---

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

              Monday, April 3, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 66

                            Headlines

ALABAMA: Solution Offered in County Clerk's Copy Fees Complaint
ALTRIA GROUP: No Rehearing Date Yet for "Light" Cigarettes Suit
AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL: Accused of Labor Law Violations in Calif.
AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL: TCPA Lawsuit in Calif. Nears Resolution
AMGEN INC: Ariz. State Court Extends Stay on "Swanston" Case

AMGEN INC: Fourth Amended Master Complaint Filed in Pricing Suit
BASF CORP: High Court Reaffirms $62M Decision in Poast Lawsuit
BCI: Court Junks Debenture, Caisse de Depot et Placement Suits
BELO CORP: Suit Over News Circulation Overstatement Dismissed
CHAPARRAL RESOURCES: Faces Lawsuit in Del. Over LUKOIL Merger

CV THERAPEUTICS: Discovery Proceeds in Calif. Securities Suit
CYBERSOURCE CORP: N.Y. Sets April Fairness Hearing for IPO Pact
EMPIRE DISTRICT: Plaintiffs Appeal KS Electric Suit Dismissal
FINANCIAL ADVISERS: Investor Lawsuit in Spain Moves Forward
GENTA INC: Non-Binding Mediation Initiated in N.J. Stock Suit

GENZYME CORP: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Biosurgery Stock
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Digwamaje Case Under Appeal in Circuit Court
H&R BLOCK: Faces Lawsuit in Mo. Over Retirement Plan Offering
INFOUSA INC: Shareholders File Fiduciary Breach Lawsuit in Del.
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS: Commission Charge-Back Illegal, Court Says

LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Fla. Court Considers Summary Judgment Motion
MOLSON COORS: Facing Stockholders Complaints in U.S., Canada
PENNSYLVANIA: Inmates' Suit Over News Access Goes to High Court
PERINI CORP: Mass. Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
PRG SCHULTZ: Ga. Court Grants Final Approval to Suit Settlement

QUIGLEY CORP: Continues to Face Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in Pa.
ROYAL GROUP: Ex-Officers Accused of Breaching Fiduciary Duties
SPORTS AUTHORITY: Faces Overtime Compensation Lawsuit in Calif.
SPORTS AUTHORITY: Faces Stockholders' Suits in Del. Over Merger
SUNSCREEN MANUFACTURERS: Calif. Suit Alleges Deceptive Marketing

UNITED KINGDOM: Claims Recovery Firm Set Up to Help Investors
WELDING FUME LITIGATION: Ill. Court Upholds Million-Dollar Order
WESBANCO INC: W.Va. Court Denies Motion for Summary Judgment


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

BAUSCH & LOMB: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
ESTEE LAUDER: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
ESTEE LAUDER: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Federman & Sherwood Files Stock Suit in Wis.
MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Spector Roseman Files Wis. Securities Suit

PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Suit in Fla.
PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Klafter Olsen Lodges Securities Suit in Fla.
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set April 3

                            *********


ALABAMA: Solution Offered in County Clerk's Copy Fees Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawyer who has been barred from entering beyond the front
window of the Henry County clerk's office has offered to settle
two counts of complaints against the center, according to
TheStartPress.com.

The settlement concerns complaints by lawyer Martin Shields over
fees charged by the office to copy records, and Mr. Shields'
claim that a table of those fees isn't properly displayed.  Mr.
Shields had argued that all others who have paid the fees should
be issued refunds via a class action.

The settlement, however, is conditional upon his entry behind
the office's glass-paneled windows.  Entry into the office
allows people to review court files or file paperwork.  Mr.
Shield was banned from entering beyond the glass windows in the
office after an exchange with a clerk's office employee in
October.

Mr. Shields' original complaint against County Clerk Patricia
French, which was filed in January, included request for an
order that would require Ms. French to appoint members to the
county's election board, and permission for Mr. Shields to re-
enter the clerk's office.  The first charge was settled after
Mr. Shields as nominated by Henry County's Republican party to
serve on the county's election board.


ALTRIA GROUP: No Rehearing Date Yet for "Light" Cigarettes Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Supreme Court has not issued a decision on whether
it would rehear a case that threw out a $10.1 billion verdict
against Philip Morris USA in December, according to the Olberlin
Times.

Lawyers for smokers who filed the lawsuit requested a rehearing
after the court reversed the verdict against the unit of Altria
Group Inc. more than three months ago.  The $10.1 billion
judgment was rendered by a trial court judge in March 2003.

A court spokeswoman said there was no time frame for deciding on
the rehearing, according to the report.  The suit accused the
group of defrauding consumers into thinking "light" cigarettes
were safer than regular smokes.

The suit was styled "Sharon Price and Michael Fruth, et al. v.
Philip Morris Incorporated, No. 00-L-112," filed under Judge
Nicholas Byron.  Class counsel is Stephen Tillery of Korein
Tillery, Mail: 10 Executive Woods Court, Belleville, IL 62226,
Phone: (618) 277-1180, Fax: (618) 222-6939 E-mail:
contact@koreintillery.com.

Lawyers for the company are:

     (1) James R. Thompson, George C. Lombardi, Jeffrey M.
         Wagner, Julie A. Bauer and Stuart Altschuler of Winston
         & Strawn LLP, 35 West Wacker Drive, Chicago IL 60601-
         9703, Phone: 312-558-5600

     (2) Michele Odorizzi, Joel D. Bertocchi, Michael K. Forde
         of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP, 190 South LaSalle
         Street, Chicago, IL 60603-3441, Phone: 312-782-0600

     (3) Larry Hepler, Beth A. Bauer of Burroughs, Hepler,
         Broom, Macdonald, Hebrank & True, LLP, 103 West
         Vandalia Street, Suite 300, Post Office Box 510,
         Edwardsville, IL 62025-0510 Phone: 618-656-0184

     (4) Kevin M. Forde, Kevin M. Forde, Ltd., 111 West
         Washington Street, Suite 1100, Chicago, IL 60602 Phone:
         312-641-1441


AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL: Accused of Labor Law Violations in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Residential Funding, Inc., a subsidiary of Anza
Capital, Inc., one of its former Branch Managers, and a third
party entity, Spectrum Funding Group, Inc., which is operated by
the said former Branch Manager, continues to face a class action
filed in California Superior Court.

The complaint alleges damages and equitable relief for
violations of the California Labor Codes, and California Unfair
Business Practices Act.  The matter was tendered to the former
Branch Manager for indemnification based on his contract with
the company.


AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL: TCPA Lawsuit in Calif. Nears Resolution
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Residential Funding, Inc. (AMRES), a subsidiary of Anza
Capital, Inc., indicated in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that a class action in California involving
alleged violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
is nearing resolution.

On or about September 20, 2004, a class action complaint was
filed, alleging AMRES sent unsolicited advertisements to fax
machines in violation of TCPA 47USC section 227.  The company is
defending vigorously and also tendered the matter to People's
Home Loans (a company owned by a former branch manager of AMRES)
for indemnification, as they were responsible for the actions
that are subject to the complaint.


AMGEN INC: Ariz. State Court Extends Stay on "Swanston" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County extended the stay
placed on the purported class action "Robert J. Swanston v. TAP
Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., et al."

The Arizona state class action was filed against Amgen, Inc. on
December 20, 2002 in the Maricopa County, Arizona Superior
Court.  The Court previously set a hearing on plaintiffs' motion
to certify a statewide class for May 13, 2005, however the Court
stayed the entire case on March 10, 2005.  A status conference
was held on December 12, 2005 in which the Court extended the
stay until May 2006.


AMGEN INC: Fourth Amended Master Complaint Filed in Pricing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action, "In Re: Pharmaceutical Industry
Average Wholesale Price (AWP) Litigation MDL No. 1456," filed a
fourth amended master consolidated complaint, which does not
include motion for class certification as to the Phase II
companies.

Amgen, Inc. and Immunex Corporation were named as defendants,
either separately or together, in numerous civil actions broadly
alleging that they, together with many other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, reported prices for certain products in a manner
that allegedly inflated reimbursement under the Medicare and/or
Medicaid programs, and commercial insurance plans, including co-
payments paid to providers who prescribe and administer the
products.

The complaints generally asserted varying claims under the
federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO)
statutes, their state law corollaries, as well as state law
claims for deceptive trade practices, common law fraud, and
various related state law claims.  The complaints seek an
undetermined amount of damages, as well as other relief,
including declaratory and injunctive relief.

The average wholesale price (AWP) litigation was commenced
against the company and Immunex on December 19, 2001 with the
filing of "Citizens for Consumer Justice et al. v. Abbott
Laboratories, Inc., et al."  Additional cases have been filed
since that time.  Most of these actions, have been consolidated,
or are in the process of being consolidated, in a federal Multi-
District Litigation proceeding, captioned "In Re: Pharmaceutical
Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation MDL No. 1456" and
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.  These cases that are, or are in the process of
being consolidated into the MDL Proceeding, are being brought by
consumer classes and certain state and local governmental
entities.  The cases are:

     (1) Citizens for Consumer Justice, et al., v. Abbott
         Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

     (2) Teamsters Health & Welfare Fund of Philadelphia, et
         al., v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

     (3) Action Alliance of Senior Citizens of Greater
         Philadelphia v. Immunex Corp.;

     (4) Constance Thompson, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories,
         Inc., et al.;

     (5) John Rice, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

     (6) Ronald Turner, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
         al.;

     (7) Congress of California Seniors v. Abbott Laboratories,
         et al.;

     (8) State of Montana v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

     (9) State of Nevada v. American Home Products Corp., et
         al.;

    (10) County of Suffolk v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

    (11) IUOE, Local 68 v. AstraZeneca, PLC, et al.;

    (12) County of Westchester v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
         al.;

    (13) County of Rockland v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
         al.;

    (14) City of New York v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

    (15) County of Nassau v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al;


    (16) County of Onondaga v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
         al.;

    (17) County of Erie v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

    (18) County of Chenango v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
         al.;

    (19) County of Chautauqua v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
         al.;

    (20) County of Tompkins v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
         al.;

    (21) County of Wayne v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

    (22) County of Monroe v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

    (23) County of Washington v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
         al.;

    (24) County of Herkimer v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
         al.;

    (25) County of Cayuga v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

    (26) County of Allegany v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
         al.;

    (27) County of Rensselaer v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
         al.;

    (28) County of Albany v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

    (29) County of Cattaraugus v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
         al.;

    (30) County of Yates v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

    (31) County of Broome v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

    (33) County of Warren v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

    (34) County of Greene v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

    (35) County of Saratoga v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
         al.;

    (36) County of St. Lawrence v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
         al.;

    (37) County of Oneida v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

    (38) County of Genesee v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

    (39) Count of Fulton v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

    (40) County of Steuben v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

    (41) County of Putnam v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

    (42) County of Niagara v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

    (43) County of Jefferson v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
         al.;

    (44) County of Madison v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al;

    (45) County of Lewis v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

    (46) County of Columbia v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
         al.;

    (47) County of Essex v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

    (48) County of Cortland v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
         al.;

    (49) County of Seneca v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

    (50) County of Orleans v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

    (51) County of Duchess v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

    (52) County of Ontario v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

    (53) County of Schuyler v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
         al.;

    (54) County of Wyoming v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;
         and

    (55) State of California ex rel. Ven-A-Care of the Florida
         Keys, Inc v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.

In the MDL Proceeding, the Massachusetts District Court has set
various deadlines relating to motions to dismiss the complaints,
discovery, class certification, summary judgment and other pre-
trial issues.  For the class action cases, the Court divided the
defendant companies into a Phase I group and a Phase II group.

The class certification hearing for the Phase I group was held
February 10, 2004.  On January 30, 2006, the Massachusetts
District Court certified three classes (one nationwide class and
two Massachusetts-only classes) with respect to the Phase I
group.  Both company and Immunex are in the Phase II group.

On March 2, 2006, plaintiffs filed a fourth amended master
consolidated complaint, which did not include their motion for
class certification as to the Phase II companies.


BASF CORP: High Court Reaffirms $62M Decision in Poast Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a $62 million
judgment in a class action filed by farmers against New Jersey-
based BASF Corp., Associated Press reports.

The suit was filed in 1997 by 11 Minnesota, Montana and North
Dakota farmers who alleged fraudulent and deceitful marketing
practice against the company in its marketing of Poast and Poast
Plus herbicides.  It was found in 2002 that the company sold
Poast for a higher price when they are essentially the same.
BASF recommended Poast Plus for soybeans, and Poast for
sunflowers, sugarbeets, potatoes, vegetables and fruits.
Included in the suit are people who bought Poast from 1992 to
1996.

In its appeal, the company called in the Bates v. Dow
Agrosciences case, which concerns Dow's fluorinated diclosulam
herbicide Strongarm.  However, the high court said the case
doesn't affect its ruling against BASF.  BASF, a subsidiary of
BASF AG of Germany, plans to appeal the decision, according to
the report.

The court's opinion is available at:
http://www.courts.state.mn.us/opinions/sc/current/opc020857-
0330.htm

Lawyer for the plaintiff is Douglas Nill, P.A.  On the Net:
http://www.farmlaw.com.


BCI: Court Junks Debenture, Caisse de Depot et Placement Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court has dismissed the 6.75% Debenture Class Action and the
CDP Action filed against Bell Canada International in 2002, the
company's 2005 financial results show.

On April 29, 2002, BCI announced that a lawsuit had been filed
with the Court by certain former holders of BCI's $250 million
6.75% convertible unsecured subordinated debentures (Troubled
Company Reporter - Latin America, Aug. 6, 2004).  The plaintiffs
sought damages from BCI, BCE and certain current and former
members of BCI's Board of Directors, for up to an amount of $250
million in connection with the settlement of the debentures
through the issuance of common shares, in accordance with BCI's
recapitalization plan completed on February 15, 2002.

In accordance with an agreement reached among the parties to
this lawsuit in December 2002, the Court ordered that this
lawsuit be certified as a class action within the meaning of
applicable legislation (Troubled Company Reporter - Latin
America, Aug. 6, 2004).

A recent financial report of the company stated that on
September 2, 2005, the Court dismissed the 6.75% Debenture Class
Action and the CDP Action and as all related appeal periods have
expired these actions are effectively dismissed.  The related
cost of the dismissals to BCI of $3.2 million was charged to
income in 2005, net of insurance proceeds of $2.6 million.

On July 12, 2002, the shareholders and noteholders of BCI
approved a Plan of Arrangement under the Canada Business
Corporations Act.  Court approval for the Plan of Arrangement
was received on July 17, 2002.  These data are detailed under
the 'Initial Claims Process' section of the company's report:

On December 2, 2002, the Court approved a claims identification
process for BCI that established a procedure by which all claims
against BCI would be identified within a specified period.  This
period began on May 31, 2003 and concluded on August 31, 2003
(September 30, 2003 for taxation authorities) (the Initial
Claims Bar Date).  A creditor that did not submit a proof of
claim by the Initial Claims Bar Date is not entitled to receive
any payment in respect of that claim and is barred from making
that claim in the future against BCI.

These Initial Exempt Creditors were not required to submit
proofs of claim, and their claims are not barred:

     -- Members of the "6.75% Debenture Class Action" seeking
        damages of $250 million against BCI, BCI's directors and
        BCE Inc., BCI's parent company, on behalf of all persons
        that owned 6.75% Debentures on December 3, 2001, which
        action was certified as a class proceeding under the
        Class Proceedings Act by order of the Court dated
        December 2, 2002;

     -- The holders of BCI's $160 million 11% senior unsecured
        notes due September 29, 2004;

     -- Parties with claims relating to the supply of goods or
        services to BCI in the ordinary course, whether before
        or after May 31, 2003;

     -- The holders of the Vesper Guarantees; and

     -- Current or former employees of BCI in respect of
        employment-related claims for services provided to BCI,
        whether before or after May 31, 2003, other than
        employment-related claims in respect of which the
        current or former employee has initiated litigation
        against BCI.

As a result of the Initial Claims Process, the claims shown in
the table were filed by non-exempt creditors:

Claims Filed                                 Amounts Claimed
------------                                 ---------------
Shareholder Class Action (Shaw)                   $1 Billion
Shareholder Class Action (Gillespie)              $1 Billion
Caisse de depot et placement (CDP)               $110 Million
Other                                            $19 Million

On September 2, 2005, the Court dismissed the 6.75% Debenture
Class Action and the CDP Action and as all related appeal
periods have expired these actions are effectively dismissed.
The related cost of the dismissals to BCI of $3.2 million was
charged to income in 2005, net of insurance proceeds of $2.6
million.

On September 29, 2004, BCI repaid its $160 million 11% senior
unsecured notes.

On December 2, 2003, BCI paid US$12,000,000 as consideration for
the absolute release of its obligation under the Vesper
Guarantees.  At the same time, BCI disposed of its remaining
1.5% equity interest in the Vespers for a nominal consideration,
and BCI and Qualcomm (Vespers' then majority shareholder)
provided each other with full releases with respect to all
matters related to the Vespers.

On July 23, 2004, the Ontario Court of Appeal (OCA) dismissed
the two proposed class actions brought by Mr. Wilfred Shaw and
Mr. Cameron Gillespie on behalf of BCI common shareholders and
seeking $1 billion in damages against BCI and BCE.  The OCA
upheld the decision of the lower court dismissing the lawsuits
as failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.  On
September 29, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an application with the
Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) seeking leave to appeal the
decision of the OCA and BCI filed materials with the SCC
opposing the plaintiff's application.  On March 3, 2005, the SCC
refused leave to appeal the shareholder class actions.  No
further appeal of these actions is available to the plaintiffs
and the actions are effectively dismissed.

Of the $19 million in claims listed above under the heading
"Other", approximately $4.5 million were filed by former holders
of BCI's convertible debentures who either filed a claim but
neglected to opt out of the 6.75% Debenture Class Action, in
which case they still form part of the Class Action and cannot
advance a separate claim, or who opted out but subsequently
changed their mind.  All of these claimants were bound by the
dismissal of the 6.75% Debenture Class Action.  In addition,
approximately $9 million of the claims relate to litigation that
has been dismissed or settled for the payment of a nominal
amount.  For the balance of the claims under the heading
"Other", BCI believes that it has established adequate
provisions.


BELO CORP: Suit Over News Circulation Overstatement Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
granted the motions of Belo Corp. and other defendants to
dismiss the purported federal securities class action filed
against them in 2004 arising out of the previously reported
circulation overstatement at The Dallas Morning News.  The Court
granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.

Guy Kerr, Belo's senior vice president/Law & Government, stated:
"While we have not yet had an opportunity to study the Court's
opinion in detail, we are very pleased the Court granted the
motions to dismiss.  If the plaintiffs' lawyers re-plead their
complaints, we will continue our vigorous defense because we
believe the lawsuits are without merit."

Investors suing Belo contended that the top executives defrauded
advertisers and investors by lying about newspaper sales for
more than a year before disclosing the problem.  They also
argued that supervisors forced distributors to take more papers
than they could possibly sell, then told them to lie about the
numbers (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 21, 2005).

Additionally, the investors claimed that a former distributor
taped incriminating conversations with supervisors and gave a
copy to Belo Chairman and Chief Executive Robert Decherd in
January 2003, but the over-circulation wasn't disclosed until
August 2004 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 21, 2005).

In asking the judge to drop the case, Belo lawyers did not
directly dispute the plaintiffs' account but said the
allegations failed to prove fraud.  Specifically, the lawyers
stated in their brief that was filed in a federal district court
in Dallas, "The facts alleged show only a completely proper and
thorough corporate response by Belo and The Morning News to a
complaint by one contractor of an instance of misconduct by one
or two bottom-level circulation supervisors" (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 21, 2005).

As reported in previous editions of the Class Action Reporter,
several law firms launched securities class actions in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, on behalf of
all persons who purchased or acquired Belo securities between
May 12, 2003 and August 6, 2004.

The plaintiffs alleged that during the Class Period the company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material,
adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that defendants implemented a circulation sales rewards
         program designed to incentivize contractors to sell
         more of The Dallas Morning News newspapers to the
         general public;

     (2) that the contractors, in order to qualify for the
         circulation sales rewards, were overstating the true
         amounts of newspapers that were sold to the public;

     (3) that circulation managers failed to verify the
         contractors' sales in order to take advantage of the
         rewards program;

     (4) that as a consequence of the foregoing, Belo's reported
         audited circulation numbers were materially inflated,
         which in turn allowed Belo to sell more advertisements
         thereby achieving higher advertising revenues for the
         company; and

     (5) that Belo's reported financial results, as a result of
         the aforementioned scheme, were materially inflated at
         all relevant times.

Belo Corp. -- http://www.belo.com-- is a media company with
television, newspaper, cable and interactive media assets.  A
Fortune 1000 company with 7,700 employees and $1.5 billion in
annual revenues, Belo operates in some of America's most dynamic
markets in Texas, the Northwest, the Southwest, Rhode Island,
and the Mid-Atlantic.  Belo owns 19 television stations, six of
which are in the 15 largest U.S. broadcast markets.

The company also owns or operates seven cable news channels and
manages one television station through a local marketing
agreement.  Belo's daily newspapers are The Dallas Morning News,
The Providence Journal, The Press-Enterprise (Riverside, CA) and
the Denton Record-Chronicle (Denton, TX).  The company also
publishes specialty publications targeting young adults and the
fast-growing Hispanic market, including Quick and Al Dia in
Dallas/Fort Worth, and El D and La Prensa in Riverside.  Belo
operates more than 30 Web sites associated with its operating
companies.


CHAPARRAL RESOURCES: Faces Lawsuit in Del. Over LUKOIL Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Resources, Inc. is named defendant in a purported
class action in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware
in and for New Castle County over its proposed merger with
LUKOIL Overseas Holding Limited.

On March 14, 2006, Robert Kelly fsued the company, LUKOIL
Overseas and the directors of the company.  His suit was in
response to a March 13, 2006 announcement by the company that it
had entered into an agreement with LUKOIL Overseas to effect a
merger into a wholly owned subsidiary of OAO LUKOIL.

The suit seeks to have the merger be declared unlawful and
unenforceable, since it was entered into in breach of the
individual defendants' fiduciary duties.  It also want the
merger enjoined.


CV THERAPEUTICS: Discovery Proceeds in Calif. Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class
action filed against CV Therapeutics, Inc. and certain of its
officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Several suits were initially filed on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the company's securities, seeking
unspecified damages.  As is typical in this type of litigation,
several other purported securities class actions containing
substantially similar allegations have since been filed against
the defendants, and the company expects that additional lawsuits
containing substantially similar allegations may be filed in the
future.

In November 2003, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, and in
December 2003, the court consolidated all of the securities
class actions filed to date into a single action, "In re CV
Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation."  In January 2004, the
lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint.

The company and the other named defendants filed motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint in March 2004.  In August
2004, these motions were granted in part and denied in part.
The court granted the motions to dismiss by two individual
defendants, dismissing both individuals from the action with
prejudice, but denied the motions to dismiss by the company and
the two other individual defendants.

The suit was styled, "In Re: CV Therapeutics, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 03-CV-03709," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Susan
Illston. Plaintiff firms named in the complaint were:

     (1) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin, LLP,
         Phone: 415.288.4545 and 619.231.1058, Fax:
         415.288.4534 and 619.231.7423, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com; and

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP, Phone:
         415.288.4545 and 800.449.4900, Fax: 415.288.4534, E-
         mail: support@milberg.com.


CYBERSOURCE CORP: N.Y. Sets April Fairness Hearing for IPO Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
set an April 24, 2006 fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement of a consolidated class action against CyberSource
Corporation over its initial public offering (IPO) between June
23, 1999 through December 6, 2000.

In July and August 2001, various class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, against the
company, its Chairman and CEO, a former officer, and four
brokerage firms that served as underwriters in the company's
initial public offering.

The actions were filed on behalf of persons who purchased the
company's stock issued pursuant to or traceable to the initial
public offering during the period from June 23, 1999 through
December 6, 2000.  They allege that the company's underwriters
charged secret excessive commissions to certain of their
customers in return for allocations of the company's stock in
the offering.

The two individual defendants were alleged liable because of
their involvement in preparing and signing the registration
statement for the offering, which allegedly failed to disclose
the supposedly excessive commissions.

On December 7, 2001, an amended complaint was filed in one of
the actions to expand the purported class to persons who
purchased the company stock issued pursuant to or traceable to
the follow-on public offering during the period from November 4,
1999 through December 6, 2000.  The lawsuit filed against the
company is one of several hundred lawsuits filed against other
companies based on substantially similar claims.

On April 19, 2002, a consolidated amended complaint was filed to
consolidate all of the complaints and claims into one case.  The
consolidated amended complaint alleged claims that are virtually
identical to the amended complaint filed on December 7, 2001 and
the original complaints.

In October 2002, the company's officer and a former officer that
were named in the amended complaint were dismissed without
prejudice.  In July 2002, the company, along with other issuer
defendants in the case, filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint with prejudice.

On February 19, 2003, the court issued a written decision
denying the motion to dismiss with respect to the company and
the individual defendants.  On July 2, 2003, a committee of the
company's Board of Directors conditionally approved a proposed
partial settlement with the plaintiffs in this matter.

The settlement would provide, among other things, a release of
the company and of the individual defendants for the conduct
alleged in the action to be wrongful in the amended complaint.

The company would agree to undertake other responsibilities
under the partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away,
not assert, or release certain potential claims the company may
have against the company's underwriters.  Any direct financial
impact of the proposed settlement is expected to be borne by the
company's insurers.

The committee agreed to approve the settlement subject to a
number of conditions, including the participation of a
substantial number of other Issuer Defendants in the proposed
settlement, the consent of the company's insurers to the
settlement, and the completion of acceptable final settlement
documentation.

On August 31, 2005, the court issued a formal preliminary
approval for the settlement and set a final approval hearing
date for April 24, 2006.

Plaintiffs Brian Mohr and Javad Samadi filed the suit styled,
"In Re CyberSource Corp. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Docket No. 01 Civ. 7000 (SAS)," related to "In Re:
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)."


EMPIRE DISTRICT: Plaintiffs Appeal KS Electric Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied
plaintiffs appeal of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas' dismissal of the class action filed against The Empire
District Electric Company.  The suit is styled, "Flint Hills
Tallgrass Prairie Heritage Foundation, Inc. v. Scottish Power,
PLC, et al., No. 05-1025JTM."

On January 24, 2005, Flint Hills Tallgrass Prairie Heritage
Foundation, Inc. filed a purported class action complaint
against the company and:

     (1) Scottish Power, PLC,

     (2) PacificCorp,

     (3) PPM Energy, Inc.,

     (4) Greenlight Energy, Inc. and

     (5) Elk River Windfarm LLC

The plaintiffs sought various forms of declaratory and
injunctive relief under the U.S. and Kansas Constitutions as
well as various statutory and common law bases.  Plaintiffs
asked, among others, to enjoin the defendants from any
development or operation of industrial wind turbine electric
power generation facilities within the Flint Hills Tallgrass
Prairie Ecosystem and challenge the tax status of any such
facility.

The Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice on February 11,
2005.  A notice of appeal was filed and plaintiffs appeal brief
was filed April 18, 2005.  However, the U.S. Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit denied that appeal on September 7, 2005.

The suit was styled, "Flint Hills Tallgrass Prairie Heritage
Foundation, Inc. v. Scottish Power, PLC, et al., Case No. 6:05-
cv-01025-JTM-KMH," on appeal from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas under Judge J. Thomas Marten with
referral to Judge Karen M. Humphreys.  Representing the
plaintiffs are: Terry L. Malone of Martin, Pringle, Oliver,
Wallace & Bauer, LLP, 100 North Broadway, Suite 500, Wichita, KS
67202, Phone: 316-265-9311, Fax: 316-265-2955, E-mail:
tlmalone@martinpringle.com; and Victor J. Yannacone, Jr. of
Yannacone & Yannacone, PC, 39 Baker Street, P.O. Box 109,
Patchogue, NY 11772-0109, Phone: 631-475-0231, Fax: 631-654-
8903, E-mail: v.yannacone@abanet.org.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Daniel D. Covington and James G. Flaherty of Anderson &
         Byrd, LLP, 216 South Hickory, P.O. Box 17, Ottawa, KS
         66067, Phone: 785-242-1234, Fax: 785-242-1279, E-mail:
         dancovington@abrfh.com and jflaherty@abrfh.com;

     (2) Jay F. Fowler of Foulston Siefkin, LLP, 1551 N.
         Waterfront Parkway - Ste. 100, Wichita, KS 67206-4466,
         Phone: 316-267-6371, Fax: 316-267-6345, E-mail:
         jfowler@foulston.com;

     (3) Kurt A. Harper of Sherwood & Harper, 833 North Waco,
         P.O. Box 830, Wichita, KS 67201, Phone: 316-267-1281,
         Fax: 316-267-4086, E-mail:
         kurt.harper@sherwoodharper.com; and

     (4) Jeffrey W. Leppo of Stoel Rives, LLP, 600 University
         Street, Suite 3600, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-624-
         0900, Fax: 206-386-7500, E-mail: jwleppo@stoel.com.


FINANCIAL ADVISERS: Investor Lawsuit in Spain Moves Forward
-----------------------------------------------------------
The first named defendants in a class action brought against
financial advisors in Spain have been ordered to appear before
the courts in Benidorm and Marbella to make depositions and
answer questions, Typically Spanish reports.

The case was built up by the Costa del Sol Action Group
(http://www.costa-action.co.uk,which was started four years by
popular figure David Klein, who lost money due to the alleged
incompetence and mis-selling of his local financial adviser.
Mr. David was unable to claim for damages because the company
was not regulated.

The action group initiated proceedings in Spain's Supreme
Criminal Court in Madrid that resulted to a class action on
behalf of selected aggrieved parties against certain financial
advisers.  It is now representing more than 700 families who
have suffered similar losses totaling GBP80 million.

In recent developments, John Anstey Findlater OBE who sold the
IPM FTSE-100 Fund, Sensible Options and Charterhouse Trust
Credit Union on the Costa Blanca has been ordered to appear
before the court in Benidorm on April 11, 2006 to testify.

Also ordered to appear before another court next month are:

     -- Colin McCready of Offshore Money Managers in Marbella,

     -- Christopher Labrow of Sovereign Group, formerly of
        Labrow International with Mr. McCready and now Chairman
        of the Gibraltar Association of Stockbrokers and
        Investment Managers, and
     -- Donald Nott of Henry Woods Investment Management in
        Marbella.

They will appear before the Juzgado de Instruccion N§ 4 de
Marbella on May 12, 2006, 10 a.m.

Lawyers acting for the group are IURA Despacho Juridico, Avenida
Jesus Santos Rein, Urbanizacion Puebla Lucia, Edificio Mirador,
1§ 29640 Fuengirola, Phone: (0034) 952 477108/ 952 477112; Fax:
(0034) 952 477116.


GENTA INC: Non-Binding Mediation Initiated in N.J. Stock Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated class action filed against Genta,
Inc. and entitled, "In re: Genta, Inc. Securities Litigation,"
are commencing non-binding mediation in an attempt to resolve
the matter.

In 2004, numerous complaints were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey against Genta and certain
of its principal officers on behalf of purported classes of the
company's shareholders who purchased its securities during
several class periods.

The complaints were consolidated into a single action and allege
that the company and certain of its principal officers violated
the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading statements regarding Genasenser for the treatment of
malignant melanoma that had the effect of artificially inflating
the market price of the company's securities.  The shareholder
class action complaint in the various actions seeks monetary
damages in an unspecified amount and recovery of plaintiffs'
costs and attorneys' fees.

On September 30, 2005, the court granted in part and denied in
part the company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint.
The court dismissed plaintiffs' claim that the defendants
engaged in a scheme or artifice to defraud plaintiffs, but
allowed plaintiffs' claims to proceed with respect to their
allegations that defendants issued false and misleading public
statements about Genasenser.

The parties have commenced non-binding mediation in March 2006.
If meditation is unsuccessful, the case is expected to proceed
to discovery.

The suit is styled, "In re: Genta, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 2:04-cv-02123-JAG-MCA," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Joseph A.
Greenaway, Jr. with referral to Judge Madeline C. Arleo.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Melvyn I. Weiss Milberg, Weiss, Bershad & Schulman, One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-594-
         5300;

     (2) Marc L. Ackerman of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala
         Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: (610)
         667-6200, E-mail: mackerman@brodsky-smith.com;

     (3) Andrew Robert Jacobs of Epstein Fitzsimmons Brown Gioia
         Jacobs & Sprouls, 245 Green Village Road, P.O. Box 901,
         Chatham Township, NJ 07928-0901, Phone: (973) 593-4900,
         E-mail: ajacobs@epsteinfitz.com;

     (4) Jean-Marc Zimmerman of Zimmerman, Levi & Korsinsky,
         LLP, 226 St. Paul Street, Westfield, NJ 07090, Phone:
         (908) 654-8000, E-mail: jmzimmerman@zlk.com;

     (5) Jennifer A. Sullivan of Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP, 163
         Madison Ave., P.O. Box 1277, Morristown, NJ 07962,
         Phone: 973-775-8996, Fax: 973-994-1744, E-mail:
         jsullivan@lawssb.com; and

     (6) Olimpio Lee Squitieri of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, 26
         South Maple Avenue, Suite 202, Marlton, NJ 08053,
         Phone: (856) 797-4611, Fax: (856) 797-4612, E-mail:
         lee@sfclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are, Robert J. Berg of Bernstein
Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 2050 Center Avenue, Suite 200, Fort
Lee, NJ 07024, Phone: (201) 592-3201, E-mail: berg@bernlieb.com;
and Thomas A. Cunniff of Fox Rothschild, LLP, Princeton Pike,
Corporate Center, 997 Lenox Drive, Building 3, Lawrenceville, NJ
08648-2311, Phone: (609) 896-3600, E-mail:
tcunniff@foxrothschild.com.


GENZYME CORP: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Biosurgery Stock
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genzyme Corp. is a defendant in several purported class actions
regarding the exchange of all of the outstanding shares of
Biosurgery Stock and for shares of the company's stock.

Initially four lawsuits were filed against the company regarding
the exchange in connection with the elimination of the company's
tracking stocks in July 2003.  Each of the lawsuits is a
purported class action on behalf of holders of Biosurgery Stock.

The first case, filed in Massachusetts Superior Court in May
2003, alleged a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing in the company's charter and a breach of its board
of directors' fiduciary duties.  The plaintiff in this case
sought an injunction to adjust the exchange ratio for the
tracking stock exchange.

The Court dismissed the complaint in November 2003, but the
plaintiff has appealed this dismissal.  This appeal was argued
before the Massachusetts Appeals Court in March 2005 and the
company is awaiting the Appeals Court's ruling.

Two substantially similar cases were filed in Massachusetts
Superior Court in August and October 2003.  These cases were
consolidated in January 2004, and in July 2004, the consolidated
case was stayed pending disposition of a fourth case, which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York in June 2003.

That complaint initially alleged violations of federal
securities laws, common law fraud, and a breach of the merger
agreement with Biomatrix, Inc., or Biomatrix, in addition to the
state law claims contained in the other cases. T he plaintiffs
initially sought an adjustment to the exchange ratio, the
rescission of the acquisition of Biomatrix, and unspecified
compensatory damages.

In November 2005, the plaintiffs in this case dropped all of the
claims alleged in the initial complaint relating to the initial
issuance of Biosurgery Stock and the acquisition of Biomatrix,
and narrowed the putative class to include only those
individuals who held Biosurgery Stock on May 8, 2003.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and
to oppose the class certification.  Discovery in this case was
put on hold pending resolution of these motions.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Digwamaje Case Under Appeal in Circuit Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to issue a decision
on plaintiffs appeal for the dismissed class action entitled,
"Digwamaje et al. v. Bank of America et al."

The suit is a purported class action that names Hewlett-Packard
and numerous other multinational corporations as defendants.  It
was filed on September 27, 2002 in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of current and former
South African citizens and their survivors who suffered violence
and oppression under the apartheid regime.

The lawsuit alleges that the company and other named defendants
helped perpetuate, profited from, and otherwise aided and
abetted the apartheid regime during the period from 1948-1994 by
selling products and services to agencies of the South African
government.  Claims are based on the Alien Tort Claims Act, the
Torture Victims Protection Act, the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act and state law.

The complaint seeks, among other things, an accounting, the
creation of a historic commission, compensatory damages in
excess of $200 billion, punitive damages in excess of $200
billion, costs, and, attorneys' fees.

On November 29, 2004, the court dismissed with prejudice the
plaintiffs' complaint.  In May 2005, the plaintiffs filed an
amended notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.  On January 24, 2006, the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals heard oral argument on the plaintiffs' appeal but has
not yet issued a decision.

The suit is styled, "Digwamaje, et al. v. IBM Corporation, et
al., Case No. 1:02-cv-06218-JES," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge John E.
Sprizzo.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kweku J. Hanson, 487 Main Street, Harford, CT 06106,
         Phone: (860) 728-5454;

     (2) Medi Moira Mokuena, 268 Jubilee Avenue, Halfway House
         1685, Extension 12, Republic of South Africa;

     (3) Medi Mokuena, 268 Jubilee Avenue, Halfway House, P. O.
         Box 8591, Johannesburg; and

     (4) Paul M. Ngobeni, 914 Main Street, Suite 206, East
         Hartford, CT 06108, Phone: (860) 289-3155.

Representing the defendants are Kristin Michele Heine of
Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP, 140 Broadway, 39th Flr., New York,
NY 10005, Phone: (973) 549-7338, Fax: (973) 360-9831, E-mail:
kristin.heine@dbr.com; and Kristin M. Heine of Driscoll &
Redlich, 521 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300, New York, NY 10175.


H&R BLOCK: Faces Lawsuit in Mo. Over Retirement Plan Offering
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two Missouri residents are suing tax preparer H&R Block Inc. for
alleged fraud in its Express IRA savings plan, St. Louis Post-
Dispatch reports.

The suit was filed by Shawn Silverberg and Jennifer Conoley on
March 27 in U.S. District Court in St. Louis.  It alleged that
the savings plan's high fees and low interest rates translated
to loses for customers, breaking state law and defrauding
customers.

The suit, and other class actions against H&R Block, follows a
civil case by New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.
Mr. Spitzer's suit was filed in New York State Supreme Court on
March 15.  It is demanding $250 million in damages.  It alleged
that Kansas-based H&R Block failed to adequately disclose fees
related to its Express IRA product, failed to warn that the
interest paid would not cover the fees in certain instances, and
misleadingly described the interest rates as "great."

The misleading and incomplete disclosure allegedly violated New
York's consumer fraud law and was a breach of the company's
fiduciary duty to its clients.  The violation affected hundreds
of thousands of clients, including almost 30,000 New Yorkers,
the lawsuit claims.  It seeks injunction from further violations
of New York law, damages and civil penalties.

In a statement defending the product, H&R Block admitted that it
received in February a Notice of Intent to Sue followed by a
settlement demand letter from the Attorney General's office for
alleged damages related to the product.

H&R Block -- http://hrblock.com -- is the leading tax return
preparer in the U.S.; it also prepares tax returns in Canada,
Australia, and the U.K.

The suit was styled, "Silverberg et al. v. H & R Block, Inc. et
al. (4:06-cv-00519-ERW," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri under Judge E. Richard Webber.
Representing the plaintiffs is Robert D. Blitz of Blitz And
Bardgett, 120 S. Central, Suite 750, Clayton, MO 63105, Phone:
314-863-1500; Fax: 314-863-1877; E-mail:
rblitz@blitzbardgett.com.


INFOUSA INC: Shareholders File Fiduciary Breach Lawsuit in Del.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Value Equity Partners, L.P., which beneficially owns
6.1% of the infoUSA Inc.'s stock, filed a lawsuit in the Court
of Chancery for the State of Delaware in and for New Castle
County, against certain directors of the company including Vinod
Gupta.

Filed in February 2006, the lawsuit was filed as a derivative
action on behalf of the company and as a class action on behalf
of Cardinal Value Equity Partners, L.P. and other shareholders.
It asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and seeks an
order that would require the company to reinstate the special
committee of directors.

The special committee was formed to consider a proposal from Mr.
Gupta to acquire the shares of the company not owned by him and
was dissolved in August 2005 following Mr. Gupta's withdrawal of
his proposal.

The suit seeks an order awarding the company and the class
unspecified damages.


INVESTOR'S BUSINESS: Commission Charge-Back Illegal, Court Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals division in Los Angeles found violations in
California Labor Code in the case of Harris et al. v. Investor's
Business Daily, Inc., 2nd DCA, Division 4, Case Number B178428
(March 29, 2006).

Among other things, the court in that case said that Investors
Business Daily had violated California Labor Code 221 when it
charged back its telemarketer employees commission previously
paid because the customers cancelled their subscript within 16
weeks of the sale.  California Labor Code 221 prohibits charging
back commissions paid to sales people when the customer refuses
to pay for an item or returns it.

Investors Business had no separate written agreement with the
employees acknowledging the charge-back was a mere advance, and
even if there was such an agreement, the practice of charging
back would be unlawful because the employer kept the payment for
the portion of the subscription delivered before cancellation,
thus receiving a benefit from the labors of the employee without
compensation, a form of unjust enrichment to the employer, a
statement from Thierman Law Firm states.

The case represents a major clarification, and return to the
original statutory intent, of California Labor Code Section 221,
which states: "It shall be unlawful for any employer to collect
or receive from an employee any part of wages theretofore paid
by said employer to said employee."

The case represents a major clarification and correction of the
status of "chargebacks" in California after a decision last year
by a different division of the same Court of Appeals in the case
of Steinhebel v. Los Angeles Times Communications, LLC, 126 Cal.
App. 4th 696 (2nd DCA 2005).  In that case, the Los Angeles
Times' chargeback policy was permitted because:

      -- the employee signed a separate document clearly saying
         the commissions were merely an advance of wages to be
         earned if the customer continued his subscription for
         the entire (relatively short) four week free "trial"
         period, and

      -- the LA Times received no benefit from partial
         subscriptions because the customer was given a compete
         refund even if the customer cancelled on the last day
         possible.

As the Court of Appeals wrote:

Unlike the employees in Steinhebel and Hudgins (v. Neiman Marcus
Group, Inc. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1109), appellants did not
expressly agree to the chargeback policy in writing.  Even if
they knew about the policy, Investors Business's materials
suggested that the points were earned at the time of the sale,
not at some designated point in the future.  Investors
Business's position differs from that of Neiman Marcus, in that
Investors Business retained the payment received for the portion
of time during which the customer received the newspaper, while
Neiman Marcus retained nothing after the merchandise was
returned.

Ironically, both cases were brought by the same attorneys, Mark
R. Thierman of the Thierman Law Firm of Reno, Nev., and Eric M.
Epstein of the Epstein Law Offices of Los Angeles.  "At least we
are headed back in the right direction on this issue," said Mr.
Epstein, who added that he was particularly pleased that the
court found that Investors Business Daily could not avoid
liability by simply calling the payment of commissions an
advance in its compensation agreement, because the employer kept
the payment for newspapers delivered before the subscription was
cancelled.

Toby Harris, who brought the suit as an employee of Investors
Business Daily, has also sued the company for wrongful
discharge, and alleges Investors Business terminated him for
complaining about the company's chargeback policy and other
unlawful employment practices.  Mr. Harris said, "The law is
plain on its face, and the Court of Appeals decision against
Investors Business restores my faith in our judicial system."

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rodney E. Nelson certified the
class action by approximately 400 telemarketing employees
against Investor's Business Daily in 2003 (Class Action
Reporter, July 2, 2003).

For more information, contact Mr. Mark Thierman of Thierman Law
Firm, Phone: 775-284-1500 or Eric Epstein of Epstein Law
Offices, Phone: 310-552-5366.


LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Fla. Court Considers Summary Judgment Motion
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida has
yet to rule on Landstar System, Inc.'s motion for partial
summary judgment in the class action styled, "Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association Inc. et al. v. Landstar System
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01005-HLA-MCR."

On November 1, 2002, the Owner Operator Independent Drivers
Association, Inc. (OOIDA) and six individual BCO Independent
Contractors (the plaintiffs) filed the putative class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida in Jacksonville, Florida, against the company.

The complaint alleges that certain aspects of the company's
motor carrier leases with its BCO Independent Contractors
violate certain federal leasing regulations and seeks injunctive
relief, an unspecified amount of damages and attorney's fees.

On March 8 and June 4, 2004, the Court dismissed all claims of
one of the six individual plaintiffs on the grounds that the ICC
Termination Act is not applicable to leases signed before the
Act's January 1, 1996, effective date, and dismissed all claims
of all remaining plaintiffs against four of the seven company
entities previously named as defendants.  Claims currently
survive against the following company entities: Landstar Inway,
Inc., Landstar Ligon, Inc. and Landstar Ranger, Inc. (the
defendants).  With respect to the remaining claims, the June 4,
2004 order held that the ICC Termination Act created a private
right of action to which a four-year statute of limitation
applies.

On April 7, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
included additional allegations with respect to violations of
certain federal leasing regulations.  On August 30, 2005, the
Court granted a motion by plaintiffs to certify the case as a
class action.

On October 19, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit denied the defendants' petition for permission to file
an interlocutory appeal of the class-certification order.

Discovery is ongoing in the case, which is set for a jury trial
in October 2006.  On January 13, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for partial summary judgment on liability.  On February
15, 2006, the defendants filed their opposition to that motion
and their own motion for partial summary judgment to address the
claims of the amended complaint.

The defendants' motion for partial summary judgment filed
February 15, 2006 supersedes and replaces prior motions for
partial summary judgment filed with the Court on April 18 and
June 10, 2005.  On March 6, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the defendants' motion for partial summary
judgment.  The District Court is expected to rule prior to trial
on the pending motions for partial summary judgment.

The suit is styled, "Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association Inc. et al. v. Landstar System Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:02-cv-01005-HLA-MCR," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, The Honorable Henry Lee Adams
Jr., presiding. Represented the plaintiffs are Daniel E. Cohen,
Daniel R. Unumb, Paul D. Cullen, Mary Craine Lombardo, Joseph A.
Black and Susan Van Bell of The Cullen Law Firm, PLLC, 1101 30th
St., N.W., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20007-3770, Phone: 202/944-
8600 or 202/965-6100; and Michael R. Freed of Brennan, Manna &
Diamond, PL, Humana Centre Building, 76 S. Laura Street, Ste.
2110, Jacksonville, FL 32202, Phone: 904/366-1500, Fax: 904/366-
1501, E-mail: mrfreed@bmdpl.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Daniel R. Barney of Scopelitis, Garvin, Light & Hanson,
         P.C., 1850 M St., NW, Suite 280, Washington, DC 20036-
         5804, Phone: 202/783-5485, E-mail:
         dbarney@scopelitis.com;

     (2) Timothy W. Wiseman, Robert L. Browning and Gregory M.
         Feary of Scopelitis, Garven, Light & Hanson, P.C., 10
         W. Market St., Suite 1500, Indianapolis, IN 46204-2968,
         Phone: 317/637-1777, Fax: 317/687-2414; and

     (3) Andrew Tysen Duva and Lawrence Joseph Hamilton, II of
         Holland & Knight, 50 North Laura St., Suite 3900,
         Jacksonville, FL 32202, Phone: 904/353-2000 or 904/353-
         2000 Ext. 25454, Fax: 904/358-1872, E-mail:
         lhamilton@hklaw.com.


MOLSON COORS: Facing Stockholders Complaints in U.S., Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Molson Coors Brewing company is a defendant in several purported
class actions that were filed in the U.S. and Canada, including
federal courts in Delaware and Colorado and provincial courts in
Ontario and Quebec.

The suits, some filed during May 2005, alleged that the company
and its affiliated entities, including Molson Inc., and certain
officers and directors misled stockholders by failing to
disclose first quarter (January-March) 2005 U.S. business trends
prior to the Merger vote in January 2005.  One of the lawsuits
filed in Delaware federal court also alleges that the company
failed to comply with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles (GAAP).

According to the company's FORM 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, on February 9, 2005, Adolph
Coors company merged with Molson Inc. (the Merger).  In
connection with the Merger, Adolph Coors Company became the
parent of the merged company and changed its name to Molson
Coors Brewing Company.


PENNSYLVANIA: Inmates' Suit Over News Access Goes to High Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Court justices heard on May 27 arguments in a class
action filed by inmates in the Long Term Segregation Units of
State Prisons in the Western Judicial District of Pennsylvania,
the First Amendment Center reports.

The Beard v. Banks suit demands prisoners' First Amendment right
to receive newspapers.  Disciplinary policy in the prison bans
publications, except religious and legal ones in the cells.

According to First Amendment Center legal correspondent Tony
Mauro, "lawyer for the inmates struggled, without apparent
success, to overcome the state's two justifications for the
policy: security and behavior modification."  Lawyer for the
inmates want to strike the policy down.

Deputy Pennsylvania Attorney General Louis Rovelli, argued that
a tightly rolled newspaper can be as effective a weapon as a
nightstick.  The inmates' lawyer, Jere Krakoff, argued there is
no rational distinction between the security problem posed by
religious publications.  The argument, however, seemed to
backfire because it suggests the banning of religious
publications as well.  The Court could rule in the case anytime
before the term ends in late June, the report said.

The majority of a panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
earlier did not accept the security and behavior modification
reasons of the state's lawyer.

The state was filed by Ronald Banks against Jeffrey Beard,
Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania,
under Judge Terrence F. McVerry (D.C. No. 01-cv-1956).
Plaintiffs' lawyer, Mr. Krakoff, is member of
Stember Feinstein, The Allegheny Building, 429 Forbes Avenue,
Suite 1705, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219, (Allegheny Co.),
Phone: 412-338-1445; Fax: 412-232-3730.


PERINI CORP: Mass. Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
granted final approval to the settlement of the consolidated
class action filed against certain of Perini Corporation's
current and former directors.

Frederick Doppelt, Arthur I. Caplan and Leland D. Zulch filed a
lawsuit individually, and as representatives of a class of
holders of the $2.125 Depositary Convertible Exchangeable
Preferred Shares, representing 1/10 Share of $21.25 Convertible
Exchangeable Preferred Stock against certain current and former
directors of the company.  This lawsuit is captioned, "Doppelt,
et al. v. Tutor, et al."  Mr. Doppelt is a current director of
Perini and Mr. Caplan is a former director of the company.

Specifically, the original complaint alleged that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the holders of the
Depositary Shares and to the company.  The plaintiffs
principally allege that the defendants improperly authorized the
exchange of Series B Preferred Stock for common stock while
simultaneously refusing to pay accrued dividends due on the
Depositary Shares.

In July 2003, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  The
amended complaint added an allegation that the defendants have
further breached their fiduciary duties by authorizing a tender
offer for the purchase of up to 90% of the Depositary Shares and
an allegation that the collective actions of the defendants
constitute unfair and deceptive business practices under the
provisions of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.  The
amended complaint withdrew the allegation of a breach of
fiduciary duty owed to the company, but retained the allegation
with respect to a breach of those duties owed to the holders of
the Depositary Shares.

On April 12, 2004, pursuant to defendants' Motions to Dismiss,
the Court dismissed the claim under the Massachusetts Consumer
Protection Act.  The Court did not dismiss the claim for breach
of fiduciary duty, except as such claim relates to the tender
offer for the purchase of the company's Depositary Shares.

Pursuant to the Court's April 12, 2004 Order, in May 2004 the
plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint and a motion for
class certification.  Defendants filed an answer denying any and
all claims of wrongdoing and asserting affirmative defenses.

On November 30, 2004, the company announced that the parties had
reached an agreement for settlement of the Action.  Under the
terms of the settlement, Perini would purchase all of the
Depositary Shares submitted in the settlement for consideration
of $19.00 per share in cash and one share of Perini common
stock.

On April 19, 2005, the District Court of Massachusetts
conditionally certified a class of holders of Depositary Shares
for purposes of settlement only.  On May 5, 2005, the Court
preliminarily approved the settlement as being fair, just,
reasonable and adequate, pending a final hearing.

On September 21, 2005, the Court gave final approval to the
settlement as being fair, just, reasonable and adequate.   The
settlement and the number of Depositary Shares participating in
the settlement became final on October 24, 2005.

Under the terms of the settlement, effective November 2, 2005,
the company purchased all of the 374,185 participating
Depositary Shares that were submitted for $19.00 in cash and one
share of the company's common stock for each Depositary Share
for an aggregate of $7.1 million in cash and 374,185 shares of
common stock.  After consummation of the settlement, 185,088
Depositary Shares remain outstanding and Frederick Doppelt will
resign from his position as a director of the company.

The suit is styled, "Doppelt, et al v. Tutor, et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-12010-MLW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Mark Wolf.  Representing
the plaintiffs are, Felicia S. Ennis of Robinson Brog Leinwand
Greene Genovese & Gluck, 31st Floor, 1345 Avenue of the
Americas, New York, NY 10105-0143, Phone: 212-603-6300, Fax:
212-956-2164, E-mail: FSE@ROBINSONBROG.COM; and Daniel J. Kramer
Paul Weiss Rivkind Wharton & Garrison, LLP, 1285 Avenue of the
Americas, New York, NY 10019, Phone: 212-373-300, Fax: 212-757-
3990, E-mail: dkramer@paulweiss.com.

Representing the defendants are, R. Todd Cronan of Gadsby
Hannah, LLP, 225 Franklin Street, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-
570-1389, Fax: 617-523-1231, E-mail: rcronan@goodwinproctor.com;
and Stuart M. Glass of Goodwin Procter, LLP, Exchange Place, 53
State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-570-1920, Fax: 617-
523-1231, E-mail: sglass@goodwinprocter.com.


PRG SCHULTZ: Ga. Court Grants Final Approval to Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
granted final approval to the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against PRG Schultz International,
Inc.

Beginning on June 6, 2000, three putative class actions were
filed against the company and certain of its present and former
officers.  These cases were subsequently consolidated into one
proceeding styled "In re Profit Recovery Group International,
Inc. Sec. Litigation, Civil Action File No. 1:00-CV-1416-CC."

On November 13, 2000, the plaintiffs in these cases filed a
Consolidated and amended complaint.  In that complaint,
plaintiffs allege that the company, John M. Cook, Scott L.
Colabuono, the company's former Chief Financial Officer, and
Michael A. Lustig, the company's former Chief Operating Officer,
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by allegedly
disseminating false and misleading information about a change in
the company's s method of recognizing revenue and in connection
with revenue reported for a division.

Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased the company's stock between July 19, 1999
and July 26, 2000.  They seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages, payment of litigation fees and expenses,
and equitable and/or injunctive relief.

On January 24, 2001, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. 78u-4 et seq.  The
Court denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on June 5, 2001.
Defendants served their Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint on June
19, 2001.  The Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification on December 3, 2002.

On February 8, 2005, the company entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement of the Securities Class Action Litigation.  On
February 10, 2005, the Court preliminarily approved the terms of
the Settlement.

On May 26, 2005, the Court approved the Stipulation of
Settlement entered into by the company with plaintiffs' counsel,
on behalf of all putative class members, pursuant to which it
agreed to settle the consolidated class action for $6.75
million, which payment was made by the insurance carrier for the
company.

The suit is styled, "In Re: Profit Recovery Group International,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 00-CV-01416," filed ine the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia with
referral to Judge Clarence Cooper.  Plaintiffs firms involved in
this litigation are:

     (1) Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, (MA),
         One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 2109, Phone:
         617.542.8300, Fax: 617.230.0903, E-mail:
         info@bermanesq.com;

     (2) Chitwood & Harley, LLP, 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E.,
         2300 Promenade II, Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone:
         888.873.3999, Fax: 404.873.4476;

     (3) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, (Boca Raton),
         The Plaza - 5355 Town Center Road, Suite 900, Boca
         Raton, FL 33486, Phone: 561.361.5000, Fax:
         561.367.8400, E-mail: info@milbergweiss.com; and

     (4) 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.


QUIGLEY CORP: Continues to Face Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Quigley Corporation is a defendant in a nationwide class action
filed against it in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County, Pennsylvania alleging consumer fraud.

In September 2000, two individuals, namely Jason Tesauro and
Elizabeth Eley, both residents of Georgia, filed the suit on
behalf of a "nationwide class" of "similarly situated
individuals," alleging that the plaintiffs purchased certain
Cold-Eeze(R) products between August 1996, and November 1999,
based upon cable television, radio and internet advertisements
which allegedly misrepresented the qualities and benefits of the
company's products.

The complaint requests an unspecified amount of damages for
violations of Pennsylvania's consumer protection law, breach of
warranty and unjust enrichment, as well as a judicial
determination that the action be maintained as a class action.

In October 2000, the company filed Preliminary Objections to the
Complaint seeking dismissal of the action.  The Court sustained
certain objections thereby narrowing plaintiffs' complaint.  In
May 2001, plaintiffs filed a Motion to Certify the Alleged
Class.  The company opposed the Motion.

In November 2001, the Court held a hearing on plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification.  In January 2002, the Court denied in
part and granted in part the plaintiffs' Motion.  The Court
denied plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Class based on
plaintiffs' claim under the Pennsylvania Consumer Protection
Law, however the Court certified the class based on plaintiffs'
breach of warranty and unjust enrichment claims.

Discovery was completed and the trial, originally scheduled for
May 2004, was continued pending determination of certain
dispositive pre-trial motions filed by the company, which have
been argued and briefed and have been pending before the Court
for determination since March 2005.


ROYAL GROUP: Ex-Officers Accused of Breaching Fiduciary Duties
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Board of Directors of Royal Group Technologies Limited
received a demand letter from a California law firm, on behalf
of a shareholder of the company, asking that that the company
commence a class action against Vic De Zen, Douglas Dunsmuir,
Ronald Goegan and Gary Brown, former officers of the company,
for breach of fiduciary duties arising from alleged
mismanagement and self-dealing.

The demand letter further asks that lawsuits be commenced
against all former and current senior officers and directors of
the company since January 1998 for not seeking reimbursement
from the above individuals.  The demand letter puts the company
on notice that if the Board of Directors does not comply with
the request, a court application will be filed for leave to
bring a derivative action in the name of, and on behalf of, the
company under the Canada Business Corporations Act.  The
company's Audit Committee will review the request made in the
demand letter and will make a recommendation to the Board of
Directors.

As set out in the company's March 24, 2005 press release and its
April 22, 2005 Management Circular, Mr. De Zen agreed that the
full amount of the gain earned by all parties, including
himself, on the Vaughan West Lands transaction ($6.5 million)
plus interest ($2.2 million) would be paid to Royal Group.  Mr.
De Zen agreed to make this payment himself.  This payment
obligation was satisfied upon the conversion of his multiple
voting shares on a one-for-one basis (i.e., without a premium),
which occurred on June 22, 2005.

Mr. De Zen has further repaid to the company approximately $1.13
million with respect to bonuses received for fiscal 2002.  A
component of the overall agreement reached with Mr. De Zen
included the company releasing Mr. De Zen from any potential
claims the company may have that it was currently aware of.

As has been reported in the news, a putative class action
shareholder lawsuit alleging oppression and negligent
misrepresentation against the company and eight former and
current officers and directors of the company has been filed in
Ontario by the Canadian Commercial Workers Industry Pension Plan
(CCWIPP).  The suit seeks damages of $700 million and punitive
damages of $300 million.  CCWIPP had previously attempted to
bring a class action in the U.S. against the company, which was
dismissed without prejudice on the basis that the lawsuit should
be brought before a Canadian court.  The proposed class in the
Ontario lawsuit would include all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of the company from February 26,
1998 to October 18, 2004.  Royal Group said it has not been
served yet with a copy of the suit.

The company understands that the suit alleges, among other
things, that the company failed to disclose certain related-
party transactions.  As the company has previously stated, it
will not provide further public comment on such suits filed
against the company, but will deal with them through the
appropriate legal process.

Royal Group Technologies -- http://www.royalgrouptech.com--  
manufactures home improvement and building products, which are
primarily utilized in both the renovation and new construction
sectors of the North American construction industry.


SPORTS AUTHORITY: Faces Overtime Compensation Lawsuit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A former store associate at a California store filed a purported
class action against The Sports Authority, Inc., in Los Angeles
County Superior Court alleging that it failed to properly
calculate the regular rate of pay of hourly associates, and thus
deprived them of overtime compensation due to them under state
law.

The action also alleges that the company failed to provide store
associates the appropriate meal and rest periods under state
law.  The putative class members seek recovery in an unstated
dollar amount of unpaid wages, interest, statutory penalties,
and attorneys' fees and costs.


SPORTS AUTHORITY: Faces Stockholders' Suits in Del. Over Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Sports Authority, Inc. is a defendant in four putative class
action complaints that were filed on behalf of public
stockholders of the company in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware in and for New Castle County over the proposed
merger with an affiliate of Leonard Green & Partners, L.P. (the
buyer).

Naming, among others, the company and members of its board of
directors, the suits were filed between January 23 and January
25, 2006.  The complaints allege that the directors of the
company breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed going private transaction:

     (1) by failing to maximize stockholder value and

     (2) by approving a transaction that purportedly benefits
         the company's senior management at the expense of its
         public stockholders.

The complaints seek to enjoin the company and its directors from
proceeding with or consummating the merger.

According to the company' FORM 10-K filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, the proposed going private transaction
is essentially a definitive agreement (merger agreement) entered
in January 22, 2006 by the company, which stipulates that it
will be acquired by an investor group led by Green Equity
Investors IV, L.P., an affiliate of the buyer, and including
members of the company's senior management team for $37.25 per
share in cash.

The filing indicated that the board of directors of the company
(excluding J. Douglas Morton and Jonathan D. Sokoloff, each of
whom recused himself), on the recommendation of a special
committee of disinterested directors, has unanimously approved
the merger agreement and will recommend that the company's
stockholders adopt the merger agreement.  The total transaction
value, including assumed debt, is approximately $1.4 billion.
The transaction is expected to close in the second fiscal
quarter of 2006, and is subject to the company's stockholder
approval, as well as other customary closing conditions,
including the receipt of financing and regulatory approvals.


SUNSCREEN MANUFACTURERS: Calif. Suit Alleges Deceptive Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Makers of top sunscreen brands in the U.S. are facing several
lawsuits in California Superior Court in Los Angeles, alleging
false claims about the effectiveness of their products in
blocking sun rays and preventing skin diseases.

Sun Protection Factor (SPF) designations, the suits say, apply
only to protection from Ultraviolet light, type B (UVB) rays,
but manufacturers use it to imply a similar level of ultraviolet
radiation (UVA) protection, which it does not in fact provide.
The FDA accepts SPF standards for UVB but there is no standard
to measure UVA protection, law firms bringing the complaint
said.  Both UVA and UVB pose health threats.  The suits also
note that the "waterproof" designation is deceptive because all
sunscreen products lose efficacy when immersed in water and
there is no standard for measuring their efficacy against UVA
rays.

The coordinated class actions allege systematic fraud, false
advertising and persistently misleading claims that exaggerate
the ability of sunscreens to protect against the sun and reduce
the risk of cancer and other skin ailments.  The defendants are:

      -- Schering-Plough (Coppertone);
      -- Sun Pharmaceuticals and Playtex Products (Banana Boat);
      -- Tanning Research Laboratories (Hawaiian Tropic);
      -- Neutrogena Corp and Johnson & Johnson (Neutrogena); and
      -- Chattem Inc. (Bullfrog).

The suit demands injunction on the claims, compensation for
consumers and other remedies, including a public education
program concerning sun protection paid for by the industry.

The law firms which filed the complaints are Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (http://www.lerachlaw.com),
and Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky LLP (http://www.aftlaw.com).


UNITED KINGDOM: Claims Recovery Firm Set Up to Help Investors
-------------------------------------------------------------
A company designed to hunt billions of dollars in class action
payments owed to investors was set up in Britain in late March,
according to Reuters.

Institutional Protection Services was put up by such founder as
Toby Duthie, who have been involved in complex class action
investigations, to help investor, especially those outside the
U.S., get awards in class actions.  Mr. Duthie worked on the
suit surrounding the Holocaust as well as the current probe into
allegations of corruption during the United Nations Oil-for-Food
program.

Institutional Protection Managing Director Caroline Goodman told
Reuters the problem of collecting damages payments became
apparent about 18 months ago.  There are about 200 such cases a
year, she said.  According to IPS, in 2004 a total of $5.5
billion of payments were agreed in class action suits but more
than $2.0 billion of that was not collected.

IPS is backed by London-based law firms, including Lovells and
Stephenson Harwood.


WELDING FUME LITIGATION: Ill. Court Upholds Million-Dollar Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Supreme Court denied on March 29 all of the welding
industry's appeal in the case "Lawrence E. Elam v. Lincoln
Electric company, et al.," upholding a million-dollar verdict
that an Illinois jury delivered to the plaintiff in 2001.

This case predates Cleveland multi-district litigation cases,
but Mr. Elam's claims are very similar to those that have now
been made by roughly 10,000 welders nationwide.  The national
welding fume MDL in Ohio," is a consolidation of thousands of
products liability lawsuits.  It was filed by injured welders,
against:

      -- The Lincoln Electric Company,
      -- General Electric, Westinghouse,
      -- Caterpillar Inc., and a number of other manufacturers
         of welding consumables.

During his career as a welder, Mr. Elam was exposed to welding
fumes containing manganese, a neurotoxin long known to cause
movement disorders and other forms of permanent neurological
damage.  Mr. Elam was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease in
1995, and a jury agreed with his claim that several welding rod
manufacturers caused his disorder by failing to fully
investigate and warn him of the dangers of welding fumes.

Though the Illinois Supreme Court declined to publish an opinion
in the case, the state's Fifth District Appellate Court, which
affirmed the jury's decision, issued a recent opinion which
states that "(contrary to defendants' assertions, there is
significant evidence in the record showing a link between
Parkinson's disease and manganese in welding fumes, and there is
significant evidence supporting plaintiff's claim that
defendants breached their duty to investigate the health hazards
associated with welding."

"The welding industry has spent nearly a century endangering
their customers in the name of profit, and Mr. Elam is one of
thousands of hardworking welders whose lives have been ruined as
a result," said Don Barrett, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs
in the Cleveland MDL cases.  "But the Illinois Supreme Court has
done the right thing.  I'm confident that other courts will
follow its lead and that America's welders will receive
justice."

For more information, contact Plaintiffs' Executive Committee,
Eric Wetzel, Phone: 512-474-7514; E-mail:
eric@shipleyassociates.net.

The MDL is styled, "1:03-cv-17000-KMO In re: Welding Fume
Products Liability Litigation (MDL1535)," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District Court of Ohio under
Judge Kathleen M. O'Malley.  Representing the plaintiffs are:
Russell T. Abney of Watts Law Firm, 14th Floor, 555 North
Caranchaua, Corpus Christi, TX 78478, Phone: 713-621-7944, Fax:
713-621-9638; E-mail: russ@abney.us; and Roy F. Amedee, Jr. of
Roy F. Amedee Attorny at Law, 425 W. Airline Hwy, Suite B,
LaPlace, LA 70068, Phone: 985-651-6101, Fax: 985-651-6104.

Representing the defendants are: Lawrence E. Abbott of Abbott,
Simses & Kuchler, Ste. 200, 400 Lafayette Street, New Orelans,
LA 70130, Phone: 504-568-9393, Fax, 504-524-1933, E-mail: larry-
abbott@abbott-simses.com; and Dana Anderson-Carson of Duplass,
Zwain, Bourgeois & Morton, 3838 North Causeway Boulevard, Three
Lakeway Center, Suite 2900, Metairie, LA 700002.


WESBANCO INC: W.Va. Court Denies Motion for Summary Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West
Virginia denied parties' Motions for Summary Judgment on the
benefit calculation issues in a class action that named
WesBanco, Inc. as a defendant.

On March 1, 2002, the company consummated its acquisition of
American Bancorporation through a series of corporate mergers.
At the time of the consummation of this transaction, American
Bancorporation was a defendant in a suit styled, "Martin, et al.
v. The American Bancorporation Retirement Plan, et al., Civil
Action No. 5:2000-CV-168," pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia. The company became
the principal defendant in this suit by reason of the merger.

This case involves a class action suit against American
Bancorporation by certain beneficiaries of the American
Bancorporation Defined Benefit Retirement Plan (the "Plan")
seeking to challenge benefit calculations and methodologies used
by the Plan Administrator in determining benefits under the Plan
which was frozen by American Bancorporation, as to benefit
accruals, some years ago.  The Plan had been the subject of a
prior a case styled, "American Bancorporation Retirement Plan,
et al. v. McKain, Civil Action No. 5:93-CV-110," which was also
litigated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of West Virginia.

The McKain case resulted in an Order entered by the District
Court on September 22, 1995, which directed American
Bancorporation to follow a specific method for determining
retirement benefits under the Plan.  American Bancorporation has
asserted that it has calculated the benefits in accordance with
the requirements of the 1995 Order.

The purported class of plaintiffs asserted that they are not
bound by the 1995 Order since they were not parties to that
proceeding and are seeking a separate benefit determination.
The District Court in the current case limited the class of
plaintiffs to a group of approximately 37 individuals and
granted partial summary judgment to significantly reduce the
scope and extent of the case.  The Court subsequently granted
summary judgment in favor of the company on the remaining claims
on March 31, 2004, and the plaintiff appealed the decision to
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion dated May
11, 2005, which reversed the District Court's earlier grant of
summary judgment on behalf of the company, and remanded the case
for further proceedings.  The Appellate Court reversed the
District Court's ruling that res judicata and collateral
estoppel were applicable under the circumstances, which
precluded the re-litigation of matters previously decided by the
District Court in the earlier 1995 case involving the same
pension plan.

The parties subsequently filed renewed Motions for Summary
Judgment on the issues of the benefit calculation and
plaintiffs' claims under Section 204(h) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) in the District Court.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued a report and
recommendation dated January 18, 2006, to the Court denying both
parties' Motions for Summary Judgment on the benefit calculation
issues but recommending to the Court a key finding of fact on a
material issue in the case.

The key finding recommended would be to sustain the company's
position that a timely summary plan description was distributed
to plan participants addressing a benefit calculation consistent
with the methodology used by the Plan Administrator.  The
Magistrate has not yet issued a report on the Section 204(h)
notice issue.

The suit is styled "Martin, et al v. American the Plan, et al.,
case no. 5:00-cv-00168-WCB-JES," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of West Virginia under Judge W.
Craig Broadwater.  Representing the plaintiffs is Thomas M.
Cunningham of Cassidy, Myers, Cogan & Voegelin, L.C., 1413 Eoff
St., Wheeling, WV 26003, Phone: 304-232-8100, Fax: 304-232-8352,
E-mail: tmc@cmcvlaw.com.

Representing the company is Cynthia B. Jones of Steptoe &
Johnson, PLLC - Morgantown, PO Box 1616, Morgantown, WV 26507-
1616, Phone: 304-598-8111, Fax: 304-598-8116, E-mail:
jonescb@steptoe-johnson.com.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

BAUSCH & LOMB: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Bausch &
Lomb, Inc. (NYSE: BOL) securities between January 27, 2005 and
December 22, 2005, inclusive.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, against the company and certain key
officers and directors.  The action charges that defendants
violated the 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 Brian M. Felgoise, Esq., 261 Old York
Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046, Phone: (215)
886-1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net.


ESTEE LAUDER: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, initiated securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of Est‚e Lauder Companies Inc. (NYSE:
EL) between April 28, 2005 and October 25, 2005.  The class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Est‚e Lauder
securities.  No class has yet been certified in the above
action.

For more details, contact Evan J. Smith, Esq. or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esq. of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite
602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 877-LEGAL-90, E-mail:
clients@brodsky-smith.com.


ESTEE LAUDER: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP initiated
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of The
Estee Lauder Companies Inc. (NYSE: EL), between April 28, 2005
and October 25, 2005, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The action, numbered 06-cv-2505, is pending before the Honorable
Lewis A. Kaplan in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against defendants Estee Lauder, William P.
Lauder (CEO and President), Ronald S. Lauder (Director), Leonard
A. Lauder (Chair), Aerin Lauder (Senior VP and Director), Daniel
J. Brestle (COO), Patrick Bousquet-Chavanne (Group President)
and Richard W. Kunes (CFO).

The complaint alleges that Estee Lauder is a global manufacturer
of skin care, makeup, fragrance, and hair care products.  The
complaint further alleges that, at the commencement of the Class
Period, the company's market share was decreasing and that,
rather than reverse this negative trend, or fully disclose it,
defendants launched a largely successful campaign that employed
channel stuffing and the dissemination of materially false and
misleading statements to prop up reported revenues and earnings,
and the company's share price, long enough for Estee Lauder
insiders to sell millions of their personally held Estee Lauder
shares to unsuspecting investors at prices that were
artificially inflated by defendants' false and misleading
statements.

The truth began to emerge on September 19, 2005 when defendants
disclosed that the company would not meet its guidance for the
first half of fiscal 2006.  On this disclosure, the company's
stock fell 9%, from $40.51 to $36.05 per share.

The stock, however, continued to trade at artificially inflated
levels until October 26, 2005 when defendants were forced to
disclose that, for the first quarter of fiscal 2006, the company
would earn only $61.8 million, or $0.28 per share, down 38% from
the previous year's earnings of $95.7 million, or $0.41 per
share, on essentially flat sales.  These results were well below
analysts' revised consensus earnings estimate of $0.32 cents a
share on revenue of $1.54 billion.

Following this disclosure of the company's results and lowered
guidance, the company's share price fell to $30.71. By this
time, Estee Lauder insiders had, during the Class Period, sold
3,380,399 shares of their Estee Lauder common stock to unwitting
investors for proceeds of $88,077,150.

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


MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Federman & Sherwood Files Stock Suit in Wis.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood filed class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against Merge
Technologies, Inc.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.  The class period is
from August 2, 2005 through March 16, 2006.

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


MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Spector Roseman Files Wis. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., initiated a
securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Merge Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Merge Healthcare
(NasdaqNM: MRGE), between August 2, 2005 through March 16, 2006.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants
misrepresented that the company's merger with Cedara Software
Corporation was highly successful while concealing:

     (1) that Merge lacked adequate internal controls;

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

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

On March 17, 2006, Merge reported, inter alia:

     (i) that the accounting improprieties necessitated that
         management delay the completion of its financial
         statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005;

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman of Spector, Roseman
& Kodroff, P.C., Phone: 888-844-5862, E-mail: classaction@srk-
law.com, Web site: http://www.srk-law.com.


PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Suit in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, initiated class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of
all purchasers of PainCare Holdings, Inc. securities, between
August 27, 2002 through March 15, 2006.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal
securities laws by, among other things, issuing a series of
materially false and misleading press releases concerning
PainCare's financial results and business prospects.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that PainCare failed to
disclose, among other facts, that:

     (1) the company materially overstated its financial results
         by improperly accounting for its numerous acquisitions
         and certain other non-cash expenses;

     (2) the company's financial results were in violation of
         GAAP; and

     (3) the company's internal controls were inadequate.

As a result, the price of the company's securities was
artificially inflated throughout the Class Period.  On March 15,
2006, however, PainCare stunned investors when it announced that
it would have to restate its financial results back to 2000.

In response, PainCare's stock price dropped nearly 13% on heavy
trading, a drop of more than 50% from its Class Period high.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and all
other individual and institutional investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired PainCare securities between August 27, 2002
and March 15, 2006, excluding defendants and their affiliates.

For more details, contact Anthony Vozzolo, Esq. and Joshua
Weinstein, Esq. of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, 320 East 39th Street
New York, NY 10016, Phone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330, E-
mail: Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com and Jweinstein@faruqilaw.com, Web
site: http://www.faruqilaw.com.


PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Klafter Olsen Lodges Securities Suit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Klafter & Olsen, LLP, commenced a securities fraud class action
against PainCare Holdings, Inc. (Amex: PRZ) and certain of its
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Orlando Division, on behalf of investors who purchased
the publicly traded securities of PainCare during the period
from August 27, 2002 through March 15, 2006.

PainCare operates as a specialized, professional health services
organization that comprises various neuro and orthopedic
surgeons, physiatrists, and pain management specialists.  In
addition, the company owns and operates nine ambulatory surgery
centers.  The claims concern defendants' improper accounting
practices, which materially overstated the company's financial
results in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP).

Defendants thereby artificially inflated the company's stock
price, which enabled the company to complete numerous
acquisitions of related companies during the Class Period.  The
claims center on defendants' material overstatement of
PainCare's financial results by improperly accounting for its
numerous acquisitions and certain other non-cash expenses.

As a result of these violations, and an investigation by the
SEC, the company is restating its financial results for fiscal
years 2000 through 2005.

On March 15, 2006, defendants shocked the market by revealing
the restatement.  According to the company's March 15
announcement, PainCare estimates that the total restatement for
the years 2000 to 2004 would be a net negative $23.5 million to
earnings.  In response to this news, PainCare's stock price
dropped by nearly 13% on unusually large trading volume.
PainCare's stock price has plunged more than 50% from the
stock's Class Period high.

This action will seek to recover damages due to the artificial
inflation of, and subsequent decline in, PainCare's stock price
caused by defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
on behalf of all purchasers of PainCare publicly traded
securities during the Class Period.

For more details, contact Klafter & Olsen, LLP, Phone: 202/261-
3553, Web site: http://www.klafterolsen.com.

TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set April 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
Persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. (TTWO) between
Oct. 25, 2004 and Jan. 27, 2006, inclusive, have until April 3,
2006 to move for lead plaintiff appointment.  Murray, Frank &
Sailer LLP is seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against defendants Take-Two, Paul Eibeler,
Karl H. Winters, and Gary Lewis.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
made numerous misrepresentations about the success of the
company's video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, and the
strong contribution that it was making to the company's overall
revenues.  As alleged in the complaint, defendants failed to
disclose that it had improperly hidden pornographic materials
directly in the programming of the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
game.  The complaint further alleges that defendants failed to
disclose the inclusion of the pornographic materials in order to
obtain a rating of "Mature 17+" by the Entertainment Software
Rating Board (ESRB), a private independent group that rates
video games.

As alleged in the complaint, had the ESRB known of the
pornographic materials contained in the game, it would have
assigned it a rating of "Adults Only 18+" and it would not have
been carried for sale in the major retail chains, such as Wal-
Mart and Target, who refuse to carry such games. Indeed, when it
was subsequently disclosed that the ESRB had revised its rating
on the game to "Adults Only 18+," the company was forced to
reduce its financial guidance.

On January 27, 2006, the last day of the Class Period, it was
announced that the City Attorney for the City of Los Angeles had
filed an action against the company and its subsidiary for
making misleading statements in the marketing of Grand Theft
Auto: San Andreas, and engaging in unfair competition.  The
action sought disgorgement of the company's profits from the
sales of the game in California before the game was re-rated.

In direct response to this announcement, Take-Two's stock price
plunged approximately $2.34 per share, or 13.7%, on more than 21
million shares traded -- approximately ten times the average
daily trading volume during the preceding 12 months.  Prior to
the announcement, however, company insiders, including the
defendants, were able to capitalize on the inflated stock price,
and sell more than 661,000 shares of their personally held Take-
Two stock for proceeds of over $18 million.

For more information, contact plaintiff's counsel Eric J. Belfi
or Bradley P. Dyer of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP Murray, Frank &
Sailer LLP (http://www.murrayfrank.com/CM/NewCases/NewCases.asp.


                            *********


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  * * *