CAR_Public/060426.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, April 26, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 82

                            Headlines

BIOSCRIP INC: Court Declines to Review Ala. Ruling in "Eufaula"  
BIOSCRIP INC: Minn. Court Dismisses Suit Over Chronimed Merger
CANADA: Residential School Survivors Group Agree to Settlement
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Court Allows Chemical Spill Suits to Proceed
CNL HOTELS: Reaches Settlement for Fla. Consolidated Stock Suit

CRAIN CUTTER: Recalls 15.5T Toe-Kick Saws Due to Broken Handles
DELTA AIR: Ga. Court Awaits Results of N.Y. Adversary Proceeding
DELTA AIR: Mich. Court Administratively Closes Antitrust Lawsuit
ELI LILLY: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in Ind. Court
FEDEX CORP: Calif. Court Sets February 2007 Trial for "Satchell"

FEDEX CORP: Reaches Settlement for Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Recalls Notebook Batteries Due to Fire Hazard
HOLLYWOOD ENTERTAINMENT: Reaches Settlement in Wash., Ill. Suits
JEWEL FOOD: Faces Suit Over Meat Sold at Wauconda, Ill. Outlet
MCNAIR TECHNOLOGY: Recalls Batteries For Possible Burn Hazards

MISSISSIPPI: Hurricane Katrina Victims File Revised Suit in La.
MOSSIMO INC: Seeks Nixing of Del. Consolidated Shareholder Suit
NEW FOCUS: Recalls Computer Desk Sets Due to Fall Injury Risks
NEW YORK: Court Prohibits "Strip Searching" of Minor Offenders
NORDSTROM INC: Briefs on Objections to Calif. Agreement Due Soon

NORTH DAKOTA: Court Rejects Suit Over Tribes' Fuel Tax Refunds
OIL COMPANIES: Face New $58B Lawsuit Over N.Y. Fuel Tank Blast
ORTHO-CLINICAL: Recalls Faulty VITROS Products Signal Reagent
PACIFIC PREMIER: Continues to Face SMLA Violations Suit in Mo.
PFIZER INC: Parker & Waichman Lodges N.Y. Suit Over Vision Loss

QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: N.Y. Workers' Fund Pursue Individual Suit
SL INDUSTRIES: Continues to Face N.J. Water Contamination Suit
TACO CABANA: Tex. Restaurant Sued Over Alleged Unpaid Overtime
UAL CORP: ESOP Committee Continues to Face Lawsuit in N.D. Ill.
UNITED LIBERTY: Settles Policyholders' Lawsuit in Ohio for $825T

UNITED STATES: Nuclear Weapons Lab Workers Oppose Transfer


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

GMH COMMUNITIES: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in Pa.
H&R BLOCK: Scott+Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. N.Y.
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Scott+Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit
NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in Utah
PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in Fla.

PHH CORP: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.J.
PIXELPLUS CO: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
PIXELPLUS CO: Rosen Law Firm Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit
SEA CONTAINERS: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
ST JUDE: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in Minn.


                            *********


BIOSCRIP INC: Court Declines to Review Ala. Ruling in "Eufaula"  
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit declined to
review an Alabama district court's decision in a purported class
action styled, "Eufaula Drugs, Inc. v. ScriptSolutions."

On February 14, 2005, the purported class action was filed in
the Alabama Circuit Court for Barbour County against
ScripSolutions, a subsidiary of the BioScrip, Inc.

On April 8, 2005, an amended complaint was filed.  The plaintiff
alleges breach of contract and related claims on behalf of a
putative nationwide class of pharmacies alleging insufficient
reimbursement for prescriptions dispensed, principally on the
theory that the Company was obligated to update its prescription
pricing files on a daily, rather than weekly, basis.

The Company removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Alabama in April 2005.  The plaintiff moved
to remand the action to state court, which the Company opposed.

On May 2005, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint on
jurisdictional grounds or to transfer the matter to a federal
court in New York or Rhode Island, which the plaintiff opposed.

On October 6, 2005, the district court granted plaintiff's
motion to remand the case to the Alabama state court and did not
decide the Company's motion to dismiss or transfer.  

The Company appealed that decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court
of Appeals.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
declined to review the district court's remand discussion and
denied the Company's motion for rehearing of the decision.

The time to seek further appellate review has not yet expired.
The Company has not filed an answer to the complaint and no
other proceedings have occurred.  

The Company intends to deny the plaintiff's allegations and
defend the claims vigorously.  The action is one of
approximately 14 substantially identical actions commenced in
Alabama courts against Pharmacy Benefit Management companies.


BIOSCRIP INC: Minn. Court Dismisses Suit Over Chronimed Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
The state court of Minnesota, Hennepin County dismissed an
amended class action that names BioScrip, Inc., Chronimed, Inc.,
and certain of its officers and directors as defendants in
relation to the merger agreement by which the Company acquired
Chronimed.

Initially, Robert Unger, a shareholder of Chronimed filed the
purported class action on August 16, 2004, naming Chronimed,
Inc, and certain of its officers and directors as defendants.

On December 10, 2004, he amended his complaint, to add an
additional plaintiff and the Company (under the name MIM
Corporation) as an additional defendant.

The amended complaint asserts claims against the Chronimed
officer and director defendants, who are represented by other
law firms, for alleged breach of their fiduciary duties in
connection with the merger agreement by which the Company
acquired Chronimed in March 2005.  It also claims that the
Company aided those alleged breaches.

The amended complaint seeks rescission of the merger and other
relief.  The amended complaint was never served on the Company,
and it has not responded to the pleading, appeared in the
lawsuit, or been involved in any proceedings in the case.

The court dismissed the amended complaint as against the
Chronimed officer and director defendants and denied the
plaintiffs' motion to reinstate it.


CANADA: Residential School Survivors Group Agree to Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A national group of lawyers representing more than 7,000
Canadian Aboriginal clients in class actions against the federal
government agreed to sign the final settlement agreement under
which the Crown will pay fair and just compensation to all
survivors of Canada's infamous residential school system.

The accord was reached after five months of negotiations based
on an Agreement in Principle.  At the table were counsel for
Canada, lawyers for residential school survivor clients, the
Assembly of First Nations and the church denominations that
operated the schools across Canada for more than 100 years.

The agreement is subject to the agreement of all the other
parties and subsequent approval of provincial Superior Courts
across Canada.

"Our thoughts are with the residential school survivors, most of
whom are elderly and many are infirm.  This is their agreement
and the settlement of their claim for justice," National
Consortium of Residential School Survivors' Counsel's co-
spokesman Jon Faulds, of Field Law in Edmonton said.

"We look forward to submitting the agreement to the courts for
their approval so that survivors can begin to receive the
compensation they so justly deserve," Mr. Faulds added.

"This historic legal, political and moral document is the
product of a complex and arduous process, and all the parties
are to be commended for finding common ground," said Consortium
co-spokesman Craig Brown, of Thomson, Rogers in Toronto.

The settlement agreement provides for a common experience
payment for all former school attendees who were alive on May
30, 2005, on a sliding scale depending on how long they were in
the schools.  The deal also establishes an out-of-court process
for victims seeking compensation for more serious abuse.

The process to reach a settlement followed more than 10 years of
litigation, and included hearings before the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development last year, then six months of talks to reach the
Agreement in Principle and another five months to complete the
final settlement agreement.

"Lawyers in the National Consortium have worked on behalf of
survivors for more than 10 years to ensure that every person
alive who attended a residential school receives benefits.  When
approved this agreement will achieve that goal," said Mr. Brown.

"Until now our clients were facing years of litigation in the
courts.  Many of them would not have lived to see the outcome
and would have died without compensation and without the
opportunity for acknowledgement, healing, reconciliation and
commemoration," Mr. Faulds stated.

The National Consortium of Residential School Survivors' Counsel
is a group of 19 law firms from across Canada.  The Consortium
represents in excess of 7,000 residential school survivors and
supports the Baxter National Class Action proceeding commenced
by Thomson, Rogers on behalf of all residential school survivors
throughout Canada.

The Government of Canada and churches including the Catholic,
Presbyterian, Anglican and United Church operated residential
schools in Canada from 1848 until the 1970s.  Some schools
operated longer.  Their objectives included separating
aboriginal children from their traditional languages and
cultures and their assimilation into non-aboriginal society.

                        Settlement Terms

A $2 billion comprehensive settlement for victims of physical
and sexual abuse at aboriginal residential schools associated
with the federal government was reached last year, Nunatsiaq
News reports (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30, 2006).  The deal
includes:

     (1) every eligible residential school survivor who applies
         will get a payment of $10,000, plus $3,000 for each
         year spent at a residential school;

     (2) a fast-track process for former students over age 65,
         who may apply for an immediate payment of $8,000;

     (3) a $60-million "truth and reconciliation" process;

     (4) $10 million for a commemoration program;

     (5) another five years of funding, totaling $125 million,
         for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

     (6) survivors already involved in class action claims will
         qualify for compensation;

     (7) those who take compensation under the agreement -
         except for those who suffered sexual abuse or serious
         physical abuse - release the government from all
         further liability.

The deal benefits about 86,000 aboriginal people in Canada,
including at least 3,000 Inuit.  

For more information, contact: Jon Faulds, Field Law, Phone:
(780) 423-7625 or (780) 951-5495; Craig Brown, Thomson, Rogers,
Phone: (416) 868-3163.


CANADIAN PACIFIC: Court Allows Chemical Spill Suits to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Tony Leung, in Hennepin County District Court in
Minneapolis, denied Canadian Pacific Railway's motion to stop a
legal action against it over the 2002 train derailment and
chemical spill in Minot, Dakota's KXMC13 reports.

Canadian Pacific asked the suspension of the cases until the
Minnesota Court of Appeals rules on a motion seeking to overturn
the judge refusal to grant pre-emption on the anhydrous ammonia
spill suit.  A federal judge last month dismissed a class action
against the railroad over the chemical spill on ground of pre-
emption.

Judge Leung's ruling means 11 cases against the railroad will go
ahead as scheduled on May 8.

The Canadian railway class actions stemmed from the January 2002
derailment and massive release of anhydrous ammonia from five
ruptured tank cars in Minot, South Dakota.  Thirty-one cars on
the 112-car Canadian Pacific Railway train derailed on the west
edge of Minot and five broke open early on the morning of
January 18, 2002.  The National Transportation Safety Board said
the wreck was caused by inadequate track maintenance and
inspections, a conclusion disputed by Canadian Pacific.

Based in Alberta, Canadian Pacific Railway -- http://www.cpr.ca  
-- hauls freight such as grain, coal, and industrial products
over a 14,000-mile network in Canada and the U.S.  It is one of
five companies spun off in 2001 from former parent Canadian
Pacific Ltd.


CNL HOTELS: Reaches Settlement for Fla. Consolidated Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated amended securities class action filed against it,
CNL Real Estate Advisors, LLC (Advisor), certain of their
affiliates and certain of their directors and officers, which is
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

On August 16, 2004, a shareholder filed a complaint on behalf of
two separate classes, those persons who purchased Company shares
during the class period pursuant to certain registration
statements and those persons who received and were entitled to
vote on the Proxy Statement dated May 7, 2004, as amended.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act and Section 14(a), including Rule 14a-9
hereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, based upon,
among other things, allegations that:

     (1) the defendants used improper accounting practices to
         materially inflate Company earnings to support the
         payment of distributions and bolster its share price;

     (2) conflicts of interest and self-dealing by the
         defendants resulted in excessive fees being paid to the
         Advisor, overpayment for certain Properties which the
         Company acquired and the proposed Merger between the
         Company and its Advisor;

     (3) the proxy statement and certain registration statements
         and prospectuses contained materially false and
         misleading statements; and

     (4) the individual defendants and our Advisor breached
         their fiduciary duties to the members of the class.

The complaint seeks, among other things, certification of the
class action, unspecified monetary damages, rescissory damages,
to nullify the various shareholder approvals obtained at the
2004 annual meeting, payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and
experts' fees.  

It also seeks an injunction enjoining the postponed underwritten
offering and listing until the court approves certain actions,
including the nomination and election of new independent
Directors and retention of a new financial advisor.   

On September 8, 2004, a second putative class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida containing allegations that are substantially similar to
those contained in the class action lawsuit filed on August 16,
2004.  

On November 10, 2004, the two complaints were consolidated and
lead plaintiffs were assigned for each of the two purported
classes.  On December 23, 2004, the plaintiffs served a
corrected, consolidated and amended complaint asserting
substantially the same claims and allegations.

On February 11, 2005, the Company and the other defendants filed
separate motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.
On May 9, 2005, the court dismissed all causes of action against
the Company's operating partnerships, CNL Hospitality Partners,
L.P., and RFS Partnership, L.P., and against the Advisor, CNL
Financial Group, Inc., and other advisor related entities.

The court sustained the sufficiency of the pleading relating to
the Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 claims against the Company and
the individual defendants, but instructed plaintiffs to re-plead
to specifically identify in the particular registration
statements the alleged misstatements or omissions attributable
to each defendant.

The court deferred consideration of the Section 14 (a) and 20(a)
claims in light of the Company's April 8, 2005 disclosure
relating to the possible amendment of the Existing Merger
Agreement.  

Finally, the court dismissed completely the breach of fiduciary
duty claims finding they were derivative and belonged to the
Company.  

On May 31, 2005, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated First Amended
Class Action Complaint, which eliminated one of the named co-
plaintiffs and certain previously named defendants, including
CNL Hospitality Partners, L.P., RFS Partnership, L.P., CNL
Financial Group, Inc., CNL Real Estate Group, Inc. and Five
Arrows Realty Securities II, LLC, and adds CNL Securities
Corporation as a defendant for alleged violations of Sections
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act and Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act.

The Consolidated First Amended Class Action Complaint continues
to assert claims pursuant to Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act and Section 14(a), including Rule 14a-9
hereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Further, the
breach of fiduciary duty claim is expressly asserted as
derivative.  

On July 22, 2005, the Company and the other defendants filed
separate motions to dismiss the Consolidated First Amended Class
Action Complaint.  The Court heard oral arguments on September
9, 2005.

On the same day, the Court dismissed without prejudice the
Section 14(a) and 20(a) claims as moot, and granted plaintiff
leave to amend its complaint, within thirty days, to add
additional plaintiffs that had standing to assert certain
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 claims, and instructed defendants
to advise the Court, within thirty days thereafter, whether they
have any additional defenses to raise in support of their
motions to dismiss in light of any new plaintiffs.

On September 13, 2005, the Court dismissed the derivative claims
with prejudice finding that plaintiffs had failed to make a pre-
suit demand or establish that such demand would have been
futile.

On September 20, 2005, the Court dismissed the claims asserted
against CNL Securities Corp. On September 21, 2005, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss CHC as a defendant in the
complaint.

On October 10, 2005, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Second
Amended Shareholder Complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint"),
which added three additional named plaintiffs to assert Sections
11, 12(a)(2), and 15 claims against the Company and the
individual defendants.

On November 9, 2005, the Company moved to dismiss and strike the
Second Amended Complaint.  On December 16, 2005, the Court
entered an order postponing resolution of the motion to dismiss
and strike, pending settlement discussions among the parties.

On February 6, 2006, plaintiffs' and defendants' counsel, on the
Company's behalf, the Company's advisor, CNL Hospitality Corp.
(CHC), and certain of its current and former directors and
officers, including James M. Seneff Jr., Robert A. Bourne,
Thomas J. Hutchison III, John A. Griswold, Craig M. McAllaster,
Robert E. Parsons, Jr., Charles E. Adams, and Lawrence A.
Dustin, executed a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU), which sets forth the general terms of an agreement in
principle for the settlement of the putative class action
brought by plaintiffs on behalf of certain stockholders in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the
Action).

Under the terms of the MOU, two settlement classes will be
certified:

     (i) a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise
         acquired Company securities issued or offered pursuant   
         to or by means of its registration statements and/or
         prospectuses between August 16, 2001 and August 16,
         2004, inclusive (the Purchaser Class); and

    (ii) a class of all persons who were entitled to vote on the
         proposals presented in the proxy statement filed by the
         Company, dated June 21, 2004, as amended or
         supplemented by the additional proxy solicitation
         materials filed on July 7, July 8, and July 20, 2004
         (the Proxy Class).

The Company and the other defendants denied and continue to deny
liability or any act of negligence or misconduct, but in
exchange for a release and resolution of the action, it and the
other defendants agreed to settle the action.

Under the terms of the MOU, which became binding and enforceable
on March 17, 2006, in connection with the Purchaser Class
claims, the Company will pay a total of $35 million, consisting
of $3.7 million to be paid by January 15, 2007, $15.65 million
to be paid by January 15, 2008, and $15.65 million to be paid by
January 15, 2009, which payments will be deposited into a
settlement fund account to be administered by plaintiffs'
counsel.

Plaintiffs' counsel will seek a fee with respect to the
Purchaser Class equal to 25% of all amounts paid into the
settlement fund account, totaling approximately $8.75 million,
plus expenses, to be paid solely out of the settlement fund
account. After payment of fees and expenses, the funds in the
settlement fund account will be paid to the Purchaser Class.

In connection with the Proxy Class and derivative claims, the
Company and other defendants will acknowledge that the action
was a material factor that was taken into account in connection
with

     (a) the terms of the Amended and Restated Renewal
         Agreement, executed by us and CHC and reported in the
         Company's Current Report on Form 8-K, dated December
         30, 2005, and the Payment Agreement, executed by the
         Company and CHC and reported in its Current Report on
         Form 8-K, dated December 30, 2005, and

     (b) the revised merger terms currently being actively
         discussed between the Company and CHC that are more
         favorable to the Company as compared to the existing
         merger agreement entered into in 2004 (the Existing
         Merger Agreement), including reduced merger
         consideration, as referenced in the Company's Current
         Report on Form 8-K dated September 1, 2005.

There can be no assurance that the Company and CHC will
definitively agree to amend the Existing Merger Agreement or, if
amended, that such amended merger agreement, or any merger
agreement, will contain the more favorable terms presently being
discussed, or will be consummated on any terms.  

Upon execution of any amended merger agreement, the Company
intends to seek prompt approval from its shareholders.  In
addition, as a part of the settlement, the Company will adopt or
maintain certain corporate governance measures, including

       - a mechanism for a committee of the Company's Board
         comprised solely of three independent Directors to
         review and approve any proposal by the Company to its
         shareholders to approve an amendment to the Company's  
         Charter to extend the date specified in the Charter by
         which it must commence an orderly liquidation (and that
         any final evaluation by the advisor to such Directors
         be provided to plaintiffs' counsel for review), and

       - the maintenance of a committee of the Board, consisting
         solely of Directors who do not have a financial
         interest in the transaction being considered, to review
         and approve all related-party transactions.

Plaintiffs' counsel will seek a fee and a portion of
reimbursable expenses with respect to the Proxy Class and
derivative claims in the amount of $5.5 million, which the
Company agreed to pay as part of the settlement, subject to
Court approval.

The MOU and terms of the settlement were approved by the Special
Litigation Committee of the Company's Board of Directors, which
is comprised of the three non-defendant members of the Board of
Directors.

On March 13, 2006, the Court held a status conference, wherein
the parties informed the Court of the terms of the MOU and their
intention for the settlement to be documented by a Stipulation
of Settlement.  

The Court ordered that any Stipulation of Settlement and
accompanying documents must be filed with the Court no later
than March 31, 2006.

The Company and the other defendants and plaintiffs are engaged
in active negotiations to arrive at mutually agreeable terms of
a Stipulation of Settlement.  

There can be no assurance that the parties will agree to a
Stipulation of Settlement, that the Court will approve the
settlement on the terms contained in the MOU or that the
settlement will be consummated on the terms and conditions set
forth in the MOU or at all.

A preliminary fairness hearing is scheduled for April 11, 2006,
at which point it is anticipated that the Court will order
notice of the settlement to be sent to members of the Purchaser
Class and the Proxy Class, and a final fairness hearing would
then be scheduled.

Based upon the terms of the MOU, the Company accrued $34.2
million as of December 31, 2005, representing the present value
of the total settlement estimate of $40.5 million, and
recognized the related charge as an expense for litigation
settlement in the Company statement of operations for the year
ended December 31, 2005.

The case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, is "Campbell v. CNL Hotels & Resorts Inc.
et al., (6:04-cv-01231-GAP-KRS)."  Presiding judge is Gregory A.
Presnell.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Nicholas E. Chimicles, Kimberly Marie Donaldson,
         Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, One Haverford Centre, 361
         West Lancaster Ave., Haverford, PA 19041, Phone:
         215/642-8500, E-mail: nick@chimicles.com or
         kimdonaldson@chimicles.com;  

     (2) Beth Hoffman, Lawrence A. Sucharow, Goodkind Labaton
         Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, 100 Park Ave., New York, NY
         10017, E-mail: bhoffman@glrslaw.com or
         lsucharow@glrslaw.com;  

     (3) Lawrence P. Kolker, Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman &
         Herz, 270 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         212/545-4600, E-mail: kolker@whafh.com; and

     (4) George E. Ridge, Cooper, Ridge & Lantinberg, P.A., 200
         W. Forsyth St., Suite 1200, Jacksonville, FL 32202-
         1069, Phone: 904/353-6555, Fax: 904-353-7550, E-mail:
         gridge@attorneyjax.com.

Representing the defendants are Mark Herman Budoff, Kenneth A.
Lapatine, Toby S. Soli, Greenberg Traurig LLP, MetLife Building,
200 Park Ave., 15th Floor, New York, NY 10166, Phone: 212/801-
9200, Fax: 212/801-6400, E-mail: budoffm@gtlaw.com,
lapatinek@gtlaw.com, solit@gtlaw.com; and David B. King and
Thomas A. Zehnder, King, Blackwell, Downs & Zehnder, P.A., 25 E.
Pine St., P.O. Box 1631, Orlando, FL 32801-1631, Phone: 407/422-
2472, Fax: 407-648-0161, E-mail: dking@kbdlaw.com or
tzehnder@kbdlaw.com.


CRAIN CUTTER: Recalls 15.5T Toe-Kick Saws Due to Broken Handles
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Crain Cutter Co. Inc., of Milpitas, California, initiated a
voluntary recall of 15,500 units of Toe-Kick saws.

The saw's plastic handle can break, causing the user to lose
control of the saw which could kick back and present a
laceration hazard if the blade is in motion.

Crain Cutter received reports of 25 incidents of the saw's
handle breaking and one report of a laceration in which a user's
leg and torso were cut.

The saws are used for the removal of floors or cutting flooring
in the toe kick area under cabinets.  Only Model 795, which has
a blue handle and motor housing is included in this recall.  
"Model 795" and "Crain Toe-Kick Saw" are printed on a label on
the blue motor housing.

The saws, which were manufactured in the U.S. are sold at
specialty wholesale floor covering accessory distributors
nationwide from October 2002 through February 2006 for about
$250.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the saws and
contact any Crain distributor for a free repair, or contact
Crain Cutter Co. Inc. for a free repair kit.

Pictures of the recalled saw:

     (1) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06137a.jpg

     (2) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06137b.jpg

Consumer Contact: Crain Cutter Co. Inc., Phone: (800) 538-7810
between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, Web site:
http://www.craintools.com.


DELTA AIR: Ga. Court Awaits Results of N.Y. Adversary Proceeding
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia is
awaiting the results of the adversary proceeding pending in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
before it considers the motion to dismiss a class action against
Delta Air Lines, Inc. alleging violations of Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) and styled, "Smith v. Delta Air
Lines, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-02592-ODE."

On September 3, 2004, a retired Company employee filed a class
action complaint (amended on March 16, 2005) against the
Company, certain of its current and former officers and
directors on behalf of himself and other participants in the
Delta Family-Care Savings Plan (Savings Plan).

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants were
fiduciaries of the Savings Plan and, as such, breached their
fiduciary duties under ERISA to the plaintiff class by:

     (1) allowing class members to direct their contributions
         under the Savings Plan to a fund invested in Delta
         common stock; and

     (2) continuing to hold Delta's contributions to the Savings
         Plan in Delta's common and preferred stock.

The amended complaint seeks damages unspecified in amount, but
equal to the total loss of value in the participants' accounts
from September 2000 through September 2004 from the investment
in the Company's stock.

Defendants deny that there was any breach of fiduciary duty, and
have moved to dismiss the complaint, which motion is pending
before the district court.  

The District Court has stayed the action due to the Company's
September 14, 2005 bankruptcy filing.  The Company and
substantially all of its subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions
for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code
in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New
York.  Then Company recently filed an adversary proceeding with
the bankruptcy court seeking to extend the stay as to all
defendants.

The District Court is awaiting the results of that action before
it further considers the motion to dismiss filed by the
individual defendants.

The case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, is "Smith v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:04-cv-02592-ODE."  Presiding judge is Orinda D.
Evans.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Evan J. Smith of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Suite 602, 333
         East City Avenue, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, US, Phone:
         610-667-6200;

     (2) Gerald D. Wells, Edward W. Ciolko and Joseph H. Meltzer
         of Schiffrin & Barroway, 280 King of Prussia Road,
         Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-676-7706, Fax: 610-667-
         7056, E-mail: gwells@sbclasslaw.com,
         eciolko@sbclasslaw.com and jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com;

     (3) Michael Ira Fistel, Jr. and Corey Daniel Holzer of
         Holzer & Holzer, LLC, 1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite
         E-107, Atlanta, GA 30338, Phone: 770-392-0090, E-mail:
         mfistel@holzerlaw.com and cholzer@holzerlaw.com.

Representing the Company are, William Henry Boice, Cindy Dawn
Hanson and Steven D. Moore of Kilpatrick Stockton, 1100
Peachtree Street, Suite 2800, Atlanta, GA 30309-4530, Phone:
404-815-6464, 404-815-6500 and 404-815-6186 E-mail:
bboice@kilpatrickstockton.com, chanson@kilpatrickstockton.com
and smoore@kilpatrickstockton.com.


DELTA AIR: Mich. Court Administratively Closes Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
administratively closed the class action styled, "In Re
Northwest Airlines, et al. Antitrust Litigation," due to the
bankruptcy proceedings of the Delta Air Lines, Inc., US Airways
and Northwest Airlines.  The case is subject to reopening upon
further action by the District Court.

In June 1999, two purported class action antitrust lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan against the Company, US Airways and Northwest.  In
these cases, plaintiffs allege, among other things:

     (1) that the defendants and certain other airlines
         conspired in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act
         to restrain competition in the sale of air passenger
         service by enforcing rules prohibiting certain
         ticketing practices; and

     (2) that the defendants violated Section 2 of the Sherman
         Act by prohibiting these ticketing practices.

Plaintiffs have requested a jury trial.  They seek injunctive
relief; costs and attorneys' fees; and unspecified damages, to
be trebled under the antitrust laws.

The District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
action certification and denied the airlines' motions for
summary judgment in May 2002.  

On May 4, 2004, the District Court issued a supplemental order
defining various plaintiff subclasses. The subclasses pertinent
to Delta include:

     (i) for the purpose of the Section 1 claim, a subclass of
         persons or entities who purchased from a defendant or
         its agent a full fare, unrestricted ticket for travel
         on any of certain designated city pairs originating or
         terminating at Delta's Atlanta or Cincinnati hubs,
         Northwest's hubs at Minneapolis, Detroit or Memphis, or
         US Airways' hubs at Pittsburgh or Charlotte, during the
         period from June 11, 1995 to date;

    (ii) for the purpose of the Section 2 claim as it relates to
         its Atlanta hub, a subclass of persons or entities who
         purchased from Delta or its agent a full fare,
         unrestricted ticket for travel on any of certain
         designated city pairs originating or terminating at its
         Atlanta hub during the same period; and

   (iii) for the purpose of the Section 2 claim as it relates to
         its Cincinnati hub, a subclass of persons or entities
         who purchased from Delta or its agent a full fare,
         unrestricted ticket for travel on any of certain
         designated city pairs originating or terminating at its
         Cincinnati hub during the same period.

The District Court administratively closed this case on
September 20, 2005 due to the bankruptcy proceedings of the
Company, Northwest and US Airways.  The case is subject to
reopening upon further action by the District Court.

The case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, is "In re Northwest Airlines Corp. et al.
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 96-74711."  The presiding judge
is George Caram Steeh.  

Representing the plaintiffs are, Robert S. Palmer of Berman
DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, Esperante Building, 222
Lakeview Avenue, Suite 900, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Phone:
(800) 516-9926 and 561-835-9400, Fax: (561) 835-0322, E-mail:
law@bermanesq.com; and Elwood S. Simon of Elwood S. Simon
Assoc., 355 S. Woodward Avenue, Suite 250, Birmingham, MI 48009,
Phone: 248-646-9730, Fax: 248-258-2335, E-mail: esimon@esimon-
law.com.

Representing the defendants are, James P. Denvir and Donald L.
Flexner of Boies Schiller, 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Suite
570, Washington, DC 20015, Phone: 202-237-2727, Fax: 202-237-
2727; and Parker C. Folse, III of Susman Godfrey, 1201 Third
Avenue, Suite 3090, Seattle, WA 98101-5096, Phone: 713-651-9366,
Fax: 713-651-9366.


ELI LILLY: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in Ind. Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Several workers of drug Company Eli Lilly & Co. are suing the
Company for alleged racial discrimination, reports say.

Three former and one current Eli Lilly employee filed the suit
in federal court alleging the Company paid black employees less
than their white counterparts, passed them over for promotions
and verbally abused them.  

The alleged discrimination dates back to 2003.  One of the
plaintiffs is Cassandra Welch, who was fired in mid-2004 for an
unrelated reason.    

The suit is seeking class action on behalf of more than 1,000
black employees.  It is asking unspecified damages, lost
compensation and an order enjoining Lilly against future
discrimination.  

Each of the plaintiffs also has complaints pending with the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, according to the
report.  The other plaintiffs are current sales representative,
Sheryl A. Davis of Memphis, Tennessee, and two former sales
reps, Jarmaine Bromell of Philadelphia and Raynard Tyson of
North Carolina.

The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana, is "Welch et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company
(1:06-cv-00641-RLY-VSS)."  Presiding judge is Richard L. Young,
with referral to V. Sue Shields.

Representing the plaintiffs is law firm Rose & Rose, P.C., 1320
19TH ST., N.W., Suite 601, Washington, DC 20036 U.S., Phone:
(202) 331-8555.  Contact: Terri N. Marcus, Joshua N. Rose, David
L. Rose, Fax: (202) 331-0996, E-mail: daver@roselawyers.com.


FEDEX CORP: Calif. Court Sets February 2007 Trial for "Satchell"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
slated a tentative February 2007 trial date for the racial
discrimination class action against FedEx Express, a unit of
FedEx Corp., styled, "Satchell v. FedEx Express, Case No. 03-
2659."

Filed on June 6, 2003, the suit alleges that the Company has a
culture of hostility toward minorities and that the Company
turns "a blind eye," allowing racial bias to infect performance
evaluation, promotion, compensation, and discipline decisions,
according to court documents.

Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief as well as money in the
form of front pay, back pay and compensatory and punitive
damages.

On September 28, 2005, the Court granted class certification to
the case, which is specifically alleging discrimination by the
Company in the Western region of the United States against
certain current and former minority employees in pay and
promotion.

The District Court's ruling on class certification is not a
decision on the merits of the plaintiffs' claim and does not
address whether the Company will be held liable.  Trial is
currently scheduled for February 2007.

The case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, is "Satchell v. FedEx Express, 03-2659."  
Presiding judge is Susan Illston.  Representing the plaintiffs
are:

     (1) Guy B. Wallace of Schneider & Wallace, 180 Montgomery
         Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, Ca 94109, Phone:
         415-421-7100, Fax: 415-421-7105, E-mail:
         gwallace@schneiderwallace.com;

     (2) Michael S. Davis of The Law Offices of Michael S.
         Davis, 345 Hill Street, San Francisco, CA 94114, Phone:
         (415) 282-4315, Fax: (415) 358-5576, E-mail:
         msdlegal@comcast.net; and

     (3) Waukeen Q. Mccoy of The Law Offices of Waukeen Q.
         McCoy, 703 Market Street, Suite 1407, San Francisco, CA
         94103, Phone: 415-675-7705, Fax: 415-675-2530, E-mail:
         mccoylawsf@yahoo.com.

Representing the Company are, Gilmore F. Diekmann, Jr. and
Francis J. Ortman, III of Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, 560 Mission
Street, Suite 3100, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-397-
2823, Fax: 415-397-8549, E-mail: gdiekmann@sf.seyfarth.com; and
fortman@sf.seyfarth.com.


FEDEX CORP: Reaches Settlement for Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a wage-and-hour class action against
FedEx Corp., which is pending in California state court and
styled, "Foster v. FedEx Express."  

The plaintiffs in "Foster" represent a class of hourly Company
employees in California from October 14, 1998 to present.  The
plaintiffs allege that hourly employees are routinely required
to work "off the clock" and are not paid for this additional
work.

The court issued a ruling in December 2004 granting class
certification on all issues.  In February 2006, the parties
reached a settlement that will be presented to the court for
approval.  

The Company continues to deny liability, but entered into the
settlement to avoid the cost and uncertainty of further
litigation.  The amount of the proposed settlement was accrued
at February 28, 2006 and is not material to the Company.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Recalls Notebook Batteries Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Hewlett-Packard Company, of Palo Alto, California, initiated a
voluntary recall of about 4,100 units (about 15,700 batteries
worldwide) of HP and Compaq Notebook computer batteries.

An internal failure can cause the battery to overheat and melt
or char the plastic case, posing a burn and fire hazard.

Hewlett-Packard has received 20 reports of batteries
overheating, including two in the U.S.  One minor burn injury
has been reported. Eleven cases of minor property damage were
reported, including one in the U.S.

The recalled lithium ion rechargeable batteries are used with
various HP and Compaq notebook computers. The recalled batteries
are a subset of those manufactured in early January 2005, and
will have a bar code label starting with L3.

HP and Compaq Notebook Model Series that may contain a recalled
battery include:

HP Pavilion Family      HP Compaq Family  Compaq Presario Family
dv1xxx                  nx48xx            V2xxx
ze2xxx                                    M2xxx


The notebook model is located on the display screen bezel or in
the labeling on the bottom of the notebook.

The batteries were manufactured in China and sold at national
and regional computer and electronics stores, online stores, and
at http://www.hp.comand http://www.hpshopping.comfrom January  
2005 through December 2005 for between $1,000 and $3,000. The
battery packs also were sold separately for between $100 and
$130.

Consumers are advised to stop using the "L3" coded batteries
immediately and contact HP to determine if the specific battery
is one of the ones being recalled, and if it is, receive a free
replacement battery.

After removing the recalled battery from their notebook
computer, consumers are advised to plug in the AC adapter to
power the notebook until a replacement battery arrives.

Picture of the recalled battery:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06145.jpg.

Consumer Contact: Web Site:
www.hp.com/support/BatteryReplacement, Phone: (888) 202-4320
between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. CT Monday through Friday.

Media Contact: Tom Augenthaler, Phone: (281) 514-4126.


HOLLYWOOD ENTERTAINMENT: Reaches Settlement in Wash., Ill. Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hollywood Entertainment Corp. reached a nationwide settlement
with the plaintiffs on all of the various claims asserted in two
related class actions filed in Washington and Illinois.  The
suits are:

     (1) "George Curtis v. Hollywood Entertainment Corp., dba
         Hollywood Video, Defendant, No. 01-2-36007-8 SEA," was
         certified on June 14, 2002 in the Superior Court of
         King County, Washington; and  

     (2) "George DeFrates v. Hollywood Entertainment
         Corporation, No. 02 L 707," filed on May 20, 2003, is
         a nationwide class action that was certified in the
         Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Twentieth Judicial
         Circuit, State of Illinois.

Preliminary approval of settlement was granted on August 10,
2004.  The Company agreed not to oppose plaintiffs' application
for an award of $2.7 million for fees and costs to class counsel
and plaintiffs' counsel and up to $50,000 in class
representative incentive awards.  

Class members received rent-one-get-one coupons on a claims-made
basis with a guaranteed total redemption of $9 million along
with other remedial relief.

The court granted final approval of the settlement on June 24,
2005.  An appeal of the final approval was filed on July 25,
2005.  A settlement with the appellants was reached and the
matter was fully and finally resolved on December 9, 2005.


JEWEL FOOD: Faces Suit Over Meat Sold at Wauconda, Ill. Outlet
--------------------------------------------------------------
A resident of Lake Barrington, Illinois is suing Northlake-base
Jewel Food Stores for selling meat past its expiration date,
CBS2Chicago.com reports.

Scott Bernard filed the suit in Cook County Circuit Court.  It
claims consumer fraud, and deceptive business practices, as well
as numerous other breaches of warranties owed to the general
public.  It is seeking class status to recover damages and to
stop Jewel from selling meat beyond its expiration date.

Mr. Bernard says he fell ill after eating a meat product
purchased from a Jewel store in Wauconda.  Representing him is
Mark D. Belongia and the law firm Stein Bogot, Ltd.
(http://www.steinbogot.com). To contact Jewel Food Stores: 547  
W Liberty ST, Wauconda, IL zip code, Phone: (847) 526-1239.


MCNAIR TECHNOLOGY: Recalls Batteries For Possible Burn Hazards
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
McNair Technology Co. Ltd., of China, and Unitech Battery Ltd.,
of China, voluntarily recalled 102,000 battery packs sold with
Disney(TM)-Brand DVD Players.

The battery packs sold with these DVD players can overheat and
possibly burst when recharging, posing a risk of burns.

Memcorp has received 17 reports of batteries overheating,
including three reports of minor skin irritations and three
reports of minor property damage.

The recalled product is the battery packs sold with Disney(TM)-
brand personal DVD players.  The DVD players are about 6.5-
inches by 5.5-inches with a 3-inch screen display.  They were
sold in five styles with a corresponding model number.  

The model number is written on the back of the unit, under the
viewing stand and below the Disney(TM) brand name.

DVD Style               Model Number
Princess                DP3500-PRN
Fairy Flowers           DP3500-FLR
Mickey Classic          DP3500-MC
Mickey Mouse            DP3500-MKY
Power Rangers           DP3500-POW

The recalled battery packs are sold at discount and electronics
stores nationwide, and at Disney theme parks and through the
Disney catalog from April 2005 through March 2006 for between
$70 and $130.

Consumers are advised to stop using the battery pack supplied
with these DVD players immediately and contact Memcorp for a
replacement rechargeable battery pack.

Picture of the recalled battery pack:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06139.jpg.

Consumer Contact: Phone: (800) 326-0315 between 8:30 a.m. and
8:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday and between 8:30 a.m. and
5:30 p.m. Saturday and Sunday, Web site:
http://www.disneyelectronics.com.


MISSISSIPPI: Hurricane Katrina Victims File Revised Suit in La.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs seeking more than $1 billion in damages in the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina are calling the Mississippi River
Gulf Outlet (MRGO) a "Hurricane Highway" that allowed a 20-foot
storm surge to inundate much of New Orleans last Fall.

More that 750 area residents and relatives of victims of Katrina
claim the MRGO became a highway for a storm surge that moved up
a narrowing funnel of waterways and navigational channels
thereby contributing to levee breaks along the Industrial Canal,
which flooded the city with up to 10 feet of water.

In a revised lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in New
Orleans, the plaintiffs claim the U.S. Corps of Engineers failed
to do its job in designing, constructing and monitoring the MRGO
and other New Orleans waterways including the Industrial Canal,
the 17th Street Canal and the London Avenue Canal, resulting in
flooding, death and massive destruction following Hurricane
Katrina on Aug. 29, 2005.

The class action lawsuit targets the Federal Government and the
Corps of Engineers, alleging "malfeasance, misfeasance and
nonfeasance" in ensuring the competent design, construction,
inspection, maintenance and operation of an entire navigable
waterway system.

Allegations contained in the filing include charges that the
Corps of Engineers and FEMA failed to "properly prepare for and
respond to the needs of the people both prior to and in the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina."

Overtopping, scouring and levee collapse in the MRGO caused
extensive damage in St. Bernard Parish.  Breaks on both sides of
the Industrial Canal caused flooding in the Ninth Ward and Lower
Ninth Ward and in the City proper.  It took more than one month
for the levee breaks to be repaired and the water to be pumped
out of the City.

At least two independent investigations into the levee breaks
have indicated poor engineering and design flaws as well as
faulty construction and a lack of adequate surveillance and
maintenance led to the disaster.

As recently as April 16, Lt. General Carl Strock, Commander of
the Army Corps of Engineers admitted "We have now concluded we
had problems with the design of the structure," referring to the
17th Street Canal.  Lt. Gen. Strock told a U.S. Senate Committee
that "We had hoped that wasn't the case, but we recognize it is
the reality."

Plaintiffs in the Federal lawsuit claim part of the flood
problems created by the MRGO relate to the Corps of Engineers
apparent failure to react to the deterioration of its levees.  
They claim since construction of the MRGO in 1965, its width has
grown from 500 feet to 1,500 feet, thereby causing a major
erosion of its banks well beyond what Congress authorized when
approving its construction nearly 40 years ago.


MOSSIMO INC: Seeks Nixing of Del. Consolidated Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mossimo, Inc. is working with plaintiffs' counsel to seek
voluntary dismissal of a consolidated shareholder class action
pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
styled, "In re Mossimo, Inc. Shareholder Litigation,
Consolidated Civil Action No. 1246-N."

On April 12, 2005, Mossimo Giannulli (Giannulli) offered to
acquire all of the outstanding publicly held common stock of the
Company at a price of $4.00 per share.

Following the announcement, six purported class action lawsuits
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
Each of the complaints asserted that the directors breached
their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders, and sought
an injunction preventing the acquisition.

On April 19, 2005, the Board of Directors appointed a Special
Committee to consider and evaluate Mr. Giannulli's proposal.  
The Special Committee retained Houlihan Lokey and Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher to serve as the Committee's independent financial
advisor and legal counsel, respectively, with respect to the
Committee's evaluation of Mr. Giannulli's proposal.

On May 27, 2005, the above referenced cases were consolidated
under the following caption: "In re Mossimo, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Consolidated Civil Action No.1246-N."

On October 10, 2005, the Company and other defendants entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to settle the action.
Under the terms of the MOU, Mr. Giannulli agreed that his
proposal to acquire all of the Company's outstanding shares
would be priced at $5.00 per share and that the tender offer
pursuant to which the acquisition was proposed to be consummated
would be conditioned upon no less than 50 percent of all public
stockholders of the Company unaffiliated with Mr. Giannulli
accepting or approving the tender offer.

The MOU further provided that plaintiffs' lead counsel would be
afforded the opportunity to comment on and suggest inclusions to
the disclosures made to the Company's public stockholders in
conjunction with the acquisition.

In addition, the Company agreed to negotiate in good faith with
the plaintiffs' lead counsel concerning the amount of attorney
fees and expenses to be paid, subject to Delaware Chancery Court
approval.  

The Company also agreed to pay whatever fee and expense amount
the Delaware Chancery Court might have awarded to plaintiffs'
lead counsel.  In consideration of these terms, the parties
agreed that they would fully and finally release and discharge
all claims against each other.

The settlement was conditioned on the consummation of the
acquisition by Mr. Giannulli, the negotiation of a definitive
stipulation of settlement and the entry of a Final Order and
Judgment approving the settlement by the Delaware Chancery
Court.

On November 14, 2005 Mr. Giannulli announced that he had
withdrawn the proposal to acquire the outstanding shares of the
Company that he did not already own.  The provisions of the MOU
have thus become moot.  The action remains on file.  The Company
is working with plaintiffs' counsel to seek voluntary dismissal
of the action.


NEW FOCUS: Recalls Computer Desk Sets Due to Fall Injury Risks
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
New Focus Marketing Corp., of Boca Raton, Florida, initiated a
voluntary recall of 6,000 computer desk and chair sets.

The seat on the chair can break and fall through during use
causing an individual to fall and suffer injuries.

New Focus Marketing has received reports of two injuries
involving chairs breaking.  Injuries include a consumer who
received bruises to the arm and shoulder, and another consumer
who suffered a minor back injury.

The recalled three-piece set includes a desk, computer stand and
chair. Model number NF913232 is located on the product's box.
The chair in the office set is gray with a black seat and a
silver tubular metal frame.

The computer desk and chair sets were manufactured in China and
sold at Office Depot stores nationwide from June 2005 through
August 2005 for about $80 for the set.

Consumers are advised to stop using the chair immediately and
contact Office Depot to receive a gift card for the full price
of the desk set upon receipt of the chair.

Picture of the recalled computer desk and chair set:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06135.jpg.

Consumer Contact: Office Depot, Phone: (800) 944-3340 between 9
a.m. and 5:15 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, Web site:
http://www.officedepot.com.


NEW YORK: Court Prohibits "Strip Searching" of Minor Offenders
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge David Hurd permanently banned the
Montgomery County Jail from routinely requiring inmates charged
with minor crimes to strip and shower in front of a guard,
Associated Press reports.

Judge Hurd declared the "change out" tantamount to strip-
searching.  He deemed the practice unconstitutional because
cavity and strip searches for people charged with misdemeanors
and other minor offenses are allowed only on reasonable
suspicions that the prisoner has a weapon or contraband.  He
also ruled the plaintiffs were entitled to an interim award of
attorneys' fees and expenses.

The suit was filed in 2003 on behalf of Fort Plain, New York
resident Paul Marriott, who was forced to undergo a strip search
after allegedly not feeding his horses (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 29, 2005).  Back in March, a U.S. district court judge
granted a preliminary injunction to stop the strip searches.
Members of the class action lawsuit included those who were
admitted into the Montgomery County jail between April 29, 2000,
and March 25, 2005, after being charged with a misdemeanor,
violation, probation or parole violation, traffic infraction or
other minor offense.

Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
rejected Montgomery County's appeal of the case.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of New York, is "Marriott v. County of
Montgomery, et al. (5:03-cv-00531-DNH-DEP)."  Presiding judge is
David N. Hurd with referral to Judge David E. Peebles.  

Representing the defendants were:

     (1) Thomas W. Hyland
         Wilson, Elser Law Firm - NY Office,
         150 East 42nd St., New York,
         NY 10017-5639,
         Phone: 212-490-3000
         Fax: 212-490-3038
         E-mail: hylandt@wemed.com; and

     (2) Theresa B. Marangas
         Wilson, Elser Law Firm - Albany
         Office, 677 Broadway - 9th Floor
         Albany, NY 12207-2996
         Phone: 518-449-8893
         Fax: 518-465-2548
         E-mail: marangast@wemed.com

Representing the plaintiffs were:  

     (1) Elmer R. Keach, III
         Office of Elmer R. Keach, III,  
         1040 Riverfront Center
         P.O. Box 70, Amsterdam, NY 12010
         Phone: 518-434-1718
         Fax: 518-770-1558
         E-mail: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com;

     (2) Gary E. Mason and Charles A. Schneider
         Mason Law Firm
         1225 19th St., N.W. Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20036
         Phone: 202-429-2290
         Fax: 202-429-2294
         E-mail: gmason@masonlawdc.com and
                 cschneider@masonlawdc.com; and

     (3) Bruce E. Menken and Jason J. Rozger
         Beranbaum, Menken Law Firm
         3 New York Plaza, New York, NY 10004,  
         Phone: 212-509-1616
         Fax: 212-509-8088
         E-mail: bmenken@bmbblaw.com
                 jrozger@bmbblaw.com


NORDSTROM INC: Briefs on Objections to Calif. Agreement Due Soon
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' and defendants' briefs are due in late April or
early May 2006 for objections made regarding the settlement of
the California antitrust class action against Nordstrom, Inc.
and other department store and specialty retailers, styled,
"Azizian, et al. v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., et al."

Nine separate but virtually identical class actions were
initially filed in various Superior Courts of the State of
California in May, June and July 1998, and later consolidated in
Marin County Superior Court in California.  In May 2000,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming a number of
manufacturers of cosmetics and fragrances and two other
retailers as additional defendants.  

Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges that the retailer and
manufacturer defendants violated the Cartwright Act and the
California Unfair Competition Act when they collusively
controlled the retail price of the "prestige" or "Department
Store" cosmetics sold in department and specialty stores.  

The suit seeks treble damages and restitution in an unspecified
amount, attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest, on behalf of a
class of all California residents who purchased cosmetics and
fragrances for personal use from any of the defendants during
the four years prior to the filing of the amended complaint.  

Defendants, including the Company, have answered the amended
complaint denying the allegations.  The defendants even produced
documents and responded to plaintiffs' other discovery requests,
including providing witnesses for depositions.

The Company entered into a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs and the other defendants on July 13, 2003.  In
furtherance of the settlement agreement, the case was re-filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a class of all persons who currently
reside in the United States and who purchased "Department Store"
cosmetics from the defendants during the period May 29, 1994
through July 16, 2003.  

The Court has given preliminary approval to the settlement.  A
summary notice of class certification and the terms of the
settlement were disseminated to class members.  

On March 30, 2005, the Court entered a final judgment approving
the settlement and dismissing the plaintiffs' claims and the
claims of all class members with prejudice, in their entirety.

On April 29, 2005, two class members who had objected to the
settlement filed notices of appeal from the Court's final
judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  

The objectors' appellate brief is due on March 24, 2006, and
plaintiffs' and defendants' briefs are due in late April or
early May 2006.  

It is uncertain when the appeals will be resolved, but the
appeal process could take as much as another year or more.  If
the Court's final judgment approving the settlement is affirmed
on appeal, or the appeals are dismissed, the defendants will
provide class members with certain free products with an
estimated retail value of $175 million and pay the plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees, awarded by the Court, of $24 million.

The case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, is "Azizian, et al. v. Federated
Department Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:03-cv-03359."  
Presiding judge is Saundra Brown Armstrong.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Guido Saveri of Saveri & Saveri, Inc., 111 Pine
Street, Suite 1700, San Francisco, CA 94111-5630, Phone: 415-
217-6810, Fax: 415-217-6813, E-mail: guido@saveri.com.  

Representing the Company is Larry S. Gangnes, 1420 Fifth Avenue,
Ste. 4100, Seattle, WA 98101-2338, Phone: (206) 223-7036, E-
mail: gangnesl@lanepowell.com.


NORTH DAKOTA: Court Rejects Suit Over Tribes' Fuel Tax Refunds
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Northwest District Court in Minot, North Dakota rejected a
proposed class action over refunds and interest payments on
state taxes that American Indians who bought fuel on their own
reservations are entitled.  It, however, expanded the coverage
of payouts that eligible consumer may claim, Associated Press
reports.

In rejecting the class action, Judge William McLees said the Tax
Department, the defendant in the suit, has established a process
for compensating consumers.  The District Court also ordered the
Tax Department to pay interest on refund claims.  

But he ruled that the new state law entitles tribe members who
bought fuel on their North Dakota reservations to payouts on
state taxes going back to Jan. 1, 1999 until Dec. 31, 2004.  The
existing scheme, set up by state lawmakers last year, allows
only payouts for fuel bought after Jan. 1, 2005.  

Vance Gillette, a lawyer for a group of Indians, who sought the
refunds, said applying for the payment is difficult because of
'unreasonable' documentation rules.

A group of four American Indians sued the Tax Department in
August 2003, asking a judge to rule that they did not owe North
Dakota's fuel tax when buying gasoline on their own
reservations.  

The suit went to the North Dakota Supreme Court, which dismissed
the case suggesting the Legislature should deal with it.  The
high court sent it back to Northwest District Court in Minot,
which reviewed the case and issued the recent decision.  

The plaintiffs are Joan Mann and Ken Danks, who are members of
the Three Affiliated Tribes, and Tracy Wilkie and Christa
Monette, who are members of the Turtle Mountain Band of
Chippewa.


OIL COMPANIES: Face New $58B Lawsuit Over N.Y. Fuel Tank Blast
--------------------------------------------------------------
Three oil companies are facing a third lawsuit over an oil spill
on the Brooklyn-Queens Line, according to Daily News Boroughs.

Napoli, Bern, Ripka & Associates, LLP filed a $58 billion suit
against Exxon Mobil Corp., BP Products North American Inc.,
Texaco and others in Brooklyn Supreme Court.  The suit, filed on
behalf of about 20 landlords, and business owners, seek
certification as class action.  One of the plaintiffs is Jan
Bielen, a native of Poland and Greenpoint, Brooklyn, New York.

Residents claim the oil spill in the 1950s still creates
problems in their neighborhood and threatens their health.  A
tank exploded in the area more than 50 years ago after fuel from
a Standard Oil plant seeped into the city sewers and ignited.  
The blast released oil that eventually found its way into
Newtown Creek, the boundary between Brooklyn and Queens.  The
suit, the third filed over the accident, claims the Coast Guard
in 1978 discovered oil seeping out of the banks of Newtown
Creek, around the residents' property.

Lawyer Mark Bern plans to ask up to a $1 billion medical
monitoring fund paid for by the oil companies.  Punitive damages
payment sought is $50 billion; compensatory damages $8 billion.

The companies are also defendants in a federal suit filed by the
environmental group Riverkeeper in 2004, and by a California
firm Gerardi & Keese.

Napoli, Bern, Ripka on the Net: http://www.nblawfirm.com/.


ORTHO-CLINICAL: Recalls Faulty VITROS Products Signal Reagent
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics and U.S. FDA notified healthcare
professionals of a Class 1 recall of VITROS Immunodiagnostic
Products Signal Reagent, a special chemical used with the VITROS
Immunodiagnostic ECi/ECiQ System to screen patient samples and
diagnose more than 40 diseases and conditions including cardiac
disease, hepatitis (A, B or C), thyroid disorders, HIV and
pregnancy.  A decreased signal in the reagent may produce
inaccurate results in some cases, affecting the outcome of the
diagnostic tests.

Customers with the affected lot numbers should discontinue using
any remaining reagent and should follow the enhanced Quality
Control (QC) procedure provided by Ortho-Clinical Diagnostic for
each pack in all lots of VITROS Signal Reagent until further
notice.

Patients who have had diagnostic testing performed for any of
these medical conditions within the last 60 days and are
concerned with their test results should discuss them with their
physicians: cardiac disease, hepatitis (A, B, or C), thyroid
disorders, HIV and pregnancy.


PACIFIC PREMIER: Continues to Face SMLA Violations Suit in Mo.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Premier Bank was named as a defendant in a purported
class action in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri,
entitled, "James Baker v. Century Financial, et al."

Filed in February 2004, the suit is alleging various violations
of Missouri's Second Mortgage Loans Act (SMLA) by charging and
receiving fees and costs that were either wholly prohibited by
or in excess of that allowed by the Act relating to origination
fees, interest rates, and other charges.

The complaint seeks restitution of all improperly collected
charges and interest plus the right to rescind the mortgage
loans or a right to offset any illegal collected charges and
interest against the principal amounts due on the loans.

On March 29, 2005, the trial court without comment denied the
bank's motion for dismissal due to limitations.  No hearing date
has been set for our "preemption" motion.


PFIZER INC: Parker & Waichman Lodges N.Y. Suit Over Vision Loss
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parker & Waichman, LLP, filed suit against Pfizer Inc. on behalf
of a victim who was diagnosed with Non-Arteritic Anterior
Ischemic Optic Neuropathy (NAION), after using Viagra for 4-1/2
years.

In July 2005, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued
alerts to physicians and patients about potential vision loss
associated with the use of Viagra.

The suit, which was filed on behalf of the victim and his wife,
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

The plaintiff was diagnosed with NAION after using Viagra from
July 1998 to January 2003. Prior to this diagnosis, the
plaintiff did not suffer from any serious eye or vision
problems.

The plaintiff has incurred significant economic losses,
including lost pay and medical treatment expenses, which will
continue in the future.

The suit seeks damages from Pfizer for the defective design of
Viagra, and for the failure to warn consumers about the
potential risk of vision loss that is associated with the drug.

NAION is a vascular event that occurs when blood flow to the
small arteries that supply the optic nerve is decreased or
blocked.  The lack of blood supply to the optic nerve causes
damage to the nerve, which may result in permanent vision loss
in one or both eyes.  

NAION is usually permanent and often leads to legal blindness.
NAION usually develops without pain, and patients often awake
one morning with reduced vision or total vision loss in one or
both eyes.  The condition typically worsens over the next one to
two weeks.

Risk factors normally associated with NAION are age, diabetes,
high blood pressure, high cholesterol, smoking and other eye
problems.

The July 2005 FDA alerts about NAION were issued after the
agency received 43 reports of varying degrees of vision loss,
including blindness, among users of erectile dysfunction drugs.

The FDA stated that 38 of the 43 reports it received were from
Viagra patients, and that six patients had vision loss within 24
hours after using the drug.

After the FDA alerts were issued, Pfizer added a section to the
"Information for Patients" section of the Viagra label notifying
patients that a potential link between Viagra and NAION may
exist.

Over 30 million men worldwide have used an erectile dysfunction
drug since Viagra came onto the market in 1998.

For more details, contact Jason Mark, Esquire or Melanie H.
Muhlstock, Esquire, Parker & Waichman, LLP, Phone: 1-800-LAW-
INFO or 1-800-529-4636, E-mail: info@yourlawyer.com, Website:
http://www.yourlawyer.com.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: N.Y. Workers' Fund Pursue Individual Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The trustee of the New York State Common Retirement Fund filed a
$250 million securities fraud suit against Qwest Communications
International Inc. and its auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, reports
say.

New York Comptroller Alan Hevesi filed the suit on April 18 in
federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York after the state Common Retirement Fund
opted out of a $400 million settlement of a securities fraud
class action with Qwest earlier this month.  Mr. Hevesi's suit
alleged the Company's revenue and earnings were overstated
between March 31, 1999 and July 28, 2002.  

"We felt like we could obtain a better settlement on our own,"
said John Chartier, spokesman for Hevesi.  New York would have
only received $1.5 million of the $250 million in estimated
losses under the settlement, according to The Business Review.  
The New York State Teachers' Retirement System also opted out of
the deal.  

Hevesi is represented in this action by the law firm of Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP.

Qwest shareholders filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado against Qwest and 12 current and former
officers and directors, including several large pension funds,
after the Company restated in 2002 $2.2 billion in revenue for
the previous two years.  Qwest stock dropped from a high of $64
per share to below $2 after the revelation.  A fifth
consolidated amended class action complaint names Arthur
Andersen LLP as defendant in the securities suit.  A May hearing
has been set to review the proposed settlement.

Former Chief Executive Joseph Nacchio Nachio was indicted by a
federal grand jury in Denver in December on 42 counts of insider
trading, which he denied to have committed.

The Colorado suit, "New England Health, et al. v. Qwest Comm
Int'l Inc., et al. (1:01-cv-01451-REB-CBS)," is under Judge
Robert E. Blackburn.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
         80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
         mail: info@dyershuman.com  

     (2) Leo W. Desmond, 2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite
         204, West Palm Beach, FL, 33409, Phone: 561.712.8000,
         E-mail: stocklaw@bellsouth.net  

     (3) Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego,
         CA), 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San
         Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800.449.4900, E-mail:
         support@milberg.com


SL INDUSTRIES: Continues to Face N.J. Water Contamination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
SL Industries, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary, SL Surface
Technologies, Inc. (SurfTech) is a defendant in a purported
class action filed in Superior Court of New Jersey for Camden
County.

SurfTech once operated a chrome-plating facility in Pennsauken,
New Jersey (the SurfTech Site).  Substantially all of the
operating assets of SurfTech were sold in November 2003.  

The Company and SurfTech are currently two of approximately 39
defendants in this action.  The complaint alleges, among other
things, that the plaintiffs suffered personal injuries as a
result of consuming water distributed from the Puchack Wellfield
in Pennsauken, New Jersey (which supplies Camden, New Jersey).

The suit also alleges that SurfTech and other defendants
contaminated ground water through the disposal of hazardous
substances at industrial facilities in the area.


TACO CABANA: Tex. Restaurant Sued Over Alleged Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
An overtime suit filed against Texas restaurant chain Taco
Cabana last year is now seeking class action status, according
to San Antonio Express-News.

The suit was filed in October in Houston, Texas.  It claimed
that three of the Company's former workers are owed overtime and
back wages.  It also alleged that two of the ex-employees were
hired at Houston stores as manager trainees but were never given
managerial duties.  The plaintiffs are Sandy Badgett, Kenneth
Friels, and Kimberly Settlocker.

Taco Cabana is based in San Antonio.  It has more than more than
123 restaurants employing more than 4,000 people in markets
across Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico.

Taco Cabana is represented by Jeffrey J. Mayer of Freeborn &
Peters LLP -- http://www.freebornp-- in Chicago.  Representing  
the plaintiffs are: Leymon L. Solomon of Solomon Law Firm PC in
Houston and Joel Androphy of Berg & Androphy, on the Net:
http://www.berg-androphy.com.


UAL CORP: ESOP Committee Continues to Face Lawsuit in N.D. Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
UAL Corporation ESOP Committee is a defendant in a purported
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, styled, "Summers v. UAL Corporation ESOP,
et al."

On February 2003, certain participants in the UAL Corporation
Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) filed a class action
against the ESOP, the ESOP Committee and State Street Bank and
Trust Company.  

The suit is seeking monetary damages in a purported class action
that alleges that the ESOP Committee breached its fiduciary duty
by not selling UAL stock held by the ESOP commencing as of July
19, 2001.  

The ESOP Committee appointed State Street in September 2002 to
act as investment manager and fiduciary to manage the assets of
the ESOP itself.  

The parties entered into a stipulation under which the
plaintiffs agreed to proceed only against the $10 million in
insurance proceeds available from a policy held by UAL Corp. in
return for the Company and the ESOP Committee's agreement to
lift the automatic stay and allow the litigation to proceed.

As a part of this agreement, the ESOP Committee agreed to
withdraw the indemnification claims they filed against the
Company in the Chapter 11 case.  The District Court subsequently
entered an order certifying the class, which both State Street
and the ESOP Committee defendants appealed.

In August 2005, a proposed settlement was reached between the
plaintiffs and the ESOP Committee defendants.  The agreed upon
settlement amount is to be paid out of the remaining $10 million
insurance proceeds.

State Street is not a party to settlement and objected to the
settlement during the fairness hearing.   The District Court
approved the settlement agreement in October 2005.

State Street appealed that decision to the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals.  Also, the District Court granted State Street's
motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiffs have appealed that decision in turn.  All appeals
were consolidated and scheduled for oral argument on April 4,
2006.

State Street filed a pre-petition indemnification claim against
the Company under its Investment Manager Agreement as Trustee of
the ESOP at the beginning of the Chapter 11 case.  

On March 2, 2006, State Street filed an application in the
Chapter 11 case seeking allowance and payment of an
administrative claim of approximately $4.1 million to indemnify
State Street for defense costs incurred in the litigation.  A
hearing on State Street's application is scheduled for April 28,
2006.

The case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, is "Summers, et al. v. UAL Corporation
ESOP, et al., (Case No. 1:03-cv-01537)."  Presiding judge is
Samuel Der-Yeghiayan.  Representing the plaintiffs are,
Elizabeth A. Fegan of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP, 60 West
Randolph, #200, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 762-9235, Fax:
312-762-9286, E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com; and Kenneth A. Wexler of
Wexler Firm, LLP, 1 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2000, Chicago,
IL 60602, Phone: 312-346-2222, E-mail: kawexler@wexlerfirm.com.

Representing the defendants are, Randall J. Sunshine of Liner
Yankelevitz Sunshine & Regenstreif, LLP, 1100 Glendon Avenue,
14th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90024, Phone: (310) 500-3500, E-
mail: rsunshine@linerlaw.com; and Heather R.M. Becker of Laner
Muchin Dombrow Becker Levin & Tominberg, Ltd., 515 N. State St.,
Suite 2800, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone: (312) 494-5391, E-mail:
hbecker@lanermuchin.com.


UNITED LIBERTY: Settles Policyholders' Lawsuit in Ohio for $825T
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Liberty Life Insurance Co., which the Citizens Financial
Corp. acquired in 1998, reached a settlement for the purported
class action pending in Ohio Superior Court that was brought by
two policyholders in 2000.  

The complaint referred to a class of life insurance policies,
including related certificates of participation, that United
Liberty issued over a period of years ended around 1971 (known
as Five Star Policies).  

The suit alleged that the Company's dividend payments on these
policies from 1993 through 1999 were less than the amounts
required by the certificates of participation.  It did not
specify the amount of the alleged underpayment but implied a
maximum of about $850,000.  

The plaintiffs also alleged that the Company was liable to pay
punitive damages, also in an unspecified amount, for breach of
an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to the
plaintiffs in relation to the dividends.  

The action was certified as a class action on behalf of all
policyholders who were Ohio residents and whose policies were
still in force in 1993.  The Company denied the material
allegations of the Complaint and defended the action vigorously.

As a result of a provisional settlement agreement dated October
8, 2004, which applied to all holders of the Five Star Policies
wherever they reside, the Company recorded as of December 31,
2004 an obligation for future payments to the policyholders and
their attorneys totaling $825,000.  

The terms of the settlement agreement were subject to the
approval of the court in which the action was pending.  On
October 21, 2005, the Court entered a Final Order and Judgment.

The Final Order and Judgment approved the provisional Settlement
Agreement dated October 8, 2004, and became final and effective
on November 20, 2005.

The $825,000 obligation for future payments included in the
consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2005 and
2004, consists of:

     (1) up to $500,000 payable to all persons who owned Five
         Star Policies that were still in force in 1993,

     (2) $315,000 in attorneys' fees payable to counsel for the
         class and

     (3) a $10,000 incentive award payable to the lead
         plaintiffs for the class.

The $500,000 portion is payable in respect of dividend
obligations on the Five Star Policies from 1993 through 2000 and
is to be paid in a lump sum to those policy holders whose
policies are no longer in force and in three annual installments
to those policy holders whose policies are still in force at
their anniversary date.  

The Company made the first payments dated January 12, 2006 to
those whose policies were no longer in force, which totaled
$278,698.  The attorneys' fees and incentive award were also
paid on that date (prior to the Initial Payment Date set as
sixty days subsequent to the end of the appeal period).


UNITED STATES: Nuclear Weapons Lab Workers Oppose Transfer
----------------------------------------------------------  
A labor union filed a class action against the transfer of the
Los Alamos National Laboratory operations to another management
in June, Associated Press reports.

The University Professional and Technical Employees Union and
four lab workers filed the suit in California Superior Court
alleging the transfer of the laboratory's functions from the
management of the University of California to the Los Alamos
National Security (LANS) is unlawful.  It also claimed employees
are not provided with sufficient information by the university
and LANS to make sound decisions.  The university operates the
nuclear weapons laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy.  
LANS is a new organization headed by the university and Bechtel
Corp.

The plaintiffs want the court to stop the transfer.  At the
center of the argument is the lab employees' pension.  Workers,
who were guaranteed their jobs with the new contractor, are
offered to either roll their UC pensions into a new defined-
benefit retirement plan, or stay with the existing plan as
inactive members and join a contribution savings retirement plan
under the new contractor.  The workers have until May 15 to
decide.

Union members are wary of the transfer.  Arthur Krantz, the
attorney representing union members, suggested a widely accepted
practice known as 'reciprocity' is more welcome.  Under it, the
university and LANS will split responsibility for an employee's
retirement benefits based on how many years of service the
worker logged with each contractor.



                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars





* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

April 27-28, 2006
RUN-OFF AND COMMUTATIONS
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com

April 27-28, 2006
BAD FAITH AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
American Conference Institute
San Francisco
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com

May 1-2, 2006
INSURANCE/REINSURANCE COMPANY RUN-OFF CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton (Arlington St.) Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

May 8-9, 2006
VIOXX LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Amelia Island, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

May 8-9, 2006
HURRICANE AND NATURAL DISASTER CONFERENCE SERIES
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Amelia Island, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

May 8-9, 2006
CATASTROPHIC LOSS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Amelia Island, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

May 18, 2006
MEALEY'S EMAIL DISCOVERY & RETENTION POLICIES CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

May 25-26, 2006
INSURANCE COVERAGE 2006: CLAIM TRENDS & LITIGATION
Practising Law Institute
New York
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

June 5-6, 2006
ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton (Arlington St.) Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

June 8-9, 2006
RETAIL & HOSPITALITY LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Intercontintental Buckhead, Atlanta
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

June 8-9, 2006
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

June 12-13, 2006
BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Marina del Rey
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  
      
June 22-23, 2006
PACIFIC NORTHWEST CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Hotel Monaco, Seattle
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

July 19-20, 2006
LITIGATION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

September 28-30, 2006
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 16-17, 2006
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT
SECURITIES, TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE
ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 30-December 1, 2006
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614



* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

April 01-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

April 01-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

April 01-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

April 01-30, 2006
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

April 01-30, 2006
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

April 01-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

April 01-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

May 4, 2006
TOUGH CASES IN TOUGH PLACES TELECONFERENCE: STRATEGIES IN
PLAINTIFF FRIENDLY JURISDICTIONS
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 16, 2006
WORKING WITH EXPERTS IN A TOXIC TORT CASE TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 18, 2006
ETHICS TELECONFERENCE: THE CLASSIFICATION OF CLIENT EXPENSES IN
MASS TORTS--CASE SPECIFIC VS. COMMON BENEFIT EXPENSES
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 23, 2006
EMERGING TRENDS IN BAD FAITH LITIGATION TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 6, 2006
PREEMPTION TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 15, 2006
ARE YOU COVERED - WHAT EVERY IN-HOUSE LAWYER NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT
INSURANCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 20, 2006
FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 13, 2006
TEFLON LITIGATION TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

_______________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.



                   New Securities Fraud Cases


GMH COMMUNITIES: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
GMH Communities Trust between May 5, 2005 and March 10, 2006,
(NYSE:GCT), including those individuals who purchased their
shares pursuant to the Company's September 2005 secondary
offering.

Interested parties who wish to serve as lead plaintiff may move
the court no later than June 5, 2006.

The complaint charges GMH Communities Trust and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933.

GMH provides housing to college and university students residing
off campus and to members of the U.S. military and their
families.

In addition, through its real estate investment trust
subsidiaries, the Company provides development, construction,
renovation, and management services for military housing
privatization projects and property management services to
third-party owners of student housing properties, including
colleges, universities, and other private owners, as well as
certain noncustomary services for student housing properties.

The complaint alleges that, during the class period, defendants
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial results, business and
prospects, which caused the Company's shares to trade at
artificially inflated levels and allowed defendants to complete
a secondary offering of the Company's shares in September 2005.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known to
defendants based upon their access to and/or review of internal
GMH corporate data during the class period, include:

     (1) that the Company lacked the requisite internal controls
         necessary to make its financial reporting accurate;

     (2) that the Company had no reasonable basis for its
         projections for  fiscal 2004 and 2005 (as well as
         interim periods);

     (3) that the Company's financial results were the product
         of false accounting  entries made to inflate the
         Company's results and stock price; and

     (4) that, as a result, the Company's reported financial
         results were misleading and in violation of Generally
         Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP").

In response to the revelations of defendants' accounting
shenanigans and GMH's earnings shortfalls, on March 13, 2006,
the Company's market value plummeted by more than 25%, on volume
of more than 2.8 million shares.

Then, on March 17, 2006, the Company revealed that it would not
file its annual report until March 31, 2006.

As the market continued to digest the news, the Company's shares
continued to decline, falling below $11 per share by March 21,
2006.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, David A. Rosenfeld
and William Lerach of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins, LLP, Phone: (800) 449-4900, E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com.


H&R BLOCK: Scott+Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott filed a securities class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
securities purchasers of H&R Block, Inc. during the period
February 24, 2004 through March 14, 2006, inclusive, seeking
remedies for defendants' alleged prior false and misleading
statements.

H&R Block Inc. and certain of its insiders are accused of
violating the U.S. federal securities laws, following the
Company's February 23, 2006 announcement in its preliminary
third quarter earnings report that it would take an after-tax
charge of $31.7 million in restating its prior earnings reports
for fiscal years 2004 through 2006.

H&R Block released its restated earnings, on April 7, taking a
$30.5 million reduction to earnings in restating its net income
for periods including all of fiscal 2004 and 2005 and the first
half of fiscal 2006.

Also on April 7, the Company filed its delayed financial report
for the third quarter of fiscal 2006, which ended Jan. 31.
Third-quarter earnings were $12.1 million, down 87% from
restated earnings of $93.7 million, for the same quarter a year
earlier.

The official third-quarter earnings report included an $11.9
million after tax charge that the Company added to its
litigation reserves as well as a $3.4 million charge for the
restatements of periods before May 1, 2003, and a $1.4 million
adjustment to the Company's tax rate.

In a separate filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 6, H&R Block said it is reviewing its
disclosure controls and procedures as a result of the earnings
restatements.

Interested parties who wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the
action are advised to move the court no later than May 16, 2006.

For further details, contact David R. Scott of Scott+Scott, LLC,
Phone: (800) 404-7770), E-mail: drscott@scott-scott.com, Web
site: http://www.scott-scott.com.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Scott+Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott filed a complaint against Micron Technology, Inc.
and insiders on April 13, 2006, on behalf of MU securities
purchasers from February 24, 2001, through February 13, 2003,
inclusive, for securities law violations.

Defendant Micron manufactures and markets semiconductor devices
worldwide, including a series of dynamic random access memory
(DRAM) products, which provide data storage and retrieval in
various electronic applications, such as personal computers,
mobile phones, flash memory cards and MP3 players.

According to the complaint, unbeknownst to investors, the
Company engaged in unlawful anti-competitive practices targeting
the market for DRAM products during the class period.

The complaint explains that during the class period, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) targeted Micron in a broad
investigation of alleged anti-competitive practices among
industry manufacturers.

Yet instead of disclosing the Company's illegal, anti-
competitive practices to the market, defendants concealed that
they had conspired unlawfully with other manufacturers to engage
in "price-fixing" intended to suppress competition and to
inflate the price of the Company's DRAM products.

Thus, according to the complaint, defendants' statements during
the class period regarding the Company's reported financial
results were false and misleading and served to artificially
inflate Micron's stock price.

As the DOJ investigation ran its course, the Company was forced
to unwind its unlawful anti-competitive practices, which placed
pressure on the Company's revenues and earnings and resulted in
a steep correction in the price of the stock.

Consequently, Micron's stock price declined by more than $35.00
or 79.5% during the class period.


Interested parties who wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the
action may seek appointment from the court no later than April
25, 2006.

For more details, contact David R. Scott of Scott+Scott, LLC,
Phone: (800) 404-7770 or (860) 537-5537, E-mail: drscott@scott-
scott.com.


NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in Utah
---------------------------------------------------------------
Smith & Smith, LLP, filed on behalf of shareholders who
purchased securities of Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc. during
October 19, 2004 through March 24, 2006, inclusive.

The shareholder lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Utah.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period
concerning the Company's operations and financial performance,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Nature's Sunshine
Products securities.

Interested parties have until June 2, 2006 in which to move for
lead plaintiff status.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In response to this announcement, shares of the Company's stock
fell $0.36 per share, or almost 13%, to close at $2.50 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

During the next three trading days, as the market digested the
news, shares of the Company's stock continued to fall, reaching
as low as $1.41 per share on March 21, 2006, a more than 50%
decline.

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

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

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

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

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

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


PHH CORP: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.J.
------------------------------------------------------------
Smith & Smith, LLP, filed a securities class action on behalf of
shareholders who purchased securities of PHH Corporation during
May 12, 2005 through March 1, 2006, inclusive.  

The shareholder lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period
concerning the Company's financial performance, thereby
artificially inflating the price of PHH securities.

Interested parties have until May 16, 2006 in which to move for
lead plaintiff status.

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


PIXELPLUS CO: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Pixelplus
Co., Ltd. (Nasdaq: PXPL).

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 includes all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired American Depositary Shares of Pixelplus Co., Inc., or
those individuals who purchased shares in the Company's Initial
Public Offering from December 21, 2005 through April 11, 2006.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Friday, June
16, 2006, to serve as a lead plaintiff for the class.

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


PIXELPLUS CO: Rosen Law Firm Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm filed a complaint on behalf of all investors
purchasing the American Depository Shares of Pixelplus Co. Ltd.
from December 21, 2005 through April 11, 2006, including
purchasers in the Company's IPO.

The complaint alleges that Pixelplus and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing
material misrepresentations to the market and is the result of
an investigation by the Rosen Law Firm.

Since the Rosen Law Firm filed this class action complaint,
other law firms have issued press releases announcing the
Pixelplus class action brought by the Rosen Law Firm and
encouraging shareholders to consider their legal options.

Interested parties who wish to serve as lead plaintiff are
advised to move the court no later than 60 days from April 17,
2006.

For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esquire or Phillip
Kim, Esquire of The Rosen Law Firm P.A., Phone: (212) 686-1060
or (866) 767-3653, toll-free, Fax: (212) 202-3827, Email:
lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com, Web site:
http://www.rosenlegal.com.


SEA CONTAINERS: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a class
action against Sea Containers Ltd. (NYSE: SCR-A), accusing the
Company of securities law violations.  Berman DeValerio filed
the class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The complaint, filed as 06-CV1909, seeks damages for violations
of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who
acquired SCL securities from March 15, 2004 through and
including March 23, 2006.

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

Sea Containers, Ltd. provides passenger and freight transport
and leases marine containers.

According to the plaintiff's complaint, the defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements concerning Sea
Containers financial results that inflated the Company's stock
price during the class period.

In particular, the defendants:

     (1) failed to timely record $500 million in impairments to
         the value of certain assets in Sea Containers' ferry
         and container business segments;

     (2) overstated the Company's earnings during the class
         period; and

     (3) overstated the gain on the sale of Sea Container's
         equity interest in Orient-ExpressHotels Ltd.

The truth emerged March 24, 2006, when Sea Containers disclosed
that it would shutter its ferry business, record a $500 million
impairment of certain assets and restate its 2005 interim
financial results.

Sea Containers further disclosed that the substantial write-down
of its assets placed the Company in violation of its debt
covenants with certain lenders.

The market reacted swiftly, sending the price of Sea Container's
common stock down by more than 38%, from a closing price of
$12.06 per share on March 23, 2006, to $7.45 per share at the
close of trading on March 24, 2006.

For more details, contact Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. or Joseph C.
Merschman, Esq., Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo,
One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: (800) 516-9926, E-
mail: law@bermanesq.com, Web site: http://www.bermanesq.com.


ST JUDE: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in Minn.
------------------------------------------------------------    
Federman & Sherwood filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota against St. Jude Medical,
Inc. (NYSE: STJ).

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 January 25, 2006 through April 4, 2006.

Class members are advised to move the court no later than
Friday, June 9, 2006, to serve as a lead plaintiff for the
Class.

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



                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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