---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, March 16, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 54

                            Headlines

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Trade Groups Back Class Certification Review
AUTONATION INC: Final Hearing For Tex. Settlement Set June 2006
BIOMEDICAL TISSUE: Fearful Transplant Recipients Launch Suits
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Fiduciary Duty Claim Stands in N.Y. Suit
CALIFORNIA: Court Decisions Rule on Enforceability of Waivers

CALIFORNIA: Educ. Officials Continue with Exit Exam Despite Suit
CALIFORNIA: Major Record Labels Face Federal Antitrust Lawsuit
CANADIAN RAILWAY: High Court Might Decide N.D. Derailment Suit
CRACKER BARREL: Paying $2M for Ill. Restaurants Labor Lawsuit
DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Ky. Judge Names New Settlement Monitor

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Services to Disabled Remain Deficient
DUPONT: EPA Wary Fluorine-Containing Substances May be Harmful
EXELON CORP: Faces Lawsuit in Ill. Over Hazardous Chemical Spill
FLORIDA: Settlement Money Over Jacksonville Incinerators Coming
FORD MOTOR: Settles Racial Discrimination Complaint in S.D. N.Y.

GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Court Junks Suit Over Paxil Distribution
ILLINOIS: Expert Says Coming Atrazine Suit Threatens Food Supply
INTERNET POSTERS: Discovery on Fraudulent Trading Claim Proceeds
INTRALASE CORP: Opthalmologist Launches TCPA Complaint in N.Y.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Counsel Expands Calif. Overtime Pay Suit

IOWA: High Court Hears Arguments Over Des Moines' Franchise Fees
KMART CORP: Reaches $13M Settlement in Disability Access Suit
KOREAN AIR: Zucker's Gifts Launches Price-Fixing Lawsuit in N.J.
MICHIGAN: Homeowners to Share Windfall From Flood Settlement
MICROSOFT CORP: Antitrust Suit in Iowa Seeks Millions in Refunds

MICROTUNE INC.: Suit Settlement Fairness Hearing Set April 2006
NEW YORK: Commuters File Suit V. MTA Over "Toll Discrimination"
ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Juniper Shareholders Urged to File Claims
ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Stamps.com Investors Urged to File Claims
ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Concur, Covad Investors Urged to File Claims

ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Bookham Shareholders Urged to File Claims
SIRIUS SATELITTE: Settles Shareholder Lawsuit in N.Y. For $8M
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Consolidated Securities Suits in N.Y.
UNITED STATES: Insurers Identify Need for Confidentiality Model
UNITED STATES: Minn., Ohio Judges Rule V. Red Light Cameras

WASHINGTON: State Workers Mull Suit V. Union Over Required Fees
WIRELESS FACILITIES: Stock Suit Junked; Appeal Due in 45 Days

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

BAUSCH & LOMB: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
BAUSCH & LOMB: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
BAUSCH & LOMB: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                            *********


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Trade Groups Back Class Certification Review
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Property Casualty Insurers Association of America filed a
brief with the Washington State Supreme Court in the case of
Laughlin v. Allstate Insurance Co., BestWire reports.

PCI's brief is backing Allstate's motion to review the
certification of the class in the suit over insurance contract
filed against it, stating that one state "should not and
constitutionally cannot interfere with the regulation of
insurance contracts that are executed in other states."  The
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies has filed a
similar brief in support of the motion for review.

Allstate is asking the court to reconsider the certification of
the class, which includes plaintiffs from 19 states.  In its
appeal, which was rejected by the court, Allstate said there are
too many fact issues and differences in the states' insurance
and contract laws.

The suit against Allstate was filed in 2002 by Washington state
resident Stephen Laughlin, North Carolina resident James Popwell
and Tennessee resident Vicki Wiley, court documents show,
according to the report.  The defendants claim they hold
underinsured motorist coverage that obligated Allstate to pay
damages the claimant was legally entitled to from an
underinsured driver.  They said they each made UIM claims and
Allstate repaired the vehicles without informing them that
property damage wasn't measured by the value of repairs but the
diminution in fair market value.  Allstate also is alleged to
have assessed a deductible even though a deductible wasn't due
under its UIM coverage, according to the report.

Allstate Insurance Group -- http://www.allstate.com/-- led by
Allstate Insurance Co., primarily writes personal
property/casualty and life insurance.  Established in 1931 by
Sears, Roebuck & Co., Allstate is the country's second-largest
property/casualty underwriter and ranks among the 25 largest
life and health insurers.


AUTONATION INC: Final Hearing For Tex. Settlement Set June 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
AutoNation, Inc. reports that final court approval hearing for
the settlements of class actions filed against certain of its
Texas dealerships, the Texas Automobile Dealers Association
(TADA), and certain new vehicle dealerships in Texas that are
members of TADA is set for June 2006.

Two state court class actions and one federal court class action
were initially filed, alleging that since January 1994, Texas
dealers have deceived customers with respect to a vehicle
inventory tax and violated federal antitrust and other laws.

In April 2002, in two actions (which have been consolidated) the
state court certified two classes of consumers on whose behalf
the action would proceed.  In the federal antitrust case, in
March 2003, the federal court conditionally certified a class of
consumers.  The company and the other dealership defendants
appealed the ruling to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which
on October 5, 2004 reversed the class certification order and
remanded the case back to the federal district court for further
proceedings.

In February 2005, the Company and the plaintiffs in each of the
cases agreed to settlement terms.  The state settlement, which
was approved preliminarily by the state court on December 27,
2005, is contingent upon final court approval, the hearing for
which is currently scheduled for June 2006.

The claims against the Company in federal court also would be
settled contingent upon final approval in the state action.  The
estimated expense of the settlements is not a material amount
and includes the Company's stores issuing coupons for discounts
off future vehicle purchases, refunding cash in certain
circumstances, and paying attorneys' fees and certain costs.
Under the terms of the settlements, the Company's stores would
be permitted to continue to itemize and pass through to the
customer the cost of the inventory tax.  If the settlements were
not finally approved, the Company would then vigorously assert
available defenses in connection with the TADA lawsuits.


BIOMEDICAL TISSUE: Fearful Transplant Recipients Launch Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately eight transplant patients across the country filed
federal class-action lawsuits against Fort Lee, New Jersey-based
Biomedical Tissue Services, Ltd., its owner and distributors
over tissues and bones that were allegedly stolen from a corpse
without being tested for diseases, The NorthJersey.com reports.

In addition to the federal suits, several other patients also
flooded state courts with consumer fraud and negligence claims.
In the meantime, attorneys report they have fielded telephone
calls from hundreds of people in 34 states, Canada and even
England who were notified they might have received the stolen
tissue and bones.  At least 10 so far tested positive for
hepatitis C, according to the lawyers.

Heather Augustin, 42, who works at the FAA Technical Center and
was one of those who filed a federal suit against the Company,
told The NorthJersey.com, "I was just in shock and freaked out.
It was to the point where I'm thinking, 'All I did was go get my
neck fixed and now I have to go get tested for AIDS, hepatitis
and syphilis.'"

The deluge of legal actions comes as a federal grand jury
continues to investigate Michael Mastromarino, the owner of the
Company, for illegally carving up corpses and stealing their
bones and tissue.  Just recently, Mr. Mastromarino and three
others pleaded not guilty to charges that they cut up and
shipped more than 1,000 body parts to tissue banks and implant
manufacturers without testing them for diseases.  A source close
to the investigation told The NorthJersey.com that the grand
jury is "within weeks" of also indicting employees of up to a
dozen funeral homes in New Jersey and New York for participating
in the ring.

However, Mr. Mastromarino's lawyer, Mario Gallucci, maintains
that his client believes his distributors, Regeneration
Technologies Inc. and Tutogen Medical, sterilized the tissue and
bone pieces.  He told The NorthJersey.com, "He feels sorry for
these people, that they're living this nightmare.  But he also
knows they were sterilized.  If they weren't, then that was the
fault of the distributors who were sterilizing the tissue and
cleaning it."

Attorneys say the body-snatching ring exploded into a full-blown
health crisis, with little direction from the government about
who should be tested and how often they should be retested for
diseases with an incubation period.  According to attorney
Andrew J. D'Arcy, who is representing Ms. Augustin and another
plaintiff in class-action suits filed in New Jersey, "A clean
result now doesn't mean it's a clean result six months from now.
Unfortunately, a lot of people are being sold a bag of goods by
the medical community that they're low-risk, so don't worry
about it."

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which has since shut down
the Company, recommended in October that patients be tested for
diseases such as AIDS and syphilis.  Two months ago, it
reiterated the warning, saying the risk of infection is low but
not unknown.

However, hospitals and doctors have been largely responsible for
notifying patients that they may be at risk.  "It's crazy that
it's gotten to this.  It's just kind of ad hoc as to how people
find out," Philadelphia attorney Claudine Homolash, who has
filed a suit on behalf of David Tosto in federal court in New
Jersey, told The NorthJersey.com.

Mr. Tosto, 33, told The NorthJersey.com that he was unable to
get answers from his Atlantic County doctor's office about
whether the donor hipbone he received during knee surgery was
linked to the tissue scandal.  Without a doctor's referral,
according to him, he was unable to get tested for diseases.  "I
don't have $900 to find out if I got AIDS from a standard
operation," Mr. Tosto, who doesn't have health insurance, said.

One of the defendants in Mr. Tosto's lawsuit, Regeneration
Technologies, petitioned a panel in Washington to consolidate
and transfer the 11 federal suits filed so far to the U.S.
District Court in Newark.  Regeneration Technologies was a major
distributor of tissue harvested by Biomedical Tissue Services.

Hot spots are emerging across the country where hospitals have
been more diligent about notifying patients.  Kevin Dean, a
lawyer with Motley Rice, who is allegedly representing more than
100 clients in 20 states, told The NorthJersey.com that patients
mainly from South Carolina, North Carolina, Ohio, Illinois and
Pennsylvania have contacted him.  Mr. Dean also told The
NorthJersey.com that he also has at least three clients who have
tested positive for hepatitis C.

Proving such cases is a challenge though, attorneys say, because
often lab work before surgery was spotty and infections could
have been contracted after the operations.  "We're making our
best effort to make sure before we file a lawsuit that we can
make that connection," Mr. Dean told The NorthJersey.com,
adding, "There are ways we can go back in their history to rule
things out."

With the number of plaintiffs estimated to be in the thousands,
lawyers would not speculate on the potential cost to the
companies named in the suit.  However, several plaintiffs said
that they hoped the suits would bring greater government
oversight to an industry that is largely unmonitored.  "I want
some regulations to come out of this - I want to make sure other
people don't have to go through this," according to Ms.
Augustin, whose tests in November came back negative.  "Because
it's not over for me.  Who's to say that in 10 years something
might not show up?"


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Fiduciary Duty Claim Stands in N.Y. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana (TRSL) filed a
motion in New York Supreme Court to vacate the stay of a class
action filed against Cablevision Systems, Corporation, its
directors and officers and certain current and former officers
and employees of the Company's Rainbow Media Holdings and
American Movie Classics subsidiaries.

In August 2003, a purported class action was filed, relating to
the August 2002 Rainbow Media Group tracking stock exchange.
The suit alleged, among other things, that the exchange ratio
was based upon a price of the Rainbow Media Group tracking stock
that was artificially deflated as a result of the improper
recognition of certain expenses at the national services
division of Rainbow Media Holdings.  The complaint alleges
breaches by the individual defendants of fiduciary duties. The
complaint also alleges breaches of contract and unjust
enrichment by the Company.  The complaint seeks monetary damages
and such other relief as the court deems just and proper.

On October 31, 2003, the Company and other defendants moved to
stay the action in favor of the previously filed actions pending
in Delaware or, in the alternative, to dismiss for failure to
state a claim.  On June 10, 2004, the court stayed the action on
the basis of the previously filed action in Delaware.  The
Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana has filed a motion to
vacate the stay in the New York action, and has simultaneously
filed a motion to intervene in the Delaware action and to stay
that action.  The Company has opposed both motions.  On April
19, 2005, the court in the Delaware action denied the motion to
stay the Delaware action and granted TRSL's motion to intervene
in that action.  On June 22, 2005, the court in the New York
action denied TRSL's motion to vacate the stay in that action.


CALIFORNIA: Court Decisions Rule on Enforceability of Waivers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two California courts recently ruled that class action waiver
agreements were enforceable if properly implemented, The Mondaq
News Alerts reports.

In the case, styled, "Gentry v. Superior Court (Circuit City,
Real Party in Interest)," which was issued by the California
Court of Appeal for the Second District on January 20, 2006, the
court upheld the use of class action waivers in the employment
context.  In another case, entitled, "Jones v. Citigroup, Inc.,"
which was handed down less than a week later on January 26,
2006, the Fourth District sanctioned the use of class action
waivers as between credit card issuers and their customers.

In the Gentry case, the court ruled that an employee of Circuit
City could not maintain a class action arbitration where the
employee had been given a period of 30 days to opt out of the
class action waiver agreement without penalty, but took no
action.  It emphasized the fact that the arbitration and class
action waiver procedures were spelled out clearly and the
employee was given ample opportunity to reject them.  As such,
the employee could not argue, after the fact, that the
arbitration and class action waiver provisions were
unconscionable.  Essentially, the court ruled that where an
employee has an adequate opportunity to reject a class action
waiver, it will most likely be enforceable as long as agreeing
to it was not a condition of employment.

In the Jones case, the court used similar reasoning in upholding
Citibank's class action waiver procedure.  Citibank cardholders
had received a notice with their credit card bills advising that
any claims against the company would be subject to arbitration
on an individual, non-class basis.  The notice clearly allowed
any cardholder to opt out of the arbitration agreement and class
action waiver and to continue using the card as before.  The
plaintiffs in Jones did not opt out of the agreement.  Since the
procedures implemented contained a fair opt out provision and
were not presented on a "take it or leave it" basis, the claims
against Citibank were subject to individual, non-class
arbitration.

The Court of Appeal rulings in both Gentry and in Jones
carefully distinguished the waiver procedures used by Circuit
City and Citibank, respectively, from those used by the
defendant in "Discover Bank v. Superior Court," wherein on June
27, 2005, the California Supreme Court ruled that Discover
Bank's "take it or leave it" class action waiver agreement with
its cardholders was unconscionable, both procedurally and
substantively.

The California decision revealed that the enforceability of a
class action waiver depends on how it is implemented.  In both
Gentry and Jones, the courts each held that where an employee or
consumer has an adequate opportunity to reject a class action
waiver, and it is not a condition of employment or card use, it
would most likely be enforceable.  Although Jones was decided
outside the employment context, it bolsters the holding in
Gentry.  These opinions provide guidance to California employers
and businesses operating in California with regard to their
exposure to class action claims and prolonged, expensive
litigation.


CALIFORNIA: Educ. Officials Continue with Exit Exam Despite Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California State Board of Education refused to recommend
alternatives to the high school exit exam earlier this month,
according to Contra Costa Times.

"The key here is holding students accountable and making sure
that students are mastering the skills for success in a career,"
Superintendent Jack O'Connell.  According to him, the state had
adequately reviewed alternatives to the exam.

In February, ten students from California filed a complaint
against the state over the high school exit exam that stands to
keep 100,000 students from the class of 2006 from graduating,
according to the San Jose Mercury News (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 10, 2006).

Five Richmond High School students and five others from around
California filed a lawsuit with the San Francisco Superior Court
against state Superintendent Jack O'Connell, the State of
California, the state Department of Education and the state
Board of Education as defendants, the report said.  Students
named in the complaint come from Hayward, Newark, Oakland, Fair
Oaks and Rialto, according to the report (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 10, 2006).

The test is required for a diploma starting this year.  The
class of 2006 will be the first to be denied a diploma if they
don't pass the state standardized test.  About 22 percent of
this year's senior class, which is roughly 100,000 students, did
not pass the test as of last spring, according to an independent
evaluator's report prepared for the state Education Department
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 4, 2006).

But the plaintiff's argument, according to the report, states:

     (1) by denying a diploma to students who would otherwise
         graduate the state would be depriving them of their
         fundamental right to public education;

     (2) the state violated the equal protection clause of the
         California Constitution by providing inadequate
         instruction in the first place and unfairly
         distributing money dedicated to helping students pass
         the test; and

     (3) the state violated California's due process law when by
         failing to thoroughly research alternatives as mandated
         by the Legislature when it approved the exit exam in
         1999.


CALIFORNIA: Major Record Labels Face Federal Antitrust Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A consumer class action lawsuit was initiated in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against the major record labels for antitrust violations,
claiming that the companies hampered the growth of online music
to protect their high-profit CD market, according to Susan
Butler of Billboard.biz.

San Diego-based law firm, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins, filed the suit March 7 on behalf of Dennis Bulcao and
10 other consumers.  The action was brought for every person who
has paid inflated prices for online music and CDs.

The suit claims that CD prices include costs that would be
eliminated when music is distributed online like:

     (1) producing the master disc;

     (2) making copies of the disc, CD cases, artwork and
         packaging;

     (3) importing CDs into the United States;

     (4) shipping CDs to warehouses and to record stores;

     (5) unpacking and shelving the CDs and manning the cash
         registers; and

     (6) returning or destroying unsold inventory.

The suit asserts that online music benefits consumers they do
not have to drive to a store or worry about care and storage of
the CD.  It also asserts that consumers can instantly store and
purchase music onto a computer or portable music device.

Focusing on the labels' activities in the 1990s through 2001,
the suit alleges that the major labels refused to license music
to the original Napster.  In 2001, the record companies formed
MusicNet (BMG, Warner Music, EMI) and pressplay (Sony, Universal
Music), but they were not serious commercial ventures.  The suit
also alleges that the labels refused to grant meaningful
licenses to any entity that they did not own or control,
delaying growth of the online music market.

In addition, the suit claims that MusicNet and pressplay were
attempts by the labels to occupy the market with "frustrating
and ineffectual services in order to head off viable online
music competitors from forming and gaining popularity after
Napster's demise."  Neither service allowed music to by played
on the Apple iPod, and the labels did not make their whole
catalogs available for download.  It also claims that these
activities occurred in 2001, when the iPod was not yet on the
market.

The suit also alleges that when the labels could no longer hold
back the online market, they conspired to set the wholesale
price at supercompetitive levels to protect the CD market.  As a
result, the record companies demand 70 cents for downloads
priced for retail at 99 cents, while indie labels sell their
music through eMusic at a retail price of about 25 cents per
song -- $10 for 40 songs.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which is
not a defendant, is named as a co-conspirator, allegedly
providing the labels with a forum to exchange competitive
information and to coordinate their scheme to restrain the
availability and commercial development of online music.  The
major labels declined to comment on the suit.


CANADIAN RAILWAY: High Court Might Decide N.D. Derailment Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney representing people injured in a 2002 derailment and
chemical spill on the west edge of Minot, North Dakota says it
might take a U.S. Supreme Court ruling to determine the legal
recourse for victims, The Associated Press reports.

The statement comes after, federal judges in North Dakota and
Minnesota ruled that private claims against the nation's
railroads can't move forward because of the Federal Railroad
Safety Act, which makes railroads immune from such lawsuits.

In a recent ruling, U.S. District Chief Judge Daniel Hovland in
Bismarck threw out a class action lawsuit against Canadian
Pacific Railway, raising questions about hundreds of lawsuits
filed in Minnesota state court by the most severely injured.

With the ruling, the judge has given the firm 30 days to decide
whether to appeal the decision to the 8th Circuit Court.  Should
the railway appeal, the 8th Circuit Court will have to clarify
whether it thinks the federal law prevents innocent bystanders
from seeking legal damages from railroad companies, according to
Mike Miller, the attorney who is representing hundreds of
plaintiffs, (Class Action Reporter, March 8, 2006).

Mr. Miller, who is handling hundreds of claims filed in
Minnesota, Canadian Pacific's U.S. headquarters told the
Associated Press, "If Judge Hovland is correct, all cases have
to be dismissed, no matter what court they are in.  While it is
so unbelievably bad for the people in Minot, it has
ramifications throughout the country."

The class action stemmed from the January 18, 2002 derailment
and massive release of anhydrous ammonia from five ruptured tank
cars in Minot, South Dakota.  Thirty-one cars on the 112-car
Canadian Pacific Railway train derailed on the west edge of
Minot and five broke open early on the morning of January 18,
2002.  The National Transportation Safety Board said the wreck
was caused by inadequate track maintenance and inspections, a
conclusion disputed by Canadian Pacific, (Class Action Reporter,
July 11, 2005).

Since the derailment, about 450 lawsuits in Minnesota state
court and North Dakota have been filed against the Company.  The
suits filed in Minneapolis were grouped to help plaintiffs move
through the courts.  Six cases have been settled out of court.
The settlements included that for a wrongful death lawsuit
brought by the widow of John Grabinger who died while trying to
escape the anhydrous ammonia cloud released by the train wreck.
Twelve more cases are scheduled to begin on May 1.  Mr. Miller
represents six clients in the next batch of trials scheduled for
May in Minneapolis, (Class Action Reporter, March 8, 2006).

Attorneys representing Minot victims affected by Judge Hovland's
decision may appeal it or move their claims to Minnesota state
court, where the outcome is uncertain.  Even though it settled
some cases, some others were lost including one were a jury
ordered the Company to pay $1.86 million to four other people.
It appealed the cases it lost on claims of immunity though.

Tim Thornton, an attorney for the Company, said national
interests outweigh private claims, a decision Congress made when
voting to establish uniform standards for all railroads.  While
private claims aren't allowed, Mr. Thornton told The Associated
Press, railroads aren't immune from fines and penalties levied
by the Federal Railroad Administration.

Kristy Albrecht, who handled one of the cases settled last fall,
told The Associated press that Judge Hovland's decision
surprised her.  She pointed out, "I don't think it was Congress'
intent to take away innocent victims' remedy for railroad
negligence."

In his ruling, Judge Hovland noted, "the judicial system is left
with a law that is inherently unfair to innocent bystanders and
property owners who may be injured by the negligent actions of
railroad companies."

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., earlier this month asked the
Congressional Research Service to investigate the Federal
Railroad Safety Act, questioning why railroads should be given
"some sort of special defense in a court of law."

If Judge Hovland's decision were appealed, it would go to the
8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.  Mr. Miller told The
Associated Press that the matter could end up in the U.S.
Supreme Court regardless of the circuit court's decision.

The suit is styled, "Mehl, et al. v. Canadian Pacific RR, et
al., Case No. 4:02-cv-00009-DLH-KKK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of North Dakota under Judge Daniel L.
Hovland with referral to Judge Karen K. Klein.  Representing the
plaintiffs are, Mike J. Miller of SOLBERG STEWART MILLER JOHNSON
TJON KENNELLY, LTD., P.O. BOX 1897, FARGO, ND 58107-1897, Phone:
701-237-3166, E-mail: mmiller@solberglaw.com; and Daniel E.
Becnel, Jr. of DANIEL E. BECNEL, JR. LAW FIRM, 106 W. 7 ST., PO
DRAWER H, RESERVE, LA 70084, Phone: 985-536-1186.

Representing the defendants are, James S. Hill of ZUGER KIRMIS &
SMITH, 316 N. 5 ST., P.O. BOX 1695, BISMARCK, ND 58502-1695,
Phone: 701-223-2711, E-mail: jhill@zkslaw.com; and Kevin M.
Decker of Briggs & Morgan, 2200 IDS CENTER, 80 S. 8TH ST.,
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402, Phone: 612-977-8400.


CRACKER BARREL: Paying $2M for Ill. Restaurants Labor Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federal District Judge Charles R. Norgle, Sr. entered a $2
million consent decree resolving a workplace discrimination
lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) against several Cracker Barrel restaurants.

The suit challenged sexual and racial harassment and retaliation
at Cracker Barrel restaurants in Bloomington, Mattoon, and
Matteson, Illinois under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964.  It was styled "EEOC v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store,
Inc. and CBOCS West, Inc., N.D. Illinois No.04-C-5273."

The terms of the consent decree specifies that:

     (1) 51 current or former employees at the three Cracker
         Barrel restaurants will share in the $2 million
         settlement fund;

     (2) Cracker Barrel will train all employees at those stores
         regarding harassment, post a notice regarding the
         outcome of the lawsuit, and periodically report any
         complaints it receives about sex or race discrimination
         to the EEOC; and

     (3) Cracker Barrel is prohibited from retaliating against
         employees for complaining about illegal harassment or
         accepting benefits under the decree.

"These are exactly the types of systemic workplace
discrimination that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits
some of it obvious, some more subtle and that is what drove the
EEOC's litigation of this case and what makes a $2 million
consent decree appropriate," said the EEOC's Chicago District
Regional Attorney John Hendrickson.  "We are optimistic that the
terms of the consent decree will effect positive change at
Cracker Barrel and that the ability to enforce the decree will
make those changes stick."

One of the women who will share in the settlement fund, Jean
Burris, a former server the Bloomington restaurant said, "I hope
by speaking up and taking a stand together that positive change
and equality of treatment in the workplace will follow."

John Rowe, director of the EEOC's Chicago District Office, led
the agency's administrative investigation of the charges of
discrimination underlying the lawsuit; that investigation
resulted in a finding that there was "reasonable cause" to
believe the company had violated federal law.

The EEOC filed the lawsuit on August 11, 2004, after efforts to
resolve the matter through its voluntary conciliation process
proved futile.  On February 14, 2006, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Morton Denlow rejected a series of motions brought by Cracker
Barrel, clearing the way for a jury trial in the event a
settlement were not reached.

EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney Diane Smason and Trial Attorneys
Pamela Moore-Gibbs and June Calhoun headed the agency's
litigation of the case.  Moore-Gibbs said, "This case was
exhaustively and expensively litigated dozens and dozens of
depositions were taken.  In the end, the accumulated testimony
of the employees was to the effect that Cracker Barrel employees
at the three restaurants were subjected to unwelcome and
offensive sexual comments and touching from male co- workers and
managers, and that complaints about it to management were not
taken seriously."

EEOC Trial Attorney Calhoun added, "But this case wasn't just
about sexual harassment it was also very clearly about race.
Black employees said that they experienced racially charged
language in the workplace, including 'spear chucking porch
monkey,' 'you people,' 'ghetto' and the 'n-word.'  They said
that the discrimination they experienced took other forms as
well, including being required to wait on African American
customers when white servers refused to do so, and being
assigned to work in smoking sections."

Cracker Barrel -- http://www.crackerbarrel.com-- started out in
1969 in Lebanon, Tennessee.  It has more than 525 stores in more
than 40 states, and employs more than 45,000 workers.  For
fiscal year 2005, Cracker Barrel reported revenues of $2.6
billion and net income in excess of $126 million, with average
annual sales of over $3.3 million per restaurant.  Cracker
Barrel also operates more than 120 Logan's Roadhouse restaurants
in more than 15 states.

For more information, contact: John C. Hendrickson, EEOC
Regional Attorney, Phone: (312) 353-8551; Diane Smason, EEOC
Supervisory Trial Attorney, Phone: (312) 353-7526; or June
Wallace Calhoun, EEOC Trial Attorney, Phone: (312) 353-7259,
TTY: (312) 353-2421.


DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Ky. Judge Names New Settlement Monitor
------------------------------------------------------------
Special Judge John Potter of Louisville, Kentucky has appointed
Thomas Lambros, former chief judge of the Northern District of
Ohio, to oversee payments to victims of sexual abuse in the
Diocese of Covington, according to Associated Press.  Mr.
Lambros also serves as special master to review claims and
decide on payments to victims, together with William Burleigh,
chairman of the board of the E.W. Scripps Co.

Judge Potter appointed Mr. Lambros as new monitor in the
settlement after plaintiffs and defendants opposed the
appointment of Matthew Garretson (Class Action Reporter, March
14, 2006).  Mr. Garretson of Ohio previously administered the
Archdiocese of Cincinnati's $3 million sexual abuse payments.
The plaintiff's lawyer said his involvement in the Cincinnati
settlement raises fears regarding the fairness of the pending
distribution of the settlement money.

Judge Potter approved on Jan. 31 an $85 million settlement
between sexual abuse victims and the Roman Catholic Diocese of
Covington, Kentucky.  The settlement covers 361 victims who
claim they were abused over a 50-year period, by the diocese's
priests.  The settlement was initially approved in July.

Cincinnati-based attorney Stan Chesley filed the class action in
Boone County Circuit Court back in 2003, claiming that 21
priests and some other workers abused more than 150 victims in
the Diocese of Covington for decades while church officials did
nothing to stop the misconduct.

The diocese's attorney is Carrie Huff.  Plaintiff's attorney is
Robert Steinberg.  For more info, visit:
http://www.covingtonkydioceseabuse.com/.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Services for Disabled Remain Deficient
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the suit over the District of Columbia's care of
the developmentally disabled said they will go back to court to
seek other legal remedies to address the problem, according to
the Washington Post.  A solution might include asking for a
receivership, a situation that could result in the appointment
of an outsider to oversee the service, the report said.

The District had already failed to meet a 90-day court deadline
to improve services for disabled people.  Mayor Anthony A.
Williams promised six years ago to improve operation with the
city's Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities
Administration.

Earlier this month, D.C. council member Adrian M. Fenty, who
heads the council's Committee on Human Services, called for the
establishment of a special council committee with subpoena
powers to investigate what's being done to protect and better
serve people with developmental disabilities.

Sandy Bernstein, legal director for University Legal Services,
represents plaintiffs in the class action.


DUPONT: EPA Wary Fluorine-Containing Substances May be Harmful
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal officials have admitted that chemicals used to make non-
stick, non-stain products may potentially be harmful to humans
and environment, according to Delaware Online.

An article in the federal register states that "Based on recent
information, the Environmental Protection Agency can no longer
conclude that these polymers will not present an unreasonable
risk to human health or the environment," the report said.  EPA
is now requiring a test on new products that use such chemicals.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours (DuPont) used these materials -- which
have been labeled as likely cancer-causing -- in its "Teflon"
coating.  It faces new investigation over its handling of the
chemicals at its Chambers Works plant.  While denying Teflon's
risk to consumers, it agreed to phase out some fluorine-
containing chemicals used in its production.  DuPont use
perfluorooctanoic acid, also called PFOA or C8 in the production
of Teflon and other products.  It is the sole producer of PFOA
in the U.S.

Last year, DuPont agreed to pay $16.5 million in fines and
compensatory damages in relation to disclosure breaches over
PFOA.  It also set aside $180 million to cover costs of class
actions.  The fines settled EPA charges that the company failed
to report PFOA releases and human exposures, and information
about its possible toxic effects.  The litigation cost reserve
is for water pollution claims by West Virginia and Ohio
residents.

Based in Wilmington, Delaware, Dupont -- http://www.dupont.com/
-- manufactures resins and additives used in the trenchless pipe
rehabilitation industry.


EXELON CORP: Faces Lawsuit in Ill. Over Hazardous Chemical Spill
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of residents who live two miles from tritium spills at
the Braidwood Generating Station filed a suit against energy
companies Commonwealth Edison, its parent company Exelon Corp.,
and Exelon Generation Co., LLC on March 13, according to STNG
Wire.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago by:

     (1) Kenneth and Teresa Duffin, of Braidwood;

     (2) Paul and Joann Orloff, of Wilmington; and

     (3) David and Patsy Derbas, of Braidwood.

The suit alleged Exelon spilled hazardous wastes into ground
water and land since 1996, depreciating the value of the
plaintiffs' property.  Tritium is a naturally occurring isotope
of hydrogen that emits a very low level of radiation and is
found in virtually all of the earth's water.  It is produced in
greater concentrations in commercial nuclear reactors and is
discharged into the environment under federal operating permits.

The lawsuit is seeking class-action status, reimbursement for
past purchases of bottled water, compensation for the loss of
use and enjoyment of property, and injunctive relief in the form
of future bottled water services, future water monitoring and
public health studies.  The suit also seeks that the defendants
fund and the court supervises a medical monitoring program.  P
Plaintiffs are not alleging personal injuries in the suit.

The suit is styled "Duffin et al. v. Exelon Corporation et al.
(1:06-cv-01382)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Suzanne B. Conlon.
Representing the plaintiffs is Nicholas Evans Sakellariou of
McKeown, Fitzgerald, Zollner, Buck, Hutchison & Ruttle, 2455
Glenwood Avenue, Joliet, IL 60432, Phone: (815) 729-4800.


FLORIDA: Settlement Money Over Jacksonville Incinerators Coming
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several people living near contaminated ash sites in the city of
Jacksonville, Florida, will soon receive there share from a $75
million settlement by the city of a class action over
incinerators that contaminated the ground with toxic chemicals,
according to The First Coast News.

The suit was filed in Duval County Court in 2003.  It claimed
that city polluted neighborhoods surrounding four former dump
sites, as wells as areas surrounding three old incinerators.  It
also claimed that plaintiffs were exposed to pollutants, thus
causing health problems. Reports indicated that contaminants in
the incinerator ash, included: arsenic, lead and mercury, (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 8, 2005).

A small group of residents decided to sue the city after
Environmental Protection Agency released information on the
area's dangers.  "They had community leaders coming up in the
neighborhood telling people about it," according to Willie
Stokes, who was one of those joined the class action back in
2003.  By 2005, the number had grown to around 3,000.

In late 2005, the plaintiffs reached the $75 million settlement
with the city.  Under the settlement terms, each person was
awarded points based on factors like where a person lived or
went to school, and for how long.

Mr. Stokes qualified for 35 points.  Each point is worth $294,
which means he should get $10,290.00.  Forty percent will go
toward attorney fees, so Mr. Stokes is expecting a check for
$6,174.00.  He told The First Coast News that it's not enough,
because he grew up on the land, went to school there, and blames
his asthma on the ash.  "The little bit of money that they're
giving us is not enough," according to him.

The windfall will be given out over the course of a week.
Plaintiffs were sent letters with directions on what day to pick
up their check.  Most will be paid out on March 17 at the Prime
Osborn Center, which will be open from 7 a.m. - 7 p.m.  The
payout is for $25 million of the settlement.  The other $50
million is tied up in a court battle with insurance companies.


FORD MOTOR: Settles Racial Discrimination Complaint in S.D. N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Credit Co., a business unit of Ford Motor Co., agreed
to settle the racial discrimination class action, styled, "Jones
v. Ford Motor Credit Company, Case No. 00 Civ. 8330," and
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, The Automotive News reports.

Without admitting wrongdoing, the Company agreed, under the
settlement, to cap interest-rate markups at 2.5 percentage
points on loans of as much as 60 months, 2 points on loans of 61
to 72 months and 1.5 points on longer loans.  It also agreed to
pay for consumer education efforts and to extend favorable loan
terms to minority consumers.

The class action alleges that the Company's pricing practices
discriminate against African-Americans.  In the fourth quarter
of 2005, the Company and the plaintiffs submitted a proposed
settlement agreement to the court.  The court has preliminarily
approved the settlement, which resulted in a projected May 31,
2006 a fairness hearing (Class Action Reporter, March 10, 2006).

The combination of favorable loans, consumer education,
financial disclosures and rate caps should help eliminate
prospects for discrimination, Stuart Rossman, one of the lawyers
representing plaintiffs in the case told The Automotive News.
Mr. Rossman works for the National Consumer Law Center, a
nonprofit group in Boston that educates consumers and trial
lawyers about consumer concerns.

The settlement also requires the Company to pay plaintiffs'
lawyers $7.75 million and another $400,000 in legal expenses.
In addition, the company must also pay nine named plaintiffs in
the suit, combined damages of $125,000.

Kenneth Rojc, a Chicago attorney who represents auto lenders and
dealers, told The Automotive News that there have been at least
nine similar settlements in racial bias cases against financial
institutions that allow dealer interest-rate markups.  Only two
major cases, against Toyota Financial Services and Primus
Financial Services, Inc., another business unit of Ford motor
Co., are still pending, according to Mr. Rojc.

Mr. Rojc also told The Automotive News, "The Ford Credit
settlement is significant because it shows plaintiffs' counsel
are comfortable with 2.5 percent and 2 percent caps.  The
plaintiffs could have tried to reduce the rate caps further or
sought to impose a flat finance charge, he points out.

The Company is pleased with the settlement, spokeswoman Meredith
Libbey told The Automotive News in an e-mail message.  She also
said that the agreement allows the company to keep the rate caps
it imposed voluntarily in 2004 and to avoid costly litigation.
Ms. Libbey adds, "By accepting these rate caps, the plaintiffs
have acknowledged them as a valid business practice."

The suit is styled, "Jones, et al. v. Ford Motor Credit, Case
No. 1:00-cv-08330-PAC-KNF," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York under Judge Paul A. Crotty
with referral to Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox.  Representing the
plaintiffs are, Seth Richard Lesser of Locks Law Firm, PLLC, 110
East 55th Street, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-838-3333, Fax:
212-838-3735, E-mail: slesser@lockslawny.com; and Samera Syeda
Ludwig of Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, L.L.P., 1285
Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 554-
1400.

Representing the defendants are, Thomas M. Byrne of Sutherland
Asbill & Brennan, LLP, 999 Peachtreet Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA
30309-3996, Phone: (404) 853-8000; and Rachel S. Janger of
O'Melveny & Myers, L.L.P., 153 East 53rd Street, New York, NY
10022, Phone: (212) 326-2000.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Court Junks Suit Over Paxil Distribution
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed
with prejudice a suit that alleged GlaxoSmithKline plc tried to
monopolize the market for anti-depressant drug Paxil, according
to Mondaq.

The lawsuit accused GlaxoSmithKline of violating Section 2 of
the Sherman Act by:

     (1) obtaining patents through fraud on the United States
         Patent and Trademark Office;

     (2) improperly listing those patents in the Food and Drug
         Administration's Orange Book; and

     (3) enforcing the patents by engaging in sham infringement
         cases again potential generic drug producers.

GlaxoSmithKline's actions allegedly delayed generic entry into
the market, allowing it to monopolize distribution of the drug.
The suit was filed in 2005 by 78 health benefit plans that opted
out of the settlement of a class action brought by indirect
purchases in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The plans
alleged that as a result of GlaxoSmithKline's action, they
incurred supra-competitive costs -- a direct injury to their
managed care programs -- because it prevented them from reducing
prescription drug prices through the use of generics.

According to the report, however, the court found that the plans
were seeking to recover damages for the same injuries suffered
by direct purchasers.

The suit was styled, "Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota et
al. v. Glaxo Smith Kline et al. (0:05-cv-00910-DWF-AJB)," filed
under Judge Donovan W. Frank, with referral to Arthur J. Boylan.
Representing the plaintiffs are: Annamarie A Daley of Robins
Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP 800 LaSalle Ave Ste 2800,
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015, Phone: (612) 349-8500; Fax:
6123394181; E-mail: aadaley@rkmc.com; and Brent L Reichert of
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP, 800 LaSalle Ave Ste 2800
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015, Phone: 612-349-8500; Fax: 612-339-
4181; E-mail: blreichert@rkmc.com.

Representing the defendants are: George G. Gordon of Dechert LLP
- Philadelphia, 1717 Arch St Ste 4000, Philadelphia, PA 19103-
2793, Phone: 215-994-2382; E-mail: george.gordon@dechert.com;
and Michael A. Lindsay of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 50 S 6th St Ste
1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498, Phone: 612-340-2600; Fax: 612-
340-2868; E-mail: lindsay.michael@dorsey.com.


ILLINOIS: Expert Says Coming Atrazine Suit Threatens Food Supply
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Lehr, an expert on groundwater from The Heartland Institute,
a conservative think tank, says a pending lawsuit involving
atrazine, a pesticide used for decades by farmers, which is
pending in Illinois' Madison County Circuit Court, could
"indirectly determine national farm policy" and shrink the U.S.
food supply, the Belleville News Democrat.

Filed in 2004 by the Holiday Shores Sanitary District, which
operates a water plant in the Holiday Shores area west of
Edwardsville, the purported class action claims that atrazine
from farming operations has contaminated the lake that supplies
water for the unincorporated neighborhood.  Swansea attorney
Steve Tillery brought the suit on behalf of Holiday Shores,
which also claims atrazine causes cancer.

In a recent essay of his, Mr. Lehr says, "If atrazine were
removed from the market out of fear of baseless litigation, our
nation would have to return to the farming practices of
yesteryear, when yields were less than a third of today's
production and diseased crops were the order of the day."  He
also said, "Nearly every type of food would be in shorter supply
and their prices would increase.  The poor and elderly on fixed
incomes would be hit hardest by this result."

However, Mr. Tillery disputed that claim saying, "Atrazine is
primarily used on corn crops.  In the U.S., less than 2 percent
of the corn produced is consumed as food."  Most is used to feed
cattle, according to him.

Atrazine is an economical pesticide that is used on most corn
and grain sorghum grown in the United States.  About 80 million
pounds of atrazine are used annually in the United States to
control broadleaf and other weeds.

Mr. Tillery told The Belleville News-Democrat that The Heartland
Institute and its report are highly biased. He also called Mr.
Lehr, "an industry guy."

Mr. Lehr counters that he learned about the Madison County case
while surfing the Internet.  He adds that he receives a $30,000
salary from The Heartland Institute, but has never been paid by
an agricultural interest.  He reiterates, "I've never had any
monetary motive in my life.  I've never taken a nickel from the
industry."

Mr. Tillery is asking the court to certify his lawsuit as a
class-action suit on behalf of all water districts in Illinois.
His case is against manufacturer Sipcam Agpro, based in Georgia,
and Bloomington-based Growmark Inc., which distributes the
product.

The lawsuit does not seek compensation for illness.  Instead, it
seeks compensation for filtering systems at water plants,
compensation for diminished property value and punitive damages.
No specific dollar amount is listed in the complaint as well.

The defendants argue that regulatory experts, not courts, should
determine the level at which atrazine in drinking water is safe.
Defense attorneys argued in a motion seeking dismissal of the
case, "The safe level of atrazine in drinking water ... has
already been painstakingly and diligently examined and answered
by the regulatory agency charged with making such
determinations, the U.S. EPA."

In addition, Mr. Lehr even pointed out that the tests performed
today on water are so sophisticated that any threat from
atrazine or anything else can easily be detected.

The lawsuit claims recent studies show that workers at an
atrazine plant in Louisiana had elevated rates of prostate
cancer, that atrazine deforms the sex organs of frogs, and that
people working in areas of high pesticide application have an
increased risk of developing reproductive problems.

However, Mr. Lehr wrote in his essay that the suit "relies on a
small number of highly suspect" studies.  He explains, "This is
a standard tactic of alarmists -- to search a huge literature to
find a small number of studies that, due to small sample sizes,
poor methodology or just random chance, arrive at findings
contradicting the rest of the literature."

Mr. Lehr, the science director for The Heartland Institute and
an author of books on groundwater, earned a degree in geological
engineering from Princeton University and a doctorate in
groundwater hydrology from University of Arizona.

Michael Van Winkle, a spokesman for the institute, declined to
say whether the institute gets funding from agricultural
interests.  He instead told The Belleville News-Democrat that
the institute has a policy against disclosing individual donors,
but no single corporation provides a donation that exceeds 5
percent of the institute's budget.

However, Mr. Tillery provided copies of documents indicating The
Heartland Institute received funding from dozens of
corporations, including agriculture companies.


INTERNET POSTERS: Discovery on Fraudulent Trading Claim Proceeds
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court of Santa Clara County has allowed
discovery to proceed in Eagle Broadband, Inc.'s case against
Internet posters.  Eagle believes the Internet posters are
engaged in manipulative stock trading.

Eagle Broadband alleged that these Internet posters have
intentionally posted false information on the Yahoo! Finance
message board in an effort to drive down the value of Eagle's
stock price.  In response to the complaint, four of the
anonymous Internet posters filed motions to strike or dismiss
the complaint as constitutionally protected speech on a matter
of public interest under California's anti-SLAPP statute.

On March 9, the Honorable William J. Elfving of the California
Superior Court of Santa Clara County issued a ruling allowing
discovery in the case to go forward with respect to two of the
posters, known as DOE 2 and DOE 3, and ruling as a matter of law
that Eagle had met its legal burden of establishing a prima
facie case against a third poster, known as DOE 4, under the
California's Anti-SLAPP law.

Judge Elfving wrote in the ruling, "The declaration of Deirdre
A. Flaherty contains admissible evidence that Eagle's stock
value and business suffered from DOE 4's fake press release and
other false and misleading messages that were posted on the
Eagle MB from January 1, 2005 through October 31, 2005.
Accordingly, DOE 4's special motion to strike is denied."

David Micek, Eagle's President and CEO, said, "This is an
important win for Eagle's loyal shareholders, but not an
unexpected one.  While Eagle fully respects the constitutional
rights protected by California's anti-SLAPP statute, the Court's
ruling is an acknowledgment that these Internet posters have
simply gone too far."

Eagle filed this lawsuit on October 5, 2005.  Since then, Eagle
has learned the identity of several of the DOE defendants and
will amend the complaint to include their real identities.
Through the process of legal discovery, Eagle expects to learn
additional identities as well as to obtain the financial and
trading records for several of the DOES.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Eagle Broadband --
http://www.eaglebroadband.com-- is a provider of broadband,
Internet Protocol (IP) and communications technology and
services.

For more information, contact Brian Morrow of Eagle Broadband,
Inc., Phone: 281-538-6000; E-maill: bmorrow@eaglebroadband.com,
or Ronnie Welch of CWR & Partners, Phone: 508-222-4802; E-mail:
ronnie@cwrpartners.com.


INTRALASE CORP: Opthalmologist Launches TCPA Complaint in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intralase Corporation continues to faces a class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, alleging that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited fax advertisements
in violation of the TCPA.

Ari Weitzner M.D., P.C., a Brooklyn ophthalmologist, filed the
suit on May 24,2005, seeking statutory damages, costs and
attorneys fees.  The TCPA provides for statutory damages of $500
per violation ($1,500 if knowing and willful).

The suit is styled "Weitzner v. Intralase Corp., Case no. 1:05-
cv-02529-NGG-KAM," filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, under Judge Nicholas G.
Garaufis.  Representing the plaintiff is Todd C. Bank, Law
Office of Todd C. Bank, 119-40 Union Pike, Fourth Floor, Kew
Gardens, NY 11415, Phone: 718-520-7125, E-mail:
TBLaw101@aol.com.

Representing the Company is Glenn Charles Colton and Randollph
Gaw of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 12 E. 49th Street, 30th
Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-999-5800, Fax: 212-999-
5899, E-mail: gcolton@wsgr.com.


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Counsel Expands Calif. Overtime Pay Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Counsel for plaintiffs in the nationwide overtime pay class
action lawsuit against International Business Machines
Corporation (IBM) reports that the suit was expanded to include
claims under Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New Jersey state
law.  The suit already included claims for overtime compensation
under federal law for all workers in the United States as well
as California and New York state law claims.

The growing group of named plaintiffs, seeking to represent tens
of thousands of other current and former technical support
workers, charges the computer giant with failure to properly pay
overtime wages.  Claims under other states' laws may be added in
the future.

IBM employs more than 300,000 workers; the proposed class
includes tens of thousand of systems administrators, network
technicians and other technical staff throughout the United
States.  "This case could result in one of the largest class
action lawsuits in history, both in numbers of employees and
total damages, ever filed against a corporation for failure to
pay overtime wages," said James Finberg, an attorney with Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, one of eight law firms
representing the plaintiffs.

The amended class action complaint alleges violations of federal
law on behalf of a nationwide class of IBM high tech workers as
well as violations of the labor laws of California, Colorado,
Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey and New York on behalf of
classes of IBM workers in each respective state.  "Workers from
anywhere in the United States are eligible to participate in the
case as well," explained Todd Jackson of Lewis, Feinberg,
Renaker & Jackson, P.C.

The lawsuit charges that IBM deprives its employees who install,
maintain, and support computer software and hardware by
unlawfully characterizing them as "exempt" from state and
federal labor law protections.  The proposed classes consist of
current and former IBM technical support workers with the
primary duties of installing and/or maintaining computer
software and hardware for IBM who were wrongly classified by the
company as exempt from the overtime provisions of federal law
and/or applicable state wage and hour laws.

The complaint in "Rosenburg, et al. v. IBM," was originally
filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco on January 24,
2006, and amended on March 13, 2006, by attorneys from Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP (San Francisco); Lewis
Feinberg Renaker & Jackson, P.C. (Oakland), Rudy, Exelrod &
Zieff, LLP (San Francisco); Outten & Golden LLP (New York);
Spiro, Moss, Barness, Harrison & Barge, LLP (Los Angeles); Lee &
Braziel, LLP (Dallas); Bruckner Burch, PLLC (Houston); and
Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian (Oakland).

The suit is styled, "Rosenburg et al v. International Business
Machines Corporation, Case No. 3:06-cv-00430-PJH," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
under Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.  Representing the plaintiffs
are:

     (1) James M. Finberg of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
         LLP, Phone: 415-956-1000;

     (2) Todd F. Jackson of Lewis Feinberg Renaker & Jackson,
         P.C., Phone: 510-839-6824;

     (3) Steven G. Zieff of Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, LLP, Phone:
         415-434-9800 or 800-869-0165;

     (4) Adam T. Klein of Outten & Golden LLP, Phone: 212-245-
         1000;

     (5) Ira Spiro of Spiro, Moss, Barness, Harrison & Barge,
         LLP, Phone: 310-235-2468;

     (6) J. Derek Braziel of Lee & Braziel, LLP, Phone: 214-749-
         1400;

     (7) Richard Burch of Bruckner Burch, PLLC, Phone: 713-877-
         8065;

     (8) David Borgen of Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen &
         Dardarian, Phone: 510-763-9800.

Representing the Company is Donna M. Mezias of Jones Day, 555
California Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone:
415-875-5822, Fax: 415-875-5700, E-mail: dmezias@jonesday.com.

For more details, call: 1-866-397-1008 or visit the Web site:
http://www.overtimepaylawsuitagainstIBM.com.


IOWA: High Court Hears Arguments Over Des Moines' Franchise Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Iowa Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on what Polk
County District Court Judge Michael Huppert calls, an "illegal
tax," The WHO-TV reports.

In January, the judge ruled that a special fee on utility bills
that officials of the city used to lower property tax rates this
year is illegal.  The judge's ruling was in the favor of Lisa
Kragnes, who sued the city in 2004 over a 5 percent surcharge on
gas and electricity bills that she said represents an unfair
tax.  He had ruled that the so-called franchise fee should be
abolished.  The ruling though does not address whether those
who've paid the fee should get refunds, (Class Action Reporter,
Jan. 11, 2006).  The city appealed that decision all the way to
the Supreme Court.

The city's attorney and attorneys for Ms Kragnes are scheduled
to make their arguments before the court.  To Des Moines
resident, those fees are the ones that show up on energy bills.
The city has charged them for years and they say losing them
would mean losing a million dollars a month.

The controversy over the franchise fees started in June 2004,
when Ms. Kragnes' attorney, Brad Schroeder sued the city, saying
that it is illegal because it amounts to a tax that isn't
specifically spelled out in Iowa law.  The suit, which was filed
on behalf of the 34-year-old Des Moines woman "and all others
similarly situated," sought to block the city from collecting
the fee and demanded a full refund of all money collected over
the last five years, (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 11, 2006).

Despite Judge Huppert, the city is appealing his ruling to the
Supreme Court.  They'll argue that franchise fees are legal and
are a way tax-exempt properties contribute to the cost of local
government.  They will also argue that losing the fee would
increase the burden on people who have to pay property taxes.

Mark Godwin, an attorney for the city of Des Moines, told The
WHO-TV, "The vast majority of class members, those who own
property in Des Moines, some 85,000 homeowners, those people's
taxes will go up more than their franchise fees will go down -
so being a member of the class is a money-losing proposition."

If the court rules in favor of the city, they'll be able to
continue charging the franchise fee.  If not, they'll have to
stop collecting or even return the money from the fees.

In addition, if the court ruled the fees are illegal, the city
could also face a possible class action suit that would include
all energy customers in Des Moines.  Plus, whatever the court
decides, it will determine whether or not other towns in Iowa
will be able to charge this sort of fee.


KMART CORP: Reaches $13M Settlement in Disability Access Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kmart Corporation agreed to a $13 million settlement of a class
action over access for disabled shoppers, The Associated Press
reports.

Filed in U.S. District Court in Denver, the agreement also gives
the Company 7 1/2 years to bring its stores nationwide into
compliance with federal standards for merchandise, counters,
restrooms, fitting rooms and parking lots.  The $13 million
figure includes $8 million in cash and $5 million in gift cards.

According to plaintiffs' attorney, Amy F. Robertson, the
settlement will be distributed to class-action plaintiffs in
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon
and Texas, whose laws have minimum damages for failing to comply
with disability access rules.  She added that the most an
individual could receive would range from $100 in Colorado to
$8,000 in California, depending on each state's laws.

Kmart spokesman Chris Brathwaite would not speculate on how many
of Kmart's 1,400 stores might require changes or how much they
might cost.  He explains, "We need our customers to know that
we're focused on providing a safe and enjoyable shopping
environment."  Mr. Brathwaite told The Associated Press that the
agreement gives Kmart, a subsidiary of Illinois-based Sears
Holdings Corp., a reasonable amount of time to alter its stores.

The suit was originally filed in October 1999.  Troy, Michigan-
based Kmart Holding Corp created Sears Holding last year through
a $12.3 billion acquisition of Sears, Roebuck and Co.

"I'm thrilled, to say the least," Carrie Ann Lucas, 34, of
Denver, who filed the original lawsuit, told The Associated
Press.  She uses a wheelchair because of a type of muscular
dystrophy.

Ms. Lucas also told The Associated Press that Kmart managers for
years had ignored her or didn't follow through when she told
them about cluttered or narrow aisles, inadequate parking or
accessible checkout lanes that were closed.  Regarding their
recent actions though, she said, "I commend Kmart for coming
around and putting an end to this and really working with us to
provide access to people across the country."

U.S. District Judge John L. Kane must still approve the
settlement and people eligible for a share of the $13 million
will get a chance to comment on it before it becomes final.

The suit is styled, "Lucas, et al. v. Kmart Corporation, Case
No. 1:99-cv-01923-JLK-CBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado under Judge John L. Kane with referral
to Judge Craig B. Shaffer.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael Wayne Breeskin of Arc of Denver, Inc., 1905
         Sherman Street, #300 Denver, CO 80203, Phone: 303-831-
         7733, Fax: 303-839-5178, E-mail:
         mbreeskin@arcofdenver.org;

     (2) Amy Farr Robertson of Fox & Robertson, P.C., 910 16th
         Street, #610 Denver, CO 80202, U.S.A, Phone: 303-595-
         9700, Fax: 303-595-9705, E-mail: arob@foxrob.com; and

     (3) Bill Lann Lee of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,
         LLP, 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor, San Francisco, CA
         94111, U.S.A, Phone: 415-956-1000, Fax: 415-956-1008,
         E-mail: blee@lchb.com.

Representing the defendants are, Steven M. Kaufmann, David F.
McDowell and Robert A. Naeve of Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Phone:
303-592-2236, 213-892-5383 and 949-251-7500, Fax: 303-592-1510,
213-892-5454 and 949-251-0900, E-mail: skaufmann@mofo.com,
dmcdowell@mofo.com and rnaeve@mofo.com.


KOREAN AIR: Zucker's Gifts Launches Price-Fixing Lawsuit in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zucker's Gifts Inc., a New York-based Company, launched a class
action against South Korea's two airline companies, Korean Air
and Asiana Airlines, and 14 other global airline companies for
price-fixing cargo carriage, The Korea Times reports.

The Company brought price-fixing charges between 16 airliners to
the New Jersey District Court on March 2, Asiana spokesmen told
The Korea Times.  The 16 accused airliners include Cathay
Pacific Airways, British Airways, Air France and Japan Airlines.
The lawsuit comes as the U.S. Department of Justice was looking
into the case.

However, a spokesman at Asiana Airlines told The Korea Times,
"We are considering taking legal action against the lawsuit in
the United States."  Korea Air is also considering a legal
response to the U.S. Company's move.  "The investigation of
possible price-fixing of airliners is under way and the
investigation results will reveal all," a Korean Air spokesman
told The Korea Times.  He went on to say that it's impossible
for a Korean airline company to collude on prices as the prices
are set by the Ministry of Construction and Transportation.

The U.S. Anti-trust Division began the probe early in February
in cooperation with the EU Competition Committee and South
Korea's Fair Trade Commission also joined the probe.  "This is
the first time for the Korean anti-trust regulator to jointly
investigate the price-fixing case together with its U.S. and EU
counterparts. Their cooperation will bring faster results," Lee
Tae-hwi, deputy director of the FTC's service cartel team, told
The Korea Times.  Given it took more than four years for the
Korean anti-trust regulator to resolve Microsoft Corp.'s
unlawful bundling of instant messaging software MSN Messenger,
it will take at least a year before the cargo price-fixing case
is settled, according to him.

If the airline companies are revealed to have colluded on price-
fixing, an astronomical amount of compensation is likely along
with fines imposed by the U.S. Department of Justice, legal
experts said.  Under a class action lawsuit, victims can file a
suit individually and on behalf of all others affected with the
court ruling affecting all.

As of 2004, Korean Air topped the world's air cargo market with
sales of 2.3 trillion won out of 297 member airliners of the
International Air Transport Association (IATA), with Asiana
ranking 15th.

The suit is styled, "ZUCKER'S GIFTS, INC. v. SCANDINAVIAN
AIRLINE SYSTEMS, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00985-WJM-RJH," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under
Judge William J. Martini with referral to Judge Ronald J.
Hedges.  Representing the plaintiffs are, JOSEPH J. DEPALMA,
ALLYN ZISSEL LITE and ALBERTO RIVAS of LITE, DEPALMA, GREENBERG
& RIVAS, LLC, TWO GATEWAY CENTER, 12TH FLOOR, NEWARK, NJ 07102-
5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail: jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com,
alite@ldgrlaw.com and arivas@ldgrlaw.com.


MICHIGAN: Homeowners to Share Windfall from Flood Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Almost six years after a massive downpour caused raw sewage to
back up into their basements, thousands of Wayne County,
Michigan homeowners will finally be reimbursed for the amount of
money they spent fixing their homes, The Detroit News reports.

The payouts are courtesy of U.S. District Judge John Feikens'
recent approval of a recommendation that 3,195 residents split
$8.4 million after attorney fees and settlement costs are paid.
The windfall will amount to about one-third of $24.4 million in
approved claims that were filed in the class-action case that
stemmed from a three-day storm in September 2000.

Some residents though say that the payments won't come close to
the amount they spent fixing their homes.  "I'm disappointed,"
said Cathy Bray, 57, of Allen Park, who spent about $10,000 to
fix her finished basement after a foot of water swamped it
during the storm.  "Stuff that was valuable to me, I'm not going
to get it back."

Ms. Bray told The Detroit News that she lost yearbooks,
photographs, clothing and a classic train set, among other
things.  She did receive about $1,500 in disaster assistance
from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), but she
expects that to be deducted from her final amount.

Ardale Johnson of Allen Park doesn't expect much, either saying,
"I think we'll get very little, maybe $500."  Mr. Johnson spent
more than $7,000 to recover from the storm that dumped more than
6 inches of water into his basement.  The 65-year-old Ford
retiree submitted a $5,100 claim to the court, but examiners
didn't approve all of it. The court reduced what they did
approve.  Still, Mr. Johnson told The Detroit News that he's
glad it's finally over, reasoning, "I get to throw away about an
inch and a half of documentation."

The flooding came after a heavy rain pounded Metro Detroit.
Homeowners from Allen Park, Dearborn Heights, Ecorse, Inkster,
Lincoln Park, Southgate, Taylor and Riverview sued their cities
and Wayne County after the floods, claiming the governments had
failed to properly maintain the storm water drainage system.

Last year, the communities agreed to pay $12.75 million to end
the suit.  Wayne County got the biggest bill, $5.2 million, but
insurance covered much of that.


MICROSOFT CORP: Antitrust Suit in Iowa Seeks Millions in Refunds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa residents, who bought computers loaded with Microsoft Corp.
software since 1994 could get some money back if a class-action
lawsuit scheduled for trial later this year is successful, The
Olympian Online reports.

The suit, whish is seeking hundreds of millions of dollars from
the Company is scheduled to go to trial in November.  It
recently made its way to the Iowa Supreme Court for the third
time.

Roxanne Conlin, the Des Moines attorney pushing forward with the
case, expects a trial of six months or more to be heard by a
Polk County jury beginning Nov. 13.  She told The Olympian
Online, "Our point is that Microsoft, through illegal means,
eliminated competitive products, killed innovation and as a
result, people are paying more than they would pay in a
competitive world for those Microsoft products.  We're saying to
Microsoft, give us the money back that you took from us."

The Company denied consumers were injured and said they have
benefited from the company's efforts to improve its products.
Spokesman Jack Evans told The Olympian Online, "Far from being
harmed, we continue to believe that consumers are the direct
beneficiaries of Microsoft's efforts to improve our products.
Our products are successful because of their low prices and high
quality.  Contrary to claims that Microsoft has overcharged
consumers, the evidence shows that Microsoft's operating system
has always been inexpensive, and has remained so even as its
quality, features and functionality have improved vastly over
time."

A deluge of motions was filed in the case in the past week and a
hearing is scheduled for March 24 in Polk County District Court.
The suit is one of a few class-action suits against the Company
that continue to be pursued in state courts.

The Company initially faced 206 class-action lawsuits across the
United States.  It said that 108 were consolidated in a federal
antitrust case and 96 remained in state courts.  Currently,
there are six cases that remain unresolved that were part of the
federal proceedings and four cases that remain unresolved in the
state courts.

Most of the state cases were resolved when the Company agreed to
provide vouchers to affected consumers to buy computer equipment
and software, however, Ms. Conlin told The Olympian Online she
wants cash for Iowans.  "I don't take coupons," according to
her.  She also said that the amount of money consumers get back
if she wins the lawsuit would vary by the amount of equipment
purchased, its value and whether it was purchased directly or as
part of a software package preloaded onto another manufacturer's
computer.

In the states that have accepted vouchers, consumers have
received in the range of $15 to $35, Ms. Conlin pointed out.  If
the case is won, Ms. Conlin said she'd try to get the court to
establish a process that's reasonable for the consumer to recoup
what they're owed even if they haven't kept receipts.  Most
people probably have not saved their computer purchase receipts
back to 1994, according to her.  She reiterates, "People need to
be saving their receipts.  People will be surprised, if they're
computer users, how many Microsoft products they've had in that
time frame."

In the case to be tried in November, Des Moines businessman Joe
Comes is one of the plaintiffs representing all buyers of
computer systems preinstalled with the Microsoft operating
system and applications software.  Mr. Comes bought a Gateway
computer directly from the company and it came loaded with
Windows 98, court documents said.  "The plaintiffs initiated
this action to recoup the overcharges on behalf of all Iowa and
purchasers of Microsoft operating systems and applications
software," according to court documents.


MICROTUNE INC.: Suit Settlement Fairness Hearing Set April 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Microtune, Inc., Douglas
J. Bartek, some officers and several investment banking firms
that served as underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering, is set for April 24, 2006 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Starting on July 11, 2001, multiple purported securities fraud
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The Company is
aware of at least three such complaints: "Berger v. Goldman,
Sachs & Co., Inc. et al.," "Atlas v. Microtune et al.," and
"Ellis Investments Ltd. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., Inc. et al."
The complaints are brought purportedly on behalf of all persons
who purchased our common stock from August 4, 2000 through
December 6, 2000 and are related to In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation (IPO cases).  The Atlas complaint
names as defendants Microtune; Douglas J. Bartek, former
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; Everett Rogers, former
Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance and
Administration; and several investment banking firms that served
as underwriters of the Company's initial public offering.

The Company, Mr. Bartek and Mr. Rogers were served with notice
of the Atlas complaint on August 22, 2001, however they have not
been served regarding the other referenced complaints.  The
Berger and Ellis Investment Ltd. complaints assert claims
against the underwriters only.  The complaints were consolidated
and amended on May 29, 2002.

The amended complaint alleges liability under    11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (1933 Act Claims) and
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (1934 Act Claims), on the grounds that the registration
statement for our initial public offering did not disclose that
the underwriters had agreed to allow certain of their customers
to purchase shares in the offering in exchange for excess
commissions paid to the underwriters; and the underwriters had
arranged for certain of their customers to purchase additional
shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  The amended
complaint also alleges that false analyst reports were issued.
No specific amount of damages is claimed.

The Company is aware that similar allegations have been made in
other lawsuits filed in the Southern District of New York
challenging over 300 other initial public offerings and
secondary offerings conducted in 1998, 1999 and 2000.  Those
cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes before the
Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin.  On February 19, 2003, the Court
ruled on all defendants' motions to dismiss.  The Court denied
the motions to dismiss the 1933 Act Claims.  The Court did not
dismiss the 1934 Act Claims against us and other issuers and
underwriters.

The Company has accepted a settlement proposal presented to all
issuer defendants.  Under the settlement, plaintiffs will
dismiss and release all claims against the Microtune defendants.
The insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring
the issuer defendants in all of the IPO cases will guarantee
plaintiffs a recovery of $1 billion, an amount that covers all
of the IPO cases.  Under this guarantee, the insurers will pay
the difference, if any, between $1 billion and the amount
collected by the plaintiffs from the underwriter defendants in
all of the IPO cases.  The Microtune defendants will not be
required to pay any money in the settlement.  However, any
payment made by the insurers will be charged to the respective
insurance policies covering each issuer's case on a pro rata
basis (that is, the total insurance company payments will be
divided by the number of cases that settle).  If the pro rata
charge exceeds the amount of insurance coverage for an issuer,
that issuer would be responsible for additional payments. The
proposal also provides that the insurers will pay for the
company's legal fees going forward. The settlement will require
Court approval.

On February 15, 2005, the Court issued an order providing
preliminary approval of the settlement except to the extent the
settlement would have cut off contractual indemnification claims
that underwriters may have against securities issuers, such as
Microtune.  The Court set a hearing to consider final approval
of the settlement for January 9, 2006.  On September 1, 2005,
the Court finalized its preliminary approval of the settlement
and rescheduled the hearing to consider final approval of the
settlement for April 24, 2006.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


NEW YORK: Commuters File Suit V. MTA Over "Toll Discrimination"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two commuters filed a purported federal class action against New
York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to end
discounts some residents receive on the Verrazano and two other
bridges, The New York Post reports.

The suit says the toll breaks, which are given to Staten Island
residents on the Verrazano, and to Rockaway/Broad Channel
residents for the Marine Parkway and Cross Bay bridges, are
illegal under state and federal law.  The suit's plaintiffs,
Riva Janes, from Monmouth County, N.J, and Bruce Schwartz, of
Queens, N.Y., claim the "discriminatory toll pricing violates
the United States Constitution."  Both accuse MTA Chairman Peter
Kalikow and Bridges and Tunnels President Michael Ascher of
"unlawful charging" millions of drivers and collecting money to
which they are "not entitled."

Andrew Bell, one of the plaintiff's attorneys told The New York
Post, "Our clients feel everyone should be treated equally,
which is what this case is about."  Attorneys would not reveal
what prompted the suit and would only described Ms. Janes and
Mr. Schwartz simply as "private citizens."

Staten Islanders using E-ZPass pay $4.80 for crossing the
Verrazano instead of the regular $8 toll.  Rockaway and Broad
Channel residents who pay with E-ZPass pay $1 instead of the
full $1.50 toll on the Cross Bay and Marine Parkway bridges.

The class action seeks an end to the discounts and damages for
alleged millions in "discriminatory" tolls.  A judge will decide
whether to certify the suit, filed last month in federal court
in Manhattan, as a class action.

The suit is styled, "Janes, et al. v. Triborough Bridge and
Tunnel Authority, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01427-BSJ-HBP," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Barbara S. Jones with referral to Judge Henry B.
Pitman.  Representing the plaintiffs are, Andrew Palmer Bell and
Seth Richard Lesser of Locks Law Firm, P.L.L.C., 110 East 55th
Street, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 838-3333,
Fax: (212) 838-3735, E-mail: abell@lockslawny.com and
slesser@lockslawny.com; and Harley J. Schnall of Law Office of
Harley J. Schnall, 711 West End Avenue, New York, NY 10025,
Phone: (212) 678-6546.


ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Juniper Shareholders Urged to File Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities Arbitration Law Firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A.
(K&T) advises all Robertson Stephens customers who are eligible
to participate in the Settlement of "In Re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)", to explore
all of their legal options against Robertson Stephens, one of
the non-settling defendant underwriters.

According to K&T, investors should strongly consider pursuing an
individual securities arbitration claim as a means to recovering
their financial losses.

According to the IPO Securities Litigation, various issuers and
underwriters caused securities to trade at artificially inflated
prices, in connection with the initial public offering of the
securities, causing customers to lose billions of dollars.
Investors who may have a claim against Robertson Stephens, a
non-settling defendant underwriter, include those who suffered
net losses as a result of their purchase and/or receipt of these
stocks through Robertson Stephens, during:

Juniper Networks, Inc.  (JNPR)    Jun. 24, 99 - Dec. 6, 00
Keynote Systems, Inc.   (KEYN)    Sep. 24, 00 - Dec. 6, 00
Maxygen, Inc.           (MAXY)    Dec. 15, 99 - Dec. 6, 00
MetaSolv, Inc.          (MSLV)    Nov. 17, 99 - Dec. 6, 00

Several defendant underwriters, including Robertson Stephens,
have not settled with the Class Members of the Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation.  Therefore, K&T urges investors
who suffered substantial losses to proceed with a securities
arbitration claim against Robertson Stephens, rather than
waiting for a potential class action settlement.  Empirical
evidence shows that investors may achieve an overall higher rate
of recovery by filing an individual securities arbitration
claim.

Accordingly, K&T -- http://www.nasd-law.com-- plans to assist
individual investors who purchased and/or received an allocation
of shares through an IPO to recover their financial losses from
Robertson Stephens, in securities arbitration claims before the
National Association of Securities Dealers and the New York
Stock Exchange.  Additionally, because the IPO Litigation is not
the exclusive remedy for injured investors, K&T strongly
encourages all eligible IPO Settlement recipients to contact
Lawrence L. Klayman, Esquire, at 888-997-9956 to discuss their
legal options and/or the possibility of pursuing an individual
securities arbitration claim.


ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Stamps.com Investors Urged to File Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities Arbitration Law Firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A.
(K&T) advises all Robertson Stephens customers who are eligible
to participate in the Settlement of "In Re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)", to explore
all of their legal options against Robertson Stephens, one of
the non-settling defendant underwriters.

According to K&T, investors should strongly consider pursuing an
individual securities arbitration claim as a means to recovering
their financial losses.

According to the IPO Securities Litigation, various issuers and
underwriters caused securities to trade at artificially inflated
prices, in connection with the initial public offering of the
securities, causing customers to lose billions of dollars.
Investors who may have a claim against Robertson Stephens, a
non-settling defendant underwriter, include those who suffered
net losses as a result of their purchase and/or receipt of these
stocks through Robertson Stephens, during:

Sirenza Microdevices, Inc.  (SMDI)         May 24, 00-Dec. 6, 00
Stamps.com                  (STMP)        Jun. 24, 99-Dec. 6, 00
Turnstone Systems Inc. (Pink Sheets:TSTN) Jan. 31, 00-Dec. 6, 00
Vitria Technology, Inc.     (VITR)        Sep. 16, 99-Dec. 6, 00

Several defendant underwriters, including Robertson Stephens,
have not settled with the Class Members of the Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation.  Therefore, K&T urges investors
who suffered substantial losses to proceed with a securities
arbitration claim against Robertson Stephens, rather than
waiting for a potential class action settlement.  Empirical
evidence shows that investors may achieve an overall higher rate
of recovery by filing an individual securities arbitration
claim.

Accordingly, K&T -- http://www.nasd-law.com-- plans to assist
individual investors who purchased and/or received an allocation
of shares through an IPO to recover their financial losses from
Robertson Stephens, in securities arbitration claims before the
National Association of Securities Dealers and the New York
Stock Exchange.  Additionally, because the IPO Litigation is not
the exclusive remedy for injured investors, K&T strongly
encourages all eligible IPO Settlement recipients to contact
Lawrence L. Klayman, Esquire, at 888-997-9956 to discuss their
legal options and/or the possibility of pursuing an individual
securities arbitration claim.


ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Concur, Covad Investors Urged to File Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities Arbitration Law Firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A.
(K&T) advises all Robertson Stephens customers who are eligible
to participate in the Settlement of "In Re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)", to explore
all of their legal options against Robertson Stephens, one of
the non-settling defendant underwriters.

According to K&T, investors should strongly consider pursuing an
individual securities arbitration claim as a means to recovering
their financial losses.

According to the IPO Securities Litigation, various issuers and
underwriters caused securities to trade at artificially inflated
prices, in connection with the initial public offering of the
securities, causing customers to lose billions of dollars.
Investors who may have a claim against Robertson Stephens, a
non-settling defendant underwriter, include those who suffered
net losses as a result of their purchase and/or receipt of these
stocks through Robertson Stephens, during:

Concur Technologies   (CNQR)  Dec. 16, 98 - Dec. 6, 00
CoSine Communications (Pink Sheets:COSN) Sep. 25, 00-Dec. 6, 00
Covad Communications  (DVW) Jan. 20, 99 - Dec. 6, 00
Critical Path, Inc.  (CPTH) Mar. 29, 99 - Dec. 6, 00

Several defendant underwriters, including Robertson Stephens,
have not settled with the Class Members of the Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation.  Therefore, K&T urges investors
who suffered substantial losses to proceed with a securities
arbitration claim against Robertson Stephens, rather than
waiting for a potential class action settlement.  Empirical
evidence shows that investors may achieve an overall higher rate
of recovery by filing an individual securities arbitration
claim.

Accordingly, K&T -- http://www.nasd-law.com-- plans to assist
individual investors who purchased and/or received an allocation
of shares through an IPO to recover their financial losses from
Robertson Stephens, in securities arbitration claims before the
National Association of Securities Dealers and the New York
Stock Exchange.  Additionally, because the IPO Litigation is not
the exclusive remedy for injured investors, K&T strongly
encourages all eligible IPO Settlement recipients to contact
Lawrence L. Klayman, Esquire, at 888-997-9956 to discuss their
legal options and/or the possibility of pursuing an individual
securities arbitration claim.


ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Bookham Shareholders Urged to File Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities Arbitration Law Firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A.
(K&T) advises all Robertson Stephens customers who are eligible
to participate in the Settlement of "In Re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)", to explore
all of their legal options against Robertson Stephens, one of
the non-settling defendant underwriters.

According to K&T, investors should strongly consider pursuing an
individual securities arbitration claim as a means to recovering
their financial losses.

According to the IPO Securities Litigation, various issuers and
underwriters caused securities to trade at artificially inflated
prices, in connection with the initial public offering of the
securities, causing customers to lose billions of dollars.
Investors who may have a claim against Robertson Stephens, a
non-settling defendant underwriter, include those who suffered
net losses as a result of their purchase and/or receipt of these
stocks through Robertson Stephens, during:

Bookham Technologies  (BKHM)           Apr. 11, 00 - Dec. 6, 00
Bottomline Technologies  (EPAY)        Feb. 12, 99 - Dec. 6, 00
Chordiant Software  (CHRD)             Feb. 14, 00 - Dec. 6, 00
Clarent Corporation (Pink Sheets:CLRN) Jun. 30, 99 - Dec. 6, 00

Several defendant underwriters, including Robertson Stephens,
have not settled with the Class Members of the Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation.  Therefore, K&T urges investors
who suffered substantial losses to proceed with a securities
arbitration claim against Robertson Stephens, rather than
waiting for a potential class action settlement.  Empirical
evidence shows that investors may achieve an overall higher rate
of recovery by filing an individual securities arbitration
claim.

Accordingly, K&T -- http://www.nasd-law.com-- plans to assist
individual investors who purchased and/or received an allocation
of shares through an IPO to recover their financial losses from
Robertson Stephens, in securities arbitration claims before the
National Association of Securities Dealers and the New York
Stock Exchange.  Additionally, because the IPO Litigation is not
the exclusive remedy for injured investors, K&T strongly
encourages all eligible IPO Settlement recipients to contact
Lawrence L. Klayman, Esquire, at 888-997-9956 to discuss their
legal options and/or the possibility of pursuing an individual
securities arbitration claim.


SIRIUS SATELITTE: Settles Shareholder Lawsuit in N.Y. for $8M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sirius Satellite Radio said in its annual report, filed on March
13, 2006, with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it
settled a 2001 class action lawsuit involving allegations of
issuing "materially false and misleading statements and press
releases concerning when our service would be commercially
available."  Those statements allegedly caused Sirius' stock
price to be "artifically inflated," according to Tony Sanders of
The Billboard Radio Monitor.

In September 2001, a purported class action lawsuit, entitled
"Sternbeck v. Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc., 2:01-CV-295," was
filed against the Company and certain of its current and former
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
District of Vermont.  Subsequently, additional purported class
action lawsuits were filed.  These actions were consolidated in
a single purported class action in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, styled, "In re:
Sirius Satellite Radio Securities Litigation, No. 01-CV-10863,"
(Class Action Reporter, April 27, 2005).

This action was brought on behalf of all persons who acquired
the Company's common stock on the open market between February
16, 2000 and April 2, 2001.  The complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements and press releases concerning when the
Company's service would be commercially available, which caused
the market price of the Company's common stock to be
artificially inflated. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount
of money damages, (Class Action Reporter, April 27, 2005).

In June 2002, the Company filed a motion with the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York requesting
the Court to dismiss the complaint in this action with prejudice
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the provisions
of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.  In January
2004, the Court denied its motion to dismiss this action, (Class
Action Reporter, April 27, 2005).

In it's 10-K filing, the Company said, "In January 2006, we and
certain of our current and former executive officers who are
also defendants agreed in principle to settle this action for $8
million in cash."

The suit is styled, "In re: Sirius Satellite Radio Securities
Litigation, No. 01-CV-10863," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois under Judge Thomas P.
Griesa.  Representing the plaintiffs are, Linda P. Nussbaum and
Steven Jeffrey Toll of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,
P.L.L.C., Phone: (212) 838-7797 and (202) 408-4600, Fax: (202)
408-4699, E-mail: lnussbaum@cmht.com and stoll@cmht.com.

Representing the defendants is Bruce Domenick Angiolillo of
Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, L.L.P., 425 Lexington Avenue, New
York, NY 10017-3954, Phone: (212) 455-2000, Fax: (212) 455-2502,
E-mail: bangiolillo@stblaw.com.


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Consolidated Securities Suits in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Symbol Technologies, Inc. and two of its former officers face a
consolidated class action in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, alleging violations of
federal securities laws.

On August 16, 2005, Robert Waring filed a purported federal
class action lawsuit against the Company and two of its former
officers.  Since the filing of the Waring action, several
additional purported class actions have been filed against the
Company and the same former officers making substantially
similar allegations (collectively, the "New Class Actions").

The New Class Actions have been consolidated for all purposes
and a Consolidated Amended Complaint will be filed after the
appointment of a lead plaintiff.  The plaintiffs in the New
Class Actions allege that the defendants misrepresented that, in
connection with settlements of earlier criminal and civil
investigations, the Company had implemented processes to improve
its internal controls when, in fact, its internal controls were
insufficient.

In addition, the plaintiffs in the New Class Actions allege that
as a result of the insufficient internal controls, the Company
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing
statements concerning its prospects, financial results and
financial controls that were allegedly false and misleading.
The plaintiffs allege that they were damaged by the decline in
the price of its stock on August 1, 2005, the date the Company
released its results for the second quarter of 2005.  The
complaints seek unspecified damages

A lead plaintiff has not been appointed, nor has the time for
the Company and the other defendants to answer, move or
otherwise respond been established.  The Company denies the
suit's allegations.

The lead suit is styled, "Waring v. Symbol Technologies, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-03923-DRH-JO," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge
Denis R. Hurley.  Representing the plaintiffs are Samuel H.
Rudman, Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP,
200 Broadhollow Road, Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-
367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail: srudman@cauleygeller.com.

Representing the Company are William Kennedy Dodds and Andrew J.
Levander, Dechert, Price & Rhoads, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New
York, NY 10112, Phone: (212) 698-3500, Fax: (212) 698-3599, E-
mail: william.dodds@dechert.com or Andrew.levander@dechert.com.


UNITED STATES: Insurers Identify Need for Confidentiality Model
---------------------------------------------------------------
State insurance commissioners acknowledged that in the future
there will be a need for a model act to address confidentiality
concerns that are a problem in insurance class actions,
according to Insurance Journal.

At the National Association of Insurance Commissioners Spring
Conference in Orlando, participants agreed that although the
need for a Class Action Model Act might not be a major concern
today, it could soon become one, the report said.  They,
therefore, recommended that a task force proceed with a model.
The suggestion will be presented to the National Conference of
Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) Executive Committee.

The Class Action Insurance Litigation Working Group discussed a
yet-to-be-released Rand Study that will present case scenarios
for class action cases.  A question was also raised about when a
class action suit interferes with the state regulatory process.
In the end, the panel said that at present if a class action
suit is filed, its deposition depended on the jurisdiction.
Some participants pointed out judges' reluctance to share
jurisdictions.  The group attributed it to concerns about
confidentiality.

Ray Baker, spokesman for Property Casualty Insurers Association
of America, pointed out the importance of a statutory document
clarifying NCOIL's position on such litigation because of the
multitude of state agencies and insurance departments.


UNITED STATES: Minn., Ohio Judges Rule V. Red Light Cameras
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judges in Minneapolis, Minnesota and Steubenville, Ohio, struck
down photo enforcement programs as invalid or unconstitutional,
The Newspaper.com reports.

Minneapolis red light camera photo enforcement suffered a
serious blow as Hennepin County District Judge Mark S. Wernick
struck down the Minneapolis red light camera program on
constitutional grounds.  The American Civil Liberties Union of
Minnesota had brought suit, charging the program violated the
due process rights of citizens.

One man, for example, was falsely accused twice and only had his
cases dismissed after he contacted the media.  The Minneapolis
program will no longer issue tickets pending the outcome of a
likely appeal.

Jefferson County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas Judge David E.
Henderson struck down Steubenville's speed camera ordinance and
ordered the city to refund the 3000-4000 invalid tickets, at $85
each, that have already been paid.

Steubenville attorney Gary Stern initially filed suit against
the city and Traffipax Inc., the company who supplied the
cameras, on behalf of his wife, who received one of the $85
tickets issued by a traffic camera.  The attorney argued that
the cameras are illegal and unconstitutional.  Mr. Stern claims
that the cameras are unconstitutional for a number of reasons
among those are that motorists don't have the right to appeal.
The traffic cameras read the speed of cars driving by, and if
you are in excess of the speed limit, you are mailed an $85
ticket, according to court documents (Class Action Reporter,
March 13, 2006).

Earlier, Judge Henderson ordered the removal of speed cameras in
Steubenville after a Mr. Stern challenged the installation of
the device in a class action.  Mr. Stern, whose wife received
two speed camera citations in the mail, each bearing a $85 fine,
said in the lawsuit the city does not follow the terms of its
own ordinance which requires a 14-day notice before installing
the cameras.  Mr. Stern wants the $229,000 in fines already
collected by the city to be refunded, according to I-Newswire,
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 15, 2006).


WASHINGTON: State Workers Mull Suit V. Union Over Required Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
A group of state employees scheduled a news conference for in
Olympia to announce a lawsuit over compulsory union dues, The
Associated Press reports.

Backed by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation,
the planned statewide class-action lawsuit seeks to stop the
Washington Federation of State Employees from forcing 40,000
workers to pay union dues.  Workers who refuse to pay the dues
could be fired.


WIRELESS FACILITIES: Stock Suit Junked; Appeal Due in 45 Days
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California has dismissed, with leave to amend, claims against
Wireless Facilities, Inc. and certain officers and directors in
the consolidated shareholder class action filed in August 2004.

The suits are related to a class period May 5, 2003 through
August 4, 2004.  WFI's motion to dismiss the second amended
consolidated class action complaint was granted and the action
was dismissed by the order of the Honorable John A. Houston.
The court gave the plaintiffs 45 days to amend their complaint.

"WFI is extremely pleased with the decision of the court," said
Eric Demarco, President and CEO of WFI.  "We have always
believed that the plaintiff's case lacked merit, and we look
forward to putting this issue behind us and moving forward with
our business efforts."

Based in San Diego, California, WFI -- http://www.wfinet.com--  
is an independent provider of systems engineering, network
services and technical outsourcing for the world's largest
wireless carriers, enterprise customers and for government
agencies.  The company provides the design, deployment,
integration, and the overall management of wired and wireless
networks which deliver voice and data communication, and which
support advanced security systems.  WFI has performed work in
over 100 countries since its founding in 1994.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases


BAUSCH & LOMB: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 Bausch &
Lomb, Inc. (NYSE: BOL) between January 27, 2005 and December 22,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against defendant Bausch & Lomb,
Inc. 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.


BAUSCH & LOMB: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of Bausch & Lomb, Inc. (NYSE:
BOL) publicly traded securities during the period between
January 27, 2005 and December 22, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Bausch & Lomb and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Bausch & Lomb engages in the development, manufacture,
and marketing of eye health products.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made positive but false statements about Bausch & Lomb's results
and business, while concealing material adverse information
about the true nature of the Company's revenues, the lack of
adequate internal controls and the underpayment of taxes
resulting in tens of millions of dollars in penalties, which
ultimately resulted in the restatement of the Company's
financials over a period of five years.

On December 22, 2005, after the markets closed, the Company
provided an update on an internal investigation related to its
Brazil subsidiary and announced that it would restate its
financial results for 2000 through the first half of 2005.

On this disclosure, Bausch & Lomb's stock price dropped to as
low as $71.54 per share, a 9% decline from its close on December
22, 2005 -- the equivalent of a $374 million market
capitalization loss.  However, according to the complaint, prior
to these revelations of accounting fraud the Company's top
officers and directors illegally reaped over $29 million in
insider trading proceeds.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law
Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, Phone (888) 643-6735 or (610) 660-8000,
Fax: (610) 660-8080, E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com, Web site:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


BAUSCH & LOMB: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., filed 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 or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities
of Bausch & Lomb, Inc. ("Bausch & Lomb") or (the "Company")
between January 27, 2005 and December 22, 2005, inclusive, (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements concerning Bausch & Lomb's results.  Specifically,
defendants issued positive statements while concealing material
adverse information about the true nature of Bausch & Lomb's
revenues, the lack of adequate internal controls and the
underpayment of taxes resulting in tens of millions of dollars
in penalties, which ultimately resulted in the restatement of
the Company's financials over a period of five years.

On December 22, 2005, after the markets closed, the Company
provided an update on an internal investigation related to its
Brazil subsidiary and announced that it would restate its
financial results for 2000 through the first half of 2005.  On
this news, Bausch & Lomb's stock fell to a close of $72.00 per
share on December 23, 2005, a decline of over $7.00 from its
close on December 22, 2005.  It is alleged that, prior to these
revelations of accounting fraud the Company's top officers and
directors illegally reaped over $29 million in insider trading
proceeds.

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


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., filed a
lawsuit on behalf of its client and on behalf of other similarly
situated purchasers of Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. NV ("Chicago
Bridge" or the "Company") (NYSE:CBI) common stock between March
9, 2005, through and including February 3, 2006 (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint charges Chicago Bridge and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The
Complaint alleges that defendants omitted or misrepresented
material adverse facts about the Company's financial condition,
business prospects, and revenue expectations during the Class
Period.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
issued numerous materially false and misleading statements which
caused Chicago Bridge's securities to trade at artificially
inflated prices.  As alleged in the complaint, these statements
were materially false and misleading and violated Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") because they
misrepresented and failed to disclose that the Company was
materially overstating its financial results by failing to
properly utilize percentage-of-completion accounting; and the
Company was not following its publicly stated revenue
recognition policies.

According to the complaint, on October 26, 2005, Chicago Bridge
issued a press release announcing that it would be delaying the
release of its third-quarter financial results because the
results were not "finalized in time to meet the original
schedule."  On October 31, 2005, Chicago Bridge issued a press
release announcing a delay in its release of third-quarter
financial results that was "precipitated by a memo from a senior
member of (Chicago Bridge's) accounting department alleging
accounting improprieties, including the determination of claim
recognition on two projects and the assessment of costs to
complete two projects."

Then, on February 3, 2006, after the close of the market,
Chicago Bridge issued a press release announcing the termination
of certain Defendants.  Two hours after the announcement of the
terminations, an attorney representing the terminated Defendants
issued a press release representing that they had been
terminated in connection with the Company's internal accounting
investigation.

The Complaint alleges that in response to these announcements,
on February 6, 2006, the price of Chicago Bridge stock dropped
from $29.00 per share to $22.33 per share on extremely heavy
trading volume.

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


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *