Vanu, Inc. the leading software radio innovator for the wireless infrastructure industry, announced today that Reed E. Hundt - former Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and senior advisor on information industries to McKinsey & Company - has joined Vanu Inc. as a member of its Board of Directors.

Hundt has over 30 years experience in global politics with a strong focus on the effects of technology on emerging countries. He is also widely recognized for having negotiated the World Trade Organization Telecommunications agreement, which opened markets in 69 countries to competition and dropped barriers to foreign investment during his tenure at the FCC. Prior to his work at the FCC, Hundt was a partner in the Washington, DC office of Latham and Watkins, an international law firm. Currently, he is a Principal of Charles Ross Partners, a private investor and business advisory service. Hundt is also the author of You Say You Want a Revolution: A Story of Information Age Politics, and In China’s Shadow: The Crisis of American Entrepreneurship.

“Reed’s involvement on our Board will draw upon his vast experience in working with US and international carriers which will be particularly beneficial with Vanu’s continued focus on delivering solutions to domestic rural operators and overseas emerging markets,” said Vanu Bose, President and CEO of Vanu, Inc. “His vision and insights will help us evolve strategies for new markets and applications where software radio can provide unique advantages. Reed’s role as a leader and innovator throughout the wireless field is an ideal fit with the “industry first” nature of the Vanu solution. We are extremely pleased and honored to announce the appointment of Reed Hundt to our company’s Board of Directors.”

“Vanu Inc. is a pioneer in the software radio space,” said Reed Hundt. “The company has had a series of ‘firsts’ in the wireless industry and has succeeded in doing what others thought was impossible. Vanu’s software radio has commercially delivered infrastructure solutions that provide cost-advantages today and flexible migration paths tomorrow. I am pleased to join the other members of the Vanu Board of Directors as we continue to bring a truly novel and beneficial technology to the wireless industry.”

In addition to his other accomplishments, Hundt serves as co-Chairman of The Forum on Communications and Society at the Aspen Institute and sits on the boards of directors of several companies including Intel, Pronto Networks, Tropos Networks, Polyserve, Entrisphere, and Access Spectrum. He also is a special advisor to Blackstone Group, a New York-based private equity firm, and is a member of the advisory committee at the Yale School of Management.

Hundt is a graduate of Yale College and a graduate of Yale Law School, where he was a member of the executive board of the Yale Law Journal.

About Vanu, Inc.

Vanu, Inc. is the developer of the Anywave® Base Station, the first U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC)-certified software radio. The Anywave Base Station provides significant advantages over traditional equipment designs including: simultaneous operation of multiple wireless standards on a single platform, the use of high volume; high performance servers rather than custom processing hardware; remote software downloads to add system capacity and migrate to future standards; decreased backhaul costs and a full range of additional capital and operating cost savings. These benefits come from implementing the high speed signal processing functions of the base station as a portable software application running on Linux, eliminating the need for specialized signal processing hardware. The company delivers Anywave radio access network solutions, licenses its software, and provides design consulting to service providers, system integrators and wireless OEMs. Vanu was founded in 1998 and is based in Cambridge, Mass. www.vanu.com

NEW YORK, NY -- The Rosen Law Firm recently announced that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class consisting of all purchasers of the common stock of Worldspace, Inc. (the "Company" or "Worldspace") (NASDAQ: WRSP) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's August 4, 2005 Initial Public Offering (the "Class"). Purchasers of WorldSpace shares on the open market are also eligible to join the class action.

The complaint charges that Worldspace and certain of its present officers and directors violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing materially false and misleading statements about the Company's subscriber count. The Complaint alleges that the Company included in its subscriber count accounts that had either expired or been "churned." The Complaint alleges that the Company included these expired or "churned" accounts for at least 90 days after the accounts had expired or were otherwise non-paying. As a result of these adverse disclosures the Company's stock fell and members of the Class were damaged.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed on behalf of Worldspace shareholders. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 15, 2007. If you wish to join the litigation or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com.

The Rosen Law Firm has expertise in prosecuting investor securities litigation and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the nation, concentrating its practice in securities class actions.

To view the complaint or to join the Worldspace class action, go to the website at http://www.rosenlegal.com or call Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

The New York-based law firm is in the middle of a legal controversy over whether it willfully violated a protective order when it used information subpoenaed from New York-based Banc of America Securities in a shareholder suit in New York Federal court.

As reported, the information was used to draft Mississauga, Ontario-based drug maker's February 2006 complaint against SAC Capital Management LLC; Woodridge, N.J.-based Sigma Capital Management LLC; Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Gradient Analytics Inc.; Gerson Lehrman Group; former Banc of America Securities analyst David Maris and others.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. downgraded Biovail from “neutral” to “buy” noting shares are up 28% since November and approaching target price, according to another Associated Press report.

Analyst Randall Stanicky reaffirmed his price target of $24, saying that while shares should see support from current levels, more meaningful gains will be linked to growth, the report stated.

It's been more than two weeks since Tennessee lawmakers vowed to press ahead with a compromise over medical malpractice lawsuits without support from health care lobbyists. The measure hasn't advanced much since then.

House Judiciary Chairman Rob Briley said frustration is rising among members of both parties who cobbled together a tentative compromise. The Tennessee Medical Association — a group the Nashville Democrat calls "organized medicine'' — has been pushing for stricter rules than Democrats wanted to accept.

"Efforts haven't been derailed, but they have been slowed down significantly since organized medicine got involved in trying to tinker with the proposal that the bill sponsors and I had worked out,'' Briley said.

Senate Republican Leader Mark Norris and Rep. Doug Overbey, R-Maryville, are the sponsors of the measure designed to limit frivolous lawsuits against doctors. They decided to leave the association out of earlier negotiations with Briley that resulted in an agreement to omit the group's long-standing demand to enact caps on lawsuit payouts.

Instead, lawyers suing doctors in medical malpractice cases would have to pre-certify the legitimacy of their claims by gaining approval from independent experts. They would be subject to penalties if they were later found to have filed frivolous lawsuits without proper vetting.

Attorneys found in violation could be forced to pay the court costs for defense lawyers and could be hit with other penalties. They could also have their names reported to the Board of Professional Responsibility.

Russ Miller, vice president of the Tennessee Medical Association, previously called a limit on non-economic damages the "linchpin'' of his organization's goals. Recognizing that caps are not likely to pass this year, Miller now says the group wants to make the rest of the measure stricter.

"We want to ensure we put some real meat on to efforts to weed out lawsuits that don't need to be clogging our legal system,'' he said.

Norris acknowledged some unhappiness among the health care lobbyists for having been left out of the original negotiations.

"I think that some of their feelings were hurt, and that there was a misunderstanding about who has legislative responsibility and who has lobbying responsibility,'' Norris said. "Once they got over that hurdle ... they began paying attention to the wording.''

Norris said the two sides are discussing the details of pre-certification and whether opposing lawyers should have more access to a plaintiff's medical information before a case gets under way.

"It used to be that if you put your own health at issue, there were no secrets _ the defense could get access to my medical records and talk to my doctors,'' Norris said. "That's no longer the case.''

Briley said it might have been a "tactical error'' on the Republicans' side to let the TMA back into the negotiations.

"Organized medicine has said 'if we don't get caps, we get everything else,''' Briley said.

Norris responded that both doctors and lawyers just want to make sure they don't lose too much.

"Each side is suspicious about the other side overreaching,'' Norris said.

Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey, R-Blountville, said he will defer to Norris on the negotiations is willing to move forward on the original proposal to impose caps if they fall apart.

"I'm prepared to move the bill forward with the caps if we can't work out some kind of compromise,'' said Ramsey. "But we'd be moving it forward realizing it's going to have a tough time in the House.''

Norris and Briley said they could bring the proposal before their chambers' respective Judiciary Committees next week.

House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh, D-Covington, has said he would consider Briley a "miracle worker'' if he could resolve the long-standing impasse over medical malpractice lawsuits.

Leegin says that by maintaining price consistency among niche retailers it sells to, stores can offer improved customer service. That, says the manufacturer, enables smaller stores to compete against rival brands sold by bigger cut-rate competitors.

At issue is whether price floors such as Leegin's always should be treated as illegal or evaluated case by case to see if they are pro-competitive.

The Smiths say they lowered prices by up to 20 percent because several other retailers selling Leegin's Brighton brand also were lowering prices. The Smiths say they and the competing stores were threatened by Leegin with being cut off unless they raised their prices again. Alone among the threatened stores, the Smiths refused to cave in.

"When Leegin stopped shipping to us, my wife and I lost half our business," Phil Smith said in an interview. "Kay and I are back to the same size store we started with 21 years ago."

Discounters and consumer groups say consumers will suffer if the Smiths lose.

"In the Internet age, this is a dagger at the heart of the most consumer-friendly environment we've seen in generations," said Mark Cooper, a spokesman for the Consumer Federation of America.

"Would there ever have been a Sears & Roebuck, an A&P, a Walgreens, a Kmart or a Wal-Mart" absent a ban on minimum pricing agreements? the federation asked in court papers filed in support of Kay's Kloset.

In Leegin v. Kay's Kloset, the Bush administration says it is inappropriate to automatically prohibit price floor agreements when they are not necessarily anticompetitive.

Thirty-seven state attorneys general oppose the administration.

TomorrowNow allegedly pretending to be Oracle customers and illegally hacking into its secure support Web site for users of Oracle's PeopleSoft and JD Edwards applications. SAP then allegedly copied content from the site and used it to offer Oracle customers cut-rate support services in the hopes of eventually migrating them over to SAP's rival applications.

So far, SAP has yet to respond publicly to the accusations, perhaps suggesting that a countersuit could be in the offing. As for Oracle, the vendor hasn't made any additional comment beyond the lawsuit itself.

"If we decide to trust a company, we'd hope it to be justified," said an IT manager at a French company that uses JD Edwards applications and sources its support for that software from TomorrowNow. "When we choose a supplier, we don't necessarily investigate them first," he added. The manager agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity for himself and his company.

While products, services and price are primary factors in procurement decisions, a vendor's ethics and business practices are also extremely important, according to John Matelski, chief security officer and deputy chief information officer for the city of Orlando and a JD Edwards user. He's also the former president of the Quest International Users Group, which focuses on the needs of PeopleSoft and JD Edwards applications customers that Oracle acquired through the January 2005 purchase of PeopleSoft.

"As a public-sector entity, which is directly accountable to its citizens and constituents, I would be concerned about our relationship with any vendor that is proven to conduct business in an unethical manner," Matelski wrote in an e-mail response for comment. He would prefer to do business with companies that can be trusted, and do not have a track record of inappropriate business practices.

"Due to the nature of the relationships that we develop, software vendors and consultants would be held to a higher standard, because they would typically have a greater level of access to our systems and data during implementation and support engagements," Matelski wrote. "The security and privacy of our data is key, and if an organization is known to have illegally obtained data before, I would need to be much more careful when evaluating whether to establish or continue a relationship with them."

David Mitchell, software practice leader at analyst Ovum drew a comparison between the potential damage of the lawsuit with fallout of the corporate spy scandal that hit Hewlett-Packard Co. last year. Despite leading to the resignations of several executives including its chairman, HP weathered the storm well and customers stayed loyal to the company.

"With HP, Hurd responded positively, he apologized," Mitchell said. "It was about the approach they took when something inappropriate had happened. If HP had not responded so positively I think they would have seen more negative consequences."

Should Oracle's charges against SAP be proven, "they need to embrace it and reassure people how it's come about," he added. If there was some wrongdoing, Mitchell, the former senior director for market development at Oracle UK, believes it'll turn out to be the work of one bad apple. "SAP ethically and culturally is a very correct organization, this isn't rotten DNA," he said. "If this turns out to be true, then it will be an individual, I think, who has acted inappropriately."

As for Oracle, the vendor needs to act to avoid any negative publicity from the suit given that it named many customers whose identities were allegedly purloined by SAP and suggested that SAP customers unknowingly might be using services that contain Oracle's intellectual property. "It could be good for Oracle to say, 'We have no beef with the customer, our beef is with SAP,'" Mitchell said. "Or it could be perceived as Oracle picking on the customer."

Andreas Chatziantoniou, a software consultant specializing in Oracle products with Accenture Technology Services in the Netherlands, wondered about another potential negative hit on Oracle.

"From the reputation side, I believe that this can backfire," he wrote in an e-mail. "Oracle has a reputation for dumpster diving in order to get information about competitors," alluding to an incident in 2000 when Oracle defended the actions of detectives it hired to investigate two research groups that supported Microsoft Corp. during its antitrust trial.

The lawsuit might be Oracle's way to gain some extra publicity, following the release earlier this week of the vendor's third-quarter financial results, according to Chatziantoniou. Perhaps a case of "read between the lines: our results could have been much better when SAP would play by the rules," he suggested.

The lawsuit alone won't deter customers from buying SAP's applications, but the noise around the legal action might give both SAP and Oracle users the sense that the firms are distracted and not fully focused on customers' needs, he added.

Now isn't the time for either Oracle or SAP to lose focus, given the competitive threat they face.

Last week, Microsoft, which has tended to focus more on the small to midsize business market with its Dynamics applications, vowed to compete more aggressively in the enterprise market against Oracle and SAP.

Another issue that should give vendors pause is that customers have long memories when it comes to scandals, Chatziantoniou wrote. "Even years later, people (the decision makers) remember the 'bad publicity,'" he added. What might suit the vendors' customers and partners is an out-of-court settlement, he concluded.

"So far such a situation has never happened to me in my business life, but if it did I would consider the fact very heavily when doing business with such a company," Manfred Reif, a managing director at HSH Nordbank, a credit investment bank in Luxembourg, wrote in an e-mail response to comment on the lawsuit. "Nevertheless, first of all being suspicious and 'listening' to your gut feeling should be one's daily duty," he added.

Another factor to bear in mind is the number of customers Oracle and SAP share, Seth Ravin, CEO and president of Rimini Street ., pointed out. He's a co-founder of TomorrowNow, selling his share of the company to SAP in early 2005 and establishing Rimini Street as a rival supplier of third-party maintenance and support.

While Oracle and SAP compete bitterly in the applications market, plenty of SAP users run their software on Oracle's database and middleware. It's in both vendors' interest to resolve the current dispute rapidly.

"So far, we've only heard one side of the argument," Ravin said, with SAP yet to comment.

Given how closely Oracle and SAP watch each other, he finds it hard to believe that the alleged actions by TomorrowNow were deliberate. "I strongly doubt it," he said, adding that such behavior wouldn't be in anyone's best interests and would likely be quickly discovered. Oracle appears to require users of its customer support database to be "self-policing," he said, in other words, they have access to more content than their specific needs warrant, which may have led to some confusion about what was OK for SAP to access and what wasn't.