/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060207.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, February 7, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 27


ACE HAN: Recalls Baby Walkers Due to Stairway Fall Hazard
AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Rental Vehicle Suit in Ill. Continues
ARKANSAS: Poultry Firms Sued for Polluting Illinois Watershed
CARDINAL IG: Recalls Reflective Glass Due to Fire Danger      
CRUISE SHIPS: Facing $100M Suit for Unauthorized 'Grease' Shows

DESA HEATING: Recalls Thousands of Propane Convection Heaters
DUPONT CO.: C8 Health Screening to Stop at 70T Ohio Residents
FMF CAPITAL: Faces Purported Shareholder Suit in Ontario, Canada
HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: Settles Spartanburg Lawsuit for $337.5M    
ILLINOIS: Cook County Jail Faces New Suit over Strip Searches

ILLINOIS: Villages Shell out $16M to Settle Maintenance Fee Suit
INDIANA: Settlement Reached in Debt Collection Case V. Sinus Doc
INTUIT INC.: Strikes Back at H&R Blocks' False Marketing Suit
IOWA: EFCO Corp. Files Suit V. Trade Group over Stock Windfall
ISRAEL: Defense Ministry Reaches Settlement with Torture Victims

JPMORGAN CHASE: Bond Investors Sue for $2.2B 'Unclaimed' Cash
LEAD INDUSTRIES: Court Upholds Suit Seeking Medical Aid for Kids
NORTH CAROLINA: Couple Sues Halifax County Over Handling of Dog
PACIFICARE HEALTH: Fla. Judge Grants Summary Judgment Motion
PIKE COUNTY: ACLO Files Strip Search Suit Against Ohio School

RANDOM HOUSE: Suit Against James Frey's "Memoir" Filed in Ohio
ROCHE HOLDING: Faces Purported U.S. Suit on Faulty Insulin Pumps
SEARS CANADA: Reaches Settlement in Credit Card Case in Quebec
SELWYN HOUSE: Former Teachers Face Sexual Assault Allegations
SONY CANADA: Faces New Lawsuit over DRM Software Programs in CDs

ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Exec's Testimony Saves Firm at W.Va. Trial
SUNTOME TRADING: Recalls Baby Walkers Due to Stairway Fall Risk
TURLOCK IRRIGATION: Workers Launch Overtime Wage Suit in Calif.
VIRGINIA: Lawyers Seek Support in Suit V. $10.14B Tobacco Buyout

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

JARDEN CORP: Paskowitz & Associates Files N.Y. Securities Suit
OMNICARE INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in Ky.
OMNICARE INC.: Lerach Coughlin Files Ky. Securities Fraud Suit
ROYAL GROUP: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Stock Suit in N.Y.


ACE HAN: Recalls Baby Walkers Due to Stairway Fall Hazard
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Ace Han Corp.
are recalling 1,000 baby walkers.  Consumers are advised to stop
using the recalled products immediately.

The company said the walkers can fit through a standard doorway
and are not designed to stop at the edge of a step.  Babies
using these walkers can be seriously injured or killed.  No
injuries or incidents have been reported.

The recalled walkers have eight wheels and an activity tray with
interactive toys.  The walkers are blue and pink with various
designs on the cloth seat. "Imported by Ace Han Corp" is printed
on labels located on the base of the walkers.

The walkers were manufactured in China, and are sold in
independent retail stores in New York and Philadelphia from
April 2004 through October 2006 for about $20 to $30.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
walkers and return them to the retailer where purchased for a
full refund.

Consumer Contact: Ace Han, Phone: (800) 521-5115 between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.  CPSC on the Net:

AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Rental Vehicle Suit in Ill. Continues
When attorney Lanny Darr sued the Affirmative Insurance Company
for trying to put him in a cheap rental vehicle, the insurer
sent him a check for the nicer vehicle he ordered, The Madison
County Record reports.

However, instead of signing the check and dismissing his suit,
the attorney instead made his claim for miscellaneous relief
into a proposed class action lawsuit.  Mr. Darr seeks to
represent everyone who rented vehicles during repairs to their
own vehicles after collisions with Company policyholders.

Mr. Darr sued last year, as his own attorney, alleging that the
Company violated insurance provisions of Illinois Administrative
Code.  Specifically, his suit claims that he was involved in an
auto accident February 14 with Walter Price, who was negligent
and insured by the Company.  According to it, "Affirmative
refused to lease a vehicle for Mr. Darr and failed to reimburse
for an amount greater than $18.90 per day, which is illegal
under Illinois law."  In addition, Mr. Darr claims he could not
drive his Ford Explorer for several days while it was being
repaired, (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2005).

According to the complaint, common questions of law and fact
predominate any questions affecting only individual members of
the class, which include whether the Company acted illegally
when it:

      (1) refused to pay more than $18.90 a day for a substitute
          rental car;

      (2) represented to Darr and other class members that they
          only reimbursed $18.90 regardless of the vehicle
          damaged or the needs of the owner of the damaged

      (3) concealed that they may reimburse more than $18.90 per

     (4) failed to rent a vehicle for those incapable of leasing
         substitute vehicles, either due to financial
         circumstances, credit history or age; and

     (5) violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, (Class Action
         Reporter, Aug. 15, 2005).

Mr. Darr, maintains in the suit that he is not asking for an
amount greater than $75,000 for his individual damages as well
as stipulated no class member damages will exceed $75,000, and
the class as a whole is not requesting damages in excess of $5
million. Thus, according to his suit, he wants orders:

     (i) certifying the class of all Illinois residents involved
         in a traffic accident with Affirmative's customers in
         the past 10 years;

    (ii) declaring Affirmative's conduct unlawful

   (iii) requiring Affirmative to cease and desist all
         deceptive, unjust and unreasonable practices;

    (iv) requiring Affirmative to notify and properly disclose
         to whose they have overcharged; and

     (v) an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs of the
         suit, including fees of experts and an award of factual
         and compensatory damages in an amount less that $75,000
         per class member, (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15,

Mr. Darr argues that the amount was not appropriate.  He also
asserted a further dispute over whether the Company should have
paid up front or by reimbursement.

After the crash, Mr. Darr rented a vehicle that cost more than
$19.  He had submitted the bill to Affirmative for
reimbursement.  Upon receiving his miscellaneous relief claim,
the Company sent him a check for the reimbursement he had

Defense attorney Peter Morse of Chicago moved to dismiss the
case back in June 10, 2005.  Mr. Darr retained Evan Schaeffer as
his attorney, who later filed an amended complaint July 11, 2005
alleging consumer fraud and seeking certification of a class

Affirmative moved to dismiss the case on Aug. 17, 2005.  Mr.
Morse argues that Mr. Darr was not a consumer and lacked
standing.  He also argued that the transaction did not involve
the sale of insurance.

The case lay in Circuit Judge George Moran's court, but he
recused himself on Sept. 8, 2005.  Chief Judge Edward Ferguson
then assigned Circuit Judge Daniel Stack to the case.  Judge
Stack granted leave on Oct. 26, 2005 for a second amended

Mr. Schaeffer filed the second amended complaint the next day,
alleging consumer fraud and misrepresentation.  The Company then
moved to dismiss on Nov. 17, 2005, arguing that Mr. Darr
apparently acknowledged his inability to state a cause of action
under Illinois consumer fraud law.  In addition, Mr. Morse
argued that the Company did not violate state insurance code and
added that even if it had, Mr. Darr should take his claim to the
state insurance department.

Mr. Morse also attached an insurance department statement that
read, ".the company does not have to pay for a rental of the
same type."  It read, "If the company offers to pay a flat
amount (for example $20.00 a day), the company must tell you
where you can rent a vehicle for that amount."  He pointed out
that in any event, Mr. Darr failed to allege the elements of
fraud.  Mr. Morse also explains that Mr. Darr rented a vehicle
for more than $19, and the Company had paid the bill in full.

Mr. Schaeffer opposed the motion on Jan. 13, arguing that facts
about the check that the Company sent to Mr. Darr were
"unverified and immaterial at the motion to dismiss stage."  He
also argued that the Company sent a check only after Mr. Darr
sued, a release accompanied the check and Mr. Darr had not
cashed the check.

ARKANSAS: Poultry Firms Sued for Polluting Illinois Watershed
South Carolina law firm Motley Rice is helping Oklahoma get
compensation from Arkansas poultry companies accused of
polluting the Illinois River watershed, according to Arkansas
Democrat Gazette.

Motley Rice and two other firms in Oklahoma are suing eight
poultry farms in Arkansas, including Decatur-based Peterson
Farms.  The federal lawsuit was filed in June by Oklahoma
Attorney General Drew Edmondson after negotiations with the
poultry companies failed.  The consortium of lawyers includes
Motley Rice; Riggs, Abney, Neal, Turpen, Orbison & Lewis of
Oklahoma City; and Miller & Keffer of Tulsa.  Tulsa attorney
Louis Bullock also is working on the case, Mr. Edmondson said.

According to the report, if Oklahoma wins the lawsuit and the
pattern of pay is the same as was used in the Eucha-Spavinaw
settlement, Springdale-based Tyson Foods Inc. stands to pay the
most.  Tyson Foods owned 54.5% of the poultry houses in the
watershed in the first quarter of 2005.  Simmons Foods Inc. in
Siloam Springs had 16% and George's Inc. in Springdale owned

Janet Wilkerson, a vice president with Decatur-based Peterson
Farms said Peterson Farms paid more than 50% of the $7.5 million
settlement in the Eucha-Spavinaw watershed case because it had
the most poultry houses in that area.  

According to the report, under a contract with Mr. Edmondson's
office, lawyers representing the state of Oklahoma will receive
one-third of any settlement or court award as their contingency
fee.  The deal provides that the contingency fee plus their
expenses can't exceed 50% of any money paid to the state by the
poultry companies.

CARDINAL IG: Recalls Reflective Glass Due to Fire Danger      
Four Seasons and Cardinal IG Company of Eden Prairie, Minnesota
are recalling 6,000 sunroom roof glass and skylights.  Four
Seasons Solar Products, LLC, of Holbrook, N.Y., through its
dealers and franchisees, sold and constructed sunrooms that used
these glass units.

The company said sunlight reflecting off of certain sunroom roof
glass and skylights onto adjacent cedar shingles or cedar shakes
could pose a fire hazard.  Cardinal IG and Four Seasons are
aware of four fires that could be attributed to this scenario.  
There are no reported injuries.  The damage ranged from minor
damage to shingles and underlying sheathing to incidents that
caused some structural damage to roofs and walls.

The repair program involves only the roof glass in sunrooms
(including skylights installed as part of the sunroom) that
reflect sunlight onto nearby cedar shingles or cedar shakes.  It
involves reflective Code 77 roof insulating glass units.  It
includes new sunrooms sold from 1996 through 2002, but possibly
constructed later, and those sunrooms, regardless of when built,
that had roof glass or skylights replaced with Code 77 glass
from 1996 to 2005.

The sunroom roof glasses, which were manufactured in the U.S.,
are sold through franchisees and Four Seasons retail stores in
the United States and Puerto Rico from January 1996 through
October 2005.

Owners of Four Seasons Sunrooms described are advised to call
the toll free number to determine if their units are affected
and if so, to obtain a free repair.  Cardinal IG and Four
Seasons working together will repair the roof glass through
installation of a capillary tube.  The repair can be completed
from the exterior of the sunroom except for certain types of
skylights.  There is no need to replace the glass.

Consumer Contact: Consumer Response Center, Phone:
(800) 385-9988 between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday and between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. CT on Saturdays.  Owners
may register anytime on-line at

CRUISE SHIPS: Facing $100M Suit for Unauthorized 'Grease' Shows
'Grease' co-creator Jim Jacobs is suing 17 cruise ships, many
owned by Royal Caribbean Cruises and Carnival Corp., for
staging, without permission, performances of the musical.  

Mr. Jacobs filed the suit in a federal court in New York seeking
$100 million for damages and copyright law violations, according
to the New York Post.  He is also seeking an injunction halting
all unlicensed Broadway shows aboard ships.

"They're doing productions not approved by the authors, changing
it in ways the authors would never permit, and then they don't
pay,' Mr. Jacobs' lawyer, Ron Taft, told the newspaper.

DESA HEATING: Recalls Thousands of Propane Convection Heaters
DESA Heating Products of Bowling Green, Kentucky, and the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission are recalling 54,500 "40-
80,000 BTU Portable Propane Convection Heaters".  Consumers are
advised to stop using the products immediately.

The company said the burners on these heaters can "flashback",
which is when fire burns inside the burner tube rather than out
the end.  This can cause the lower portion of the burner tube to
get hot enough to ignite combustible material under the heater.

DESA has received 40 reports of incidents possibly caused by the
flashback hazard, including six reports of fires.  The other 34
reported incidents involved minor property damage, including
scorching of the flooring under the heater.  There have been no
reports of injury.

Description: DESA 40-80,000 BTU Portable Propane Convection
Heaters generate from 40,000 to 80,000 BTUs an hour.  The model
names and number of the products under recall are:

     (1) Reddy Heater (RCP80VC),

     (2) All-Pro (SPC-80CC),

     (3) MASTER (TC80VC),

     (4) Universal (80-CC), and

     (5) Dayton (6BY73)

These heaters have serial numbers between 017390000 and
017632220.  The model and serial numbers are on the carton and
on labels attached to the heater.  The designation "Made in
China" is on the carton and model label attached to the heater.

The heaters were manufactured in China.  They are sold at home
centers and hardware stores nationwide from August 2005 through
December 2005 for between $100 and $130.

Consumers are advised to stop using the heater immediately and
return it to the store where purchased for a free replacement,
refund or store credit.

Consumer Contact: DESA, Phone: (866) 279-3225 (toll-free)
between 7:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday; On the
Net: http://www.desatech.com.

DUPONT CO.: C8 Health Screening to Stop at 70T Ohio Residents
Time is running out for Mid-Ohio Valley residents to participate
in a health study involving a chemical used to produce Teflon,
WKYC-TV reports.

Managers of the screening say they will stop taking applications
once they hit 70,000 residents.  So far approximately 67,000
people have already filled out health questionnaires and
provided blood samples.  Eligible residents for the health study
live in six public water districts in Ohio and West Virginia.

The screening is part of a settlement in a class-action lawsuit
filed by residents against Dupont Co. and its use of the
chemical known as C-8.  The chemical is used at the Company's
Washington Works plant near Parkersburg, West Virginia, and
residents said it contaminated their drinking water.

The $343 million settlement that was reached for the lawsuit,
Civil Action No. 01-C-608, involved residents living near the
plant, located on the Ohio River about 7 miles southwest of
Parkersburg, West Virginia.  Those residents sued Dupont in
August 2001 claiming their drinking supply was contaminated with
perfluorooctonoate (a.k.a. C8, C-8, PFOA, APFO, FC143, FC-143).  
The chemical is used to produce Teflon at the plant in
Washington, West Virginia, along the Ohio River.  The
communities affected are residents of Belpre, Little Hocking,
Lubeck, Pomeroy, Tuppers Plains, and Mason County, (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 19, 2006).  

Wood County Circuit Judge George W. Hill subsequently approved a
settlement, which the Company decided to enter into because of
the time and expense of litigation.  The judge noted that the
settlement was finalized without any evidence that the chemical
caused any disease.  That settlement, in which the Company
agreed to pay at least $107.6 million, covers the medical
monitoring, water treatment, attorney's fees, and general
payments to the class, (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 19, 2006).  

Since August 2005, more than 17,000 residents of the six Ohio
and West Virginia water districts covered by the settlement have
taken part in the study to find out if a chemical used to make
Teflon at a DuPont Co. chemical plant might harm their health.  
Though the long-term effects of C8 on people are unknown, the
screenings and analysis will try to determine if the chemical
has any link to cancer, heart disease and birth defects, (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 19, 2006).  

FMF CAPITAL: Faces Purported Shareholder Suit in Ontario, Canada
Shareholders of FMF Capital Group Ltd. (TSX: FMF.UN) filed a
purported class-action lawsuit in Ontario, Canada against FMF
Capital Group Ltd., FMF Holdings, LLC, FMF Capital, LLC, certain
of the Company's officers and directors, the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering, the Company's auditors and
certain other named individuals.

The Company obtained and reviewed a copy of the statement of
claim, which alleges, among other things, prospectus
misrepresentations, breaches of the Competition Act and
negligent misrepresentation.  The Company believes that the
claims alleged in the statement of claim are without merit and
intends to defend this matter vigorously.

For more details, contact Howard Morof, Chief Financial Officer,
Phone: (248) 799-4000, E-mail: investorrelations@fmfcapital.com.

HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: Settles Spartanburg Lawsuit for $337.5M    
The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
preliminarily approved a definitive agreement to settle a $337.5
million anti-trust suit between Hillenbrand Industries, Inc. and
Spartanburg Regional Healthcare System.

The settlement was agreed by Hillenbrand Industries, Inc. and
its Hill-Rom, Inc. and Hill-Rom Company, Inc. subsidiaries with
Spartanburg Regional Healthcare System, which filed the suit
against Hillenbrand and Hill-Rom.

The settlement agreement contains detailed terms of the
previously announced memorandum of understanding (reached Nov.
16, 2005) and includes Hill-Rom's commitment to continue certain
Company-initiated practices.  The cost of the settlement, along
with estimates of certain legal and other costs to complete the
settlement, was fully accrued by Hillenbrand in the fourth
quarter of its 2005 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30, 2005.

                 Court Hearing for Final Approval

The proposed settlement and any payment to class members are
subject to final court approval of the agreement following
notice to class members.  The court hearing for final approval
is expected to occur in late spring or early summer of 2006.  
When finalized, the settlement is expected to resolve all of the
plaintiffs' claims and those of U.S. and Canadian purchasers or
renters of Hill-Rom products from 1990 through the date of the
agreement.  It is anticipated that within the next month class
members will be notified of their settlement rights either by
mail from the settlement administrator or by publication.

               Financial Effects of the Settlement

After funding the settlement -- $50 million of which will occur
30 days after receipt of preliminary court approval with the
remainder expected approximately 30 days following final court
approval -- Hillenbrand will continue to have a solid financial
position with continued strong operating cash flows, and
remaining availability under its revolving credit facility and
shelf registration statement to fund the execution of its
strategic initiatives.  As of December 31, 2005, the company had
untapped availability of approximately $385.3 million under its
revolving credit facility and $750.0 million available under a
shelf registration statement.  Additionally, as of Dec. 31,
2005, Hillenbrand had available cash and short-term investments
of $196.1 million.

                   Background of the Lawsuit

On June 30, 2003, Spartanburg filed a purported antitrust class
action lawsuit against Hillenbrand and Hill-Rom in South
Carolina District Court alleging violations of federal antitrust
laws.  Spartanburg claimed damages caused by Hill-Rom's
discounting practices, which allegedly harmed competition and
resulted in higher prices for standard and/or specialty hospital
beds and/or architectural and in-room products.  Details of the
litigation are set forth in Hillenbrand's most recent annual
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

                    Fairness Hearing Schedule

In addition to preliminarily approving the settlement, the
District Court certified a class for settlement purposes,
authorized Spartanburg to send notice of the settlement to
members of the class, and scheduled a final fairness hearing for
June 12, 2006. At that hearing, the parties will ask the
District Court for final approval of the settlement.  If
approved, participating class members will be sent and must
return to the Settlement Administrator a Proof of Claim, Release
and Covenant Not to Sue form to receive a distribution from the
settlement fund. The form will include instructions regarding
its submission.

The suit was styled, "Spartanburg Regional Health Services
District, Inc. v. Hillenbrand Industries Inc., et al., Case No.
7:03-cv-02141-HFF," filed in the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, under Judge Henry F. Floyd.  
Representing the Plaintiffs are, John Gressette Felder of Felder
and McGee, P.O. Box 346, Saint Matthews, SC 29135, Phone:
803-874-1430, Fax: 803-655-7167, E-mail: johngfelder@sc.rr.com
and John Gressette Felder, Jr. of McGowan Hood and Felder, 3710
Landmark Drive, Suite 114, Columbia, SC 29204, Phone:
803-327-7800, Fax: 803-328-5656, E-mail:
jfelder@mcgowanhood.com. Representing the Defendant/s are, J.
Theodore Gentry and Frank S. Holleman, III of Wyche Burgess
Freeman and Parham, P.O. Box 728, Greenville, SC 29602, Phone:
864-242-8200, Fax: 864-235-8900, E-mail: tgentry@wyche.com and
fholleman@wyche.com; and Richard A. Feinstein of Boies Schiller
and Flexner, 5301 Wisconsin Ave., NW Suite 800, Washington, DC
20015, Phone: 202-895-5243, E-mail: rfeinstein@bsfllp.com.

ILLINOIS: Cook County Jail Faces New Suit over Strip Searches
Another woman came forward on February 2, 2006 claiming to be
the victim of a strip search at Illinois' Cook County Jail and
filed a federal civil rights case against the guards at the
jail, NBC5.com reports.

Delores Quinn recently heard the story of Kim Young and told
NBC5.com that she could immediately relate.  Previously, Ms.
Young filed a class action lawsuit, claiming she was strip-
searched last year at the Cook County Jail and had to undergo a
Pap smear.

According to the suit styled, "Young et al v. County of Cook et
al, Case No. 1:06-cv-00552" and names Cook County, the
Department of Corrections and the chief operating officer of
Cermak Health Services as defendants, Ms. Young was strip-
searched after a traffic violation.  Ms. Young claims that she
was in Chicago, Illinois last January for a funeral when she was
pulled over for the violation.  It was discovered that Ms. Young
had a prior traffic warrant, and she was taken to the Cook
County Jail, (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 6, 2006).

Ms. Young told NBC5.com that she was processed with 30 other
women who were strip-searched.  According to her, she was given
a pap smear and strip-searched by doctors from Cermak Hospital.  
She told NBC5.com, "They violated my rights because I didn't
give them permission to do it.  It was terrible.  Yes, they used
gloves, but I'll go to my own doctor if I want a pap smear.  
What do I want the jail to do it for?"  She considered her
treatment humiliating and degrading considering she just got a
traffic ticket, (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 6, 2006).

Ms. Quinn case happened too long ago to join Ms. Young's class
action lawsuit.  She told NBC5.com though, "It was a reflection
of everything that I went through.  And this is one reason why I
came forth, so that other women would not have to go through
what I did."

Court records show that Ms. Quinn was arrested in 2000 and
charged with domestic battery against a child, which was later
dropped.  She told NBC5.com that she faced similar treatment
that she called humiliating.  Specifically, Ms. Quinn told
NBC5.com, "The way they speak to you, it was deplorable.  I was
embarrassed, I was humiliated--a low self-esteem of myself."

The guards' attorney filed a motion requesting that the case be
dropped since it was filed after the statue of limitations
passed.  Ms. Quinn though told NBC5.com that she hopes to see
her case through pointing out that, "This represents every woman
who has been through Cook County Jail."

In a statement responding to Ms. Young's case, the Sheriff's
office said, "The search guidelines that are followed by the
staff have been tested in court and approved by the federal
judiciary system."

The suit is styled, "Quinn v. Harris, et al, Case No. 1:03-cv-
03600," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Matthew F. Kennelly.  
Representing the Defendant/s are, John F. Curran and Demetrios
George Kottaras, Cook County State's Attorney, 500 Richard J.
Daley Center, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312) 603-6461, E-mail:
jcurran@cookcountygov.com; Torreya Lyn Hamilton of City of
Chicago, Department of Law, Individual Defense Litigation, 30
North LaSalle St., Ste. 1400, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone:
312-744-6905, Fax: 312-744-6566, E-mail:
thamilton@cityofchicago.org; and James C. Stevens, Jr. of Office
of the Illinois Attorney General, 100 West Randolph St., Ste. A-
600, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 814-7087, E-mail:

ILLINOIS: Villages Shell out $16M to Settle Maintenance Fee Suit
Schaumburg and about 400 other municipalities across the state
of Illinois paid more than $16 million to settle a class action
lawsuit styled, "PrimeCo v. ICC" that was filed against them,
The Pioneer Press Online reports.

The city was among nearly 400 Illinois municipalities that chose
to impose a fee on cellular providers under the former Municipal
Infrastructure Maintenance Fee Act.  Signed into law in 1997, it
allowed municipalities to charge a 1 percent tax on the total
phone bill of cellular customers with billing addresses in the
respective municipality.  The law was terminated in February
2002 when the state's Simplified Municipal Telecommunications
Act was signed into law, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(January 2, 2006) reports.

In 2001, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that it was improper
for towns to impose the fees on wireless retailers without ties
to public rights of way.  In 2002 PrimeCo Personal
Communications and U.S. Cellular filed a lawsuit against the
municipalities that imposed the fee, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (January 2, 2006) reports.

The lawsuit named more that 100 municipalities in Illinois and
was filed over infrastructure maintenance fees, which were
billed to the carrier and passed on to customers from 1998 to
2002.  It challenged the state law, which allowed municipalities
to impose an infrastructure maintenance fee on wireless
companies who utilize the airways for transmission instead of
underground cables, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(November 1, 2005) reports.

The complaint was settled on July 28, 2005.  Municipalities
collectively paid more than $16 million in the settlement.  
While wireless companies passed the fee on to their customers,
the Illinois Supreme Court decided it would not be feasible to
reimburse each cellular customer.  Instead, 60 percent of the
settlement will go to 911 emergency telecommunications programs
and 40 percent to hospitals and emergency medical care
facilities, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (January 2,
2006) reports.

Under the settlement, communities that collected a 1 percent
infrastructure maintenance fee between Jan. 1, 1998, and Feb. 8,
2002, must pay back 70 percent of the collection as part of the
settlement.  The settlement was approved late last year by the
Cook County Circuit Court.

For some communities the rebates are substantial.  Schaumburg's
share is $890,000, the largest of the communities, Jack Siegel,
Schaumburg's village attorney told The Pioneer Press Online.  
The village's annual budget is about $133 million.

However, Schaumburg Village Manager Ken Fritz was not pleased
with the result.  He told The Pioneer Press Online, "From our
perspective this is a totally ridiculous lawsuit.  The lawyers
get a third of the money off the top. They didn't pay the fee.  
The people who actually did pay the bill won't get their money
back.  You might get some of it back, but in a roundabout way.
We have to turn around and give the money back after it's been
spent and after it was collected in good faith."

Elk Grove Village's share is about $400,000, according to
Assistant Village Manager Ray Rummel.  Its annual budget is
about $50 million.

Mr. Rummel told The Pioneer Press Online that the settlement
represented the first time ever that this many Illinois
municipalities were subject to a class-action lawsuit.  He added
that this is also the first time that municipalities were
required to return funds designated for them under legislature
approved by the General Assembly.

Included in the settlement is a provision that past customers of
PrimeCo, the wireless company that originally sued Chicago and
the Illinois Commerce Commission over the fee, be given a rebate
from fees collected.  Mr. Siegel told The Pioneer Press Online
that PrimeCo, which is now U.S. Cellular, kept more precise
records than other wireless phone companies, so former PrimeCo
customers who can be found will get a credit of $15 each on
their phone bills.

The remainder of the settlement money will go to the suit's
lawyers, who are getting a third of the money, to public
hospitals catering to low-income people and to a fund from which
municipalities could get grants for homeland security capital

INDIANA: Settlement Reached in Debt Collection Case V. Sinus Doc
A settlement agreement was reached in the class action lawsuit
stemming from the collection of debts on behalf of missing
Merrillville, Indiana-based sinus doctor Mark Weinberger, The
Nwitimes.com reports.

Crown Point attorney Robert E. Stochel, who represented the
class in the suit, told The Nwitimes.com, "The settlement is as
much as anybody could hope to get."  The lawsuit was initiated
on behalf of Michelle Weiss in U.S. District Court in Hammond,
Indiana and sought to stop representatives Dr. Weinberger from
collecting debts she alleges are not owed to the clinic, (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 11, 2004).

Ms. Weiss, a former patient of Dr. Weinberger, went to the
Merrillville-based doctor for a sinus-related procedure in
September and received a bill for $678 that she maintains she
doesn't owe.  Mr. Stochel previously said he has received
numerous phone calls from former patients of the missing doctor
after Munster-based collection agencies began sending out
billings seeking money due to the clinic.  He further notes that
the stories of those he spoke to were all similar to his client
in that the callers thought they didn't owe the clinic more
money than what had already been paid by their health care
insurance provider, (Class Action Reporter, June 27, 2005).

Specifically, the suit sought to stop Robert Handler, the court-
appointed receiver for Dr. Weinberger's clinic, from collecting
debts and obligations allegedly owed to the clinic.  The suit
also alleges that Mr. Handler and those he represents are
violating federal and state laws by attempting to collect the
debts that are not owed, (Class Action Reporter, June 27, 2005).

The suit is demanding damages from the defendant, attorney fees
and costs.  It also asks for an order declaring any claims for
amounts greater than what was paid by the patient's health care
provider are void, (Class Action Reporter, June 27, 2005).

Mr. Handler previously said that that he was responsible for
hiring Trustmark Recovery Services and Medical Billing, both
based in Munster, to handle the billing and collection for the
Weinberger Sinus Clinic located at 255 E. 90th Drive, (Class
Action Reporter, June 27, 2005).

In the suit, Mr. Stochel contended that the patients had
agreements with Dr. Weinberger to keep their bills under a
certain amount, that they would pay only their insurance co-
payment or that they wouldn't have to pay at all.  He told The
Nwitimes.com, "People started receiving those bill, and they
were stunned.  Some were for $50,000 and $60,000."

The proposed settlement is twofold and includes an agreement
with Mr. Handler and Citibank that they will not pursue
collection of the bills and with Trustmark, which will put
$10,000 in a settlement fund for members of the class.  Mr.
Stochel told The Nwitimes.com that the most each could receive
from that fund would be $75.  In addition, Mr. Handler, Citibank
and Trustmark also will pay for a portion of the attorney fees
incurred by the class.

Commenting on the case's conclusion, Mr. Stotchel told The
Nwitimes.com, "We are very pleased with the result.  It was a
lot of work," adding, "I must have spoken to over 200 people in
November 2004.  It consumed the month. I had patients crying and
concerned about how they're going to be able to pay these

Dr. Weinberger, who had marketed himself as the "Nose Doctor"
because of his specialty in treating sinus-related problems was
reported missing in late September by family members after he
declined to return home with them from a trip to Greece.  He has
not returned to his office since, and creditors have placed the
business under a court-ordered receivership to satisfy more than
$5.7 million in unpaid claims, (Class Action Reporter, June 27,
2005). It was later discovered that his business was more than
$7 million in debt and had just $7,000 in assets.

Since his disappearance, Dr. Weinberger became the subject of
numerous malpractice lawsuits and his license was revoked by the
state.  The clinic and its assets were sold for $3 million in a
court-ordered auction in July 2005.  It reopened under a group
of orthopedic surgeons last month.

The suit is styled, "Weiss v. Weinberg MD et al, Case No. 2:04-
cv-00463-PPS-PRC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana under Judge Philip P. Simon with
referral to Judge Paul R. Cherry.  Representing the Plaintiff/s
are, Robert E. Stochel of Hoffman and Stochel, One Professional
Center, Ste. 308, Crown Point, IN 46307, Phone: 219-662-0165,
Fax: 219-662-2151, E-mail: res@reslaw.org and Glenn S. Vician of
Bowman Heintz Boscia & Vician, PC, 8605 Broadway, Merrillville,
IN 46410, Phone: 219-769-6671, Fax: 219-738-3044, E-mail:
bhbv2@netnitco.net.  Representing the Defendant/s are, David H.
Kreider and R. Lawrence Steele of Hodges & Davis, PC, 8700
Broadway, Merrillville, IN 46410, Phone: 219-641-8700, Fax:
219-641-8710, E-mail: dkreider@hodgesdavis.com and
rsteele@hodgesdavis.com; and Thomas J. Magill of Quarles & Brady
LLP - Chi/IL, 500 W. Madison St., Suite 3700, Chicago, IL 60661,
Phone: 312-715-5000, Fax: 312-715-5155, E-mail: tjm@quarles.com.

INTUIT INC.: Strikes Back at H&R Blocks' False Marketing Suit
Intuit Inc. filed its answer and counterclaims of fraud and
false advertising against H&R Block in federal district court in
Kansas City.  The counterclaims are part of the company's
defense of its TurboTax(R) ad campaign, which was recently
challenged in court by H&R Block.

"We built our advertising campaign around the number of returns
that Block publicly reported," said Brad Henske, senior vice
president and general manager of Intuit's Consumer Tax Group.  
"But in the last three weeks, Block provided new and
contradictory numbers.  We agreed to modify our ad after viewing
these figures that Block provided to the court.  Block then went
back to court to have those new numbers sealed because they were
not willing to stand behind them publicly.

"Now we want Block to make public the right numbers," Mr. Henske
added.  "And we'll continue to create honest and responsible

As part of its counterclaims, Intuit charged Block with making
inconsistent statements regarding how many tax returns it
prepares annually.  Block has stated repeatedly, in public
Securities and Exchange Commission filings and at its Jan. 10
Investment Community Conference statement, that Block-branded
retail stores were responsible for fewer than 19 million returns
in each of the previous six tax years.

However, in its formal complaint filed on Jan. 13, Block
asserted for the first time under oath that its stores prepared
more than 26 million returns.  Then, four days later, Block
submitted in court yet a different number of prepared returns
but then asked the court to seal the number to prevent
disclosure of this latest figure.

According to court transcripts, a Block attorney asked the court
to preclude publication of these latest figures -- which were
different than any figures Block had previously disclosed --
saying, "We do have investors. I don't want anybody ... other
than us making a misuse of those numbers indicating that that's
somehow a representation by us to the public."

Intuit wants Block to prove the definitive number of returns
prepared by Block.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri
ordered Intuit Inc. in January to immediately change its
television and radio commercials that H&R Block claimed were
inaccurate (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 20, 2006).

H&R Block (NYSE: HRB challenged its competitor's claim that its
tax preparation software prepared more tax returns than in H&R
Block's offices.  H&R Block requested that Intuit provide
supporting data and took its competitor to court when Intuit
failed to adequately respond.  Rather than continue to contest
this issue in court, Intuit agreed to change its commercials,
and the District Court confirmed that agreement with an order
requiring Intuit to do so (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 20, 2006.

The case was styled "H&R Block Eastern Enterprises Inc et. al v.
Intuit Inc. (4:06-cv-00039-SOW)," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri under Judge Scott O.
Wright.  Representing the defendant are: Margret M. Caruso of
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Heges, LLP, 555 Twin Dolphin
Drive, Suite 560 Redwood Shores, CA 94065, U.S., Phone:
(650)801-5000; Fax: (650) 801-5100; E-mail:
margretcaruso@quinnemanuel.com; and Teresa Lynn Cauwels of
Armstrong Teasdale LLP-KCMO, 2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 2000
Kansas City, MO 64108, Phone: (816) 221-3420 X5222; Fax:
(816)221-0786; E-mail: tcauwels@armstrongteasdale.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are: Anthony J. Durone of Berkowitz,
Oliver, Williams, Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLP-MO, Two Emanuel
Cleaver II Boulevard, Suite 500, Kansas City, MO 64112, Phone:
(816) 561-7007; Fax: (816) 561-1888; E-mail: adurone@bowse-
law.com; and Stacey R. Gilman of Berkowitz, Oliver, Williams,
Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLP-MO, Two Emanuel Cleaver II Boulevard,
Suite 500 Kansas City, MO 64112, Phone: (816) 561-7007; Fax:
(816) 561-1888; E-mail: sgilman@bowse-law.com.

IOWA: EFCO Corp. Files Suit V. Trade Group over Stock Windfall
EFCO Corp., a Des Moines manufacturer and the Iowa Association
of Business and Industry (ABI) are back in court, arguing over
who owns a $26 million windfall from Principal Financial Group
stock, The Des Moines Register reports.

Recently, the Company filed a lawsuit in Polk County District
Court against the trade group.  The Company, which manufactures
forms used in construction, claims the money belongs to it and
1,500 other members of ABI who bought Principal-issued insurance
through the trade group.

When it became publicly held in 2001, Principal issued stock to
existing policyholders who until then had owned the Company.
Since it had sponsored the group contracts, ABI received 870,393

ABI sold those shares in 2003, netting about $23 million, which
it put into a trust fund that by 2004 and later grew to $26
million.  The two sides would be arguing over $40 million, if
ABI had held onto the shares, which closed Friday at $46.53

The Company asked that the lawsuit be declared class action on
behalf of it and other members of ABI who purchased life
insurance, accidental death and other kinds of insurance from
Des Moines-based Principal.

ABI fired the first salvo in 2004 when it sued EFCO in U.S.
District Court in Des Moines trying to determine ownership of
the share proceeds.  The court ruled in 2005 that it did not
have jurisdiction, and the lawsuit was dismissed.

Mike Ralston, president of ABI, told The Des Moines Register
that he hopes to work things out between the two sides.  Al
Jennings, chairman of the Company and a former chairman of ABI,
was traveling and unavailable for comment.

ISRAEL: Defense Ministry Reaches Settlement with Torture Victims
Israel's Defense Ministry paid about $510,854.60 (NIS 2.4
million) to 28 Palestinians who were tortured by the Defense
Forces and the Shin Bet security service, Haaretz reports.

The payment was made after an out-of-court settlement was
reached with the plaintiffs, who agreed that suits brought to
the Tel Aviv Magistrate and District courts would be turned
down.  Some of the suits were of the class-action variety,
according to attorneys for the Palestinians.

One of the plaintiffs, Benan Oudeh, 31, of Qalqilya, arrested a
few years ago for throwing stones, told Haaretz that his
testicles were beaten so badly in the interrogation room that
they had to be amputated.  Mr. Oudeh's attorney told Haaretz
that his client received only $25,543.57 (NIS 120,000) and was
determined to be credited with a urological disability of 20
percent and a psychiatric disability of 10 percent.

Long negotiations in the case, first brought to court in 1996,
ended in a settlement whereby the state would make the payment
without admitting to the torture.  All the plaintiffs testified
that they were shaken, tied in painful positions, had their
heads covered with sacks and were prevented from sleeping,
techniques that were common at the time but have since been
outlawed by the High Court of Justice.

According to their lawyers, some of the plaintiffs were subject
to more extreme torture, including the withholding of food and
drink, being forbidden to go to the toilet, threats of
imprisonment of family members and confinement in a very small
cold cell.

Another plaintiff, Hassin Zid from Qalqilya, who was arrested at
age 17 on suspicion of throwing a Molotov cocktail, told Haaretz
that he was handcuffed, sprayed with tear gas, tied from the
ceiling and beaten with clubs and a water pipe.  The military
court determined that he was unfit to stand trial was thus
released and hospitalized in a psychiatric facility.  Mr. Zid
was awarded a 30-percent psychiatric disability, according to
attorney Bshara Jabaly, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.

Another plaintiff, Ahmad Mar'i, from Nablus, told Haaretz that
interrogators humiliated him by showing him pornographic
pictures and suggesting they were of his wife and daughters, and
on another occasion, when he was unable to stand, an
interrogator forced him on his feet, forced his mouth open and
spit into it.

The plaintiffs were divided into two categories: torture victims
who were determined not to have incurred permanent disabilities,
who were awarded between $3,192.95 (NIS 15,000) to $8,088.81
(NIS 38,000) each, and those with permanent disabilities, who
received between $10,642.89 (NIS 50,000) to $92,593.18 (NIS
435,000), according to the extent of the disability.

Another attorney for the plaintiffs, Dan Assan, told Haaretz
that the settlement, although made out-of-court still set an
important precedent in that compensation was paid in suits of a
class-action type.  Moreover, he told Haaretz that about half
the plaintiffs were compensated according to no other evidence
than their testimony of torture.  Ms. Assan added that most of
the plaintiffs had not been defined as "ticking bombs" and were
released following their interrogation.

JPMORGAN CHASE: Bond Investors Sue for $2.2B 'Unclaimed' Cash
JPMorgan Chase in New York is facing a complaint in the U.S.
District Court in Brooklyn for an alleged bond fraud that
spanned more than 20 years, according to Reuters.  Lawyer Norman
Kaplan of Great Neck, New York, filed the complaint in behalf of
four lead plaintiffs.  He is seeking class-action status for the

According to the report, the suit accuses JPMorgan and Chase
Manhattan Corp., which acquired it at the end of 2000, of
deleting records for $46.8 billion of bonds that investors had
not cashed in, covering up its errors, refusing to pay back
bondholders, and collecting fees it did not deserve.

The complaint is filed on behalf of two classes:

     (1) about 100,000 investors who bought New York state and
         city bonds and other municipal bonds from 1980 to 2002,
         where JPMorgan served as an agent or custodian; and

     (2) bond issuers who supposedly paid more than $1 billion
         in fees for services the bank did not perform, and
         businesses that help investors track down unclaimed

The complaint claims the bank owes the investors on the first
class $1.2 billion for bonds that matured or were called, but
were not redeemed.  It also alleges that the 5,000 to 10,000
entities in the second class are owed "well over" $1 billion.  

The case is styled "Frankel et al v. Cole et. al (1:06-cv-00439-
CBA-JMA)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  New York
Eastern District under Judge Carol B. Amon with referral to Joan
M. Azrack.  Representing the plaintiffs is Norman Alan Kaplan,
111 Great Neck Road, Great Neck, NY 11021, Phone: 516-487-4300;
Fax: 516-773-4576; E-mail: lawdaddy@aol.com.

LEAD INDUSTRIES: Court Upholds Suit Seeking Medical Aid for Kids
Illinois' Appellate Court reinstated a class action brought by
families of Chicago children against Lead Industries Association
and seven lead-pigment producers, according to Chicago Daily

Mary Lewis, Tashwan Banks and Jacqueline Nye, which appealed a
Cook County Circuit Court ruling of the case, are demanding the
companies to pay for screening children whose health they
claimed were at risk after being exposed to toxic lead-based
paint manufactured by the companies.

The Company's past operations included the manufacture and sale
of lead pigments and lead-based paints.  The Company, along with
Eight paint companies are defendant in a number of legal
proceedings, including purported class actions, separate actions
brought by the State of Rhode Island, and actions brought by
various counties, cities, school districts and other government-
related entities, arising from the manufacture and sale of lead
pigments and lead-based paints (Class Action Reporter, June 6,

The suit, filed by then Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse (D)
in 1999, was the first suit filed by a state against the lead
paint industry.  According to the state's complaint, the
defendants marketed and sold lead-based paint until it was
banned in 1978, despite the knowledge that it was toxic (Class
Action Reporter, June 6, 2006).

The companies named in the suit include:

     (1) American Cyanamid Co.

     (2) Atlantic Richfield

     (3) ConAgra Grocery Products Co.

     (4) Cytec Industries Inc.

     (5) DuPont Co.

     (6) Millennium Inorganic Chemicals Inc.

     (7) NL Industries Inc. and

     (8) Sherwin-Williams Co.

The suit, styled "State of Rhode Island v. Lead Industries
Association, Inc., et al., Case No. 99-5226," was filed in the
Superior Court for the State of Rhode Island, under Judge
Michael Silverstein.

NORTH CAROLINA: Couple Sues Halifax County Over Handling of Dog
A Rocky Mount business owner filed suit Monday against North
Carolina's Halifax County, its board of health and other county
employees stemming from the handling of her dog's encounter with
a raccoon, The Rocky Mount Telegram reports.

Jean Kitchin, owner of the three Almand's Drug Store locations
in Rocky Mount, and her husband, Hodge, filed the class action
lawsuit claiming that the animal control department violated
multiple state laws in the process of quarantining Lady, a
formerly abused dog that the Kitchins have owned for about five
years.  Filed just days after the animal rights group Justice
For Animals requested a hearing to discuss alleged mistreatment
of animals at the shelter, the suit contains a slew of charges
of negligence, infliction of emotional distress and violation of
state quarantine and open meetings laws.

Mrs. Kitchin told Rocky Mount Telegram, "The whole reason that
we're doing this is to change the system for the sake of the
animals and other people who are animal lovers.  It's a social
justice issue and animal justice issue."

The matter started Dec. 11, 2005 when Lady, whose last rabies
booster shot was in May, picked up a raccoon by the back of the
neck, then released it a few seconds later.  The raccoon did not
bite Lady, and because she has nubs for teeth, Lady's teeth
could not have penetrated the raccoon's skin, According to Ms.
Kitchin.  Ms. Kitchin called animal control a few days later to
have them check the raccoon, which they thought was dead, for
rabies.  When the raccoon could not be found, an animal control
worker took Lady to the county's animal shelter on Dec. 16 and
told them the dog would be returned in 10 days, the suit states.

Robert Richardson, the animal control lead officer, called the
Kitchins four days later and told them that animal control
planned to "kill" Lady, because they had nowhere to quarantine
her for six months to make sure she did not endanger anyone, Ms.
Kitchin states.

The suit claims that the director of the shelter, Jeff Dillard,
told the Kitchins they could build a secure quarantine pen in
their yard to keep Lady alive.  The Kitchins complied
immediately, having a pen built within 24 hours, and Scotland
Neck Police Chief Doug Pilgreen agreed to check the pen daily,
but according to the suit, the Kitchins were then told that Mr.
Dillard had misinformed them.

Mrs. Kitchin told The Rocky Mount Telegram that she and her
husband told county officials that they were willing to undergo
the rabies prophylactic treatment that veterinarians receive in
order to care for the dog.  She also told The Rocky Mount
Telegram, "We went the extra mile to offer to protect ourselves
just so they could feel comfortable.  They said, 'No - that
wasn't enough.'"  Mr. Richardson said that the shelter would
have to "kill" the dog unless the Kitchins found a third party
to quarantine Lady, according to the suit.

However, Lynda Smith, director of the Halifax County Health
Department told The Rocky Mount Telegram, "There's some
miscommunication there.  We never used the word 'kill.' ... I
think we did everything reasonably to take care of this animal."

The Kitchins appealed the decision to euthanize Lady and
requested a hearing, which was held Jan. 4.  The suit claims
that the hearing was improperly conducted, and the Board of
Health went into two closed sessions illegally.

Mrs. Smith pointed out that the closed sessions were legal since
the board was investigating a complaint.  During the hearing,
Halifax County Manager Matthew Delk asked the board to "make
reasonable accommodations" in the Kitchins' situation.  

The board denied the Kitchins' appeal, but it is unclear when
the decision was made.  The suit alleges it was done in closed
session, another violation of open meetings law.  The Kitchins
found a third party, Tom Williams of Nashville, to quarantine
Lady for the next six months.  Ms. Smith said the home
quarantine option is not safe pointing out, "If it's someone's
pet and you're keeping it at home, there's just too much room
for error there.  Hopefully, Lady will not get rabies, but we
have to assume the raccoon was rabid."

"That's psychologically got to be tough on an abused dog," Ms.
Kitchin insisted of Lady being kept in quarantine.  "It took a
year before we could touch her."

The suit asks for an injunction to return Lady to the Kitchins,
partly because she was an abused dog that was terrified of
people when the Kitchins found her.  The preliminary injunction
hearing is scheduled for Feb. 10.  In addition to the return of
Lady, the suit requests changes in the county's quarantine
policy to comply with state law, more than $50,000 for
negligence and emotional distress as well as punitive damages
and attorney fees.

Ms. Smith told The Rocky Mount Telegram that the policy complies
with state law even though the policy does not allow for
quarantine instead of euthanasia in Halifax County.  She adds
that the county allows for quarantine if the owners appeal.  Ms.
Smith explains, "The statute says it 'may' allow (quarantine);
it doesn't say that you 'shall' allow it. I'm sure that the
Kitchins are upset.  I would be too, but we have to protect the

Mrs. Kitchin told The Rocky Mount Telegram that the litany of
violations, miscommunications, decision changes and the lack of
care for her animal are something she hopes other pet owners
don't have to face after the suit is heard.  At one point,
according to Mrs. Kitchin, Ms. Smith told her that Lady had not
eaten in 12 days at the shelter, a charge that Ms. Smith called
untrue.  Mrs. also said, "We don't think that people should be
able to abuse animals like this.  One minute, they'd say we're
going to bring her back, then they'd say, oops, we're going to
kill her. ... We're doing this because we think for a long time
they've gotten away with treating people like this."

PACIFICARE HEALTH: Fla. Judge Grants Summary Judgment Motion
U.S. District Judge Federico A. Moreno of the Southern District
of Florida ruled that there is no evidence PacifiCare Health
Systems Inc. conspired with other companies to underpay U.S.
physicians by manipulating computerized claims-processing
systems, Bestwire reports.

In a ruling granting summary judgment for the Company, the judge
said that evidence was lacking that the Company was part of a
conspiracy to underpay doctors or that it aided the defendants'
alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO).  The ruling is for a class action
lawsuit filed by physicians against several major, publicly
traded managed care companies about six years ago.

The physicians alleged that the companies conspired to use
computer software to delay and deny reimbursements and reject
claims for medically necessary services in violation of the
federal civil RICO statute.  Judge Moreno certified the case as
a class action in September 2002.  Presently, the class involves
about 700,000 physicians.

Judge Moreno wrote in his ruling, "Indeed, some of the
plaintiffs' recent descriptions of the alleged conspiracy are so
general that they would include much legal conduct, such as
innocuous efforts to reduce costs.  By definition...managed care
systems seek to reduce costs in the delivery of medical care."

Kent Jarrell, a spokesman for the remaining defendants, wrote in
an e-mail to BestWire that the judge "has challenged the
plaintiffs to present evidence to establish the alleged
conspiracy" as to UnitedHealth Group Inc. (NYSE:UNH) and
Coventry Health Care Inc. (NYSE:CVH), the remaining defendants,
during upcoming oral arguments on summary judgment.  "We look
forward to the opportunity to address these issues before the
court on March 14," Mr. Jarrell wrote.  

The trial in the case, pushed back several times over the years,
recently was rescheduled for September.  Less than two months
ago, UnitedHealth, based in Minnetonka, Minn., acquired the
Company for $9.2 billion.  

In the ruling, Judge Moreno also wrote that the plaintiffs
demonstrated that the Company had an opportunity to conspire.  
But, "opportunities to conspire do not alone raise an inference
of conspiracy," he wrote.

The plaintiffs showed that Company representatives attended
industry conferences and meetings.  The plaintiffs also noted
that Company, "collaborated with other defendants" regarding
trade association mergers and the founding of joint business

However, Judge Moreno held, "Mere presence at the scene of a
transaction or event, or the mere fact that certain persons may
have associated with each other and may have assembled together
and discussed common aims and interest does not necessarily
establish proof of a conspiracy."  The Company also argued that
certain aspects of its business set it apart from the other
companies, according to the ruling.

The Company argued that a big portion of its fee-for-service
claims processing is related to the federal Medicare program,
which requires it to customize its claims-processing.  It also
contended that it didn't use McKesson Corp.'s "ClaimCheck" or
similar software until 1997, after the alleged conspiracy

Judge Moreno wrote that it wasn't shown that the Company acted
in a "parallel manner" with the other defendants.  AS of the
moment it is unclear whether the physicians will appeal.  Archie
Lamb, co-lead counsel for the physicians, couldn't be reached
immediately for comment.

Companies that have struck multimillion-dollar settlements in
the case are Aetna Inc. (NYSE:AET); Cigna HealthCare, a unit of
Cigna Corp. (NYSE:CI); Health Net Inc. (NYSE:HNT); Prudential
HealthCare, the former unit of Prudential Insurance Company of
America; and WellPoint Inc. (NYSE:WLP).  Humana Inc. (NYSE:HUM)
became the latest defendant to settle in October, agreeing to
resolve the case for $58 million.  The companies didn't admit to
any wrongdoing.

The suit is styled, "In re: Managed Care Litigation, MDL No.
1334," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, under Judge Judge Federico A. Moreno.

PIKE COUNTY: ACLO Files Strip Search Suit Against Ohio School
Pike County vocational school officials are facing a second
lawsuit filed by students who allege they were illegally strip-
searched at the school last month.  

According to The Columbus Dispatch, The American Civil Liberties
Union of Ohio, representing the parents of eight of the 20
students filed a suit on Feb. 2 in the U.S. District Court in
Columbus.  The suit is seeking $100,000 in compensatory damages
and $500,000 in punitive damages for each of the eight students.

Twenty female students claimed they were illegally searched on
Jan. 20 after a student told a teacher her cash and credit cards
were stolen, and that the items were hidden in her companions'
undergarments (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 1, 2006).

Previously, another student and the parents of four others filed
a class-action against the school in Pike County Common Pleas
Court.  The lawsuit is seeking more than $50,000 in combined
compensatory and punitive damages for each of the 20 students.

The school said an internal investigation revealed the students'
undergarments were searched, but that no items of clothing were
removed.  District Superintendent Stephen E. Martin said
everything was done according to school policy that allows
teachers to search students when there's an allegation of theft.

The suit is styled "Evans et al v. Pike County Area Joint
Vocational School District et. al (2:06-cv-00084-ALM-NMK),"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Court
of Ohio under Judge Algenon L. Marbley with referral to Judge
Norah McCann King.  Representing the plaintiffs is Jeffrey M.
Gamso, Legal Director, ACLU of Ohio, 4506 Chester Avenue,
Cleveland, OH 44103, Phone: 216-514-1100; Fax: 216-514-0030; E-
mail: jmgamso@acluohio.org.

RANDOM HOUSE: Suit Against James Frey's "Memoir" Filed in Ohio
Law firm Statman, Harris, Siegel, & Eyrich, LLC initiated class
action on behalf of consumers who purchased the book "A Million
Little Pieces" by James Frey, published by Random House, which
was touted as a non-fictional memoir of his life.

This book was endorsed by Oprah Winfrey and topped The New York
Times nonfiction paperback bestseller's list with over two
million copies sold.  The book, which was marketed as a life
changing event book, sent millions of consumers flocking to the
bookstores believing the contents of the book to be true.  It
has now been revealed that the accounts in the book were untrue,
including fabrication of arrests, jail time, and criminal
activities.  This suit seeks a full refund to the consumers for
the purchase of the book. This class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western

ROCHE HOLDING: Faces Purported U.S. Suit on Faulty Insulin Pumps
Roche Holding AG faces legal action in the United States over
faulty insulin pumps made by the firm's Disetronic subsidiary,
Reuters reports.

However, a Company spokesman told Reuters that the problem was
minor.  "This is correct but there were just a few cases and
some are already settled," according to Roche's Daniel Piller.

Swiss newspaper CASH said in an article that its research had
shown that lawyers were seeking users of the pump, such as
diabetics administering insulin, to join a class-action suit
against the Company.

The Company's diagnostics unit, which includes Disetronic,
currently faces a U.S. import ban on the pump imposed by the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2003. A production plant
inspection though by the regulators last year was expected to
result in the ban being lifted.  The Company is still awaiting
the outcome of the visit.

Mr. Piller told Reuters, "The inspection was carried out in July
in Burgdorf and the inspector finished his report for the Office
of Compliance and since then has asked Roche for additional
clarifying information and we have provided that."  He added,
"We can give no timeframe and we are confident that we get back
to the market in the United States."

The CASH newspaper said that the import ban and other unsolved
problems were one of the reasons behind the surprise departure
of Company's diagnostics Chief Executive, Heino von Prondzynski,
who announced his decision to stand down last year.

The Company acquired Disetronic from founder Willy Michel in
2003, paying a healthy  $1.25 billion (1.6 billion Swiss francs)
for the business and melding it into its diagnostics division.  
Mr. Michel then paid about $328,396,612.72 (425 million Swiss
francs) for the part of Disetronic, which made injection pens
and needles, later floating it on the Swiss exchange as Ypsomed
where it currently has a market capitalization of around
$1,777,227,372.62 (2.3 billion Swiss francs).

The FDA sent three letters to Disetronic between 1997 and 2003
warning that it was aware of a problem with its insulin pumps.  
That culminated in the import ban in 2003 after an inspection
showed that the firm had not yet solved the problem leading to
the fault.

SEARS CANADA: Reaches Settlement in Credit Card Case in Quebec
Sears Canada Inc. (TSX: SCC), which was previously named in a
Quebec class action relating to the required 21-day grace period
for credit cardholders to pay their obligations without
attracting credit charges, reports that the parties reached in a
settlement for the case.

According to the Company, the parties reached a settlement,
which was approved by the Court in early April 2005 without
admission of any kind by the defendants.  The settlement, the
Company states, required it to repay interest and lost
opportunity costs to cardholders in Quebec in a total amount,
which was not material to the Company's financial statements.

SELWYN HOUSE: Former Teachers Face Sexual Assault Allegations
Two more former students of Selwyn House, the Westmount
preparatory school for boys, have filed lawsuit in Quebec
Superior Court seeking class action for a sexual assault case
against at least two teachers.

The complaint, which concerned teachers during the 70s, are
asking $19 million in damages, according to Globe and Mail.  It
is also accusing Selwyn House of failing to protect the
students, alleging that authorities knew, or should have known,
the teachers were pedophiles.

The two separate suits follows that of another former student,
who filed a case of sexual molestation in September.  The case
has not yet received class-action status.

SONY CANADA: Faces New Lawsuit over DRM Software Programs in CDs
Sony Canada was hit with another class action suit arising from
last year's rootkit fiasco, according to Michael Geist of

The suit contains new allegations about the Company's conduct in
Canada.  In particular, it alleges:

    (1) Sony released at least 34 titles in Canada with sales of
        approximately 120,000 CDs;

    (2) Sony waited two extra weeks to begin recalling CDs in
        Canada as compared to the United States;

    (3) Sony did not do enough to remove the CDs from store

One of the named complainants purchased the CD on Boxing Day,
weeks after the recall was announced and the complaint alleges
that the CDs are still being sold.  Additionally, the complaint
includes considerable analysis of the Company's alleged
violation of both consumer protection and national privacy

Back in Nov. 2005, a U.S. class action suit was launched against
Sony BMG, concerning the Company's distribution of music CDs
containing digital rights management (DRM) software programs
called MediaMax and XCP.  Plaintiffs in the case alleged the
programs, which would install themselves on computers playing
the CDs, compromise the security of the machines and, in the
case of XCP, could be used to track the listening habits of
customers.  MediaMax Version 5 came under fire because it would
install even before a pop up appeared on the screen asking users
for permission, (Class Action Reporter story Jan. 11, 2006).

The suit was recently settled.  Under the proposed settlement,
the Company will stop manufacturing CDs with both First4Internet
XCP and SunnComm MediaMax software.  For individuals who already
purchased the flawed CDs, they will be offered the same music
without digital rights management (DRM), and some will also
receive downloads of other Sony BMG music from several different
services, including iTunes.  In addition, the deal would also
waive several restrictive end user license agreement (EULA)
terms and commit the Company to a detailed security review
process prior to including any DRM on future CDs, as well as
providing for adequate pre-sale notice to consumers in the
future, (Class Action Reporter story Jan. 10, 2006).

Consumers can exchange CDs with XCP software for clean CDs now,
however, the rest of the settlement benefits will not be
available until an official notice to the class is issued.  The
court ordered that the notice via: newspaper ads, Google ads,
email and other means must occur by February 15.  Once that
happens, consumers can begin submitting claims for settlement
benefits and should get those benefits within 6-8 weeks of
submitting the proof of claim form, (Class Action Reporter story
Jan. 10, 2006).

For more details, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?508.

ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Exec's Testimony Saves Firm at W.Va. Trial
The testimony by St. Paul Travelers' Chief Executive Jay Fishman
at a jury trial in Kanawha County courthouse over medical
malpractice insurance paid off, when on Jan. 26, 2006, six
jurors decided that his Company did nothing wrong, The West
Virginia Record reports.

Mr. Fishman took the stand on Jan. 12, 2006 as a surprise
witness in the trial of a class action suit before Circuit Judge
Paul Zakaib Jr.  Attorneys for the plaintiffs had not compelled
his testimony by subpoena.  "We did nothing wrong," Mr. Fishman

In the suit, doctors Eric Mantz, Willis Trammel and Todd
Witsberger allege that in 2001 the insurer, then named St. Paul
Fire and Marine, withdrew from the malpractice market in a plot
to convert a portion of doctors' premiums to the company's own
uses.  Mr. Fishman though told jurors that it did not happen
that way, explaining that the Company withdrew because it faced
years of big losses on malpractice claims.  According to his
testimony, "The Company was beginning to lose its credibility in
the financial marketplace.  It was just beginning to run out of
time."  He adds, "These are not little decisions.  These are big
time decisions,"  (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 31, 2006)

Judge Zakaib, certified the case as a national class action, but
later shrank it to a West Virginia class action with a class of
about 1,240 doctors.  Former Supreme Court Justice Richard
Neely, representing the doctors, predicted last fall that a jury
would award at least $45 million in punitive damages.

Both sides agreed that the company's directors voted Dec. 7,
2001, to stop selling malpractice insurance in the United
States.  At the recent trial Mr. Neely's team needed to convince
jurors that people at the Company had planned the withdrawal for
months before the directors approved it.  Mr. Neely's team
possessed a consultant's report and an internal e-mail
discussing the withdrawal months before the board decision.

Mr. Fishman, who had not seen either, took the stand to tell a
simple story.  He told jurors he took the job on Oct. 11, coming
from another company.  Mr. Fishman said that his predecessor
would not consider withdrawing from medical malpractice and this
predecessor was attached to that line of business and biased
towards it.  Mr. Fishman further recounted how he tried to find
a way to stay in the market and actually kept trying through
Dec. 5, two days before the board meeting.

When plaintiff attorney John B. Williams of Washington showed
him the consultant's report listing withdrawal as an option, Mr.
Fishman said it would be ridiculous to pay a consultant and not
have him examine every option.  Later, Mr. Williams showed him
the e-mail, with a name of Kevin O'Brien on it.  Mr. Fishman
commented that he did not know Kevin O'Brien and did not know if
he was involved in decisions.  He specifically pointed out,
"This was never presented to me and I am the decision maker."

The plaintiffs never nicked their target, so St. Paul Travelers
attorney Neil Dilloff of Baltimore did not have to repair any
damage.  Mr. Dilloff needed only to connect this wealthy
stranger to the jurors, and this he did.

Mr. Fishman told Mr. Dilloff and the jury that his father ran a
print shop in the Bronx.  He also said that his sister was the
first person in the family to go to college.  He went on to
recall his past especially about going to the University of
Pennsylvania and earning a license as a certified public
accountant.  He also described a series of bigger and better

Sober as a judge, Mr. Fishman softly cracked a joke when Mr.
Dilloff asked if he stayed current on certified public
accounting.  He said, "No. My CPA stands for cleaning, pressing
and alterations."

Though the trial would go on for two more weeks, Mr. Fishman had
already won, according to court observers.

SUNTOME TRADING: Recalls Baby Walkers Due to Stairway Fall Risk
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and SunTome Trading
Corp. of Los Angeles, California are recalling 600 units of baby
walker.  Consumers are advised to stop using recalled products
immediately.  SunTome Trading originally recalled these baby
walkers on July 20, 2001.

The company said the walkers can fit through a standard doorway
and are not designed to stop at the edge of a step.  Babies
using these walkers can be seriously injured or killed.  No
injuries or incidents have been reported.

The recalled walkers have eight wheels and are sold in various
colors including dark blue, pink and white, or pink and red.  
The activity trays on the baby walkers have a steering wheel,
various rattles and a mirror or animal themes.  The trays play
music when the baby pushes a button.  "Baby" is printed on a
sticker on the tray or the walker's base.

The baby walkers were manufactured in China.  They are sold in
retail toy stores nationwide from March 2001 through January
2006 for about $20.

Consumers should stop using the recalled walkers immediately and
return the walkers to the retailer where purchased for a full

Consumer Contact: SunTome Trading Corp., Phone: (888) 786-8663
between 9:30 a.m. and 6 p.m. PT Monday through Friday; CPSC on
the Net: http://www.cpsc.gov/talk.html.

TURLOCK IRRIGATION: Workers Launch Overtime Wage Suit in Calif.
Two power control center operators are suing the Turlock
Irrigation District (TID), claiming that the public utility does
not pay overtime, even if employees work 60 or 100 hours in a
week, The Modesto Bee reports.

In their suit filed in U.S. District Court in Fresno, Gerald
Avila and Tom Souza contend that they should not be classified
as "exempt" employees, since they are not managers and do not
supervise others.  Attorney Mark Ozzello of Los Angeles, who is
representing the two workers, is seeking overtime when operators
work more than 40 hours a week, as well as back pay dating back
to Jan. 11, 2003.

Mr. Ozzello acknowledged that the operators work under a
contract that was agreed upon by the public employee division of
Operating Engineers Local 3, the union that represents the
workers.  However, he argues that the contract violates the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act and noted that the Modesto
Irrigation District is defending itself in a similar lawsuit.

Mr. Ozzello also said that he negotiated a $14 million
settlement for power operators working for the California
Independent Systems Operator, netting some employees as much as
$200,000 in back pay.

TID uses a schedule common in the power industry: Power control
center operators work 12-hour shifts on a rotating schedule, may
work three or four days in a week and sometimes pick up extra
shifts.  Mr. Ozzello told The Modesto Bee that workers like the
schedule, since they end up with four or five days off in a row
on a regular basis, but want the overtime pay they are due.

The attorney is asking the court to certify the case as a class-
action lawsuit that would include about 40 operators and
apprentices.  So far, the district has not responded to the
lawsuit, which was filed back in Jan. 17, 2006.

Steve Boyd, TID's assistant general manager of consumer services
and government relations, told The Modesto Bee that he could not
comment, since the district had not been officially served with
the lawsuit.

The suit is styled, "Avila et al v. Turlock Irrigation District,
Case No. 1:06-cv-00050-OWW-SMS," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California under Judge Oliver
W. Wanger with referral to Judge Sandra M. Snyder.  Representing
the Plaintiff/s is Mark A. Ozzello of Arias, Ozzello & Gignac,
LLP, 6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400, Los Angeles, CA 90045,
US, Phone: 310670-1600 109, Fax: 310670-1231, E-mail:

VIRGINIA: Lawyers Seek Support in Suit V. $10.14B Tobacco Buyout
Dan Caldwell and Cameron Bell, attorneys of the PennStuart law
firm in Abingdon, Virginia, met recently with about 35 tobacco
growers at the Wilson County Agricultural Center to discuss a
class-action lawsuit they are handling that targets the
regulations of a $10.14 billion buyout of the tobacco program
last year, The Wilson Daily Times reports.

The lawsuit is against Mike Johanns, secretary of agriculture;
the U.S. Department of Agriculture; and the Commodity Credit
Corporation.  It was filed in October 2005 in U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Virginia and is a
constitutional challenge.

The law firm suggests $400 million to $600 million was not
allocated to tobacco growers, which should have been, from the
tobacco quota buyout.  Specifically, one of the big contentions
about the tobacco buyout was the entire $10.14 billion
settlement would not be paid to growers and quota holders.  They
would actually get $9.6 billion.

According to the Federal Register, about $540 million was taken
from the $10.14 billion settlement to dissolve the reserve
tobacco under the Commodity Credit Corporation that was
purchased by the Flue-Cured Cooperative Stabilization Corp.
during auction sales.

However, the lawsuit is focusing on the way tobacco growers were
paid over a three-year period between 2002 and 2004.  The law
firm is saying the U.S. Department of Agriculture set the
formula, which was different than the original formula set by
the Congress.

The lawsuit stems from Congress' decision last year to terminate
the federal government's nearly 70-year-old supply-and price-
control program for tobacco crops, returning U.S. leaf
production to a fully free-market system for the first time
since the Great Depression, (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 16,

In that decision, Congress, along with extensive lobbying by
farmer organizations, also approved a nearly $10 billion buyout
to compensate farmers for the loss of tobacco quotas,
essentially government-issued production licenses that had been
treated as assets over the years. The buyout is expected to
channel about $660 million to farmers and quota owners in
Virginia during the next 10 years, (Class Action Reporter, Jan.
16, 2006).

Under the legislation passed by Congress, farmers who grew
tobacco in 2002, 2003 and 2004 should be compensated $3 per
pound based on their 2002 quota.  Owners of tobacco quota, which
includes people who don't farm but owned these production
licenses and leased it to active farmers, should be compensated
$7 per pound, (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 16, 2006).

Mr. Caldwell told The Wilson Daily Times that two burley tobacco
growers from Washington County, Virginia started the suit.  His
law firm is asking the court to certify the complaint as a class
action for burley and flue-cured tobacco growers against USDA.
That motion is to be heard on Feb. 17.  If the case is approved
as a class action, it could affect thousands of farmers,
according to Mr. Caldwell said.

In addition, Mr. Caldwell told The Wilson Daily Times that the
case stems from the statute requiring that growers be paid $3
per pound based on the 2002 effective quota.  But the secretary
of agriculture applied a formula of that included crops years
2003-04, according to him.

Mr. Caldwell said Jimmy Lee, a former farmer who is no stranger
to class action lawsuits, invited him to Wilson.  Mr. Lee was
instrumental in supporting a class action against tobacco
companies for price fixing on the auction system in 1996-2000,
which eventually resulted in a $220 million settlement split for
growers and quota holders.  "The group we met with seemed very
interested," Mr. Caldwell said.

Mr. Lee, who quit farming in 2004 after 32 years of toiling the
soil in Johnston County, told The Wilson Daily Times that
something was wrong with the formula USDA came up with that gave
growers $1 per pound of their quota for each year from 2002-04
instead of paying them $3 for their 2002 quota as Congress

Many tobacco growers faced major quota cuts in 2003 and 2004,
which would lower the amount of buyout money they would receive.
Economists have estimated tobacco growers could lose $400
million to $600 million because of the quota cuts, according to
Mr. Lee.  

Mr. Lee also told The Wilson Daily Times, "I don't think the
USDA or any other entity has the right to change the laws the
U.S. Congress passed."  He added, "I don't see where any flue-
cured grower would be against it. We're not calling for any more
money than is already there. We are not trying to sue for an
enormous figure.  We're just trying to get the USDA to follow
what was passed in the tobacco transition bill in October 2004."

Sammy Tant, a farmer who grows tobacco in Nash and Wilson
counties, told The Wilson Daily Times that there was no issue
with quota holders who received $7 per pound based on the 2002
tobacco allotment. However, for growers to be eligible for the
payouts, they had to be in production from 2002-04.  A formula
was created to equate the 2003-04 crops to the 2002 quota,
according to the USDA.

Growers were losing money because of quota cuts in 2003-04, Mr.
Tant pointed out.  Although the class action lawsuit was first
on behalf of burley tobacco growers, Tant told The Wilson Daily
Times that flue-cured growers should also be concerned.

About 380,000 quota holders and 181,000 producers participated
in the buyout, which will pay out $951 million a year for 10
years.  Tobacco companies and importers are footing the bill for
the buyout, which eliminates price supports in place since the
1930s and allows companies to buy tobacco at a cheaper price,
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 16, 2006).

The suit is styled, "Neese et al v. Johanns, Case No. 1:05-cv-
00071-gmw-pms," filed in United States District Court for the
Western District of Virginia, under Judge Glen M. Williams.
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Cameron Scott Bell and Daniel
Hill Caldwell of PENN STUART & ESKRIDGE, P.O. BOX 2288,
ABINGDON, VA 24212-2288, Phone: 276-628-5151 and 276-623-4410,
Fax: 276-628-1730 and 276-628-5621, E-mail: cbell@pennstuart.com
and dcaldwell@pennstuart.com. Representing the Defendant/s is
202-514-1359, Fax: 202-318-0486, E-mail:

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

JARDEN CORP: Paskowitz & Associates Files N.Y. Securities Suit
Paskowitz & Associates initiated a lawsuit seeking class action
status in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the
publicly traded securities of Jarden Corp. (NYSE: JAH; "Jarden")
between June 29, 2005 and January 11, 2006 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Jarden and CEO Martin Franklin
("Franklin") violated the federal securities laws in connection
with a scheme to convert hundreds of millions of dollars of
convertible stock to common stock, and earn defendant Franklin
tens of millions of dollars in restricted stock compensation.
Specifically, it is asserted that Franklin misrepresented the
business situation and potential of the Holmes Group, Inc. when
that company was acquired by Jarden at the beginning of the
Class Period.  

This caused the stock to rise substantially, triggering the
personal benefits to Franklin.  On January 11, 2006 Jarden
announced that Holmes' profit margins and product mix were not
what the market had been led to expect.  On this news, Jarden's
stock fell substantially.

For more details, contact Laurence Paskowitz of Paskowitz &
Associates, Phone: 800-705-9529, E-mail: classattorney@aol.com.

OMNICARE INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in Ky.
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Omnicare,
Inc. (NYSE: OCR) between August 3, 2005 and January 27, 2006,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky against defendant Omnicare and one
or more of its officers and/or directors.  The action charges
that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the
above action.

For more details, contact The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. at The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-
mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.

OMNICARE INC.: Lerach Coughlin Files Ky. Securities Fraud Suit
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, initiated a
class action on behalf of an institutional investor in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky on behalf of purchasers of Omnicare, Inc. ("Omnicare")
(OCR) publicly traded securities during the period between
August 3, 2005 and January 27, 2006 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Omnicare and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Omnicare provides pharmaceutical care for elderly people
primarily in the United States and Canada.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and prospects. As a result of these false statements,
Omnicare stock traded at inflated levels during the Class
Period, trading as high as $61.85 per share, and the Company was
able to complete offerings of more than $2.5 billion worth of

On January 30, 2006, Associated Press reported that on January
27, 2006, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer, the Michigan
attorney general's office raided Omnicare's offices in Livonia
and other cities. On this news, an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus
downgraded the stock due to his concerns regarding the raid and
the potential for further raids on the Company's offices. In
response, on January 30, 2006, Omnicare shares fell $5.09 to
$49.96 in afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) the Company was artificially inflating its earnings by
         engaging in improper generic drug substitution;

     (2) the Company was not in compliance with Medicare laws;

     (3) the implementation of the Medicare Part D Plan had
         dramatically increased the Company's costs and
         increased the number of rejected Medicare claims to
         nearly 40%;

     (4) the Company was not "well-positioned to add value under
         the new Medicare Part D" Plan, but rather, the Company
         lacked adequate staff and internal compliance controls
         to ensure the Company could benefit from the new plan
         and instead, the Part D Plan wreaked havoc on the
         Company's business model, sending costs, rejection
         rates and receivables far higher than shareholders were
         led to believe.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Omnicare publicly traded securities during the Class Period
(the "Class").

For more details, contact William Lerach of Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, Phone: 800-449-4900, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site:

ROYAL GROUP: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Royal Group Technologies Limited ("Royal Group" or "the
Company") (RYG) (CA:RYG) and all foreign persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Royal
Group on the NYSE during the period between February 24, 2000
and October 18, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false statements
regarding Royal Group's financial condition.  Specifically,
defendants knew, but failed to disclose, that Company officers
and directors systematically treated the Company like their
personal piggy bank -- routinely causing the Company to engage
in financial transactions either with themselves or with
companies under their control. It is alleged that the course of
self-dealing conduct that transpired at Royal Group was
pervasive and substantial.

On October 15, 2004, Royal Group announced that Company officers
and directors were the subject of a Royal Canadian Mounted
Police ("RCMP") criminal investigation in connection with their
engaging in self-dealing transactions with Royal Group.  Then,
on October 18, 2004 (after the close of trading), the Company
announced that it was being criminally investigated by the RCMP
in connection with the self-dealing transactions.

As a result of the revelations of the substantial self-dealing
transactions by Defendants, the price of Royal Group's stock
fell from $8.97 per share on October 13, 2004, to $7.15 per
share on October 19, 2004, a decline of $1.82 per share, or more
than 20%.

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

TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Stock Suit in N.Y.
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of Take-Two Interactive Software,
Inc. ("Take-Two" or the "Company") (TTWO) between October 25,
2004 and January 27, 2006, inclusive, (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false statements
regarding the success of the Company's video game Grand Theft
Auto: San Andreas and the strong contribution that it was making
to the Company's overall revenues. Specifically, defendants
failed to disclose that Take-Two improperly hid pornographic
materials directly in the programming of the Grand Theft Auto:
San Andreas in order to obtain a rating of "Mature 17+" by the
powerful Entertainment Software Rating Board ("ESRB").  As
alleged in the Complaint, had the ESRB known of the pornographic
materials contained in the game, it would have assigned it a
rating of "Adults Only 18+" and it would not have been carried
for sale in the major retail chains, who refuse to carry such
games.  Indeed, when it was subsequently disclosed that the ESRB
had revised its rating on the game to "Adults Only 18+," the
Company was forced to reduce its financial guidance.

On January 27, 2006, it was announced that the City Attorney for
the City of Los Angeles filed an action against the Company and
its subsidiary, Rockstar, in the Superior Court of the State of
California alleging, that Take-Two and Rockstar violated
sections of the California Business and Professions Code by
publishing untrue and misleading statements and engaging in
unfair competition.  On this news, Take-Two's stock fell below
$14 per share.

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


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


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, Teena Canson and Lyndsey Resnick,

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  * * *