CAR_Public/060502.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, May 2, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 86

                            Headlines

ACU-GEN BIOLAB: Mass. Lawsuit Over Baby Gender Test Building Up
ALABAMA: Prison Officials Told to Solve County Jail Overcrowding
ARKANSAS OKLAHOMA: Denies Rate Hike Suit Talks with Commission
AT&T CORP: U.S. Wants Lawsuit Dismissed to Protect Secret Data
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Use of Fiduciary Accounts Assets

BROOKDALE SENIOR: Faces Fiduciary Suit in Del. Over Ventas Sale
CALIFORNIA: County Medical Center Faces Suit Over Payroll System
CAP ROCK: Predecessor's Members Sue in Texas Over Conversion
CATALYST PAPER: Facing Lawsuit Over Price-Fixing Allegations
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders' Lawsuits Continue in Del.

COOPERSURGICAL INC: Employees File Age Bias Suit in Conn. Court
EXPEDIA INC: Facing Lawsuits Over Unpaid Hotel Occupancy Taxes
FIRST ADVANTAGE: Units Face Calif., N.Y. Tenant Reports Lawsuits
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Trial on Consumer Liability Suit Deal Delayed
HOTELS.COM: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Tex. Stock Suit

H&R BLOCK: Wins Initial Approval for $39M RALs Suit Settlement
H&R BLOCK: Ill. Woman Files Suit Over Losses in Retirement Plan
H&R BLOCK: Faces Suits Over Peace-of-Mind Program in Ill., Tex.
ILLINOIS: Hearing on County Juvenile Center Lawsuit Set May 3
JP MORGAN: Law Firm Tells IPO Claimants to Explore Legal Options

MERISANT CO: Faces Consumer Suit in Ill. Over Equal Sugar Lite
NBO INC: Ill. Court Approves Consumer Lawsuit Over Gift Cards
NYSE GROUP: N.Y. Court Dismisses Lawsuit Over Archipelago Merger
NYSE GROUP: N.Y. Court Dismisses Specialists Securities Lawsuit
PENNSYLVANIA: Scranton Police Files Lawsuit Over Pension Fund

SAXON CAPITAL: Continues to Face Borrowers' Lawsuit in Ohio
SAXON CAPITAL: Continues to Face Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in Ill.
SAXON CAPITAL: Continues to Face FCRA Violations Suit in Ill.
SAXON CAPITAL: La. Court Grants Arbitration Motion in Loan Cases
STARWOOD HOTELS: Resort Fee Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 8

SWEDEN: On-line Alcoholic Drink Importers Sue Over Confiscations
TEVIS OIL: Gasoline Additive Groundwater Pollution Detected Anew
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Court Keeps Siliconix Investors' Lawsuit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICA SERVICE: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Next Month
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Stull, Stull Files Stock Lawsuit in N.Y.
LIPMAN ELECTRONIC: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Berman DeValerio Files Stock Suit in Wis.
MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Milberg Weiss Files Stock Lawsuit in Wis.

NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Cohen Milstein Lodges Stock Lawsuit in Utah
NEWPARK RESOURCES: Murray Frank Files Securities Suit in La.
NEWPARK RESOURCES: Schatz Nobel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in La.
PIXELPLUS CO: West End Keeps KGS to Prosecute Securities Lawsuit


                            *********


ACU-GEN BIOLAB: Mass. Lawsuit Over Baby Gender Test Building Up
---------------------------------------------------------------
The suit over Acu-Gen Biolab Inc.'s Baby Gender Monitor cites
113 customers who were allegedly deceived by false and
misleading claims of the Company, according to NBC5.com.  The
suit is filed against the Massachusetts Company and its
exclusive retailer, Illinois-based PregnancyStore.com.

Forty people who purchased the baby gender test filed a suit
against the Company in Massachusetts about two months ago.  The
defendants claim Acu's Baby Gender Mentor, which promised to
determine the sex of a baby as early as five weeks of pregnancy,
are claiming incorrect results.  They also alleged the Company
reneged on its promise of a 200% refund should the test fail.  
According to the report, the Company changed the terms of the
refund policy by stipulating additional requirements (Class
Action Reporter, March 1, 2006).     

Acu-Gen advertised the kit as being able to detect the gender of  
a fetus using just a few drops of the mother's blood with 99.9%
accuracy.  The test, which hit the market last year, costs $275.

New Jersey law firm Gainey & McKenna is representing the
plaintiffs.  Contact information for Gainey & McKenna, Phone:  
(201) 689-9000; Fax: (201) 689-9969; E-mail:  
info@gaineyandmckenna.com.


ALABAMA: Prison Officials Told to Solve County Jail Overcrowding
----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge William Shashy said at a contempt hearing that
prison officials were slow in moving state inmates from county
jails into prisons.  

Judge Shashy told Alabama Corrections Commissioner Richard Allen
that he would not dismiss a class action against his department
until a 2002 court order requiring state inmates to be moved
from county jails to state prisons within 30 days is being
followed, the Montgomery Advertiser reports.

The suit was filed in 1992 on behalf of the state's 67 counties
concerned of overcrowding at county jails.  The counties are
represented by lawyer Ken Webb.  

Recently, nearly 500 state inmates have been in county jails
more than 30 days, down from more than 600 two months ago, the
report said.  Prison officials blame a lack of funds and space
for the delay.   


ARKANSAS OKLAHOMA: Denies Rate Hike Suit Talks with Commission
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas Oklahoma Gas denied it had improper ex parte contacts
with the Arkansas Public Service Commission in relation to a
case over a rate increase the utility implemented in December,
the Times Record reports.

The utility's denial came in a motion filed on April 18 with the
Commission.  It was in response to allegations by a Fort Smith
lawyer's that the utility's attorneys and attorneys and staff
members of the commission exchanged documents and advice
concerning the class action while the suit was pending.  Mr.
Meadors want the commission to disqualify itself from hearing
the suit claiming the regulatory body has shown bias and had
unlawful communication with Arkansas Oklahoma Gas.

Brian Meadors filed a class action in Sebastian County Court on
Jan. 11 alleging the utility overcharged customers by applying
the increase on some bills for November usage when the increase
was authorized for consumption only on or after Dec. 1.  Circuit
Judge James Marschewski dismissed the suit on April 7 for lack
of jurisdiction.

To prove his allegations of improper ex parte or one-sided
contacts between the utility and the commission, Mr. Meadors
filed copies of e-mails of the supposed communications.  But
Arkankas Oklahoma Gas lawyer Lawrence Chisenhall Jr. countered
that the e-mails are between the utility and the commission's
staff members, not the commissioners, which is allowed under
state law.  Mr. Chisenhall denied the utility made any contact
with the commissioners.

Mr. Meadors filed the class action on behalf of Charlotte Scott,
Sean Layman, Ozark Warehouses, doing business as Corrugated
Specialties, Oaklawn Packaging, Terry Johnson, Theodore Skokos
and "all others similarly situated."  The suit asked for a
refund for all overcharged customers.

For more information, contact:

     (1) Mr. Meadors of Pryor, Robertson & Barry, PLLC, 315
         North 7th Street, P.O. Drawer 848, Fort Smith, Arkansas  
         72902-0848 (Sebastian Co.), Phone: 479-782-8813, 479-
         782-7911, Fax: 479-785-0254; and/or

     (2) Lawrence E. Chisenhall, Jr. of Chisenhall, Nestrud &
         Julian, P.A., 400 West Capitol, Suite 2840, Little
         Rock, Arkansas 72201 (Pulaski Co.), Phone: 501-372-
         5800, Telecopier: 501-372-4941.


AT&T CORP: U.S. Wants Lawsuit Dismissed to Protect Secret Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several motions were recently filed seeking the dismissal of a
class action filed over allegations of wiretapping by AT&T
Corp., according to the New York Times.

The U.S. government asked a federal court to discontinue the
suit on fears military and state secrets could be disclosed in
the process, while AT&T itself filed two motions to dismiss.

The suit was filed by civil liberties group Electronic Frontier
Foundation in February.  It alleged the Company illegally
collaborated with the National Security Agency in a vast
surveillance program.  The allegations were substantiated by
testimonies of Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, who says
Internet data passing through an AT&T switching center in San
Francisco is being diverted to a secret room.

The government's filing said the motion to dismiss should not be
construed as either a confirmation or a denial of any of the
claims made by the civil liberties group about government
surveillance activities.  However, the document also revealed
that Pres. Bush had authorized the security agency to intercept
communications into and out of the U.S. by people linked to Al
Qaeda and related organizations after the Sept. 11, 2001
terrorists attacks.  The agency is prohibited from intercepting
domestic telephone and digital communications unless given a
warrant from a special intelligence court.

The court plans to hear the various motions on May 17, 2006,
according to the report.

The EFF is accusing the Company, which was recently acquired by
the new AT&T, Inc., formerly known as SBC Communications, of
violating the law and the privacy of its customers by
collaborating with the NSA in its massive and illegal program to
wiretap and data-mine Americans' communications.

In addition suit alleges that the Company continues to assist
the government in its secret surveillance of millions of
Americans.  EFF, on behalf of a nationwide class of AT&T
customers, is suing to stop this illegal conduct and hold the
Company responsible for its illegal collaboration in the
government's domestic spying program, which violates the law and  
damaged the fundamental freedoms of the American public.

The suit is "Hepting, et al. v. AT&T Corp., et al., case no.  
3:06-cv-00672-VRW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Northern District of California under Judge Vaughn R. Walker.   
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Cindy Ann Cohn of Electronic Frontier Foundation, 454  
         Shotwell Street, San Francisco, CA 94110, Phone: 415-
         436-9333 x 108, Fax: (415) 436-9993, E-mail:
         cindy@eff.org; and  

     (2) Jeff D. Friedman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
         & Robbins, LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San  
         Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax: 415-288-
         4534, E-mail: JFriedman@lerachlaw.com.  

Representing the defendant are: Bruce A. Ericson and Jacob R.  
Sorensen of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, 50 Fremont  
St., Post Office Box 7880, San Francisco, CA 94120-7880, Phone:  
(415) 983-1000, Fax: (415) 983-1200, E-mail:  
bruce.ericson@pillsburylaw.com and  
jake.sorensen@pillsburylaw.com.   

For more details, visit, http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/.    


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Use of Fiduciary Accounts Assets
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eight beneficiaries of fiduciary accounts presently or formally
overseen by Bank of America, N.A. filed a complaint in federal
court against:

     -- Bank of America,
     -- its parent, Bank of America Corporation, and
     -- various subsidiaries and affiliates

arising out of the Bank's investment of assets held in the
Bank's fiduciary accounts in its proprietary mutual funds, the
Nations Funds, now named the Columbia Funds.

Also named as defendants in the suit are: Columbia Funds Series
Trust (formerly known as Nations Funds Trust), Columbia
Management Advisors, LLC, Columbia Management Distributors, Inc.
and Banc of America Investment Services, Inc.

The case caption is Siepel v. Bank of America, N.A. (05-CV: 2393
(E.D.Mo.).  A copy of the complaint may be obtained from the
court or by contacting plaintiffs' principal counsel, Richard D.
Greenfield, Esq., e-mail: whitehatrdg@earthlink.net.

The claims in the complaint are brought under and pursuant to
Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933; Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the SEC; the Investment Company Act of 1940, as
well as state and common law.

The class in this litigation consists of all beneficiaries,
owners, beneficial owners, or principals of trusts, accounts or
other entities (including individual retirement account and
investment management accounts, employee benefit plans and
guardianships) for which the Bank or any of its parents,
subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, successors or assigns
acted as a trustee, fiduciary or agent and that were directly or
indirectly invested in Nations Funds Mutual Funds at any time
from September 8, 1998 to the present.

The class has already been stipulated to by each of the
defendants, their affiliates and others in connection with the
settlement of certain related claims against them in "In re
Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, MDL-1586, where it was
designated as a "Fiduciary Sub-Class."  Those members of the
class who directly or indirectly invested in Nations Funds by
means of Conversions of interests in Common Trust Funds into
shares of Nations Funds are referred to as the "Conversions Sub-
Class."  

Other members of the class who, through their fiduciary accounts
at the Bank purchased shares of Nations Funds within the
applicable limitations period are referred to as the "Federal
Securities Law Sub-Class."

The plaintiffs claim that the Bank improperly used assets in its
fiduciary accounts to "bulk up" the Nations Funds by buying
shares of the various Nations Funds for these accounts despite
the availability of other mutual funds, such as those offered by
the Vanguard Group or Fidelity Investments which were well-
managed, had good reputations and had lower expenses than the
Nations Funds.

The complaint alleges that the Bank distributed various Nations
Funds prospectuses that misrepresented material facts and/or
omitted material facts as to, among others, the conflicts of
interest between and among the other defendants, the expenses
that would be absorbed by the beneficiaries of the affected
fiduciary accounts and the failure of the Nations Funds Trust,
the entity which issued the Nations Funds shares, to seek
advisory and administrative services in the best interests of
the holders of Nations Funds shares.

Interested parties may request to be appointed as lead plaintiff
by the court by June 27, 2006.

For more details, contact Richard D. Greenfield, Greenfield &
Goodman, LLC, 7426 Tour Drive, Easton, MD 21601, Phone: (410)
745-4149, E-mail: whitehatrdg@earthlink.net.  

Also, contact Steven M. Hamburg, Summers, Compton, Wells &
Hamburg, 8909 Ladue Rd., St. Louis, MO 63124, Phione:(314) 991-
4999 E-mail: Shamburg@scwh.com.


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Faces Fiduciary Suit in Del. Over Ventas Sale
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brookdale Senior Living, Inc. is defendant in a putative class
action by certain limited partners in the Court of Chancery for
the State of Delaware.  The suit is "Edith Zimmerman et al. v.
GFB-AS Investors, LLC and Brookdale Living Communities, Inc."

Filed on March 22, 2006, names as defendants Brookdale Living
Communities, Inc. (BLCI) and GFB-AS Investors, LLC (GFB-AS).  It
alleges a claim for breach of fiduciary duty arising out of the
sale of facilities indirectly owned by the investing
partnerships to Ventas Realty, L.P., and the subsequent lease of
those facilities by Ventas to subsidiaries of BLCI.

The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, an accounting, damages
in an unspecified amount, and disgorgement of unspecified
amounts by which the defendants were allegedly unjustly
enriched.  


CALIFORNIA: County Medical Center Faces Suit Over Payroll System
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Alameda County Medical Center is facing a class action from
a former manager who earlier raised complains against the
center's allegedly faulty payroll system, a report by Berkeley
Daily Planet says.

Jackie Leo, the sole plaintiff in the suit filed in California
Superior Court in Oakland, was terminated as medical services
manager on March 10.  In his complaint, Ms. Leo said the
center's payroll system regularly malfunctioned, and does not
credit workers with the full pay turned in by supervisors.  

The system was so "wildly, incomprehensibly, and unconscionably
inaccurate that employees were paid for so little time in
proportion to the time they actually worked that those
employees' hourly rates fell below the minimum wage," her
complaint states.  The center has filed an answer to the
complaint, according to the report.

Medical center officials have already publicly admitted problems
with the computerized payroll system, and are now trying to
correct the glitches.  

The center is also facing complaints from two other former
workers who voiced out problems at the center.  Former ACMC
Trustee Gwen Rowe-Lee Sykes was removed from office by a Board
of Trustees vote on March 14.  Ms. Sykes alleged she was removed
after raising serious questions about the fiscal management of
the medical center.  She has filed a legal action against the
center.

ACMC Human Resources Director, Bill Maddox, was placed on
administrative leave on March 3.  The reason for his suspension
is still unclear, the report suggests.  Oakland-based lawyer Hab
Siam is representing all three.

The publicly-financed Medical Center operates several facilities
in Alameda County, including Highland Hospital in Oakland and
Fairmount Hospital and the John George Psychiatric Pavilion in
San Leandro.


CAP ROCK: Predecessor's Members Sue in Texas Over Conversion
------------------------------------------------------------
Cap Rock Energy Corp. is defendant in a purported class action
in the District Court of Upton County, Texas, 112th Judicial
District, over the Company's conversion from an electric
cooperative to a stockholder-owned corporation.

The suit, which was filed by three former members of the
Company's predecessor, Cap Rock Electric Cooperative, Inc., is
captioned, "Billy Eggemeyer, Wilbert Braden, Randy Braden,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Cap Rock Energy Corporation and NewCorp Resources Electric
Cooperative, Inc., Cause No. 05-08-U3896-ANC."  

The plaintiffs are alleging fraud and other claims associated
with the Company's conversion.  They are seeking to certify the
suit as a class action.  

The Company believes the suit is merit less, that it has a good
legal defense to the claims, and that the claims are barred by
the applicable statute of limitations, laches and res judicata.


CATALYST PAPER: Facing Lawsuit Over Price-Fixing Allegations
------------------------------------------------------------
Catalyst Paper said at its first-quarter financial report that
it and certain of its affiliates have been named, together with
a number of other paper producers, in U.S. class actions
alleging an ongoing conspiracy to fix prices of magazine and
other publication papers.  These suits were triggered by a
European Commission investigation into possible anti-competitive
practices by certain European paper producers.

Catalyst Paper -- http://www.catalystpaper.com/-- is a leading  
producer of mechanical printing papers in North America.  The
Company also produces market kraft pulp and owns Western
Canada's largest paper recycling facility.  With five mills
employing 3,800 people at sites within a 160-kilometer radius on
the south coast of British Columbia, Catalyst has a combined
annual capacity of 2.4 million tons of product.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders' Lawsuits Continue in Del.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications, Inc., a subsidiary of Atlantic Broadband
Finance, LLC, is defendant in several purported stockholder
class actions in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

Initially, six lawsuits were filed against the Company and
certain of its then current directors and officers (the Delaware
Class Actions).

The suits were filed after the filing of a Schedule 13D
amendment by Paul G. Allen, the controlling shareholder of the
Company, indicating that he was exploring a number of possible
alternatives with respect to restructuring or expanding his
ownership interest in the Company.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs speculated that Mr.
Allen might have been contemplating an unfair bid for shares of
the Company or some other sort of going private transaction on
unfair terms and generally alleged that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by participating in or acquiescing to
such a transaction.

The lawsuits were brought on behalf of Charter's securities
holders as of July 29, 2002, and seek unspecified damages and
possible injunctive relief.  The Delaware Class Actions are
substantively identical.  

No such transaction by Mr. Allen has been presented. Orders of
dismissal without prejudice were entered in each of the Delaware
Class Actions.


COOPERSURGICAL INC: Employees File Age Bias Suit in Conn. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-one former employees of CooperSurgical Inc. charged the
Company with age discrimination in federal court in the District
of Connecticut in connection with their terminations after the
firm's acquisition of Milex Products, Inc. in February 2004.

Plaintiffs have retained the firms of Bernstein Litowitz Berger
& Grossmann LLP, Green & Savits, LLC, and Outten & Golden LLP to
represent them in this action.  CooperSurgical is a wholly owned
subsidiary of The Cooper Companies, Inc.

The complaint alleges that CooperSurgical sales employees 40
years old and older were targeted for lay-off because of their
ages, and that most, if not all, of the employees were replaced
by younger persons hired from outside the Company.  Among other
relief, plaintiffs seek back pay and liquidated damages for
violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA),
and an injunction to prevent CooperSurgical from discriminating
in the future.

"CooperSurgical apparently held the view that these older
salespeople did not fit its corporate image as a young,
'dynamic' organization," said Darnley Stewart, a partner at
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, co-counsel for the
plaintiffs.  "That's not good business; it's discrimination."

Jon Green, partner at Green & Savits, LLC, co-lead counsel for
the plaintiffs, added that, "The plaintiffs here worked for
years at Milex and CooperSurgical, and were meeting and in many
instances exceeding their sales goals.  CooperSurgical claims it
fired them as part of a 'corporate reorganization.'  What it
was, however, was a deliberate campaign to rid the Company of
its older employees in violation of the ADEA."

The complaint has been filed as a "collective action" pursuant
to the ADEA by the 21 named plaintiffs on behalf of themselves
and all employees age 40 and older who were terminated on
account of their age following CooperSurgical's acquisition of
Milex in February 2004.  The complaint can be found on the Web
sites of both Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
http://www.blbglaw.com,and Green & Savits,  
http://www.greensavits.com.   

For more details, contact Darnley D. Stewart, Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP, Phone: (212) 554-1400, E-mail:
darnley@blbglaw.com.  

Also, contact: Jon W. Green, Green & Savits, LLC, Phone: 973-
695-7777, E-mail: jgreen@greensavits.com, Web site:
http://www.blbglaw.comor http://www.greensavits.com.  


EXPEDIA INC: Facing Lawsuits Over Unpaid Hotel Occupancy Taxes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc., along with several of its affiliates and various
other Internet travel companies are defendants in several
purported state court and federal class actions for failing to
pay a city's hotel occupancy taxes as required by municipal
ordinance.  The suits are:

Canales Litigation

On May 6, 2003, a complaint, "Mary Canales, et al. v.
Hotels.com, L.P., No. DC-03-162," was filed in District Court,
229th Judicial District, Duval County, Texas.

As amended, the suit alleges that Hotels.com charges customers
"taxes" that exceed the amount required by or paid to the
applicable taxing authorities and that Hotels.com charges
customers "fees" that do not correspond to any specific services
provided.  

The suit seeks restitution of, disgorgement of, and the
imposition of a constructive trust upon all "excess" occupancy
taxes allegedly collected by Hotels.com.

On April 29, 2005, the court issued an order granting the
plaintiff's motion for class certification.  On February 1,
2006, the court of appeals reversed the holding certifying the
class and remanded the case to the trial court.


Rush Litigation

On February 17, 2005, a purported class action was filed in
California state court against a number of Internet travel
companies, including the Company, Hotels.com, Priceline.com and
Orbitz, styled, "Ronald Bush et al. v. CheapTickets, Inc., et
al., No. BC329021," which was filed in the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants are improperly
charging and/or failing to pay hotel occupancy taxes and
engaging in other deceptive practices in charging customers for
taxes and fees.  

The complaint seeks certification of a statewide class of all
California residents who were assessed a charge for "taxes/fees"
when booking rooms through the defendants and alleges violation
of Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code
and common-law conversion.

The complaint seeks the imposition of a constructive trust on
monies received from the plaintiff class, as well as damages in
an unspecified amount, disgorgement, restitution and injunctive
relief.

On July 1, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding
claims pursuant to California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
Civil Code Section 1750 et seq., and claims for breach of
contract and the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.

On December 2, 2005, the court ordered limited discovery and
ordered that motions challenging the amended complaint would be
coordinated with any similar motions filed in the City of Los
Angeles action.

City of Los Angeles Litigation

On December 30, 2004, the city of Los Angeles filed a purported
class action in California state court against a number of
Internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, the Company and
Hotwire, styled, "City of Los Angeles, California, on Behalf of
Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Hotels.com, L.P., et
al., No. BC326693," which was filed in the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County.

The complaint alleges that the defendants are improperly
charging and/or failing to pay hotel occupancy taxes.  The
complaint seeks certification of a statewide class of all
California cities and counties that have enacted uniform
transient occupancy-tax ordinances effective on or after
December 30, 1990.

The complaint alleges violation of those ordinances, violation
of section 17200 of the California Business and Professions
Code, and common-law conversion.  It seeks a declaratory
judgment that the defendants are subject to hotel occupancy
taxes on the hotel rate charged to consumers and imposition of a
constructive trust on all monies owed by the defendants to the
government, as well as disgorgement, restitution, interest and
penalties.

On September 26, 2005, the court sustained a demurrer on the
basis of misjoinder and granted plaintiff leave to amend its
complaint.  On February 8, 2006, the city of Los Angeles filed a
second amended complaint.

City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Litigation

On July 12, 2005, the city of Philadelphia filed an action in
Pennsylvania state court against a number of Internet travel
companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and the Company,
styled, "City of Philadelphia v. Hotels.com, et al., No.
000860," which was filed in the Court of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the city hotel occupancy taxes as required by municipal
ordinance.  It purports to assert claims for violation of that
ordinance, common-law conversion, imposition of a constructive
trust, and an accounting. It also seeks damages in an
unspecified amount, restitution and disgorgement.

On November 18, 2005, the city of Philadelphia filed an amended
complaint.  The case has been assigned a trial date of January
7, 2008.

City of Bellingham, Washington Litigation

On September 20, 2005, the city of Bellingham, Washington filed
a purported statewide class action in state court against a
number of Internet travel companies, including Hotels.com,
Hotwire and the Company, styled, "City of Bellingham,
individually and on behalf of other entities similarly situated
v. Hotels.com LP, et al., No. 05-2-02183," which was filed in
the Superior Court of Washington for Whatcom County.

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the city hotel occupancy taxes as required by municipal
ordinance.  It purports to assert claims for violation of that
ordinance, violation of the consumer protection act, conversion
and unjust enrichment.  It also seeks damages and other relief
in an unspecified amount.

On November 3, 2005, defendants removed the case to the U.S.
District Court of the Western District of Washington.  On
January 10, 2006, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

On February 16, 2006, the city of Bellingham, with the agreement
of the defendants, voluntarily moved to dismiss the case.  On
February 17, 2006, the court granted the motion and dismissed
the action.

City of Fairview Heights, Illinois Litigation

On October 5, 2005, the city of Fairview Heights, Illinois filed
a purported state wide class action in state court against a
number of Internet travel companies, including Hotels.com,
Hotwire and the Company, styled, "City of Fairview Heights,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Orbitz, Inc., et al., No. 05L0576," which was filed in the
Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair
County.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the city hotel occupancy taxes as required by municipal
ordinance.  It purports to assert claims for violation of that
ordinance, violation of the consumer protection act, conversion
and unjust enrichment.  It also seeks damages and other relief
in an unspecified amount.

On November 28, 2005, defendants removed this action to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  On
January 17, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

City of Findlay, Ohio Litigation

On October 25, 2005, the city of Findlay, Ohio filed a purported
statewide class action in state court against a number of
Internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and the
Company, styled, "City of Findlay v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.,
No. 2005-CV-673," which was filed in the Court of Common Pleas
of Hancock County, Ohio.

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the city hotel occupancy taxes as required by municipal
ordinance.  It purports to assert claims for violation of that
ordinance, violation of the consumer protection act, conversion
imposition of a constructive trust and declaratory relief.  It
also seeks damages and other relief in an unspecified amount.

On November 22, 2005, defendants removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.  On January
30, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the case.

City of Chicago Litigation

On November 1, 2005, the city of Chicago, Illinois filed an
action in state court against a number of Internet travel
companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and the Company,
styled, "City of Chicago, Illinois v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.,
No. 2005 L051003, which was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County.

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the city the hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal
ordinance.  It purports to assert claims for violation of that
ordinance, conversion, imposition of a constructive trust and
demand for a legal accounting.  It also seeks damages,
restitution, disgorgement, fines, penalties and other relief in
an unspecified amount.

On January 31, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint.

City of Rome, Georgia Litigation

On November 18, 2005, the city of Rome, Georgia, Hart County,
Georgia, and the city of Cartersville, Georgia filed a purported
state wide class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia against a number of Internet travel
companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and the Company,
styled, "City of Rome, Georgia, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et
al., No. 4:05-CV-249."

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the county and cities the hotel accommodations taxes as required
by municipal ordinances.  It purports to assert claims for
violation of excise and sales and use tax ordinances,
conversion, unjust enrichment, imposition of a constructive
trust, declaratory relief and injunctive relief. It also seeks
damages and other relief in an unspecified amount.

On February 6, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint.

Pitt County, North Carolina Litigation

On December 1, 2005, Pitt County, North Carolina filed a
purported statewide class action in state court against a number
of Internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and
the Company, styled, "Pitt County, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P. et
al., No. 05-CVS-3017," which was filed in the State of North
Carolina, Pitt County, General Court of Justice, Superior Court
Division."

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the city hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal
ordinance.  It purports to assert claims for violation of that
ordinance, violation of the deceptive trade practices act,
conversion, imposition of a constructive trust and a declaratory
judgment that defendants have engaged in unlawful business
practices. It also seeks damages and other relief in an
unspecified amount.

On February 13, 2006, the defendants removed the action to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
On March 14, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.

City of San Diego, California Litigation

On February 9, 2006, the city of San Diego, California filed an
action in state court against a number of Internet travel
companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and the Company,
styled, "City of San Diego v. Hotels.com, L.P. et al., which was
filed in the Superior Court for the County of San Diego.

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the city hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal
ordinance.  It purports to assert claims for violation of that
ordinance, for violation of Section 17200 of the California
Business and Professions Code, conversion, imposition of a
constructive trust and declaratory judgment.  The complaint
seeks damages and other relief in an unspecified amount.


FIRST ADVANTAGE: Units Face Calif., N.Y. Tenant Reports Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several subsidiaries of First Advantage Corp. are defendants in
several class actions that are pending in New York Federal Court
and in California State Court.

In the New York action, the plaintiffs allege that the
subsidiary, directly and through its agents, violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, New York's Fair Credit Reporting Act and
New York's Deceptive Practices Act by failing to use reasonable
procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy when issuing
tenant reports.

The action seeks injunctive and declaratory relief,
compensatory, punitive and statutory damages, plus attorneys'
fees and costs.

In California, two subsidiaries of the Company are defendants in
separate class actions.  The plaintiffs in both cases allege
that the Company's subsidiaries, directly and through their
agents, violated the California Consumer Credit Reporting
Agencies Act and California Business and Professions Code by
failing to use reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum
possible accuracy when issuing tenant reports.

The actions seek injunctive relief, an accounting, restitution,
statutory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorneys'
fees and costs.

The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of
these actions will have a material adverse affect on its
financial condition or results of operations.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Trial on Consumer Liability Suit Deal Delayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Aug. 27 federal fairness hearing on the settlement of a suit
over defects found at General Electric Co. refrigerators was
postponed indefinitely because the firm may have failed to
notify some claimants about the settlement, Naplesnews.com
reports.

The Company discovered at the morning of the meeting a database
that had not been updated with all consumer information, said GE
spokeswoman Kim Freeman.  The database contains contact
information for consumers who had a service agreement with
another Company besides GE, such as the store where they
purchased the refrigerators.  The Company has notified the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida regarding the
lapse.

The number of people who need to be notified of the settlement
will determine how long it will take to re-schedule the fairness
hearing, said Scott Weinstein, attorney for Naples resident Bill
Turner, who originally filed the class action.  The number is
expected to be known this week.  The Company has sent out
450,000 direct mailings so far, and 50,000 people have filed
claim forms to benefit from the settlement, the report said.  GE
has been fulfilling the settlement agreement since December.

There are more than 300 model numbers on the settlement list,
which includes both GE and Hotpoint brands, 20, 22 and 25 cubic
foot side-by-side refrigerators, according to NBC2 (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 19, 2006).

A nationwide lawsuit against General Electric Co. that started
in Southwest Florida was concluded in December with GE agreeing
to replace thousands of faulty refrigerators or reimburse its
customers.

Mr. Turner, who worked in television news for 50 years, filed
the suit on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of persons
in the State of Florida who purchased and/or own the makes and
models of Refrigerator manufactured, marketed, advertised,
warranted and/or sold by GE, under the "General Electric" and
"Hotpoint" brands.

The suit asserted breach of express warranty and implied
warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment/restitution and
negligence in connection with the defective refrigerators.  The
suit alleged that the Company designed, manufactured, marketed,
advertised, warranted and/or sold to plaintiff and the class the
refrigerators.  

In conjunction with each sale, the Company marketed, advertised
and warranted that each refrigerator was fit for the ordinary
purpose for which such goods were used and was free from defects
in materials and workmanship, the suit states.  

The suit further alleged that the Company knew, or should have
known, that the refrigerators were defective in design, were not
fit for their ordinary and intended use, and did not perform in
accordance with the advertisements, marketing materials and
warranties disseminated by the Company, nor with the reasonable
expectations of ordinary consumers.

The suit specifically alleged that at the time of sale, the
refrigerators contained a defect that resulted in the formation
of excessive moisture, especially in the icemaker compartment,
which caused, among other things, development of iron oxide or
rust, puddling on the floor beneath the refrigerator and rust or
water running down the side of the refrigerator.  

The refrigerators' defect also created the metal shavings and
shards of plastic frequently found in the ice created in the
freezer section of the refrigerators. In addition, the defect
caused the refrigerators to suffer from wavering temperature
controls and excessive frost.  "The defect reduces the
effectiveness and performance of the Refrigerators and renders
them unable to perform the ordinary purposes for which they are
used," the suit alleged.

The suit further stated that the Company knew and has admitted
that the refrigerators were defectively designed, and that it
instituted a program whereby it would, under certain
circumstances, replace the refrigerators with non-defective
ones.  However, the suit asserted the replacement program was
inadequate.

According to the suit, the Company did not publicize it to all
persons who purchased the refrigerators.  In addition, the
Company stated: "GE will only replace a refrigerator under
certain limited circumstances.  And, there is no indication that  
GE will reimburse consumers who have paid for repairs to their
refrigerator, nor is there any indication that GE will reimburse
consumers who have paid to replace their defective refrigerator"
the suit states.

Under the suit, GE must:  

     (1) reimburse owners for moisture-related service calls;

     (2) give owners an additional year of warranty protection  
         from the time the court gives the settlement a  
         preliminary approval, possibly in January;

     (3) or replace refrigerators that have required three  
         unsuccessful repair attempts.  

The suit is styled "William F. Turner, on behalf of himself and  
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. General Electric  
Co., Case No. 2:05-CV-186-FtM-33 DNF," filed in the United  
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort  
Myers Division.  Representing the plaintiff are:  

     (1) William M. Audet of Alexander Hawes & Audet, L.L.P.,  
         300 Montgomery St., Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94104,  
         Phone: 415/921-1776, Fax: 415/576-1776;

     (2) Alexander E. Barnett of The Mason Law Firm, P.C., P.O.  
         Box 230758, 144 West 72nd St., #3D, New York, NY 10023,
         US, Phone: 202/408-4600, E-mail:  
         abarnett@masonlawdc.com;   

     (3) Gary E. Mason of The Mason Law Firm, P.C., 1225 19th
         St., N.W., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036, US, Phone:  
         202/429-2290, Fax: 202/429-2294, E-mail:  
         gmason@masonlawdc.com;    

     (4) Jordan Lucas Chaikin and Scott Wm. Weinstein of  
         Weinstein, Bavly & Moon, P.A., 2400 First St., Suite
         303, Ft. Myers, FL 33901, Phone: 239/334-8844, Fax:  
         239/334-1289, E-mail: jordan@weinsteinlawfirm.com and
         scott@weinsteinlawfirm.com; and

     (5) Jonathan W. Cuneo and Charles J. LaDuca of Cuneo  
         Gilbert & LaDuca, 507 C. St., NE, Washington, DC 20002,  
         Phone: 202/789-3960, Fax: 202/789-1813, E-mail:
         jonc@cuneolaw.com and charlesl@cuneolaw.com.   

Representing the defendant is Charles Wachter of Fowler White  
Boggs Banker, P.A., 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. Suite 1700, P.O. Box  
1438, Tampa, FL 33601-1438, Phone: 813/228-7411 ext. 1136, Fax:  
813/229-6679, E-mail: cwachter@fowlerwhite.com.  

The claim form: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?45a.


HOTELS.COM: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Tex. Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed
plaintiffs' appeal on the dismissal of the consolidated
securities class action filed in Texas federal court against
Hotels.com, an Expedia, Inc.Web site.

On January 10, 2003, a putative class action, "Daniel
Taubenfeld, et al. v. Hotels.com, et al., No. 3:03-CV-0069-N,"
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, arising out of Hotels.com's downward revision of its
guidance for the fourth quarter of 2002.

Three other substantially similar securities class actions were
filed in the same court shortly thereafter and were later
consolidated with the Taubenfeld action.  

The lead plaintiffs in this action filed a consolidated class-
action complaint on August 18, 2003 alleging violations of
federal securities laws against Hotels.com and three of its
former executives.

On September 27, 2004, the District Court dismissed all of the
plaintiffs' claims with prejudice, with the exception of two
claims involving statements by analysts.

On August 10, 2005 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit entered an order dismissing the plaintiffs' appeal of
the district court's ruling with prejudice.


H&R BLOCK: Wins Initial Approval for $39M RALs Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Elaine Bucklo of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted preliminary approval to a $39
million settlement of a class action over H&R Block Inc.'s use
of refund anticipation loans (RALs), reports say.

An Aug. 2 hearing is scheduled to accommodate any objections and
give the deal final approval.  Deadline for filing objections is
July 5.

Earlier this month, plaintiff class representative Lynne A.
Carnegie reached an agreement with H&R Block Inc. and Beneficial
National Bank that would settle a 1998 Chicago class action
related to RALs.

The proposed $39 million settlement, which would be paid equally
by Beneficial National Bank and H&R Block, was filed April 19 in
an action that has been pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois under the caption "Carnegie v.
Household International, Inc., et al."

The proposed settlement would cover refund anticipation loans
that had been funded by Beneficial National Bank and offered
through an H&R Block office from April 8, 1994 through Dec. 31,
1996.  Overall, the proposed nationwide settlement would make
available cash payments to approximately 1.7 million class
members who made approximately 2 million individual RAL
transactions.

The proposed settlement makes at least $30 million cash
available to the class.  Class members who submit valid timely
claims will receive a cash payment for each RAL.  The amount per
RAL will depend on the number of claims to be paid.  The
remainder of the settlement fund would be used to reimburse
plaintiffs' counsel for the costs of the litigation and pay
their fees, and also cover costs associated with mailing and
publishing the class notice and administering the settlement.

The suit was filed April 8, 1998.  According to an Oct. 12, 2005
Class Action Reporter story, plaintiffs in the RAL Cases
alleged, among other things:

     (1) that disclosures in the RAL applications were
         inadequate, misleading and untimely;

     (2) that the RAL interest rates were usurious and
         unconscionable;

     (3) that the Company did not disclose that it would receive
         part of the finance charges paid by the customer for
         such loans;

     (4) that Company breached state laws on credit service
         organizations;

     (5) that the Company committed a breach of contract, unjust
         enrichment, unfair and deceptive acts or practices and
         violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
         Organizations Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices
         Act; and

     (6) that the Company owed, and breached, a fiduciary duty
         to its customers in connection with the RAL program.

The Company continues to face a suit filed in February by
California regulators on behalf of 1.5 million state residents
who have taken out refund loans since 2001.


H&R BLOCK: Ill. Woman Files Suit Over Losses in Retirement Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block Inc. faces a class action complaint in federal court
filed by a Belleville, Illinois woman who alleged the firm
fraudulently marketed and guided customers into purchasing
Express Individual Retirement Accounts," the Madison County
Record reports.

The complaint of Pascha Perkins deals on whether H & R Block:

     -- engaged in fraud and deception in the marketing and sale
        of the Express IRA;

     -- breached its fiduciary duties to Ms. Perkins, and the
        proposed class, which is composed of all persons and
        entities in the United States who purchased Express IRA
        accounts from H & R Block ;

     -- violated the Missouri and Illinois common law and
        statutory laws;

     -- injured the class, and if so, the proper measures of
        damages; and

     -- whether Perkins and the class are entitled to
        declaratory and/or injunctive relief as a result of H&R
        Block's conduct.

Ms. Perkins of Belleville, represented by Michael Flannery of
Carey & Danis, Jeffrey Lowe of St. Louis and Evan Buxner of St.
Louis, claims H & R Block marketed Express IRAs without regard
for whether they were suited for the person who was purchasing
them and without adequate disclosure of the significant fees or
low return associated with them, thus inflicting monetary injury
to clients.

She also claims that unlike most IRAs, the only investment
option in the Express IRA is a money market account, which
typically has an interest rate that increases at a rate less
than the rate of inflation.

According to Perkins, the majority of H & R Block's revenue
comes from tax preparations, but in recent years it has
attempted to distinguish itself from competitors by allowing its
tax authors to assume financial advisory roles.  H & R Block
began selling the IRAs in 2001 as a pilot program and marketed
them nationwide in 2002.

Ms. Perkins and the proposed class are seeking a judgment
certifying the complaint as a class action, an award for
damages, including actual, compensatory and punitive damages,
injunctive relief, pre and post-judgment interest and attorneys
fees and costs of the suit.

The case has been assigned to Chief District Judge G. Patrick
Murphy and Magistrate Judge Clifford Proud.

The suit is "Perkins v. H&R Block, Inc. et al. (3:06-cv-00317-
GPM-CJP)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois under Judge G. Patrick Murphy with referral
to Judge Clifford J. Proud.

Representing the plaintiff is:

     (1) Evan D. Buxner of Walther Glenn Law Associates,
         Generally Admitted, 1034 South Brentwood Boulevard,
         Suite 1300 St. Louis, MO 63117, Phone: 314-725-9595,
         E-mail: buxner@walther-glenn.com;

     (2) Michael J. Flannery of David Danis Law Firm, LLC,
         Generally Admitted, 8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100,
         St. Louis, MO 63105-3786, Phone: 314-725-7700, E-mail:
         mflannery@careydanis.com;

     (3) Jeffrey J. Lowe of Jeffrey J. Lowe, P.C., Generally
         Admitted, 8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63105
         Phone: 314-678-3400, Fax: 314-678-3401, E-mail:
         jeff@jefflowepc.com.


H&R BLOCK: Faces Suits Over Peace-of-Mind Program in Ill., Tex.
---------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. is defendant in two purported class actions
filed in Illinois and Texas state courts over its peace-of-mind
(POM) program.

One of these cases is pending in the Circuit Court of Madison
County, Illinois and is entitled, "Lorie J. Marshall, et al. v.
H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., et al., Civil Action 2003L000004."

The court granted the suit class certification on August 27,
2003.  Plaintiffs' claims consist of five counts relating to
POM, which the applicable tax return preparation subsidiary
assumes liability for additional tax assessments attributable to
tax return preparation error. The plaintiffs allege that the
sale of POM guarantees constitutes:

      -- statutory fraud by selling insurance without a license,

      -- an unfair trade practice, by omission and by "cramming"
         (i.e., charging customers for the guarantee even though
         they did not request it or want it), and

      -- a breach of fiduciary duty

In August 2003, the court certified the plaintiff classes
consisting of all persons who from January 1, 1997 to final
judgment:

      -- were charged a separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a
         defendant "H&R Block" class member;

      -- reside in certain class states and were charged a
         separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a defendant "H&R
         Block class member" not licensed to sell insurance; and

      -- had an unsolicited charge for POM posted to their bills
         by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R Block class member.

Persons who received the POM guarantee through an H&R Block
Premium office and persons who reside in Alabama are excluded
from the plaintiff class.  

The court also certified a defendant class consisting of any
entity with names that include "H&R Block" or "HRB," or are
otherwise affiliated or associated with H&R Block Tax Services,
Inc., and that sold or sells the POM product.  

The trial court subsequently denied the defendants' motion to
certify class certification issues for interlocutory appeal.
Discovery is proceeding.  No trial date has been set.

The other putative class action is pending against the Company
in Texas, which also involves the POM guarantee.  This case
includes the same plaintiffs attorneys that are in the Marshall
litigation in Illinois.

It makes substantially similar allegations as the case mentioned
above.  No class has been certified in this case.


ILLINOIS: Hearing on County Juvenile Center Lawsuit Set May 3
-------------------------------------------------------------
A full hearing on a suit over conditions at the Cook County
Juvenile Temporary Detention Center was moved to May 3 after
litigants informed the court settlement talks were moving in a
positive direction, the Chicago Tribune reports.

The hearing, which was originally scheduled April 18 before U.S.
District Judge John Nordberg, will focus on allegations by the
American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois that the county
failed to abide by a 2003 memorandum of agreement that orders
improvement at the facility under a class action ruling.  
Lawyers for ACLU alleged the center is dirty and unsafe to
hundreds of youths being housed there.  

If the judge approves the settlement, a team of four experts
would be organized to develop an improvement plan within 60
days, and a compliance administrator would be named to make
recommendations on reform, sources close to the deal told the
Chicago Tribune.  The group would include two medical experts,
including one who deals in mental-health issues, and two with
general expertise in running such a facility, sources said.

The suit is "Doe, et al. v. Cook Co, et al., Case No. 1:99-cv-
03945," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, under Judge John A. Nordberg.  
Representing the defendants is Patrick Malone Blanchard of  
State's Attorney of Cook County, 500 Richard J. Daley Center,  
Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312) 603-5440, E-mail:  
pblanch@cookcountygov.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Benjamin S. Wolf of Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU,
         Inc., 180 North Michigan Ave., Suite 2300, Chicago, IL
         60601-7401, Phone: (312) 201-9740; and

     (2) Colby Anne Kingsbury of Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Chicago),
         200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 6100, Chicago, IL 60601,
         Phone: (312) 861-2000, E-mail: ckingsbury@kirkland.com.


JP MORGAN: Law Firm Tells IPO Claimants to Explore Legal Options
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities Arbitration Law Firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A.
(K&T) advises all Chase H&Q n/k/a J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
customers who are eligible to participate in the settlement of
the "In Re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21
MC 92 (SAS)" to explore all of their legal options against J.P.
Morgan prior to filing a proof of claim.

J.P. Morgan recently agreed to pay $425 million to settle its
part of the civil litigation.  However, investors are advised to
strongly consider pursuing an individual securities arbitration
claim as an alternative means to recovering their financial
losses.

Pursuant to notices sent to the 17 million eligible IPO Class
Members, individual recoveries are predicted to be quite low,
ranging from pennies per share to as much as 46 cents per share.  
However, investors may opt-out of the class and file an
individual securities arbitration claim against the full-service
brokerage firm where they held accounts, thereby potentially
achieving an overall higher recovery rate on their financial
losses.

The IPO Securities Litigation alleges that various issuers and
underwriters caused securities to trade at artificially inflated
prices, in connection with the initial public offering of the
securities, causing customers to lose billions of dollars.

Investors who may have a claim against J.P. Morgan include those
who suffered net losses as a result of their purchase and/or
receipt of the following stocks through J.P. Morgan, during the
relevant time periods:

Perot Systems Corp.              Feb. 1, 1999 - Dec. 6, 2000
  (NYSE:PER)

Wireless Facilities              Nov. 4, 1999 - Dec. 6, 2000
  (Nasdaq:WFII)    
PSI Technologies Holdings        Mar. 16, 200 - Dec. 6, 2000
  (Nasdaq:PSIT)

Red Hat, Inc.                    Aug. 11, 1999 - Dec. 6, 2000
  (Nasdaq:RHAT)

Daleen Technologies              Sep. 30, 1999 - Dec. 6, 2000
  (OTCBB:DALN)
      
Engage, Inc.                     Jul. 20, 1999 - Dec. 6, 2000
  (Pink Sheets:ENGA)

Equinix, Inc.                    Aug. 10, 2000 - Dec. 6, 2000
  (Nasdaq:EQIX)

F5 Networks, Inc.                Jun.  4, 1999 - Dec. 6, 2000
  (Nasdaq:FFIV)

Loudeye Corp.                    Mar. 15, 2000 - Dec. 6, 2000
  (Nasdaq:LOUD)

NaviSite, Inc.                   Oct. 22, 1999 - Dec. 6, 2000
  (Nasdaq:NAVI)

Microtune, Inc.                  Aug.  4, 2000 - Dec. 6, 2000
  (Nasdaq:TUNE)

Net2Phone, Inc.                  Jul. 29, 1999 - Dec. 6, 2000
  (Nasdaq:NTOP)

Buy.com, Inc.                    Feb. 7, 2000 - Dec. 6, 2000
  (Nasdaq:BUYY)

Caliper Technologies             Dec. 14, 1999 - Dec. 6, 2000
  n/k/a Caliper Life Sciences
  (Nasdaq:CALP)

CNET Networks                    Mar. 30, 1999 - Dec. 6, 2000   
  (Nasdaq:CNET)

Critical Path, Inc.              Mar. 29, 1999 - Dec. 6, 2000
  (OTCBB:CPTH)

Smartdisk Corp.                  Oct. 5, 1999 - Dec. 6, 2000
  (Pink Sheets:SMDK)

TeleCommunications Systems       Aug. 7, 2000 - Dec. 6, 2000
  (Nasdaq:TSYS)

VerticalNet, Inc.                Feb. 10, 1999 - Dec. 6, 2000
  (Nasdaq:VERT)

iBasis, Inc.                     Nov. 10, 1999 - Dec. 6, 2000
  (OTCBB:IBAS)

Intraware, Inc.                  Feb. 25, 1999 - Dec. 6, 2000
  (Nasdaq:ITRA)

iVillage, Inc.                   Mar. 18, 1999 - Dec. 6, 2000
  (Nasdaq:IVIL)

Kana Software                    Sep. 21, 1999 - Dec. 6, 2000
  (Pink Sheets:KANA)

Accordingly, K&T plans to assist individual investors who
purchased and/or received an allocation of shares through an IPO
to recover their financial losses from J.P. Morgan, in
securities arbitration claims before the National Association of
Securities Dealers and the New York Stock Exchange.

For more information, contact Lawrence L. Klayman, Esquire, at
888-997-9956 to discuss your legal options and/or the
possibility of pursuing an individual securities arbitration
claim.  You may also visit the firm's on the web at
http://www.nasd-law.com.


MERISANT CO: Faces Consumer Suit in Ill. Over Equal Sugar Lite
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merisant Co. is defendant in a putative consumer class action
alleging that its Equal Sugar Lite packaging and advertising
were misleading.  The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

Filed on February 15, 2006, the suit alleges that on a
volumetric basis, Equal Sugar Lite does not deliver half the
calories of a cup of sugar.   The Company's responsive pleading
is due by April 17, 2006 and it intends to dispute the merits of
the lawsuit, as well as the appropriateness of class
certification.  

As noted above, the manufacturing and packaging process for
Equal Sugar Lite was adjusted to ensure volumetric accuracy, all
the while remaining accurate in accordance with FDA compliance
standards based on weight.   

In addition to ensuring that manufacturing and packaging
processes were accurate, the Company took steps to correct
statements on packaging at distribution centers containing Equal
Sugar Lite product that may not have been volumetrically
accurate, provided notice to consumers on itsWeb site and
offered consumers who may have purchased such product without
corrected packaging a replacement package of Equal Sugar Lite or
a coupon for a dollar off a new package of the product.  

As such, the Company also believes the putative class action to
be moot.  In an unrelated decision by management related to
consumer demand for the product, the Company stopped
manufacturing Equal Sugar Lite in November 2005.

The suit is "Markowitch v. Merisant Corporation, Case No. 1:06-
cv-00846," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.  
Representing the plaintiffs are Eduard Korsinsky and Joseph E.
Levi of Zimmerman Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, 226 St. Paul Street,
New York, NY 10006, Phone: (212) 363-7500.

Representing the defendants are, Gregg F. LoCascio and Thomas M.
Monagan, III of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, Phone: (202) 879-5290 and
(312) 861-2000, E-mail: tmonagan@kirkland.com.


NBO INC: Ill. Court Approves Consumer Lawsuit Over Gift Cards
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court of Illinois, St. Clair
County gave final approval to the settlement in consumer class
action "Ripperda, et al. v. NBO, Inc., et al., Case No. 04L91."

On February 13, 2004, Thomas Ripperda, et al, filed an action
against the Company in connection with gift cards sold at the
St. Clair Square Mall in St. Clair County, Illinois.  The
plaintiffs' complaint seeks to establish a class action.  

The complaint alleged that the term "valid thru" appearing on
the face of the gift card next to the expiration date of the
gift card is misleading in violation of the Illinois unfair
business practices laws.  The plaintiff sought a return of all
administrative fees charged against his gift card prior to the
"valid thru" date.

Under the terms and conditions of the gift cards and the gift
card program, the Company disclosed that it might charge an
administrative fee against a gift card if the gift card is not
used within 90 days from the date of purchase.  The "valid thru"
date is typically between 12 months and 18 months after the date
the gift card is purchased.  In some cases, the administrative
fee reduces the amount of the gift card prior to the "valid
thru" date on the card, (Class Action Reporter, October 6,
2005).

The Company disclosed the charge of an administrative fee on the
backside of the gift card and again in the written terms and
conditions that are distributed to customers when they purchase
the gift cards.  It also disclosed that a gift card might be
renewed after the "valid thru" date with the payment of a
renewal fee, the Company said in a regulatory filing, (Class
Action Reporter, October 6, 2005).

On October 11, 2005, together with codefendants, the Company
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiff's
attorney for the settlement of this litigation.  

Under the terms of the settlement, the Company denied any
wrongdoing or liability whatsoever, and, the Company will make
payments to cardholders who paid administrative fees and submit
a satisfactory claim, not to exceed $50 per card.  Amounts not
claimed by cardholders will be paid to charity.  The Company
does not expect its share of the settlement amount to exceed
$90,000.

On November 22, 2005 the court preliminarily approved the
settlement and conditionally certified a class for settlement
purposes.

On February 21, 2006, the court issued a final order and
judgment approving the settlement.  The claims deadline was
March 22, 2006 resulting in payable claims of $72,353. The
claims payment deadline is April 21, 2006.  The unclaimed
settlement amounts are to be paid to charity by May 22, 2006.


NYSE GROUP: N.Y. Court Dismisses Lawsuit Over Archipelago Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Supreme Court dismissed with prejudice a
consolidated suit over the announcement on April 20, 2005 of the
NYSE Group, Inc.'s proposed merger with Archipelago Holdings,
Inc.

On May 9, 2005, William J. Higgins filed a complaint in New York
Supreme Court, on behalf of himself and a purported class of
similarly situated persons as NYSE members, against the NYSE,
its directors and The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., in connection
with the proposed merger.

On May 13, 2005, William T. Caldwell, Morton B. Joselson and
John F. Horn filed a complaint in New York Supreme Court, on
behalf of themselves and a purported class of similarly situated
persons as NYSE members, against the NYSE, the NYSE's directors,
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and Archipelago.

The lawsuits were consolidated under the caption, "In re New
York Stock Exchange/Archipelago Merger Litigation, Index number
601646/05."  The parties subsequently stipulated to dismiss
Archipelago as a party from the litigation.

On September 27, 2005, William J. Higgins, William T. Caldwell,
Morton B. Joselson, John F. Horn, Louis Erhard (who later
withdrew), Robert Dill, Paul J. Mulcahy, Barbara Lynn DeCicco,
Michael J. Quinn, Mark B. Grumet, and Anthony A. Saridakis filed
a consolidated amended complaint under the above-referenced
caption, on behalf of themselves and a purported class of
similarly situated persons as NYSE members, against the NYSE,
its directors and The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. in connection
with the merger.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the NYSE and its
directors breached their fiduciary duties of candor, care,
loyalty, and good faith and unlawfully converted assets
belonging to the NYSE members.  It sought preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief and compensatory damages.

On November 15, 2005, the parties agreed to settle the
litigation on terms that required the NYSE to provide the Court
with a report by an independent financial expert on the fairness
of the merger and required plaintiffs to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint with prejudice.

On December 5, 2005, the Court issued a decision approving the
settlement but reserved decision with respect to the amount of
attorneys' fees and expenses that would be awarded to
plaintiffs' attorneys.

On February 21, 2006, the Court entered a Final Judgment and
Order of Dismissal that required the NYSE to pay $9,095,511 for
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses and dismissed the
consolidated lawsuit with prejudice.


NYSE GROUP: N.Y. Court Dismisses Specialists Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
entered a final judgment in favor of the NYSE Group, Inc. in the
consolidated class action "In re NYSE Specialists Securities
Litigation."

In December 2003, the California Public Employees' Retirement
System (CalPERS) filed a purported class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the NYSE, NYSE specialist firms, and others, alleging
various violations of the Exchange Act and breach of fiduciary
duty, on behalf of a purported class of persons who bought or
sold unspecified NYSE-listed stocks between 1998 and 2003.

The court consolidated CalPERS' suit with three other purported
class actions and a non-class action into the action now
entitled, "In re NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation" and
appointed CalPERS and Empire Programs, Inc. co-lead plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on September 16, 2004.
The consolidated complaint asserts claims for alleged violations
of Sections 6(b), 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
alleges that, with the NYSE's knowledge and active
participation, the specialist firms engaged in manipulative,
self-dealing and deceptive conduct, including inter-positioning,
front-running and "freezing" the specialist's book and
falsifying trading records to conceal their misconduct.

Plaintiffs also claim that the NYSE constrained its regulatory
activities in order to receive substantial fees from the
specialist firms based on their profits and that defendants'
conduct "caused investors to purchase or sell shares on the NYSE
at distorted and manipulated prices, enriching defendants and
damaging plaintiffs and the Class."

The consolidated complaint also alleges that certain generalized
NYSE statements concerning the operation of its market were
rendered false and misleading by the NYSE's non-disclosure of
its alleged failure to properly regulate specialists, and that
the NYSE was motivated to participate in or permit the
specialist firms' alleged improper trading in order to maintain
or enhance its fee revenues and the compensation of its
executives, including its former chairman and chief executive
officer Richard A. Grasso.  It seeks unspecified compensatory
damages against defendants, jointly and severally.

On November 16, 2004, the specialist firms and the NYSE filed
motions to dismiss the complaint.  On December 12, 2005, the
court issued an order granting the NYSE's motion and dismissing
all of the claims against it with prejudice.  On the same day,
the court also granted in part and denied in part the motions to
dismiss of the specialist defendants.

On February 17, 2006, the court entered a final judgment in
favor of the NYSE.  Plaintiffs have filed a Notice of Appeal
from that judgment.

The suit is "In Re: NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:03-cv-08264-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Robert W. Sweet.   
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mario Alba, Jr. of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller,
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 58 South Service Road, Suite
         200, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-
         367-1173, E-mail: malba@lerachlaw.com; and

     (2) Robert Craig Finkel of Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third
         Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 759-4600, E-
         mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) E. Michael Bradley of John E. Lavelle, Esq., 38 Willis
         Avenue, Mineola, NY 11501, Phone: (212) 326-3863, Fax:
         (212) 755-7306, E-mail: embradley@jonesday.com; and
         
     (2) Deborah S. Burstein of King & Spalding, LLP, 1185
         Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036, Phone:
         (212) 556-2347, Fax: (212) 556-2222.


PENNSYLVANIA: Scranton Police Files Lawsuit Over Pension Fund
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer Thomas Jennings filed a class action against the city of
Scranton on behalf of several retired police officers and their
dependents over the city's police pension fund, the Times
Tribute reports.

The suit alleged the city wrongfully withheld compensation for
longevity increases dating back to 1972 under the fund; and
failed to properly compute pension payments by excluding payment
increases attributed to longevity raises given to active members
of the fund from 1972 through 2006.

The suit is asking for longevity increases, interest on those
increases, attorney fees and all court costs, the report said.

For more information, contact Thomas J. Jennings, Special
Counsel, Saul Ewing LLP, Centre Square West, 1500 Market Street,
38th Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102-2186 (Philadelphia
Co.), Phone: 215-972-7777.


SAXON CAPITAL: Continues to Face Borrowers' Lawsuit in Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------
Saxon Capital, Inc. is a defendant in a purported class action
in the Common Pleas Court for Cuyahoga County, Ohio, entitled,
"Jumar Hooks and Diane Felder, et al., v. Saxon Mortgage, Inc.,
Case No. CV 05 574577."

The plaintiffs filed this case on October 12, 2005 as a class
action, alleging, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated
Ohio borrowers, that a subsidiary of the Company engaged in
unlawful practices in originating and servicing the plaintiffs'
loans.  

The plaintiffs seek certification as a class and a judgment in
favor of the plaintiffs for money damages, costs, attorneys'
fees, and other relief deemed appropriate by the court.  


SAXON CAPITAL: Continues to Face Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Saxon Capital, Inc. is defendant in a purported class action
"Brian Harris, et al., v. Capital Mortgage Company, et al., Case
No. 05CH 22369" filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
County Department-Chancery Division, Illinois.

The Company's subsidiary, Saxon Mortgage Services, was served
with a summons and complaint on March 1, 2006.  The plaintiffs
included a class action claim, alleging, on behalf of themselves
and those similarly situated, that its subsidiary and other
named defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and
violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act in connection with
originating and servicing the plaintiffs' loans.

The plaintiffs seek certification as a class and a judgment in
favor of the plaintiffs for money damages, costs, attorneys'
fees, and other relief deemed appropriate by the court.  


SAXON CAPITAL: Continues to Face FCRA Violations Suit in Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saxon Capital, Inc., is defendant in a purported class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

Filed on August 10, 2005, the plaintiff filed the case as a
class action, alleging violation of FCRA in connection with the
use of pre-approved offers of credit by the Company's
subsidiary, America's MoneyLine, Inc.

There were no significant developments in this legal proceeding
in the quarter ended December 31, 2005.

The suit is "Cechini v. America's Moneyline, Inc., Case No.
1:05-cv-04570," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Harry D. Leinenweber.  
Representing the plaintiffs are, Daniel A. Edelman and James O.
Latturner of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, 120 South
LaSalle Street, Phone: 18th Floor, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone:
(312) 739-4200, E-mail: courtecl@aol.com and
jlatturner@edcombs.com.

Representing the defendants are, David Luther Hartsell and
Kristin Henrichs Sculli of McGuireWoods, LLP, 77 West Wacker
Drive, Suite 4400, Chicago, IL 60601-7567, Phone: (312) 849-
8100, E-mail: dhartsell@mcguirewoods.com and
ksculli@mcguirewoods.com.


SAXON CAPITAL: La. Court Grants Arbitration Motion in Loan Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
granted Saxon Capital, Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration in
two Louisiana state court class actions in relation the
enforcement of mortgage loan obligations.

"Bauer, et al., v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2004-17015" is a matter filed on December 1, 2004 in the
Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of
Louisiana.

On January 26, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss
the case without prejudice, and the court entered an order
dismissing the case on January 31, 2005.

On February 17, 2005, the plaintiffs re-filed the case as two
separate class actions, entitled, "Bauer, et al., v. Dean
Morris, et al., Case No. 05-2173" and, "Patterson, et al., v.
Dean Morris, et al., Case No. 05-2174" both in the Civil
District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.

In the Bauer case, the Company is not a named defendant but may
owe defense and indemnification to Deutsche Bank Trust Company
Americas, N.A., as custodian of a mortgage loan for which one
named plaintiff is mortgagor.  The Company's subsidiary, Saxon
Mortgage Services, is a named defendant in the Patterson case.

In both cases, the named plaintiffs allege misrepresentation,
fraud, conversion and unjust enrichment on the part of the
lender defendants and a law firm hired by a number of
defendants, including the Company's subsidiary, to enforce
mortgage loan obligations against borrowers who had become
delinquent pursuant to the terms of their mortgage loan
documents.

Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the law firm quoted
inflated court costs and sheriff's fees on reinstatement
proposals to the plaintiffs.  

In both cases, the plaintiffs seek certification as a class
action, compensatory damages, pre-judgment interest, attorneys'
fees, litigation costs, and other unspecified general, special
and equitable relief.

There were no significant developments in this legal proceeding
in the quarter ended December 31, 2005.

On January 24, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana granted the Company's motion to compel
arbitration and stayed the court proceedings as to named
plaintiffs Keenan and Karen Duckworth in "Bauer."

On January 25, 2006, the court also granted the Company's motion
to compel arbitration and stayed the court proceedings as to
named plaintiff Debra Herron in "Patterson."

The court subsequently remanded the underlying court proceedings
in both cases to the Civil District Court for the Parish of
Orleans, State of Louisiana.


STARWOOD HOTELS: Resort Fee Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of Orange will hold a
fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the class action
"Gray, et al. v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Case
No. 03CC09044."  

The settlement covers all "Resort Subclass Member," who between
May 1, 1996 and November 21, 2005, stayed at one of the Starwood
Hotels listed below; paid to that hotel a Resort Fee in addition
to the nightly room rate and any governmentally imposed fees or
taxes; and believes in good faith that (a) he/she did not
receive notice of the Resort Fee at the time the reservation was
made, or, if no advance reservation was made, at the time of
check-in at the hotel, and/or he/she believes in good faith that
(b) he/she were misinformed or misled about the nature, purpose,
scope, amount, or ultimate recipient of the Resort Fee due to
information received at or about the time of reservation, check-
in and/or a Resort Subclass Member if he/she stayed at a
Starwood Hotel as check-out.  

The suit will be held in the Courtroom of the Honorable Jonathon
H. Cannon, Judge of the Superior Court of California, Orange
County, Complex Civil Center, Dept. CX102, 751 West Santa Ana
Blvd., Santa Ana, CA 92701 on June 8, 2006 at 1:30 p.m.

Postmark deadline for exclusion (Opt Out) from class as well as
objections to the settlement is on May 2, 2006.  

The "Starwood Hotels" that charged guests a Resort Fee include:

     -- the Diplomat Country Club and Spa,
     -- Four Points by Sheraton Bangor Airport,
     -- Four Points by Sheraton Palmas Del Mar Resort,
     -- Kapalua Bay Hotel,
     -- Sheraton at the Company's Lucaya Beach & Golf Resort,
     -- Sheraton Bal Harbour Beach Resort,
     -- Sheraton Crescent Hotel,
     -- Sheraton El Conquistador Resort & Country Club,
     -- Sheraton Kauai Resort,
     -- Sheraton Key Largo Beach Resort,
     -- Sheraton Maui Resort,
     -- Sheraton Old San Juan,
     -- Sheraton San Marcos Golf Resort & Conference Ctr.,
     -- Sheraton Steamboat Resort,
     -- Sheraton Studio City Hotel,
     -- Sheraton Suites Key West,
     -- Sheraton World,
     -- The Atlantic,
     -- The Molokai Ranch Lodge & Beach Village,
     -- The Orchid at Mauna Lani,
     -- The Westin at the Company's Lucaya Beach & Golf Resort,
     -- The Westin Casuarina,
     -- The Westin Diplomat Resort and Spa,
     -- The Westin Innisbrook Resort,
     -- The Westin La Cantera Resort,
     -- The Westin LaPaloma Resort & Spa,
     -- The Westin Regina Resort & Spa,
     -- The Westin Resort Hilton Head Islands,
     -- The Westin Rio Mar Beach Resort & Golf Club,
     -- The Westin Savannah Harbor,
     -- The Westin Salishan Lodge & Golf Resort,
     -- The Westin Whistler Resort & Spa,
     -- The Westin Maui,
     -- The Westin Mission Hills Resort & Westin Mission Hills
        Villas,
     -- The Westin St. John Resort,
     -- The Westin St. John Villas,
     -- The Wigwam Resort,
     -- Walt Disney World Dolphin, a Sheraton Hotel,
     -- and Walt Disney World Swan, a Westin Hotel

For more details, contact Peter D. Morgenstern of Morgenstern
Jacobs & Blue, LLC, 885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040, New York, New
York 10022, Phone: 212-750-6776, Fax: 212-750-3128, Web site:
http://www.mjbllc.com/or Rust Consulting, Inc., Phone: 877-564-
7093, Web site: http://www.guestchargessettlement.com.


SWEDEN: On-line Alcoholic Drink Importers Sue Over Confiscations
----------------------------------------------------------------
A number of people who had bought beer, wine and spirits from
foreign distributors over the Internet filed a class action
against the Swedish State in the Stockholm District Court, The
Local reports.  The distributors have formed the Association for
a Class Action for Private Imports in the European Union to
demand compensation for confiscations done by the government,
according to the report.

The government is routinely seizing batches of alcoholic
beverages as part of a drive to crack down on illegal
distribution of spirits.

"We're frequently seeing full-page articles in the papers about
"how to find the cheapest booze," where some expert or another
says that it is legal, which we say is not true," said Tony
Magnusson at Swedish Customs' anti-crime unit.

Recently, customs officers in Sundsvall intercepted 17,000
liters of alcohol that had been bought online.  In what is
considered the largest seizure in Sweden, authorities
confiscated 25 crates of alcohol at e-logistics Company Locadi.  
Mr. Magnusson said the spirits are intended for distribution
around the country.

The number of seizures has increased this year, according to the
customs official.  During the first quarter of 2006, Swedish
customs officers impounded 100,000 liters of alcohol, compared
to 54,000 liters in the whole of 2005, according to figures
released on Thursday by Swedish Customs.  The increase is
reportedly partly because Swedish Customs got more tips on how
the alcohol is transported.


TEVIS OIL: Gasoline Additive Groundwater Pollution Detected Anew
----------------------------------------------------------------
A well serving about 40 homes in a Finksburg, Maryland trailer
park has tested positive for a gasoline additive contamination,
and officials are still trying to determine the source of the
pollutant, the Baltimore Sun reports.

Finksburg has had other incidents of methyl tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE) contamination in recent years.  In October, hundreds of
letters were mailed to residents and businesses in the vicinity
of a High's store Citgo station and nearby Exxon station, both
on Baltimore Boulevard (Route 140), informing them that the area
groundwater tested positive for MBTE contamination, according to
Brian Flynn, water quality supervisor for the Carroll County
Health Department.  More recently groundwater samples from a
Finksburg BP station across the highway also tested positive for
MTBE, a suspected carcinogen.

The problem in the area dates back to 2002 when MTBE was
detected at a Tevis Oil Co.-owned Shell station at Suffolk Road
and Route 140 and found to have affected 23 wells.  A class
action filed by affected residents in the Carroll County Trails
neighborhood against Tevis Oil and Stanley H. "Jack" Tevis III,
president of Tevis Oil is still pending.


VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Court Keeps Siliconix Investors' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara has
rejected Vishay Intertechnology's demurrers in the suit (1-04-
CV-01897) filed by Siliconix Inc. minority shareholders over the
firm's tender offer for Siliconix shares.

Last year, Vishay acquired the remaining about 20% of Siliconix
after previously purchasing roughly 80% in 1998.  Following the
announcement of the Company's intention to make the tender offer
for the remaining shares of Siliconix that the Company did not
already own, several purported class action complaints were
filed in the Delaware Chancery Court, alleging, among other
things, that the intended offer was unfair and a breach of
fiduciary duty, and seeking, among other things, to enjoin the
transaction.   

These actions were consolidated into a single class action, and
the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 18, 2005
further alleging that defendants failed to disclose or
misrepresented material information relating to the tender
offer.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Ernst & Young LLP (independent registered public  
         accounting firm that audits the Company's consolidated  
         financial statements),  

     (2) Dr. Felix Zandman, Chairman and Chief Technical and  
         Business Development Officer of Vishay, and

     (3) Siliconix, Inc. as a nominal defendant,  

The suit purports to state various derivative and class claims
against the defendants, including:

     (i) the purported taking by the Company of Siliconix sales  
         subsidiaries and the profits of those subsidiaries;  

    (ii) the purported taking by the Company of Siliconix's SAP  
         software system without compensation to Siliconix;  

   (iii) the alleged use by the Company of Siliconix's assets as  
         security for Vishay loans without compensation to  
         Siliconix;  

    (iv) the purported misappropriation by the Company of  
         Siliconix's identity;  

     (v) the alleged taking by Vishay of Siliconix testing  
         equipment;  

    (vi) the alleged use by Vishay of Siliconix to save Vishay  
         certain credits made available by an Israeli business  
         development agency;  

   (vii) the alleged misuse by Vishay of Siliconix's patents to  
         help Vishay acquire General Semiconductor; and

  (viii) the allegedly improper identification of Dr. Zandman as  
         a co-inventor on certain Siliconix patents.

On April 28, 2005, the parties to the Delaware consolidated
action executed a memorandum of understanding providing for the
settlement of all claims relating to the tender offer.  The
settlement agreement reached with the plaintiffs is pending
court approval.

On March 7, 2006, the court rejected Vishay's demurrers,
requiring Vishay to answer direct and derivative claims relating
to the numerous related party transactions between Siliconix and
Vishay.  Vishay must also answer quasi-appraisal claims
concerning the effect of those transactions on the price paid to
acquire Siliconix.  The plaintiffs seek quasi-appraisal rights
regarding fair value for the minority shareholders interest and
punitive damages.

For more information, contact Maxwell M. Blecher of Blecher &
Collins, Phone: (213) 622-4222, Fax:
mblecher@blechercollins.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICA SERVICE: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Next Month
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC (KGS) says shareholders of America
Service Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: ASGR) who purchased, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of ASGR between September
24, 2003 and March 16, 2006 have until June 5, 2006 in which to
move for appointment as lead plaintiff in a securities fraud
class action currently pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee.  No class has yet been
certified in this action.

The complaint alleges that America Service and certain of its
officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements.  

In particular, America Service failed to disclose that the
values of its net income, retained earnings and reserves were
materially overstated.  After the market closed on March 15,
2006, America Service announced it would restate earnings for
2001 through 2004 and for the first six months of 2005.  In
response to this news, the price of America Service shares fell
almost 29% to close at $13.95 per share.

For more details, contact Lewis Kahn of KGS, Phone: 1-866-467-
1400, ext. 100 or 504-301-7900, E-mail: lewis.kahn@kglg.com, Web
site http://www.kglg.com/case/case.asp?lngCaseId=4778.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Stull, Stull Files Stock Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York against American
International Group, Inc. and certain of its affiliates, on
behalf of those who purchased Hartford mutual funds from the AIG
Advisor Group between June 30, 2000 and June 8, 2005, inclusive.

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

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

The Hartford mutual funds and their respective symbols are:

Hartford Advisers (ITTAX)(IHABX)(HAFCX)(IHAYX)(HADAX)(HAIBX)
Hartford Blue Chip (HBCIX)
Hartford Capital Appreciation
(ITHAX)(IHCAX)(HCACX)(HCAYX)(HIACX)(HIBCX)
Hartford Capital Opportunities (HCOIX)
Hartford Disciplined Equity
(HAIAX)(HGIBX)(HGICX)(HGIYX)(HIAGX)(HBGIX)
Hartford Dividend & Growth
(IHGIX)(ITDGX)(HDGCX)(HDGYX)(HIADX)(HDGBX)
Hartford Equity Income
(HQIAX)(HQIBX)(HQICX)(HQIYX)(HIAEX)(HIBEX)
Hartford Focus (HFFAX)(HFFBX)(HFFCX)(HFFYX)(HIAFX)(HFCBX)
Hartford Global Advisers (HGAAX)(HGABX)
Hartford Global Communications
(HGCAX)(HGCBX)(HGCCX)(HGCYX)(HGCIX)(HBGCX)
Hartford Global Financial Svcs
(HGFAX)(HGFBX)(HGFCX)(HGFYX)(HFIAX)(HBGFX)
Hartford Global Health
(HGHAX)(HGHBX)(HGHCX)(HGHYX)(HIAHX)(HBGHX)
Hartford Global Leaders
(HALAX)(HGLBX)(HGLCX)(HGLYX)(HIALX)(HBGLX)
Hartford Global Technology
(HGTAX)(HGTBX)(HGTCX)(HGTYX)(HIATX)(HBGTX)
Hartford Growth
(HGWAX)(HGWBX)(HGWCX)(FECHX)(HGIAX)(HBGRX)(FECLX)(FECBX)(FECCX)
Hartford Growth Opportunities
(HGOAX)(HGOBX)(HGOCX)(FGRHX)(HAGOX)(HBGOX)(FGRWX)(FGRBX)
(FGRCX)(HGOYX)(FGRZX)(HGWYX)
Hartford High Yield (HAHAX)(HAHBX)(HAHCX)(HIAYX)(HBHYX)(HAHYX)
Hartford Income (HTIAX)(HTIBX)(HTICX)(HTIYX)
Hartford Index (HIAIX)(HBIDX)
Hartford Inflation Plus (HIPAX)(HIPBX)(HIPCX)(HIPYX)
Hartford International Opp (HIAOX)(HBIOX)
Hartford International Stock (HAISX)
Hartford Intl Capital Appr
(HNCAX)(HNCBX)(HNCCX)(HNCYX)(HNCIX)(HBICX)
Hartford Intl Opportunities (IHOAX)(HIOBX)(HIOCX)(HAOYX)
Hartford Intl Small Company
(HNSAX)(HNSBX)(HNSCX)(HNSIX)(HBISX)(HNSYX)
Hartford Large Cap Growth (HLGCX)
Hartford Mid Cap Value (HMVAX)(HMVBX)(HMVCX)(HMVYX)
Hartford Midcap (HFMCX)(HAMBX)(HMDCX)(HIMCX)(HBMCX)(HMDYX)
Hartford MidCap Stock (HMCSX)
Hartford MidCap Value (HMVIX)(HBMVX)
Hartford Mortgage Securities (HMSIX)(HBMGX)
Hartford Short Duration (HSDAX)(HSDBX)(HSDCX)(HSDYX)
Hartford Small Cap Growth
(HSLAX)(HSLBX)(HSLCX)(FACHX)(FACAX)(FACBX)(FACCX)(HSLYX)
Hartford Small Cap Value (HSCGX)(HBSCX)
Hartford Small Company
(IHSAX)(HSCBX)(HSMCX)(HIASX)(HDMBX)(HSCYX)
Hartford SmallCap Growth (HISCX)(HBSGX)
Hartford Stock (IHSTX)(ITSBX)(HSFCX)(HSTAX)(HIBSX)(HASYX)
Hartford Tax-Free CA (HTFAX)(HTFBX)(HTFCX)
Hartford Tax-Free MN
(HTMAX)(HTMBX)(HTMCX)(FTMNX)(FTMHX)(FTMAX)(FTMBX)(FTMCX)(HTMYX)
Hartford Tax-Free National
(HTNAX)(HTNBX)(HTNCX)(FTNLX)(FTNHX)(FTNAX)(FTNBX)(FTNKX) (HTNYX)
Hartford Tax-Free NY (HTYAX)(HTYBX)(HTYCX)
Hartford Total Return Bond
(ITBAX)(ITBBX)(HABCX)(HIABX)(HBNBX)(HABYX)
Hartford U.S. Government Secs
(HAUSX)(HBUSX)(HUSAX)(HUSBX)(HUSCX)(FIUGX)(FIUHX)(FIUAX)
(FIPBX)(FIUCX)(HUSYX)
Hartford Value (HVFAX)(HVFBX)(HVFCX)
Hartford Value (HIAVX)(HBVLX)
Hartford Value Opportunities
(HVOAX)(HVOBX)(HVOCX)(FVAHX)(HAVOX)(HBVOX)(FVAAX)(FVABX)
(FRVCX)(HVOYX)
Hartford Value (HVFYX)

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

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

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

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

The complaint alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales
practices created an insurmountable conflict of interest by
providing substantial monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space
Funds, even though such investments were not in the clients'
best interest.  The AIG Advisor Group's failure to adequately
disclose the incentives constituted violations of federal
securities laws.

For more details, contact James Lahm, Esq., Offices of Stull,
Stull & Brody, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022, Web
site: http://www.ssbny.comor  
http://www.marketwire.com/mw/emailprcntct?id=AEDEB5D47239928A.  


LIPMAN ELECTRONIC: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP filed a class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Lipman Electronic Engineering,
Ltd. on the Nasdaq National Market and/or Tel Aviv Stock
Exchange between October 4, 2004 and September 27, 2005,
inclusive.

The shareholder lawsuit, No. 05-4788, is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Interested parties may move the court not later than May 24,
2006, to serve as lead plaintiff.

The complaint charges Lipman and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.  
Among other things, the plaintiff claims that defendants'
material omissions and dissemination of materially false and
misleading statements caused Lipman's stock price to become
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

Lipman maintains its principal corporate offices at Rosh Haayin,
Israel, and engages in the development, manufacture, marketing
and sale of electronic payment systems and solutions worldwide.  
The complaint alleges that defendants issued public statements
which fraudulently created a false impression concerning the
Company's business operations and prospects following the
acquisition of Dione, Plc (Dione), a United Kingdom (U.K.)-based
supplier of "smart card" payment systems.

Defendants claimed that the Dione acquisition would add to
Lipman's earnings within one year and "provide important new
customer relationships that would add critical mass to the
Company's U.K. presences."

During the class period, defendants touted the Dione
acquisition, claiming it would provide "important new customer
relationships" and enable the Company to penetrate new markets,
among other things. Defendants' public statements, however,
misled the public concerning Lipman's ability to leverage
purported "operational and technological synergies that exist
between the two companies."

The complaint alleges defendants knew or recklessly disregarded
and failed to disclose that the Dione acquisition would not
provide an immediate boost to Lipman's earnings or easily
establish the Company's presence in the United Kingdom and other
European countries.  Instead, defendants' statements misled
Lipman shareholders and artificially inflated the Company's
stock price.

Additionally during the class period, defendants' materially
misleading statements and omissions enabled to Company to
complete a secondary offering of 1,973,044 shares at $29.75 per
share in May 2005.

On September 28, 2005, less than one year after completing the
Dione acquisition, Lipman made a stunning admission that the
"weaker than expected performance of Dione" caused the Company
to slash its 2005 earnings estimates, from a previous forecast
of $1.39 to $1.42 per share, down to $0.88 to $0.98 per share.

The Company also announced that it had terminated the employment
of Dione CEO Shaun Gray and that the Company anticipated it
would take a non cash impairment charge relating to goodwill and
other intangible assets in 2005.

Investor reaction was sharply negative to this news, causing
Lipman's share price to plunge nearly 22 percent following the
disclosure of the Company's inability to leverage the Dione
acquisition to expand Lipman's European market presence.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.  
Interested parties may move the court, no later than May 24,
2006, to serve as lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy, Esquire, Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los
Angeles, California 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at
(888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com.


MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Berman DeValerio Files Stock Suit in Wis.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo filed a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, Milwaukee Division.  The complaint, filed as 06-C-
0431, seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on
behalf of all investors who acquired Merge securities from
August 2, 2005 through and including March 16, 2006.

Investors who suffered losses in Merge Technologies, Inc. d/b/a
Merge Healthcare have until May 22 to file lead plaintiff
motions in federal court.

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

Based in Milwaukee, Merge develops and delivers medical imaging
and information management software and services for both
original equipment manufacturers and the end-user health
markets.

According to the plaintiff's complaint, Merge and two individual
defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing
materially false and misleading statements during the class
period that artificially inflated the Company's stock price.

Specifically, in January 2005, Merge announced an all-stock
merger between Merge and Cedara Software Corp., completed by
June 1, 2005, which Merge represented to the market as highly
successful.

The complaint, however, says the defendants schemed to deceive
the market during that time by:

     (i) reporting materially overstated revenues;

    (ii) prematurely recognizing revenues; and

   (iii) failing to disclose that the Company lacked adequate
         internal controls.

When the defendants' misrepresentations and omissions were
gradually disclosed to the investing public, the Company's stock
fell, from $24.50 per share on February 23, 2006, to $15.85 per
share on March 17, 2006.

Interested parties who wish to receive a copy of the complaint
may contact the court, call the firm at (800) 516-9926 or go to
http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/Merge-Cplt.pdf.  

For more details, contact Leslie R. Stern, Esq. or Audley H.
Fuller, Esq., One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: (800)
516-9926, E-mail: law@bermanesq.com.


MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Milberg Weiss Files Stock Lawsuit in Wis.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP filed a
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Merge
Technologies, Inc. between August 2, 2005 and March 16, 2006,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The action, numbered 06-C-0519, is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against defendants
Merge, Scott T. Veech (CFO) and Richard A. Linden (CEO and
President).

A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from
the court, or can be viewed on Milberg Weiss's Web site at
http://www.milbergweiss.com.

Interested parties may, no later than May 22, 2006, request that
the court appoint them as lead plaintiff.

The complaint alleges that defendants' class period statements,
made in press releases and SEC filings, were materially false
and misleading because defendants overstated Merge's reported
revenues and understated its tax liabilities, thereby deceiving
investors regarding the Company's true results of operations and
financial condition.

Investors learned of the fraud on March 17, 2006.  On that date,
before the open of ordinary trading, Merge issued a press
release announcing that it expects to restate its previously
filed financial reports for the quarters ended June 30, 2005,
and September 30, 2005, and warning investors that those reports
should not be relied upon.

In addition, because the Company was undertaking an
investigation into its accounting, Merge would not timely file
its 2005 annual report on Form 10-K, which was due to be filed
by March 16, 2006.  

The Company also announced that its internal investigation will
likely conclude that the Company's internal controls over
financial reporting have "material weaknesses."

In response to this announcement, the price of Merge common
stock dropped by 11.8% in one day, from $17.97 per share on
March 16, 2006 to $15.85 per share on March 17, 2006, on
unusually heavy trading volume of more than 4.2 million shares.

Defendants were motivated to engage in the wrongdoing alleged
herein in order to allow Merge insiders, including defendants
Veech and Linden, to sell their personally held Merge stock at
artificially inflated prices.

During the class period, insiders sold a total of 530,807 shares
of Merge common stock for gross proceeds of $12,187,604.  The
mean price at which insiders sold their shares was $22.96, well
above the $15.85 per share that the stock plummeted to after
investors learned of defendants' accounting manipulations.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman
or Andrei V. Rado, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York,
NY, 10119-0165, Phone: (800) 320-5081, E-mail:
sfeerick@milbergweiss.com, Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com.


NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Cohen Milstein Lodges Stock Lawsuit in Utah
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed
a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah on behalf of purchasers of Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc.
(NSPI) common stock from May 13, 2002 through March 24, 2006.

The complaint charges NSPI and certain of its officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  NSPI is
engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of nutritional and
personal care products.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.  As a result of
defendants' false statements, NSPI stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the class period, reaching a high of
$23.34 per share on September 30, 2005.

Then, on March 20, 2006, the Company announced that its publicly
filed financial statements for each quarter from 2002 through
2005 should not be relied upon, due to a Preliminary Report
issued by its Audit Committee and an independent consultant,
which revealed certain "internal control weaknesses" and
"potential violations of law."

The Preliminary Report also included a series of
recommendations, including the termination of certain employees
and senior officers.

On this news, NSPI's stock plunged dramatically, closing at
$14.33 per share.  On March 24, 2006, the Company announced that
it had received a noncompliance notice from the NASDAQ due to
its failure to file its Form 10-K in a timely manner.  

On this news the Company's stock fell to $11.68 per share.  On
March 29, 2003, the Company's President and CEO resigned.  On
April 5, 2006, NSPI announced that it had been delisted from
NASDAQ.  NSPI's share price has continued to decline, closing at
$10.95 per share on April 26, 2006.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known or
recklessly disregarded by the defendants but concealed from the
investing public during the class period, were:

     (a) the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded material
         adverse information about the Company's financial
         results and then existing business condition; and, as a
         result, the Company's projections and reported results
         were based upon defective assumptions and/or
         manipulated facts; and

     (b) the Company's financial statements were materially
         misstated due to the fact that NSPI failed to properly
         account for foreign transactions.

Interested parties may, no later than June 2, 2006, move the
court to be appointed as lead plaintiff.

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


NEWPARK RESOURCES: Murray Frank Files Securities Suit in La.
------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf
of securities purchasers of Newpark Resources, Inc. between
February 28, 2005, and April 17, 2006, inclusive.  The complaint
charges Newpark, James D. Cole, and Matthew W. Hardy with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Newpark Resources, Inc. provides fluids management,
environmental, and oilfield services to the oil and gas
exploration and production industry.

The complaint alleges that defendants' class period
representations regarding Newpark were materially false and
misleading when made because the Company failed to disclose
irregularities with the processing and payment of invoices by
the Company's subsidiary, Soloco Texas, LP.

On April 17, 2006, Newpark issued a press release announcing a
Company investigation into the processing and payment of
invoices at Soloco Texas, LP and that Newpark's CFO and former
CEO had been placed on administrative leave pending the
completion of the investigation.

This news shocked the market, causing shares of Newpark to
plummet that same day by $1.28 per share, to close on April 17,
2006, at $6.14 per share, more than 17% below the previous day's
close, which was before disclosure of the invoice irregularities
and consequent investigation.

Interested parties may, no later than June 20, 2006, move the
court to serve as lead plaintiff.

Interested parties may also join this class action online at
http://www.murrayfrank.com/CM/NewCases/NewCases.asp.   

For further details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Bradley P. Dyer,
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, Phone (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-
1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-mail: info@murrayfrank.com.


NEWPARK RESOURCES: Schatz Nobel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in La.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. filed a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Newpark
Resources, Inc. between February 28, 2005 and April 16, 2006,
inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements.  Specifically, defendants' class period
representations regarding Newpark were materially false and
misleading when made because the Company failed to disclose
irregularities with the processing and payment of invoices by
the Company's subsidiary, Soloco Texas, LP.

On April 17, 2006, Newpark issued a press release announcing a
Company investigation into the processing and payment of
invoices at Soloco Texas, LP, and that Newpark's CFO and former
CEO had been placed on administrative leave pending the
completion of the investigation.

On this news, shares of Newpark to plummeted $1.28 per share, to
close on April 17, 2006, at $6.14 per share -- more than 17%
below the previous day's close.

Interested parties may, no later than June 20, 2006, request
that the court appoint them as lead plaintiff of the class.

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


PIXELPLUS CO: West End Keeps KGS to Prosecute Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
WestEnd Capital Management, LLC retained Kahn Gauthier Swick,
LLC (KGS) to recover losses related to its investment in
Pixelplus Co., Ltd. (PXPL).

The case against Pixelplus is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, and charges that
defendants violated the Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, by issuing materially false and misleading
financial information in connection with the Company's December
2005 Initial Public Offering.

The complaint alleges that the Company violated Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles and the federal securities laws
by overstating Company revenues for 2005.

Sean Cooper, Chief Operating Officer, Sr. Portfolio Manager of
WestEnd stated, "We have retained KGS because, as investment
advisors, we are not a commission based brokerage house and,
therefore, the success of the Company's firm depends upon the
performance of our portfolios.  Accordingly, WestEnd is
extremely proactive in recovering assets when impacted by the
negative effects of market fraud or manipulation.  This is an
outrageous situation, which never should have been allowed to
occur.  We were fortunate that WestEnd is doing so well, that
the loss only moderately impacted our diversified portfolios."

Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner at KGS also stated, "We applaud the
participation of leading investors such as Mr. Cooper and
WestEnd for taking a role in protecting the rights of investors.  
We agree that the Pixelplus case is an egregious example of lax
accounting and wholly deficient underwriting and auditing
supervision.  Underwriters and auditors who collected millions
of dollars in fees in connection with the Pixelplus IPO will be
called to account for their complete lack of oversight."

On April 11, 2006, Pixelplus shocked the market after it
announced, among other things, that its financial statements for
2005 should no longer be relied upon because it improperly
recognized sales to a subsidiary that Pixelplus had failed to
consolidate, despite the Company's right to elect two-thirds of
its Board.  Following this announcement, shares of Pixelplus
plummeted to half their offering price.

WestEnd Capital Management, LLC is an independent asset
management Company that specializes in creating tailor-made
accounts for each investor specifically targeting their risk
tolerance and investment preferences.  WestEnd also utilizes
techniques that are designed to curb downside risk, while
providing above average returns in up markets.

For more details on WestEnd, contact Mr. Sean Cooper, WestEnd
Capital Management LLC, One Market Spear Tower - Suite 1800, San
Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-856-0426, or toll free at 800-
856-3013.

For more details on KGS, contact Lewis Kahn, Kahn Gauthier
Swick, LLC, Phone: 866-467-1400, ext. 100 or 504-301-7900, E-
mail: Lewis.Kahn@kglg.com.


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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