract between the Company
and the United Auto Workers.  The suit, which was filed on April
13, 2006, claims that the contract provides free health coverage
for life for the surviving spouses of Company retirees upon the
employees' deaths.

Starting April 1, Caterpillar started charging spouses for their
health coverage, in violation of the contract, according to the
class action.  The suit seeks free health coverage for the
spouses as well as punitive damages.

Last March two retirees and a surviving wife of a deceased
retiree sued the Company, also seeking free health coverage.
That suit, styled, "Winnett, et al. v. Caterpillar, Inc.,"
claims that all workers who retired between Jan. 1, 1992 and
March 1998 are entitled to free lifetime health coverage, since
no formal contract was in place at the time, and the previous
contract provided for the benefits.

The suit is styled, "Kerns, et al. v. Caterpillar, Inc., Case
No. 2:06-cv-02213-JPM-dkv," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Tennessee under Judge Jon Phipps McCalla
with referral to Judge Diane K. Vescovo.  Representing the
plaintiffs are, Samuel C. McKnight and Lisa M. Smith of Klimist,
Mcknight, Sale, Mcclow & Canzano, P.C., 400 Galleria Officentre,
Suite 117, Southfield, MI 48034-8460, US, Phone: 248-354-9650;
and Samuel Morris of Godwin Morris Laurenzi & Bloomfield, P.C.,
Morgan Keegan Tower, 50 N. Front St., Ste. 800, Memphis, TN
38103, Phone: 901-528-1702, Fax: 901-528-0246, E-mail:
smorris@gmlblaw.com.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Reaches $5.8M Settlement in Calif. Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Corp. reached an agreement in principle to
settle three long-standing California wage-and-hour class
actions pertaining to its U.S. business.

Under the proposed settlement, class members can submit claims
pursuant to a process whereby Dollar could pay up to $5.8
million to settle claims asserted on behalf of the putative
classes by three former employees, Vernell Woods, Juan Castillo,
and Kenneth Williams.  

The lawsuits alleged that Dollar had misclassified certain store
and area managers as "exempt" from California state overtime
requirements and that Dollar had computed bonuses payable to
store managers using an impermissible profit-sharing formula.

In a fourth putative class action, another former employee,
Stanley Chin alleges that Dollar failed to provide non-
management employees with meals and rest breaks required under
California state law.  The California Superior Court denied
class certification of Mr. Chin in April 2005, and that denial
is presently on appeal; a determination of the appeal is
expected later in 2006.  The Chin case is not being settled at
this time.

In connection with the settlements, Dollar will not admit any
wrongdoing.  According to Donald F. Gayhardt, Dollar's
president, the settlements will enable Dollar to avoid the
substantial continuing legal and other expenses, which for
fiscal 2006 have been approximately $350,000 per quarter, as
well as the drain on management resources being devoted to
defense of these claims.

Dollar and the lead plaintiffs in these three cases have reached
definitive settlement agreements.  The settlement agreements
need to receive court approval and there can be no assurance
that such agreements and the proposed settlements will receive
the required court approval.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com-- is a leading  
international financial services company serving under-banked
consumers.  Its customers are typically lower- and middle-income
working-class individuals who require basic financial services
but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some
or all of their financial services from the Company rather than
from banks and other financial institutions.


DUPONT CO: Teflon Cookware Owners Seek Class for Iowa Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owners of Teflon-coated pots and pans in several states are
seeking to combine their cases against DuPont Co. into a $5
billion class action in Iowa federal court claiming that the
Company failed to disclose possible health risks from using the
nonstick cookware, The Associated Press reports.

According to attorney Kim Baer, who represents six plaintiffs
from Iowa, the suits are claiming that the Company continued to
tell the government and consumers for years that Teflon was safe
even though its own studies showed the material could become
toxic when heated "enough to fry an egg."

Despite plaintiffs' intent to seek class certification, U.S.
Magistrate Celeste Bremer of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa, gave no indication in a recent
hearing when Judge Ronald Longstaff will rule on that request.

In an interview with The Associated Press, DuPont lawyer Adam
Hoeflich of Chicago, Illinois said that the Company has a 40-
year history of safe use and no studies exist that show the
material can become toxic.  He pointed out, "Not one study has
shown that there is any harm to consumers."

Ms. Baer though indicated that the plaintiffs wouldn't be
seeking to show that anyone was injured as a result of using
Teflon-coated cookware.  Instead, the case will likely center on
the Company's failure to notify people of the possible health
risks of using Teflon-coated products.

She told The Associated Press, "It's what DuPont knew, when they
knew it and when they told the public about it and whether or
not there are still things that they know that they haven't
shared."

If the cases are certified as a class action, plaintiff lawyers
would be able to argue that they represent potentially millions
of consumers who have owned and used Teflon-coated products and
seek damages for them all.

However, Mr. Hoeflich told The Associated Press that the Company
objects to class certification.  He specifically pointed out,
"We're talking about different people who bought different
cookware at different times and used it differently for a host
of different reasons."

A judicial panel in February selected U.S. District Court in the
Southern District of Iowa as the place to hear the initial
stages of the cases from California, Colorado, Florida,
Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey,
New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas.  The
case is styled, "In re Teflon Products Liability Litigation,
Case No. 4:06-md-01733-REL-CFB."

Additional cases are expected soon, including one in West
Virginia.  Plaintiffs' lawyers estimated that a successful class
action could end up costing the Company as much as $5 billion.

Specifically, the suits are alleging the Company concealed
studies that showed that perflourooctanoic acid, also called
PFOA or C-8, used in the Teflon manufacturing process releases
toxic particulates when heated to 464 degrees.  They claim that
the particles can cause extreme damage to rats within 10 minutes
and death at longer exposures.

In addition, the suits are also claiming that at 680 degrees
Teflon-coated pans release six toxic gases including cancer-
causing agents and PFOA, which has been determined by the
Science Advisory Board for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to likely be a cancer-causing agent in humans.

The EPA though stated that it doesn't believe customers should
stop using the Teflon products.  In its official web site the
agency said, "EPA wants to emphasize that it does not have any
indication that the public is being exposed to PFOA through the
use of Teflon-coated or other trademarked nonstick cookware."

The government continues to seek information about PFOA through
enforceable agreements with and voluntary efforts by the
Company, the EPA adds.

The suit is styled, "In re Teflon Products Liability Litigation,
Case No. 4:06-md-01733-REL-CFB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Iowa under Judge Ronald E.
Longstaff with referral to Judge Celeste Bremer.  Representing
the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kimberley K Baer of Wandro & Associates, P.C., 2501
         Grand Ave., Ste. B, Des Moines, IA 50312, Phone: 515-
         281-1475, Fax: 515-281-1474, E-mail:
         kbaer@2501grand.com;

     (2) Roberto Anguizola of Schwartz Cooper Greenberger &
         Krauss, CHTD., 180 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2700,
         Chicago, IL 60601, US, Phone: 312-346-1300; and

     (3) Keith M. Babcock of Lewis, Babcock & Hawkins, P.A.,
         P.O. Box 11308, Columbia, SC 29211, Phone: 803-771-
         8000, Fax: 803-733-3534.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Adam L. Hoeflich, Carolyn J. Frantz and Sean W.
         Gallagher of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott,
         LLP, 54 W. Hubbard St., Suite 300, Chicago, IL 60610,
         Phone: 312-494-4400, Fax: 312-494-4440, E-mail:
         adam.hoeflich@bartlit-beck.com,
         carolyn.frantz@bartlit-beck.com and
         sean.gallagher@bartlit-beck.com;


    (ii) Matthew A. Holian of Dla Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US
         LLP, 401 B. Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101,
         Phone: 858-677-1400; and

   (iii) John E. Jackson, III, of Shook Hardy & Bacon, LLP, 2555
         Grand Boulevard, Kansas City, MO 64108, Phone: 816-474-
         6550, Fax: 816-421-5547.


ELI LILLY: Faces Several Zyprexa Marketing Lawsuits in E.D. N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly & Co., which settled litigation over its Zyprexa drug
for $700 million last year, is a defendant in several purported
class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York over the marketing of the schizophrenia
pill.

One of the suits the Company faces was filed in August 2005.  It
was brought on behalf of private health insurers.  That suit
accuses the Company of violating racketeering laws by
bankrolling nonprofit groups and paying doctors, consultants and
medical marketing companies to help promote Zyprexa as a
treatment for a variety of unapproved illnesses and downplay the
medicine's side effects.

Seeking to represent patients in a class action, the suit asks
that the Company be forced to pay triple damages for all costs
related to Zyprexa, for bipolar and schizophrenic patients as
well as those prescribed the drug for unapproved uses.  The
Company's motion to dismiss that lawsuit will be heard April 21.

Two additional class actions were also filed on Feb. 28 in the
same federal court in New York.

One of these suits is styled, "Taylor v. Eli Lilly and Company,
Case No. 1:06-cv-00878-JBW."  Michael Taylor, who is represented
by Andrew J. Entwistle of Entwistle & Capucci, LLP, filed the
suit.  It demands medical monitoring of all people who took
Zyprexa and haven't been diagnosed with diabetes, pancreatitis
or high blood sugar.

The other suit is styled, "Caserta v. Eli Lilly and Company,
Case No. 1:06-cv-00879-JBW."  Jim Caserta, who is represented by
Harold F. McGuire of Entwistle & Capucci, LLP filed the suit.  
It is asking for reimbursement for all money paid by consumers
and non-government health plans for Zyprexa prescriptions.

In both cases, Nina M. Gussack of Pepper Hamilton, LLP,
represents the Company.

For more details, contact Nina M. Gussack of Pepper Hamilton,
LLP, 3000 Two Logan Square, Eighteenth and Arch Streets,
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799, Phone: (215) 981-4950 and (215)
981-4000, Fax: (215) 981-4307, E-mail: gussackn@pepperlaw.com;
and Harold F. McGuire and Andrew J. Entwistle of Entwistle &
Capucci, LLP, Phone: 212-894-7200 and 914-730-3200, Fax: 212-
894-7272 and 914-730-3206, E-mail: hmcguire@entwistle-law.com
and aentwistle@entwistle-law.com.   



FARMERS INSURANCE: Court Certifies Suit Over Use of Client Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court judge granted class action status to a lawsuit
over use of credit information on insurance rating filed against
Farmers Insurance Companies, according to Insurance Journal.

U.S. District Court Judge Stephen P. Friot allowed to move
forward plaintiffs' contention that Farmer companies' use
consumer report information on their applicants and insureds and
"took adverse action" against each plaintiff and each class
member.

The proposed class is composed of all who received, renewed
and/or purchased personal auto and/or homeowners policies from
the named companies and "were charged more than the lowest
premium available for such insurance" based on credit history
contained in the consumer report.

The plaintiffs also alleged that the Companies did not provide
adequate notice of the adverse action to each plaintiff and each
class member as required by the Fair Credit Report Act.  They
also claim the FCRA violation was "willful and deliberate."  The
suit wants to recover statutory damages, costs and attorneys'
fees.

Plaintiffs in the case are Harry Corl, Cynthia L. Hodnett, Nyle
Cearlock, Arlene Hancock, David L. Watts, Jr. and Donna S.
Mobbs.  Defendants in the suit are:

     -- Farmers Insurance Company Inc.,
     -- Farmers Group Inc.,
     -- Farmers Insurance Exchange,
     -- Fire Underwriters Assoc.,
     -- Fire Insurance Exchange, and
     -- Mid-Century Insurance Company

The suit is styled "Mobbs v. Farmers Ins. Co. Inc. (5:03-cv-
00158)" filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma under Judge Stephen P. Friot.  Representing
the plaintiffs are: Bruce N. Adams of Rice & Adams PC, P.O. Box
1165 Anniston, AL 36202, Phone: 256-238-0038, E-mail:
bruce@riceandadams.com; and Douglas Bowdoin of Douglas Bowdoin
PA, 255 S Orange Ave., Suite 800, Orlando, FL 32801, Phone: 407-
926-7713; E-mail: dbowdoin@bowdoinlaw.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are: William Stephen Benesh of
Bracewell & Patterson-AUSTIN, 111 Congress Ave, Suite 2300
Austin, TX 78701, Phone: 512-494-3680, E-mail:
sbenesh@bracepatt.com; and Ileana M. Blanco of Bracewell &
Patterson-Houston, 711 Louisiana St., Suite 2900 Houston, TX
77002, Phone: 713-223-2900, E-mail: ileana.blanco@bracepatt.com.


GEORGIA: Suit Claims Voter ID Requirement Violates Constitution
---------------------------------------------------------------
Former Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes filed a class action
challenging a state law that requires voters to show a photo ID
at the polls, according to reports.

Mr. Barnes filed the suit in DeKalb County Superior Court
alleging the law violates Georgia Constitution.  He is bringing
the suit on behalf of all voters without photo IDs.

Supporters of the law say it is necessary to prevent voter
fraud; opponents view it as discriminatory to minorities who are
less likely to have valid identification.

The law requiring that all voters present a government issued
photo identification was passed in 2005.  It was afterwards
temporarily stopped from being enforced pending an appeal by the
government.  In January, the law was amended to provide free
photo IDs to citizens.  The U.S. Justice Department recently
approved it for enactment.


GOOGLE INC: Ark. Judge Okays $90M Settlement in Click Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A judge in the Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas,
approved Google Inc.'s $90 million settlement of a "click fraud"
class action filed against it by advertisers, The Texarkana
Gazette reports.

Initially, the suit was filed by Texarkana gift shop Lane's
Gifts and Collectibles.  On Feb. 4, 2005, John C. Goodson and
Dallas lawyer Joel Fineberg filed a suit against Google, Yahoo!
Inc., Overture Services Inc., America Online Inc., Ask Jeeves
Inc., Looksmart Ltd., Lycos Inc., Netscape Communication Corp.,
Buena Vista Internet Group, Findwhat.Com Inc. and Time Warner
Inc., (Class Action Reporter, March 10, 2006).

The suit specifically alleged that the Company overcharged
thousands of advertisers for bogus sales referrals through the
"click fraud" strategy.  The scheme involves sending fraudulent
clicks to advertisers, effectively increasing their accounts,
(Class Action Reporter, March 10, 2006).

In a press statement regarding the court's approval the Company
said, "We are pleased that we were able to reach an agreement
and are pleased the judge has granted preliminary approval."

Though the Company settled its case with its clients, the
"click fraud" class action is still alive in Miller County in
relation to the other named defendants.

As part of the settlement reached by the Company, the
advertising clients will have a $60 million fund to file a claim
and receive a percentage of what it is owed.  They will not
receive cash, but they will get advertising credits to pay half
of future bills with the Company.

The remaining third of the $90 million will be paid to the
lawyers for their fees and expenses.

Kevin Crass of Little Rock, who represents the Company, told
Circuit Judge Joe Griffin during the preliminary hearing the
settlement did not come easily and was part of a three-day
mediation including Jennifer Doan of Haltom & Doan, the
Texarkana firm representing the Company.

According to the suit, the defendant companies worked with one
another in a conspiracy to create an online environment that
harms advertisers.  The search engine companies are being blamed
for growing Internet pay-per-click (PPC) advertising market
while failing to disclose they had routinely and systematically
overcharged/overcollected for PPC advertising revenue from their
customers.

Lawyers for Yahoo! Inc., Looksmart LTD and Miva Inc. wanted the
right to object to the settlement, although they said it was
unlikely, since they are also part of the lawsuit by customers
suing the search engine industry for click fraud.  Judge Griffin
though told the lawyers for the other search engines they could
voice their concerns in a later hearing.

Aside from approving the settlement Judge Griffin also struck
down a bid by Advanced Internet Technologies, Inc. (AIT), which
has a class action pending in a federal court in California, to
step into the lawsuit.  AIT wanted to participate in the
settlement process here due to concerns that its outcome would
affect the California case.

Entitled, "Click Defense, Inc. v. Google, Inc. (5:05-cv-02579-
RMW)," AIT's was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  A hearing for nationwide class
certification of that case is slated for May 14, 2006, (Class
Action Reporter, March 14, 2006).


HAWAII: Paying $2.3M for Error in Billing Public Housing Tenants
----------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Hawaii reached an agreement to pay $2.3 million to
settle a public housing overcharging suit, according to The
Honolulu Advertiser.

The suit alleged the state violated regulations by billing
tenants in federally subsidized projects more than the 30% cap
for utility and rent payments.  For tenants who pay their own
utility bills, the state are mandated to establish a utility
allowance and reduce the tenants' rents by that amount.  The
state acknowledged that the Housing and Community Development
Corp. of Hawai'i had not adjusted the utility allowances since
sometime before 1997, according to Deputy Attorney General John
Wong.

The suit was filed in Kona Circuit Court in 2004 on behalf of
Rodelle Smith and three other tenants in the Kona public housing
complex Ka Hale Kahalu'u.  The expected class is composed
tenants who lived in about 3,000 federally subsidized public
housing units across the state, according to Gavin Thornton,
lawyer with the public interest law organization Lawyers for
Equal Justice.  Claimants may receive up to more than $2,000,
according to Shelby Anne Floyd, lead counsel for the lawsuit.


HEARTLAND ADVISORS: Shareholders Get Windfall From Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Owners of shares in two defunct mutual funds run by Milwaukee's
Heartland Advisors, Inc. recently recovered millions of dollars
from a settlement of a federal lawsuit against the Company, The
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports.

The money was split among 10,000 to 11,000 investors in the
Heartland High-Yield Municipal Bond Fund and Short Duration
High-Yield Municipal Fund.  The net asset value of the funds
fell sharply in October 2000, following sudden, steep markdowns
of the value of the bonds in their portfolios.  

At that time, assets in the High-Yield Municipal Bond fund were
marked down by 69% and those in the Short Duration fund were
marked down by 44%, (Class Action Reporter, March 13, 2006).

A receiver appointed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission subsequently liquidated the funds, with slightly more
than $30 million being distributed to former shareholders.

Those events would later trigger the filing of a class action on
behalf of the shareholders in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin against the Company,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, which audited the funds, and Interactive
Data Corp., which helped to price some of the bonds in the
funds.

The Company settled for $14 million and Interactive for $1
million.  PricewaterhouseCoopers agreed to settle for $8.25
million in January.  

PricewaterhouseCoopers' settlement though was not yet
distributed, since U.S. District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller must
agree on attorney's fees.  Plaintiff's lawyers have asked for
about 30% of the settlement, plus about $1 million in expenses.
The settlement is expected this summer.

The suit is styled, "White v. Heartland High-Yield, et al, Case
No. 2:00-cv-01388-JPS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin under Judge J. P. Stadtmueller.  
Representing the plaintiffs are, C. Oliver Burt, III of Berman
DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, Esperante Bldg., 222
Lakeview Ave., Ste. 900, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Phone: 561-
835-9400; and Thomas A. Doyle of Saunders & Doyle, 20 S. Clark
St., Ste. 1720, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: 312-551-0051, Fax:
312-551-4467.

Representing the defendants are, Timothy A. Duffy of Kirkland &
Ellis, LLP, 200 E. Randolph Dr., 60th Fl., Chicago, IL 60601,
Phone: 312-861-2445, Fax: 312-861-2200, E-mail:
tduffy@kirkland.com.


HENNESSEE GROUP: Faces New Lawsuit Over Bayou Hedge Fund Advice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Investment firm South Cherry Street LLC filed a lawsuit against
Hennessee Group LLC over its previous recommendation of the now-
defunct hedge fund Bayou Group, according to Reuters.  

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in New York.  It
alleged that the firm failed to perform extensive due diligence
of Bayou Management and its funds before recommending it to
potential investors.  It also claimed Hennessee Group ignored
fiduciary obligations to its clients; and it misled South Cherry
by offering free legal representation when its purpose was to
make it more difficult for South Cherry to claim damages from
the group.

South Cherry is seeking several million dollars in damages and
no less than $1 million in punitive damages from hedge fund
consultant E. Lee Hennessee, her husband Charles A. Gradante,
and their firm.

Bayou Management in Connecticut closed in July, leaving clients
at a loss for investments.  Hennessee also faces several other
suits in relation to the collapse of the hedge fund.  Top
Company two executives had pleaded guilty to criminal charges in
defrauding investors through the improper inflation of the value
of Bayou's funds.

The suit is styled "South Cherry Street, L.L.C. v. Hennessee
Group L.L.C. et al., (1:06-cv-02943-LBS)" filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Leonard B. Sand.  Representing the plaintiff is Ted Poretz of
Bingham McCutchen LLP (NY), 399 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10022,
Phone: 212-705-7000, Fax: 212-752-5378, E-mail:
ted.poretz@bingham.com.


INTEL CORP: Del. Judge Appoints Lead Counsel in Antitrust Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph James Farnan, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware named Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro as
co-lead counsel in a class action against Intel Corp.  The suit
alleged the Company engaged in illegal monopoly of the
microprocessor industry that costs consumers millions of
dollars.

The suit, which is filed under the caption, "In re Intel Corp.
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:05-md-01717-JJF," is among the
largest cases of its kind filed in the U.S.  It alleges that the
Company engaged in an aggressive, worldwide campaign against its
competitor, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) to severely limit
AMD's ability to distribute its products.

According to the complaint, the Company used threatening and
coercive measures to limit stores from being able to stock AMD
products in violation of U.S. antitrust laws, including forcing
exclusive deals upon retailers, conditioning rebates on limited
purchase of AMD products, and forcing PC makers to boycott AMD
product launches, among other things.

"We intend to show that Intel went way beyond legal, competitive
business practices in their efforts to quash AMD, they used the
business version of back-alley thuggery," said Steve Berman,
attorney for the plaintiffs.  "We believe Intel's actions not
only harmed AMD, but robbed consumers of access to competitively
priced products."

As lead counsel, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro will be responsible
for all pleadings with the court, coordinating discovery,
conducting settlement negotiations, monitoring activities of co-
counsel, and all day-to-day case activities on behalf of the
class.

Judge Farnan also appointed three other firms, namely: Cohen
Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, The Furth Firm, and Saveri & Saveri as
co-counsel in this litigation.

A consolidated class action complaint will be filed by April 28,
2006.  The consolidated class action will include all U.S.
residents who purchased a microprocessor in the U.S. indirectly
from the Company from June 29, 2001 through the present.

The suit is styled, "In re Intel Corp. Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 1:05-md-01717-JJF," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware under Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP,
         1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101,
         Phone: (206) 623-7292, Fax: (206) 263-0594, E-mail:
         steve@hbsslaw.com;

     (2) R. Alexander Saveri of Saveri & Saveri, Inc., 111 Pine
         St., Suite 1700, San Francisco, CA 94111, US, Phone:
         415-217-6810, Fax: 415-217-6813, E-mail:
         rick@saveri.com; and  

     (3) Michael P. Lehmann of The Furth Firm, LLP, 225 Bush
         Street, 15th Floor, San Francisco, California 94104,
         Sonoma County Office, 10300 Chalk Hill Road,
         Healdsburg, California 95448, Phone: (415) 433-2070,
         Fax: (415) 982-2076, E-mail: mplehmann@furth.com.

Representing the Company are, David Mark Balabanian and Joy K.
Fuyuno of Bingham McCutchen, LLP, Three Embarcadero Center, San
Francisco, CA 94111-4067, US, Phone: 415-393-2000, E-mail:
david.balabanian@bingham.com and joy.fuyuno@bingham.com; and Jef
Feibelman of Burch Porter & Johnson, 130 N. Court Ave., Memphis,
TN 38103, US, Phone: 901-524-5000, E-mail:
jfeibelman@bpjlaw.com.

For more details, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?831
(Appointment Order).


J2 GLOBAL: Still Faces Calif. Consumer Lawsuit Over eFax Service
----------------------------------------------------------------
A first amended complaint was filed against J2 Global
Communications, Inc. in a class action pending in the Los
Angeles Superior Court in California, over the Company's eFax
service.

On October 11, 2005, a complaint was filed against the Company
in Los Angeles Superior Court in a purported class action
alleging violations of California law challenging the pricing
policies applicable to its eFax service and, in particular, the
manner in which users are notified about the terms and
conditions of the pricing that applies once free service
thresholds are met.

The action included purported claims for false advertising,
breach of contract, fraud and violations of Section 17200 of the
California Business & Profession Code.  The lawsuit sought
damages and injunctive relief.

On December 2, 2005, the Company filed a demurrer to the entire
complaint.  At the demurrer hearing held on February 7, 2006,
the Court sustained the Company's demurrer, dismissed the case
without prejudice and gave plaintiffs 45 days leave to amend.

A first amended complaint was filed against the Company on March
17, 2006 and the Company is in the process of preparing
responsive pleadings.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Agrees on $425M Settlement of IPO Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Investment bank JPMorgan Chase & Co. agreed in principle to pay
$425 million to settle a suit alleging it manipulated initial
public offerings (IPOs) during the technology boom in the 1990s,
reports say.

The agreement remains subject to approval by investors
represented by the class action and by two judges presiding over
the case in Manhattan federal court.  The investors are
represented by Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman.

Investors have sued other banks in 191 IPOs made in the 1990s.  
JPMorgan was lead underwriter in only 11 of the IPOs, according
to lawyer Melvyn Weiss.  The banks include Credit Suisse, Morgan
Stanley and Goldman Sachs.

The suit alleges the banks' manipulation of the IPOs, caused
investors to pay excessive commissions to get allocations of
shares.  It also claims the banks' stock analysts had
undisclosed conflicts of interest, helping artificially inflate
stock prices.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com/-- is a  
leading global financial services firm with assets of $1.2
trillion and operations in more than 50 countries.


KANSAS: Federal Court Rules Against Teenage Sex Reporting Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Marten ruled against a suit
requiring health care workers to report to authorities sexual
activity by people under age 16, according to The New York
Times.

The lawsuit stems from a 2003 opinion by the Kansas Attorney
General, Phill Kline, a conservative Republican, who contends
that any pregnant, unmarried minor had by definition been the
victim of rape or abuse.  As such, reporting to state
authorities by health care professionals and educators had to be
mandatory whenever there was "compelling evidence of sexual
interaction" (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 2, 2006).

Judge Marten said in his ruling such reporting would deter
minors from seeking medical case.  He said that Mr. Kline's
decision improperly "conflated" illegal sexual activity with
abuse.  The broad interpretation undermines the public interest
instead of serving it.

The suit was filed by The Center for Reproductive Rights, which
has as lawyers Simon Heller, and Bonnie Scott Jones.  Steve
Alexander, an assistant district attorney, is defending the
suit.

The suit is styled "Aid for Women et al. v. Nola Foulston et al.
(03-1353-JTM)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas under Judge J. Thomas Marten.

To see court opinion: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?83a. The  
Center for Reproductive Rights on the Net: http://www.crlp.org/.


KOOKMIN BANK: Faces Suit in Korea Over Customer Data Disclosure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law firm Next Law filed a class action against Korea's largest
lender, Kookmin Bank, over the latter's disclosure of customers
private information in a circular e-mail, according to
English.chozun.com.

The bank e-mailed 3,700 members of its online lottery website on
March 15 to entice them into buying lottery tickets.  In the
process, it sent an attachment that contained the resident
registration numbers, names and e-mail addresses of some 32,000
customers.

Next Law filed the suit in Seoul District Court on behalf of 414
Kookmin Bank customers.  The plaintiffs are asking a total of
$1.2 million to compensate severe psychological stress suffered
by victims who learned their private data have suddenly became
public.  According to Park Jin-shik of Next Law, there were
confirmed cases of private information theft.  These data were
used by others in signing up for game sites and other Internet
sites.

Kookmin Bank -- http://www.kbstar.com-- principally provides  
commercial banking services which include remittances, deposits,
foreign investments, corporate financing, financial advisory and
mid-long term funding.  


LOBLAW CO: Settles Shoppers' Suit Over 2002 "Hepatitis A" Scare
---------------------------------------------------------------
Four years after an employee of a Loblaw Companies Ltd. store in
a west Toronto was diagnosed with hepatitis A, Canada's largest
supermarket chain agreed to compensate affected customers, The
Toronto Star reports.

The proposed settlement is worth $150 to anyone who received a
hepatitis A vaccine, or consulted their doctor, as a precaution
after public health officials disclosed the employee's condition
to the public.  It could end up costing the Company and its
insurers at least $3 million.  Eileen Morrison, one of two
customers who went on to develop the illness, will be
compensated separately through a mediation process.

The hepatitis A report prompted a large-scale health scare and
sending about 19,000 people to get vaccinations.  Court
documents revealed that the hepatitis scare took place in the
summer of 2002, when an unidentified employee who worked in the
produce department at the Humbercrest Market store, on Dundas
St., W. near Jane St., was diagnosed with the disease on Aug.
15, noting the illness dated back to Aug. 3.

According to documents, on Aug. 16, the employee was found to be
no longer infectious.  Thus, he was allowed to return to work
and did so on Aug. 23.

The courts have yet to approve the settlement, which covers
individuals who shopped in the store between July 19 and Aug.
16, 2002.  A hearing though was scheduled for June 15.

Matthew Vezina, a court reporter, launched the class action in
September 2002, alleging negligence and seeking $100 million in
compensation for customers who suffered inconvenience of
standing in line to get a vaccine.  He consulted the Toronto law
firm Paliare Roland Rosenburg Rothstein, LLP before filing the
suit.

In legal notices carried in newspapers, the Company reiterated
that it does not admit any negligence or guilt in the matter but
voluntarily agreed to pay the amounts as a gesture of goodwill
and to settle the class action.

The cost to the Company and its insurers depends on how many
people come forward.  In addition, it will also pay the
plaintiffs' legal fees of $700,000.

Linda Rothstein, managing partner of Paliare Roland Rosenburg
Rothstein, LLP, told The Toronto Star that though the dollar
amount per person in the settlement may be small, a very large
number of people were affected.

For more details, visit: http://www.loblawsclassaction.com,or  
contact Linda R. Rothstein B.A., LL.B., of Paliare Roland
Rosenburg Rothstein, LLP, Phone: 416-646-4327 and 416-646-7409,
E-mail: linda.rothstein@paliareroland.com and
loblawsclassaction@paliareroland.com, Web site:
http://www.paliareroland.com/.  


LOWE'S HOME: Suit Over Window Blind Cords Goes to Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lowe's Home Center has removed a lawsuit over dangling window
blinds cords to Federal Court, according to The Madison St.
Clair Record.

Lawyer Troy Bozarth of Edwardsville, Illinois filed a removal
notice March 24, saying it received a late notice of the suit,
which names other window blinds manufacturers.  Plaintiffs
Ronald Alsup, Robert Crews and Magnum Properties filed a suit in
Madison County in February 2005 on behalf of those who bought
window blinds with cords that dangled, posing risk of
strangulation.

Mr. Bozarth said Lowe's Home received the notice on Feb. 24,
more than a year after a suit was filed against 62 defendants.  
The Company said the plaintiffs served prompt notices to 28
defendants.  The Company said it conducted itself under the
direction of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.  
Illinois consumer fraud law prohibits an award of damages for
conduct that federal agencies specifically authorized, according
to the report.

For more information, contact Troy A. Bozarth of Burroughs,
Hepler, Broom, MacDonald, Hebrank & True, LLP, Two Mark Twain
Plaza, Suite 300, 103 West Vandalia Street, P.O. Box 510,
Edwardsville, Illinois 62025-0510 (Madison Co.), Phone: 618-656-
0184, Telecopier: 618-656-1364.


MERCK & CO.: Ordered to Pay $32M Damages in Vioxx-Linked Death
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Rio Grande City, Texas court awarded $32 million in damages to
the family of a man who died of a fatal attack weeks after
taking Merck & Co. Inc.'s painkiller drug Vioxx, reports say.  

The payout consists of $7 million compensatory damage payment,
and $25 million punitive damage payment.  The punitive damages
will be reduced to no more than $750,000 because of a cap
imposed by Texas law, according to Los Angeles Times.

Mr. Garza, 71, died of a heart attack in April 2001, following
23 years of cardiovascular disease and a prior heart attack.
Approximately one month before his death, Mr. Garza was given a
one-week supply of VIOXX 25 mg samples for arm pain.

The Company voluntarily withdrew VIOXX in September 2004 in
response to a Merck-sponsored study, called APPROVe. In that
study, there was an increased relative risk of thrombotic events
in patients taking VIOXX continuously for 18 months compared to
patients taking a sugar pill.  That increased relative risk did
not appear to be statistically significant until 30 months or
more of continuous use, and there was no detectable difference
in risk for patients taking VIOXX for a short duration.

The suit was styled "Garza v. Heart Clinic, Evans, Posada and
Merck & Co., Inc., " filed under Texas State District Court
Judge Alex W. Gabert.  Plaintiffs' lawyer includes Joe Escobedo,
and David H. Hockema of Hockema, Tippit & Escobedo, L.L.P.,
Building 101, 1 Paseo del Prado, Edinburg, Texas 78539-9672
(Hidalgo Co.), mailing address: P.O. Box 720540, McAllen, TX,
78504-0540, Phone: 956-631-9112; 800-966-9112, Fax: 956-630-
9472.  Defendant's lawyer is Richard Josephson.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: High Court Hears Immigrant Workers' Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court is slated to hear arguments in a class
action against Calhoun, Georgia-based Mohawk Industries, which
was sued for hiring illegal immigrant workers.

One current and three former employees of the carpet company
initially filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.  They claim that the Company
knowingly hired hundreds of illegal immigrants to suppress legal
workers' wages.

The Company categorically denies knowledge of any illegal
workers on its payroll and reiterates that it provides all
employees with competitive wages and health benefits.

According to the original complaint, the Company sent its
employees "to the U.S. border, including areas near Brownsville,
Texas, to recruit undocumented aliens that recently entered the
U.S. in violation of federal law" and transport them to North
Georgia, (Class Action Reporter, December 22, 2005).

The suit also alleges that Mohawk employees and other recruiters
provided these illegal immigrants with housing and found them
jobs with the Company.  It even charges that although some of
the illegal workers were arrested, Mohawk's supervisors helped
others evade detection, (Class Action Reporter, December 22,
2005).

Additionally, the suit claims that even though the Company fired
several illegal immigrants after discovering them among its work
force during internal audits, it soon rehired them under
different names.  It claims that the Company destroyed documents
in an effort to conceal the fact that it employed illegal
workers, (Class Action Reporter, December 22, 2005).

One of Company's objectives, the suit alleges, was to inflate
the size of the pool from which it hires hourly workers, thereby
depressing wages.  Another was to reduce the number and expense
of workers' compensation claims, since "illegal employees are
unlikely to file," the suit states, (Class Action Reporter,
December 22, 2005).

The plaintiffs' legal team, which includes Atlanta's Bondurant
Mixson & Elmore, LLP, and noted North Georgia defense attorney
Bobby Lee Cook, argued the bulk of their case falls under the
state and federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
(RICO) acts.  RICO primarily is used to prosecute tax evaders
and organized crime, but it also permits civil suits against
those who break immigration law, and the damages awarded can be
triple the norm, (Class Action Reporter, December 22, 2005).

In February 2004, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint, which was denied by the court in April 2004.  The
Company then sought and obtained permission to file an immediate
appeal of the court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the 11th Circuit, (Class Action Reporter, December 22, 2005).

In June 2005, the 11th Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in
part the lower court's decision.  The Company then filed a
motion requesting review by the full 11th Circuit.  The court
refused to hear the case and the Company appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Court, (Class Action Reporter, December 22, 2005).

The Supreme Court will mainly focus on the issue of whether a
Company and its agents, recruiters, in this case can be
considered a racketeering enterprise under civil provisions of
RICO.

The case raises the three pivotal questions in the immigration
debate:

     (1) Are immigrants, legal or not, coming to work in the
         U.S. because the economy needs them or because
         companies exploit cheap labor to the detriment of U.S.-
         born workers?;  

     (2) Should the front-line controls on illegal immigration
         be the personnel offices of manufacturers?; and (3) and

     (3) Will stricter checks on hiring documents for applicants
         who look or sound foreign discriminate against all
         Hispanics?

Both sides agree, however, that the case is about U.S. citizens
taking matters into their own hands because they feel that
illegal immigration is out of control.

"This points out the need to have private enforcement.  It gives
private citizens some recourse to protect themselves," Howard
Foster, the employees' attorney and a noted immigration-control
activist who has taken on large corporations across the country
told The Associated Press.

Juan Morillo, Mohawk's attorney, told the Associated Press
though that immigration officials haven't approached the Company
since the lawsuit was filed in January 2004.  The Company also
argues that going beyond routine document checks for applicants
who look Hispanic would only open it up to charges of
discrimination.

The case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court is titled,
"Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Williams, No. 05-465."  Previously
pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit, the suit was titled, "Williams v. Mohawk, No. 04-
13740," (Class Action Reporter, December 22, 2005).

The original suit is styled, "Williams, et al. v. Mohawk
Industries, Case No. 4:04-cv-00003-HLM," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of North Georgia under Judge
Harold L. Murphy.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Bobby Lee Cook of Cook & Connelly, P.O. Box 370,
         Summerville, GA 30747-0370, Phone: 706-857-3421, E-
         mail: LisaDodd@alltel.net;

     (2) Ronan P. Doherty, John Earl Floyd, Nicole G. Iannarone
         and Joshua F. Thorpe of Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, 1201
         West Peachtree St., N.W., 3900 One Atlantic Center,
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3417, Phone: 404-881-4100, E-mail:
         doherty@bmelaw.com, floyd@bmelaw.com,
         iannarone@bmelaw.com and thorpe@bmelaw.com;

     (3) Howard Foster of Johnson & Bell, 55 East Monroe St.,
         Suite 4100, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: 312-372-0770, E-
         mail: fosterh@jbltd.com; and

     (4) Matthew Daniel Thames of Goddard Thames Hammontree &
         Bolding, Suite 209, P.O. Box 399, 101 N. Thornton Ave.,
         Dalton, GA 30722-0399, Phone: 706-278-0464, E-mail:
         mattatty@alltel.net.

Representing the defendants are, Steven Thomas Cottreau, Juan P.
Morillo and Virginia A. Seitz of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood,
1501 K. St., NW Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-736-8000, E-
mail: scottreau@sidley.com; and R. Carl Cannon and Rosemary C.
Lumpkins of Constangy Brooks & Smith, 230 Peachtree St., N.W.,
2400 Peachtree Center Tower, Atlanta, GA 30303-1557, Phone: 404-
525-8622, E-mail: ccannon@constangy.com.


NORDSTROM INC: Fire Hazard Prompts Recall of Candle Holders
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Nordstrom, Inc., of Seattle, Washington, announced a voluntary
recall of about 5,300 units of Egg-Shaped Candle Holders.

The candle holder is constructed of plastic and could ignite if
exposed to flame, posing a fire hazard to consumers.

Nordstrom has received one reported incident involving the
holder igniting. Minimal smoke damage occurred. No injuries have
been reported.

The recalled product is an egg-shaped tea light candle holder
sold under style numbers 2C0755A, 2C0755B, and 2C0755C. The tea
light holder came in the colors sky blue, pool blue and
lavender. Both the style number and the color can be found on a
sticker at the bottom of the candle holder.

The candle holders were manufactured in China and sold at
Nordstrom stores nationwide from February 2005 through July 2005
for between $3 and $6.

Consumers are advised to stop using these candle holders
immediately and return them to a Nordstrom store for a full
refund.

Picture of the recalled candle holders:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06142.jpg.

Consumer Contact: Nordstrom, Inc., Phone: (800) 695-8000 between
6 a.m. and 8 p.m. PT Monday through Saturday, E-mail:
contact@nordstrom.com.


POLAR BEVERAGES: Soft Drink Makers Face Lawsuit Over Benzene
------------------------------------------------------------
A Crawfordville, Florida woman is suing two soft drink
manufacturers alleging their product contains benzene, a
potentially cancer-causing chemical, the Tallahassee Democrat,
reports.

Lisbeth Gordon, a nurse at the Tallahasse Memorial Hospital, and
a mother of four, filed the suit in Leon County Circuit Court.  
She is asking more than $15,000 in damages against Polar
Beverages Inc., a Massachusetts Company, and In-Zone Brands
Inc., which is headquartered near Atlanta.  

The lawsuits seek to be certified as class action complaints in
Florida and Massachusetts, the report said.  A companion suit
was filed in Boston.  No court date has been set.

According to the report, Mr. Gordon said she contacted
Tallahassee attorney Tim Howard after receiving an e-mail from a
friend that discussed levels of benzene in soft drinks.  
According to her suit, laboratory tests of drinks made by the
defendants showed benzene levels exceeding the Environmental
Protection Agency guidelines.  Mr. Howard said the lawsuit names
100 "John Doe" defendants.

Polar Beverages markets Polar Diet Orange Dry; In-Zone sells
Bellywasher drinks.  The two are accused of knowingly marketing
drinks that contained benzene, a chemical classified as a
hazardous substance by the EPA.


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls Snowmobiles After Injury Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Polaris Industries Inc., of Medina, Minnesota, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, voluntarily
recalls 1,380 2006 Models of Polaris Snowmobiles with Electric
Starts and Models with Electric Start Kits.  Polaris distributed
about 1,940 electric start kits that could be installed on
certain 2005 or 2006 snowmobiles.

The Company said the fastener torque securing the starter motor
to the engine crankcase may not have been accurately applied
during the manufacture of these snowmobiles or during the
installation of an accessory starter.

An improperly torqued starter motor fastener bolt may become
loose and fall out allowing the bolt to interfere with the lower
steering drag link.  This could allow the consumer to experience
a loss of steering control.

Polaris has received 18 reports of incidents involving loss of
steering ability, with one reported minor injury.

The recall includes Polaris Model Year 2006 700IQ Classic, 700
IQ Touring, Select Model Year 2005 900 Fusion, 900 RMK, 900
Switchback, Select Model Year 2006 700 IQ Fusion, RMK, and
Select Model Year 2006 900 Fusion, RMK Switchback Snowmobiles
with Accessory Electric Start Kits.

The model and serial number (VIN) identification decal is
located on the right-side of the tunnel underneath the seat.

Models possibly affected by the recall:

Model(s) Affected     Model Numbers
2005 900 Fusion
(With Accessory Electric Start Kit)  S05MP8DS (A)(B)(C)
2005 900 Switchback
(With Accessory Electric Start Kit)  S05PS8DS
2005 900 RMK
(With Accessory Electric Start Kit)  S05PL8DS (A)(B)(C)(D)
S05PL8DEB
S05PM8DS (A)(B)
S05PN8DS
S05PN8DE
2006 700
Classic (Electric Start Standard)   S06PD7HS
2006 700 Touring
(Electric Start Standard)    S06PT7HS
S06PT7HE
2006 700 Fusion
(With Snow Check Select Option
or Accessory Electric Start Kit)   S06MP7HS (A)(B)
S06ME7HS
2006 700 RMK
(With Snow Check Select Option
or Accessory Electric Start Kit)   S06PK7HS (A)(B)
S06PL7HS (A)(B)
S06PM7HS (A)
2006 900 Fusion
(With Snow Check Select Option
or Accessory Electric Start Kit)   S06MP8DS (A)(B)
S06ME8DS
2006 900 Switchback
(With Snow Check Select Option
or Accessory Electric Start Kit)   S06PS8DS (A)
2006 900 RMK
(With Snow Check Select Option
or Accessory Electric Start Kit)   S06PL8DS (A)(B)
S06PM8DS (A)
S06PN8DS (A)
S06PR8DS

Not all Model Year 2005 and 2006 snowmobiles are affected.

The snowmobiles were manufactured in the U.S. and sold by
Polaris snowmobile dealers nationwide from August 2004 through
March 2006 for between $10,000 and $12,600.

Consumers with recalled snowmobiles are being sent direct notice
from Polaris.  Consumers are advised to stop using these
vehicles immediately and contact a local Polaris snowmobile
dealer to schedule an appointment for a free repair.

Pictures of the recalled snowmobiles:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06545a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06545b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06545c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06545d.jpg

Consumer Contact: Phone: (800) 765-2747 between 8 a.m. and 12
midnight ET everyday, Web site: http://www.polarisindustries.com


REDBACK NETWORKS: Calif. Court Partially Dismisses Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
partially granted the Redback Networks, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors.

On December 15, 2003, the first of several putative class action
complaints, "Robert W. Baker, Jr., et al. v. Joel M. Arnold, et
al., No. C-03-5642 JF," was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.  

At least ten nearly identical complaints have been filed in the
same court.  Several of the Company's current and former
officers and directors are named as defendants in these
complaints, but the Company is not named as a defendant.

The complaints are filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock from April 12, 2000 through October 10,
2003 and purport to allege violations of the federal securities
laws in connection with the alleged failure to timely disclose
information allegedly relating to certain transactions between
the Company and Qwest Communications International, Inc.  The
complaints sought damages in an unspecified amount.

On August 24, 2004, the Court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated complaint asserting claims on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's common stock from April 12, 2000 through
October 10, 2003 against 16 of the Company's current or former
officers and directors for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws.  The consolidated complaint sought damages in
an unspecified amount.

On January 21, 2005, the Court entered an order dismissing the
consolidated complaint without leave to amend with regard to
five of the Company-related defendants and with leave to amend
with regard to the remaining 11 Company-related defendants.  

On March 29, 2005, lead plaintiff filed a first amended
consolidated complaint asserting claims on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's common stock from November 27, 1999 through
October 10, 2003 against 11 of the Company's current or former
officers and directors for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws.  

On May 6, 2005, lead plaintiff filed a revised first amended
consolidated complaint to add and change its allegations
regarding loss causation.  On May 25, 2005, the Court granted
lead plaintiff's motion to reconsider the dismissal regarding
one of the Company-related defendants.  The current complaint
seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

On June 10, 2005, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second revised first amended consolidated complaint.  The
argument of that motion to dismiss was held on August 10, 2005.

The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss on March 20,
2006 but granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint
within 60 days (by May 19, 2006).

The suit is styled "In re Redback Networks, Inc. Securities
Litigation, docket number 03-05642," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Jeremy
Fogel.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., 1201 N. Market Street, Suite
         2100, Wilmington, DE, 19801, Phone: 302.622.7000, Fax:
         302.622.7100, E-mail: info@gelaw.com; and

     (2) Anderlini, Finkelstein, Emerick & Smoot, 400 S. El
         Camino Real, San Mateo, CA, 94402, Phone: 650-348-010,
         Fax: 650-348-096, E-mail: Info@Afelaw.com


RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Settles Calif. Suit Over Lobster Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rubio's Restaurants, Inc. and the law firm of Gallo & Associates
settled a class action filed in June 2005 by clients of Los
Angeles lawyer Ray E. Gallo in California, Los Angeles Superior
Court.  The settlement includes no admission of wrongdoing by
Rubio's.

The lawsuit alleged that Rubio's violated certain laws by
advertising and selling its lobster products as "Lobster
Burrito" and "Lobster Taco" when the products were made with
Langostino.  The suit said that this practice was deceptive and
unfair.  Rubio's denies the allegations raised in the lawsuit
and believes it did not violate any law.  

The Court did not decide who was right.  In response to the
suit, Rubio's began using the term "Langostino lobster burrito"
to more clearly identify the species used.  Both sides agreed to
settle the case and give benefits to Rubio's customers.

In settling the suit, Rubio's agreed to certify a class of
customers who may have been confused by previous menu
descriptions.  According to Rubio's attorney Stu Shanus, a
partner in the Century City office of Reed Smith LLP, class
members and other customers were entitled to receive a one-time
coupon worth $3 off a $10 purchase at any of Rubio's Company
owned and operated restaurants in California for a limited time.

"We have acted in good faith to promptly settle this matter so
that we can relieve the uncertainty associated with litigation
and focus on other business matters," said Ralph Rubio, CEO of
Rubio's Restaurants, Inc.  "We look forward to continuing to
welcome the many satisfied guests who have enjoyed the Company's
food over the years."

Ray Gallo, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, further commented,
"We are glad to have reached a reasonable compromise with
Rubio's that provides a practical, useful, and easily accessible
benefit to class members and to all Rubio's customers.

Rubio's Restaurant on the Net: http://www.rubios.com.  
Representing the Company is the Los Angeles-based law firm of
Gallo & Associates (http://www.gallo-law.com).


RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Still Faces Calif. Consolidated Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rubio's Restaurants, Inc. is defendant in a consolidated
employee class action filed in the Orange County Superior Court
in California, alleging violations of the state's labor laws.

On June 28, 2001, a former employee, who worked in the position
of general manager, filed a class action complaint against the
Company in Orange County, California Superior Court.  

A second similar class action complaint was filed in Orange
County, California Superior Court on December 21, 2001, on
behalf of another former employee who worked in the positions of
general manager and assistant manager.  

On May 16, 2002, these two cases were consolidated into one
action.  These cases currently involve the issue of whether
employees and former employees in the general and assistant
manager positions who worked in California units during
specified time periods were misclassified as exempt and deprived
of overtime pay.

The consolidated complaint also asserts claims for alleged
missed meal and rest breaks.  In addition to unpaid overtime,
these cases seek to recover waiting time penalties, interest,
attorneys' fees and other types of relief on behalf of the
current and former employees that these former employees purport
to represent.

On November 9, 2005, the court certified a class of assistant
managers and has not yet ruled on the adequacy of the proposed
class representative for the class of general managers.  


SAROJ INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Hair Dryers Due to Shock Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Saroj International Inc., of Vernon, California, is recalling
about 4,000 Eusonic Hair Dryers.

The Company said the electric hair dryer's power cord does not
have an immersion protection plug.  Therefore, if the hair dryer
falls into water during use, it can pose a shock and/or
electrocution hazard.  No injuries have been reported.

The hair dryers recalled are the Eusonic models numbers 9318,
9329, and 2218.  The model numbers are imprinted on the opposite
side of the handle from where the slide switch is situated.  The
hair dryers are red, have a black slide switch and the word
Eusonic is imprinted in black on the blower part of the hair
dryer.

The hair dryers were made in China and are sold at various
retail stores nationwide from May 2003 through December 2004 for
about $10.

Consumers are advised to stop using these hair dryers
immediately and return it to the store where it was purchased to
receive a full refund.

Picture of the recalled hair dryer:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06143.jpg

Consumer Contact: Saroj International Inc., Phone: (877) 277-
1055 between 9:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, E-
mail at sales@sarojusa.com.

Media Contact: Jaivin Karnani, Phone: (323) 277-1056.


UNITED STATES: Unclaimed Settlements to Fund Free Legal Services
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New York State Bar Association is pursuing a creative way to
secure more money to help fund legal services to the poor and
help close the "justice gap" in New York.

Under a legal doctrine known as cy pres comme possible, which
means "coming as near as possible," unclaimed funds from class
action settlements can be dispensed to groups that were not
parties to the litigation.  Traditionally, such funds have been
used for their "next best use", to benefit groups related to the
purpose of the litigation.  In recent years, however, the
approach has been expanded.

According to a report issued by the state bar's Special
Committee on Funding for Civil Legal Services -- co-chaired by
attorney C. Bruce Lawrence of Rochester -- to help close the
justice gap courts across the country have begun to make cy pres
awards to programs that provide legal services to the poor.  
Since these programs help protect the rights of those who are
unrepresented, as is often the case with class action
plaintiffs, they are seen as meeting the next best use standard.

Association President A. Vincent Buzard of Rochester (Harris
Beach PLLC), said, "Our cy pres plan represents the development
of an exciting program that will help fund critical legal
services to poor and disadvantaged New Yorkers, without raising
taxes or reducing support for other important programs."  
However, he cautioned, "Cy pres is not intended to, and cannot,
supplant the need for a permanent state funding mechanism."

The state bar is committed to a four-part action plan to help
create a cy pres program in New York.  This includes developing
a cy pres manual for distribution to the bench and bar; serving
as a resource in providing information and identifying
appropriate groups to receive funding; initiating a study of
potential legislation or court rules that will govern cy pres
awards; and working with The New York Bar Foundation to assist
in the distribution of cy pres monies.

The three primary funding streams for civil legal services in
New York -- federal, and the state's Interest on Lawyer Account
program and the Legal Services Assistance Fund -- have been
victims of budget cuts and the sharp drop in interest rates.  
Together, they do not come close to adequately funding legal
services to the poor.  At current funding levels, New York's
legal aid nonprofits are able to meet the needs of only about 20
percent of low-income New Yorkers.

The 72,000-member New York State Bar Association is the official
statewide organization of lawyers in New York and the largest
voluntary state bar association in the nation.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICAN INT'L: Stull Stull Sues Over AllianceBernstein Funds
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action on April 7, 2006
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against American International Group, Inc. and certain of its
affiliates, on behalf of those who purchased AllianceBernstein
mutual funds from the AIG Advisor Group between June 30, 2000
and June 8, 2005, inclusive.

During the Class Period, the AIG Advisor Group consisted of the
following broker-dealers: Royal Alliance, Inc., SunAmerica
Securities, Inc., FSC Securities Corp., Sentra Securities
Corporation, Spelman & Co., Inc., and Advantage Capital Corp.

Interested parties may, no later than June 6, 2006, file a
motion with the court requesting to be appointed as lead
plaintiff.  

The AllianceBernstein mutual funds and their respective symbols
are as follows:

AllianceBernstein All-Asia Investment Fund (NASDAQ: AALAX)
(NASDAQ: AAABX) (NASDAQ: AAACX)

AllianceBernstein Americas Government Income Trust (NASDAQ:
ANAGX) (NASDAQ: ANABX) (NASDAQ: ANACX)

AllianceBernstein Balanced Shares (NASDAQ: CABNX) (NASDAQ:
CABBX) (NASDAQ: CBACX)

AllianceBernstein Blended Style Series -- U.S. Large Cap
Portfolio (NASDAQ: ABBAX) (NASDAQ: ABBAX) (NASDAQ: ABBCX)

AllianceBernstein Bond Fund Corporate Bond Portfolio (NASDAQ:
CBFAX) (NASDAQ: CBFBX) (NASDAQ: CBFCX)

AllianceBernstein Bond Fund Quality Bond Portfolio (NASDAQ:
ABQUX) (NASDAQ: ABQBX) (NASDAQ: ABQCX)

AllianceBernstein Bond Fund U.S. Government Portfolio (NASDAQ:
ABUSX) (NASDAQ: ABUBX) (NASDAQ: ABUCX)

AllianceBernstein Disciplined Value Fund (NASDAQ: ADGAX)
(NASDAQ: ADGBX) (NASDAQ: ADGCX)

AllianceBernstein Disciplined Value Fund (NASDAQ: ADGAX)
(NASDAQ: ADGBX) (NASDAQ: ADGCX)

AllianceBernstein Emerging Market Debt Fund (NASDAQ: AGDAX)
(NASDAQ: AGDBX) (NASDAQ: AGDCX)

AllianceBernstein Global Small Cap Fund (NASDAQ: GSCAX) (NASDAQ:
AGCBX) (NASDAQ: GSCCX)

AllianceBernstein Global Strategic Income Trust (NASDAQ: AGSAX)
(NASDAQ: AGSBX) (NASDAQ: AGCCX)

AllianceBernstein Global Value Fund (NASDAQ: ABAGX) (NASDAQ:
ABBGX) (NASDAQ: ABCGX)

AllianceBernstein Global Value Fund (NASDAQ: ABAGX) (NASDAQ:
ABBGX) (NASDAQ: ABCGX)

AllianceBernstein Greater China '97 Fund (NASDAQ: GCHAX)
(NASDAQ: GCHBX) (NASDAQ: GCHCX)

AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund (NASDAQ: CABDX) (NASDAQ:
CBBDX) (NASDAQ: CBBCX)

AllianceBernstein Growth Fund (NASDAQ: AGRFX) (NASDAQ: AGBBX)
(NASDAQ: AGRCX)

AllianceBernstein Health Care Fund (NASDAQ: AHLAX) (NASDAQ:
CBBDX) (NASDAQ: CBBCX)

AllianceBernstein High Yield Fund (NASDAQ: AHYAX) (NASDAQ:
AHHBX) (NASDAQ: AHHCX)

AllianceBernstein Intermediate California Muni Portfolio
(NASDAQ: AICBX) (NASDAQ: ACLBX) (NASDAQ: ACMCX)

AllianceBernstein Intermediate Diversified Muni Portfolio
(NASDAQ: AIDAX) (NASDAQ: AIDBX) (NASDAQ: AIMCX)

AllianceBernstein Intermediate New York Muni Portfolio:(NASDAQ:
ANIAX) (NASDAQ: ANYBX) (NASDAQ: ANMCX)

AllianceBernstein International Premier Growth Fund (NASDAQ:
AIPAX) (NASDAQ: AIPBX) (NASDAQ: AIPCX)

AllianceBernstein International Value Fund (NASDAQ: ABIAX)
(NASDAQ: ABIBX) (NASDAQ: ABICX)

AllianceBernstein International Value Fund (NASDAQ: ABIAX)
(NASDAQ: ABIBX) (NASDAQ: ABICX)

AllianceBernstein Mid-Cap Growth (NASDAQ: CHCAX) (NASDAQ: CHCBX)
(NASDAQ: CHCCX)

AllianceBernstein Multi-Market Strategy Trust (NASDAQ: AMMSX)
(NASDAQ: AMMBX) (NASDAQ: AMMCX)

AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Arizona Portfolio (NASDAQ:
AAZAX) (NASDAQ: AAZBX) (NASDAQ: AAZCX)

AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund California Portfolio (NASDAQ:
ALCAX) (NASDAQ: ALCBX) (NASDAQ: ACACX)

AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Florida Portfolio (NASDAQ:
AFLAX) (NASDAQ: AFLBX) (NASDAQ: AFLCX)

AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Insured California Portfolio
(NASDAQ: BUICX) (NASDAQ: BUIBX) (NASDAQ: BUCCX)

AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Insured National Portfolio
(NASDAQ: CABTX) (NASDAQ: CBBBX) (NASDAQ: CACCX)

AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Massachusetts Portfolio
(NASDAQ: AMAAX) (NASDAQ: AMABX)

AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Michigan Portfolio (NASDAQ:
AMIAX) (NASDAQ: AMIBX) (NASDAQ: AMICX)

AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Minnesota Portfolio (NASDAQ:
AMNAX) (NASDAQ: AMNBX) (NASDAQ: AMNCX)

AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund National Portfolio (NASDAQ:
ALTHX) (NASDAQ: ALTBX) (NASDAQ: ALNCX)

AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund New Jersey Portfolio (NASDAQ:
ANJAX) (NASDAQ: ANJBX) (NASDAQ: ANJCX)

AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund New York Portfolio (NASDAQ:
ALNYX) (NASDAQ: ALNBX) (NASDAQ: ANYCX)

AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Ohio Portfolio (NASDAQ:
AOHAX) (NASDAQ: AOHBX) (NASDAQ: AOHCX)

AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Pennsylvania Portfolio
(NASDAQ: APAAX) (NASDAQ: APABX) (NASDAQ: APACX)

AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Virginia Portfolio (NASDAQ:
AVAAX) (NASDAQ: AVABX) (NASDAQ: AVACX)

AllianceBernstein New Europe Fund (NASDAQ: ANEAX) (NASDAQ:
ANEBX) (NASDAQ: ANECX)

AllianceBernstein Premier Growth Fund (NASDAQ: APGAX) (NASDAQ:
APGBX) (NASDAQ: APGCX)

AllianceBernstein Quasar Fund (NASDAQ: QUASX) (NASDAQ: QUABX)
(NASDAQ: QUACX)

AllianceBernstein Real Estate Investment Fund (NASDAQ: AREAX)
(NASDAQ: AREBX) (NASDAQ: ARECX)

AllianceBernstein Real Estate Investment Fund (NASDAQ: AREAX)
(NASDAQ: AREBX) (NASDAQ: ARECX)

AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Biotechnology Portfolio
(NASDAQ: ASBAX) (NASDAQ: AIBBX) (NASDAQ: ASBCX)

AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Biotechnology Portfolio
(NASDAQ: ASBAX) (NASDAQ: AIBBX) (NASDAQ: ASBCX)

AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Premier Portfolio
(NASDAQ: ASPAX) (NASDAQ: ASPBX) (NASDAQ: ASPCX)

AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Premier Portfolio
(NASDAQ: ASPAX) (NASDAQ: ASPBX) (NASDAQ: ASPCX)

AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Technology Portfolio
(NASDAQ: AITAX) (NASDAQ: AITBX) (NASDAQ: AITCX)

AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Technology Portfolio
(NASDAQ: AITAX) (NASDAQ: AITBX) (NASDAQ: AITCX)

AllianceBernstein Short Duration (NASDAQ: ADPAX) (NASDAQ: ADPBX)
(NASDAQ: ADPCX)

AllianceBernstein Small Cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: ABASX) (NASDAQ:
ABBSX) (NASDAQ: ABCSX)

AllianceBernstein Small CapValue Fund (NASDAQ: ABASX) (NASDAQ:
ABBSX) (NASDAQ: ABCSX)

AllianceBernstein Technology Fund (NASDAQ: ALTFX) (NASDAQ:
ATEBX) (NASDAQ: ATECX)

AllianceBernstein Utility Income Fund (NASDAQ: AUIAX) (NASDAQ:
AUIBX) (NASDAQ: AUICX)

AllianceBernstein Utility Income Fund (NASDAQ: AUIAX) (NASDAQ:
AUIBX) (NASDAQ: AUICX)

AllianceBernstein Value Fund (NASDAQ: ABVAX) (NASDAQ: ABVBX)
(NASDAQ: ABVCX)

AllianceBernstein Value Fund (NASDAQ: ABVAX) (NASDAQ: ABVBX)
(NASDAQ: AVBCX)

AllianceBernstein Worldwide Privatization Fund (NASDAQ: AWPAX)
(NASDAQ: AWPBX) (NASDAQ: AWPCX)

The Shelf-Space Funds include the following mutual fund
families: AIG SunAmerica, AIM, AllianceBernstein, American,
American Skandia, Columbia, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton,
Hartford, John Hancock, MFS, NationsFunds, Pacific Life,
Pioneer, Putnam, Oppenheimer, Scudder, Van Kampen, and WM.
This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against defendant American
International Group, Inc. and certain of its affiliated
entities.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients.  

Unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear contravention of
their disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities,
failed to properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to
aggressively push AIG Advisor Group sales personnel to steer
clients into purchasing Shelf-Space Funds that provided
financial incentives and rewards to the AIG Advisor Group and
its personnel based on holdings and/or sales.

The complaint alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales
practices created an insurmountable conflict of interest by
providing substantial monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space
Funds, even though such investments were not in the clients'
best interest.  

The AIG Advisor Group's failure to adequately disclose the
incentives constituted violations of federal securities laws.

For more details, contact James Lahm, Esq. at The Law Offices of
Stull, Stull & Brody, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022,
Web site: http://www.ssbny.com.


AMERICAN INT'L: Stull Stull Files N.Y. Lawsuit Over Putnam Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody, initiated a class action on April 7, 2006
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against American International Group, Inc. and certain of its
affiliates, on behalf of those who purchased Putnam mutual funds
from the AIG Advisor Group between June 30, 2000 and June 8,
2005, inclusive.

During the Class Period, the AIG Advisor Group consisted of the
following broker-dealers: Royal Alliance, Inc., SunAmerica
Securities, Inc., FSC Securities Corp., Sentra Securities
Corporation, Spelman & Co., Inc., and Advantage Capital Corp.

Interested parties may, no later than June 6, 2006, file a
motion with the court requesting to be appointed as lead
plaintiff.

The Putnam mutual funds and their respective symbols are as
follows:

Putnam American Government Income Fund (NASDAQ: PAGVX) (NASDAQ:
PAMBX) (NASDAQ: PAMMX)

Putnam Arizona Tax Exempt Income Fund (NASDAQ: PTAZX) (NASDAQ:
PAZBX)

Putnam Asset Allocation: Balanced Portfolio (NASDAQ: PABAX)
(NASDAQ: PABBX) (NASDAQ: AABCX) (NASDAQ: PABMX)

Putnam Asset Allocation: Conservative Portfolio (NASDAQ: PACAX)
(NASDAQ: PACBX) (NASDAQ: PACCX) (NASDAQ: PACMX)

Putnam Asset Allocation: Growth Portfolio (NASDAQ: PAEAX)
(NASDAQ: PAEBX) (NASDAQ: PAECX) (NASDAQ: PAGMX)

Putnam California Tax Exempt Income Fund (NASDAQ: PCTEX)
(NASDAQ: PCTBX) (NASDAQ: PCLMX)

Putnam Capital Appreciation Fund (NASDAQ: PCAPX) (NASDAQ: PCABX)
(NASDAQ: PCAMX)

Putnam Capital Opportunities Fund (NASDAQ: PCOAX) (NASDAQ:
POPBX) (NASDAQ: PCOCX)

Putnam Classic Equity Fund (NASDAQ: PXGIX) (NASDAQ: PGIIX)
(NASDAQ: PGTCX) (NASDAQ: PGIMX)

Putnam Convertible Income-Growth Trust (NASDAQ: PCONX) (NASDAQ:
PCNBX) (NASDAQ: PCNMX)

Putnam Discovery Growth Fund (NASDAQ: PVIIX) (NASDAQ: PVYBX)
(NASDAQ: PVYCX)(NASDAQ: PVYMX)

Putnam Diversified Income Trust (NASDAQ: PDINX) (NASDAQ: PSIBX)
(NASDAQ: PDVCX) (NASDAQ: PDVMX)

Putnam Equity Income Fund (NASDAQ: PEYAX) (NASDAQ: PEQNX)
(NASDAQ: PEQCX) (NASDAQ: PEIMX)

Putnam Europe Equity Fund (NASDAQ: PEUGX) (NASDAQ: PEUBX)
(NASDAQ: PEUMX)

Putnam Florida Tax Exempt Income Fund (NASDAQ: PTFLX) (NASDAQ:
PFLBX)

Putnam Fund for Growth and Income (NASDAQ: PGRWX) (NASDAQ:
PGIBX) (NASDAQ: PGRIX) (NASDAQ: PGRMX)

George Putnam Fund of Boston (NASDAQ: PGEOX) (NASDAQ: PGEBX)
(NASDAQ: PGPCX) (NASDAQ: PGEMX)

Putnam Global Equity Fund (NASDAQ: PEQUX) (NASDAQ: PEQBX)
(NASDAQ: PUGCX) (NASDAQ: PEQMX)

Putnam Global Income Trust (NASDAQ: PGGIX) (NASDAQ: PGLBX)  
(NASDAQ: PGGMX)

Putnam Global Natural Resources Fund (NASDAQ: EBERX) (NASDAQ:
PNRBX) (NASDAQ: PGLMX)

Putnam Growth Opportunities Fund (NASDAQ: POGAX) (NASDAQ: POGBX)
(NASDAQ: POGCX)(NASDAQ: PGOMX)

Putnam Health Sciences Trust (NASDAQ: PHSTX) (NASDAQ: PHSBX)
(NASDAQ: PCHSX) (NASDAQ: PHLMX)

Putnam High Yield Advantage Fund (NASDAQ: PHYIX) (NASDAQ: PHYBX)
(NASDAQ: PHYMX)

Putnam High Yield Trust (NASDAQ: PHIGX) (NASDAQ: PHBBX) (NASDAQ:
PCHYX) (NASDAQ: PHIMX)

Putnam Income Fund (NASDAQ: PINCX) (NASDAQ: PNCBX) (NASDAQ:
PUICX) (NASDAQ: PNCMX)

Putnam Intermediate U.S. Government Income Fund (NASDAQ: PBLGX)
(NASDAQ: PBGBX) (NASDAQ: PVICX)

Putnam International Capital Opportunities Fund (NASDAQ: PNVAX)
(NASDAQ: PVNBX) (NASDAQ: PUVCX) (NASDAQ: PIVMX)

Putnam International Equity Fund (NASDAQ: POVSX) (NASDAQ: POVBX)
(NASDAQ: PIGCX) (NASDAQ: POVMX)

Putnam International Growth and Income Fund (NASDAQ: PNGAX)
(NASDAQ: PGNBX) (NASDAQ: PIGRX) (NASDAQ: PIGMX)

Putnam International New Opportunities Fund (NASDAQ: PINOX)
(NASDAQ: PINWX) (NASDAQ: PIOCX) (NASDAQ: PINMX)

Putnam Investors Fund (NASDAQ: PINVX) (NASDAQ: PNVBX) (NASDAQ:
PCINX) (NASDAQ: PNVMX)

Putnam Massachusetts Tax Exempt Income Fund (NASDAQ: PXMAX)
(NASDAQ: PMABX)

Putnam Michigan Tax Exempt Income Fund (NASDAQ: PXIMX) (NASDAQ:
PMEBX)

Putnam Mid Cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: PMVAX)(NASDAQ: PMVBX)
(NASDAQ: PMPCX)

Putnam Minnesota Tax Exempt Income Fund (NASDAQ: PXMNX) (NASDAQ:
PMTBX)

Putnam Money Market Fund (NASDAQ: PDDXX) (NASDAQ: PTBXX)
(NASDAQ: PFCXX) (NASDAQ: PTMXX)

Putnam Municipal Income Fund (NASDAQ: PTFHX) (NASDAQ: PFHBX)
(NASDAQ: PMUMX)

Putnam New Jersey Tax Exempt Income Fund (NASDAQ: PTNJX)
(NASDAQ: PNJBX)

Putnam New Opportunities Fund (NASDAQ: PNOPX) (NASDAQ: PNOBX)
(NASDAQ: PNOMX)
Putnam New Value Fund (NASDAQ: PANVX) (NASDAQ: PBNVX) (NASDAQ:
PNVCX) (NASDAQ: PMNVX)

Putnam New York Tax Exempt Income Fund (NASDAQ: PTEIX) (NASDAQ:
PEIBX)

Putnam New York Tax Exempt Opportunities Fund (NASDAQ: PTNHX)
(NASDAQ: PTNBX) (NASDAQ: PNYMX)

Putnam OTC & Emerging Growth Fund (NASDAQ: POEGX) (NASDAQ:
POTBX) (NASDAQ: POEXC) (NASDAQ: POEMX)

Putnam Ohio Tax Exempt Income Fund (NASDAQ: PHOHX) (NASDAQ:
POXBX)

Putnam Pennsylvania Tax Exempt Income Fund (NASDAQ: PTEPX)
(NASDAQ: PPNBX)

Putnam Research Fund (NASDAQ: PNRAX) (NASDAQ: PRFBX) (NASDAQ:
PRACX)

Putnam Small Cap Growth Fund (NASDAQ: PNSAX)

Putnam Small Cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: PSLAX) (NASDAQ: PSLBX)
(NASDAQ: PSLCX) (NASDAQ: PSLMX)

Putnam Tax Exempt Income Fund (NASDAQ: PTAEX) (NASDAQ: PTBEX)
(NASDAQ: PTXMX)

Putnam Tax Exempt Money Market Fund (NASDAQ: PTXXX)

Putnam Tax Smart Equity Fund (NASDAQ: PATSX) (NASDAQ: PBTSX)
(NASDAQ: PCSMX)

Putnam Tax-Free High Yield Fund (NASDAQ: PTHAX) (NASDAQ: PTHYX)
(NASDAQ: PTYMX)

Putnam Tax-Free Insured Fund (NASDAQ: PPNAX) (NASDAQ: PTFIX)

Putnam U.S. Government Income Trust (NASDAQ: PGSIX) (NASDAQ:
PGSBX) (NASDAQ: PGVCX) (NASDAQ: PGSMX)

Putnam Utilities Growth and Income Fund (NASDAQ: PUGIX) (NASDAQ:
PUTBX) (NASDAQ: PUTMX)

Putnam Vista Fund (NASDAQ: PVISX) (NASDAQ: PVTBX) (NASDAQ:
PCVFX) (NASDAQ: PVIMX)

Putnam Voyager Fund (NASDAQ: PVOYX) (NASDAQ: PVOBX) (NASDAQ:
PVFCX) (NASDAQ: PVOMX)

The Shelf-Space Funds include the following mutual fund
families: AIG SunAmerica, AIM, AllianceBernstein, American,
American Skandia, Columbia, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton,
Hartford, John Hancock, MFS, NationsFunds, Pacific Life,
Pioneer, Putnam, Oppenheimer, Scudder, Van Kampen, and WM.

This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against defendant American
International Group, Inc. and certain of its affiliated
entities.  

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients.

Unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear contravention of
their disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities,
failed to properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to
aggressively push AIG Advisor Group sales personnel to steer
clients into purchasing Shelf-Space Funds that provided
financial incentives and rewards to the AIG Advisor Group and
its personnel based on holdings and/or sales.

The complaint alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales
practices created an insurmountable conflict of interest by
providing substantial monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space
Funds, even though such investments were not in the clients'
best interest.

The AIG Advisor Group's failure to adequately disclose the
incentives constituted violations of federal securities laws.

For more details, contact James Lahm, Esq. at The Law Offices of
Stull, Stull & Brody, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022,
Web site: http://www.ssbny.com.


AMERICAN INT'L: Stull Stull Files N.Y. Suit Over Scudder Funds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody, initiated a class action on April 7, 2006
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against American International Group, Inc. and certain of its
affiliates, on behalf of those who purchased Scudder mutual
funds from the AIG Advisor Group during the period between June
30, 2000 and June 8, 2005, inclusive.

During the Class Period, the AIG Advisor Group consisted of the
following broker-dealers: Royal Alliance, Inc., SunAmerica
Securities, Inc., FSC Securities Corp., Sentra Securities
Corporation, Spelman & Co., Inc., and Advantage Capital Corp.

Interested parties may, no later than June 6, 2006, file a
motion with the court requesting to be appointed as lead
plaintiff.

The Scudder mutual funds and their respective symbols are as
follows:

Scudder Aggressive Growth (NASDAQ: KGGAX) (NASDAQ: KGGBX)
(NASDAQ: KGGCX) (NASDAQ: KGGIX)

Scudder Blue Chip (NASDAQ: KBCAX) (NASDAQ: KBCBX) (NASDAQ:
KBCCX) (NASDAQ: KBCIX) (NASDAQ: KBCSX)

Scudder Capital Growth (NASDAQ: SDGAX) (NASDAQ: ACGFX) (NASDAQ:
SDGBX) (NASDAQ: SDGCX) (NASDAQ: SDGTX) (NASDAQ: SDGRX) (NASDAQ:
SCGSX)

Scudder Commodity Securities (NASDAQ: SKNRX) (NASDAQ: SKBRX)
(NASDAQ: SKCRX) (NASDAQ: SKIRX) (NASDAQ: SKSRX)

Scudder Development (NASDAQ: SDVLX) (NASDAQ: SCDVX)

Scudder Dreman Concentrated Value (NASDAQ: LOPEX) (NASDAQ:
LOPBX) (NASDAQ: LOPCX) (NASDAQ: LOPIX)

Scudder Dreman Financial Services (NASDAQ: KDFAX) (NASDAQ:
KDFBX) (NASDAQ: KDFCX)

Scudder Dreman High Return Eq (NASDAQ: KDHAX) (NASDAQ: KDHBX)
(NASDAQ: KDHCX) (NASDAQ: KDHIX) (NASDAQ: KDHRX) (NASDAQ: KDHSX)

Scudder Dreman Mid Cap Value (NASDAQ: MIDVX) (NASDAQ: MIDYX)
(NASDAQ: MIDZX) (NASDAQ: MIDIX) (NASDAQ: MIDTX)

Scudder Dreman Small Cap Value (NASDAQ: KDSAX) (NASDAQ: KDSBX)
(NASDAQ: KDSCX) (NASDAQ: KDSIX) (NASDAQ: KDSRX)

Scudder EAFE Equity Index (NASDAQ: BTAEX)

Scudder Emerging Markets (NASDAQ: SEKAX) (NASDAQ: SEMMX)
(NASDAQ: SEKBX) (NASDAQ: SEKCX) (NASDAQ: SEMGX)

Scudder Emerging Markets Income (NASDAQ: SZEAX) (NASDAQ: SEMKX)
(NASDAQ: SZEBX) (NASDAQ: SZECX) (NASDAQ: SCEMX)

Scudder Equity 500 Index (NASDAQ: BTIIX) (NASDAQ: BTIEX)

Scudder Fixed Income (NASDAQ: SFXAX) (NASDAQ: SFXBX) (NASDAQ:
SFXCX) (NASDAQ: MFINX) (NASDAQ: MFISX) (NASDAQ: SFXRX) (NASDAQ:
SFXSX)

Scudder Flag Communications (NASDAQ: TISHX) (NASDAQ: FTEBX)
(NASDAQ: FTICX) (NASDAQ: FLICX)

Scudder Flag Equity Partners (NASDAQ: FLEPX) (NASDAQ: FEPBX)
(NASDAQ: FEPCX) (NASDAQ: FLIPX)

Scudder Flag Value Builder (NASDAQ: FLVBX) (NASDAQ: FVBBX)
(NASDAQ: FVBCX) (NASDAQ: FLIVX)

Scudder Global (NASDAQ: SGQAX) (NASDAQ: ACOBX) (NASDAQ: SGQBX)
(NASDAQ: SGQCX) (NASDAQ: SGQRX) (NASDAQ: SCOBX)

Scudder Global Bond (NASDAQ: SZGAX) (NASDAQ: SGBDX) (NASDAQ:
SZGBX) (NASDAQ: SZGCX) (NASDAQ: SSTGX)

Scudder Global Discovery (NASDAQ: KGDAX) (NASDAQ: SGDPX)
(NASDAQ: KGDBX) (NASDAQ: KGDCX) (NASDAQ: SGSCX)

Scudder GNMA (NASDAQ: AGNMX) (NASDAQ: SGINX)

Scudder Gold & Precious Metals (NASDAQ: SGDAX) (NASDAQ: SGLDX)
(NASDAQ: SGDBX) (NASDAQ: SGDCX) (NASDAQ: SCGDX)

Scudder Greater Europe (NASDAQ: SERAX) (NASDAQ: SGEGX) (NASDAQ:
SERBX) (NASDAQ: SERCX) (NASDAQ: SERNX) (NASDAQ: SCGEX)

Scudder Growth & Income (NASDAQ: SUWAX) (NASDAQ: ACDGX) (NASDAQ:
SUWBX) (NASDAQ: SUWCX) (NASDAQ: SUWIX) (NASDAQ: SUWRX) (NASDAQ:
SCDGX)

Scudder Health Care (NASDAQ: SUHAX) (NASDAQ: SHCAX) (NASDAQ:
SUHBX) (NASDAQ: SUHCX) (NASDAQ: SUHIX) (NASDAQ: SCHLX)

Scudder High Income (NASDAQ: KHYAX) (NASDAQ: KHYBX) (NASDAQ:
KHYCX) (NASDAQ: KHYIX)

Scudder High Income Plus (NASDAQ: SGHAX) (NASDAQ: SGHTX)
(NASDAQ: SGHBX) (NASDAQ: SGHCX) (NASDAQ: MGHYX) (NASDAQ: MGHVX)
(NASDAQ: MGHPX) (NASDAQ: SGHSX)

Scudder High-Yield Tax-Free (NASDAQ: NOTAX) (NASDAQ: SHYFX)
(NASDAQ: NOTBX) (NASDAQ: NOTCX) (NASDAQ: NOTIX) (NASDAQ: SHYTX)

Scudder Income (NASDAQ: SZIAX) (NASDAQ: AINCX) (NASDAQ: SZIBX)
(NASDAQ: SZICX) (NASDAQ: SZIIX) (NASDAQ: SCSBX)

Scudder Inflation Protected Plus (NASDAQ: TIPAX) (NASDAQ: TIPTX)
(NASDAQ: TIPCX) (NASDAQ: TIPIX) (NASDAQ: TIPSX)

Scudder Intermediate Tax/Amt Free (NASDAQ: SZMAX) (NASDAQ:
SMTTX) (NASDAQ: SZMBX) (NASDAQ: SZMCX) (NASDAQ: SZMIX) (NASDAQ:
SZMVX) (NASDAQ: SCMTX)

Scudder International (NASDAQ: SUIAX) (NASDAQ: AINTX) (NASDAQ:
SUIBX) (NASDAQ: SUICX)

Scudder International Equity (NASDAQ: DBAIX) (NASDAQ: DBBIX)
(NASDAQ: DBCIX) (NASDAQ: BEIIX) (NASDAQ: BTEQX)

Scudder International (NASDAQ: SUIIX) (NASDAQ: SCINX)

Scudder International Sel Eq (NASDAQ: DBISX) (NASDAQ: DBIBX)
(NASDAQ: DBICX) (NASDAQ: MGINX) (NASDAQ: MGIVX) (NASDAQ: MGIPX)
(NASDAQ: DBITX) (NASDAQ: DBIVX)

Scudder Japanese Equity (NASDAQ: FJEAX) (NASDAQ: FJEBX) (NASDAQ:
FJECX) (NASDAQ: FJESX)

Scudder Large Cap Value (NASDAQ: KDCAX) (NASDAQ: KDCPX) (NASDAQ:
KDCBX) (NASDAQ: KDCCX) (NASDAQ: KDCIX) (NASDAQ: KDCRX) (NASDAQ:
KDCSX)

Scudder Large Company Growth (NASDAQ: SGGAX) (NASDAQ: SLGRX)
(NASDAQ: SGGBX) (NASDAQ: SGGCX) (NASDAQ: SGGIX) (NASDAQ: SCQRX)
(NASDAQ: SCQGX)

Scudder Latin America (NASDAQ: SLANX) (NASDAQ: SLAMX) (NASDAQ:
SLAOX) (NASDAQ: SLAPX) (NASDAQ: SLAFX)

Scudder Lifecycle Long Range (NASDAQ: BTAMX) (NASDAQ: BTILX)

Scudder Lifecycle Mid Range (NASDAQ: BTLRX)

Scudder Lifecycle Short Range (NASDAQ: BTSRX)

Scudder Limited-Duration Plus (NASDAQ: PPIAX) (NASDAQ: PPLCX)
(NASDAQ: DBPIX)

Scudder MA Tax-Free (NASDAQ: SQMAX) (NASDAQ: SMAFX) (NASDAQ:
SQMBX) (NASDAQ: SQMCX) (NASDAQ: SCMAX)

Scudder Managed Municipal Bonds (NASDAQ: SMLAX) (NASDAQ: AMUBX)
(NASDAQ: SMLBX) (NASDAQ: SMLCX) (NASDAQ: SMLIX) (NASDAQ: SCMBX)

Scudder Micro Cap (NASDAQ: SMFAX) (NASDAQ: SMFBX) (NASDAQ:
SMFCX) (NASDAQ: MGMCX) (NASDAQ: MMFSX) (NASDAQ: SMFSX)

Scudder Mid Cap Growth (NASDAQ: SMCAX) (NASDAQ: SMCBX) (NASDAQ:
SMCCX) (NASDAQ: BTEAX) (NASDAQ: BTCAX) (NASDAQ: SMCRX) (NASDAQ:
SMCSX)

Scudder Pacific Opportunities (NASDAQ: SPAOX) (NASDAQ: SPOPX)
(NASDAQ: SBPOX) (NASDAQ: SPCCX) (NASDAQ: SCOPX)

Scudder Pathway Conservative (NASDAQ: SUCAX) (NASDAQ: APWCX)
(NASDAQ: SUCBX) (NASDAQ: SUCCX) (NASDAQ: SCPCX)

Scudder Pathway Growth (NASDAQ: SUPAX) (NASDAQ: APWGX) (NASDAQ:
SUPBX) (NASDAQ: SUPCX) (NASDAQ: SPGRX)

Scudder Pathway Growth Plus (NASDAQ: PLUSX) (NASDAQ: PLSBX)
(NASDAQ: PLSCX) (NASDAQ: PPLSX)

Scudder Pathway Moderate (NASDAQ: SPDAX) (NASDAQ: SPWBX)
(NASDAQ: SPDBX) (NASDAQ: SPDCX) (NASDAQ: SPBAX)

Scudder Retirement VI (NASDAQ: KRFFX)

Scudder Retirement VII (NASDAQ: KRFGX)

Scudder RREEF Real Estate Sec (NASDAQ: RRRRX) (NASDAQ: RRRAX)
(NASDAQ: RRRBX) (NASDAQ: RRRCX) (NASDAQ: RRRSX) (NASDAQ: RRREX)

Scudder S&P 500 Index (NASDAQ: SX)PAX) (NASDAQ: ASPIX) (NASDAQ:
SXPRB) (NASDAQ: SXPCX) (NASDAQ: SCPIX)

Scudder Select 500 (NASDAQ: OUTDX) (NASDAQ: SSLFX) (NASDAQ:
OUTBX) (NASDAQ: OUTCX) (NASDAQ: OUTRX) (NASDAQ: SSFFX)

Scudder Short Duration (NASDAQ: SDUAX) (NASDAQ: SDUBX) (NASDAQ:
SDUCX) (NASDAQ: MGSFX) (NASDAQ: SDUSX)

Scudder Short Term Municipal Bond (NASDAQ: SRMSX)

Scudder Short-Term Bond (NASDAQ: SZBAX) (NASDAQ: ASHTX) (NASDAQ:
SZBBX) (NASDAQ: SZBCX) (NASDAQ: SCSTX)

Scudder Short-Term Muni Bd (NASDAQ: SRMAX) (NASDAQ: SRMBX)
(NASDAQ: SRMCX) (NASDAQ: MGSMX) (NASDAQ: MSMSX)

Scudder Small Cap Growth (NASDAQ: SSDAX) (NASDAQ: SSDPX)
(NASDAQ: SSDBX) (NASDAQ: SSDCX) (NASDAQ: SSDIX) (NASDAQ: BTSCX)
(NASDAQ: SSDRX) (NASDAQ: SSDSX)

Scudder Small Company Stock (NASDAQ: SZCAX) (NASDAQ: ASCSX)
(NASDAQ: SZCBX) (NASDAQ: SZCCX) (NASDAQ: SSLCX)

Scudder Small Company Value (NASDAQ: SAAUX) (NASDAQ: SABUX)
(NASDAQ: SACUX) (NASDAQ: SCSUX)

Scudder State Tax-Free Income CA (NASDAQ: KCTAX) (NASDAQ: KCTBX)
(NASDAQ: KCTCX) (NASDAQ: SDCSX)

Scudder State Tax-Free Income NY (NASDAQ: KNTAX) (NASDAQ: KNTBX)
(NASDAQ: KNTCX) (NASDAQ: SNWYX)

Scudder Strategic Income (NASDAQ: KSTAX) (NASDAQ: KSTBX)
(NASDAQ: KSTCX) (NASDAQ: KSTSX)

Scudder Target 2010 (NASDAQ: KRFAX)

Scudder Target 2011 (NASDAQ: KRFBX)

Scudder Target 2012 (NASDAQ: KRFCX)

Scudder Target 2013 (NASDAQ: KRFDX)

Scudder Target 2014 (NASDAQ: KRFEX)

Scudder Tax Adv Dividend (NASDAQ: SDDAX) (NASDAQ: SDDBX)
(NASDAQ: SDDCX) (NASDAQ: SDDGX)

Scudder Technology (NASDAQ: KTCAX) (NASDAQ: KTCPX) (NASDAQ:
KTCBX) (NASDAQ: KTCCX) (NASDAQ: KTCIX) (NASDAQ: KTCSX)

Scudder Total Return (NASDAQ: KTRAX) (NASDAQ: KTRPX) (NASDAQ:
KTRBX) (NASDAQ: KTRCX) (NASDAQ: KTRIX) (NASDAQ: KTRRX) (NASDAQ:
KTRSX)

Scudder U.S. Government Securities (NASDAQ: KUSAX) (NASDAQ:
KUSBX) (NASDAQ: KUSCX) (NASDAQ: KUSIX) (NASDAQ: KUSMX)

Scudder US Bond Index (NASDAQ: BTUSX)

The Shelf-Space Funds include the following mutual fund
families: AIG SunAmerica, AIM, AllianceBernstein, American,
American Skandia, Columbia, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton,
Hartford, John Hancock, MFS, NationsFunds, Pacific Life,
Pioneer, Putnam, Oppenheimer, Scudder, Van Kampen, and WM.

This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against defendant American
International Group, Inc. and certain of its affiliated
entities.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients.  

Unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear contravention of
their disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities,
failed to properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to
aggressively push AIG Advisor Group sales personnel to steer
clients into purchasing Shelf-Space Funds that provided
financial incentives and rewards to the AIG Advisor Group and
its personnel based on holdings and/or sales.

The complaint alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales
practices created an insurmountable conflict of interest by
providing substantial monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space
Funds, even though such investments were not in the clients'
best interest.

The AIG Advisor Group's failure to adequately disclose the
incentives constituted violations of federal securities laws.

For more details, contact James Lahm, Esq. at The Law Offices of
Stull, Stull & Brody, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022,
Web site: http://www.ssbny.com.


ESTEE LAUDER: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against The Estee
Lauder Companies Inc (NYSE: EL).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.  The class period is
from April 28, 2005 through October 25, 2005.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the class.  
Members of the class are advised to move the court no later than
Tuesday, May 30, 2006, to serve as a lead plaintiff for the
Class.

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


GMH COMMUNITIES: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood filed a class action in the U. S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against GMH
Communities Trust (NYSE: GCT).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.  The class period is
from October 28, 2004 through March 10, 2006.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the class.  
Members of the Class are advised to move the court no later than
Monday, June 5, 2006, to serve as a lead plaintiff for the
Class.  

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


H&R BLOCK: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Mo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marc S. Henzel filed a class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Missouri against H&R Block, Inc.
(NYSE: HRB) and certain of its officers and directors, on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased the publicly traded
securities of HRB between June 12, 2002 and March 15, 2006.

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

In particular, the complaint alleges that the true facts, which
were known by each of the defendants, but concealed from the
investing public during the Class Period, were:

     (1) HRB knowingly engaged in fraudulent business practices
         by steering low and middle-income customers to its
         Express IRA -- a retirement account in which most
         customers have lost money because the Express IRA's
         fees exceeded the return on interest earned on the
         account;

     (2) HRB marketed the Express IRA in a fraudulent manner by,
         for example, failing to adequately disclose fees; and

     (3) HRB failed to adequately

     
         -- disclose that the Express IRA earned a negative rate
            of return because of fees, but instead, falsely
            described the rate as "great" and the account as a
            "better way to save";

         -- disclose the fees associated with the Express IRA in
            a format comprehensible to customers and falsely
            claimed fees were lower than they in fact were;

         -- to inform customers that the value of their accounts
            would decline over time unless they made large and
            continuing contributions to the Express IRA because
            the fees far exceeded the low rate of return; and

         -- to disclose the tax consequences and penalties
            associated with early withdrawal of funds from the  
            Express IRA.

In addition, the complaint alleges that during the class period,
the Company experienced material weaknesses in internal controls
relating accounting for state income taxes and HRB has disclosed
that it would have to restate its financial statements for the
fiscal years-ended April 30, 2004 and April 30, 2005 because HRB
understated its state income taxes by at least $32 million.

The complaint alleges that after the truth about HRB began to be
revealed on February 23, 2006, HRB's stock price declined from
$25.19 per share to $20.63 per share, a decline of approximately
16%.

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


MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Marc Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marc Henzel filed a class action in the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Division, on behalf of
all persons who purchased Merge Technologies, Inc. securities
(NASDAQ: MRGE) between August 2, 2005 through March 16, 2006,
inclusive.  The defendants are:

     -- Merge Technologies, Inc., d/b/a Merge Healthcare,
     -- Richard A. Linden, the Company's CEO, President,
        Director and Chairman of the Executive Committee, and
     -- Scott T. Veech, the Company's CFO, Secretary and
        Treasurer.

The case name is Maiden v. Merge Technologies, Inc., et al. The
complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge's use of these improper practices served to artificially
inflate the Company's reported earnings during the Class Period.
Failure to disclose this information constituted material
omissions, the ultimate disclosure of which harmed the Company's
investors.

Accordingly, the Company's Class Period statements concerning
its compliance with applicable laws and regulations were false.

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


NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Scott+Scott Files Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, LLC filed a securities class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against
Northfield Laboratories, Inc. and CEO Stephen A. Gould on behalf
of all securities purchasers between February 20, 2004, and
February 21, 2006, inclusive.

Northfield primarily develops PolyHeme, a blood substitute,
which is currently the subject of a Phase III clinical trial.
According to the complaint, unbeknownst to investors, despite
glowing reviews of its current PolyHeme study, Northfield failed
to disclose material adverse facts from its earlier PolyHeme
studies.

Consequently, as the complaint alleges, investors purchased
Northfield shares at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period.

The complaint alleges that in publicly discussing Northfield's
current PolyHeme study during the Class Period, defendants
concealed the fact that:

     (1) in an earlier PolyHeme study 10 of 81 surgery patients
         suffered heart attacks, compared with zero of 71 who
         received regular blood transfusions;

     (2) the Company did not know why the heart attacks had
         occurred in the earlier trials;

     (3) entire communities were now subject to the undisclosed
         risks resulting from the Company's concealment and lack
         of knowledge regarding the earlier trial outcomes; and

     (4) the earlier adverse clinical results had been withheld
         from prospective patients for the Company's latest
         clinical trials.

Failure to disclose these adverse facts served to artificially
inflate Northfield's stock price during the Class Period,
harming investors.  Finally, on February 22, 2006, The Wall
Street Journal revealed the previously hidden findings of the
earlier PolyHeme studies.

On this news, Northfield's stock price tumbled, losing $0.59 or
4.8%, from its closing price of $12.23 on February 21, 2006, to
close at $11.64 on February 22, 2006, on heavy volume of over
4.1 million shares, nearly ten times normal trading volume.

For more details, contact: Scott+Scott partner David R. Scott,
E-mail: drscott@scott-scott.com, Phone: (800) 404-7770 or (860)
537-5537, Web site: http://www.scott-scott.com  


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in Minn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C filed a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock
of St. Jude Medical, Inc. between January 25, 2006 and April 4,
2006, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements.

Specifically, defendants omitted information regarding the sales
success and prospects of a key St. Jude product, its implantable
cardioverter defibrillator systems (ICD's).

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

On April 4, 2006, St. Jude revealed that it would materially
miss sales projections made just weeks earlier. The Company also
announced that it was undertaking an intensive customer review
to determine the cause of its sales shortfall.

On this news, St. Jude stock fell to $36.25 on April 4, 2006,
down $5.05 from the previous day's closing price of $41.30.

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


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: City of Flint Files Suit Over Video Games
---------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Flint and its Pension Fund filed a class action
against Take-Two Interactive Software, alleging fraud and
insider stock trading.

The suit alleges that the seller of controversial video games
such as Grand Theft Auto deceived investors, including Flint's
Pension Fund, by misrepresenting the strength of the Company,
while concealing the fact that its largest selling video game
was being pulled off the shelves and banned by major retail
chains around the country due to sexually explicit content that
was secretly embedded in the program and which could be accessed
by users downloading an Internet modification called "Hot
Coffee."

The suit alleges that the Company buried this explicit content
so that major retailers that would otherwise refuse to carry
products containing sexual content would sell their game.  By
hiding the sexual content, the game could be sold with a "Mature
17+" rating, as opposed to an "Adult 18+" rating, which major
retailers would not carry.

The lawsuit alleges that while the City of Flint Pension Fund
was purchasing shares of the Company as part of its Pension Fund
portfolio believing that the stock was a strong investment,
insiders in the Company were illegally dumping hundreds of
thousands of shares of stock worth over $18 million, knowing
that the value of the stock would soon plummet due to the change
in rating.

Shortly after the Company's officers sold off their stock, the
news broke that Grand Theft Auto was being banned by retailers
and the stock value plummeted, the suit alleges.

Mayor Don Williamson stated that "Fraud against the taxpayers of
Flint and our retired Flint police officers and firefighters
will not be tolerated."  Mayor Williamson added, "Not only was
the city pension fund deceived as to the value of the stock, but
the true nature of what this Company was selling was being
concealed too."

The suit quotes extensively from publicly filed securities
documents and financial documents.

For more details, contact: Gerard Mantese or Mark Rossman,
Mantese and Associates, P.C., Phone: (248) 457-9200 or (248)
515-6419, E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com or
mrossman@manteselaw.com.



                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Maria Cristina Canson and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2006.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *